Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

So Mags--are you of the opinion that "weak" atheists (again, someone give me a better term!) are simply intellectually dishonest? That they've made a decision one way or the other on the notion of the existence of God, and they're simply unwilling to voice it?

Not to put them down in any way; but it seems that way. Yes, they do know that it could be a possibility; but they choose not to make it a possibility; because they don't want to know if the possibility is true.
 
I would venture to surmise, though, that most people have at least wondered about how humanity got here in the first place. To me, it's a much more critical topic/issue than, say, the existence of pillywiggins. Or, is it that easy to simply dismiss the equation of our beginnings?

Appears that it's simply been boiled down here to 2 camps: A) Life (in some form or another) has always existed......or B) Life has been created through "some" form of intelligent design function.

Am I incorrect in these conclusions?

Those are the only logical camps I know of.
 
Those are the only logical camps I know of.

What about the camp that might state that life simply "is", and that whether it evolved or was created is essentially irrelevant? Is that position inherently illogical?
 
Like every important discussion, this apparently can be summed up in a youtube video

[video=youtube;sNDZb0KtJDk]
 
What about the camp that might state that life simply "is", and that whether it evolved or was created is essentially irrelevant? Is that position inherently illogical?

I thought that's what I was stating here?:

A) Life (in some form or another) has always existed......
 
Like every important discussion, this apparently can be summed up in a youtube video

My primary problem with that video is the suggestion that belief necessitates certainty. Those on Mags' side of this debate would suggest that you can believe something to be true without being completely certain. In fact, that is the foundation of our civil legal system. Criminal defendants must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (95% certain), whereas civil litigants need only provide a preponderance of evidence (51% certain).

I think in order to have a valid discussion on the notion of belief/disbelief, it might be valuable to define the term "belief" in those terms. Must one be "certain" of something to believe it, or simply consider it to be more likely than the alternatives?
 
I thought that's what I was stating here?:

Both your statements expressed a view on the history of life (either "created" or "always existed"). The third I posited expressed indifference to said history (neither possibility matters).
 
You proved my point. Because an atheist has been presented different variations of "God" and they refuse to believe "God" exists. It's not like the "idea" of God(s) haven't ever crossed their mind. In fact, I suspect most have had the existence of God pass their mind. Look at all the threads supporting this.

So your "absence of belief in something is just the absence of belief" isn't logical.

EDIT: Oops I meant to say not logical when it comes to the existence of God.

No, I actually did not prove your point -- you proved mine.

I have just introduced you to the idea of pillywiggins, therefore you must take a stand on their existence! Either prove that they don't exist, or else admit that they must! Anything else is illogical!
 
I would venture to surmise, though, that most people have at least wondered about how humanity got here in the first place. To me, it's a much more critical topic/issue than, say, the existence of pillywiggins. Or, is it that easy to simply dismiss the equation of our beginnings?

Appears that it's simply been boiled down here to 2 camps: A) Life (in some form or another) has always existed......or B) Life has been created through "some" form of intelligent design function.

Am I incorrect in these conclusions?

Have you ever wondered why flowers bloom? Then you have wondered about pillywiggins. You just didn't know what to call them yet!
 
Like every important discussion, this apparently can be summed up in a youtube video

[video=youtube;sNDZb0KtJDk]


That was put very eloquently. I will give him that much...

But read the comment from FHomeBrew. I think it is quite the rebuttle.

That's easy. You see theism is the mental assignment of "true" to the existence of god and "false" to the nonexistence of god. Atheism, it's converse, is the assignment of false to the existence of god and true to the non-existence of god.
A belief is defined as psychological state in which one holds an idea or premise to be true so clearly atheism and theism suit that definition fine.

What you are asking, essentially is what answer would a person give to a question they had never heard. Someone who has no god concept, logically, cannot assign true or false and they are neither atheist or theist. In fact you have unwittingly exposed yet anothyer weakness of the "lack of belief" definiton. It does not distinguish between those with and without god concepts and a god concept is core to the discussion in the first place.

Conclusion: Calling someone atheist, theist or agnostic is only really relevant within the context of god's existence. Giving a name to people who have no concept of the discussion is irrelevant. It is similar to defining a Democrat as "a lack of Republican values". The problem there is it lacks specificity and includes not only people how have no concept of government or politics but also inanimate objects.

