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

Views: 8776

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was thinking about this last night, and I also think "confidence" is a much better word that "faith" to express what you mean, Strgaze5. I understand the desire to change the terms such that everybody appears to agree, but there is, in fact, a fundamental disagreement about how to view the universe between theists and atheists. You can't paper that over by redefining terms. That just further confuses people. You don't, in fact, operate on the basis of faith. You should abandon the term, as you've abandoned its practice.
No, Strgaze, you're right. Atheism is a form of faith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can say, your opinion is by NO MEANS SILLY! :)
No. If I think in the abstract about some universal intelligence, I am doubtful of that but am less emphatic about that than I am about people's petty religious beliefs.
100% is quite a leap. I feel there is about as much chance of a god existing as ghosts or faeries. I'd give a slightly better chance to sasquatch and nessie and slightly less chance for santa and leprechauns. If a god were out there I would give again less chance that it were a worship style god and even less chance it's a god like anything our religions have put forth. The question is what line do we draw between natural phenomena and a god? I can't see anything being discovered beyond good 'ol scientific processes.
100% is only for fools
Exactly. If there is a god, here I am.... show me something. Otherwise I'll keep spreading the word of reason.
It would be insufficient and illogical for anyone to conclude anything at 100%. Perception is inherently inadequate and cannot make up the difference between limits of human thinking and actual existence beyond the individual mind(s). I am as skeptical of any person stating the absolute existence of God as well as anyone stating the absolute absence of one (or many). There are so many arguments out there (perceptions expressed through linguistic symbology) I instantly become guarded with absolute expressions. Who can truly know? Maybe we ARE all brains in a jar amongst a laboratory of other jar-brained experiments being manipulated by a psychotic Scientist at his massive super-computer. It is no more absurd than any other definite description. And even though I do agree there are reasonable stratifications which can be utilitarian pertaining interactions of physical and non-physical instantiations, I feel hard-pressed to sign-on to anything 100%.

Of course, herein lies the rub: For someone like myself to so heavily rely upon the presumption that nothing should be considered as 100%, I would in fact be breaking the "absolute" supposition. In other words if I don't think that anything should be considered 100% absolute, I am expressing an opinion that 100% of everything is questionable. Therefore I am in conflict. I can't both believe that 100% of everything is a "maybe" and also believe that there exists no 100% absolutes.

Except: I do know that my perception is both accurate and can be shown to be fallable. I do know that my perception is wrought with ideations of non-linear fantasies constrained in a linear pattern of thinking.

On my best day I can only make an equivalent risk assessment ultimately the same as any other individual: I can only weigh the risk of being wrong about being absolutely 100% sure about something against the risk of recognising that nothing can be absolutely known.

No. There exists no God or Gods. This is only because the tangent to the line becomes infinite and I become exhausted continuously seeking the latest answer to the input in the equation which does not mesh with the goal: the line... God.

The existence of a God or Gods is the only argument I have witnessed where the PROOF of something that has no apparent physical attributes is psychologically-conversely manipulated upon the fears of humans to convice us all that the legitimacy of the proposition weighs honus upon the non-believer. In other words: You believe in God(s). It is not my responsibility to prove its existence. And it is not anywhere near important enough to discuss within education.

Just because you BELIEVE the tangent to a line ultimately becomes attached to the line does not mean that i have to relent to it when you cannot prove it in light of us all becoming exhausted trying to find the proof. Until the Believers find proof of a tangent-line, all I see is a separate tangent and a separate line.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

Latest Activity

Keith Brian Johnson replied to Luara's discussion Puzzle in real analysis in the group Mathematics
20 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Finland's Gay Bondage Stamps in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
35 minutes ago
Sentient Biped replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Finland's Gay Bondage Stamps in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
44 minutes ago
Irrelevant People liked Atheist Andrea's discussion Are you open about being an atheist or are you in the closet?
49 minutes ago
Sentient Biped commented on Claire Donnelly's group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
51 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Steph S.'s discussion How to be Tactful Responding With Diplomacy and Grace in the group Ethics and The Atheist
52 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Finland's Gay Bondage Stamps in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
54 minutes ago
Luara replied to Luara's discussion A question for the ex-religious
55 minutes ago
Loren Miller replied to Steph S.'s discussion How to be Tactful Responding With Diplomacy and Grace in the group Ethics and The Atheist
59 minutes ago
Sentient Biped replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Finland's Gay Bondage Stamps in the group LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends
1 hour ago
Patricia replied to James M. Martin's discussion Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Why "Cosmos" Will NOT be Accompanied by Creationist Explanation for...well...the Cosmos
1 hour ago
Idaho Spud commented on Sentient Biped's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service