atheist schmathiest
I notice many commentators to "Opposing Views" refer to themselves as "atheists." An atheist, of course, is a person who does not believe in a deity. Calling oneself an atheist is like calling oneself a psychic...both propositions are preposterous. There is no such thing as a "psychic" (I challenge anyone to prove otherwise), and there is no such thing (yet) as the absolute non-existence of a deity (the non-existence of a deity has not been proved). By the same token, the existence of a deity cannot be scientifically proved either (yet). Logically, as Mr. Spock would say, that leaves us with the POSSIBILITY of a deity...agnosticism. But rather than agonize over this issue, perhaps we should just be doing our best to live by the Judeo-Christian code with a sprinkling of Humanism and self-interest. If you feel like hedging your bets by praying, by all means pray. But I doubt any deity would take time out of a busy worldwide schedule to grant your little wishes; and his/her/its heart would be broken if you insisted that he/she/it doesn't exist.
Kirkman Dixon
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Mr Spock would urge you to be more precise in your language and to avoid over-generalizations in your argument. Specifically:
You wrote: "An atheist , of course, is a person who does not believe in a deity."
Your defnintion is inadequate to cover the full range of people that consider temselves to be " atheists ". To quote Wikipedia "Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]"
Position 1 - that there are no deities - is an affirmative statement of fact and is therefore appropriately refuted by your argument.
Positions 2 & 3 - the rejection or absence of belief in deities - cannot be refuted logically since these are not logical positions - meaning that they are not right/ wrong issues or questions of fact or reason. You cannot logically argue that someone does not believe something. For example, I reject the belief in deities or I have no belief in them because, well it doesn't matter why. Try to present a logical argument that refutes the fact that I believe what I believe. You can't. You may be able to argue that my belief is illogical, but you cannot in the end argue that I do not have that belief in the first place.
This then, makes your statement "Calling oneself an atheist is like calling oneself a psychic...both propositions are preposterous. " false because you've failed to consider that the term "atheist" has multiple meanings.
What you should have said is that asserting that it is factually correct that no deities exist and/or that they cannot exist is illogical because such an assertion cannot be proven or disproven. Period.
As for your bit about calling onself a psychic, well, it's not inherently preposterous to call oneself anything. You're free to name yourself anything you want. However, to assert that you actually posses psychic powers, well, that's an entirely different thing altogether.
Richard Dawkins described a scale from 1 to 7 in which 1 means "I'm 100% certain there is a god " and 7 means "I'm 100% certain there is no god".
Religious people (1 on the Dawkins scale) are 100% certain that their god is the one and only true god. They don't realize that religions run in families. If you are born in the US or Europe, you are most likely some brand of christian. If you are born in the Middle East, you are most likely a Muslim and if you are born in India, you are most likely a Hindu. All 3 groups are 100% certain. How come?
An atheist follows the evidence and since there is no verifiable and falsifiable evidence for any god, gods, pink unicorns, tooth fairies, thee pots orbiting around mars, mercury retrograde, astrology, alchemy, ... he or she is fundamentally agnostic about all of these. However, since an atheist is always open to new evidence, there are no atheists who are truly a 7 on the Dawkins scale. Most would say they are a 6.9. In that sense, all atheists are agnostic.
What about the midpoint 4 on the Dawkins scale that many people confuse with being agnostic? These would be people who find that the existence of gods is like flipping a coin. 50% chance of heads and 50% chance of tails.
The celestial thee pot is a good one to explain why this does not make sense. If I claim that a thee pot is orbiting Mars which is so small that it cannot be observed from Earth, does that mean that there is a 50% chance this is true? By no means, since now you have to introduce probabilities. No one can prove that there is a thee pot orbiting Mars and no one can prove that this is not the case since you can never prove that something does not exist. However, with what we know of science , and using our evolved brains, we have to conclude that the existence of a Mars orbiting thee pot is so extremely improbably that we can claim to be a-theepotists.
Claiming to be an a-theepotist is not claiming to be 100% certain but claiming to be 99.99999% certain and making a statement of contrast with those who are 100% that such an orbiting thee pot exists.
Once you have made the rational conclusion that any supernatural being that answers prayers , forgives sins, suspends the laws of physics to perform miracles, cares about your sex life and who you have sex with and in what position is EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE, you would be foolish to waste your life being delusional.
It is better to live your life to the fullest following the golden rule of doing to others what you want done to yourself and not doing to others what you don't want done to yourself.
