Many good comments, I'd quote all of the last several pages if I could ;)
Leonardo said:
See, this is subjective. That's why we all have different point of views, because the value we attribute to words is not always the same. In my personal view of the world I exclude any metaphysics, therefore there is no God. Anybody else's view of the world, none of my business. It is their view, not mine.
The thing about a theist's view of the universe is that it puts metaphysics first, as a given, and then everything else should follow. That's why I understand it is hard to picture the point of view of a person like me. It's topsy turvy.
I don't want to get too much into epistemology. Or even a back-and-forth about which views belong to whom and their relative value. Mostly because I'm not that bright ;) If we can keep it more simplified, I think many of the comments circle the same drain.
CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
There is an inherent advantage for the believers when using the word 'know' in debate. The atheist holds that in order for something to be true, it must be demonstrable through observation and scientific experimentation. A falsifiable experiment is necessary to actually disprove something. From Wikipedia.
I think you are generalizing quite a lot here, and being very presumptuous. Not all atheists are materialistic atheists or ascribe strictly to scientific thought, or require demonstration or falsifiability to disbelieve in God or gods.
And even for those of us who do, you're trying to spin the scientific process in a way that makes it sound extraordinarily limiting, in a way that it isn't to most of us. Ultimately, a scientist knows that we don't know even a small fraction of everything there is to know, and that the knowledge we do have is just a starting point to greater discovery and free thought. Where you make it sound like a brick wall that stops us in our tracks, it is really a wide open gateway and a series of bridges and roads to all sorts of exciting places that are still in the process of being built and paved.
ender expresses much of my sentiment on this topic. And it goes to Leonardo's response about his view of the world versus others. But I think it's a cop-out to complain about generalization.
The word arrogant has been bandied about. I think the real problem is ignorance (the pure definition of the word: lacking in knowledge), whether that ignorance of God is based on allegedly rational scientific thought or just accepted for some other reason.
The scientific process is not a brick wall; it's an open-ended expanse. I think that is ender's point. When those claiming to adhere to the scientific process declare God non-existent, they are the ones using it as a brick wall. The great faith in the scientific method is another issue. I see the scientific method as nothing more than a very limited set of tools. In order to scientifically demonstrate that God doesn't exist, one must define God in some narrow way and not just come up empty-handed, but as Leonardo suggests, show that God cannot possibly inhabit the same space as other demonstrable elements. I don't see how science can possibly do so.
NeverarGreat said:
I think that many who are atheist are atheist with regards to a specific god of a specific religion. For example, Douglass Adams began his journey to atheism when he heard a street preacher and realized that the preacher was not making logical sense. This specific atheism is then often generalized to ALL religion, or else the distinction is rarely made clear.
I think that when many people claim to be atheist, they are simply saying that they have examined the evidence for a god of the religion of their parents/country and found this deity to have contradictory attributes. For example, how can the Christian God claim to be completely loving and also jealous, knowing that the Bible states that love is not jealous? In breaking strongly from such a deity, they claim atheism, as it is simply more applicable in most situations to their true feelings on the subject.
NeverarGreat expresses so well that many atheists seem to reject narrow-definitions of God (often based on misunderstanding, I'd add).
CP3S said:
Darth_Ender, Warb, Mrebo, and any other theist here, I could be way off on this and just wildly assuming, but I am willing to bet you are all atheist. If you only believe in one god, it means there are hundreds of gods you don't believe in, or that you hold an atheist stance toward. In the end, I simply disbelieve in one less god than the countless number of gods you don't believe in. The same way you find no reason you should believe in Ra, I find no reason I should believe in your god.
In answer to those who asked if it is not more arrogant (or ignorant) to believe God exists than not, I say no. Knowing/believing in something means a person (presumably) has a basis for the knowledge/belief. Since I think the scientific tools we have are inadequate to test the existence of God (how convenient) I think it is more ignorant to say God doesn't exist. Just as it would be for someone to say alternate dimensions do not exist or that dark matter does not exist. Saying "I don't buy that" doesn't mean one actually has knowledge of non-existence.
So...to get more directly to your point CP3S, there is a difference in not believing in a particular formulation and 'knowing' that no deity exists. At best, us monotheists are partial weak atheists ;) I am of the view that (a mere belief without a claim of knowledge) many/most views of god(s) are the imperfect human perceptions of the true God. Looking at it from a more pseudo-scientific perspective, a belief in one particular formulation may preclude the existence of some other god(s).