darth_ender said:
Actually, believe it or not, I included an extra couple of sentences discussing atheists who do not fit the "scientific" mold. I removed it because I thought it detracted from my point. Now I see I should have left it. Yes, an atheist can believe in anything...except in a god of any sort: 'a-' meaning 'without,' 'theos' meaning 'god' (of any type), '-ist' meaning 'one who subscribes to that way of thinking.' But they can believe in the tooth fairy, fortune telling, horoscopes, or whatever. I should have been more specific in that I was referring to those who actually claim to hold to a truly scientific mindset. (I was alerted to this common misconception around 5 or 6 years ago when this idiot who wrote for the Arizona Daily Wildcat named Taylor Kessinger wrote a very condescending piece criticizing atheists who were, in his view, superstitious about other things; though he had often been condescending towards Christians without much backlash, you should have seen the responses to that article; I'll see if I can find it online; time lapse...ah, looks like Google gets some hits, but then I get the 404 error).
I don't see why atheists believing silly things is an issue. Buddhist are technically atheists, but obviously believe in spiritualism. It is nothing new. Atheism is not a doctrine.
But don't misunderstand my intention, because you are actually reinforcing my point. I know that scientists know that they do not know everything. They acknowledge that they cannot. Those atheists who are truly scientific admit that they cannot possibly know those things they cannot test, even though they also acknowledge that just because it cannot be tested does not make it nonexistent or unreal. Thus, since God is untestable, a truly scientific atheist cannot with full conviction 'know' that God does not exist, but rather can be firmly convinced based on a perceived lack of evidence. Those that 'know' that God doesn't exist are not acting truly scientifically.
Again, I think you are making scientific thought out to be limiting, in ways that it is not. Science is a method of learning, not a strict doctrine that must shape our every thought.
I am reasonably sure beyond doubt that the Ninja Turtles aren't real. I can't scientifically prove it, but since I don't claim to know it, I am being truly scientific.
I know the Ninja Turtles aren't real, they are merely a work of fiction created for entertainment. Now I am being unscientific.
Do you see how ridiculous this hair splitting is? So what? Atheism isn't a doctrine. Leo can claim to know God doesn't exist, as you, I am sure, would be willing to say you know that Zeus doesn't exist, and he is violating no atheist standards. It is all semantics at this point, and hardly worth wasting time on.
I'd maintain that the vast majority of atheists are also agnostics (Leo, clearly, not being of this group), and that the vast majority of agnostics are also atheists. Fink doesn't believe in a god, though he'd call himself agnostic, he is technically an atheist. In the same way, most atheists will admit that they cannot disprove god or know 100% for sure that a god or god like being doesn't exist, which effectively makes them agnostic on the situation. Ultimately, agnostic is kind of a redundant term. You either believe or you don't believe. If you say, "I don't know for sure, but I don't think so." Then you don't believe. If you say, "I don't know for sure, but I think so." Then you believe. I suppose agnosticism could be reserved for those who just don't care enough to even bother thinking about it in the first place.
I agree. There IS no need to disprove him. It is not a falsifiable experiment. But as such, while one may criticize the testing of the reality of God, one cannot either prove or disprove his existence. Ergo, though one may hold a firm conviction that God does not exist based on a perceived lack of evidence, one cannot truly say with certainty that he/she 'knows' God does not exist.
No disagreement there. But again, I don't think this discussion has relevance to anything at all.
In my mind you are correct in all that you say here, except for a bit of semantics. I won't argue much because I think it beside the point, but just for clarity, atheism does not mean one doesn't believe in certain gods, but rather that one does not believe in ANY gods: completely without belief in a divine being. Thus, I am not an atheist towards Odin or Ra or Jupiter. I don't believe in them, true, but I am still not without belief in a Divine Being. Everything else in the above quote does not disagree with what I am trying to say.
The matter is debatable. Christians were once widely considered to be atheists by the pagan world because they rejected the majority of gods, only choosing to believe in their one God (and this would be the earliest use of the Greek word "atheist", if I am not mistaken.) I feel like saying that you take an atheistic stance on Odin would be more than accurate. But like you said, it is all beside the point.
Nor I. That is not my point. My point is that the religion and those that hold to it are not exactly evidence that God does not exist.
I've never once heard an atheist make this argument before (not to say none ever have). In fact, the first time I've heard this argument was today in mrbenja's post, which felt a bit like a weak strawman argument and had me scratching my head. I didn't address it, because it didn't feel at all worth addressing.
Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it too much. It isn't a common argument, and it certainly wouldn't be used by an intelligent thinker to argue the non-existence of God.
My point is not to prove that God exists with this argument; it is philosophical, not scientific in nature. My point is that atheists and believers follow different standards, and according to those standards, the believer is free to 'know' (even if his/her 'knowledge' contradicts completely with the 'knowledge' of a different brand of believer, and even if the non-believer sees such knowledge as nothing more than foolish, unscientific superstition), while the atheist, FOLLOWING HIS/HER OWN STANDARDS, cannot truly claim to 'know' that God does not exist. Make sense?
Sure, it makes sense. In your original post you seemed to claim that theists are liberated because they don't have these constrictions. I'll agree with you completely on that, if you have no standards for belief (or more loose standards), you are much more free to believe some crazy and out there stuff.