Skeptic groups trying to marginalize atheists

[Chairman Risus]

I can't prove there isn't a god, but I think I can prove certain gods don't exist.

At best you can prove that people's understandings of a particular deity aren't possible.

Existence of Yahweh is not provable or disprovable, but events in the Old Testament are. For all we know, he does exist, and really likes lying to us about creating the Universe in 6 days. Hell, he might actually be just one particularly wussy god out of many, and is just very butthurt. The other gods let him dominate world religions because they don't actually give a crap about any of us. Or it guarantees he's too busy showing them all that he doesn't show up at their parties anymore.

You can't prove or disprove this idea.

I agree with your first sentence, but after that, I think you might be going about it backwards.

If you break from the story of what Yahweh is supposed to be, you're talking about a new god.
If Yahweh has certain measurable requirements and does not fulfill them, then that particular Yahweh does not exist.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I can't prove there isn't a god, but I think I can prove certain gods don't exist.

At best you can prove that people's understandings of a particular deity aren't possible.

Existence of Yahweh is not provable or disprovable, but events in the Old Testament are. For all we know, he does exist, and really likes lying to us about creating the Universe in 6 days. Hell, he might actually be just one particularly wussy god out of many, and is just very butthurt. The other gods let him dominate world religions because they don't actually give a crap about any of us. Or it guarantees he's too busy showing them all that he doesn't show up at their parties anymore.

You can't prove or disprove this idea.

I agree with your first sentence, but after that, I think you might be going about it backwards.

If you break from the story of what Yahweh is supposed to be, you're talking about a new god.
If Yahweh has certain measurable requirements and does not fulfill them, then that particular Yahweh does not exist.

Not necessarily. I could tell you all sorts of stuff about me that aren't true, and maybe you'll take it on faith that I'm telling the truth. It doesn't mean that I don't exist, only that I have deliberately misrepresented myself. Why would a hypothetical god be any different, especially if it is humanlike and seems to have just as many of our bad qualities.

Also, Christians have a different idea of what their god is, but yet it is still the same god that Jewish people worship.

[the last yatto]

Six days could have been how long it took to terraform a dead planet

[Iason Ouabache]

I can't prove there isn't a god, but I think I can prove certain gods don't exist.

prove it.

And that dude's been dead for over 2000 years.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Is it really so silly for someone to dismiss religion/gods/deities?

What if someone (like myself) just thinks the whole idea of it all is dumb and doesn't want to think about it, doesn't want to believe it, doesn't want others preaching to them (me) about it?

Does it make me some kind of friggin tard to call myself atheist if someone asks me about it? I mean it's not like I go around standing on a soap box yelling to the world that "god ain't real, y'all!". I just don't care enough about the shit to bring it up unless someone's talking about it (like here) or asks me about it.

But I guess I would have to label it as such, since skeptic doesn't work when you just don't want to bother questioning it.

I feel like that might be a version of Kai's position, since I seem to agree with both of you. Or maybe I'm just dumb.

I avoid religious/theological jibba-jabba 90% of the time, and another 9% I draw the word "DISCORDIAN" on my forehead and make idiotic jokes. The remaining 1% is spent trying to express my ambivalence towards the whole thing.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think the key issue here is the definition of skepticism, not of atheism.

For example, perfectly normal humans go about their lives being entirely rational until Sunday, when they think they're eating 2000 year dead Jew and a cup of blood. Or, perfectly normal, rational, intelligent people go through their lives basing decisions on logic and reason, until it comes to creation... then they think God poofed it all into existence in 6 days or 6000 years or some nonsense like that. Those may be fine humans... but one would not consider them logical, rational or skeptical on the topic of dead flesh on Sundays or God inventing dinosaur bones and oil. Yet, they may make logical, rational and sane decisions in most other parts of their lives.

Atheists may be fine humans... but on the topic of atheism they are not  holding a skeptical position.  If they don't care about being skeptical, or claiming that they are entirely logical, or accusing the scientific method of providing them with facts about the non-existence of God then they can stick with their beliefs, no harm, no foul. However, if they hold the position of atheism, they cannot claim to be skeptical on the topic of God, Gods, Deities, Magical Invisible Unicorns, Flying Pasta OR goddamned teapots on the wrong side of the Sun*.



* After all, where do you think Eris makes her Shroom tea?

[The Android]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

[The Android]

"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

So if I say "I don't believe in one-winged purple monkeys", then by this logic I have a belief about one-winged purple monkeys.... ooooook.

