Not in Jesusland. :p

Having seen this statement presented many times before, it seems to beg the question - if you do not "pretend to understand exactly what constitutes God", then how can you be so sure that this god exists and wants you to worship him? If you admit that your god "may be in a form that you currently do not comprehend", isn't it the very definition of irrational to build an entire belief system around this supernatural being that you might not even understand? This position seems to say, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but I don't really know why other than I really feel in my heart that I am right." Muslims feel the same way. So do Hindus. Ad nauseum.

To me atheism is a rational position to take as it makes no "faith based" leaps as to what does or doesn't exist. I see no more evidence for the Christian god than I do for Allah. Or Bigfoot. Or tarot cards. Or ear candles. Why is it argued then that atheism is an unsupportable position?

It would be very interesting to believe that we are being visited by aliens from other planets, but in the absence of any evidence to support UFOs, is it not irrational to believe them to be real? In the absence of any evidence to support the existence of god(s), is it not irrational to believe they exist?

From your bacteria analogy, you seem to imply that we might someday find evidence of the existence of a supernatural creator (or whatever you want to call it). In the meantime, is it really rational to assume that we will find this evidence?

Try taking some Beano. I think you'll feel much better.

This is clearly irrational.

IMO, atheism is irrational, too. Or at least it falls in the category of willful ignorance of the possibilities. A decided lack of scientific curiosity. Now, to be fair, the likelihood of an invisible friend is quite close to zero, as to date, there is no evidence to support that one exists. But, we didn't know about subatomic particles and the various forces that act on light and matter a few centuries ago. So, I say the agnostic position is more rational, or at least scientific.


Zenu is coming!

It is more rational to consider that the possiblity exists, but the probability of this is exceeding small. One has to decide how much they want to pursue the matter. In the meantime, since there is no exidence to support an invisible friend, it's more rational to live your life without the crutch of religion and deity worship. Especially since so few people can even agree on what is this imaginary friend.

:)

...

Well, for sure we are into the realm of semantics here. Very few (if any) atheists will make the absolute statement that they a certain there is no god. That would be irrational and is not supportable. I haven't seen anyone here make that statement.

The reality is that there simply isn't any evidence that gods exist, so for all intents and purposes, there are no gods. Why live your life as if there are?

BTW, I also subsrcribe to the secular humanist viewpoint with a healthy dose of wonder and awe for the beauty of nature.

Mike, the problem, as I see it, is that the GB's argue against the atheists because the definition of atheism is that they completely reject the possibility of a god. 100% NFW. So, this is easy fodder for being labeled as irrational. Being an agnostic is perhaps wussing-out, but it does have the benefit of being more in line with the scientific method. Agnostics think the possibility of a god is exceedingly small...quite close to zero. No evidence is present that supports the invisible fella, but who knows what we'll turn up in the future. Since there is no evidence to support this god character, we go on in life without the burden of deity worship and the conflict and control it breeds.

Me too! There is a lot of beauty and wonder to behold. :)

That maybe what you think. Thats certainly what I think.

Consider some of the POVs put. Articulate, educated, intelligent. Atheism is irrational, god is a force directly looking over them, individualy. Then there is Mr Middle-of-the-Road, where atheism is an unatural state and man has a natural understanding of his God....

And these are reasonable voices.

Mr. Middle-of-the-Road is wearing a disguise.

In reality, I completely agree with you. My point in calling agnostics pansies (should have been green text, probably), is that when you really press an agnostic (or at least the few I have known that call themselves that), they do not believe that god(s) exist, they just like to leave the door open slightly by saying, "but we really can't know because we haven't explored the entire universe, blah, blah, blah".

So, IMHO, generally, an agnostic is really an atheist (after all he doesn't believe that god(s) exist) that just likes to leave a little wiggle room.

Who here is agnostic? What is your viewpoint?

The simple fact is that there is no more support for atheism than there is for theism. Again, the absence of evidence is not proof that something does not exist. I won't go into this again, I think the bacteria analogy illustrates the point pretty well.

Thus, if one were to say that there is no evidence of God currently, therefore I cannot conclude that God exists, then this is a completely rational and supportable position. If one, however, says there is no evidence of God, therefore God does not exist...well that position is not in line with the scientific method and is not logically supportable.

Therefore, an atheist (who by definition believes God does not exist) has to make the same leap of faith that the theist does (i.e. making a conclusion that something does, or does not, exist based on no physical evidence).

