Sir Anthony Hopkins: I couldn’t be an atheist
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
We are not talking about Soft atheism here. The people who may not believe in God(s) but do not preach that that is is an impossibility.
Hard Atheism is when they outright say "God(s) is(are) an impossibility." And unfortunately this seems to be the majority of atheists speaking on the subject.
Again soft stheism is a justifiable position as in all actuallity the moment any scientific proof came forward that proved them wrong they would universally and convert. Meanwhile the hardliners will have invested so much energy into their Belief system that they would not be able to adapt. Failure to belief is much difference than refusal to believe.
Wel is A=B sure. But A (Theism) far outstrips B (Atheism) in the anecdoctal evidence scale. And since neither side has any quantifiable proof there can be no dismissal of the possiblity of Diefic figures.
Oh, I understand Atheism. it a religion like any other with True Believers (Hard Atheists) and loose adherants (Soft Atheists)
Then you should have been more clear.
Guess what. You're incorrect.
I suspect, strongly, that you're also wrong on this.
And, one more time: what "belief system"?
Bull.
Don't be ridiculous. How about weight of probability? Lack of evidence where there should be evidence?
Still making stupid claims? That's two in two sentences.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
How could somebody say that they don't believe in a god or gods without simultaneously implying that they do believe that god or gods don't exist? Presumably, the thing that they are telling us that they don't believe in is the existence of these divinities, right?
My impression is that atheists often try to insist that a distinction exists there because they believe that if they aren't making any positive assertions, then they don't need to produce any justification for their atheism. I'm skeptical about whether that move succeeds.
Yes, I think that an epistemological agnosticism (lack of knowledge/information about religious divinities) is in many (but not all) cases accompanied by a weak form of atheism about the ontological existence of the religious divinities. That's certainly how it is with me.
(The exceptions might arise among religious mystics who believe very strongly in the reality of their deity, but feel that the deity lies beyond cognitive knowing. These people are ontological theists and epistemological agnostics.)
That's a doubtful move in my opinion.
I would interpret both strong and weak atheism as implying a denial that "God" exists. That's what 'atheism' IS as far as I'm concerned. Atheism is an ontological position about the existence of religious deities.
To me, a 'strong atheist' flatly insists that he or she knows that "God" doesn't exist. While a 'weak atheist' treats the non-existence of "God" as more of a hypothesis, a working-assumption that could conceivably turn out to be wrong. But both strong and weak atheism are equally opinions about the existence, or more accurately the non-existence, of something. Atheism is an ontological view.
Agnosticism is an epistemological position about our knowledge, and oftentimes about the possibility of our knowing, about something. It comes in different varities as well.
In the past, I've heard atheists loudly insisting that all babies are born atheists. I don't believe that, the reason being that babies don't deny the reality of any religious entities. What babies can be better described as is a particular kind of agnostic, an agnostic-by-ignorance, you might say. They don't have any opinions about the existence of gods at all, because they have never heard of gods. They know nothing about it.
A 'weak agnostic' is somebody who does know about the idea of the divine, and doesn't believe that he or she has knowledge about it. A 'strong agnostic' is somebody who doesn't think that any human being currently has, or perhaps ever can have knowledge of the divine.
I lean towards a stronger agnosticism, myself. And towards weak (hypothetical) atheism as I've defined it.
What divinities? They have no substance to be thought upon.
Well most people could tell of who i referring to by inference...Well those people who can read above a sixth grade level. I will dumb it down for everyone else from now on.
The majority of Atheists i have seen posting/speaking/writing on a topic are the hard line "There is no God" as opposed to the "I just don't believe in God." So I would be writing from that point of view and unfortunately for you I would be correct.
Actually I know the soft Atheists would convert as with proof they would not have to believe as much as they would know.
Mankind is a proud creature and honestly i have never come across a more stubborn animal than the Hardline Atheist. You can get some of the most Theist people in the world to admit that God might not exist in a way that we could understand or even at all. Yet an Atheist says that there is no possibility of god, when they haven't collected any more evidence than the common man has. For the hardliners it is a belief system and when a Belief is proven wrong it tends to destroy people.
Can you really say there is as much Atheism anecdoctal evidence as there is of all the forms of religious history?
Weight of probability means nothing. The weight of probablity was that life would never exist on this planet, but it does. As for evidence, we have found evidence of things that match events in the Bible like the Flood.
Hey just becuase you want to exist in denial, doesn't mean others won't see you for what you are.
The Hardline atheism is a BELIEF. It can only be a belief as they have no way of proving that God is an Impossibility. They have not searched the universe, hell most of them have barely left their little hometown. Soft atheists have analyzed what they have seen and heard and basically said I don't buy into the God thing, but hey if you show me proof I'll admit you're right.
