Atheism: What's the point?

[Dyakovo]

So don't Atheists believe in SCIENCE?

*plays electronic keyboard*

No. I question science and look for independent verification. However, we tend to approve of the scientific method.

/\ This /\

Science isn't a religion.

[Hayteria]

and If you dont believe in the Hindu gods you just turn into a bee for a few days reincarnated and then rise up the ranks again if you achieve the purpose the Gods set out for you

So basically, you're going with the religion that threatens you with the worst consequences? Aren't you essentially rewarding that religion for being threatening in such a way?

[Treznor]

and If you dont believe in the Hindu gods you just turn into a bee for a few days reincarnated and then rise up the ranks again if you achieve the purpose the Gods set out for you

So basically, you're going with the religion that threatens you with the worst consequences? Aren't you essentially rewarding that religion for being threatening in such a way?

I don't see that implied. All I see is a description of a competing religion's afterlife myth.

[Northern Castesene]

Isn't independent verification also science?

Water is two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules....


Won't your independent verification say that? O_o

[Dyakovo]

Isn't independent verification also science?

Water is two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules....


Won't your independent verification say that? O_o

I have no clue what you're going on about...

[Treznor]

Isn't independent verification also science?

Water is two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules....


Won't your independent verification say that? O_o

That doesn't mean I have faith in it. Faith is not the same as knowledge.

[Gift-of-god]

There have ALWAYS been Atheists that weren't accurately served by the terminology. I called myself Atheist, but didn't believe what Atheists were apparently supposed to believe - I didn't believe in an absolute non-existence. To me - that didn't even seem LOGICAL - if you can't prove they exist, you sure can't prove they DON'T.

Sir, might I introduce you to my friend Occam's Razor. And my good buddy, can't prove a fucking negative.

Occam's razor does not describe reality.

Occam's razor is not a theory in the classic sense of being a model that explains physical observations, relying on induction; rather, it is a heuristic maxim for choosing among such theories and underlies induction. Justifying such a guideline against some hypothetical alternative thus fails on account of invoking circular logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

You can prove a negative.

there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum). "Something" is here a set restricted only by excluding crows, such that for every set S there is a set Not-S, and vice versa, so every negative entails a positive and vice versa. And to test the negative proposition one merely has to look in the box: since crows being in the box (p) entails that we would see crows when we look in the box (q), if we find q false, we know that p is false. Thus, we have proved a negative.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... heory.html

[The Alma Mater]

As a little sidestep, and to return to the first post in this thread, the "what comics do you read" topic reminded me of this gem:

http://xkcd.com/167/

Sure, it is nihilism and not atheism as such. But I still like the message.
Sadly, this forum does not allow me to post the image directly without completely raping it

[Canuck Utopia]

Anyone who don't get this is just stupid and doesn't deserve to be listened to.

Yeah okay......your argument is so .....BLANK THAT I CANNOT SEE IT

So. Babies.

Do they believe in gods?

I have answered that question many times in different manners. Using the earliest definitions of atheist (without God), how can anyone come to the conclusion that babies are without God? Does anyone truly know what babies believe? So, I will give it right back to you:

So. Babies.

Do they believe in atheism?

[The Tofu Islands]

I have answered that question many times in different manners. Using the earliest definitions of atheist (without God), how can anyone come to the conclusion that babies are without God? Does anyone truly know what babies believe? So, I will give it right back to you:

So. Babies.

Do they believe in atheism?

That's a poorly-phrased question. Are you talking about implicit or explicit atheism? If you mean implicit atheism (which you (generic you, not you in particular) don't "believe in"), then evidence says that that is their position. If you mean explicit atheism, then almost certainly not (for the same reason they are almost certainly not theists).

[Grave_n_idle]

I have answered that question many times in different manners.

No, you haven't - and I notice you slither out of it again, this time.

Using the earliest definitions of atheist (without God),

Irrelevant. I didn't ask you for definitions, and I didn't mention 'earliest definitions of atheist'. I asked you a simple 'yes or no' question, which you've constantly slimed your way out of answering.

how can anyone come to the conclusion that babies are without God? Does anyone truly know what babies believe?

I didn't ask if they were 'without god'.

I was asking you what you would argue they BELIEVE.

DO they believe in gods? Yes or No, Canuck.

So, I will give it right back to you:

So. Babies.

Do they believe in atheism?

Unlike you, I will actually answer a straight question. No - they do not 'believe in atheism'.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have answered that question many times in different manners. Using the earliest definitions of atheist (without God), how can anyone come to the conclusion that babies are without God? Does anyone truly know what babies believe? So, I will give it right back to you:

So. Babies.

Do they believe in atheism?

That's a poorly-phrased question. Are you talking about implicit or explicit atheism? If you mean implicit atheism (which you (generic you, not you in particular) don't "believe in"), then evidence says yes. If you mean explicit atheism, then almost certainly not (for the same reason they are almost certainly not theists).

Evidence suggests that babies have no 'beliefs', per se - because they conceive the world as an extension of self, and they are otherwise unaware. If all they can know is all they can see, then the concept of 'belief' becomes kind of nonsensical.

Which is why Canuck's question is actually incredibly easy to answer. No - babies don't 'believe' in atheism, because they don't 'believe in' anything.

[New Brittonia]

Two things:
1) Can I shave with Occam's razor and if so is it manual or electric?
2) Occam sounds like a Pokemon.

[Chumblywumbly]

Can I shave with Occam's razor and if so is it manual or electric?

