1712 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

So intelligent. 

[TheSimulation]

Not to mention, and I have mentioned this before, your asking for 'evidence for atheism' is literally you asking for evidence that someone doesn't believe in the gods. Your use of English is retarded and it always muddies a discussion.

 

Generally I agree with your analysis. The evidence for atheism is shifting the burden of proof.. you don't have to provide any evidence that you don't believe in something like Santa Claus... The person that believes in Santa Claus has to provide proof! Not the atheist!

 

This is the problem with calling oneself an atheist... it sets you up as a target to be persecuted. Better to call your self an Open Minded Agnostic but not so open minded that your brain falls out (Dawkins).

 

Atheism is not something someone believes in or belongs to the same way most of us don't call ourselfs "Anti-ToothFairyists" or "ASantaClaus-ists".  When someone does not believe in the tooth fairy, do we get asked to provide proof that the tooth fairy does not exist? This is shifting the burden of proof. The person who believes in the tooth fairy has to provide evidence (such as video tapes) of the tooth fairy visiting their bed and leaving money there.. And even this evidence we still have to be skeptical about since it could be false evidence...

 

Instead of people going around and calling themselves "atheists" or "antitheists", or "ASantaClausists".. or "AToothFairyists" I would prefer just to go around calling oneself a "very skeptical scientific person" or an "open minded person, but not so open minded my brain falls out".

 

If we go around calling ourselves atheists why do we not also go around calling ourselves Ahomeopaths since we also don't believe in homeopathy? There is no need for people to gather as a group and call ourselves "Ahomeopaths" because we are just skeptical of all things, not just homeopathy. Calling oneself an atheist focuses purely on Theism alone, but what about homeopathy? We have to be skeptical of all claims, not just theist claims.  IMO the atheist word is just a flamebait anyway and a more positive word is "scientist and skeptic" or "skeptical scientific thinking person" or "very skeptical but still open minded".

 

Also another example is racism. When racism was really bad, there wasn't a group of people who called themselves "Aracists" who were against racism. There does not need to be a word that describes this sensible group of people who are just fighting racism (they are probably fighting many other things too, not just racism, so why call themselves "aracists" ?

 

Sam Harris talks about this on the youtube video "Atheist Alliance" conference or "Sam Harris on the dangers of atheism"  where they meet together in hotel ballrooms. It's also discussed on his website on the page "The Problem with Atheism"

 

But back to the point: there is no need to "prove" atheism to be true the same way that there is no way to "prove" not believing in santa clause. The person believing in santa claus has to provide proof, not the atheist! 

 

We can however prove evolution to be true which disproves many religious claims. We can disprove specific religious claims in the bible or other texts, such as the age of the earth (creationism).  We can disprove "gods word" (the bible) when it makes specific claims about the universe, such as say the moon being flat or the stars just being dots in the sky and not actual objects...  The Cop Out used by religious people is that the bible was written long ago so you can't disprove old ideas from long ago... Which is total nonsense since god is timeless and knows everything, so you can disprove the claims made in the bible since they are the word of god. And if the word of god is incorrect, then you have partially disproven the religion, making the religion mostly or partially false - in other words how can the word of god, if it is false, be true? It doesn't compute that some of the word of god is true and some is false.. if God is perfect then the word of god must be true, and we have proven that much of it is false based on specific claims in the bible and Quran..

 

So it isn't about "proving" atheism to be true, but rather it is about "proving" religions specific claims to be false.

[Duchykins]

 

 

Generally I agree with your analysis. The evidence for atheism is shifting the burden of proof.. you don't have to provide any evidence that you don't believe in something like Santa Claus... The person that believes in Santa Claus has to provide proof! Not the atheist!

 

This is the problem with calling oneself an atheist... it sets you up as a target to be persecuted. Better to call your self an Open Minded Agnostic but not so open minded that your brain falls out (Dawkins).

 

Atheism is not something someone believes in or belongs to the same way most of us don't call ourselfs "Anti-ToothFairyists" or "ASantaClaus-ists".  When someone does not believe in the tooth fairy, do we get asked to provide proof that the tooth fairy does not exist? This is shifting the burden of proof. The person who believes in the tooth fairy has to provide evidence (such as video tapes) of the tooth fairy visiting their bed and leaving money there.. And even this evidence we still have to be skeptical about since it could be false evidence...

 

Instead of people going around and calling themselves "atheists" or "antitheists", or "ASantaClausists".. or "AToothFairyists" I would prefer just to go around calling oneself a "very skeptical scientific person" or an "open minded person, but not so open minded my brain falls out".

