Atheism - A Brief Description and subsequent Discussion

[Tuah]

I hadn't seen any topic similar to this, so I figured I might as well take it upon myself to make one. This topic is a clarification on what atheism is (particularly the rational, skeptical kind), along with related subjects. Do remember that I am only one person, and I probably will make a mistake or two.


Atheism
Although the word has many interpretations, the most commonly accepted one is quite simply, "without gods". This can refer to both spiritual and non-spiritual people whose opinions do not include the idea that any gods exist.
While there are religions without gods, most people who are talking about atheism are talking about the non-spiritual type. That's the sort I'll be talking about from this point on.

Atheism and skepticism are two topics that should go hand-in-hand, but unfortunately they don't. There are some people who claim that there are no gods, which is a claim that cannot be supported by evidence; evidence of negative existence cannot exist.
But then again, though this is a logical argument, would it be unreasonable to say that Bigfoot and Dragons don't exist?

An atheist who is also a rational thinker would be considered agnostic; open to the idea if there were enough evidence to support it, but one's personal label as an atheist should be sufficient enough.


Agnosticism
Agnosticism is a term I often see thrown around and misused to make atheists seem closed-minded. This is something I would like to clarify.
Agnosticism is derived from Greek words meaning "without knowledge". It refers to the belief that knowledge about the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Generally, this is to say that a person is not convinced of the supernatural, but remains open to the possibility.

When I see this word misused, it is usually in the form of a strawman; the idea that if a person proclaims themselves an atheist, that they are not proclaiming themselves to be agnostic- and therefore not claiming themselves open-minded on the subject.
Quite the contrary, this comes down to a person's level of skepticism.


Rationality
Skepticism is at the heart of rational and logical thinking, and it is something that I think any proper atheist should exhibit.

Skepticism is, in a short summary, a level of doubt toward claims that are made. Good, solid, evidence is required for a skeptic to be convinced of something. A skeptical atheist would not accept the claim that gods exist due to a lack of convincing evidence.

An example, if I told you that there was an invisible, selectively-tangible wish-granting unicorn next to you that only I were able to see, you wouldn't believe me would you? It's not a matter of relevancy; I claim that it's about to impale you with its horn if you don't pet it. Death is quite relevant isn't it? Regardless of the relevancy, I have provided no evidence whatsoever for my unreasonable claim.


Science
So what does a rational atheist think? Where does science fit into all of this?
Science is the process of learning about reality based on tangible, testable evidence. It is an important part in developing society's knowledge, and the scientific method is designed to be inherently reliable.

But Average Joe Atheist isn't a scientist himself; why should he accept anything that scientists say? This matter is a combination of practicality, relevance, and trust in the fact that humanity as a whole is not part of some big conspiracy. Scientific communities openly share their discoveries and the processes they use to make their discoveries. Because of this, claims are put through a severe peer-review process before they are accepted among the scientific community; if any bit is inaccurate or falsifiable, it is rejected.

I should think this should provide a great deal of trustworthiness from us common folk.
Any one of us has the opportunity to become part of the community ourselves, test information, submit claims, have our flaws pointed out to us with a brutality, and even attempt to disprove anything we want to. And with such a growing source of information like the internet provides, discovery is right at our fingertips.

For some of us though, being a part of the worldwide scientific community is just something not feasible or relevant to our daily lives. But we can actively see the effects that science immediately produces; the ability to produce computers, modern medicine, machinery... simple fire!
I personally find this is much more reliable and realistic than say, praying to the Email God that my message will get sent. (Even though I might still do that on occasion...)





Along with the idiom of humanity's community, feel free to tell me how I could improve this topic and provide useful general information about rationality and skepticism, and general atheism and related subjects.

(tl;dr) "God created everything? Great! Please provide quantifiable evidence."

[Shana OHara]

First off my proof


Secondly, whether or not God is real is up to the individual. I can make points and what that will prove it to believer but not an atheist. i do believe in science but I also question what was the driving force behind the atom? what created the smallest piece of biology that creates a living being? As far as i see it, god created the pathway to science and let it grow from there.

As for Red Panda, what the hell do you think weight is? Weight is visible form of gravity that is measurable. We can see weight and judge it.

[Tuah]

Red Panda - the kings

I dont know if you want people to post yet, but I'm going to make a statement. We cannot prove love, but its there. We know how gravity works but we can't prove it. You can make diagrams and the whole nine yards but the bottom line is we will never "see" gravity. There are things we cannot prove. Period. That is were faith comes in, where you accept that life is not random. People need to find their purpose which is to worship God. But what people dont understand is you dont have to get on your knees to worship God. Worshiping God is do what you know is right, treating others with respect and showing love and compassion. Following the messengers of Gods footsteps. What I don't understand is why do Atheist believe in things that they themselves cannot prove but don't believe in the pure essence of all humanity, God. And no not some guy in a chair in the sky. We all know God wether we try to block him out or not. We are born spiritual beings and we will die spiritual beings and there will never be enough scientific evidence in the world to prove this. So people can accept it now or later. But if you choose later your slowing down your growth process.

