Atheists unite

[tbyeah]

But this is the thing; if I said there is a purple hippo travelling at the speed of light outside of our reality, transcending time and space etc, it doesn't lend it any credibility. Saying "there's this thing, but it's impossible for us to understand it, to see it, to find it", doesn't either. It's still me who has to show something for it. My purple hippo is a load of tosh (most likely) until I can show something for it. No-one should have to try and disprove it.

And yes purple hippo is some definition. How does making it more vague add further credibility? Inability to disprove != any form of proof, evidence, factual basis at all. Nil.

 

[Castiel]

Maybe you're misinterpreting what people are often implying then? Even militant athiest types don't tend to IME - Richard Dawkins doesn't dismiss abstract notions of 'God' for example.

Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist in the narrowest sense.

 

[dowie]

In any case, dismissing attributes, or definitions of a concept based upon those attributes still doesn't dismiss the concept itself...this is the point,

the concept is only defined by the attributes, definitions - without them it is irrelevant and meaningless... dismissing those attributes does dismiss the particular concept they define

 

[dowie]

Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist in the narrowest sense.

but I think its quite clear that a lot of people who call themselves 'atheist' (perhaps even the majority - I don't know) would likely fall outside your definition of atheism into agnosticism, ignosticism etc..

 

[Castiel]

But this is the thing; if I said there is a purple hippo travelling at the speed of light outside of our reality, transcending time and space etc, it doesn't lend it any credibility. Saying "there's this thing, but it's impossible for us to understand it, to see it, to find it", doesn't either. It's still me who has to show something for it. My purple hippo is a load of tosh (most likely) until I can show something for it. No-one should have to try and disprove it.

The fact that you state that it is an invention that has no credibility and it is clearly an illustration rather than a definitive statement of a truth you hold gives us enough objective information with which to determine both the underlying nature and truth value of the subject.

 

[Castiel]

but I think its quite clear that a lot of people who call themselves 'atheist' (perhaps even the majority - I don't know) would likely fall outside your definition of atheism into agnosticism

Perhaps, but the question relates to the question of "Does God Exist" and making definitive statements as to the truth value of either the positive or negative positions. Whether a specific named individual has made such or not is not really under discussion.

 

[tbyeah]

The fact that you state that it is an invention that has no credibility and it is clearly an illustration rather than a definitive statement of a truth you hold gives us enough objective information with which to determine both the underlying nature and truth value of the subject.

Say I came to you, you had never met me before, and I made this claim in all seriousness. Would you give equal weight to both sides?

 

[Castiel]

the concept is only defined by the attributes, definitions - without them it is irrelevant and meaningless... dismissing those attributes does dismiss the particular concept they define

But not the concept. Dismissing the existence of Odin doesn't by association dismiss the existence of God, all it does is dismiss one particular interpretation or manifestation of that concept.

 

[Castiel]

Say I came to you, you had never met me before, and I made this claim in all seriousness. Would you give equal weight to both sides?

I would suggest that while the idea of a God defined as such (purple flying hippo) is unlikely to be credible and based more upon your own interpretation and manifestation of Gods nature using your own experience and limitations than what the potential nature of God is, that the idea of a being that transcends our own experience is still open to consideration. So while I could discern objectively giving a sound reasoning that some of the attributes you personally attach to your interpretation are not likely to be credible, others I have no objective way of discerning...this means I could effectively dismiss your manifestation of God while accepting the possibility that God in some form could exist.

So it isn't about giving equal weight, it never was...it is about discerning what we can and cannot objectively demonstrate...I have no burden to disprove your manifestation, I don't have to accept it and by not accepting it I do not assume any burden to disprove it... but if I simply said, God doesn't exist, then I would have to demonstrate why..therefore assuming a burden of proof. So do you see that it isn't whether God exists or not, or whether you are a theist or not that determines the burden of proof...it is simply the expression of a definitive position as a statement of truth that incurs the burden of proof.

 

[tbyeah]

But not the concept. Dismissing the existence of Odin doesn't by association dismiss the existence of God, all it does is dismiss one particular interpretation or manifestation of that concept.

Point is all interpretations put to me have been lacking in proof or evidence. As I would with any other sort of claim, I rejected them. Due to this, I lack belief in any gods. There.

 

[dowie]

But not the concept. Dismissing the existence of Odin doesn't by association dismiss the existence of God, all it does is dismiss one particular interpretation or manifestation of that concept.

I didn't say it did dismiss any general concept

 

[tbyeah]

I would suggest that while the idea of a God defined as such (purple flying hippo) is unlikely to be credible and based more upon your own interpretation and manifestation of Gods nature using your own experience and limitations than what the potential nature of God is, that the idea of a being that transcends our own experience is still open to consideration. So while I could discern objectively that some of the attributes you personally attach to your interpretation are not credible, others I have no objective way of discerning...this means I could effectively dismiss your manifestation of God while accepting the possibility that God could exist.

