you may be right

yeh, i have a superiority complex too!
guess i may as well admit it

Well, or so you think anyway, right?
not that im disagreeing, as i don’t know, but the article seemed pretty concise there?
“Atheism is a claim about belief” is an interesting way to put it, although im not sure that that belief is universal…i have known atheists who readily acknowledge their “belief in no God”

ah ok ty

Well…you might agree that no one should be a believer though, yes?

@bbyrd009 there is a more valid argument for not believing in any gods, but there is also a very valid argument for not policing the thoughts and beliefs of other people.

@Deb57 ya, im not so thrilled with the implications of the title myself, but it was interesting how many emotional reactions it provoked; ppl often get quite attached to their labels, i think.

You say “ there is a more valid argument for not believing in any gods,” and for all i know you are right, but i don’t know that for sure, since i know ppl who worship money, or power, etc, plus the reputable many who have postulated otherwise.

It may be more valid to you, right now, sure, but am i required to hold that perspective? And more importantly could holding such an absolute perspective prevent you from seeing a greater truth?

Point being, what if the more valid argument turns out to be “for” some type of “god,” and you are just functioning under a different definition of one of those terms? Iow you would not be exactly wrong, from your perspective, but that simply understanding a different definition might change the perspective?

@bbyrd009 how can there be a valid argument for a claim when there is no evidence to support the claim? Than that happens, simply saying, "I don't believe your claim," becomes an even more valid argument.

@Deb57 i would tend to agree, with the understanding that the position is as equally valid toward atheism as it is theism, at least broadly speaking

@bbyrd009 except it isn't. If it was, I would not have rejected theism by the time I was 6 years old.

@Deb57 ok, but just bc you have rejected theism does not mean that there is not some form of higher power than you, right? That is strictly a belief that you currently hold, that you have no objective evidence for, that someone equally intelligent might even disagree with?

@bbyrd009 I reject theism because there is no evidence to support the idea. I'm not required to provide evidence that something doesn't exist, but I am perfectly justified in believing something doesn't exist if nobody provides evidence that it does. If you make the claim that there is a "higher power," then the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support your claim. Until then, my lack of belief is a perfectly acceptable default position.

the title doesn’t really fit the article, seems titled to get an emo reaction?
but im not sure you can be both

@bbyrd009 You do you, I do me and in doing so let's strive to do or cause no harm.

@jlynn37 well wadr “I am agnostic, and that is a fact” is a functional oxymoron eh? And the “regardless…” is just icing on that cake!

@bbyrd009 Your opinion is noted as is mine!

@jlynn37 ha, tbh im pretty sure we are functioning with different definitions there

ps, are opinions really “beliefs?”
idk tbh

Do you believe the same when it comes to fairies, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, Zeus, etc?

interesting that you are able to say that in a way so that atheists will give you a like!
rare gift, apparently

@bbyrd009 I really dig your gift of cynicism - albeit, misplaced.

@TheMiddleWay religion and mental health is actually discussed by some (google: dsm-5 religious).
I’ve studied and worked in the field. But haven’t for several years. So your assumption, is only half correct.
Better to ask, than assume.

@TheMiddleWay I am not an expert and won’t claim to be. My studies in psych were all of two years of a double degree. Followed by one year working for an org psych business.
Enough to form an opinion, and would go as far as to say, a more informed opinion than Joe Blow on the street.
You can belittle my opinion all you like, but keen to discuss why you think it’s wrong in its criticism of the field, particularly on diagnosing delusion.

@TheMiddleWay @Mvtt Absurd is acting as if psychology is an exact/perfect science, and not acknowledging that it has made and likely will continue to make revisions. Besides, the comment was about a very specific category of religious belief (gnosticism), showed a last degree of cautiousness in its tone, and expressed what I feel is a healthy and appropriate degree of irreverence and skepticism toward the fallible humans involved in a discipline which is subject to, like everything, to pressures of political and societal norms.

@TheMiddleWay ontologically, political parties are proven to exist. Knowledge of the supernatural, is not. So I don’t think that’s a sound comparison, and this not a good point for your slippery slope argument. Though I can see why it’s tempting to go there, based on fervency.
Point taken on trauma caused. And yes, I do continue argue belief and knowledge claims in the supernatural to be not only delusional but also harmful to individuals and society at large.

@TheMiddleWay, @Rossy92 yes, not an exact science, definitely not infallible and I think recognising the claim of supernatural knowledge, as delusional, is a step closer to the truth of the source of trauma effects.

@Mvtt ah, wasn’t meaning to be cynical there, hmm
at any rate it was an honest compliment

@TheMiddleWay ah, ok. Im still waiting for the first actual comment on the article, rather than the title

word

Well, atheists say that, but apparently it isn’t so true, refs on request, recent article here onsite even

but tbh i was more inclined to the gnostic/agnostic dimension involved, by which i do not mean “knows/does not know if there is a God/gods or not”

ntmy btw, mark

@bbyrd009 l go back and forth with being an Agnostic or an Atheist. I don't pretend to know why the Universe exists, or if it just is. I do know when it comes to the more than 2000 Gods human beings worship or have worshiped, l am an unabashed Atheist.

hmm. lemme get back to you on that

So, seems like you are reacting to the title rather than the article, so my reply is that “everyone should be an atheist” seems as much a fail to me as “no one should be,” for pretty much the reasons stated in the article, with “no one should be” the winner, as that is after all a gnostic position that cannot be verified

@bbyrd009 It doesn't have to be verified. It's not making the claim that something exists when there's no evidence it does. No gods states the facts in evidence. If you want to make a claim for gods you must provide the evidence for the claim.

