Atheists may as well be rapists

[Ghostbear]

That's not what I said. It's more reasonable to assert that something does not exist when it's falsifiable (and when the evidence backs up that assertion, even just inductively) then when it's literally impossible to know. Doubting is perfectly reasonable either way. Making affirmative statements about unfalsifiable things is less so.

I think Russell's Teapot is relevant to the current discussion. Stating that a divine entity exists in a manner that is not falsifiable doesn't make the argument for them any stronger at all.

That being said, while I'd consider myself a strong agnostic-atheist, I think it's ultimately futile to look down on someone, or declare someone irrational for, their religious beliefs. Ultimately, if you are in a position where you find their beliefs utterly implausible, they will almost certainly have the same sentiment towards your beliefs with equal conviction.

[sourmìlk]

You're making the term "Atheist" too complicated. An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in God. He can be a sourmilk style agnostic atheist, or a nitePhyyre style gnostic atheist.

With the anti-atheist arguments I've seen floating around youtube, assuming their representative of actual common Church rhetoric, there seems to be a real fundamental discomfort that theists have about the idea of not believing in God. They'll try really hard to invent ways that atheists actually have faith. Maybe atheists have faith in that there are no gods, maybe they have faith in themselves and think they're all powerful, maybe they actually have faith but deny it to support their immorality or look cool, or they'll all convert on their death bed. Rather than just try and prove atheists wrong, I've seen fundamentalist Christians try and contrive ways in which atheists supposedly do believe, even if it's not in Christianity. That as well as the study appears to indicate that people don't have a problem with people believing other things as much as they fundamentally and emotionally have a problem with a lack of belief.

Stating that a divine entity exists in a manner that is not falsifiable doesn't make the argument for them any stronger at all.

I know that.

[yurell]

You're making the term "Atheist" too complicated. An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in God.

I thought 'atheist' was simply someone without theological beliefs i.e. 'a-' meaning 'not' and 'theist' meaning 'someone who believes in at least one deity'

[engr]

From a point of view of a religious person, considering an atheist worse than rapist would probably be logical.
A rapist causes a lot of suffering to his victims, but he probably won't persuade anyone to become a rapist (yes, I know that some child abuse victims become rapists themselves); an atheist, on the other hand, can cause others (directly or indirectly) to become atheists or to weaken their belief in God, thereby condemning them to an eternity in hell, which is the worst that can happen to a person.
By the same logic, the more "good person" an atheist is, the more dangerous he is. An atheist who is a thief, a liar, and an arrogant idiot, would turn people off from atheism; on the other hand, an atheist who is kind, honest, smart, etc. may make others question if atheism is such an evil (imagine someone looking at a rapist and thinking "Hmm, this guy is a rapist, but in general is appears so nice and kind and smart... I wonder if rapists are really that bad". Kind of hard to imagine)

[sourmìlk]

Engr, that only holds true so long as a religious person views being an atheist as something inherently bad. There are people that hold that belief.

I thought 'atheist' was simply someone without theological beliefs i.e. 'a-' meaning 'not' and 'theist' meaning 'someone who believes in at least one deity'

Okay, yes. The proper definition is somebody who does not believe in any gods.

[Dark567]

I think Russell's Teapot is relevant to the current discussion. Stating that a divine entity exists in a manner that is not falsifiable doesn't make the argument for them any stronger at all.

Yeah. Russells Teapot is always a great example. There isn't a Teapot orbiting the sun(outside of those on the earth). Given the same reasoning, god doesn't exist.

[yurell]

You can't prove that God doesn't exist (although you can prove he doesn't exist as presented in the Bible), that's the entire point -- it's unfalsifiable since it makes no testable predictions, and is thus a bad 'theory' (and no, it definitely doesn't deserve to have those inverted commas removed).

[sourmìlk]

I think Russell's Teapot is relevant to the current discussion. Stating that a divine entity exists in a manner that is not falsifiable doesn't make the argument for them any stronger at all.

Yeah. Russells Teapot is always a great example. There isn't a Teapot orbiting the sun(outside of those on the earth). Given the same reasoning, god doesn't exist.

I think you misunderstood Russel's Teapot. The point is that you can't say "there isn't a teapot" because it's untestable, but you can say "Why the hell should I believe in a teapot without evidence?"

[Dark567]

"there isn't a teapot" ... "Why the hell should I believe in a teapot without evidence?"

What's the difference between those two statements? Not believing in something, is the same as believing something isn't there.

