Don't atheists need to have absolute knowledge in order to be atheists?

[DaProle]

In order to state that God doesn't exist we have to have absolute knowlege which we don't have. The most scientific statement I could think of would be that science can neither confirm nor deny the existance of God. Isn't this un-scientific simply deny the existense of God?

[masonman]

Atheism is not asking wether or not a God COULD exist. The theism question in a binary one. There is no middle ground. You either believe there is a god or you do not.

 

If I told you about the invisible unicorn standing next to us, whether or not a unicorn could POSSIBLY exist is a different question, the question we're dealing with here is "do you believe this unicorn exists." Any rational human would say "no." And if such a unicorn was found on some planet a billion miles away, the unicorn I brought up would still not exist, because I created that from my imagination based upon no direct evidence. What was found was something completely different. However, all ideas of god that are inherently contradictory are immediately false.

[Arius]

So, you're strictly agnostic with respect to unicorns?

[MrCapitalism]

Science has not been able to prove that the world is not flat.

[Kawlinz]

Are we talking comic book hero gods that didn't create the universe (or everything) like Zeus and Posidon? Or are we talking about gods that are uncaused causes, omnipotent/omniscient, creators of everything while escaping being a part of everything?

[Arius]

Science has not been able to prove that the world is not flat.

Everyone knows science is fake....pffffff

[Stefan Molyneux]

The moment you use the word "god" you are making specific knowledge claims about an entity, which are testable.

[TheRobin]

 

In order to state that God doesn't exist we have to have absolute knowlege which we don't have. The most scientific statement I could think of would be that science can neither confirm nor deny the existance of God. Isn't this un-scientific simply deny the existense of God?

 

in short, no it's not unscientific, because the burden of proof lies on th one making the claim that God exists, BUT: Would you be willing to make this a little more practical? Can you give me your definition of the term "God" and we'll see where we go from there? Cause I think this isn't really about science more than about metaphysics and epistemology and/or failing to see some basic contradictions when working with the idea of a "God"

(I can also recommend stefs videos/podcast on these topics (you'll fuind them in the "introduction to philosophy"-series. I think you could get much out of it regardless of whether you currently think it scientific/rational to assume a deity's existence or not)

[Alan C.]

Providing empirical evidence for the non-existence of gods is a sucker's game and a paradox of infinite perplexity for reasons I wrote here.

[Metric]

 

In order to state that God doesn't exist we have to have absolute knowlege which we don't have. The most scientific statement I could think of would be that science can neither confirm nor deny the existance of God. Isn't this un-scientific simply deny the existense of God?

 

If you define an atheist as "someone who makes an absolute and positive claim that there is no god, over all possible consistent definitions of god," then the above makes some sense.  However, that's a very non-standard definition which is often used as a straw man by religious types -- it applies to no self-described atheist that I've ever actually met.  In the more standard terminology (which actually does describe every atheist I know), atheist simply means "not a theist" (i.e. not someone who is actively claiming belief in a god).

Until very recently I used to claim the "agnostic" label, just to make it extra-super-clear that I wasn't taking the "positive claim about all possible gods" type of position, but I've been won over by some threads discussing the terminology, here -- there's really no need to go out of one's way to accomodate positions that are only used as straw men.  Just use the word as it is commonly understood by nearly every atheist, "no positive theistic beliefs," which is by far the most conservative position in terms of knowledge claims.

[STer]

I have long found these discussions annoying because they end up being more about the labels than the issue at hand. All of this could be avoided if we just skipped the labels and went right to the heart of the matter.

Science deals with confidence levels - in other words, probabilities.

So the only question that really matters is this:

What do you believe is the probability that there is a God? (of course, providing whatever definition of God you want to know someone's belief about).

True believers in a given definition of God will say 100%. Some other people might say 0%. I think both answers are equally absurd as humans cannot know anything with those levels of certainty.

Everyone else will fall somewhere in between.

[Arius]

True believers in a given definition of God will say 100%. Some other people might say 0%. I think both answers are equally absurd as humans cannot know anything with those levels of certainty.

You sure?

[STer]

 

True believers in a given definition of God will say 100%. Some other people might say 0%. I think both answers are equally absurd as humans cannot know anything with those levels of certainty.

You sure?

 

I think

[]

 

[DaProle]

 

The moment you use the word "god" you are making specific knowledge claims about an entity, which are testable.

 

Stefan, quantum physicists are making claims about entities (particles) that are now yet known. Then they try to test that. That might take some time and considerable resources. The point is that the science acquires new knowledge in order to prove/disprove something. As long as we don't have that knowledge (yet?), to me it looks unscientific to be atheist. 

[Arius]

Stefan, quantum physicists are making claims about entities (particles) that are now yet known. Then they try to test that. That might take some time and considerable resources. The point is that the science acquires new knowledge in order to prove/disprove something. As long as we don't have that knowledge (yet?), to me it looks unscientific to be atheist

So, you're strictly agnostic with respect to unicorns?

