When does Atheism Become a Belief System

[Cyrylek]

First, I'll admit I am more of a believer than a non-believer. I believe that there are no gods. I also believe that there is good reason to believe that there are no gods. But, of course, I am not sure of that. So...I guess I see myself as atheist-light.

Given the above, I kind of see a need for establishing a reference guide which delineates the the various degrees of Atheism, from true agnostic to the hard line disbeliever.

Rough template:

Agnostic: Has no idea if gods exist or not, doesn't really care either way.

Atheist 5th degree: Simply does not believe in gods, does not care if others do believe or say that gods exist

Atheist 4th Degree: Also does not believe in gods, says he does not care if others do believe or not, but tends to challenge anyone who does

Atheist 3rd Degree: Does not believe in gods, but argues furiously with those who say they do believe or that they exist

Atheist 2nd Degree: Believes gods do not exist, but is willing to accept that they just might

Atheist 1st Degree: Believes gods do not exist and mocks anyone who even hints at the notion that they might



Thoughts, additions, critiques, etc. ?

I guess in your classification I would be an "Agnostic 2nd Degree". I do not believe either in gods or their non-existence, empirical evidence pending. At the same time I am generally sympathetic with the religious mindset ( as long as it means voluntary self-imposed constraints, not another mutation of collectivist herd instinct), and just like many religious people, I do "believe" (adhere to, choose to value, whatever) certain moral axioms (you know, the Golden Rule, freedom of choice, all that jazz...), and I strongly dislike "Atheists 1st degree" - basically, religious fanatics whose religion is nothingness.

 

[Russell797]

Nope. All I want is logical discussion which does not violate the rules of evidence. Arguing the null hypothesis is fine when saying there are no pink unicorns in Philadelphia. But, it breaks down when someone says there are no pink unicorns anywhere in all places, planes, dimensions, etc. that exist or may exist.

The null hypothesis is always the stance to take no matter what the circumstances. Just because you can't meet the requirement of proving the null wrong, does not mean the null hypothesis has broken down, it means you can't make the case that it is incorrect. I hold to the null hypothesis that there is no god until given reason to think otherwise. Now, that does not mean you are not free to believe in god, it just means there is no rational reason to believe in god.

 

[calamity]

The null hypothesis is always the stance to take no matter what the circumstances. Just because you can't meet the requirement of proving the null wrong, does not mean the null hypothesis has broken down, it means you can't make the case that it is incorrect. I hold to the null hypothesis that there is no god until given reason to think otherwise. Now, that does not mean you are not free to believe in god, it just means there is no rational reason to believe in god.

Would it also apply to intelligent life somewhere, anywhere in the universe?

 

[Russell797]

Would it also apply to intelligent life somewhere, anywhere in the universe?

Absolutely it does.

However, in the case of intelligent life we have reason to suspect it's out there. Reason determined by observation of trillion upon trillions of stars. We are finding planets around many stars near the Sun. To extrapolate there must be trillion upon trillions upon trillion of planets in the observable universe. The chemistry of life exists everywhere we look out into the cosmos. The signatures of amino acids and other complex carbon based molecules are seen in the clouds of gas and dust between the stars.

Life is a form of chemistry. It would be remarkable if life managed to take hold on only one planet in the entire universe given the evidence. Complex life and intelligent life are more difficult to come by, but again the observed numbers make even the most unlikely of event almost certain to happen.

Despite all that, I do not believe in intelligent life out there. The null hypothesis still stands, if only very tenuously.

 

[calamity]

Absolutely it does.

However, in the case of intelligent life we have reason to suspect it's out there. Reason determined by observation of trillion upon trillions of stars. We are finding planets around many stars near the Sun. To extrapolate there must be trillion upon trillions upon trillion of planets in the observable universe. The chemistry of life exists everywhere we look out into the cosmos. The signatures of amino acids and other complex carbon based molecules are seen in the clouds of gas and dust between the stars.