[IcedT]

With the anti-atheist arguments I've seen floating around youtube, assuming their representative of actual common Church rhetoric, there seems to be a real fundamental discomfort that theists have about the idea of not believing in God. They'll try really hard to invent ways that atheists actually have faith. Maybe atheists have faith in that there are no gods, maybe they have faith in themselves and think they're all powerful, maybe they actually have faith but deny it to support their immorality or look cool, or they'll all convert on their death bed. Rather than just try and prove atheists wrong, I've seen fundamentalist Christians try and contrive ways in which atheists supposedly do believe, even if it's not in Christianity. That as well as the study appears to indicate that people don't have a problem with people believing other things as much as they fundamentally and emotionally have a problem with a lack of belief.

Conversely, as an agnostic atheist faith is the part of religion that makes me most uncomfortable. There's really no way you can describe it that doesn't boil down to 'indoctrination.'

[yurell]

"there isn't a teapot" ... "Why the hell should I believe in a teapot without evidence?"

What's the difference between those two statements? Not believing in something, is the same as believing something isn't there.

No it's not. Not believing something is true is very different to believing it isn't true. Without evidence, the former is prudence and in line with scepticism while the latter is based on faith.

[sourmìlk]

Mark Twain was even more cynical: he described faith as a belief in something you know isn't true.

"there isn't a teapot" ... "Why the hell should I believe in a teapot without evidence?"

What's the difference between those two statements? Not believing in something, is the same as believing something isn't there.

No, it isn't. If I told you something unlikely, like "I was a close personal friend of Steve Jobs", and you were skeptical but had no means of verifying that, you wouldn't assume I was lying, but you also might not believe me. !Belief(A) != Belief(!A)

Ooh, a better example. If I were to ask you how many fingers I were holding up right now, and somebody said "3", you wouldn't believe them, because how could they possibly know? At the same time, you wouldn't say "He can't be holding up three fingers!"

[phlip]

"there isn't a teapot" ... "Why the hell should I believe in a teapot without evidence?"

What's the difference between those two statements? Not believing in something, is the same as believing something isn't there.

Say I toss a coin, and don't reveal the result to you. Do you (a) Believe the result is heads, or (b) Not do so? If you choose (b), and don't believe the result is heads, is that the same as believing the result is tails?

[Dark567]

Yeah, I have had a few too many drinks.

You guy's are right and I am wrong. I rescind my previous post.

[sourmìlk]

Yeah, I have had a few too many drinks.

I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.

Yeah, it's too be expected.

[Shivahn]

Yeah, I have had a few too many drinks.

You guy's are right and I am wrong. I rescind my previous post.

I am shocked that I have read this on the internet. It feels genuinely weird to see that written in text.

[sourmìlk]

I've seen it once or twice, but only ever on this forum.

[CorruptUser]

I always like trying to see if I can get any religious person to prove that god doesn't lie.

"Always" meaning "never"; I can't imagine it ending well for anyone. I only did it to the missionaries that used to stand outside my highschool with a megaphone.

[sourmìlk]

Most attempts to show that a person's god is a contradiction end in ad-Hominem attacks from the fundamentalist. The exception is my uncle who, despite being crazy and fundamentalist is still a reasonably intelligent person.

[yurell]

I don't think your uncle is 'the' exception.

[sourmìlk]

Sorry, I meant with the people I've interacted with. Clearly he's not the only fundamentalist who can rationally (to the degree it's possible) discuss theology.

[Deep_Thought]

I always like trying to see if I can get any religious person to prove that god doesn't lie.

"Always" meaning "never"; I can't imagine it ending well for anyone. I only did it to the missionaries that used to stand outside my highschool with a megaphone.

I am intrigued. What was their response?

The last person I seriously tried to debate religion with was a girl back in highschool while we walked home. After two days of decent discussion she declared she no longer wanted to talk about the topic. So we never did. I think I learned early that people rarely change their mind through reasoned debate.

[mike-l]

Atheists are silly! If the earth is millions of years old, then why is it only 2011?!

In seriousness, I have no problem with belief without evidence, I have a problem with belief in spite of it. I'm perfectly willing to assert that there is no god, even though I admit I can't prove it. I'm also willing to assert that mathematics is correct, though I can't prove that either. Call it belief if you want to. Really the fact that it can't be proved is irrelevant to me, since my capacity to prove things is infinitely smaller than the number of decisions I have to make in my life, so I'm always doing things based on my best guess, almost nothing is proven completely.

The main difference is that I update my 'beliefs' as new information presents itself. I'll let Tim Minchin sum up my position (full video here, quite good)

Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I’ll spin on a fucking dime
I’ll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I’ve recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.