[DaProle]

 

Stefan, quantum physicists are making claims about entities (particles) that are now yet known. Then they try to test that. That might take some time and considerable resources. The point is that the science acquires new knowledge in order to prove/disprove something. As long as we don't have that knowledge (yet?), to me it looks unscientific to be atheist

So, you're strictly agnostic with respect to unicorns?

 

 

I wasn't talking about agnosticism. I was talking about atheism being unscientific.

 

[STer]

 

Stefan, quantum physicists are making claims about entities (particles) that are now yet known. Then they try to test that. That might take some time and considerable resources. The point is that the science acquires new knowledge in order to prove/disprove something. As long as we don't have that knowledge (yet?), to me it looks unscientific to be atheist

So, you're strictly agnostic with respect to unicorns?

 

See my post above. The only really important question here is "What do you believe is the probability that unicorns exist?"

Once you have that % you can make up whatever labels you want. The % is what matters.

[Arius]

I wasn't talking about agnosticism. I was talking about atheism being unscientific.

Gotcha....  So, you wouldn't say "Unicorns don't exist"?  You might say "It's unscientific to make any claims about the existence or non-existence of unicorns"?

Let me ask you, is there anything which doesn't exist?

[DaProle]

 

Let me ask you, is there anything which doesn't exist?

 

It's not really a 'gotcha'. According to science, the universe is unlimited therefore there is probability that enything exists.

[DaProle]

 

Once you have that % you can make up whatever labels you want. The % is what matters.

 

Are you trying to say that atheists are those who think there is 51% probability that God doesn't exist? That would actually be scientific in my opinion. But that's not what the "official" definition of atheist is, I think.

[Arius]

According to science, the universe is unlimited therefore there is probability that enything exists.

Well...strictly speaking, you've eliminated the possibility that a universe, in-which with some things can't exist, exists.  Somewhere, in the deep reaches of space, a contradiction is waiting to be discovered.

[STer]

 

 

Once you have that % you can make up whatever labels you want. The % is what matters.

 

Are you trying to say that atheists are those who think there is 51% probability that God doesn't exist? That would actually be scientific in my opinion. But that's not what the "official" definition of atheist is, I think.

 

I'm saying why even waste our time with these verbal labels when we can go right to the precise %'s? I do not understand people's need to take the %'s, make up words that go with the %'s and then get in endless arguments about which words go with which %. Who cares? All I need to know is the % itself. The rest is, to me, pointless confusion and distraction.

Do we want to know precisely what someone believes? Or do we find it more important to debate which name goes with that belief? I just care about the belief itself and the % pinpoints that. And I also find it revealing when someone refuses to just focus on the %'s and keeps trying to create confusion with the words. It really shows what their priority is.

[Metric]

 

 

 

Once you have that % you can make up whatever labels you want. The % is what matters.

 

Are you trying to say that atheists are those who think there is 51% probability that God doesn't exist? That would actually be scientific in my opinion. But that's not what the "official" definition of atheist is, I think.

 

I'm saying why even waste our time with these verbal labels when we can go right to the precise %'s? I do not understand people's need to take the %'s, make up words that go with the %'s and then get in endless arguments about which words go with which %. Who cares? All I need to know is the % itself. The rest is, to me, pointless confusion and distraction.

Do we want to know precisely what someone believes? Or do we find it more important to debate which name goes with that belief? I just care about the belief itself and the % pinpoints that. And I also find it revealing when someone refuses to just focus on the %'s and keeps trying to create confusion with the words. It really shows what their priority is.

 

I mostly agree -- it's far better to just state your position, if you're trying to be precise.  But we have these pre-built words that are supposed to mean something, and various factions want to strategically shift the meaning of the labels (mostly without being explicit about it) in order to make the opposing factions seem absurd.  So the endless arguments and confusion are sort of by design -- it happens because clarity on the issue is not in the best interest of the majority.

 

[NotDarkYet]

Hi DaProle,

That was a question I had many many years ago when I was just losing my religion.

The quick answer is this:

 

Do you KNOW there is no such thing as a square-circle?

 

Yes, a thing cannot be itself, and NOT itself at the same time.

 

God is a self-contradictiory entity at many levels.

 

--

 

Also, the burden of proof is upon the agnostic, not the atheist.  If god exists...then he will have mass..or be energy...or the effect of one of those things.  So it's a testable hypothesis.

[STer]

 

Hi DaProle,

That was a question I had many many years ago when I was just losing my religion.

The quick answer is this:

 

Do you KNOW there is no such thing as a square-circle?

 

Yes, a thing cannot be itself, and NOT itself at the same time.

 

God is a self-contradictiory entity at many levels.

 

--

 

Also, the burden of proof is upon the agnostic, not the atheist.  If god exists...then he will have mass..or be energy...or the effect of one of those things.  So it's a testable hypothesis.

 

Many would have said something can't be both a particle and a wave at the same time. And yet we eventually found that light is. The world is much stranger than the human mind has ever been able to comprehend. Things that seem to us impossible or contradictory might be child's play if we were only smarter or had different perceptive capabilities. I think it's foolish for humans to ever 100% rule out any possibility. It's equally foolish to just accept any possibility as likely.

