[Neo] Atheists: How Much Lack of Belief is Required to be an Atheist?

Actually, you CAN prove a negative and you CAN prove non-existence, and it is a rather easy thing to do, so long as the negative you are attempting to prove is within a closed set.

For instance, if you have 10 red marbles, 8 blue marbles, and 2 yellow marbles inside of a bag, then I can prove the non-existence of white marbles inside of the bag. How so, you ask? I can simply pull out all 20 marbles from that bag and show you that none of them are white. Simple as that.

However, if the negative you are attempting to prove is within an open set, such as every single species that has ever existed throughout all of history, then it is not possible to prove a negative. Any attempt to do so leads to committing the Argument of Ignorance Fallacy.

This is why past unobserved events are not falsifiable, and why science has no theories about past unobserved events. This is why any belief or disbelief in God is a purely religious belief, devoid of any science. Same with the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. Now, evolution itself happens all the time, and some of it even happens naturally, but the theory that current life evolved from more primitive life is not falsifiable. It is an open set. We do not have access to "all the marbles"...

 

There is no objectively "normal" state, as "normal" is a subjective word, affected by one's own model of the universe (aka "reality").

The "default" state would be ignorance, as it would be for anything else.

 

Or one that questions the logic and reasoning behind their chosen position of "atheism".

You will notice, as I have, that many atheists on discussion forums such as this one will outright reject both logic and philosophy. And many of those people will reject science (and even mathematics) right along with it. You might question how one could do such a thing, but being a fundamentalist in a particular religion really clouds one's ability to rationally reason about topics relating to their religion.

 

Yes, it is.

You cannot search for the Easter Bunny everywhere in the universe, let alone simultaneously doing so. When a child says that there is a monster underneath the bed, and a parent looks underneath it and says that there is no monster, it is actually the child, and NOT the parent, who is making correct usage of logic.

 

There is a difference between "faith" in general, and whether or not one has "faith" in a particular thing.

He's just saying that he is (currently, anyway) an agnostic when it comes to the Easter Bunny, as he is when it comes to the Christian God.

Personally, I am a believer in the Christian God, and an unbeliever in the Easter Bunny.

They are different beliefs, but the logic behind those beliefs is indeed the same for both. Either way, initial circular arguments have been formed, and then other arguments stem from them.

 

No, I don't.

Yes, it is.

Most atheists I know have absolutely no clue what faith is, nor do they know how faith works with regard to logic.

 

No, they just understand logic, which many atheists outright deny or are completely ignorant of.

 

I believe the red text is false.

 

Well, without knowing what we mean by a belief (or in particular, what we mean by a percentage of a belief), everyone in the thread are likely to be talking about slightly different things. It seems to me a belief is something you have or you don't have, not something that really comes in parts.

You can believe that A is maybe 50% likely to be true, but I wouldn't say that's the same thing as having 50% of a belief in A. Not sure if that is what you mean by a percentage of belief.

 

So you believe that discounting a childhood fairy tale qualifies as a "faith"? Discounting something that was was merely
a construct to amuse children is a "faith"?

Bless your heart.

 

I have a thread here about a specific issue with atheists. In over 200 exchanges they refused to address the issue at hand and resorted to a variety to deflections by way of accusations of "strawman, logical fallacy, appeal to Accomplishment Fallacy (sic), ad hominem, etc., but never are they able to accept the fact that many intelligent people look at the facts on both sides only to reject atheism. You aren't even allowed to believe something in between - you know, you haven't bought a mainstream explanation for God and cannot reject the possibility of a Creator's existence, so you cannot accept the position of atheism because it comes up short on facts. Not having chanted the proper mantra, they will pursue you until you do take a position - and then they will pray to their non-God for your imminent demise for rejecting their belief of their own personal infallibility if you choose God.

 

I don't understand why there is the divide between religious believers and atheist? The similarities are so great. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, a religious person discount all religions but their own. An atheist or agnostic agrees with them 100% except they discount one more. If only our political divide was so minor, Could you imagine democrats and republicans agreeing on all issues except one.

 

Wrong. Why am I not surprised?

First thing first: nobody believes a question. Questions are not things held in mind that people are convinced are true.

One can either believe, disbelieve, or be uncertain about propositions. The colloquial "belief that something is false" means in fact "disbelief". Need I post the same link a fourth time?

Not "we". You're already in free fall for some time.

 

I am relatively new here and to US forums but in the short time I have been here it appears to me that american religion is a lot more political than in the UK (just an observation from the last few weeks I could be completely wrong)

I do think I stumbled into a political war using religion as a front. (an innocent abroad)!

 

Most Conservatives tend to be of the Christian faith, hence the tendency for Democrats to ridicule and be hostile towards it. But notice a curious thing? They give Islam a total pass and get all preachy about "tolerance" and "xenophobia" if you dare criticize it.

 

So democrats are not Christians?

 

I think you are spot on. There are very strong ties between evangelicals and the republican party although this relationship may be heavily influence by cross correlation factors.

 

I guess it must be inconceivable to you that maybe it is your lack of communication that is the problem.

Well good luck to you with that attitude.

 

Your observation is absolutely right. The Evangelical Fundamentalists in the US have since the late 70's been deeply involved in politics, started by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. This religious movement is what is referred to as the American Taliban.

 

"Belief" is defined as the conviction that something held in the mind is true. If you think a proposition is false, that proposition is certainly not something held in your mind that you are convinced is true, therefore you can't refer to it as pertaining to a belief. The right way to express your disbelief would be "I don't believe the red text is true".

Scientific research proves that different areas of the brain respond to belief, disbelief and uncertainty.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212202008.htm

Disbelief is not "belief that something is false".

 

Democrats as a party believe in separation of church and state. It's Republicans who seem to be a lot more fuzzy on that issue.

 

Not very many, would you stick with a party that was openly hostile to your beliefs?

 

How the hell is wanting to maintain a separation of church and state being openly hostile to Christians?

 

Remember the last thing you said to me? Something like "why are you bothering to respond to me"? I said good day sir!

 

Well YOU are 99% Atheist, you do not believe in 99% of the Gods out there, only in the ONE you chose to believe in.