Foundations for Atheism

[stefan]

if a person has never been exposed to G, then they are ignorant of it and lack belief.

but how so, , as you cant claim, that a god could be factual, it's just fictious, so not really knowledge, and as such it is non-existent, then he would not need to have any awareness of it, point being he would only have to be informed or educated if there was a need to be, as there is none he cant be deemed ignorant.
if I speak to a french man, in english and he's only ever spoken french why is he ignorant for not speaking english. if he's never had the need.
he only becomes ignorant if he should speak english but has'nt tried.

I statement stands " how so,if a person has never had a belief, how is he ignorant,"

 

[valich]

Prince James

"So you have belief just as they have belief in God?"

I have a belief that God does not exist, but it is not a belief "just as they believe in God." My belief is not a "religous" belief: it is an "anti-religous" belief. I believe that all religions are useless and just give people something to hide behind. They cause trouble by forcing people to adhere to dogma that other people don't adhere to. These dogmas start wars, such as Jihad, and then kill people.

Ignorant means destitute or lacking knowledge, so technically speaking, but in a degrading use of the English language, the French man is ignorant if he does not know English, whether he has a need for it or not. But this would be a connotatively insulting way of putting it, as we all must then be called "ignorant" - of something or another.

 

[dr. cello]

we're all ignorant. fact of life. the sooner you recognise this the better.

 

[valich]

Cheers! Without being ignorant, why would anyone want to, or, need to, or, love to learn? So I am proud to say "Yes, I am ignorant and proud of it, for at least I know that I am!"

 

[wesmorris]

I statement stands " how so,if a person has never had a belief, how is he ignorant,"

Ignorance means "lacking knowledge". At any time before the introduction of G, one is ignorant of it. It's that simple.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

Weak atheism is NOT Agnosticism.
Agnosticism (and its opposite - gnosticism) is soley to do with knowledge:
"Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life."

Weak atheism also called negative atheism or implicit atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods, without a positive denial of the existence of any god or gods - Wikipedia. Very similar, if not quite the same, to the notion of Agnosticism.

Agnostic theists DO exist (albeit that it is not a common position).
Agnostic theism is the philosophy that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who disavows knowledge of God's existence but chooses to believe in God in spite of this.

Impossible. One cannot believe in something one does not have knowledge of. It's a bastardization of belief.

For example, if you follow Pascal's wager as the only reason to believe - i.e. that the benefits of believing outweigh the benefits from not believing - then you are an agnostic theist.
A simple case of "I have no knowledge of whether he exists or not - but I believe anyway".

I would argue that any belief so weak cannot possibly be anything but delusion.


valich:

I have a belief that God does not exist, but it is not a belief "just as they believe in God." My belief is not a "religous" belief: it is an "anti-religous" belief. I believe that all religions are useless and just give people something to hide behind. They cause trouble by forcing people to adhere to dogma that other people don't adhere to. These dogmas start wars, such as Jihad, and then kill people.

Yes, but you have no rational reason to hold to any positive affirmation that God does not exist, which is very similar to a Theist who simply "believes". Moreover, it is quite possible to be religious or a Theist and not start holy wars.

 

[SnakeLord]

Yes, but you have no rational reason to hold to any positive affirmation that God does not exist, which is very similar to a Theist who simply "believes".

I tend to disagree with this, merely because things of this nature do not exist by default. Until such time where there is qualifying criteria to suggest existence, god's, leprechauns, mermaids, flying bananas and invisible banjo playing orang utans do not exist - other than in the imaginations of people with working imaginations.

Ok, I have not searched the entire planet, (or universe) - and so am seemingly in the position of being unable to say invisible banjo playing orang utans do not exist - but they remain as fiction until there is reason to conclude otherwise.

As a result of that: the bible sits on the same shelf as all the other written works of fantasy.

However to be fair.. can someone please tell me what god we're talking about before I dismiss it entirely?

 

[valich]

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that ALL religions or religous people start wars, but there seems to be a positive correlation between how strongly a theist holds firmly/radically/aggressively-manytimes to their belief and how prone they are to start an often hostile argument if you don't agree with them.

I belief that my reasons for affirming that God does not exist is rational, and very unsimilar to a theist's reasons, because, just like SnakeLord says above, believing in God is like believing in leprachauns and tooth ferries, and comparitively speaking that is very irrational.