Prove it.


Using gravity as an example, we can see the effects of gravity, can demonstrate it, and have formulas which predict its effects with great exactness. We even know it's directly related to energy and time; the very satellites that make your phone work are based on the warping of spacetime in order to stay synchronous. We as human society may not understand the mechanism that causes it, but we have fairly well proven that gravity is a force that exists with an insanely high degree of certainty.

Love as another example, we can directly feel its effects, and even observe its effects from an outside perspective. There's even a few fields of study devoted to understand it among other aspects of human behavior. It can even be quantified to a certain degree; not a very high degree, given that the human brain is very complicated, but much more than you think.

Demonstrate that God is real, and I'll readily accept it.



@Shana OHara: I'm perfectly open to the idea of people coming up with new ideas about reality's nature; new concepts are the very essence of learning. But I think that nothing should be accepted and believed until there is actual evidence to support the idea.

[Shana OHara]

Tuah, it's probably one of those Damned if you do damned if you don't ordeals. No one is ever going to be able to come up with a concert answer that all will be able to prove it.

[Red Panda - the kings]

Shana OHara

The point I was making with gravity is; we cannot literally see gravity.

[Shana OHara]

Red Panda - the kings

Shana OHara

The point I was making with gravity is; we cannot literally see gravity.

It doesn't matter. Gravity is still measurable and you can see the pull on how heavy people are.

[Silence_Walker]

In the OP, based on the definition of Agnostic, the most a truly wise man could ever claim to be is Agnostic.

You can't prove the existence or nonexistence of any god.

A true believer is someone who acknowledges they have no way of knowing the answer, but feels strongly enough to reach a vague conclusion.

The closest thing to a true Atheist would be someone who also acknowledges they have no way of knowing the answer, but tests reality instead of believing in a nebulous idea and tries to achieve the best understanding of the universe they can.

Claiming you know there is a god defeats the purpose of faith just as much claiming to know there isn't one with no conclusive proof defeats the purpose of reason. (And entirely shits all over the scientific method.)

[TrueLore]

Red Panda - the kings

I dont know if you want people to post yet, but I'm going to make a statement. We cannot prove love, but its there. We know how gravity works but we can't prove it. You can make diagrams and the whole nine yards but the bottom line is we will never "see" gravity. There are things we cannot prove. Period. That is were faith comes in, where you accept that life is not random. People need to find their purpose which is to worship God. But what people dont understand is you dont have to get on your knees to worship God. Worshiping God is do what you know is right, treating others with respect and showing love and compassion. Following the messengers of Gods footsteps. What I don't understand is why do Atheist believe in things that they themselves cannot prove but don't believe in the pure essence of all humanity, God. And no not some guy in a chair in the sky. We all know God wether we try to block him out or not. We are born spiritual beings and we will die spiritual beings and there will never be enough scientific evidence in the world to prove this. So people can accept it now or later. But if you choose later your slowing down your growth process.

Love can be measured in the brain. Gravity is measured through physics; yes it is a great mystery as to what gravity is exactly, but we can still measure it. Neither love nor gravity require faith to believe in. You have not offered one iota of proof for this "God" thing of yours.

Gravity requires absolutely no faith to understand or believe in. Simply pick up something and drop it. The reason it does not hover in mid air is because there is a constant download force being applied to it, that force we call gravity. To try to argue that gravity is somehow a good point because we cannot literally see gravity is sheer ignorance. The atheist does not argue that they do not believe in a god simply because they cannot see a god.

Love is a bit more tricky, but it can be explained through chemicals in the brain, or if we want to get a little less technical it is a mixture of attraction and trust, neither of which require the kind of "faith" you talk about when talking about belief in an unproven claim. Having faith in friends and loved ones is a completely different kind of faith, which is trust that is proven by the consistent actions of mutual community.

Faith is a flawed concept, demanding faith to believe in something is a pathetic ground to stand on. To be a person of faith is not only to believe something without any evidence or reason to believe in it, but to deny logic, to deny evidence, and to deny being reasonable and logical when faced with a fantastical claim that has not been proven and is only asserted to be true on poor reasoning and no evidence.