In summary, atheists are close to 7 on the Dawkins scale but never 7 because they follow the evidence and the nonexistence of something can never be proven.
I've read more than a few of your posts and I'm staaarting to get the impression that you're just not very open to religion at all. Sure, you say that there are no 7s on the Dawkin's scale but I wonder about you...
What about optimistic agnostics, hmmm? I would say that I'm slightly religious and yes, I have a clear picture of what God is if God exists (although I'm inclined to think "He" might be a "She." Or a "They...") No matter. Most religious folks that I know (so most of the people I know, and indeed, most people on Earth) are also not a 1 as the self-esteemed Mr. Dawkins purports. Let's take Hinduism as an example, shall we? You say that if someone is born in India they are likely to be Hindu. And you say they are all "100% certain that their god is the one and only true god."
Really? Rigid approach to theological matters is not central to Hinduism. Hindus believe that it is up to the individual to decide the best way to worship God. Various paths to reach God include the path of knowledge, the path of devotion, and/or the path of action. You can pursue your own path and follow your own convictions as long as they are in harmony with your true nature. And most Hindus do not worship the same God. The average Hindu has an allegiance to a particular deity, deities, or concept within a broad range of possibilities. And this does not fragment them from each other, because Hindus think that you should believe that conviction which is in harmony with your "true nature." (Rubenstein, James. Human Geography: a Cultural Landscape.)
Way to misrepresent 860 million religious adherents.
Although you didn't cite this one (well, you did inadvertently by using the words "religious people") Buddhists are almost always adherents of an ethnic religion as well as Buddhism because Buddhism also does not require exclusive adherence. Additionally, they can change their beliefs as they see logical and continue to be good Buddhists. That's another 400 million people that you mislabeled as "religious people...100% certain that their god is the one and only true god."
Most Christians and Muslims are the same way on an individual level. People try to find whatever it is that makes them feel close to Christ or Allah, and if you asked one Christian or Muslim their feelings on God, you would know that. Here's a test (so you can be scientific about it), go ahead and ask 10 adherents who go to the exact same church on their feelings of what God means to them, and write down what they have to say about it. I'm willing to bet you'll get 10 very different answers.
I theorize that most people who adhere to a specific religion are actually (technically) optimistic agnostics, because most religious people change their views on God throughout their lifespan. God doesn't mean the same thing to me today as when I was 4 years old. So acting like all religious folk are just ignorant drones who never open their mind to the world and who clearly have no reasoning skills in statistical evidence is just a bit overboard.
Speaking of statistical evidence, here's a question: what are the odds that a bunch of molecules got together outside of a lab and congregated into a self-replicating cell that spawned all life on the planet in the absence of any other cells? If you were a chemist, you'd know the likelihood (hint: somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in a trillion to the third power. Under ideal circumstances). And once you figure out the likelihood, it's pretty easy to see why so many people on Earth are more or less optimistic when it comes to religion - 2 or 3, on the Dawkin's scale?
That's rather a patronizing statement!
An atheist is someone who denies the existence of a god or gods. It is not necessary to prove that there is no god.
Using logic it will never be possible to either prove or disprove the existence of god(s). But so what? I deny the existence of God. Am I agnostic? No. You may not agree with my position, but that does not matter. I cannot disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. I cannot disprove that you are a martian in disguise. Where does this stop? This kind of semantic dismissal of atheism gets us nowhere.
By contrast, a psychic is someone who who believes in the existence of something outside the possibilities defined by natural laws, such as telepathy. In what way is calling oneself an atheist like calling oneself an atheist? How much further apart could these positions be?
And are you saying that a judeo-christian code with a smattering of humanism and self interest is the optimal way to lead a moral and meaningful life? Being an atheist does not make me by default any less moral than a christian. It could be argued that atheists are more truly moral, as they do not need an external being to tell them how to behave.
I hope this is helpful.
Let's assume the position of an agnostic. We don't know with certainty whether a god (or gods) exists. That answers the question of what we know, but what do we believe? That's a different question.
Do we make a judgment? If that's the case, do you think it's more reasonable to believe in the existence or nonexistence of what we're ignorant about? Defaulting to existence would lead to an infinite number of contradictions. Perhaps we should instead make our best guess given what we do know, but that doesn't make atheism "preposterous" in the fashion you argued.
Or do we hold off judgment altogether? If that's the case, we're already atheists by the definition you provided. A person who avoids forming beliefs about deities is "a person who does not believe in a deity".
My Lord lives in me.And hears all my prayers Jesus died for all.Jesus love you