Life is a form of chemistry. It would be remarkable if life managed to take hold on only one planet in the entire universe given the evidence. Complex life and intelligent life are more difficult to come by, but again the observed numbers make even the most unlikely of event almost certain to happen.

Despite all that, I do not believe in intelligent life out there. The null hypothesis still stands, if only very tenuously.

I feel it is just as germane to argue that the reality we can observe is but a tiny fraction of the whole. Of course, we have no observable evidence to point to for this, like you do chemistry and billions upon billions of stars with their planets by the trillions circling them. But, logic does seem to dictate that there lies much beneath or above what we can observe, if for no other reason than the fact there is something here which we do see.

The null Hypothesis becomes moot when we look at the bigger picture. It's impossible to say, "we do not see it, therefore it does not exist," when we know that all which exists is probably beyond out sight.

 

[William Rea]

I feel it is just as germane to argue that the reality we can observe is but a tiny fraction of the whole. Of course, we have no observable evidence to point to for this, like you do chemistry and billions upon billions of stars with their planets by the trillions circling them. But, logic does seem to dictate that there lies much beneath or above what we can observe, if for no other reason than the fact there is something here which we do see.

The null Hypothesis becomes moot when we look at the bigger picture. It's impossible to say, "we do not see it, therefore it does not exist," when we know that all which exists is probably beyond out sight.

Classic theistic god of the gaps argument. All you need to argue now is that if we don't know everything then we can't know anything and your conversion will be complete.

 

[Russell797]

I feel it is just as germane to argue that the reality we can observe is but a tiny fraction of the whole. Of course, we have no observable evidence to point to for this, like you do chemistry and billions upon billions of stars with their planets by the trillions circling them. But, logic does seem to dictate that there lies much beneath or above what we can observe, if for no other reason than the fact there is something here which we do see.

The null Hypothesis becomes moot when we look at the bigger picture. It's impossible to say, "we do not see it, therefore it does not exist," when we know that all which exists is probably beyond out sight.

I agree with all that, but I am not saying some things do not exist because they are undetectable. I'm saying I don't believe they exist or even if it's possible they exist. We just don't know, and that's where the reasoning stops for me. I can draw no further conclusions, including the argument that if not proven impossible then it's possible.

As our cosmic horizon expands at the speed of light, more of our 4 dimensional universe becomes available to us to study. As that light opens up new universe to us it's still part of our universe governed by the same laws of nature.

Maybe there are more than the four dimensions we live in which we can not directly interact with. We have no way to describe what they may be other than some obtuse mathematical model which we can not envision given the limitations of our senses which are designed to work in our 4 dimensions. I certainly will not believe they exist until some actual empirical evidence becomes available. But, at least there is a theoretic reason for contemplating the extra dimensions. They show up in the complicated math which describes string theory, where as for god I know of none.

 

[calamity]

Classic theistic god of the gaps argument. All you need to argue now is that if we don't know everything then we can't know anything and your conversion will be complete.

Uh, no.

 

[calamity]

I agree with all that, but I am not saying some things do not exist because they are undetectable. I'm saying I don't believe they exist or even if it's possible they exist. We just don't know, and that's where the reasoning stops for me. I can draw no further conclusions, including the argument that if not proven impossible then it's possible.

As our cosmic horizon expands at the speed of light, more of our 4 dimensional universe becomes available to us to study. As that light opens up new universe to us it's still part of our universe governed by the same laws of nature.

Maybe there are more than the four dimensions we live in which we can not directly interact with. We have no way to describe what they may be other than some obtuse mathematical model which we can not envision given the limitations of our senses which are designed to work in our 4 dimensions. I certainly will not believe they exist until some actual empirical evidence becomes available. But, at least there is a theoretic reason for contemplating the extra dimensions. They show up in the complicated math which describes string theory, where as for god I know of none.

I agree we do not have to believe these things exist. In fact, I believe very little which cannot be verified repeatedly and by several different means. But, that does not mean we can say, "X does not exist...because Null Hypothesis."