 

[KennyJC]

The question I have is why the need for a God? Why is it desireable for people to worship fabricated religions and imaginary Gods?

And to the hardened right wing christian yank I ask... How do you feel knowing that if you were born somewhere else you would believe in a different God and have completely different beliefs (if any). Just shows you how trivial the whole thing is.

If an intelligence created the universe, then obviously I owe my existence to him. I say 'him' because that is how little clue theists have - labelling God as a male. But I don't feel like I need to worship him or invent my own ideas to his motives. This remains the ultimate humiliation to anyone who does.

 

[valich]

I have a similar question too. Why the need for a God when we can so easily see the "evolution" of where the belief in a god came from.

From my understanding it started like this. Cave Man looked up to the sky ans started worshipping the sun for the supernatural powers that it has - and I guess it does have supernatural powers. It gave him heat, warmth, fire, and daylight to hunt for food by. This Sun worship went on throughout history (and still today in some parts of the world): Apollo was the Greek God of the Sun and Khephir was the Egyptian God of the Sun, etc. Then came animism, then pantheism, then ancestorial worship developed and an entire pantheon of Gods were created to worship for all kinds of various different reasons until certain kings and rulers made the worship of most of those pantheon gods illegal. And the religions left today are the result of that historical religious trend.

Today, I think that most people believe in God because that is how they were brought up, that is what their parents taught them, and that is what they learned in school and in church. And they hold onto that crutch to explain the unexplainable or the "yet-to-be-explained." Some people drift away from these beliefs - especially after being educated, especially after being scientifically educated, because then you learn that what was formerly attributed to God can now be explained much more clearly, logically, rationally, and with much more certainty, and with a clarity that everyone else alongside you can equally see. Where this was not the case when believing in a God that you had to accept on faith along with all the contrary beliefs that went along with that religion. Then among the elderly, there seems to be a resurgence in the belief in God - at least among Christians - as they approach death because they are hoping for a life beyond death, an afterlife, or trying to justify their life, or trying to believe that their life was not all futile, or something like that.

So how can you believe in God when you can so clearly see the "evolution" of where that belief came from? And the more you learn about science and the facts of life, the more those religious views become ridiculously absurd. Religions throughout all of history - way before the trial of Galileo - have had to keep changing their views, changing their interpretations about the world around them, changing their dogmas and ethics to "keep up with the times." And we all know that this constant and continuous change is still going on right now today.

But the facts of science do not change, and they are there for anyone to see and prove right alongside you. You can't do that with religions. God has to be believed by faith. And everyone has their own individual faith, their own degree of faith, their own intensity of faith, and their own individual interpretation of what they think God is. That is why with science we first have theories and then we test and prove those theories, and when more-and-more people test and prove those theories, then they beciome facts. But what religions say are the facts keep changing. They constantly quote interpretations from a book like the Bible which we all know contains countless contradictions, and impossible facts, even though they were written as to be facts (impossible dates, impossible historical time periods, and unimagineable majic feats). How can you believe in something that constantly keeps changing and includes so many contradictory views, errors, and downright lies?

God is dead!

 

[valich]

Its just so absurd. Especially like you say about the hardened right wing. Especially if you believe in an anthropomorphic God, i.e. a god with human attributes like a human body form, brain, similar human thoughts, etc. If you believe that there are extraterrestrial beings out there somewhere, would you think that their God would look like a human? Of course not. To think that a God has a human form, dressed in white with a beard, looking over us from above, is simple-minded and selfish: selfish because we are thinking that we are so great that we give God our own human characteristics.

But if you say that God is a spiritual presence or spiritual force without adding all those "come-on gimics," rituals, factual statements pertaining to the religion's views, and dogma software, then that might be a little more believable.

 

[Roman]

I know we've gone on a bit, but I'd like to jump back in here.

Any form of God from one of the major religions I see as completely implausible. There's far too much contrary evidence that demonstrates that God sucks and is mean, or he's nice and powerless. As such, these two attributes contradict one another, so I needn't worry about a Christian or Muslim god. Nevermind all the silliness that comes with an omniscient suprafather. How can God be both perfect and human?

Is God even perfect?

