Strong Atheism and Faith

[Yfelsung]

Hello fellow meat bags,

I am finding myself slowly moving towards a position of strong atheism, in that I do not believe that an all powerful god is possible and I believe anything less than that should be defined as something other than a god. The problem I'm having is reconciling taking the final step, as I believe strong atheism has an aspect of faith involved in it.

What I mean by that is this: I can't technically know for sure if some all power deity exists as defined by several religions, but all available evidence points to the existence of this form of god, we can use God with a capital to describe it, being impossible. Be it scientifically or logically, it appears that omnipotence is impossible.

Is it faith to take that final step, or does the lack of scientific evidence and the seeming logical impossibility of omnipotence qualify for "proof" of God's lack of existence?

Would it also qualify as strong atheism if I reject other possible versions of a god as non-gods? That is to say, I am open to the possibility of a very powerful being, but I believe that they would have a definition, species, etc that is far more accurate than simply a "god".

I have spent my entire life despising faith, and I don't FEEL that this is faith moving me towards strong atheism but could my bias against faith be blinding me to this being a faith-laden statement?

I am currently, according to Wikipedia and some corrections to my previous definitions made by a member of this forum, a gnostic weak atheist.

 

[lrkun]

It's a choice. Whether you wish to make a stand on a certain position, it's really up to you.

With respect to this thing we call god, it's not something that we, at the moment could prove or disprove. That's just the way it is. Maybe, sometime in the future, proof or evidence can be presented to go either way, then it'd be safe to make a position then.

For now, you can either reject god, accept, doubt, or do nothing. Faith? Nay, it's choice. Do you consider the lack of proof as evidence for it's none existence? In my own point of view, I don't. But maybe to you or others it can be. Is it reasonable to believe that god does not exist because of lack of evidence?

No, it's not logical nor reasonable to deduce such a conclusion, but for the heck of it, it has been assumed to be the default position by those who "do not think". (familiar? argument from ignorance)

 

[Anachronous Rex]

You are, of course, free to define your terms however you like, but the problem you face is not one of your own design. 'God' lacks any clear definition, and thus no stance against it can be altogether specific.

Rejecting the possibility of god(s) seems to me an impossibility under these circumstances.

That said, you are perfectly welcome to reject the idea of 'god' on the grounds that it is poorly defined, which seems to be implicit in your statement. I don't think anyone could rightly argue with that.

A theist would still no doubt argue that lacking an adequate definition does not disprove a phenomena, but of course that leaves them no more able to support their deity then Azathoth - the Blind-Idiot God.

 

[lrkun]

You are, of course, free to define your terms however you like, but the problem you face is not one of your own design. 'God' lacks any clear definition, and thus no stance against it can be altogether specific.

Rejecting the possibility of god(s) seems to me an impossibility under these circumstances.

That said, you are perfectly welcome to reject the idea of 'god' on the grounds that it is poorly defined, which seems to be implicit in your statement. I don't think anyone could rightly argue with that.

A theist would still no doubt argue that lacking an adequate definition does not disprove a phenomena, but of course that leaves them no more able to support their deity then Azathoth - the Blind-Idiot God.

I agree. One cannot make a conclusion from an experiment without having something to observe. Therefore having no subject is definitely a big problem.

faith - strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof, or complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Is it faith to take that final step, or does the lack of scientific evidence and the seeming logical impossibility of omnipotence qualify for "proof" of God's lack of existence?

Sadly, it is faith.

 

[Yfelsung]

I actually just had an odd epiphany.

I am nearly faithless. About as faithless as I can get while still being a human being. Despite this, most theists still accuse me of having faith when debating them. They blow up the definition of faith to encompass everything so that everyone has faith.

So who cares if I have faith. I really don't, they're going to accuse me of having it even if I don't.

I kind of find it an infinitely funny thought that, when challenged with "How do you know God isn't real?" I could respond with "You just gotta have faith dude."

 

[lrkun]

I actually just had an odd epiphany.

I am nearly faithless. About as faithless as I can get while still being a human being. Despite this, most theists still accuse me of having faith when debating them. They blow up the definition of faith to encompass everything so that everyone has faith.

So who cares if I have faith. I really don't, they're going to accuse me of having it even if I don't.

I kind of find it an infinitely funny thought that, when challenged with "How do you know God isn't real?" I could respond with "You just gotta have faith dude."

Why not call yourself faithless. It sounds better than atheist. It is one syllable shorter. It's broad enough to express that you need proof or evidence which could tilt to favor one point to another. Liken to a scale.