 

If we go around calling ourselves atheists why do we not also go around calling ourselves Ahomeopaths since we also don't believe in homeopathy? There is no need for people to gather as a group and call ourselves "Ahomeopaths" because we are just skeptical of all things, not just homeopathy. Calling oneself an atheist focuses purely on Theism alone, but what about homeopathy? We have to be skeptical of all claims, not just theist claims.  IMO the atheist word is just a flamebait anyway and a more positive word is "scientist and skeptic" or "skeptical scientific thinking person" or "very skeptical but still open minded".

 

Also another example is racism. When racism was really bad, there wasn't a group of people who called themselves "Aracists" who were against racism. There does not need to be a word that describes this sensible group of people who are just fighting racism (they are probably fighting many other things too, not just racism, so why call themselves "aracists" ?

 

Sam Harris talks about this on the youtube video "Atheist Alliance" conference or "Sam Harris on the dangers of atheism"  where they meet together in hotel ballrooms. It's also discussed on his website on the page "The Problem with Atheism"

 

But back to the point: there is no need to "prove" atheism to be true the same way that there is no way to "prove" not believing in santa clause. The person believing in santa claus has to provide proof, not the atheist! 

 

We can however prove evolution to be true which disproves many religious claims. We can disprove specific religious claims in the bible or other texts, such as the age of the earth (creationism).  We can disprove "gods word" (the bible) when it makes specific claims about the universe, such as say the moon being flat or the stars just being dots in the sky and not actual objects...  The Cop Out used by religious people is that the bible was written long ago so you can't disprove old ideas from long ago... Which is total nonsense since god is timeless and knows everything, so you can disprove the claims made in the bible since they are the word of god. And if the word of god is incorrect, then you have partially disproven the religion, making the religion mostly or partially false - in other words how can the word of god, if it is false, be true? It doesn't compute that some of the word of god is true and some is false.. if God is perfect then the word of god must be true, and we have proven that much of it is false based on specific claims in the bible and Quran..

 

So it isn't about "proving" atheism to be true, but rather it is about "proving" religions specific claims to be false.

 

 

 

I know where you're coming from with the desire to say agnostic.  But I won't do it because I know what agnosticism is and I know what atheism is.  So I cannot be dishonest about it.  I'm also strong enough to deal with the bullshit.  But I also believe we need more atheists actually saying they are atheists so that some of this nonsense can go away when more and more people start to see that atheists are just regular people coming in various shapes and sizes.   This is what is helping cultures overcome homophobia, as well as other prejudices.

 

The atheist telling the theist "I don't believe you" has no burden of evidence.  The atheist trying to give an argument that universally proves the nonexistence of gods does have a burden.  These are two different things, two different atheists.

 

We need the word atheist because of all the theists in the world.  This is just a basic need of social mammals to communicate in ways that are generally understood and agreed upon by most of the group.  Our brains rely pretty heavily on categorizing things, this is just a pretty efficient way of remembering things.  We need some word that differentiates theists from nontheists because theists make it a problem.  We don't need a word for "aracist" because racist is a bit of a "bad" word that we would like to think applies to a minority.  Who calls habitually calls white Americans "European-Americans"?  That's not just about a racial double-standard you know.  

 

Even if we did away with the word atheist and replaced it with "skeptic" instead, after a time the stigma would shift over to "skeptic."  In fact, that's already begun.  I regularly see theists and creationists spit out "skeptic" like an epithet, same way they say "atheist", the same way conservatives say "liberal" and so on.  

 

That's because the atheist calling himself skeptic instead of atheist still has the same attitude, same philosophy, same knowledge set, same sense of morality, and all the rest.  That's what really bothers people about atheists.

 

And frankly, there's a bunch of loud-mouthed atheists out there who are making it worse for us in the public eye.  Even some atheist groups are bad news for atheists everywhere.

 

You're absolutely right, it's not about "proving" atheism "true."  I don't agree that atheism is about proving religious claims false because that is more like antitheism.   Atheism itself is a void.  There are no tenets of atheism, there is no central philosophy of atheism, there are no leaders of atheism, nothing comes prepackaged for atheists.   Atheists have to figure out for themselves what they want to supplement their atheism with; moral philosophies, epistomology, humanism, and all that.  

 

It's an empty room you can put stuff in.   This is why no atheists are really in a position to speak for other atheists; and when this happens anyway, it spells trouble for atheists who, are just minding their own business, are not in agreement.

 

 

I also oppose atheists trying to claim intellectual or scientific superiority by virtue of their atheism alone.  

 

First of all, that association taints science even more for people who have issues with it.  Atheists also hijacked "freethinker" and almost ruined it for actual freethinkers.  Freethought is not atheism nor vice versa.  I've actually met very few atheists claiming to be a freethinker who actually adhere the principles of freethought, fewer still who even knew what they were.  It was just some cool sounding word they could stick on themselves and wear it as a sanctimonious badge of honor.