[Ulc]

The main difference is that I update my 'beliefs' as new information presents itself. I'll let Tim Minchin sum up my position (full video here, quite good)

Why is it atheism can't be discussed without bringing him up?

I understand perfectly the rant he makes, and to be honest, I understanding doing it. The problem is, it's an aggressive way to handle people's belief, which isn't going to be useful in any way - even if it does feel awfully cathartic to rant. We're never going to convince anyone that being an atheist doesn't mean one is an asshole, if we are being assholish about it towards them.

I know a lot of religions have been awfully offensive to atheist over the years, and I've certainly experienced having a priest yelling at me that I'd end in hell for not being baptised, but I'd like to think that we're better than a bunch of hateful bigots. Besides the fact that arguing with people about their religious belief has never changed anyone's belief, we really ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard than "but mommy, Susan hit me first!".

[CorruptUser]

I always like trying to see if I can get any religious person to prove that god doesn't lie.

"Always" meaning "never"; I can't imagine it ending well for anyone. I only did it to the missionaries that used to stand outside my highschool with a megaphone.

I am intrigued. What was their response?

The last person I seriously tried to debate religion with was a girl back in highschool while we walked home. After two days of decent discussion she declared she no longer wanted to talk about the topic. So we never did. I think I learned early that people rarely change their mind through reasoned debate.

It was a 'missionary', basically someone who just decided out of the blue to start yelling at highschoolers to be moral, so not exactly a random sample. The response was that I had no faith and it was Satan's influence that was filling me with such lies. My friends asked her how she knew that it wasn't Satan that was telling her to pester us, then she started screaming at us. Because nothing says "I'm not possessed by a demon" like horrible shrieking.

[mike-l]

Why is it atheism can't be discussed without bringing him up?

I've never seen him brought up before, if it's cliche then I apologize and was simply unaware. I just think it's a fun rant. I wouldn't present it to anyone I was trying to convince (about atheism), I was just posting it here because we're discussing what our beliefs are, and whether any atheist is silly enough to say "God Definitely Doesn't Exist", which I am. I don't expect it to change anyone's mind.

[Zamfir]

The last person I seriously tried to debate religion with was a girl back in highschool while we walked home. After two days of decent discussion she declared she no longer wanted to talk about the topic. So we never did. I think I learned early that people rarely change their mind through reasoned debate.

During these conversation, were you seriously considering to change your own viewpoint?

[Ulc]

and whether any atheist is silly enough to say "God Definitely Doesn't Exist", which I am.

Can you prove God doesn't exist?

If you can't (and you can't, you can merely show that he is not necessary, and that there is no proof) then saying "gods doesn't exist. Period." turns it into a matter of faith on your behalf, a faith that you will stick to not because it's right (as you can't prove that) but because it's your faith. And to be honest, atheism shouldn't be a matter of faith, that would turn atheism into one of the things I hate about religions (the utter certainly that you're right and anyone that doesn't agree is a lesser human being).

I also think the Tim Minchin rant is fun. It's also not a useful approach.

[Dark567]

If you can't (and you can't, you can merely show that he is not necessary, and that there is no proof) then saying "gods doesn't exist. Period." turns it into a matter of faith on your behalf, a faith that you will stick to not because it's right (as you can't prove that) but because it's your faith.

The same amount of faith as it takes me to say "Unicorns don't exist. Period." That's to say, not very much. I feel perfectly reasonably saying that, and I don't think its a matter of faith.

[Griffin]

If you can't (and you can't, you can merely show that he is not necessary, and that there is no proof) then saying "gods doesn't exist. Period." turns it into a matter of faith on your behalf, a faith that you will stick to not because it's right (as you can't prove that) but because it's your faith.

There are degrees of proof, though. Pretty much nothing, ever, anywhere has been proven 100% conclusively.

I don't think it's a problem for people to say "god doesn't exist". That's where the evidence points, after all (well, unless you get into the really out there definitions of what a god is, in which case there's not really much point in even talking about it). Even if they say it with certainty, I don't consider it a problem any more than I consider it a problem when people say the world isn't flat or that there are invisble magical fairies floating around us all the time.

It is perfectly acceptable to believe something in the absence of absolute proof - so long as, and this is the important part, such beliefs are logically consistant, in keeping with the evidence available to you, and you are willing to admit that you are wrong if contrary evidence arises.

I know plenty of atheists that say things like 'God does not exist. Period.", where further questioning makes it quite clear they would be willing to concede if faced with reasonable evidence to the contrary.

[mike-l]

and whether any atheist is silly enough to say "God Definitely Doesn't Exist", which I am.