 

[VDL]

I think you're mixing oil and water, shaking it, and proclaiming the oil globules to be a form of water. Agnosticism is not a form or degree of atheism. An agnostic simply observes there's no real evidence to substantiate belief in God, nor is their evidence to disprove it. An atheist observes there's evidence enough to believe there is no God. A spiritualist, on the other hand, observes there's enough evidence to believe in a God.

They're not degrees of one another, but somewhat oddly, atheism and the spiritualism have more in common with each other than with agnosticism.

The "degrees" of atheism referred to, seem less about belief and more about the proclivity (and civility) in proclaiming it.

 

[William Rea]

I think you're mixing oil and water, shaking it, and proclaiming the oil globules to be a form of water. Agnosticism is not a form or degree of atheism. An agnostic simply observes there's no real evidence to substantiate belief in God, nor is their evidence to disprove it. An atheist observes there's evidence enough to believe there is no God. A spiritualist, on the other hand, observes there's enough evidence to believe in a God.

They're not degrees of one another, but somewhat oddly, atheism and the spiritualism have more in common with each other than with agnosticism.

The "degrees" of atheism referred to, seem less about belief and more about the proclivity (and civility) in proclaiming it.

No. Agnosticism is a position on what we can know about gods, atheism is a position on their existence and I am fairly sure that you will find that the overwhelming majority of atheists have a lack of belief because evidence has yet to be provided that warrants any justified belief. The positive assertion is the theists, they have to show that evidence for their assertion. Atheism and theism have nothing in common with each other including the burden of evidence, they are not two sides of the same coin.

If you assert that leprechauns exist and provide no evidence that they do, is it up to me to prove you wrong or up to you to show that what you claim is justified true belief?

 

[RAMOSS]

I think you're mixing oil and water, shaking it, and proclaiming the oil globules to be a form of water. Agnosticism is not a form or degree of atheism. An agnostic simply observes there's no real evidence to substantiate belief in God, nor is their evidence to disprove it. An atheist observes there's evidence enough to believe there is no God. A spiritualist, on the other hand, observes there's enough evidence to believe in a God.

They're not degrees of one another, but somewhat oddly, atheism and the spiritualism have more in common with each other than with agnosticism.

The "degrees" of atheism referred to, seem less about belief and more about the proclivity (and civility) in proclaiming it.

Not at all.... gnostic/agnostic deals with the level of knowledge/certainty. Theist/atheist deals with belief. You might not KNOW there is a god/not a god, but you can BELIEVE it anyway, or disbelieve it...

 

[calamity]

Not at all.... gnostic/agnostic deals with the level of knowledge/certainty. Theist/atheist deals with belief. You might not KNOW there is a god/not a god, but you can BELIEVE it anyway, or disbelieve it...

Pretty much sums it up. We all believe in something, even if that belief is the insistence that there exists no thing which we can not prove is there. It's definitely a belief.

 

[joG]

First, I'll admit I am more of a believer than a non-believer. I believe that there are no gods. I also believe that there is good reason to believe that there are no gods. But, of course, I am not sure of that. So...I guess I see myself as atheist-light.

Given the above, I kind of see a need for establishing a reference guide which delineates the the various degrees of Atheism, from true agnostic to the hard line disbeliever.

Rough template:

Agnostic: Has no idea if gods exist or not, doesn't really care either way.

Atheist 5th degree: Simply does not believe in gods, does not care if others do believe or say that gods exist

Atheist 4th Degree: Also does not believe in gods, says he does not care if others do believe or not, but tends to challenge anyone who does

Atheist 3rd Degree: Does not believe in gods, but argues furiously with those who say they do believe or that they exist

Atheist 2nd Degree: Believes gods do not exist, but is willing to accept that they just might

Atheist 1st Degree: Believes gods do not exist and mocks anyone who even hints at the notion that they might



Thoughts, additions, critiques, etc. ?