 

Secondly, this is prejudice.  It enables atheists to assume other atheists are pretty smart, well-read, logical or science-minded.  This is the intellectual mirror image of Christians assuming other Christians are moral by default.   And I think you know the outcome of that kind of assumption.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

Generally I agree with your analysis. The evidence for atheism is shifting the burden of proof.. you don't have to provide any evidence that you don't believe in something like Santa Claus... The person that believes in Santa Claus has to provide proof! Not the atheist!

 

This is the problem with calling oneself an atheist... it sets you up as a target to be persecuted. Better to call your self an Open Minded Agnostic but not so open minded that your brain falls out (Dawkins).

 

Atheism is not something someone believes in or belongs to the same way most of us don't call ourselfs "Anti-ToothFairyists" or "ASantaClaus-ists".  When someone does not believe in the tooth fairy, do we get asked to provide proof that the tooth fairy does not exist? This is shifting the burden of proof. The person who believes in the tooth fairy has to provide evidence (such as video tapes) of the tooth fairy visiting their bed and leaving money there.. And even this evidence we still have to be skeptical about since it could be false evidence...

 

Instead of people going around and calling themselves "atheists" or "antitheists", or "ASantaClausists".. or "AToothFairyists" I would prefer just to go around calling oneself a "very skeptical scientific person" or an "open minded person, but not so open minded my brain falls out".

 

If we go around calling ourselves atheists why do we not also go around calling ourselves Ahomeopaths since we also don't believe in homeopathy? There is no need for people to gather as a group and call ourselves "Ahomeopaths" because we are just skeptical of all things, not just homeopathy. Calling oneself an atheist focuses purely on Theism alone, but what about homeopathy? We have to be skeptical of all claims, not just theist claims.  IMO the atheist word is just a flamebait anyway and a more positive word is "scientist and skeptic" or "skeptical scientific thinking person" or "very skeptical but still open minded".

 

Also another example is racism. When racism was really bad, there wasn't a group of people who called themselves "Aracists" who were against racism. There does not need to be a word that describes this sensible group of people who are just fighting racism (they are probably fighting many other things too, not just racism, so why call themselves "aracists" ?

 

Sam Harris talks about this on the youtube video "Atheist Alliance" conference or "Sam Harris on the dangers of atheism"  where they meet together in hotel ballrooms. It's also discussed on his website on the page "The Problem with Atheism"

 

But back to the point: there is no need to "prove" atheism to be true the same way that there is no way to "prove" not believing in santa clause. The person believing in santa claus has to provide proof, not the atheist! 

 

We can however prove evolution to be true which disproves many religious claims. We can disprove specific religious claims in the bible or other texts, such as the age of the earth (creationism).  We can disprove "gods word" (the bible) when it makes specific claims about the universe, such as say the moon being flat or the stars just being dots in the sky and not actual objects...  The Cop Out used by religious people is that the bible was written long ago so you can't disprove old ideas from long ago... Which is total nonsense since god is timeless and knows everything, so you can disprove the claims made in the bible since they are the word of god. And if the word of god is incorrect, then you have partially disproven the religion, making the religion mostly or partially false - in other words how can the word of god, if it is false, be true? It doesn't compute that some of the word of god is true and some is false.. if God is perfect then the word of god must be true, and we have proven that much of it is false based on specific claims in the bible and Quran..

 

So it isn't about "proving" atheism to be true, but rather it is about "proving" religions specific claims to be false.

 

 

 

I know where you're coming from with the desire to say agnostic.  But I won't do it because I know what agnosticism is and I know what atheism is.  So I cannot be dishonest about it.  I'm also strong enough to deal with the bullshit.  But I also believe we need more atheists actually saying they are atheists so that some of this nonsense can go away when more and more people start to see that atheists are just regular people coming in various shapes and sizes.   This is what is helping cultures overcome homophobia, as well as other prejudices.

 

The atheist telling the theist "I don't believe you" has no burden of evidence.  The atheist trying to give an argument that universally proves the nonexistence of gods does have a burden.  These are two different things, two different atheists.

 

We need the word atheist because of all the theists in the world.  This is just a basic need of social mammals to communicate in ways that are generally understood and agreed upon by most of the group.  Our brains rely pretty heavily on categorizing things, this is just a pretty efficient way of remembering things.  We need some word that differentiates theists from nontheists because theists make it a problem.  We don't need a word for "aracist" because racist is a bit of a "bad" word that we would like to think applies to a minority.  Who calls habitually calls white Americans "European-Americans"?  That's not just about a racial double-standard you know.  