So let's review, you have given two poor examples of "faith" that do not require faith, and then continued to argue that not only that faith, not just any faith but faith in the divine, is somehow important, yet you have failed to provide any reason to actually have faith in your god, nevermind the large amounts of gods that I could be having faith in. I could just as easily justify belief in Allah as I could YHWH, Zeus, Vishnu, or Poseidon under faith.

[Ban]

Red Panda - the kings

Shana OHara

The point I was making with gravity is; we cannot literally see gravity.

You understand the concept of circumstantial evidence, yes? There are things that cannot be directly observed, but nonetheless have effects. It is not a matter of faith to draw an inferential conclusion from a body of evidence. It is merely reasonable, given certain axioms. According to the Kierkegaardian conception of faith, the very notion of faith defies reason. The leap of faith is much like a leap of logic; it has no rational explanation.

It is a reasoned conclusion that the wind exists by observing the rustling of the leaves. It is a matter of faith to believe the sound of that rustling is an omen from a divine source. I Chronicles 14:15, et cetera.

[Tuah]

Red Panda - the kings

Tuah

High certainty isn't enough. I had a high certainty about a lot of things but I was proven wrong time and time again.

Love can not be defined using scientific evidence, it's impossible. And not everyone has felt the affects of love so how can it be proven? Everyone has a different definition of love also, love is not straight forward like science. Not everything is meant to be proven or figured out. The whole point of life is to grow spiritually not to develop knowledge.

You have to have faith, not because your mother is christian or because I'm telling you this. You simply have to go within and you will find God. Now people all have a different perspective on what God is. God to me is when I feel love around me, when I'm in a state of mind were I wish the best for others.

Trust me when you go within and connect with yourself you will find God. There are numerous times were unexplainable things happen or people develop a spiritual tolerance for the material world. That is a result of a connection with God; the true essence of humanity.

Believe me when I say I've felt the same thing. I used to believe with a grand conviction. But feelings are fleeting; when I was left with only my logical side, I came to realize that I had no real basis on which to believe, apart from that it "felt good". Emotions are terribly fallible. And quite unreliable too.

Basing beliefs on feelings is no way to live. Take the Islamic terrorists from 9/11 and onward for example; they felt God's will inside them. They did what they thought felt right. Never once did they question whether what they were doing was truly good. And without logic or reason, how could they?

By the way, "high certainty" in the scientific world means "every goddamn time".

[catspook]

Red Panda - the kings

Shana OHara

The point I was making with gravity is; we cannot literally see gravity.

So vision is the only sense that matters? Bad new for blind people sad

[IronySandwich]

Tuah

There are some people who claim that there are no gods, which is a claim that cannot be supported by evidence; evidence of negative existence cannot exist.

That is an example of an unjustified privilege that even many atheists seem determined to grant to religious ideas.

Dragons don't exist. I claim this, and I claim it with certainty. The lack of evidence for them IS evidence of there absence, and it is conclusive evidence.

Of course, it is vaguely possible that dragons will appear out of nowhere all over the world tomorrow, and I would then be forced to retract that position. My claim that they don't exist in no way implies that I would actually ignore evidence should it turn up, nor is it saying that I find them a total logical impossibility. I don't usually have to actually state those things because they are so obvious that I would expect anyone who wasn't a complete moron to understand them implicitly. The only reason I can see to granting this pedant's privilege to the religious (that we don't grant to Bigfoot or leprechaun believers) is that even those who are actively against religious privilege still have this little bit of it ingrained in them. That or it's just assumed that they ARE complete morons, which even I find to be a bit too far.

[Tuah]

IronySandwich

Tuah

There are some people who claim that there are no gods, which is a claim that cannot be supported by evidence; evidence of negative existence cannot exist.

That is an example of an unjustified privilege that even many atheists seem determined to grant to religious ideas.

Dragons don't exist. I claim this, and I claim it with certainty. The lack of evidence for them IS evidence of there absence, and it is conclusive evidence.

Of course, it is vaguely possible that dragons will appear out of nowhere all over the world tomorrow, and I would then be forced to retract that position. My claim that they don't exist in no way implies that I would actually ignore evidence should it turn up, nor is it saying that I find them a total logical impossibility. I don't usually have to actually state those things because they are so obvious that I would expect anyone who wasn't a complete moron to understand them implicitly. The only reason I can see to granting this pedant's privilege to the religious (that we don't grant to Bigfoot or leprechaun believers) is that even those who are actively against religious privilege still have this little bit of it ingrained in them. That or it's just assumed that they ARE complete morons, which even I find to be a bit too far.

That is something I will have to ponder, as even the proposition of a concept as positive could be considered unreasonable, therefor absolving any negative claim toward the concept from any unreasonability.