Calling yourself an atheist

[Chris Worfolk]

I'm addressing this in a new topic so the other one doesn't get dragged off topic.

If we take 'atheism' to mean the belief that there is no God, well... you can't prove God's non-existence, so you can't really justify calling yourself an atheist.

You don't need to prove something conclusively to believe in it. Much like anything in science we can't conclusively prove gravity exists but we all still believe it. So you can call yourself an atheist quite justifiably.

[grammar king mike]

Well (taking the assumptions I added into account - I'll deal with them at the end of this post) I would say your gravity example is a bit different. We can prove gravity exists quite conclusively (everything around me is on the floor), it's more the why/how that is slightly contentious. With the existence of god, lack of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist. You cannot prove there's no god, it's impossible. You cannot know there is no god. Therefore you cannot justify calling yourself an atheist.

The famous 1-7 spectrum of theistic probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_Theistic_Probability) puts religious fundamentalism at 1 and true atheism at 7. Unless you would call yourself a 7 (and I really do hope that nobody would, that's fundamentalism), you're not actually a justified atheist (taking atheism to mean the belief that there is no god), strictly you're an agnostic, or an unjustified atheist.

Of course I'm not suggesting that we should be calling ourselves agnostics. ^^This^^ all depends on whether you take atheist to mean 'someone that believes there is no god'. I prefer to define an atheist as 'someone who does not believe that there is a god' - notice the subtle difference. I do call myself an atheist, mainly because if I called myself an agnostic, it would imply that I'm 50/50, on the fence, when in fact I'm relatively sure there is no god, I just can't prove it completely. If it became obvious that a god does exist I'm sure I'd start believing, but until then, I'm going to live my life as though there isn't one.

[norman]

I justify calling myself an atheist using the logic that the probability of any one god existsing is practically zero - there are approaching an infinite number of gods that can exist, so the chance of any of those being the 'one true god/gods' is approaching one over infinity (a very small number).

To me the fact that I cannot prove god does not exist is moot, I can be atheist by proving that no one god can, with any statistical justification, exist.

[grammar king mike]

That's only a justification to not believe in any particular God, it doesn't justify believing there isn't one at all.

[Moogle]

Why do you all seem to dislike agnositics?
Im one and I like fence sitting :p
I cant prove either way if there is or isnt a god.
Tho I do believe there is a higher power somewhere .. I just have no idea what it is!:confused:

[Ellis Pugh]

On the contrary Moogle, I don't think anyone here dislikes agnostics, as grammar king Mike says we cannot 100% conclusively disprove the existence of a god and therefore we are all at least in some way agnostic.

Nonetheless my personal opinions tend to move much closer to Normans' (sorry if I'm incorrectly interpreting your opinions here): although I cannot conclusively disprove the existence of Allah, Yahweh, fairies, the flying spaghetti monster or vampires does not make their existence at all likely and in fact, when you factor in human frailties/biases I believe that the chance/probablility of their existence is incredibly slight.

Subsequently, I feel it would be naieve to live as if these beings had a good chance of existing, because on the evidence available (and if this changes I may have to revise my opinions), they don't.

This is why I am happy to call myself an atheist and not an agnostic.

As for your belief in a 'higher power' (and I don't want to be rude or demeaning in any way), I am interested on what you base that belief upon?

[Moogle]

As for your belief in a 'higher power' (and I don't want to be rude or demeaning in any way), I am interested on what you base that belief upon?

I believe that although there probably isnt a god .. that there is something higher than us humans.
Not something that directly influences us, but that there is something out there.

I find it hard to type explain exactly what I mean. it makes sence in my head!
I'll have to think about how to word it better and get back to you :(

[norman]

That reminds me of the "religion" and "god" that Dawkins talks about in the introduction to The God Delusion. The idea that there is something out there that is more complex than the human mind, therefore beyond our comprehension. This Einsteinian god doesn't really fit into the theism debate as it doesn't fulfill any of the criteria that, I at least, can be prescribed to a 'god'.

In response to whether we can be justified as atheists, I think that the logic I used to say I don't believe in any gods works on the lines that if I can not be justified in believing in any one god then the only available choice is the belief in none - which is atheism.

[Moogle]

I never said it was a 'god'.
Personally I border more on the, 'there is no god' side of the fence, but I still think there is something out there that is more than we can comprehend. I dont think its a 'god' though.

[StuartR]

...there is something out there that is more than we can comprehend.

I never really understand what people mean when they say things like that. A bit of a defeatist attitude, unless you're being specific about, say, consciousness and you're a New Mysterian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mysterianism)or something, which I suppose is a defensible position (I think I was a New Mysterian until Daniel Dennett sorted that one out for me)...

Anyway, I was beaten to a bloody pulp by a fellow who is (apparently) top of the class in philosophy at Oxford earlier this week in an argument about 'you have to be an agnostic, not an atheist'. Philosophically speaking, yeah, I'm an agnostic. But we wouldn't want to speak philosophically all the time - imagine how dreary and boring the world would become - so I describe myself as an atheist to show how unlikely I think the God Hypothesis is.