I always wondered what makes people think that they can do more than believe


Atheism cannot but be mere belief. Whether the individual holds a system of beliefs in this regard is determined by her intelligence, learning and interest in the matter.

 

[calamity]

I always wondered what makes people think that they can do more than believe


Atheism cannot but be mere belief. Whether the individual holds a system of beliefs in this regard is determined by her intelligence, learning and interest in the matter.

Looking at what we call a tree, and concluding that it is in fact a tree, is a belief system. It just happens to be a belief system that works well for our survival. But a belief it is nonetheless because we do not really know exactly what that thing is we are looking at and calling a tree.

 

[VDL]

No. Agnosticism is a position on what we can know about gods, atheism is a position on their existence and I am fairly sure that you will find that the overwhelming majority of atheists have a lack of belief because evidence has yet to be provided that warrants any justified belief. The positive assertion is the theists, they have to show that evidence for their assertion. Atheism and theism have nothing in common with each other including the burden of evidence, they are not two sides of the same coin.

If you assert that leprechauns exist and provide no evidence that they do, is it up to me to prove you wrong or up to you to show that what you claim is justified true belief?

I see your point, but let me change your leprechaun example to one less legendary (and easier to spell):

Let's say I have a grandpa who claimed to have caught a purple bass with bright yellow teeth at Mud Lake in 1947. He was an anchor in our family whom we loved and respected. Although he was known to drink from time to time, we chose to believe his story without doubt. We fished Mud Lake often ourselves, and though we never caught one, we were quite sure that on certain occasions we did manage a glimpse of one. It was enough to maintain our faith in Grandpa, and a belief in the existence of purple bass with bright yellow teeth.

Our neighbor doesn't fish much. He's skeptical of the account and thinks it a bit odd to make of it such an important family matter.

A DNR official hears the story and insists that such fish do not exist. We can't catch one to show him. For unrelated invasive species concerns, the lake is scheduled to be temporarily drained. The DNR official notes that it will be a perfect time for putting the question to rest. The lake is drained and sure enough, not one purple bass was found. He's satisfied that purple bass with bright yellow teeth are nonexistent, but we're not convinced - he might have missed it, or perhaps it swam up a small steam to escape the commotion.

................

We know our Grandpa saw what he saw, and we ourselves are quite sure we've seen glimpses. We will continue to believe.

The DNR official looked closely and saw nothing. He believes there are no purple bass with yellow teeth in Mud Lake. In fact, after his examination, he comes to believe that no lake anywhere on earth will ever be found to contain purple bass with bright yellow teeth.

Our neighbor is still skeptical, but notes there are a lot of lakes on earth. He still thinks it a bit odd to make such a big deal of it.

................

Two of the above entertain evidence supporting belief, even though the beliefs are of opposite conclusions. The evidence may be arguable, but in both cases leads to "taking a stand" - to believing.

When we believe, the conclusions are drawn - we stop looking.

 

[calamity]

I see your point, but let me change your leprechaun example to one less legendary (and easier to spell):

Let's say I have a grandpa who claimed to have caught a purple bass with bright yellow teeth at Mud Lake in 1947. He was an anchor in our family whom we loved and respected. Although he was known to drink from time to time, we chose to believe his story without doubt. We fished Mud Lake often ourselves, and though we never caught one, we were quite sure that on certain occasions we did manage a glimpse of one. It was enough to maintain our faith in Grandpa, and a belief in the existence of purple bass with bright yellow teeth.

Our neighbor doesn't fish much. He's skeptical of the account and thinks it a bit odd to make of it such an important family matter.

A DNR official hears the story and insists that such fish do not exist. We can't catch one to show him. For unrelated invasive species concerns, the lake is scheduled to be temporarily drained. The DNR official notes that it will be a perfect time for putting the question to rest. The lake is drained and sure enough, not one purple bass was found. He's satisfied that purple bass with bright yellow teeth are nonexistent, but we're not convinced - he might have missed it, or perhaps it swam up a small steam to escape the commotion.

