The Advantage of Being an Athiest

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by Dondi

You've actually made my point. The athiest doesn't have to prove anything. It is the thiest who holds the burden of proof.

Don't think so, the atheist MUST prove that god does not exist, whether it matches god as described by any of the world religions is another matter.
I agree with Paladin, the only honest option is agnosticism if you really want to stand by the rules of logic and proof. Theism and atheism are both positions of faith and there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm just as comfortable in my theism as they are in their atheism, perhaps more so for I am hopeful that my life will continue. If I'm wrong, then I won't know it. If they are wrong, then they will. I know, I know, it sounds like Pascal wager.

The other side of the coin, is that if god does not exist, you may restrict your choices in this life for nothing. In other words, what may you do differently if you know that this is the only life you've got?

And also: we may not live eternally, but god may still exist........

[wil]

Interesting comtemplation, if the atheist was wrong, there a number of people that could be right.

What are their odds?

Just because one is atheist does not mean they are not moral, compassionate, caring, philanthropic, loving individuals...so how would the various potential religions treat them?

What percentage of the world believes it wouldn't matter, that they would be judged on their works, or not judged at all?

What percentage of people believe in a vengeful G-d, who would penalize the atheist?

Then we have the issue of, of the vengeful G-d religions, which one do we choose as if we choose the wrong one, are we in the same position as one who didn't choose any of them?

So much for Pascal's wager...

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Yes in principle. I am familiar with the impossibility to prove the non-existence of something. (The three letters WMD spring to mind.) But to say that theists are positing God as an optional extra is to be drawn into the atheist world view before you begin.

Theists view God an an indispensible part of life as we know it. You might as well debate the existence of your own head. The trouble is, such is the pervasiveness of post-enlightenment thinking that many religious believers can now only think of God as an add-on.

So the answer is a given before the question is investigated. My lunar hamsters are an indispensible part of my life; to say otherwise is to be drawn into the anti-lunar hamster world view before we begin.

s.

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

So the answer is a given before the question is investigated. My lunar hamsters are an indispensible part of my life; to say otherwise is to be drawn into the anti-lunar hamster world view before we begin.
s.

Lunar hamsters are one thing; the colour red is another. And yet there are people who cannot see the colour red. Does this mean it doesn't exist?

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Paladin

It is my contention that the only logical ( and I speak about a linear logic here) stance would have to be agnostic.

I agree.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist (perhaps ignostic igtheist is a better description). I certainly do not know that the God concept (whatever it is to a given theist) is not an accurate reflection of reality. If it is a supernatural concept I submit that I cannot know (and neither can the theist), if it is some other more complicated or abstract concept then I simply accept that it is currently meaningless to me.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by wil

Interesting comtemplation, if the atheist was wrong, there a number of people that could be right.

I personally hope I am wrong, and if anyone's right it is someone who believes in a truly benevolent, all knowing, creative entity. I like to think that if I'm wrong I could get the answers to questions that I missed or misunderstood.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Lunar hamsters are one thing; the colour red is another. And yet there are people who cannot see the colour red. Does this mean it doesn't exist?

Hi,

No, it means they are colour blind. That part of the electromagnetic spectrum called "red" still exists.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by wil

Then we have the issue of, of the vengeful G-d religions, which one do we choose as if we choose the wrong one, are we in the same position as one who didn't choose any of them?

As Homer (Simpson) said: what if we are worshipping the wrong god - every time we go to church we'll just be making him madder and madder.

s.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

As Homer (Simpson) said: what if we are worshipping the wrong god - every time we go to church we'll just be making him madder and madder.

s.

In away that cartoon is showing light, from studying.. The little I did it shows most gods are not happy if you worship the "wrong" god.... So I feel as if maybe if you worship "none of the above" so surley you are seen as neutral and not an enemy? And if you basically haven't enough proof or evidence to confirm to yourself which is right and which is wrong. If there is a true and real god surley he would show mercy upon you when it comes to being judged?

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi,

No, it means they are colour blind. That part of the electromagnetic spectrum called "red" still exists.
s.

I really meant "red" (subjective) not "electromagnetic spectrum" (objective). Another example: Russians don't see blue, because in Russian light blue and dark blue are two different colours.

It is easy to dismiss an image of God if all you see is an old man on a cloud, or a violent guy hurling thunderbolts. And these metaphors have been used a lot through the ages. Few people in the West seriously believe in that sort of God now. The words we use are "transcendant" and "immanent": meaning roughly that he is both more and bigger than the universe, and also exists in every smallest part of it. So when you see any part of the universe you are seeing God. Like water to a fish, it is so much in everything that you can't see it.

