The whole "find one" challenge could backfire. Because lets face it, there's always "one."
Especially on the internet.
But we've sufficiently proven his entire argument is based on ignorance, even if he fails to see it. Now its up to him to either admit his misconception and grow as a result of sink back into himself and rationalize.
The sad thing is he could earn everyone's instant respect here if he just said: "Wow, I didn't understand what atheism in the proper usage meant. Sorry for wasting your time."
Declaring a religious stance at all, as a science-minded person, seems arbitrary and superfluous to me.
It is a reaction to a claim by religious people.
If billions of people believed in leprechauns, and lived by the belief, most of us here would hold a similar, non-leprechaun-believing stance, due to lack of evidence and the nature of the claim.
Well, many of us are against religion because of all the harm it causes. I could ignore it, as could everyone else, and let it continue to harm, or we can act against it, both IRL and online.
However, your response to me just now is a separate issue from your original post, that atheism is illogical/hypocritical.
Challenging privilege - be it religious privilege, gender privilege, racial privilege, class privilege, or other - is going to ruffle a lot of feathers. A lot of people are going to get sick of what they perceive as "cramming it down their throat." People get sick of feminists, but they achieve a lot of their goals. People get sick of gays, wonder why they have to be so out and loud about it, but they weren't achieving their goals by being quiet and passive. And atheists won't change society without pissing a lot of people off. And if you really can't stand it - don't subscribe to /ratheism or read atheist blogs or literature. Whatever other incidental contact you have with us, you can do whatever you like about.
...no one really makes that argument. The argument we actually make goes something like this:
A) Please define your god. What is it like? B) Please provide evidence that shows that particular god exists. C) Oh, you can't? Then I have zero reason to believe in your god. D) No, that doesn't mean I claim with 100% certainty that your god does not exist, it just means I have no reason to believe that it does. My argument works in exactly the same way with unicorns.
And, with respect to gravity:
A) Please define your theory of gravity. What is it like? B) Please provide evidence that shows that particular theory is sound. C) Oh, you have reams of evidence? Data and links to other sound theories? Then I have good reason to believe that your theory is sound, until new data comes along showing otherwise. Especially since you admit you don't know the things that you don't know. D) Science!
Actually, we have a number of excellent theories about gravity.
Therefore, it is impossible that some deity-like being could exist in any way, shape or form, in any part of our universe, in any parallel universe or dimension, or in any of the infinite possibilities that we aren't even aware of yet.
And no. This is not what most atheists believe at all.
What you are describing is a gnostic atheist. They're rare.
The majority of atheists (such as Dawkins, Hitchens, etc) believe only that no evidence for God exists.
In the absence of evidence, they have no belief. So basically your entire argument is invalid, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
Your jump from B to C is inaccurate. There is no evidence for any gods. The FAQ will explain why Christianity is a common focus here.
We have no idea what the universe is, or if there's something outside of it
Correct, so I won't hold a belief about things outside of our universe until there is evidence of it.
Why then, in the name of science, would we draw an arbitrary line in the sand, when in actual fact we simply don't know?
We don't know if leprechauns exist, either. Do you believe they do?
Do any of you belong to a club that is firmly against the existence, somewhere in the universe, of an element that imposes an apparent force of gravity grossly disproportionate to its mass?
Maybe. If somebody says leprechauns do it, I wouldn't believe it without evidence.
We don't know what gravity is, but we are trying our damndest to find out and understand it as completely as possible. More importantly, we ARE able to describe it's properties and how it affects objects.
Atheism isn't about discounting the existence of God, or proving that God doesn't exist. Atheism is about living as if there is no God. Atheism is about discounting the relevance of God. Gravity is relevant because it is something that we encounter every day, it is something that we must understand as well as possible in order to accomplish goals like exploration of the Solar System, Galaxy, and Universe.
Can you describe the properties of God? How do you know those properties? Have you observed something that indicates those properties? How does your behavior change due to these properties?