................

We know our Grandpa saw what he saw, and we ourselves are quite sure we've seen glimpses. We will continue to believe.

The DNR official looked closely and saw nothing. He believes there are no purple bass with yellow teeth in Mud Lake. In fact, after his examination, he comes to believe that no lake anywhere on earth will ever be found to contain purple bass with bright yellow teeth.

Our neighbor is still skeptical, but notes there are a lot of lakes on earth. He still thinks it a bit odd to make such a big deal of it.

................

Two of the above entertain evidence supporting belief, even though the beliefs are of opposite conclusions. The evidence may be arguable, but in both cases leads to "taking a stand" - to believing.

When we believe, the conclusions are drawn - we stop looking.

That was a fun read. I hope you stick around and post frequently

 

[William Rea]

I see your point, but let me change your leprechaun example to one less legendary (and easier to spell):

Let's say I have a grandpa who claimed to have caught a purple bass with bright yellow teeth at Mud Lake in 1947. He was an anchor in our family whom we loved and respected. Although he was known to drink from time to time, we chose to believe his story without doubt. We fished Mud Lake often ourselves, and though we never caught one, we were quite sure that on certain occasions we did manage a glimpse of one. It was enough to maintain our faith in Grandpa, and a belief in the existence of purple bass with bright yellow teeth.

Our neighbor doesn't fish much. He's skeptical of the account and thinks it a bit odd to make of it such an important family matter.

A DNR official hears the story and insists that such fish do not exist. We can't catch one to show him. For unrelated invasive species concerns, the lake is scheduled to be temporarily drained. The DNR official notes that it will be a perfect time for putting the question to rest. The lake is drained and sure enough, not one purple bass was found. He's satisfied that purple bass with bright yellow teeth are nonexistent, but we're not convinced - he might have missed it, or perhaps it swam up a small steam to escape the commotion.

................

We know our Grandpa saw what he saw, and we ourselves are quite sure we've seen glimpses. We will continue to believe.

The DNR official looked closely and saw nothing. He believes there are no purple bass with yellow teeth in Mud Lake. In fact, after his examination, he comes to believe that no lake anywhere on earth will ever be found to contain purple bass with bright yellow teeth.

Our neighbor is still skeptical, but notes there are a lot of lakes on earth. He still thinks it a bit odd to make such a big deal of it.

................

Two of the above entertain evidence supporting belief, even though the beliefs are of opposite conclusions. The evidence may be arguable, but in both cases leads to "taking a stand" - to believing.

When we believe, the conclusions are drawn - we stop looking.

1. If Grandpa can show it, he knows it.

2. If he can't show it, I will lack belief.

3. Ignorance is not an excuse to give plausibility to or to accept any old crap that someone can pull out of their ass.

4. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

5. Not accepting unsupported assertions is not synonymous with 'stopping looking'.

Your scenario falsely implies that you cannot simply lack any belief in the absence of evidence, in effect, all you have done is repeat the same false assertion that atheism is a positive assertion that demands evidence or, if you like, asserted that it is the other side of the same coin as theism. It is a reasonably subtle attempt at trying to straw man the position of atheists when compared to others attempts around her but, nonetheless, that is what it is.

 

[VDL]

1. If Grandpa can show it, he knows it.

2. If he can't show it, I will lack belief.

3. Ignorance is not an excuse to give plausibility to or to accept any old crap that someone can pull out of their ass.

4. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

5. Not accepting unsupported assertions is not synonymous with 'stopping looking'.

Your scenario falsely implies that you cannot simply lack any belief in the absence of evidence, in effect, all you have done is repeat the same false assertion that atheism is a positive assertion that demands evidence or, if you like, asserted that it is the other side of the same coin as theism. It is a reasonably subtle attempt at trying to straw man the position of atheists when compared to others attempts around her but, nonetheless, that is what it is.

