• Anna
    I often forget that I am a minority in this country because I think so little about religion. It plays no role in my life, except to provide an occasional "WTF????" moment when I hear people I can otherwise relate to "admit" their god-fearing ways, or when I hear something particularly asinine on TV.

    When the issue comes up I plainly state that I'm an atheist and have been shocked at how surprised others sometimes are....maybe it's hard for people to get their minds around the fact that I am a kind and moral person without an assist from a higher power. Maybe because I am a young female and my lack of desire to blend in and not cause "conflict" is shocking in itself?

    RE: atheism as a "belief"--while I agree that it's not in itself a belief, it does play a role in shaping ones worldview...which is probably what many religious folks are trying to talk about when they say "belief". I suspect that few people define that term before trying to draw parallels between themselves and atheists like us. Cool blog, thanks.
  • gruesome_hound
    #

    Concerning the usual flying teapot, spaghetti monster and invisible unicorns analogies, I think it is important to distinguish between atheism ( I know beyond all reasonable doubt that those entities does not exist) and agnosticism ( I don’t know whether they exist or not).
    I am pretty sure none of those entities exist not only because of the absence of evidences (this by itself would only justify agnosticism) but also because there are incredibly strong reasons militating against their existence.
    Take for example the celestial teapot: teapots are products of an human mind, contrarily to biological systems, there are no conceivable natural pathways by which they could have evolved, and no human being has ever been at the surface or even in the vicinity of Mars (and even if some secrete mission has done that, it is extremely unlikely they would have brought one teapot with them and let it fall in the space) , therefore one can conclude with almost certainty that there is no teapot orbiting around Mars.

    Let us now consider other scenarios for which we have no evidence at all: somewhere in the multiverse, there is an intelligent species looking like bears, there exists a parasitic species capable of possessing their host’s brain like the Goaulds (Stargates) or hives (dark skies).
    I am “agnostic” but not atheist about these possibilities, because while there exist clearly no evidence, there is also nothing which speaks against that.
    Similarly, I am atheist about any kind of invisible animals or visible or invisible unicorns existing on the earth, but I am agnostic about the possibilities that such creature may live on an unknown planet of an unknown remote paralell universe.

    I therefore think that the principle (No evidences => non-existence) is deeply flawed, for affirming that something does not exist, we ought to provide reasons for not believing that.
    So, I believe that atheist have to give solid grounds for believing with almost certainty there exist no god(s). These may be the evidence of meaningless evils, the widespread religious confusion, the numerous examples of bad design in nature and so on and so forth.
    #
    Realist
    November 10th, 2009 at 11:20 am

    @Gruesome_hound

    So the Glenn Beck argument?

    “I therefore think that the principle (No evidences => non-existence) is deeply flawed, for affirming that something does not exist, we ought to provide reasons for not believing that.”

    Prove it doesn’t exist? For something to be widely believed as truthful or justified one must prove its existence, not disprove its existence.

    All I know is that if there is a God and I’m wrong…. I don’t like that SOB anyways. Any Deity capable of fixing the world’s problems (like most religions flaunt), and doesn’t help the poor mistreated starving children that do believe in him, isn’t worthy of my praise. Let alone my undying worship and obedience.

    That and religions have been coming and going far before the “major” religions.


    The problem of Dawkin's diagram is that he assumes we have enough elements to judging the probability of everything, but this is overly simplistic.
    Even in science, there are many fields where the few data available fit equally well the different models aiming at making sense of them, in such cases there is no way to assign probability of the validity of one model.
    For philosophical or metaphysical theories, the likelihood are even much harder to determine, in the state of our present knowledge, I would say this is completely impossible.

    At the same moment I am writing that, suppose there is an intelligent lizard man situated in a parallel universe which is using a computer very similar to my except it is triangular and contains only 30 tastes on the keyboard.

    I clearly have an "absence of belief" in him, but I also don't believe with an huge likelihood (say, more than 80%) that it does not exist because I have no evidence, I simply don't know the probabilities, because I have not enough elements to establish them.
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

twitter_icon

Sample Original Content


Information Security

Tutorials and Primers

Culture & Society

Technology & Science

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Miscellaneous

Tools & Projects


Blog Archives