Perfection is such a ridiculously subjective concept. If it was perfect, it'd be perfect in such a way that we as a human couldn't comprehend how it was perfect. In which case it wouldn't be perfect. Unless perfection is some transendental quality. But really, if I say this is the "perfect rock," what the am I saying? "God is perfect" tells us what? Nothing.

Is there an omni-creator out there? Did it create us?

Whoever it is, it doesn't answer prayer. If it's paying attention, I don't think it's doing anything. There's not much evidence to the contrary.

So I've come to conclusion that the existance of God doesn't matter. Since it doesn't matter, I don't have to worry about believing in its existance.

 

[valich]

Well that's exactly what I mean by people thinking that a God could have anthropomorphic characterists. No way could he/she be like a human. But what a great analogy in suggesting that if that were the case he could still be perfect too. Never considered it in that aspect. But what religions tend toward a view that God sucks? Many fear God, but to say they think he sucks implies a disrespect for the God, no? I don't know?

A Mormon called into a talk show on NPR news (National Public Radio) Sunday morning many months ago after the tidal wave wiped out the Sri Lanka coast. He gets on the radio and stated that the tidal wave was God's way of "teaching them a lesson." At first the talk show host - and I! - were both stunned, and then the host, in a very puzzled way, asked him what he meant by this. The talk show host was obviously stunned by this absurd, illogical, "inconsiderate-to-humanity" comment, but being duely objective to his role, he quickly regained composure and listened to the Mormon's explanation. It was one of the most ridiculous justifications of a natural disaster being attributed to God that I have ever heard in my life. What an extreme example of believing that EVERYTHING is God's wish. I just kept wondering to myself, "Where is this guy coming from and how could he have ever acquired such an unsympathetic absurd view."

 

[stefan]

Ignorance means "lacking knowledge". At any time before the introduction of G, one is ignorant of it. It's that simple.

I know, what the meaning is, but the word ignorant has such a derogatory meaning, you can not know of a thing, but if you have no need of a thing, why is that ignorant,

if you take a Thesaurus: the definitions are as such,
ignorant; adjective
Definition: unknowing
Synonyms: apprenticed, benighted, bird-brained, blind to, cretinous, dense, green, illiterate, imbecilic, inexperienced, innocent, insensible, mindless, misinformed, moronic, naive, nescient, oblivious, obtuse, sappy, shallow, thick, unaware, unconscious, unconversant, uncultivated, uncultured, uneducated, unenlightened, uninformed, uninitiated, unintellectual, unknowledgeable, unlearned, unlettered, unmindful, unread, unschooled, unsuspecting, untaught, untrained, unwitting, witless

so the french man, is ignorant(or any of the terms bolded), till he learns english, the professer is ignorant(or any of the terms bolded), untill he learns of a god.

 

[valich]

A thesaurus does not give you definitions, it gives you synonyms and related words, but yes the French man is still ignorant, by definition, until he learns English, and yes, it is an insulting and derogatory way of saying it, and there is a much more polite way of putting it, but technically speaking, whether or not you have a use for the knowledge or information or not, then you are still ignorant of it if you do not know it.

 

[SnakeLord]

Purely out of interest because I noticed a form of cretin was in your post.. Here is the dictionary definition for cretin:

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
cre.tin \kre-t-*n, esp Brit 'kre-tin\ \-*s\ n [F cre`tin, fr. F dial. cretin Christian human being, kind of idiot found in the Alps, fr. L christianus Christian : one afflicted with cretinism; broadly : a person with marked mental deficiency - cre.tin.ous aj

Yes, christians are cretins - so sayeth the dictionary

 

[Sarkus]

Weak atheism also called negative atheism or implicit atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods, without a positive denial of the existence of any god or gods - Wikipedia. Very similar, if not quite the same, to the notion of Agnosticism.

If you are going to use Wikipedia (and no reason not to) then try looking up AGNOSTICISM!!!

"Agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism (also called positive atheism), which recognises the non-existence of any deities. However, the more general variety of atheism, weak atheism (also called negative atheism, and sometimes neutral atheism), professes only a lack of belief in a god or gods, which is not equivalent to but is compatible with agnosticism."
Now I hope this puts the matter to rest!!!

And on the matter of an Agnostic Theist:

Impossible. One cannot believe in something one does not have knowledge of. It's a bastardization of belief.
...
I would argue that any belief so weak cannot possibly be anything but delusion.