Evidence is subjective. What's deemed extraordinary is subjective. Ignorance is also subjective - we tend to slap the term on those who "ignore" the evidence that we
have accepted.

Atheistic fervor and religious zealotry seem to be reflective of one another. "pulled out of their ass" is as dismissive as "Refused to see the light". There's need expressed by both - to be right and to be certain. Are they not two sides of the same coin?

Atheistic fervor resembles religious zealotry. "Pulling it out of their ass" is as dismissive as "Refusing to see the light". Both express intolerance and a similar need -

 

[William Rea]

Evidence is subjective. What's deemed extraordinary is subjective. Ignorance is also subjective - we tend to slap the term on those who "ignore" the evidence that we
have accepted.

Atheistic fervor and religious zealotry seem to be reflective of one another. "pulled out of their ass" is as dismissive as "Refused to see the light". There's need expressed by both - to be right and to be certain. Are they not two sides of the same coin?

Atheistic fervor resembles religious zealotry. "Pulling it out of their ass" is as dismissive as "Refusing to see the light". Both express intolerance and a similar need -

Yeah, I had you pegged as a bit thin skinned and a 'two sides of the same coin' type. If you can't show it, you don't know it and if you want to get so easily offended by my reasoning then that's your problem, not mine so go find someone who agrees with you if that is what you really want on here.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

First, I'll admit I am more of a believer than a non-believer. I believe that there are no gods. I also believe that there is good reason to believe that there are no gods.

I hear what you're saying here, but I have a problem with the word 'believe'. I am an Atheist, the kind of atheist that does not believe. So there is no god for me at all. I do not believe that, but I know that. Is that not the difference between believers and non believers? I do respect the fact that many people do believe in a god though. That is there business. A lot of people feel much better when everything that they can not understand can be explained with a god. I just accept that I can not understand everything. At the same time I also think that more and more will be explained and be understandable in time. As we have seen already over the past several 100 years.

On a different note I would like to add that there is a growing group of people that do actually believe but want no association with a church or anything of that kind. It's called 'Ietsism'. It basically means that these people believe that there is something, but they have no idea what. Or at least that is my free interpretation of it. lol.

Ietsism (Dutch: ietsisme (pronounced [itsˈɪsmə]) – "somethingism") is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcendent force. (Wikipedia) My sister falls in this category. Known this for many years but it was not until recently that I realized that the word has actually been adapted into the English language.

Back to your list though. And although I am not quite sure why you need to categorise them, I am gonna give it a go to help you out here.

Agnostic: Has no idea if gods exist or not, doesn't really care either way. Ok.

Atheist 5th degree: Simply does not believe in gods, does not care if others do believe or say that gods exist. Ok.

Atheist 4th Degree: Also does not believe in gods, says he does not care if others do believe or not, but tends to challenge anyone who does. I think that the subtle difference between 4th, 3rd and 1st degree are too small to separate them and you can therefore join them.

Atheist 3rd Degree: Does not believe in gods, but argues furiously with those who say they do believe or that they exist

Atheist 2nd Degree: Believes gods do not exist, but is willing to accept that they just might. Ok. In this context I even think you can keep the word 'believe' in as well.

Atheist 1st Degree: Believes gods do not exist and mocks anyone who even hints at the notion that they might.

And with a bit of a shuffle that would bring me to the following list.

Agnostic: Has no idea if gods exist or not, doesn't really care either way.
Atheist 3rd Degree: Does not believe in gods, does not care if others do believe or say that gods exist.
Atheist 2nd Degree: Does not believe in gods and will challenge people who do.
Atheist 1st Degree: Does not believe in gods, but allows for the faint possibility that he/she is wrong and that gods actually do exist.