 

Even if we did away with the word atheist and replaced it with "skeptic" instead, after a time the stigma would shift over to "skeptic."  In fact, that's already begun.  I regularly see theists and creationists spit out "skeptic" like an epithet, same way they say "atheist", the same way conservatives say "liberal" and so on.  

 

That's because the atheist calling himself skeptic instead of atheist still has the same attitude, same philosophy, same knowledge set, same sense of morality, and all the rest.  That's what really bothers people about atheists.

 

And frankly, there's a bunch of loud-mouthed atheists out there who are making it worse for us in the public eye.  Even some atheist groups are bad news for atheists everywhere.

 

You're absolutely right, it's not about "proving" atheism "true."  I don't agree that atheism is about proving religious claims false because that is more like antitheism.   Atheism itself is a void.  There are no tenets of atheism, there is no central philosophy of atheism, there are no leaders of atheism, nothing comes prepackaged for atheists.   Atheists have to figure out for themselves what they want to supplement their atheism with; moral philosophies, epistomology, humanism, and all that.  

 

It's an empty room you can put stuff in.   This is why no atheists are really in a position to speak for other atheists; and when this happens anyway, it spells trouble for atheists who, are just minding their own business, are not in agreement.

 

 

I also oppose atheists trying to claim intellectual or scientific superiority by virtue of their atheism alone.  

 

First of all, that association taints science even more for people who have issues with it.  Atheists also hijacked "freethinker" and almost ruined it for actual freethinkers.  Freethought is not atheism nor vice versa.  I've actually met very few atheists claiming to be a freethinker who actually adhere the principles of freethought, fewer still who even knew what they were.  It was just some cool sounding word they could stick on themselves and wear it as a sanctimonious badge of honor.

 

Secondly, this is prejudice.  It enables atheists to assume other atheists are pretty smart, well-read, logical or science-minded.  This is the intellectual mirror image of Christians assuming other Christians are moral by default.   And I think you know the outcome of that kind of assumption.

 

 

Well for the most part I agree with this.  Well done and honest.
 

[Duchykins]

 

 

 

Well for the most part I agree with this.  Well done and honest.
 

 

 

 

We meet again, Hawk.

 

Thanks for the compliment but I've said things along these lines before around here, long time ago.

 

We need some brutal honesty ... and you guys do too.  

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

 

Well for the most part I agree with this.  Well done and honest.
 

 

 

 

We meet again, Hawk.

 

Thanks for the compliment but I've said things along these lines before around here, long time ago.

 

We need some brutal honesty ... and you guys do too.  

 

I am up for that.  We have had years of childishness.

[The Brain]

Like 76 page threads of it.......

[shadowhawk]

Like 76 page threads of it.......

If it is too much for  you I suggest you don't read it.  I am sure that will help.

[TheSimulation]

 

 

I know where you're coming from with the desire to say agnostic.  But I won't do it because I know what agnosticism is and I know what atheism is.  So I cannot be dishonest about it.

 

I am not 100 percent sure you know what agnosticism is since many people are confused about the subject. Richard Dawkins says that technically he is an agnostic, not an atheist. It's in one of the youtube videos - I don't have a link... Many atheists are actually agnostics but continue to call themselves atheists since they think calling your self an atheist takes more balls and makes you no longer a fence sitter on the subject.  In other words they technically are agnostic but prefer to use the term atheist because they feel it is more courageous.  The reason many atheists should actually be agnostic is that we do not know what God is in the first place, so how can we not have a belief in it if we don't have knowledge. Agnosticism is about not knowing.  Not knowing is more important than not believing. Not knowing is actually more courageous since you admit you lack knowledge, whereas not believing just means you don't believe.

 

One reason I remain agnostic rather than atheist is because we could in fact be living in some kind of digital computer or a simulation of some kind where there is another universe outside of our universe which could be controlled by multiple gods (programmers) as some kind of evolution simulation. I do not believe this. I do not know this. So I remain agnostic. It's maybe a small chance that this is true, or maybe it is not true at all. Nick Bostrom thinks it could be true, but he is not certain. No one claims knowledge about it or belief about it, so I remain agnostic. It's not that I don't "believe" we are in a simulation, it is that I truely do not know.  Admitting that you do not know, takes more balls than just admitting you do not believe. Believe is a weak word, whereas knowing is a strong word.  Hence IMO admitting you don't know, or saying your are agnostic, is ironically more ballsy than saying you are atheist.  I don't believe in a lot of things, but to not "know" about something is even more serious.