@Leelu ah well i doubt it works that way, as anyone claiming that God “exists” obviously has not read their Bible anyway

“No gods states the facts in evidence”
well, to someone who cannot find like 95% of the universe, even with the help of all their scientists, sure; so, another gnostic declaration that cannot be verified, imo

“ It's not making the claim that something exists when there's no evidence it does”
i think that would be agnosticism, as opposed to atheism, which def makes the claim that something exists! “no god or gods exist”

“It doesn't have to be verified”
well, to that i agree, in that context imo no one should be an atheist, yes
and neither should they be a “believer,” same diff.
although in a different context ppl should be whatever they want i think

“The burden of proff is on those who believe to prove the existence of god, not those who don't believe”
i hear this all the time, sny, and i am finding it specious at the very least; no “objective evidence” of Yah will be forthcoming, im pretty sure anyway

“ others will look for deeper and more rational answers, and that is what leads to atheism, the search for a greater knowledge…”
So an atheist can admit to seeking “knowledge,” which is mostly the point imo

The first claim, wadr, has been demonstrated repeatedly, most recently in an article in skado’s feed, last week, but I’m not inclined to argue too much with a gnostic
maybe you are right!

“The evidence for deity simply isn't there to believe”

you maybe think/believe that, sure, but what qualified you to determine that, if I may ask?
you cannot find 95% of what we know must “exist,” even with the help of your scientists!

The author closes with an affirmative statement: "You shouldn’t believe, by blind faith, that a God or the afterlife doesn’t exist." The atheist takes the opposite view, that in the absence of evidence, one should not believe. That author wholly fails to justify his affirmative conclusion.

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, but normally that absence would be poor evidence. In the case of an all powerful deity, that absence of evidence becomes much stronger evidence. For a god to leave no trace means said god is a trickster that insists on faith-based belief, without providing a reason. That defies logic.

The other evidence is the variety of beliefs. If a god intentionally inspired belief, the beliefs should have much greater consistency than they do. Similarly, the behavior of believers vs that of unbelievers stands in stark contrast, and again, provides a strong reason NOT to believe.

@bbyrd009 Whom are you calling a gnostic? I happen to be an agnostic atheist. In that regard, somewhat like Sam Harris, though the author grossly misinterpreted or misrepresented Harris' statements.

By "evidence simply isn't there..." I meant no compelling evidence has been presented. To be sure, plenty has been claimed to be compelling...it is not.

bbyr009, you still miss the point, which is that the burden of proof is on those claiming a god, not on those of us who don't believe in said god. The disengenuous aspect of the pro-theist argument is the claim that humanity's admittedly limited knowledge of the cosmos must mean a god is possible and even likely. So....possible? Sure. Likely? Not so much. Not even close. That old angle is the "god of the gaps" idea. It is not valid. It in no way means there is a god. It simply means there is still much we don't know.

Again, atheism is simply not believing in god(s). You are perhaps confusing gnostic atheists for all atheists. Don't do that.

@MikeInBatonRouge “ Whom are you calling a gnostic? I happen to be an agnostic atheist”
Well, you claim to be an agnostic, but see you are making a gnostic statement there to do so; so it’s likely that we are using different definitions of agnostic

“ To be sure, plenty has been claimed to be compelling...it is not”
It may not be in your opinion, from your perspective, surely, and nothing wrong with that, i would not try to change your mind or anything, but maybe see that as is your statement is an absolute one, that you might even expect everyone else to submit/adhere to?

“ you still miss the point, which is that the burden of proof is on those claiming a god, not on those of us who don't believe in said god”
ah, but i don’t believe in “said god” either, i am not trying to submit any proof, nor am i seeking to become less “agnostic,” as i am against this kind of “false knowledge” in which the declarer says that they know something, when they are only touching the tail or whatever

“ Again, atheism is simply not believing in god(s). You are perhaps confusing gnostic atheists for all atheists. Don't do that.”
Ha well you might be right there, could be that it is the gnostic atheists who are more vocal or something, dunno

Ah well the Bible says that much, at “the wind” analogy…but the article is about gnostic/agnostic? Really mis-titled even i guess

@bbyrd009 Indeed. Ecclesiasties seems to have been the work of a nonbeliever or an agnostic.

WRT the title of the article you shared, the author’s following sectional title would seem to go against your assertion: “How Does the Atheist Prove That There Is No God?“

Once again, the nonbeliever doesn’t need to prove anything. In the absence of empirical evidence the theist fails to prove the case. Case dismissed due to insufficient evidence: God is ‘not guilty’ of existence. Move along, move along. Nothing to see here, particularly a deity!