[STer]

 

 

 

 

Once you have that % you can make up whatever labels you want. The % is what matters.

 

Are you trying to say that atheists are those who think there is 51% probability that God doesn't exist? That would actually be scientific in my opinion. But that's not what the "official" definition of atheist is, I think.

 

I'm saying why even waste our time with these verbal labels when we can go right to the precise %'s? I do not understand people's need to take the %'s, make up words that go with the %'s and then get in endless arguments about which words go with which %. Who cares? All I need to know is the % itself. The rest is, to me, pointless confusion and distraction.

Do we want to know precisely what someone believes? Or do we find it more important to debate which name goes with that belief? I just care about the belief itself and the % pinpoints that. And I also find it revealing when someone refuses to just focus on the %'s and keeps trying to create confusion with the words. It really shows what their priority is.

 

I mostly agree -- it's far better to just state your position, if you're trying to be precise.  But we have these pre-built words that are supposed to mean something, and various factions want to strategically shift the meaning of the labels (mostly without being explicit about it) in order to make the opposing factions seem absurd.  So the endless arguments and confusion are sort of by design -- it happens because clarity on the issue is not in the best interest of the majority.

 

 

Yes exactly my point. And what I'm saying is that this is a good test for motive. If someone is really after the truth regarding the beliefs, they will be happy when you point out that the % is more effective and start using it. If they are trying to manipulate and obfuscate, they'll continue trying to force you to stick to the words where they can more easily twist things. They want to keep things in the realm where they can better dodge and weave - the verbal one.

By the way, there is a great term for the field that would study this kind of corrupting verbal manipulation: Patho-Semantics

[LovePrevails]

 

you can't say for certain that god doesn't exist

you can say there is no particular reason or evidence to think that god exists

[Arius]

Things that seem to us impossible or contradictory might be child's play if we were only smarter or had different perceptive capabilities.

You must really want to be correct to abandon all reason in favor of the possibility of not being wrong.  Why does the idea of god not existing scare you so much?

[STer]

 

Things that seem to us impossible or contradictory might be child's play if we were only smarter or had different perceptive capabilities.

You must really want to be correct to abandon all reason in favor of the possibility of not being wrong.  Why does the idea of god not existing scare you so much?

 

You must really want to stretch the meaning of "reason" if you think it means having absolute certainty. Why does the idea of not having absolute certainty in this world scare you so much?

[Arius]

I'm not the one arguing that square circles might exist.

[NotDarkYet]

 

 

Hi DaProle,

That was a question I had many many years ago when I was just losing my religion.

The quick answer is this:

 

Do you KNOW there is no such thing as a square-circle?

 

Yes, a thing cannot be itself, and NOT itself at the same time.

 

God is a self-contradictiory entity at many levels.

 

--

 

Also, the burden of proof is upon the agnostic, not the atheist.  If god exists...then he will have mass..or be energy...or the effect of one of those things.  So it's a testable hypothesis.

 

Many would have said something can't be both a particle and a wave at the same time.

 

"Particle" and "Wave" were concepts about things too small to see with our naked eyes.  Reality DIDN'T contradict itself here...our concepts did.  We adjusted our concepts to fit reality.

And if NOTHING can be certain, why do you say "We 100% can't be 100% certain about truth"  Isn't that a contradiction?  You're making a statement of certainty about reality.

[Rick Horton]

 

Debating with Christians is insane. They've already turned their back on reason, so they really don't care about truth. They have turned their backs on the VERY idea that you can even know right from wrong. They read that shit in the bible, follow the orders of the Pastors, and spew the disease to the children. There is no need to debate God in realm of reality. It's utter abuse. Christians are not moral. They are abusers by turning people away from reason, and they can be SHAMED, but not reasoned with. Shaming them is all you can do, because you see, THEY deserve it, like any other members of the human race that try to control your brain by killing your logic. 

[STer]

 

I'm not the one arguing that square circles might exist.

 

And yet something that is both a particle and a wave at the same time does exist. Would you have said that was possible before it was discovered?

[STer]

 

"Particle" and "Wave" were concepts about things too small to see with our naked eyes.  Reality DIDN'T contradict itself here...our concepts did.  We adjusted our concepts to fit reality.

 

I never said reality contradicted itself. I pointed out that something that seemed impossible to us turned out to be possible. As you said, we found a level of reality we couldn't perceive before and at that level things were not the same as they are at the levels we had previously known. Things that seemed impossible at our everyday level were commonplace at that level. There are areas of reality we have no perception of at all so it's absurd for us to claim certainty in any eternal way.

 

And if NOTHING can be certain, why do you say "We 100% can't be 100% certain about truth"  Isn't that a contradiction?  You're making a statement of certainty about reality.

 

I refer you back to only a few posts ago where someone tried to trip me up on this already.

[DaProle]

Moncaloono, other than bashing Christians, you post says absolutely nothing. This thread wasn't about any particular religion at all.

From what I can tell, both theists and atheists are believers. It's a matter of faith for both groups. That's what makes them similar and this is what makes them both unscientific even though they have opposite beliefs. IMHO.