Can you prove God doesn't exist?

I'm perfectly willing to assert that there is no god, even though I admit I can't prove it. I'm also willing to assert that mathematics is correct, though I can't prove that either. Call it belief if you want to. Really the fact that it can't be proved is irrelevant to me, since my capacity to prove things is infinitely smaller than the number of decisions I have to make in my life, so I'm always doing things based on my best guess, almost nothing is proven completely.

[PeteP]

We make definite statements about many topics where we are just pretty sure but can't really prove it. Why is it that only when talking about religion people start insisting that you can't make an absolute statement because you can't be sure?
If we do Z 1 billion times and the result is always X we can't be absolutely certain that the result will be the same if we repeat it one more time and that the result won't be Y. But it's unlikely to be corrected when you say "If you do Z the result will be X".
You can say Santa Claus doesn't exists and it's unlikely that someone comes and says "Maybe there isn't anyone at this time who meet his stringent requirements for gifts." The same applies to Russel's teapot and similar things.
I don't think that in common usage "X doesn't exist" should be interpreted as "it's logically impossible for X to exists" but rather as "I think there isn't any reason to believe X exists"/"I think there are reasons which strongly suggest that X doesn't exist".

There aren't many "X exists" and "X doesn't exists" statements that you can really prove(if we can touch and see something it seems quite clear that it exists, but that our senses show us real things is just an assumption), I think "I think therefore I am" is the only real proof of somethings existence (assuming logic works). We could say they all are a matter of faith, or stop using such sentences at all. But I think it's easier to assume that everyone know that it's almost always possible they are wrong.(Sadly that isn't true.)

[morriswalters]

in keeping with the evidence available to you, and you are willing to admit that you are wrong if contrary evidence arises.

Good luck with this. There can be no evidence either pro or con to the existence of God. It just rules how we interpret the facts. Since there can never be any contrary evidence then there will never be a need to change your mind.

On the unquoted thought about logical consistency, since everyone interprets the bible based on their internal understanding of what it means, it will always be consistent with that internal understanding. The Bible is not stored as whole cloth, it is stored as the sum total of what people believe it means.

Cognitive biases are the outcomes of strategies for dealing with incomplete data. The are very difficult to overcome. There is a black and white picture of a spotted dog in a field. It's very difficult to see, but once you do, you can't avoid seeing it. The point being that our minds are constructed this way.

[mike-l]

Good luck with this. There can be no evidence either pro or con to the existence of God. It just rules how we interpret the facts. Since there can never be any contrary evidence then there will never be a need to change your mind.

There are lots of things that could change my mind. At a cursory glance, anything listed herewould work for me.

[Dark567]

There can be no evidence either pro or con to the existence of God.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If there is no evidence of his existence, that itself is evidence that he doesn't.

[Griffin]

Yeah, Morris, there's plenty of stuff that could "prove" gods for me too. Actually, truth be told I believe in gods, but probably not the way you conceptualize them.

And while there may not be any evidence against the concepts of gods in general, there's mounds of evidence against the god described by christians and in the bible, and against other, specific gods.

[LaserGuy]

Good luck with this. There can be no evidence either pro or con to the existence of God. It just rules how we interpret the facts. Since there can never be any contrary evidence then there will never be a need to change your mind.

There certainly could be evidence for the existence of God. The God in the Bible, for example, appeared physically to people on various occasions (Adam, Abraham, Moses, Job, possibly others I can't remember), as did a resurrected Jesus. Such a physical manifestation would presumably be sufficient for an existence proof.

[podbaydoor]

Assuming the physical manifestation hasn't been ruled out as hallucination, drug-induced, hoax, etc.

[Deep_Thought]

Dammit, I was all about to make the hoax point when I realised podbaydoor had already done it.

[morriswalters]

I don't believe in him at all. So what? Even Dawkins won't go out on a limb and say God doesn't exist, for good reason, he can't. But he doesn't believe in him, no matter what he says.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Other than being a palindrome that has zero utility. In the context being argued you could restate it as its corollary, "Existence of evidence is evidence of existence". Both a statement of the obvious and meaningless.

And there could be a orbiting teapot, but how would you know.

Assuming the physical manifestation hasn't been ruled out as hallucination, drug-induced, hoax, etc.

That was the only salient point made.

This only arises because language lets you talk about it. Arguing the existence of God is a lot like arguing with a two year old. It shows you can do it not that you should waste your time doing so. Lead better lives, offer the evidence that you have. If Theists or Christians want to paint us as lowlifes then argue that lie.