I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist.  I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.  

Views: 14532

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was a theist as well, a devoted Roman Catholic. Maybe atheists are uncomfortable with the word faith, and that is understandable. I am not however. That's why I wanted to point out the levels of craziness. Putting your faith in natural selection vs. putting your faith in the Earth being 6000 years old.

I didn't reject faith when I became atheist, I rejected the places I had previously put it in. I have other places I put my faith currently. Atheism is one of those places. I feel as though my faith is better placed now since I have logic and science to back it up. It's different from 'blind' faith. Blind faith is what I rejected.
I'm sorry, but blind faith is redundant; faith is blind. If your atheism is based on faith, no offense, but you're doing it wrong. I mean, I appreciate that you're not mired in medieval manure anymore, but atheism and evolution have nothing to do with faith. If you insist on evidence and reason in order to hold a belief, then faith simply isn't involved. If you hold a belief on faith, then evidence and reason don't matter. It's really not possible to mix the two methods, since each negates the other. If you've abandoned religion, you shouldn't cling to the very thing that makes it so wrong.
You have me entirely wrong. Don't assume a thing about my atheism. I was simply trying to find a word that everyone can understand and relate with. Everyone puts faith in something. Call it faith, call it interest, call it whatever. It's the reasons behind it that make the difference. I put my faith in science, I am an astronomer. So please don't misunderstand me or my intent here.

The context through which I'm using the word you are completely overseeing.

'If you hold a belief on faith, then evidence and reason don't matter.'
I don't believe in natural selection based on faith. Rather, I put faith, my interest, in it because I understand the science and it makes sense. I wonder if that makes more sense. No clinging involved lol. I am quite capable of thinking for myself.
You'll note I couched all my statements as conditionals, so no assumptions. But you're using the word "faith" in a very peculiar way. Theists don't use it that way, and it's bound to confuse. You should avoid the word entirely if you don't mean it as understood by others.
I was thinking about this last night, and I also think "confidence" is a much better word that "faith" to express what you mean, Strgaze5. I understand the desire to change the terms such that everybody appears to agree, but there is, in fact, a fundamental disagreement about how to view the universe between theists and atheists. You can't paper that over by redefining terms. That just further confuses people. You don't, in fact, operate on the basis of faith. You should abandon the term, as you've abandoned its practice.
No, Strgaze, you're right. Atheism is a form of faith.

The ultimate fact is, whether there is or isn't a god simply cannot be known without some sort of proof one way or the other. Either God steps forth and says "here I am, told you so," or we find absolute scientific evidence against the idea of a higher power. Neither of these things has happened, and may never; absence of proof is not a proof of absence, but neither does a perceived pattern prove an underlying motive.

So, if we're really smart, we're all agnostics; anything further than that, saying definitively yes or no, is a leap of faith. :)
Sigh. Chres, please don't use this tired theistic argument. Atheism is the absence of faith. It can't be faith. The absence of a thing cannot be an example of that thing. The absence of carrots is not a kind of carrot.
Jason, you turned off replies. Sorry to hear it. I didn't think my response was a "tired theistic argument," instead I saw it as more of a rationalization for a belief system. If you'd like to counter in a more logical manner, I would absolutely love to hear it; otherwise your protestations basically add up to "I don't like what you say, so shaddup, you twat."

Atheism is the denial of a higher power, which because neither pro nor con position can be scientifically proven, is, sweety baby honey darlin', a form of, yes, FAITH.
Chres, I didn't turn off replies. I don't have the power to do that in somebody else's discussion. I think what you mean is that there is no "Reply to This" link under my comment. That's because Ning, the platform that A|N uses, limits comment threads to (I think) five levels of indentation. After that, all replies to the nearest parent simply land at the same level, with no "Reply to This" link. It's annoying, but it's not my doing, and certainly isn't my way of saying I don't want to hear from you.

I'm not trying to shut you up. I don't like what you're saying, because it is a very weak (in fact, incorrect) argument very often trotted out by theists to tell atheists to shut up. As in, "Atheism is just another kind of faith, so you're no better than us theists, so stop acting so superior." I don't like it, but I'm happy enough to argue against it if you seriously think it has merit. Just be aware that this argument is a favorite of theists, so you are carrying their water to that extent.

This argument is incorrect, because, as I pointed out already, the absence of something cannot, logically, be an example of that something. The absence of carrots is not a kind of carrot.

Furthermore, as I've noted in a number of other comments on this thread, the concept of a god is not a scientific concept, but is rather a literary fiction, which accords it no positive probability of existence whatsoever. The Biblical conception of god is logically impossible owing to its logically conflicting attributes. In neither case is a scientific disproof necessary, because the concept is nonsensical on its face.

I do not, in fact, have faith that there is no god. I know there is no god in the same way I know that there is no Frodo Baggins who fought with Gollum at Mount Doom. That somebody could imagine something in no way enhances its probability of existence. It is an undeserved gift to theists to even take the concept seriously. They haven't worked hard enough developing the concept to earn that kind of respect for it. Wishing does not make something so. It doesn't even make it 0.00000001% likely to be so. Wishing, as has been amply demonstrated, has no effect on reality whatsoever.
Check out "The Atheist's Handbook To Modern Materialsm." I think Philip Stahl makes a very logical case on this point. He differentiates "weak atheism" from "strong atheism." The former is a simple withholding of belief, i.e. a lack of belief in a god. Also in "Atheism the case against god" George Smith clarifies that NOT believing that a god exists is different from believing that a god does not exist. It's a subtle difference but has major philosophical implications.
I agree with you. And I do notice that my perspective appears to be more "argumentative" for the sake of arguing rather than exposing anything profound.

I can say, most recently, I have been exploring a notion which suggests how impossible it might have been for Civil Rights to succeed (to whatever extent it has) ONLY through the vision of Martin Luther King Jr. WITHOUT the extreme position of Malcolm X. It makes me wonder... If atheists always defend under a banner of apologies, can an environment fruit such that theists would be inticed to consider a non-absolute position?

I wonder if there is room for the aggressive atheist amongst all the free thinkers in our camp. Moreover, I'm becoming more and more convinced there is a NEED for atheists to combat the closed-mindedness of theists given their own obvious aggressive techniques.

I have come from a lifetime of making excuses and apologies for theists. I do not make these apologies anymore: no matter with whom. And nowadays I'm becoming more convinced the harm being caused to my children by constant exposure of such mythical lies.

I did not wish to cause a disagreement with you over such petty statements; especially since you have stated how you are tired of arguing with atheists.

I can say, your opinion is by NO MEANS SILLY! :)
No. If I think in the abstract about some universal intelligence, I am doubtful of that but am less emphatic about that than I am about people's petty religious beliefs.


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

jay H commented on Gregory Phillip Dearth's blog post Morality: Subjective vs Objective - but does it MATTER?
48 minutes ago
Loren Miller posted a status
"Meeting this morning was kicked off by the mayor of Madison, who in words at the very least supports the FFRF! Very, very welcome!"
1 hour ago
James Smith commented on Evilgenius20's video
1 hour ago
James Smith commented on James Smith's video
2 hours ago
James Smith posted a video

Becoming Free

How the bible set me free.
2 hours ago
Rock posted photos
2 hours ago
Randall Smith replied to Loren Miller's discussion bending truth, or "We Can All Be Manipulated" (TheraminTrees) in the group Hang With Friends
2 hours ago
Sally Ride is now a member of Atheist Nexus
2 hours ago

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service