Originally posted by rwingett
Atheism involves no faith since it is not a belief, but a lack of belief.

Thanks, that helps. I'm still trying to figure it out, but thanks.

What you posted here brings me to another question. What is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? I saw this "conversation" and thought it made sense in explaining the difference:

Theist: There is a God.
Agnostic: I don't believe you. Prove it.

Atheist: There is no God.
Agnostic: I don't believe you. Prove it.

This implies that agnostics are unsure and believe that not enough doctrine/evidence one way or another proves either argument...

I thought this made sense, but what are your opinions? This seems to conflict with what you are saying...

Originally posted by wittywonka
Thanks, that helps. I'm still trying to figure it out, but thanks.

What you posted here brings me to another question. What is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? I saw this "conversation" and thought it made sense in explaining the difference:

Theist: There is a God.
Agnostic: I don't believe you. Prove it.

Atheist: There is ...[text shortened]... made sense, but what are your opinions? This seems to conflict with what you are saying...

Atheist: There is no [insert some entity that violates the principle of falsifiability]
Agnostic: I don't believe you. Prove it.

The problem is there is significant evidence not to believe in God, but that doesn't matter. People who believe just keep on making excuses, because they don't allow the possibility that God might not exist. For example, the evidence of dinosaur fossils, the age of the planet, etc. This would be good evidence that the bible is wrong, but they just say God put it there to test our faith, etc. All those other religions? Another test to our faith. I know next to nothing on evolution, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's considered true, if it's not already, then what do you think people will say? They won't admit they're wrong, just say that it was God's plan, the bible is not to be taken literally in "certain parts", etc.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Thanks, that helps. I'm still trying to figure it out, but thanks.

What you posted here brings me to another question. What is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? I saw this "conversation" and thought it made sense in explaining the difference:

Theist: There is a God.
Agnostic: I don't believe you. Prove it.

Atheist: There is made sense, but what are your opinions? This seems to conflict with what you are saying...

An agnostic says that god is either unknowable or that the concept is unintelligible, and that no verdict can be rendered on the subject.

An atheist says that while it may be true that god is either unknowable or unintelligible, this only underscores the fact that the theist has done nothing to validate his claim for the existence of god and that the claim must therefore be doubted.

An atheist presumes non-belief to be the point from which everyone should start. If a case can be made for the validity of a hypothesis, then one would be moved from their state of non-belief to one of active belief. If no case can be made, then one would remain a non-believer.

So your example would work more like this:

Theist: There is a god.
Atheist: Show me. If you can't then I must doubt your assertion.

Theist: There is a god.
Agnostic: The question either cannot be answered, or is unintelligible. Either way, we have no way of knowing if a god exists.


Edit: it is simply not the case that atheism says there is no god. They say it is likely that there is no god, and that a god should consequently be assumed to be false.

Originally posted by Zander 88
Atheist: There is no [insert some entity that violates the principle of falsifiability]
Agnostic: I don't believe you. Prove it.

The problem is there is significant evidence not to believe in God, but that doesn't matter. People who believe just keep on making excuses, because they don't allow the possibility that God might not exist. For example, the ...[text shortened]... at it was God's plan, the bible is not to be taken literally in "certain parts", etc.

Proving that a literalist interpretation of the bible is wrong does nothing to prove the non-existence of god. You have merely cast doubt upon a very narrow interpretation of god. There are many other interpretations (even within christianity) that are immune to this line of attack.

Originally posted by rwingett
Proving that a literalist interpretation of the bible is wrong does nothing to prove the non-existence of god. You have merely cast doubt upon a very narrow interpretation of god. There are many other interpretations (even within christianity) that are immune to this line of attack.

But that's my point. If you take a very open interpretation of God, then it's impossible to refute it. Your argument must be specific enough to allow counterevidence.

Originally posted by Zander 88
But that's my point. If you take a very open interpretation of God, then it's impossible to refute it.

That is why agnostics say that the concept of god is unintelligible.

Originally posted by rwingett
That is why agnostics say that the concept of god is unintelligible.

which means we admit we cannot understand it?

That doesn't sound right.
So anybody could say the concept of [insert really stupid claim here] is true but you cannot disprove it because it is an unintelligible concept?

Originally posted by Zander 88
which means we admit we cannot understand it?

That doesn't sound right.
So anybody could say the concept of [insert really stupid claim here] is true but you cannot disprove it because it is an unintelligible concept?

Christians don't claim god is unintelligible. They claim the opposite.

Agnostics say the concept is unintelligible and that no knowledge claim can be made about it.

Atheists say that if the concept is unintelligible there's no reason to believe it's true, and by default it should be assumed to be false.

Originally posted by rwingett
Christians don't claim god is unintelligible. They claim the opposite.

Agnostics say the concept is unintelligible and that no knowledge claim can be made about it.

Atheists say that if the concept is unintelligible there's no reason to believe it's true, and by default it should be assumed to be false.

Very clear, thanks for the post.

I'm an atheist. 🙂

Originally posted by wittywonka
This is somewhat a bump post, but I thought it would be better than starting another thread since I have already started two. Here's another question for atheists. How did the world come to be? If you answer "The Big Bang Theory," let me ask this: what came before that and how do you know?

Also, what is your response/opinion to the quote (or paraphrase) "Theism and atheism are both leaps of faith"? Why?

Standard Big Bang theory stipulates that the Big Bang was the inception of everything, time included. It is absolutely meaningless to try and talk of a "before", since we can have no evidence of a 'before'. Causality goes out of the window under these circumstances; hence no need for a 'cause' for the universe.

As for theism and atheism both being leaps of faith, well, I disagree with that. Atheism is more a leap of non faith.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Standard Big Bang theory stipulates that the Big Bang was the inception of everything, time included. It is absolutely meaningless to try and talk of a "before", since we can have no evidence of a 'before'. Causality goes out of the window under these circumstances; hence no need for a 'cause' for the universe.

As for theism and atheism both being leaps of faith, well, I disagree with that. Atheism is more a leap of non faith.

Or a non-leap of non-faith....
What about antitheists?

Originally posted by Zander 88
Atheist: There is no [insert some entity that violates the principle of falsifiability]
Agnostic: I don't believe you. Prove it.

The problem is there is significant evidence not to believe in God, but that doesn't matter. People who believe just keep on making excuses, because they don't allow the possibility that God might not exist. For example, the ...[text shortened]... at it was God's plan, the bible is not to be taken literally in "certain parts", etc.

Agnostics won't say I don't believe you, they would say 'no way to tell'.

Originally posted by wittywonka
You're right, an endless universe does seem unfathomable. Also, I agree with you on the idea that I think the universe has an origin. But, how could you explain that origin without the help of a higher force/power (i.e. God)?

I don't mean this negatively, I'm just trying to discuss it to get my thoughts in order...it's deep stuff.

No negativity assumed.

The notion of something from nothing is a tricky one since of course it flies in the face of common sense - but then, so did Special Relativity and I think we've pretty much accepted that that one works.

I don't have an answer for you, but, there is the notion of virtual particle pair creation and annihilation that could be tweaked to lead towards a possible solution. I won't go into it here - lucky for you and everyone else, since I'm no expert and would flounder a bit I fear. But I'm sure you can find out about it with a few quick searches.

In the end, I take the view that while we may not have an explanation, and while there are some common sense issues that intrigue us, that there is a natural explanation somwhere available for us to discover. I don't use the supernatural creator explanation to fall back on when something is unexplained.