Personally, I don't like the term atheist. It's three syllables. I'd prefer to be called faithless, because I don't have faith. However, with respect to:

"How do you know God isn't real?" I could respond with "You just gotta have faith dude."

What can I say, I'm persuaded to agree with this. If one is an atheist.

"How do you know God isn't real?" I could respond with "I don't know."

If one is an agnostic. (I like this more.)

-oOo-

Faithless skeptic.

 

[Commander Eagle]

I am finding myself slowly moving towards a position of strong atheism, in that I do not believe that an all powerful god is possible and I believe anything less than that should be defined as something other than a god. The problem I'm having is reconciling taking the final step, as I believe strong atheism has an aspect of faith involved in it.

Not necessarily. Strong atheism is simply the belief that God does not exist. Personally, I think the lack of evidence indicating the existence of God despite the fact that people have been searching for thousands of years points pretty strongly to God not existing. In the same way, I believe that Cthulhu does not exist. It's the logical conclusion of a skeptical outlook.

Believing that God does not exist does not mean that you can't be swayed by evidence, either. You can be a skeptical strong agnostic atheist. Again, that's me.

What I mean by that is this: I can't technically know for sure if some all power deity exists as defined by several religions, but all available evidence points to the existence of this form of god, we can use God with a capital to describe it, being impossible. Be it scientifically or logically, it appears that omnipotence is impossible.

Is it faith to take that final step, or does the lack of scientific evidence and the seeming logical impossibility of omnipotence qualify for "proof" of God's lack of existence?

It's not faith, because you aren't saying "This is true, and I cannot be swayed on the issue". It is a perfectly rational position to say "Based on the fact that absolutely no evidence can be presented, I can reasonably conclude that God does not exist; however, my position may be influenced by future evidence".

I am currently, according to Wikipedia and some corrections to my previous definitions made by a member of this forum, a gnostic weak atheist.

Hi.

 

[lrkun]

It's not faith, because you aren't saying "This is true, and I cannot be swayed on the issue". It is a perfectly rational position to say "Based on the fact that absolutely no evidence can be presented, I can reasonably conclude that God does not exist; however, my position may be influenced by future evidence".

I don't agree with the highlighted portion. It's like a theist's position. It's like claiming god exists without proof or evidence. Hehe.

 

[Nautyskin]

Strong atheism is simply the belief that God does not exist.

Could you define which god, or gods, you're denying the existence of?

It's not faith, because you aren't saying "This is true, and I cannot be swayed on the issue".

But that's not even close to what faith is.

By this standard, no theist would ever have had any faith before deconversion.

Based on the fact that absolutely no evidence can be presented, I can reasonably conclude that God does not exist

To me this looks very much like begging the question.

How do you know absolutely no evidence can be presented?

 

[Commander Eagle]

It's not faith, because you aren't saying "This is true, and I cannot be swayed on the issue". It is a perfectly rational position to say "Based on the fact that absolutely no evidence can be presented, I can reasonably conclude that God does not exist; however, my position may be influenced by future evidence".

I don't agree with the highlighted portion. It's like a theist's position. It's like claiming god exists without proof or evidence. Hehe.

Would you say that it is unreasonable to say that Bigfoot does not exist? This is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. Of course, this does not mean that I am not open to further evidence, but with the current state of things, this is the only stance that I can adopt on the issue without being intellectually dishonest.

Strong atheism is simply the belief that God does not exist.

Could you define which god, or gods, you're denying the existence of?

When I say "god", I usually mean "omnipotent being", as anything else is just re-labeling suitably advanced aliens.

It's not faith, because you aren't saying "This is true, and I cannot be swayed on the issue".

But that's not even close to what faith is.

By this standard, no theist would ever have had any faith before deconversion.

You're right. I withdraw the statement. I wrote that post after a very long day, and wasn't thinking entirely clearly.

Based on the fact that absolutely no evidence can be presented, I can reasonably conclude that God does not exist

To me this looks very much like begging the question.

How do you know absolutely no evidence can be presented?

Again, poor wording on my part. Evidence may be presented in future, but as I have, as of yet, seen no evidence, the only logical conclusion that I can draw is that God does not exist.

 

[lrkun]

Would you say that it is unreasonable to say that Bigfoot does not exist? This is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. Of course, this does not mean that I am not open to further evidence, but with the current state of things, this is the only stance that I can adopt on the issue without being intellectually dishonest.

It's not scientific to assume a position without proof or evidence to back up the claim. The only valid answer with respect to god's existence is "I do not know." This is so, because there is no evidence to tilt the weight in favor for it's existence or lack of existence. Therefore, as the current state of things stand, that is the only intellectually honest answer.