Manual, but it only ever leaves the most simple beard.

[Grave_n_idle]

Two things:
1) Can I shave with Occam's razor and if so is it manual or electric?
2) Occam sounds like a Pokemon.

Jesus sounds more like a Pokemon, if you think about it. That whole salvation thing?



Jesus. I choose you!


JESUS has used BLOOD OF THE LAMB

Humanity's Sins have Washed Away!

SATAN uses TEMPTATION

It's not very effective.

JESUS uses the POWER OF CHRIST.

It's super-effective!

JESUS has beaten SATAN.

[Deus Malum]

Two things:
1) Can I shave with Occam's razor and if so is it manual or electric?
2) Occam sounds like a Pokemon.

Jesus sounds more like a Pokemon, if you think about it. That whole salvation thing?



Jesus. I choose you!


JESUS has used BLOOD OF THE LAMB

Humanity's Sins have Washed Away!

SATAN uses TEMPTATION

It's not very effective.

JESUS uses the POWER OF CHRIST.

It's super-effective!

JESUS has beaten SATAN.

JESUS leveled up!

What's this...JESUS is evolving!

...JESUS evolved into THE SON.

[Grave_n_idle]

Two things:
1) Can I shave with Occam's razor and if so is it manual or electric?
2) Occam sounds like a Pokemon.

Jesus sounds more like a Pokemon, if you think about it. That whole salvation thing?



Jesus. I choose you!


JESUS has used BLOOD OF THE LAMB

Humanity's Sins have Washed Away!

SATAN uses TEMPTATION

It's not very effective.

JESUS uses the POWER OF CHRIST.

It's super-effective!

JESUS has beaten SATAN.

JESUS leveled up!

What's this...JESUS is evolving!

...JESUS evolved into THE SON.

JESUS evolved?

Congratulations. You broke the fundies.

[Canuck Utopia]

I have answered that question many times in different manners. Using the earliest definitions of atheist (without God), how can anyone come to the conclusion that babies are without God? Does anyone truly know what babies believe? So, I will give it right back to you:

So. Babies.

Do they believe in atheism?

That's a poorly-phrased question. Are you talking about implicit or explicit atheism? If you mean implicit atheism (which you (generic you, not you in particular) don't "believe in"), then evidence says yes. If you mean explicit atheism, then almost certainly not (for the same reason they are almost certainly not theists).

Evidence suggests that babies have no 'beliefs', per se - because they conceive the world as an extension of self, and they are otherwise unaware. If all they can know is all they can see, then the concept of 'belief' becomes kind of nonsensical.

Which is why Canuck's question is actually incredibly easy to answer. No - babies don't 'believe' in atheism, because they don't 'believe in' anything.

If, as you suggest, that they "don't believe anything" then by extension they could not consider themselves as atheists. However, you want to label them as atheists. As I stated before, even atheists cannot agree on this matter.

Dawkins is a leading advocate of atheism and appears to be in conflict with the majority of atheists here:

Richard Dawkins does not provide such a strict definition of atheism, and the fact he opposes describing a child as 'Atheist' or 'Christian'[5] suggests that he views atheism as a conscious position and thus leans towards the dictionary definition of atheism as necessarily an active disbelief: Martin's 'positive atheism'.

From the same article:

Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief.[1] For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God.

It would appear that Martin, using the above definitions, also would exclude labeling a baby or a child as an atheist.

[Grave_n_idle]

If, as you suggest, that they "don't believe anything"

Answer the question.

Do babies believe in gods?

[Allanea]

Do babies believe there is no god?

[The Alma Mater]

Do babies believe in gods?

Do boobies count ?

Do babies believe there is no god?

Nope. They simply do not believe in God, but have no opinion on his nonexistence.
Which makes them implict atheists.

[Saint Johns County]

There's not a point. IT's kind of like.... well, I don't really know what it's like. Some believe in a religion, and some don't. I prefer to be called agnostic, which means you're not against religion, you just haven't found one that convinces you.

EDIT: I guess I missed the above post about agnosticism, but that's pretty close to what I believe. I'm not convinced of any God, but I don't quite think there isn't one out there.

[Allanea]

Nope. They simply do not believe in God, but have no opinion on his nonexistence.
Which makes them implict atheists.

That's agnosticism.

[The Tofu Islands]

That's agnosticism.

Oh please not again.
Agnosticism is (roughly) the belief that it's impossible to know whether there is a god or not.
You can have agnostic atheists.
You can have agnostic theists.

Implicit atheism is the lack of belief in any gods, and if a person has no beliefs concerning gods (like, for example, a baby) then they are implicit atheists.

[Canuck Utopia]

Another interesting point from the article that I linked to:

The attitude to the term 'atheist' also varies, with some thinkers wishing to escape its negative connotations, or purely reactive definition. Sam Harris did not use the term in his first book, 'The End of Faith', and argued at a recent conference that 'our use of this label is a mistake-and a mistake of some consequence', objecting on both 'philosophical and strategic' grounds.[11] Alternatives proposed or used include 'free- thinker', 'rationalist' and the controversial 'Bright'.

I can certainly agree with Sam Harris on this point. Atheist = negative connotations. Also that "our use of this label is a mistake-and a mistake of some consequence", especially to those who would label babies, and everyone else for that matter as being atheists.

To those who continue to push the concept that babies are born athiests, I will continue to hold that if that were true, then the minimal requirement to be an athiest would be to possess an infantile mind, devoid of logic and reason.

I don't believe that is the most practical or logical way to expand your belief system.