Again using Wikipedia: on the matter of the position of the Agnostic Theist: "The validity of the agnostic theist's position is debated because believers typically state "God exists" as a fact, implying knowledge of it on their behalf. The agnostic theist does not state that: he says that he doesn't know whether God exist or not, but simply believes in God."

Now whether you personally believe this position is flawed, weak, delusional etc is irrelevant to the possibility of its existence as a position.
It does exist as a position - and is no more weak, flawed, delusional etc than a theist's belief in something for which there is no evidence.

 

[KennyJC]

So how can you believe in God when you can so clearly see the "evolution" of where that belief came from? And the more you learn about science and the facts of life, the more those religious views become ridiculously absurd. Religions throughout all of history - way before the trial of Galileo - have had to keep changing their views, changing their interpretations about the world around them, changing their dogmas and ethics to "keep up with the times."

I'm not sure wether this is a good thing or a bad thing. In the positive sense, it tells me that eventually the stupidity of theists will be less absurd in the future. And future popes will be less like the bufoons we have now. It will also mean we may not in the future have so many fundies who ignore the evidence for evolution and still think that humans magically appeared on Earth fully formed. I simply couldn't believe the polls when I saw that 50% of yanks actually for real think this... It's the 21st century!

On the other hand, it shows you how fragile peoples firmly held beliefs are, if they continually change over time. Their beliefs are therefor wrong if they are set to change into the future. If in 100,000 years billions of people are still quoting the bible then we're in trouble.

 

[dr. cello]

the thesaurus is not a dictionary, you [deleted]. this is the DICTIONARY definition of ignorant:

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

let us say, for instance, that my friend is planning a surprise party for me. i am unaware of these plans; i am therefore ignorant of these plans. there is nothing in the definition which says that i must somehow be unintelligent in order to be ignorant. ignorance is strictly a lack of knowledge. it is only a -flaw- when the ignorant (such as yourself) attempt to demonstrate their knowledge.

if i know nothing of a subject, i am ignorant of it. i'm ignorant of quantum mechanics. i'm ignorant of french. ignorance, by its nature, is something that we default to. everyone is ignorant. you cannot become ignorant--you have always been ignorant, and when you learn something, you cease to be as ignorant.

do not use the thesaurus to try to tell somebody what a word means. the thesaurus is not present to define, but to offer alternative words for a writer who needs a synonym. it is up to the writer to be certain that these new words he is using actually have the same definition.

 

[Prince_James]

SnakeLord:

I tend to disagree with this, merely because things of this nature do not exist by default. Until such time where there is qualifying criteria to suggest existence, god's, leprechauns, mermaids, flying bananas and invisible banjo playing orang utans do not exist - other than in the imaginations of people with working imaginations.

Yet you cannot rightfully affirm that they do not exist and only note the improbability.

However to be fair.. can someone please tell me what god we're talking about before I dismiss it entirely?

Please check my posts for the definition of God used. I have noted it several times over.

valich:

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that ALL religions or religous people start wars, but there seems to be a positive correlation between how strongly a theist holds firmly/radically/aggressively-manytimes to their belief and how prone they are to start an often hostile argument if you don't agree with them.

Only in the Abrahamic religions.

God has to be believed by faith.

Again, not in the eyes of many emminent theologians of traditions both Western and Eastern.

Roman:

Perfection is such a ridiculously subjective concept. If it was perfect, it'd be perfect in such a way that we as a human couldn't comprehend how it was perfect. In which case it wouldn't be perfect. Unless perfection is some transendental quality. But really, if I say this is the "perfect rock," what the am I saying? "God is perfect" tells us what? Nothing.

See the Perfection thread in General Philosophy.

Sarkus:

Again using Wikipedia: on the matter of the position of the Agnostic Theist: "The validity of the agnostic theist's position is debated because believers typically state "God exists" as a fact, implying knowledge of it on their behalf. The agnostic theist does not state that: he says that he doesn't know whether God exist or not, but simply believes in God."

Again: This is almost the textbook definition of delusion.

It does exist as a position - and is no more weak, flawed, delusional etc than a theist's belief in something for which there is no evidence.

The arguments for the existence of God atleast attempt to form some rational foundation for belief in God. The Agnostic Theist is one who beleives simply to believe.