[Moogle]

I never really understand what people mean when they say things like that. A bit of a defeatist attitude

Im agnostic :p
Doesnt that say it all?

[norman]

Perhaps you should all come listen to one of our members, Geijsbert, give his presentation on the Problem with Agnosticism!

In the very strictest sense of the word, we are all agnostic about most things, but there are shades of grey everywhere. I think that calling yourself an Atheist is not denying the inherent agnosticism of most of our actual beliefs - i think most of us would agree that if insurmountable proof of a gods existence were to become available we would convert - but reinforcing, as Stuart implied, our rejection of the God hypothesis.

[StuartR]

Im agnostic :p
Doesnt that say it all?

But you're not an agnostic if you believe in a higher power, surely?

[norman]

But you're not an agnostic if you believe in a higher power, surely?

The problem here is that agnostic means that you can believe in a power but that you can never know it (dictionary.com) as ultimate knowledge is unattainable.

This kind of agnosticism does not, in my opinion, hold any water but it is a justiable position as long as you don't mind the label irrational... lol

My 2p anyway...

[Moogle]

The problem here is that agnostic means that you can believe in a power but that you can never know it (dictionary.com) as ultimate knowledge is unattainable.

This kind of agnosticism does not, in my opinion, hold any water but it is a justiable position as long as you don't mind the label irrational... lol

My 2p anyway...

Exactly! Thankies Norman! :)

To put it simply. Im agnostic, because I just dont know!
I'd like to /think/ there is a higher power, but I cant tell you for sure. I cant tell you if there isnt either!

[norman]

I'd like to /think/ there is a higher power, but I cant tell you for sure.

Hmm, **attaches IRRATIONAL label**.

Believing in an entity with 'evidence' even as flimsy as theists possess is, in my eyes, far more defensible than believing (or thinking, or hoping etc) in a higher power with absolutely no grounds is just crazy.... lol.

That attitude does not fit with your ethos of fence sitting either - you actively believe in a higher power, you just don't know for sure whether your higher power exists. That's not fence sitting, thats playing make-believe! I could understand (though disagree with) a position of aboslute agnosticsm - ie never knowing either way or believeing that rvrn if we did know it would be irrelevant.

Maybe we need an agnostics thread!

[Moogle]

Hmm, **attaches IRRATIONAL label**.

Believing in an entity with 'evidence' even as flimsy as theists possess is, in my eyes, far more defensible than believing (or thinking, or hoping etc) in a higher power with absolutely no grounds is just crazy.... lol.

That attitude does not fit with your ethos of fence sitting either - you actively believe in a higher power, you just don't know for sure whether your higher power exists. That's not fence sitting, thats playing make-believe! I could understand (though disagree with) a position of aboslute agnosticsm - ie never knowing either way or believeing that rvrn if we did know it would be irrelevant.

Maybe we need an agnostics thread!

You are so mean dude!

All Im trying to say is that quite simply, I JUST DONT KNOW!!
Is that SO hard to understand, man!?:mad:

Im not saying I DO believe in a higher power, Im saying there MIGHT be one, just as much as there might NOT be one!

Jesus H Christ ... Does that make any sense now?:confused:

[norman]

Yes, that does make sense but it is not what you posted previously.

Genuinely not knowing either way means you cannot make positive statements about it either way. You cannot say you think that a higher power exists because you cannot think that if you do not know equally either way.

If you think the evidence is slightly in favour of one position than another then maybe a more suitable label should be used - such as a weak atheist or a skeptic theist....

[Moogle]

Yes, that does make sense but it is not what you posted previously.

Genuinely not knowing either way means you cannot make positive statements about it either way. You cannot say you think that a higher power exists because you cannot think that if you do not know equally either way.

If you think the evidence is slightly in favour of one position than another then maybe a more suitable label should be used - such as a weak atheist or a skeptic theist....

*stomp*

FFS boy!

Fine, perhaps I have labled myself wrongly. But thats Nevs fault .. he said I was .. <_<

As for this higher power thing, as we've discussed, I didnt mean it as a god, I just meant something that had evolved more.

Stop asking me about that now. Im bored of it.

I dont know. I dont believe in anything anymore.

[norman]

Hmm, I think this is perhaps as far as this can go before it becomes too heated :P

[Ellis Pugh]

I dont know. I dont believe in anything anymore.