With respect to bigfoot, that won't work. God and bigfoot are two different things. If you apply analogy in this situation, you're stretching the variance to it's limit.

One is a god, the other is a mythical creature. The former is defined in a manner that is too broad, inconcise, and indeterminate. The latter, on the other hand, is more particular, concrete, and has some form of minute evidence supporting that it does exist.

Don't rely on analogies to much.

Instead, if you wish to really pursue the issue, you have to define the term god more concretely in a manner that it is possible to quantify, only then can the issue be resolved. (Experimentation and observation - that is science. It is not logic, reason, but trial and error - in short, the scientific method)

-oOo-

Ex. You can disprove the existence of Zeus, Minerva, Apollo, Venus, or that which is concrete. You can disprove Jesus, from there - data can be gathered, because they are defined concretely.

If you use the term God - F(x)=(1 to infinity). Therefore you won't get anywhere and even if you do, it'll take more than your lifetiime to do so. Try to attack specifics.

 

[DEXMachina]

It's not scientific to assume a position without proof or evidence to back up the claim. The only valid answer with respect to god's existence is "I do not know." This is so, because there is no evidence to tilt the weight in favor for it's existence or lack of existence. Therefore, as the current state of things stand, that is the only intellectually honest answer.

I fully agree with this; as of now, there is no way to accurately answer the question of the existance of an omipotent power (from here refered to as "god").

However, from a social and practical perspective, "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer. The answers to a 2-sided question like this one have extreme effects on the operation of our society, we need to know (or at least assume) one answer's accuracy over the other. (e.g. If god does exist, we should pray to god and build churches, temples, etc. to worship god, If god does not exist, there is no point in wasting our time and resources for god)

To leave the answer at "I don't know" leaves all of us stranded at the crossroads between the 2 answers of god's existence question; Quite simply, at best, it is fustrating to not know the answer, at worst, it can become an obsession (I will never be complete until I find the answer!)

As I see it, human society must choose one answer over the other as an assumption until it is proven true/untrue, and allow that assumption to guide society's decisions.

Personally, I feel that assuming god does not exist is most definitely the way to go; it will allow society and individuals to take charge over its own affairs, rather than leave them to a power whose existance is unconfirmed.

Is Atheism faith in no god? Of course. Faith in and of itself is not a bad thing, faith in things and people who do not deserve it is what we are all truely against.

 

[lrkun]

It's not scientific to assume a position without proof or evidence to back up the claim. The only valid answer with respect to god's existence is "I do not know." This is so, because there is no evidence to tilt the weight in favor for it's existence or lack of existence. Therefore, as the current state of things stand, that is the only intellectually honest answer.

I fully agree with this; as of now, there is no way to accurately answer the question of the existance of an omipotent power (from here refered to as "god").

However, from a social and practical perspective, "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer. The answers to a 2-sided question like this one have extreme effects on the operation of our society, we need to know (or at least assume) one answer's accuracy over the other. (e.g. If god does exist, we should pray to god and build churches, temples, etc. to worship god, If god does not exist, there is no point in wasting our time and resources for god)

To leave the answer at "I don't know" leaves all of us stranded at the crossroads between the 2 answers of god's existence question; Quite simply, at best, it is fustrating to not know the answer, at worst, it can become an obsession (I will never be complete until I find the answer!)

As I see it, human society must choose one answer over the other as an assumption until it is proven true/untrue, and allow that assumption to guide society's decisions.

Personally, I feel that assuming god does not exist is most definitely the way to go; it will allow society and individuals to take charge over its own affairs, rather than leave them to a power whose existance is unconfirmed.

Is Atheism faith in no god? Of course. Faith in and of itself is not a bad thing, faith in things and people who do not deserve it is what we are all truely against.

I can respect that. ^-^

 

[Nautyskin]

Is Atheism faith in no god? Of course.

So I'm not an atheist, I'm definitely not a theist, and agnosticism is not a third choice in this category.

Although you've just defined me out of existence, I'm going to pretend that I do exist, and address the rest of your post

However, from a social and practical perspective, "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer. The answers to a 2-sided question like this one have extreme effects on the operation of our society

That there is the problem. The effect it has on society.

We actually don't need to know (or assume) anything. What we need is to keep those beliefs out of society's decisions. Separation of church and state needs to mean separation of church and state. There's nothing wrong with people holding onto religious beliefs, as long as they know it will never be taken into consideration involving decisions affecting others. Belief in a god should be an entirely private affair in my opinion.