It is not useful or meaningful to describe something in terms of what it ISN'T because it is so overly inclusive that the meaning of the word is diluted into near-uselessness. Instead we describe a Democrat in terms of what they ARE and what they stand for.
Your question, essentially, is to ask what do we call someone who has no concept of Republican values, american poltitics or government? Following YOUR logic we would call them a Democrat.

That would of course be rediculus. Especially when it comes to any discussion regarding Democrats. It would become horribly confused.
So to answer the question: A god concept exists in nearly every human society and anyone lacking one would clearly be living in a cave, alone. It would be sufficient to merely call them "ignorant".

Come to Atheism is a Belief on Facebook so we can discuss without posts broken up into six pieces.

And from reading this; I suspect he is somewhat an agnostic of sorts; but he defends that atheism is in fact a belief.
 
I have just introduced you to the idea of pillywiggins, therefore you must take a stand on their existence! Either prove that they don't exist, or else admit that they must! Anything else is illogical!

That's an obvious distortion, Trip. No Theist says that an atheist must disprove God in order to not believe in Him. The contention is that once introduced to the notion of pillywiggins, one will naturally flow to one side or the other of the belief spectrum, and that to simply claim ignorance is intellectually dishonest.

As for me and my house, we do not believe in pillywiggins.
 
No, I actually did not prove your point -- you proved mine.

I have just introduced you to the idea of pillywiggins, therefore you must take a stand on their existence! Either prove that they don't exist, or else admit that they must! Anything else is illogical!

Well actually no, since I am in the "topic" of atheism not being a sound belief. If you want to make another thread about pillywiggins; then I will be more than happy to debate it on that thread.
 
Have you ever wondered why flowers bloom? Then you have wondered about pillywiggins. You just didn't know what to call them yet!

I've always been a pretty strong apillywigginist.
 
I think in order to have a valid discussion on the notion of belief/disbelief, it might be valuable to define the term "belief" in those terms. Must one be "certain" of something to believe it, or simply consider it to be more likely than the alternatives?

Good point.

Ever heard of the Great Zamboni? The Great Zamboni could walk a tightrope across Niagara Falls pushing a wheelbarrow in front of him. In fact, sometimes he would put his dog in the wheelbarrow for fascination effects. He successfully did this on many, many occasions.

One day, the Great Zamboni was putting on his regular show, but on this day he decided to amp things up a bit. He was a real showman. He shouted out to the crowd, "Who believes the Great Zamboni can walk across Niagara today!?" The crowd cried out, "We believe, Great Zamboni! We believe!" He then shouted out again, "Then WHO believes the Great Zamboni can walk across Niagara behind a wheelbarrow with his pet dog Zoey inside?!" Again, the crowd cried out, "We believe, Great Zamboni! We believe!" Finally, he shouted, "Then WHO believes the Great Zamboni can walk across Niagara behind a wheelbarrow with a human inside?!" This time, the crowd cried out in even greater fervor, "We believe, Great Zamboni! YES, we believe!!!"

The Great Zamboni then quietly asked.........who will be my first volunteer?
 
Then according to that definition I would say it's very logical and I will not discredit or deny that statement. But what I highlighted in bold becomes the greater question. Because no one knows where it came from and there hasn't been a logical explanation of the existence of this matter or mass. If you use the mass has always existed; then it does contridict.

And it leads me to believe that there is a design. That the Universe can expand and fine tune. The improbabilities that this happened by chance is mathmatically improbable.

But on a lighter note; you just gave me reason to believe in the "Big Bang". See I do have an open mind about things.

The whole beginning of the universe isn't my realm of expertise, that whole debate I'll leave up to theoretical physicists and whatever origin explanation a person has.
 
The whole beginning of the universe isn't my realm of expertise, that whole debate I'll leave up to theoretical physicists and whatever origin explanation a person has.

So you can respect that is the angle I am at right now; with my first 3 questions?
 
The whole beginning of the universe isn't my realm of expertise, that whole debate I'll leave up to theoretical physicists and whatever origin explanation a person has.

Your avatar is distracting. I fear her.
 
I know! I was thinking about that a few days ago when he posted a response. I was like "Okay, I don't want to meet her in some dark alley!"

Is it just a coincidence that she and your fiancee have the same hair? :)
 
So you can respect that is the angle I am at right now; with my first 3 questions?