Perfect. ;)

[Jenna]

As far as being an atheist yet believing in the human mind not yet being able to comprehend all is totally feasible. I think that I can believe that there is no God yet be open to the possibility that science does not explain everything (yet). For example, belief in fate is not necessarily incompatible with atheism, it just isn't God deciding what happens, maybe forces of nature, the magic in the air created by humanity, the earth, animals and plants, emotions, striving, love, all that stuff. Maybe this is part of what sets humanists apart from atheists? (I realise I'm spanning a number of threads now! oops)
Anyway, we know humans do not yet use all of their brain power, I think we have the potential to comprehend everything, but might not yet do so. Do I think there is a God there waiting to be scientifically discovered? No. I do think that maybe one day we will be able to explain through reference to other things, why people have labelled certain things as miracles of God, or the work of God. I believe in miracles, life is a miracle for a start, and I think you can believe in magic without believing in God.
(Just a kind of response to Moogle's statements/predicament)

[grammar king mike]

As far as being an atheist yet believing in the human mind not yet being able to comprehend all is totally feasible. I think that I can believe that there is no God yet be open to the possibility that science does not explain everything (yet). For example, belief in fate is not necessarily incompatible with atheism, it just isn't God deciding what happens, maybe forces of nature, the magic in the air created by humanity, the earth, animals and plants, emotions, striving, love, all that stuff. Maybe this is part of what sets humanists apart from atheists? (I realise I'm spanning a number of threads now! oops)

Actually I'd say it is one distinction, but in the opposite way to the way I suspect you're thinking. An atheist doesn't believe in God, but can still believe in superstitions, magic and fate. This person would not be a humanist. Humanism is rational, and belief in superstitions, magic and fate is distinctly irrational.


I believe in miracles, life is a miracle for a start, and I think you can believe in magic without believing in God.


Interesting. What exactly is a miracle? I'd call it something sufficiently improbable that we wouldn't expect it to happen ever to anyone in the world. Dawkins has a section on this in Unweaving the Rainbow and also in The Blind Watchmaker. He coins a term which is yet to become mainstream called the petwhac (Probability of Events That Would Have Appeared Coincidental). He uses the example of TV magicians, and also the Our Lady of Fatima Sun Miracles (http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/appariti/fatima.html#anchor133742), because it's more likely that these people were fooled into thinking the sun was moving, than for the rest of the millions of people on earth to be fooled into thinking it wasn't.

But to call life a miracle is something I don't agree with. There are billions and billions of planets out there, and for life to appear on one of them by "blind chance", I don't think is a miracle at all. And it's no coincidence that we happen to be here on one of the planets where life has originated.

[Jenna]

My opinion is that most interpretations of humanism which prize reason and rationalism are quite narrow, better to acknowledge the limits of reason and rationalism, NOT advocating superstition, but realising that what is considered reason and rationality are culturally dependent concepts. I think that over-reliance on reason, logic, feeling reassured by the existence of 'facts' and 'truth' is to fail to push your mind further to be open to what can only be described as postmodern ways of thinking.
I realise that humanism came out of the Enlightenment, which is great, reason is a huge improvement on superstition, BUT, things have moved on, and there is no need to fall into positivist epistemology itself becoming the new dogma. The vast majority of humanists are modernists, but there are a few like me. Postmodernism and humanism are compatible, as argued in this essay:
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/462

Now, to explain why I am not superstitious, yet use words like miracle/magic...
I use these words as celebratory of nature and human achievement, I refer to human feelings of wonderment, for example at the birth of a child, it's to express the 'wow' I feel at things. I personally think that the science of making a baby and a baby actually growing inside you, are so far apart, the science doesn't make me think wow but the thing actually happening seems to me, amazing, but of course nothing to do with the supernatural. So I may not use these words strictly to their definitions, but it is as close as I can get to understanding an agnostic point of view.
I don't really understand your last sentence, what do you mean by it's no coincidence we're on a planet where there is life? I'm sure there is life on other planets, I'm not surprised that life started on earth the way it did, I just think the experience of life is amazing, we take it for granted.

[grammar king mike]

Oh the last sentence isn't really directed at anything you said, it's just that I've often heard creationists think that it's a coincidence that it happened here, but it isn't because if it happened somewhere else, then we'd be there. Obvious point, but worth mentioning nonetheless.

The wow factor is also a major theme in Unweaving the Rainbow (I really do recommend it). Dawkins argues that we can increase our sense of wonder at the world around us if we know more about it, rather than decrease as many might think. I believe he used the example of bats, or insect ears or something, but it's a while since I read.

[AlexMagd]

I find it endlessly fascinating that creationists and fundamentalists can talk about losing God being the loss of all the stuff that's accidentally been associated with him over the years when to me it's the other way around. To look at a beautiful sunset, or unusual weather phenomena (rainbows for example!) or learn about the intricate life cycles and inter-dependance of fig wasps and fig trees (thanks, Dawkins) and think "Wow, isn't God neat" is just a colossal intellectual failure. It amazes me much more to think "isn't it incredible that this all came together on its own, all this complexity etc etc" than to have an all-powerful being just click his fingers and make everything appear. I'm sure everyone here feels the same; it's just so hard to get across that sense of humility and awe at the world to believers, and most importantly to divorce it from the idea of God!

Sorry I was just reading Billy Bryson's 'A Short History Of Nearly Everything' and I've been left with a wide-eyed sense of childish wonder at the world.