As long as government and societies were to hold true to this, there would be no problem.

e.g. If god does exist, we should pray to god and build churches, temples, etc. to worship god, If god does not exist, there is no point in wasting our time and resources for god

I'm not sure there is any point in doing anything as far as anything is concerned, ultimately, and, some might argue that this is especially true if we were to assume there is no god.

I'd consider doing those things you named a hobby, and as having no bearing on anything, really. Humans spend enormous time, energy and resources on pointless crap, but those things bring many of us enjoyment. How can you justify taking that one recreational pursuit away, but not others?

I'm not sure you get to be the arbiter of what's a waste of time and resources and what's not in this instance.

To leave the answer at "I don't know" leaves all of us stranded at the crossroads between the 2 answers of god's existence question; Quite simply, at best, it is fustrating to not know the answer, at worst, it can become an obsession (I will never be complete until I find the answer!)

Adopting the stance 'there is no god' is not one of knowledge, anyway. You might prefer to assume/adopt an answer when there's no evidence either way for something - others, such as myself, do not.

There are plenty of things we will never know the answers to in our lives. 'Not knowing' is the driving force behind all of science! Adopting an answer because you don't like not having an answer halts all inquiry into a topic. That's fine in some instances when the answer doesn't really matter - not so fine when it does.

So, why not assume that there IS a god? There's just as much evidence for that, and the rewards, if correct, are surely greater, in both this life and the next. How do you judge the utility of something like this?

As I see it, human society must choose one answer over the other as an assumption until it is proven true/untrue, and allow that assumption to guide society's decisions.

I disagree. I don't think we need an answer. We just need is to make that answer irrelevant to the way society operates.

 

[Nautyskin]

The only valid answer with respect to god's existence is "I do not know."

There are plenty of people claiming knowledge through experience of god(s). One, or some, might really be really relaying an actual experience rather than a delusion (of course, those two things look exactly the same, but it's a point worth remembering)

 

[DEXMachina]

We actually don't need to know (or assume) anything. What we need is to keep those beliefs out of society's decisions. Separation of church and state needs to mean separation of church and state. There's nothing wrong with people holding onto religious beliefs, as long as they know it will never be taken into consideration involving decisions affecting others. Belief in a god should be an entirely private affair in my opinion.

As long as government and societies were to hold true to this, there would be no problem.

I totally agree with you here, seperation of church and state is a great concept, if put into practice. However, history has shown that keeping religion and politics apart goes against human nature. The temptation to use the tenets of an organized faith for political gain will always be able to win over certain politicians.

I'd consider doing those things you named a hobby, and as having no bearing on anything, really. Humans spend enormous time, energy and resources on pointless crap, but those things bring many of us enjoyment. How can you justify taking that one recreational pursuit away, but not others?

I actually had not considered this interpretation of my statement; at any rate, I will not attempt to find the morally acceptable line between necessity and desire.

To clarify my argument, (e.g. If god does exist, we should follow his instructions (or our best interpretation of them) to the letter, and to ensure his will is carried out at absolutely any cost. If god does not exist, then we are now the commanders on how to proceed with society's affairs. We are free to think and reason out the best course of action for our species)

Adopting the stance 'there is no god' is not one of knowledge, anyway. You might prefer to assume/adopt an answer when there's no evidence either way for something - others, such as myself, do not.
There are plenty of things we will never know the answers to in our lives. 'Not knowing' is the driving force behind all of science! Adopting an answer because you don't like not having an answer halts all inquiry into a topic. That's fine in some instances when the answer doesn't really matter - not so fine when it does.

Again, I agree with you totally; my argument was applicable to the captians of the ships of state, not to scientists. I also never claimed an assumption to be knowledge either; just a societial necessity. Scientists have the freedom and resources to look only into the facts, and to seek out the answers to all of the "I don't knows" out there. Politicians, on the other hand, have other things to consider, most notably, the emotional/spritual well-being of the populace, many of which are not scientists, and crave simply to accept one answer over the other. For the laymans, "I don't know" is not an answer, it is an indication that they are talking to someone who equal to them (aka, not a leader). It is not easy to mobilize the nation to do something truly important if they believe you are as clueless as they are.

So, why not assume that there IS a god? There's just as much evidence for that, and the rewards, if correct, are surely greater, in both this life and the next. How do you judge the utility of something like this?

That is definitely an option. I personlly feel it to be the lesser of the 2 choices. Heavily religious states such as Iran and the US have for the most part, already taken this stance. Right now, Iran is infamous for its aggression towards anyone not Islamic, and the US has been unable to do anything that conflicts in any way with the tenets of their faith. Meanwhile, more secular nations (including quite a few European ones) have been able to at the very least, maintain a steady flow of progress from the political chambers to the nation, simply by attempting to answering the question "what is best for the people?".