This is no different that EVRY other religion, your just tradeing belief in a Deity for Belief in No Deity
And before you get on me that you cannot prove a negative. Hardliner are claiming that God is impossible whish is a positive cliam. They are claiming that in the entire universe there is no being that can fit the criteria of God, when they have not even been off this planet.
Last edited:
Universal negatives can be disproved by their own self-contradiction, and that is quite a bonus, and hardly needed, since the negative has no substance in the first place.
First of all, I really don't think you are meaning to suggest that God is an entity that exists inside of the universe, as if the universe itself is ontologically primary. If you do mean to suggest it, then interesting discussions with other theists are going to be on the cards for you.
Secondly, you'd probably mistake me for a 'hardline' atheist in some of the discussions that take place in here, and that would be partly because the incessant proselytizing and evangelism has a polarizing effect. In other words, a sure-fire way to manufacture what would appear to be a 'hardline atheist' is to keep preaching at him until he finally becomes combative. I've actually seen this happen myself from your side of the fence.
The truth is, however, that no matter how much of a hard time I might give theists when it's clear that they want to engage, I have never said (and likely will never say) that the existence of God is an impossibility. I have always instead characterized myself as an agnostic atheist. Even most of the other atheists here who I would consider to be more 'hardline' than myself stop short of making the claim that God is an absolute impossibility. So it seems, then, that the atheists here (at least) choose to characterize themselves in a manner that is a little different from what you are trying to project onto them.
Finally, there is also the matter of evaluating different ideas about who and what God is, which means that it is possible for someone to be theistic, agnostic or atheistic to varying degrees based on exactly what we're talking about. There is the God of classical theism, open theism, pantheism, deism (to name a few) and there is even the idea of God as a completely unknown quantity, which could be any combination of any number of other ideas, or absolutely none of them.
In a similar vein, although you can easily find atheists on these forums engaged in enthusiastic debate about the particulars of what some theists would controversially call the 'atheist religion' (science) you almost never find theists arguing amongst themselves about the particulars of their own beliefs, even when they differ to the point of being mutually exclusive (especially in cases where one or more of them believe that certain very specific teachings must be accepted and adhered to). When you read between the lines you can be certain that such a situation does indeed exist, and can therefore conclude that many theists are simply staying quiet on such matters for the sake of presenting a unified front to strengthen their collective position. They have a tenuous but functional temporary alliance, and if they somehow prevailed against all the unbelievers, they'd go back to arguing about who is and isn't going to what eternal destination amongst themselves, as they have done throughout the ages.
Last edited:
Just goes to show how right I am, not that I deserve any particular praise for being so since it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Fail.
That's an assumption.
Wrong.
As would, probably, the majority of hard atheists: since they would have the evidence required.
How about hardline theists?
Wrong. And you haven't answered the question.
What "anecdotal evidence" is required to NOT believe?
I see you fail to understand what "weight of probability" means.
No we haven't.
And another error.
Correct.
False.
And a piece of specious rubbish to finish with.
Fail again.
You're assuming that most atheists here are hard line.
Another fail. Try to address the point.
Try this (again): to what set of beliefs do atheists subscribe?
Also wrong. To NOT believe requires NO anecdotal evidence.
Claiming it is "pointless" illustrates perfectly that you don't understand it.
The biblical flood was supposedly over the entire world. A Mesopotamian valley is not, surprisingly, the whole world.
So what?
I see. A failure of understanding on YOUR part somehow constitutes an error on my part. How droll.
And another failure to address the point being made.
Which is not the point in question.
For example:
Happiness ought to be found without reference to God or religion.
Hardship in life should be overcome without reference to God or religion.
(for the "I do not believe in God / God does not exist" kind of atheists)
Happiness ought to be found in relation to the pursuit of science and art.
Hardship in life should be overcome with the help of science and art.
(for the "I lack belief in God" kind of atheists as well as for the above mentioned)
No i specifically said a majority of the ones who post. preach. publish about Atheism seem to be hardline. Never said anything about just here.
It's not a fail. I merely pointed out that in all reality Hardline Theists would NEVER comes to the same problem as for them there would always be that next horizon.
The belief that there is no Higher power at all
But to counter AQnecdoctal evidence you ned actual evidence (you have none) or anecdoctal evidence (you have none). In a real formal debate the Theist side would at least have anecdoctal evidence. Atheists got squat.
No it is pointless becuase many seemingly impossible things happen every damn day. Saying someing is Impossible becuase it is improbable is just stupid.
It was the known world to the people at the time. Plus you have to allow for distortion of the tale by time it spent as a oral history.
Obviously you are not connecting dots. A god who created the universe would certainly work within the boundaries of said universe to do things.
I see. A failure of understanding on YOUR part somehow constitutes an error on my part. How droll.
Those are two traits common is all religions, to one degree or another.
Actually that is the freaking point.