But seriously . . . atheism?

[Braddogg]

A fitting post for number 666 

:canoworms:

I'm an atheist.  And it's the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus or leprauchans -- there's simply no physical evidence for it.  Any theory of God is internally inconsistent and does not conform to reality.  There is meaning in life without God.  I am meaning enough.  And once we stop believing in things that don't exist -- God, the state -- then we will truly be free.  The state will collapse once enough people stop believing in it.  As for atheism, I could quote long sections of different thinkers, but all of that would be an appeal to authority not unlike our Georgist friend's series of "Leo Tolstoy Was a Georgist; I Saw Goodie Osburn With the Georgists" posts.  So I'll ask: How do you know God exists?  And is that proof an appeal to ignorance; that is, does it consist of saying "science can't prove everything"?  Could the proof also be applied to proving Santa Claus?

Nietzsche got it wrong: God isn't dead, He just never existed!

And, just for kicks, here's a decent, recent article by Sam Harris in the LA Times (and read on FTL) to consider:  Ten Myths -- And Ten Truths -- About Atheism.  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[Soundwave]

I've been an atheist since I was about 16.

[Kat Kanning]

And once we stop believing in things that don't exist -- God, the state -- then we will truly be free. 

A god isn't going to come toss me in jail for not beliving in it.  The state will.  What's it to me if some people want to belive in gods?

[MaineShark]

I'm an atheist.  And it's the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus or leprauchans -- there's simply no physical evidence for it.  Any theory of God is internally inconsistent and does not conform to reality.

I can write up an internally-consistent belief system that won't contradict anything scientifically-verified, either.  It's not particularly hard to do.

So I'll ask: How do you know God exists?

Can you prove that no god exists, anywhere?  How?  You would have to have god-like powers to be able to prove such a thing.

You can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

You can't prove that a one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple people eater doesn't exist, either.

Atheism is based on face to every bit the same extent that theism is, and goes one further into the realms of illogic by claiming to be able to prove that something doesn't exist.

Agnostics have the good sense not to make any claim regarding things they don't know.

Joe

[FTL_Ian]

I've been an atheist since I was about 16.

That's when I came out of the closet, but I'd been questioning for a long time before that...

[eques]

So go ahead.  Write up that internally-consistent belief system. 

All things remaining equal, the simplest explanation is often the best.

That's Occam's Razor.

The concept of god is something that is added on to what we can observe.  If you're going to do that, you have to provide proof for it.

If you're not interested in actually providing a proof, you can't just say that it's not possible to prove it doesn't exist, nor does your stated impossibility of proving thus automatically lend any credibility to your argument, namely, that it does exist.

[Rosie the Riveter]

It is fitting that I am an atheist as I rarely believe anything.

[aries]

I've been raised protestant so I still believe it.

Besides, protestant thinking is conducive to capitalist beliefs

[MaineShark]

So go ahead.  Write up that internally-consistent belief system. 

I've actually done it before.  I'll see if I can find a copy.

All things remaining equal, the simplest explanation is often the best.

That's Occam's Razor.

Often is not the same as always.

The concept of god is something that is added on to what we can observe.  If you're going to do that, you have to provide proof for it.

If you're not interested in actually providing a proof, you can't just say that it's not possible to prove it doesn't exist, nor does your stated impossibility of proving thus automatically lend any credibility to your argument, namely, that it does exist.

I don't recall arguing that god exists.  Please quote me doing so.

Joe

[Pat K]

And once we stop believing in things that don't exist -- God, the state -- then we will truly be free. 

A god isn't going to come toss me in jail for not beliving in it.  The state will.  What's it to me if some people want to belive in gods?

Yes as I have said before if you have Liberty it does not matter.

To paraphrase Jefferson=If my nieghbor belives in 1 god or 20 gods niether picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. As long as my nieghbor does not use the force of Goverment to press his/her beliefs.

[eques]

All things remaining equal, the simplest explanation is often the best.

That's Occam's Razor.

Often is not the same as always.

Can somebody explain to me why people do this?

Of course "often" is not the same as "always."  That's why I used "often" and not "always."

"Often" is the operative word in the definition of Occam's Razor, simply because the simplest explanation is not always the best.  But such explanations are often the best, and the Razor shouldn't be tossed aside because it's not an absolute statement.  I don't know if this is what you're doing, but you have to give a much better reason than that to not use Occam's Razor.