Another analogy: the earth owes all its life to the sun. We have fires and electricity and gas but they all derive their energy from the sun. Now think of all beautiful, creative and creating, loving, true qualities you have known or seen in your life, and instead of seeing them as fragmented instances, see them all as being derived from a single source.

Some people call this source "The Universe" (to mean something that you can interact or have a relationship with), some call it "God" or "The Force" or "Allah" or whatever. Names are not the issue. If you know and believe in love, just that, that is enough. All the rest is dispensible.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Caimanson

Don't think so, the atheist MUST prove that god does not exist, whether it matches god as described by any of the world religions is another matter.

No, again! - see post 10. When any assertion is made the onus is on the person making the proposition to provide proof, if proof can be provided. If I claim giant pink hamsters live on the moon why should I expect anyone else to provide proof that they do not exist? It is up to me to provide the evidence that they do. Otherwise we could all claim all sorts of nonsense and say that as no-one has proven it not to be so then it all exists.

s.

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

No, again! - see post 10. When any assertion is made the onus is on the person making the proposition to provide proof, if proof can be provided. If I claim giant pink hamsters live on the moon why should I expect anyone else to provide proof that they do not exist? It is up to me to provide the evidence that they do. Otherwise we could all claim all sorts of nonsense and say that as no-one has proven it not to be so then it all exists.

s.

I see it differently, imo atheism is not a neutral stance regarding god.

As soon as I claim that there are no pink hamsters in the moon, I am placing a belief and responsibility in that statement.
If I don't claim anything either way, then there is nothing for me to prove or disprove.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Caimanson

I see it differently, imo atheism is not a neutral stance regarding god.

As soon as I claim that there are no pink hamsters in the moon, I am placing a belief and responsibility in that statement.
If I don't claim anything either way, then there is nothing for me to prove or disprove.

This is an interesting proposition. If there is no God, then the belief in God must be a delusion of some kind , perhaps even pathological, therefore if I were an atheist it would be absurd for me to disprove what a deluded person believes to be true, the only hope would be that with some scientific process I could prove the delusion exists or at least the propensity for this condition of believing in something we can't see. Now, this puts me in a tenable position because I still have to prove a subjective experience is in effect pathological in nature.

All of this is pure conjecture on my part of course and doesn't really represent what is truly going on, but do you begin to see the absurdity of theist/atheist debate?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Caimanson

I see it differently, imo atheism is not a neutral stance regarding god.

As soon as I claim that there are no pink hamsters in the moon, I am placing a belief and responsibility in that statement.
If I don't claim anything either way, then there is nothing for me to prove or disprove.

Hi,

I can understand you saying you cannot make an assertion either way and so not feel you need to prove or disprove something. But do you not see the validity in the onus being on the person making an assertion to provide proof? (The reference to proof was made in the original post of this thread). What responsibility lies with you in saying you cannot accept there are lunar hamsters when it is me that is making the assertion? Am I clearly not making a ridiculous claim and so unless I can provide some evidence I should keep my mouth shut on the subject of lunar hamsters?

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi,

No I'm sorry but this isn't something that "works both ways." Let's remove the specifics of this particular argument/belief for a moment (theism/atheism) and focus on the proof principle in general.

If a person posits the existence of something (anything at all) then the ONUS is on this person to provide proof of its existence, if indeed the person feels that it is possible. The onus is NOT on anybody else to demonstrate that the thing does not exist. Any other approach is irrational and would mean the entire world's population could live in a fantasy world divorced from reality. I could, for example, claim that there are giant pink hamsters living on the moon. It is up to me to provide evidence of their existence. Every one else may say they do not exist but the onus is not on them to provide evidence that they do not exist since it is me that is making the claim for their existence and so it is up to me to provide the objectively assessable evidence. This is simple sound logic which applies to any proposition, whether it is for my lunar hamsters, gravity, evolution, deities, nirvana, salmon, Santa Claus, blue cheese, black swans or hell.

s.

Assuming that something doesn't exist without even attempting to open your eyes for it can lead to a great deal of embarassment down the road...

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I can understand you saying you cannot make an assertion either way and so not feel you need to prove or disprove something. But do you not see the validity in the onus being on the person making an assertion to provide proof? (The reference to proof was made in the original post of this thread). What responsibility lies with you in saying you cannot accept there are lunar hamsters when it is me that is making the assertion? Am I clearly not making a ridiculous claim and so unless I can provide some evidence I should keep my mouth shut on the subject of lunar hamsters?

The moral of the story: make sure your eyes are open before making the assertion of the non-existance of something...