P.S. I agree Stuart. You are apparently incapable of discussing this topic without belittling those who disagree with you. It's unfortunate, really, because you seem to be an intelligent person who has put a great deal of thought into this. If you could present your arguments in a respectful and civil way, you probably would be much more effective in debating.

Well I'll call myself one. Its a fact- we cant say THERE IS NO GOD. We cant, without invoking an argument from faith. And that was the point of this thread. "Atheist"defines a positon, a line in the sand- but its narrow and only deals with theism.

I'm a pansy-azzed agnostic! :D My viewpoint is that there is no supporting evidence for a god, therefore, I go on in life without a god as my personal crutch/invisible friend/whatever. If someone at sometime produces evidence of a god, well, I guess I'll look at the evidence and consider the possibility that one exists if the evidence is compelling. I might not choose to worship this hypothetical god, and I might just continue living as I currently am. We'll see.

Sorry you feel that way Rick. I will go after your ideas on their merits, but not you personally.

Thanks anyway for the discussion, I am sorry you feel you rviews were beliitled in this exchange of ideas- but IMO grown ups do not have invisible friends.

While I generally agree with what you're saying, you have actually created a straw man argument by defining what you think an atheist is and then declaring that definition unsupportable. Here's a statement on this:

"There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god."

From: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm

That's it in a nutshell, on all counts. I've maintained over and over again that true atheism requires precisely the same sort of leap of faith that, well, "faith" requires. Both sides make unsupportable statements, based purely upon their feelings and predispositions. Attempting to label one side or the other as "rational", or attempting to elevate one side over the other as a component of rational thought, or an outcome of rational thought, was a non-starter from the get-go. Like I mentioned earlier, the clear implication is that is one side is rational, the other is not. Following that logic, one can only conclude that one side is valid, and the other is not. The very premise of this thread is no more than a very thinly veiled attempt at establishing that pecking order. Atheism is valid, theism is not. I think our discussion has pretty thoroughly debunked that.

So where does that leave us? Our former atheists are all jumping on the agnostic bandwagon. Maybe some were there already, and were merely confusing the two terms. I know I have freely (and erroneously) mixed the two terms; perhaps we were seeing a bit of that. I think in colloquial use, "atheist" really means "agnostic", or at least it does with the "atheists" I have met personally. Every one of them is open to the idea of a God, they just feel as though they have not seen convincing evidence for one. They could be swayed. True atheists cannot. They are rather irrational that way.

So, with agnosticism being far more "rational" than atheism, can it occupy the same "either/or" slot in rationality as some were hoping atheism could? Can agnosticism push theism out of the realm of rationality, and occupy it solely as far as an answer to "is there a God?" I don't think so. While it is certainly rational, it is neither fish nor fowl, black nor white, and cannot claim exclusive domain. There is room for theism in rational thought. They can, in fact, happily coexist.

Childish, and unnecessary.

You have only tossed in your unsubstantiated opinion, claiming theism as rational. There is no evidence to support your invisible friend. Your claim is totally irrational.

So what you are saying only proves my point.

According to you we didn't understand bacteria 1000 years ago, but I am sure some of its actions were noticeable. Some people may have thought this the work of the devil, the work of god, whatever. eventually we find out it is only bacteria.

The same goes for God. Some people have already figured out that there is no such thing.
Mostly through a process of elimination and reading of the old books, the ones the religion was based on. It becomes clear that there is no such thing as a supreme being.
But it is a neat condensed version of the original stories.

I am saying that 1000 years people will look back and say, How could people of thought that there was a God and a Devil? Superstition was rampant in the 21st century.
And they will say, it was only religion.

Who are you referring to? I am not an agnostic. There has never been any evidence for the existence of the thousands of gods throughout man's history. I do not believe that any of these thousands of gods actually existed. Can I prove they didn't? No. I am simply taking that one step further and saying that I don't believe that yours does either. I don't see how that requires a "leap of faith". Especially when you cannot provide any more evidence for your god as was provided for the previous thousands.

I suppose if you feel more comfortable calling my viewpoint irrational or "requiring a leap of faith", then more power to you.

Forget splitting hairs over definitions. Rick has admitted that there is no evidence for the existence of his god. With that in mind, is it more rational to live one's life as if he did exist or to live one's live as if he didn't? If there's no evidence that you have cancer, is it more rational to live your life as if you do?