 

Another issue is that math seems to be very logical, and logical things should only exist in some kind of computer system where things are being calculated precisely. Things in the universe are being computed all the time - which is strange, if the universe is not a computer why is it computing things.. Why does math exist at all in our universe,  if instead it could be a bunch of inconsistent garbage? Consider the equations in phyiscs like E=mc2  or the speed of light constant which seem strangely like a computer program or some forumla that exists in functional programming... I would be much more satisfied if there was no beautiful equations in the universe and it was just a bunch of random nonsense - because then it would mean there is no computer program going on and no logical math, and no consistency. It could be that our universe appears to be like a computer but is not actually one in reality, and that there are other parts of the multiverse which are not like a computer at all, and it is just coincidence that we happen to live in part of a multiverse that is logical an consistent doing calculations and computations. Again I do not believe we live in a computer, nor do I know. I don't even give it a probability and remain completely ignorant.

 

Even if we did live inside a computer, there could be a universe outside the computer which is godless too. Or it could be some silly infinity of computers inside computers inside computers. I do not know, nor do I believe. But more important is what I do not know.. not what I do not believe. I don't really care about belief since it's a joke of a word - I care about knowledge, and what I do know and not know.

 

 

I don't agree that atheism is about proving religious claims false because that is more like antitheism.

 

Anti theism, as defined by hitchens, is just about not wanting to live in a universe that there was a god, even if it was proven to be true that a god existed.  I don't think anti theism is about disproving claims in the bible.. I think being a skeptic of the bible is about disproving its claims. People that claim to be atheists are always disproving things in the bible and they do not call themselves antitheists. An example is Dawkins who claims to be an atheist (or technically agnostic) and he debates the age of the earth being 6000 years old. He knows it is not 6000 or 10000 years old and he fights against people who think it is that old. He is not an anti theist and yet he is disproving claims made in the bible. Other examples of people disproving  the bible are The Atheist Experience youtube/radio show and they are not anti theists, the show is called "atheist experience".

 

I am actually an Anti Theist when it comes to Islam or Christianity. I would not want to live in that kind of universe where a God is looking down over me and treating me like a 3 year old child, killing me with a lightning bolt if I make a mistake.

 

I am however not an Anti Theist to a simulated environment where I have a programmer God above me who gives me the ability to modify the simulation with code to do whatever I want (i.e. the God makes me a partial god too). I am an anti theist when it comes to a simulation where we are just chess pawns being observed through a looking glass... i.e. if the gods were running us as a simulation and laughing at us and not helping us, I am an anti theist toward this sort of god. There is a chance that we are living in a "evolution simulation" right now where programmers are studying evolution through a computer. I am an Antitheist toward this since we are being used as tools for experimentation, like mice in a lab.  However these god's may eventually see their wrongdoing and allow us more freedom later (fat chance.. I do not believe in any of this at all - I am just throwing out strange possibilities - don't think that I actually believe this nonsense.. just throwing it out there as science fiction)

 

So should I call myself an anti theist or an agnostic? Definitely both.  I however am not an atheist as I find the term atheist addresses belief in a god which to me doesn't mean anything. It's not that I don't believe in god, it's that I do not know.  I am against all sorts of gods and religions therefore I am an antitheist in most cases.  I am an anti theist in 99 percent of cases.  I am agnostic in that I do not know god or what god is nor do I have any knowledge about it, and nor does anyone else - so in fact 100 percent of the people living on this planet are agnostic. It's about whether we admit it. For some reason people are afraid to use the word agnostic because they do not know what it really means and they think it is about fence sitting.  Atheism is actually fence sitting, where hardcore Anti Theism is about defining what kind of world you would not want to live in at all. But even though you can be an anti theist, they are still agnostic.

Edited by TheSimulation, 12 July 2015 - 09:39 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Evidence for Atheism means giving evidence that there is no God.  That is what the word means.  No God.  You can prove a negative and offer evidence for it.

[Dakman]

Been said before, the onus of proof is on the claimant 

[N.T.M.]

Evidence for Atheism means giving evidence that there is no God.  That is what the word means.  No God.  You can prove a negative and offer evidence for it.

 

No, that's not what the word means. Theism refers to a belief in a god. Atheism therefore refers to an absence of such a belief. To ask for evidence supporting atheism is to openly admit you don't know what the word means.

[Duchykins]

Same ole SH.

 

 

I know where you're coming from with the desire to say agnostic.  But I won't do it because I know what agnosticism is and I know what atheism is.  So I cannot be dishonest about it.

