When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh it won't shut them up.

So do you think it helps anyone? For me, lurking the Interwebs was part of the process in my decision to stop caring about theism and churches, but this was so many years ago I wonder if it still works the same.

Nah I don't think it helps. Asking theists for evidence I mean. I consider it futile now, I used to do it years ago for a few years on this site (As you can see my join date is back in 2008)... but that was before I came to the realization "Wait... since gods are unfalsifiable doesn't that mean not only that there isn't evidence but there can't be any?".

So yeah I don't bother asking for evidence anymore.

[drfuzzy]

The Lord's Prayer is a mindless mantra.

Did you ever try the rosary thing?  Talk about "mindless mantra".

Yes I have.  I work in a Catholic Church, and sat in on a talk about the Rosary and then participated in the Rosary.
Wow.   They go through those "Our Fathers" and "Hail Marys" so fast it's barely recognizable as English.     

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Did you ever try the rosary thing?  Talk about "mindless mantra".

Yes I have.  I work in a Catholic Church, and sat in on a talk about the Rosary and then participated in the Rosary.
Wow.   They go through those "Our Fathers" and "Hail Marys" so fast it's barely recognizable as English.      :goodnigh

"Hail Satan" makes better sense than "Hail Mary". It can also be done really, really fast. Only problem is you may have to run even faster after it's done.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The other half of the position is that these people see no reason to believe that God does not exist.

My beliefs aren't bound by folks who don't understand concepts like burden of proof. If they're so purblind they cannot understand the need to support what they expostulate, then they've no cause to complain when I tell them to fuck off.

I can support my position, that I have no faith. That is all my atheism is. You here in this thread, demanding evidence of no evidence, demanding that your claims of god be treated on an equal rational footing, you are demonstrating your own misunderstandings.

You believe in an omnipresent and universal god. Why, then, have you appointed yourself his spokesperson? Can he not speak for himself? Does he need you? If he does, then he's not all-powerful. And if he doesn't, you should perhaps question your decision to appoint yourself his spokesman. After all, pride goeth before the fall.

The egocentricity of Christian preachers would be funny were it not so harmful. How sad that you guys cannot understand the chief message of the Christ you claim to worship: humility.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's simply a label that best suits us. Agnostic means something, it derives from the root word "gnosis," meaning knowledge, and was coined specifically to denote a person that doesn't claim absolute knowledge of a thing, specifically in religious circles. It doesn't denote one's beliefs in any sense, merely their knowledge claims, demonstrably so. That the word has been corrupted by people misunderstanding it doesn't mean that it can't be fruitfully applied to people to more accurately describe their positions: I am an agnostic atheist, meaning I do not believe in a god (atheist) yet claim no special knowledge on that (agnostic.)

No self-deception, just a proper understanding of both words and their meanings. My label comes from knowledge, not deception.

Well I agree that it suits you.

I just think it suits you in the same way that diplomatic immunity "suits" diplomats who want to commit crimes without prosecution.

So I don't think it's a high-minded suiting. It's a self-interested suiting that doesn't necessarily line up with the interests of honest, substantive rational discourse.

And I'm perfectly aware that people will try and create rationalizations of this suitability, just like the diplomats in New York City rationalize their immunity to suit their preference to park anywhere they want without worrying about parking regulations.

But the bottom line of my position I've laid out in the previous post. The one to which you responded " Do you actually think that quibbling over labels constitutes some real victory over what we as atheists actually believe?"

There, I pointed out that if you're truly an agnostic, the atheist part of your definition is superfluous, and vice versa. This view is better, in my opinion, because it's not based on tactical redefinitions to avoid burden of proof or enhance your debating position, allowing you to take the label of atheist while defending the position of agnosticism.

And I think it lines up better with epistemology, which takes belief and disbelief to be propositional attitudes.

One label pertains to knowledge, the other pertains to belief. If you're not smart enough to discern the difference, that's your problem, not mine.

Love,

A Concerned Agnostic Atheist

[robvalue]

You really are running on empty when you have to tell other people what they mean by their own choice of words.

[paulpablo]

Being at agnostic and being an atheist aren't necessarily two separate things.