I can respect that the first creation of mass/energy is completely unknown, and that any explanation for it is nothing more than theory, be it a religious theory or a scientific one. I don't think it's fair for me to judge one or the other at this point as there's no evidence one way or the other. I myself believe that there's a scientific explanation for it, we just don't know it yet and very possibly never will. That's not to say you're belief in a design/deity is wrong, I just place my faith in something else.
 
That's an obvious distortion, Trip. No Theist says that an atheist must disprove God in order to not believe in Him.

Actually, this is EXACTLY what Mags has been saying!

We are all naturally non-believers in things we have never heard of. When evidence arises that indicates existence of something, we believe. Most atheists don't claim to have evidence of God's existence -- they simply claim that the evidence FOR God's existence is insufficient.

And don't worry -- you and your house are all still invited to the annual pillywiggin dance coming up in May. I hope to change your mind during the festivities! ;)
 
Well actually no, since I am in the "topic" of atheism not being a sound belief. If you want to make another thread about pillywiggins; then I will be more than happy to debate it on that thread.

It's a metaphor, yo! Surely you will allow the pillywiggins some metaphorical room?
 
Actually, this is EXACTLY what Mags has been saying!

We are all naturally non-believers in things we have never heard of. When evidence arises that indicates existence of something, we believe. Most atheists don't claim to have evidence of God's existence -- they simply claim that the evidence FOR God's existence is insufficient.

And don't worry -- you and your house are all still invited to the annual pillywiggin dance coming up in May. I hope to change your mind during the festivities! ;)

No when I say the burden of proof is on you. I have giving my evidence of gods existence and then the burden of proof is on you to discount that evidence. And this evidence that I give on the existence of god cannot be ignored because you don't think the burden of proof is on you.
 
It's a metaphor, yo! Surely you will allow the pillywiggins some metaphorical room?

There is no need to get testy trip. I have seen how tangents will stay off topic. I want this thread to keep on topic. Hopefully you can respect that.
 
I can respect that the first creation of mass/energy is completely unknown, and that any explanation for it is nothing more than theory, be it a religious theory or a scientific one. I don't think it's fair for me to judge one or the other at this point as there's no evidence one way or the other. I myself believe that there's a scientific explanation for it, we just don't know it yet and very possibly never will. That's not to say you're belief in a design/deity is wrong, I just place my faith in something else.

And I can perfectly respect that faith.
 

Good point if there was an absence of evidence.

Examples

Absence of evidence

(These examples contain or represent missing information.)

• Statements that begin with "I can't prove it but…" are often referring to some kind absence of evidence.
• There is no evidence of foul play here" is a direct reference to the absence of evidence.

Negative results
• When the doctor says that the test results were negative, it is usually good news.
• Under "Termites" the inspector checked the box that read "no".
• The results of Michelson–Morley's experiment reported no shift at all in the interference pattern.

Evidence of absence
(These examples contain definite evidence that can be used to show, indicate, suggest, infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something.)

• A biopsy shows the absence of malignant cells.
• The null result found by Michelson–Morley's famous experiment represents "strong evidence" that the luminiferous aether was not present.
• One very carefully inspects the back seat of one's car and finds no tigers.
• The train schedule does not say that the train stops here at 3:00pm on a Sunday.

Arguments from ignorance
(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)

• "I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Then California's Attorney General Earl Warren (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942)

In the field of science
• One looks in the back seat of one's car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos and then uses this negative/null adult-sized kangaroo detection results in conjunction with the previously determined fact (or just plain old proposition) that adult-sized kangaroos, if present, cannot evade such detection, to deduce a new fact that there are indeed no adult-sized kangaroos present in the back seat of said car.

Principles in law
The presumption of innocence, if present, effectively removes the possibility that the accused may be both guilty and unproven, from consideration in judgment, and as such the accused is considered as innocent unless proven guilty. (See decision table below)
1.) Innocent and unproven. Judged as innocent.
2.) Innocent and proven. Judged as guilty. (Jury is biased, misled, makes error; law is incorrect; false evidence fabricated etc.)
3.) Guilty and unproven. Judged as innocent. (Presumption of innocence)
4.) Guilty and proven. Judged as guilty. (Innocent unless/until proven guilty is a summary of this and easier to remember.)
 
Last edited:
There is no need to get testy trip. I have seen how tangents will stay off topic. I want this thread to keep on topic. Hopefully you can respect that.

No testiness -- promise. But the use of fairies as a metaphorical tool was DIRECTLY related to our discussion of belief. It wasn't tangential.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top