 

I am not 100 percent sure you know what agnosticism is since many people are confused about the subject. Richard Dawkins says that technically he is an agnostic, not an atheist. It's in one of the youtube videos - I don't have a link... Many atheists are actually agnostics but continue to call themselves atheists since they think calling your self an atheist takes more balls and makes you no longer a fence sitter on the subject.  In other words they technically are agnostic but prefer to use the term atheist because they feel it is more courageous.  The reason many atheists should actually be agnostic is that we do not know what God is in the first place, so how can we not have a belief in it if we don't have knowledge. Agnosticism is about not knowing.  Not knowing is more important than not believing. Not knowing is actually more courageous since you admit you lack knowledge, whereas not believing just means you don't believe.

 

One reason I remain agnostic rather than atheist is because we could in fact be living in some kind of digital computer or a simulation of some kind where there is another universe outside of our universe which could be controlled by multiple gods (programmers) as some kind of evolution simulation. I do not believe this. I do not know this. So I remain agnostic. It's maybe a small chance that this is true, or maybe it is not true at all. Nick Bostrom thinks it could be true, but he is not certain. No one claims knowledge about it or belief about it, so I remain agnostic. It's not that I don't "believe" we are in a simulation, it is that I truely do not know.  Admitting that you do not know, takes more balls than just admitting you do not believe. Believe is a weak word, whereas knowing is a strong word.  Hence IMO admitting you don't know, or saying your are agnostic, is ironically more ballsy than saying you are atheist.  I don't believe in a lot of things, but to not "know" about something is even more serious.

 

Another issue is that math seems to be very logical, and logical things should only exist in some kind of computer system where things are being calculated precisely. Things in the universe are being computed all the time - which is strange, if the universe is not a computer why is it computing things.. Why does math exist at all in our universe,  if instead it could be a bunch of inconsistent garbage? Consider the equations in phyiscs like E=mc2  or the speed of light constant which seem strangely like a computer program or some forumla that exists in functional programming... I would be much more satisfied if there was no beautiful equations in the universe and it was just a bunch of random nonsense - because then it would mean there is no computer program going on and no logical math, and no consistency. It could be that our universe appears to be like a computer but is not actually one in reality, and that there are other parts of the multiverse which are not like a computer at all, and it is just coincidence that we happen to live in part of a multiverse that is logical an consistent doing calculations and computations. Again I do not believe we live in a computer, nor do I know. I don't even give it a probability and remain completely ignorant.

 

Even if we did live inside a computer, there could be a universe outside the computer which is godless too. Or it could be some silly infinity of computers inside computers inside computers. I do not know, nor do I believe. But more important is what I do not know.. not what I do not believe. I don't really care about belief since it's a joke of a word - I care about knowledge, and what I do know and not know.

 

 

I don't agree that atheism is about proving religious claims false because that is more like antitheism.

 

Anti theism, as defined by hitchens, is just about not wanting to live in a universe that there was a god, even if it was proven to be true that a god existed.  I don't think anti theism is about disproving claims in the bible.. I think being a skeptic of the bible is about disproving its claims. People that claim to be atheists are always disproving things in the bible and they do not call themselves antitheists. An example is Dawkins who claims to be an atheist (or technically agnostic) and he debates the age of the earth being 6000 years old. He knows it is not 6000 or 10000 years old and he fights against people who think it is that old. He is not an anti theist and yet he is disproving claims made in the bible. Other examples of people disproving  the bible are The Atheist Experience youtube/radio show and they are not anti theists, the show is called "atheist experience".

 

I am actually an Anti Theist when it comes to Islam or Christianity. I would not want to live in that kind of universe where a God is looking down over me and treating me like a 3 year old child, killing me with a lightning bolt if I make a mistake.

 

I am however not an Anti Theist to a simulated environment where I have a programmer God above me who gives me the ability to modify the simulation with code to do whatever I want (i.e. the God makes me a partial god too). I am an anti theist when it comes to a simulation where we are just chess pawns being observed through a looking glass... i.e. if the gods were running us as a simulation and laughing at us and not helping us, I am an anti theist toward this sort of god. There is a chance that we are living in a "evolution simulation" right now where programmers are studying evolution through a computer. I am an Antitheist toward this since we are being used as tools for experimentation, like mice in a lab.  However these god's may eventually see their wrongdoing and allow us more freedom later (fat chance.. I do not believe in any of this at all - I am just throwing out strange possibilities - don't think that I actually believe this nonsense.. just throwing it out there as science fiction)

 

So should I call myself an anti theist or an agnostic? Definitely both.  I however am not an atheist as I find the term atheist addresses belief in a god which to me doesn't mean anything. It's not that I don't believe in god, it's that I do not know.  I am against all sorts of gods and religions therefore I am an antitheist in most cases.  I am an anti theist in 99 percent of cases.  I am agnostic in that I do not know god or what god is nor do I have any knowledge about it, and nor does anyone else - so in fact 100 percent of the people living on this planet are agnostic. It's about whether we admit it. For some reason people are afraid to use the word agnostic because they do not know what it really means and they think it is about fence sitting.  Atheism is actually fence sitting, where hardcore Anti Theism is about defining what kind of world you would not want to live in at all. But even though you can be an anti theist, they are still agnostic.