 

[lrkun]

The only valid answer with respect to god's existence is "I do not know."

There are plenty of people claiming knowledge through experience of god(s). One, or some, might really be really relaying an actual experience rather than a delusion (of course, those two things look exactly the same, but it's a point worth remembering)

I can't consider that at the moment, because it's subjective experience. hehe, I have never experienced such, therefore I can't agree. Of course, I consider that it exists, it's just not empirically testable though.

 

[Nautyskin]

I can't consider that at the moment, because it's subjective experience. hehe, I have never experienced such, therefore I can't agree. Of course, I consider that it exists, it's just not empirically testable though.

That's not quite what I was referring to. You said:

Therefore, as the current state of things stand, that is the only intellectually honest answer.

And that's just not the case for a lot of people.

If someone has an experience in which they believe god's existence has been shown to them, then it is not intellectually dishonest to claim that they know that a god exists. It would be dishonest for you, not having had experienced it, but not for everybody.

So what I'm saying here is that agnosticism isn't always the only honest answer.

 

[Nautyskin]

We actually don't need to know (or assume) anything. What we need is to keep those beliefs out of society's decisions. Separation of church and state needs to mean separation of church and state. There's nothing wrong with people holding onto religious beliefs, as long as they know it will never be taken into consideration involving decisions affecting others. Belief in a god should be an entirely private affair in my opinion.

As long as government and societies were to hold true to this, there would be no problem.

I totally agree with you here, seperation of church and state is a great concept, if put into practice. However, history has shown that keeping religion and politics apart goes against human nature.

History has shown that keeping religion and humans apart goes against human nature.

What I proposed is a much more realistic goal.

To clarify my argument, (e.g. If god does exist, we should follow his instructions (or our best interpretation of them) to the letter, and to ensure his will is carried out at absolutely any cost.

What you're suggesting here is assumptive. If a god did exist, it could be anything.

Let's cross that bridge if we come to it.

If god does not exist, then we are now the commanders on how to proceed with society's affairs. We are free to think and reason out the best course of action for our species

We are already free to do that (granting free-will a pass for the moment)

All that needs to happen is for children to be educated properly. People are still substituting guesses for things we already have answers to, and/or listening to people with agendas that conflict directly with what we know to be true. This ignorance, and these lies, is and are the problem.

Take god out of the classroom of LIFE, and mankind rights itself. I truly believe this. You don't have to take away god entirely, and that's fortunate, because you won't. Religious people, at their core, are after eternal existence. That is what god is, and that's why what you're suggesting will never work.

Again, I agree with you totally; my argument was applicable to the captians of the ships of state, not to scientists.

Well, your claim was that ""I don't know" is not an acceptable answer". I'm saying it has to be.

I also never claimed an assumption to be knowledge either

That's right, what you said was:

Quite simply, at best, it is fustrating to not know the answer, at worst, it can become an obsession (I will never be complete until I find the answer!)

And my response was to point out that you still wouldn't have an answer, making those considerations irrelevant.

Politicians, on the other hand, have other things to consider, most notably, the emotional/spritual well-being of the populace, many of which are not scientists, and crave simply to accept one answer over the other. For the laymans, "I don't know" is not an answer, it is an indication that they are talking to someone who equal to them (aka, not a leader). It is not easy to mobilize the nation to do something truly important if they believe you are as clueless as they are.

So leaders should act like there is no god, because that's for the best?

How do you know this is for the best?



This whole thing seems to be straying a bit off-topic. So ..

There can be no justification for strong atheism as I see it.

Zero evidence of some form of god existing.
Zero evidence of some form of god not existing.

To be believe both of these statements and to go ahead and say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" IS dishonest, assumptive, and neither side can be shown to be right, as the claims of both lie outside our current experience.

 

[lrkun]

I can't consider that at the moment, because it's subjective experience. hehe, I have never experienced such, therefore I can't agree. Of course, I consider that it exists, it's just not empirically testable though.

That's not quite what I was referring to. You said:

Therefore, as the current state of things stand, that is the only intellectually honest answer.

And that's just not the case for a lot of people.

If someone has an experience in which they believe god's existence has been shown to them, then it is not intellectually dishonest to claim that they know that a god exists. It would be dishonest for you, not having had experienced it, but not for everybody.

So what I'm saying here is that agnosticism isn't always the only honest answer.

Subjective experience on its own does not constitute evidence. ^^ Ah well, maybe if I consider none scientific evidence then you are correct only in that sense.