So it isn't about giving equal weight, it never was...it is about discerning what we can and cannot objectively demonstrate.

I have agreed with that this whole time, god cannot be disproven. But there is not equal weight to each side as was implied (by Gilly I think).

Claim -> proof? -> no -> it's unlikely then. Is basically what I'm saying.

 

[dowie]

Point is all interpretations put to me have been lacking in proof or evidence. As I would with any other sort of claim, I rejected them. Due to this, I lack belief in any gods. There.

I'd dismiss lots of concepts/definitions of 'God' but the more abstract the concept the harder it is to dismiss... if someone's concept of 'God' starts becoming rather general - the universe... all matter/energy within it, the rules they appear to obey etc.. then it isn't necessarily something to be dismissed - its just some abstract concept

 

[Castiel]

Point is all interpretations put to me have been lacking in proof or evidence. As I would with any other sort of claim, I rejected them. Due to this, I lack belief in any gods. There.

In any Gods thus far demonstrated?

I have agreed with that this whole time, god cannot be disproven. But there is not equal weight to each side as was implied (by Gilly I think).

Claim -> proof? -> no -> it's unlikely then. Is basically what I'm saying.

There is equal burden of proof on both sides if each side makes a definitive statement regarding the existence or non-existence of God however. That doesn't mean the truth value of each argument is equal, just that the burden on each party is equal.

Simply not accepting something is not the same as opposing something.

There is also the rather subjective nature of what the individual determines as being acceptable evidence...but it's late and that's a debate for another time.

 

[James J]

I have agreed with that this whole time, god cannot be disproven. But there is not equal weight to each side as was implied (by Gilly I think).

Claim -> proof? -> no -> it's unlikely then. Is basically what I'm saying.

As you probably know, it's impossible to prove something without knowing how to find the evidence from it. Its how science has to work sequentially to prove basic ideas as "fact" (which can be again changed if a later discovery challenges the model), before moving on to more advanced experimentation.

If we didn't have our current model of phsyics, we wouldn't have the large hadron collider as the worlds greatest experiment, proving the model on which it was built to challenge. In regards to god, maybe we aren't at a stage where we know enough about the universe to actually comprehend (scientifically) such an entity to exist.

Our problem as humans is we want answers in our lifetime and it makes us amazingly impatient as a species. I firmly believe that the question will be answered when our civilisation gets to a technological point where our understanding of the universe, from how it was made to exactly how matter and pre-matter is made and functions, will give us the ability to truly test the theory once and for all. Until then, this is all just conjecture.

 

[tbyeah]

As you probably know, it's impossible to prove something without knowing how to find the evidence from it. Its how science has to work sequentially to prove basic ideas as "fact" (which can be again changed if a later discovery challenges the model), before moving on to more advanced experimentation.

If we didn't have our current model of phsyics, we wouldn't have the large hadron collider as the worlds greatest experiment, proving the model on which it was built to challenge. In regards to god, maybe we aren't at a stage where we know enough about the universe to actually comprehend (scientifically) such an entity to exist.

Our problem as humans is we want answers in our lifetime and it makes us amazingly impatient as a species. I firmly believe that the question will be answered when our civilisation gets to a technological point where our understanding of the universe, from how it was made to exactly how matter and pre-matter is made and functions, will give us the ability to truly test the theory once and for all. Until then, this is all just conjecture.

I completely agree. And as such, until proof can be found to support the claim of a god of any religion, I do not accept these claims. Hence, I am an agnostic atheist.

 

[James J]

I completely agree. And as such, until proof can be found to support the claim of a god of any religion, I do not accept these claims. Hence, I am an agnostic atheist.

Same here. Unlike the OP though, I don't have the need to "convert" others to my opinion, as thats simply not my place to do so. I said earlier about this guys qualifications to teach others, especially in a school enviroment, about evolution, when there are so many alternatives out there (and I used stanford universitys professor of evolution as a example of such a source), which was met with no response. Castiel also challenged on the same theme, also met with no response.

Thats why I firmly believe that funding someone who is basically radicalised against religion, is an extremely bad idea. (None of this post is aimed at you tbyeah, just in general)

 

[Sin_Chase]

I'm going to set up the Agnostic Fund.

Pay me to do sweet nothing that will prove or disprove otherwise!

 

[davido_labido]

OP, im sorry, but you want to turn atheism into a religion?

preaching to people?
converting people?
making them believe your beliefs?

Im an atheist, but hell, i dont care what others around me do. If they want to waste their lives believing in fairy tales, thats fine, as long as they dont push it onto me.

the same way i dont push it onto them.

 

[RDM]

But not the concept. Dismissing the existence of Odin doesn't by association dismiss the existence of God, all it does is dismiss one particular interpretation or manifestation of that concept.

This comment seems a little unfair on the Asatru community, dismissing their faith whilst leaving the Abrahamic God un-assailed. My Odinist friends will not be happy.