[The Android]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

I did read what you wrote. However you seem stuck in an either/or as though people believed only in two static extremes. Either you secretly believe in God or you don't.

Yet, for skeptics the point not to believe in your heart one way or the other, until there is evidence. Otherwise, its not skepticism... its just belief.

I am open to the possibility of God. I don't believe any particular system that claims a God. Until there is evidence though, the question is silly.
God may exist. God may not exist. I don't know. No secret belief necessary.

[The Android]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

I did read what you wrote. However you seem stuck in an either/or as though people believed only in two static extremes. Either you secretly believe in God or you don't.

Yet, for skeptics the point not to believe in your heart one way or the other, until there is evidence. Otherwise, its not skepticism... its just belief.

I am open to the possibility of God. I don't believe any particular system that claims a God. Until there is evidence though, the question is silly.
God may exist. God may not exist. I don't know. No secret belief necessary.

But I think you are still dodging the actual question.  Ok, let's leave what your belief is out of it, but what about what seems likely?  Does it seem more or less likely that a god exists? And we will take the "we can't know" as a given, since it is blatantly obvious to any 5 year old.  And leave "skepticism" out of it, since I never brought it up to begin with.

If I ask you whether you think it's likely that there is, or would be, a god, and you answer "we can't know it" after its been taken as a given isn't your answer really just a more polite version of "fuck you I don't want to talk to you"?  How do you live your life on a daily basis?  Do you live your life acting as though you believe in a god?  If not, it seems to me, and I fully admit that I may just be wrong, but it seems to me if you act as if there is no god then your belief is probably that you don't find it very likely.  In which case I would say you would fit as an agnostic atheist, someone who thinks we cannot ultimately ever know the answer, but doesn't feel its very likely.

[Don Coyote]

If it is blatantly obvious to an innocent child then where did this delusion spring forth?

[LMNO]

"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

So if I say "I don't believe in one-winged purple monkeys", then by this logic I have a belief about one-winged purple monkeys.... ooooook.

Actually, no.  What Kai is stating comes from the Less Wrong Sequences.  Stating "I believe in" is having a belief about a belief.  And in these instances, "~belief" is the same as "belief".

"I don't anticipate any one-winged purple monkeys" states something about the outside universe.  "I don't believe in one-winged purple monkeys" states something about yourself.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

I did read what you wrote. However you seem stuck in an either/or as though people believed only in two static extremes. Either you secretly believe in God or you don't.

Yet, for skeptics the point not to believe in your heart one way or the other, until there is evidence. Otherwise, its not skepticism... its just belief.

I am open to the possibility of God. I don't believe any particular system that claims a God. Until there is evidence though, the question is silly.
God may exist. God may not exist. I don't know. No secret belief necessary.

But I think you are still dodging the actual question.  Ok, let's leave what your belief is out of it, but what about what seems likely?  Does it seem more or less likely that a god exists? And we will take the "we can't know" as a given, since it is blatantly obvious to any 5 year old.  And leave "skepticism" out of it, since I never brought it up to begin with.

If I ask you whether you think it's likely that there is, or would be, a god, and you answer "we can't know it" after its been taken as a given isn't your answer really just a more polite version of "fuck you I don't want to talk to you"?  How do you live your life on a daily basis?  Do you live your life acting as though you believe in a god?  If not, it seems to me, and I fully admit that I may just be wrong, but it seems to me if you act as if there is no god then your belief is probably that you don't find it very likely.  In which case I would say you would fit as an agnostic atheist, someone who thinks we cannot ultimately ever know the answer, but doesn't feel its very likely.

Hahahahaha oh you ask the wrong Nut that question

In my life, some days I worship Eris. Some days I invoke Therion. Some days I don't give a fuck. Some days I do rituals and talk to the Holy Guardian Angels. Some days I invoke animal spirits and drink Yage.

In all of my experiences, I have found that if I act like I believe in a certain belief system, I experience things as expected in that system. I have had experiences that indicate to me that there might be something ... some kind of lowest common denominator that's inspired all this God stuff. Is it a real God, or some trick of human consciousness, or aliens, or something I haven't yet even fathomed? I DON'T KNOW.

Since no God has bothered to tell me what they expect (with the exception of Eris), then I live my life as though none of these Gods in potentia have bothered to tell me what they think I should do. If none of them ever bother to communicate with me, then I will die with no particular position on the topic other than "Dunno, the Universe is a crazy place... There may well be Gods out there... or aliens... but they never showed up to talk to me, so I couldn't do much about it."

Your premise is flawed.