 

 

 

 

I know exactly what agnosticism is.  Agnosticism is a position on knowledge.  Atheism is a position on a belief.  Agnosticism cannot logically be a middle ground between theism and atheism because that is a category error fallacy.  Knowledge and belief are two different categories.

 

That is why "agnostic" is a word that has application outside of religious discussion.  For example, you might hear a scientist say they are agnostic about what gravity is.  They are saying they don't know what gravity is.  This application of the word is far older than using it to describe a religious position, and it's still used today.

 

Additionally, the stricter definition of agnosticism in a religious context is the position that the existence of gods is unknowable, that we can never know.I've always thought that a little strange because that is a statement of certainty. 

 

I appreciate that you respect Dawkins.  I respect him too, but as a biologist, especially since I'm actually getting a degree in evolutionary biology.  Dawkins is no logician and no philosopher, however.  I have disagreed with his little theist-atheist spectrum since I read the Delusion when it first came out.  I disagree with some other things too but that's neither here nor there.  Dawkins does not define atheism, he is not a high priest of atheism, period.  Atheism is not about absolute certainty (an absurd burden on the word), which is the idea Dawkins relies upon for his scale.

 

Agnosticism is instead complementary to theism and atheism.  Agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.  This is old news to people who dabble in philosophy of religion.  It's not at all inherently contradictory to say "I believe but I don't know" or "I don't believe but I don't know."

 

Strictly from a logical standpoint, theism/atheism is the true dichotomy.  A true dichotomy is A and not-A.   Believing and not-believing.  The not-A category is everything that is not A, which is an inconceivable huge category.   There is no middle ground in a true dichotomy.   Trying to stick agnosticism in there does not work unless you stick it under the umbrella of atheism.

 

It takes no courage at all to say you don't know.  It's the easiest thing to say and it's exactly why so many atheists would rather say "I don't know if a god exists" instead of saying "no I don't believe in your god (right now)."   In a situation where people start asking if you believe in a god, saying you're agnostic will not cause as many waves as saying you're an atheist.  It's why "agnostic" is so popular now, it's the safe zone.  Lots of proclaimed agnostics like to get all high and mighty over atheists too.  You already admitted there is a big stigma over "atheist" so I don't see a point in arguing about this much further.

 

On math, well, math is logic.  Logic comes in several forms and that is one of them.  Math exists because we exist, we created a language that helps us understand more about our environment.  The universe is not computing things.  We have invented a language that we can use to describe how the universe is working.  We use this language to describe what we observe, to make models and use it to make predictions.  We mustn't confuse the two things.  Sometimes people object to this because they think it diminishes mathematics somehow, but it doesn't.  Math (and the body of logic) is an invaluable construct.

 

On the programmer god ... well, since there has never been any revelation about it (I'm assuming) ... as it stands now it's just another invented "what if."  Where do these "what ifs" come from?  There's a million of those, there is no good reason to fear or prefer one hypothetical god over another, other than personal preference based on things like an individual's set of knowledge, their personality, their sense of morality, etc - steering them towards some gods and repelling them from others. 

 

My personal preference is pandeism.   Actually, naturalistic pandeism sounds perfect to me.

 

Antitheists are a subset of atheists though.  Atheism is not-A, it is the whole umbrella of not-theism.

 

I can see that the stigma of atheism is affecting your objective judgment.  This is not meant an as insult or a put down.  I've met so many atheists in the same position, saying a lot of the same things you're saying.

 

Since you watch the Atheist Experience (I've loved it for years, watching Matt gradually lose all his hair lol) perhaps you could call in sometime when Matt is on and ask him to explain the difference between agnosticism and atheism.  He is really really good, particularly because he really is knowledgeable on the philosophy of religion (honestly he can stomp Dawkins into the ground any day in a debate, if it ever came to that).    All of the hosts have had to explain this very topic one time or another over the years.  

 

Or you could consult AE's wiki, Iron Chariots.  This topic comes up so frequently on the show that they gave it its own page:  

 

 http://wiki.ironchar...st_vs._agnostic

 

I actually have never seen this article before today, but given how much I've watch the show, I knew it had to exist, so I googled for it.  Hopefully that could help you out.