@p-nullifidian and now maybe the significance of “empty room” might be understood

@p-nullifidian “ WRT the title of the article you shared, the author’s following sectional title would seem to go against your assertion: “How Does the Atheist Prove That There Is No God?“

ya, good point, author argues for “genuine” agnosticism while making several gnostic statements, even the one implied in the title lol

"I do not doubt that there are superhuman beings in the universe. Their existence is testable and falsifiable, but we are limited by our resources (and they theirs)."
Please elaborate.

@p-nullifidian ya!
Supergenes?
but if yall get around to reading the article, lemme know

“ I do not doubt that there are superhuman beings in the universe.”
“Their existence is (testable and) falsifiable”
you might redux

@p-nullifidian I do not think its likely that we are the smartest, most capable or that our civilization is the most developed and productive in the universe. Someday, we may be able to detect their presence with our tools. I do not suppose that supernatural beings, that did not evolve or that don't have a natural explanation for their existence, exist.

@HeathenHello I agree with you completely. It would seem improbable that we are a singular case of biological evolution having developed sentience. That said, the immense vastness of space and the time required for evidence to make it to our instruments during our narrow window of technological opportunity, makes detection, not to mention testable and falsifiable evidence gathering, problematic.

i think the argument is that an atheist is equally a believer, just in no God rather than God, making both gnostic in their thinking, as HHesse’s quote there even demonstrates; which is not to say that he is wrong, because i don't know

as to “more bs,” you would have to be more specific for me to understand, sorry

Sad that you don't realize how silly that sounds....@bbyrd009

@Leetx Well, it’s just a perspective, even if the math bears it out—put the two statements together, and notice that they do not contradict each other, iow—and i do get the reluctance to be associated with “believer” fwiw, but that does not make it any more or less true, wadr; you being “sad that i…” anything is likely more cogent, in a strange kind of way

so, as im more interested in the gnostic/agnostic angle, any comments there?

I believe in ice cream... is not believing in Santa Claus a belief system ?@bbyrd009

@Leetx i would say that the desire to negate "not believing" with "believing not" is pretty obviously denial, wadr

Huh ??? @bbyrd009

@Leetx ezackly, lol
“i don’t believe x is real” and
“i believe x is not real”
amount to the same thing, don’t they?

silly @bbyrd009

yes, some Esaus become Jacob,
“I said ‘you are Elohim’”
etc

yours is the first comment on the actual article, near as i can tell
and i would agree, ppl naturally seek evidence for their beliefs, yeh

@bbyrd009 I lack religious belief, and that is a fact, doesn't mean that I have to label myself as anything. I tend to think that being a (hard-core) atheist requires a conscious effort to be one, which somehow is not natural.

@Ryo1 well, we do speak in labels, whether they are 100% accurate or not…
would you agree that you believe there is no God/gods?

@bbyrd009
"Would you agree that you believe there is no God/gods?"
I don't know, to be honest. I look at any kind of religion from an anthropological view point. Having faith in something, whether it is logical or not, seems to be a very human thing. So, if anyone believes that there is a god in their mind, I would say that's fair enough. Meanwhile, there is no god in my mind.

@Ryo1 i would be compelled to take either one of those with a grain of salt, reckoning each to be “believers,” only in opposite, irrational—as soon as the god is defined anyway—things, that neither can verify objectively

“All the gods i know have fallen”

@bbyrd009 I know what you mean. The basic meaning of "belief" is "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof". Like religious belief, a belief can be so personal that a debate cannot be had in an objective manner.

Yes! The posted article has appeared to define "atheist" very specifically in a way that very likely excludes most atheists, then labels atheists as a whole unreasonable.

I wonder if pretty much everyone does not have their own definition, for pretty much everything?

I think his premise is that one should not be gnostic, rather than atheist per se, but good points imo, at least as far as they go

@bbyrd009 I think the author's choice of terms muddies the water. In the end, it is an unfortunate interpretation of "atheists." Yes, there are some atheists that fit his description, but they do not speak for all, or even most atheists.

im in i guess a weird position there; any “god” that one could define i am not a believer in either, and yet i do think/believe there is a sort of “Creator,” although i suspect that we are already at the maximum level of interaction with “Him.”

But “i don’t know” is, imo, the whole point, even if it makes the title into a kind of joke; only im noticing that most ppl tend to use “agnostic” in the sense of “someday i might be able to say i know” rather than “i am no longer interested in professing knowledge of something” bc it can be so easily refuted, or doesn’t contain its opposite or whatever. Agnostic has come to mean “i don’t know yet”

fruit of the tree of knowledge
What is it?
We’re tired of this manna, give us some meat to eat
etc

ah well fwiw i don’t really agree with the title of the article, but the conclusions, at least if the atheist is sure there is no god/gods. So iow no one should be a typical “believer,” either, convinced of their own opinion, etc

ha well i don’t see Yah lifting anything, so it strikes me the same as “how many angels can dance…”
iow the spirit is being conflated with the physical in a way so as to sidestep a possible truth, maybe; or “spirit” is being discounted as not “existing”