The concept of god is something that is added on to what we can observe.  If you're going to do that, you have to provide proof for it.

If you're not interested in actually providing a proof, you can't just say that it's not possible to prove it doesn't exist, nor does your stated impossibility of proving thus automatically lend any credibility to your argument, namely, that it does exist.

I don't recall arguing that god exists.  Please quote me doing so.

My mistake.  However, the claim that "one cannot prove the non-existence of god," or, "god cannot be universally proven to not exist," has a problem.

I'm going to defer to this particular Q&A from strongatheism.net which speaks directly to this attempted logical trickery.

(I don't think you're intentionally being deceptive, but your logic isn't sound.)

[Braddogg]

Of course "often" is not the same as "always."  That's why I used "often" and not "always."

[Braddogg]

And once we stop believing in things that don't exist -- God, the state -- then we will truly be free. 

A god isn't going to come toss me in jail for not beliving in it.  The state will.  What's it to me if some people want to belive in gods?

Eh?  I might not have been clear: YOU will not be free until YOU stop believing in things that don't exist.  I will not be free until I stop beleiving in things that don't exist.  DANNY will not be free until DANNY stops believing in things that don't exist.  Beliefs are principles of action, and if our actions are based off of fantasy, then we can't be free.  Sure, if Danny is a theist but is an anarchist, then sure, whatever, that doesn't impede on your freedom.  I'm not particularly worried about "converting" people to rationality for my own freedom's sake (for their sake, perhaps, but not for mine).  Mike Fisher's brand of pacifistic theism, for example, isn't something I'm too worried about affecting me too much (so long as he doesn't take the Bible TOO seriously and ignores the parts of the Bible telling him to kill those who won't listen to priests, like Deuteronomy 17:12-13, or the parts of the Bible telling him to shun and avoid contact with non-Christians, as stated in 2 John).

[MaineShark]

Can somebody explain to me why people do this?

Of course "often" is not the same as "always."  That's why I used "often" and not "always."

"Often" is the operative word in the definition of Occam's Razor, simply because the simplest explanation is not always the best.  But such explanations are often the best, and the Razor shouldn't be tossed aside because it's not an absolute statement.  I don't know if this is what you're doing, but you have to give a much better reason than that to not use Occam's Razor.

From a logical standpoint, Occam?s Razor is meaningless.  It?s a rhetorical device, and a good way of dealing with new situations ?on the fly,? but it has no logical legitimacy.

?A implies B most of the time? is not a logical statement.  It?s a statistical one.  Just because the simplest answer is usually the right one does not mean that it always is.  And unless it did mean that it always was, it has no business here.

My mistake.  However, the claim that "one cannot prove the non-existence of god," or, "god cannot be universally proven to not exist," has a problem.

I'm going to defer to this particular Q&A from strongatheism.net which speaks directly to this attempted logical trickery.

(I don't think you're intentionally being deceptive, but your logic isn't sound.)

Give me a break.  There?s not a consistent statement in that linked answer.

The ?problem of evil? is the subject of numerous philosophical works.  There are dozens of logical answers that easily avoid it.  The primary one being that it only affects monotheistic belief systems.

And then they go on to say that science can prove things, but also that it cannot.

Yeah, someone likes ?logical trickery.?

Try again.

Eh?  I might not have been clear: YOU will not be free until YOU stop believing in things that don't exist.  I will not be free until I stop beleiving in things that don't exist.  JOE will not be free until JOE stops believing in things that don't exist.  Beliefs are principles of action, and if our actions are based off of fantasy, then we can't be free.  Sure, if Joe is a theist but is an anarchist, then sure, whatever, that doesn't impede on your freedom.

I don?t believe in anything that doesn?t exist.  I possess no ability to experience ?faith,? nor do I possess any desire to develop such an ability.  I have no faith in the existence of any god, nor do I have faith in the non-existence of any god.

Anyone who experiences faith is, by the very definition of the term, irrational.  And only rational people are free, because irrational people are forever bound by the limits they place upon themselves.

Joe

[FTL_Ian]

It warms my heart to see so many atheists around here.   

All the better that the Christians are friendly and respectful towards us.  This is truly a great movement!