I think they are. And the broader world of intellectual inquiry believes they are.

The only people who think you can be an agnostic atheist are the internet atheist community and the New Atheism that gave birth to them. They do this because they derive their ideas of atheism from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who are polemical and not informed about the philosophical work undergirding an intellectually-driven atheism and agnosticism.

One of the benefits of combining the two is purely tactical: You get to taken on the weaker burden of proof of agnosticism, while still holding on to the label of atheism. 

I realize this takes the discussion in a slightly different direction, but I think it's worth discussing. For the perils of the New Atheism and their intellectual bankruptcy, see the article linked in my signature.

Who is the broader world of intellectual inquiry?

The fact is that I reject a belief in god because I see no evidence of God. Definition of atheism =  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I don't know anything about God, I don't know he doesn't exist or that he does exist, I know nothing about him apart from heresay which I don't believe in.  Definition of an agnostic =  a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

[drfuzzy]

The other half of the position is that these people see no reason to believe that God does not exist.

My beliefs aren't bound by folks who don't understand concepts like burden of proof. If they're so purblind they cannot understand the need to support what they expostulate, then they've no cause to complain when I tell them to fuck off.

I can support my position, that I have no faith. That is all my atheism is. You here in this thread, demanding evidence of no evidence, demanding that your claims of god be treated on an equal rational footing, you are demonstrating your own misunderstandings.

You believe in an omnipresent and universal god. Why, then, have you appointed yourself his spokesperson? Can he not speak for himself? Does he need you? If he does, then he's not all-powerful. And if he doesn't, you should perhaps question your decision to appoint yourself his spokesman. After all, pride goeth before the fall.

The egocentricity of Christian preachers would be funny were it not so harmful. How sad that you guys cannot understand the chief message of the Christ you claim to worship: humility.

    I wish that I could give this more kudos.

[Delicate]

Well I agree that it suits you.

I just think it suits you in the same way that diplomatic immunity "suits" diplomats who want to commit crimes without prosecution.

So I don't think it's a high-minded suiting. It's a self-interested suiting that doesn't necessarily line up with the interests of honest, substantive rational discourse.

And I'm perfectly aware that people will try and create rationalizations of this suitability, just like the diplomats in New York City rationalize their immunity to suit their preference to park anywhere they want without worrying about parking regulations.

But the bottom line of my position I've laid out in the previous post. The one to which you responded " Do you actually think that quibbling over labels constitutes some real victory over what we as atheists actually believe?"

There, I pointed out that if you're truly an agnostic, the atheist part of your definition is superfluous, and vice versa. This view is better, in my opinion, because it's not based on tactical redefinitions to avoid burden of proof or enhance your debating position, allowing you to take the label of atheist while defending the position of agnosticism.

And I think it lines up better with epistemology, which takes belief and disbelief to be propositional attitudes.

One label pertains to knowledge, the other pertains to belief. If you're not smart enough to discern the difference, that's your problem, not mine.

Love,

A  Concerned Agnostic Atheist

If you understood the difference between belief and knowledge, you wouldn't have a category for both in your epistemology.

Love,

Someone who has studied epistemology and actually knows the difference between belief and knowledge. 

PS- Ask me to explain.

[Delicate]

I think they are. And the broader world of intellectual inquiry believes they are.

The only people who think you can be an agnostic atheist are the internet atheist community and the New Atheism that gave birth to them. They do this because they derive their ideas of atheism from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who are polemical and not informed about the philosophical work undergirding an intellectually-driven atheism and agnosticism.

One of the benefits of combining the two is purely tactical: You get to taken on the weaker burden of proof of agnosticism, while still holding on to the label of atheism. 

I realize this takes the discussion in a slightly different direction, but I think it's worth discussing. For the perils of the New Atheism and their intellectual bankruptcy, see the article linked in my signature.

Who is the broader world of intellectual inquiry?

The fact is that I reject a belief in god because I see no evidence of God. Definition of atheism =  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I don't know anything about God, I don't know he doesn't exist or that he does exist, I know nothing about him apart from heresay which I don't believe in.  Definition of an agnostic =  a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-9794-po...#pid211908

Your explanation goes back to my previous dilemma: People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.

Which are you?