 

There are a few antitheist hosts on AE.  Just a couple, you're right in that most of the hosts don't seem to be antitheist.  Jeff Dee is a pretty gnarly (though I think he does the Non-Prophets now), Matt Dillahunty has explained several times before how he is an antitheist (and therefore, an atheist), how antitheists are a minority among atheists, so that he does not give the impression he speaks for other atheists.

 

I don't use the word "hardcore" in any of this because it's sort of puerile.  I don't think agnosticism is fence-sitting either.  You think atheism is fence-sitting?  Uhm, okay, that's the first time I've heard that, so congratulations on having a novel idea. 

 

Agnosticism can be complementary to antitheism?  You could be both at the same time?  Well thank you very much, we agree on something.   

Edited by Duchykins, 14 July 2015 - 06:21 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I explained what Atheism was in the very first post so I won't go over it again and again.  Throughout the thread we have discussed it many times with sources referenced from some of the most scholarly sources.  In short Atheism is a belief there is no God.

[Duchykins]

I explained what Atheism was in the very first post so I won't go over it again and again.  Throughout the thread we have discussed it many times with sources referenced from some of the most scholarly sources.  In short Atheism is a belief there is no God.

 

 

Nobody really cares about what you think because you're either delusional or a wanton liar.  

 

 

The only real discussion to be had in this thread is among ourselves (the atheists).

[Duchykins]

The evidence is the lengthy posts we reply to each other with.

[shadowhawk]

Again falling back on the old name calling fallacy when you have nothing to say.

[Duchykins]

Again falling back on the old name calling fallacy when you have nothing to say.

 

Not to you.  Like I said, nobody is terribly interested in wasting a lot of time on you.  You've too often demonstrated your lack of integrity or sanity to be bothered with, except to make an example of you for other people to see.

 

But you'll notice that the atheists here have a history of saying a great deal more to each other.

[shadowhawk]

More ad hominem.  What a complete joke. 

[Dakman]

He's not calling you names, he's describing you 

[shifter]

So many ad hominem's, ad nauseams and strawmans. Is there any straight talk in here? lol

[shadowhawk]

 

I explained what Atheism was in the very first post so I won't go over it again and again.  Throughout the thread we have discussed it many times with sources referenced from some of the most scholarly sources.  In short Atheism is a belief there is no God.

 

 

Nobody really cares about what you think because you're either delusional or a wanton liar.  

 

 

The only real discussion to be had in this thread is among ourselves (the atheists).

 

Typical.  So your argument is purely calling names.  Well this is the evidence most in here give. 

[Dakman]

You already responded to that comment dweeb 

[shadowhawk]

We have dealt with these issues so many times in this thread.  What is Atheism? I know why you want to try to change the definition, because you can't defend it.  Read the thread before you try to comment with a bunch of nonsense.

 

1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502597
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502599
http://www.longecity...120#entry506777
http://www.longecity...270#entry510904
http://www.longecity...450#entry646771
http://www.longecity...480#entry647612
Atheists are agnostics?
http://www.longecity...360#entry639932
http://www.longecity...360#entry639934
http://www.longecity...450#entry646771
http://www.longecity...480#entry647374
http://www.longecity...480#entry647612

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...ism/#entry50282
http://www.longecity...390#entry643370
http://www.longecity...420#entry644763
http://www.longecity...420#entry645126

3.  You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352
http://www.longecity...390#entry643348
http://www.longecity...390#entry643387
http://www.longecity...420#entry645126
http://www.longecity...450#entry646451

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity..._30#entry504130
http://www.longecity...180#entry509183
http://www.longecity...300#entry512746
http://www.longecity...450#entry645224
 

[Dakman]

Have you proven your god yet though 

 

 

Has anyone of any religious group or faith proven their god either?

 

 

Must be something in there if all these gods are unprovable then wouldn't you think?

[Duchykins]

I love how SH likes to cite himself as evidence.

[shadowhawk]

Have you proven your god yet though 

 

 

Has anyone of any religious group or faith proven their god either?

 

 

Must be something in there if all these gods are unprovable then wouldn't you think?

Again you don't know what proof is.  I posted lots of evidence in Is there evidence for Christianity.  Tell you what take any issue raised in that topic and we will discuss it.

[shadowhawk]

I love how SH likes to cite himself as evidence.

 

Take one of the issues and we can discuss it.  I love how you have no evidence.
 

Edited by shadowhawk, 17 July 2015 - 10:04 PM.

[Duchykins]

I love how SH likes to cite himself as evidence.

Take one of the issues and we can discuss it. I love how you have no evidence.

I'm sorry, did you say something?

[shadowhawk]

   Just as I expected.  All you Atheists hang your hat on this.