Joey

 

[calamity]

I hear what you're saying here, but I have a problem with the word 'believe'. I am an Atheist, the kind of atheist that does not believe. So there is no god for me at all. I do not believe that, but I know that. Is that not the difference between believers and non believers? I do respect the fact that many people do believe in a god though. That is there business. A lot of people feel much better when everything that they can not understand can be explained with a god. I just accept that I can not understand everything. At the same time I also think that more and more will be explained and be understandable in time. As we have seen already over the past several 100 years.

On a different note I would like to add that there is a growing group of people that do actually believe but want no association with a church or anything of that kind. It's called 'Ietsism'. It basically means that these people believe that there is something, but they have no idea what. Or at least that is my free interpretation of it. lol.

Ietsism (Dutch: ietsisme (pronounced [itsˈɪsmə]) – "somethingism") is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcendent force. (Wikipedia) My sister falls in this category. Known this for many years but it was not until recently that I realized that the word has actually been adapted into the English language.

Back to your list though. And although I am not quite sure why you need to categorise them, I am gonna give it a go to help you out here.

Agnostic: Has no idea if gods exist or not, doesn't really care either way. Ok.

Atheist 5th degree: Simply does not believe in gods, does not care if others do believe or say that gods exist. Ok.

Atheist 4th Degree: Also does not believe in gods, says he does not care if others do believe or not, but tends to challenge anyone who does. I think that the subtle difference between 4th, 3rd and 1st degree are too small to separate them and you can therefore join them.

Atheist 3rd Degree: Does not believe in gods, but argues furiously with those who say they do believe or that they exist

Atheist 2nd Degree: Believes gods do not exist, but is willing to accept that they just might. Ok. In this context I even think you can keep the word 'believe' in as well.

Atheist 1st Degree: Believes gods do not exist and mocks anyone who even hints at the notion that they might.

And with a bit of a shuffle that would bring me to the following list.

Agnostic: Has no idea if gods exist or not, doesn't really care either way.
Atheist 3rd Degree: Does not believe in gods, does not care if others do believe or say that gods exist.
Atheist 2nd Degree: Does not believe in gods and will challenge people who do.
Atheist 1st Degree: Does not believe in gods, but allows for the faint possibility that he/she is wrong and that gods actually do exist.

Joey

I don't think we can really "know" that there is no god. We can only believe it. Now, can we argue that this belief has merit since no evidence of gods has ever been found or presented? Maybe. I certainly believe that.

IMO, the only position one can take without a "belief" is that we simply do not know whether or not gods exist.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

I don't think we can really "know" that there is no god. We can only believe it.

I am sorry, but I am disagreeing with you here. Just because many people believe or claim there is a god doesn't mean that there actually is one. It's a bit like the monster of Loch Ness. A lot of claims and no evidence. As a matter of fact there is more evidence that there is not. I like to take it for what it is. It is meant as a way of life to live together in a more peaceful and civilised manner. Any evidence that he been presented in the past to the contrary has always been dismissed first. And than years later they admitted it to be true and changed their own story to fit the 'new truth'. I think religion can be a great thing. I think it is a great thing for some people. But it is just a nice story. From which we can learn a lot. And should learn a lot. nothing more, nothing less.

Moreover, the word believe shows lack of certainty and therefore implicates doubt. I do not believe, because I do not have doubt about my opinion. Zero doubt.

But the end of the day, that is just my opinion. I am well aware that there is a lot of people that strongly disagree with me here. And that is just fine for me.

Joey

 

[William Rea]

I don't think we can really "know" that there is no god. We can only believe it. Now, can we argue that this belief has merit since no evidence of gods has ever been found or presented? Maybe. I certainly believe that.

IMO, the only position one can take without a "belief" is that we simply do not know whether or not gods exist.

And you would be as wrong as Frank by saying that.

 

[calamity]

And you would be as wrong as Frank by saying that.

There you go bringing up Frank again. Dude must have really gotten under your skin.

Best we atheists can do is argue null hypothesis when it comes to saying "God does not exist." And that argument can be blown away by one simple question. "Have you looked under every rock in the entire universe and potential multiverse to be sure no gods are hiding there?"