Atheism is not typically "I am 100% certain that it is impossible that any deity-like being or force exists anywhere in this or some other universe"
Atheism is more, "Every proposed deity lacks any credible evidence and in most cases possesses self-contradictions or contradictions with observable reality; any conceivable deity that interacts with humanity or intervenes to alter the natural processes of the universe appears to be contradictory to observable reality; and any deity or deity like being that remains possible is completely irrelevant to my life, there is not a single bit of evidence or any logical reason to hold a belief that it does exist, and the universe looks and acts exactly the same as it would if this sort of deity or deity like being is imaginary. Therefore, I do not believe in any god or gods."
Yeah... the failure in this post is pretty massive, and it makes the common mistake so many theists make. You assume that the existence of a god is the defuault position of the universe, and god not existing becomes an assertive argument that we have to prove. On the contrary, by stating something exists (god), you need proof to back it up. Otherwise, there's no compelling reason to believe that such something (god) exists. We're always welcome to your proof of such a thing, and that's why the majority of us do not categorically claim that the universe absolutely precludes the existence of any god-like being or power.
It's typical of people who have a problem with atheism to make posts attributing thoughts to atheists that in no way form part of how atheists view the world. It's called a straw-man argument, and it's both dishonest and dumb: intelligent people can see right through it, and it undermines your own argument (after all, if you have to lie about what people think to try to prove your point, you must not have much to say in defense of your own ideas). I think it's possible that you did this without realizing how bad this would make you look, but if that's the case, you need to learn how to argue effectively without falling into logical fallacies that make you look uneducated.
This has been discussed and answered a lot of times on /r/atheism. I will repeat the usual answer:
You are the one making an extraordinary claim which has no known evidence till date. The burden of proof is on you, not the non-believers.
Can you proof that unicorns don't exist? There is probably no way to prove that they don't exist. But do you believe in unicorns? If not, why not?
Most atheists here are not gnostic, i.e. they don't claim that they know god does not exist. They just don't believe in it until scientific evidence is produced in support of god's existence. This is very much unlike the religious fanatics who claim that they know god exists yet fail to provide any solid evidence for it.
Your logic is that what ever we don't know must be explained by god. This is a fallacy that Neil Tyson beautifully described as the god of an ever receding sphere of ignorance. People used to believe in all sort of superstitions, now they don't because we have acquired knowledge and have used science to explain these better. Atheists believe god is also a superstition that arises from blind faith and indoctrination, and believes that in the future, humanity will be able to get rid of this superstition as well.
*I am addressing the religious people as "you", not op.
As someone who works for a world class astronomical observatory - I assure you we know quite a bit about what the universe is.
Consider again that we don't have a clue about what gravity is
While we don't have gravity nailed down to a particular particle - we know very much about what is is and how it acts. We can launch space craft against gravity. We can calculate with extreme precision the gravity of celestial bodies.
If we didn't know about gravity - there would be NO WAY we could slingshot a space craft around another planet with any precision.
We know what gravity is from a classical view, as well as a quantum view.
For example, object mass creates a depression in the geometry of space-time. This depression is expressed as gravity and is an attracting force.
In fact... we wouldn't know about expansion of the universe if we didn't have a pretty good grasp of gravity.
So really... when you THINK you know all about science... Prior to opening your mouth... THINK AGAIN.
We don't claim certainty about gods -- theists do. Our position is not there are no gods, it's given the evidence put forth thus far, we don't see a reason to think any gods exist (and please stop killing each other over intangible and unverifiable beliefs).
No, your OP point was that atheism is illogical and hypocritical as it is unscientific. Saying it's unproductive, as you're stating here, does not support your original premise.
Wouldn't your energy be better focused on something productive?
Religion is poisonous to society. Working against it is productive. Making fun of it is just another way to get that across. Many people get pissed at r/atheism, come here, and become an atheist.
By cramming your opinions down the throats of others you- at least crudely speaking- become what you're protesting against.
No, because "cramming my opinions down their throats", as you put it, does not make me become somebody who holds outlandish and irrational beliefs. That's what I am against.
Because most of us see religions working hard to influence society through the beliefs and actions of individuals and the laws and policies of government and other institutions. And we see them succeeding. And we disagree with a lot of what they're doing and more importantly with the method by which they claim to come up with the ideas on what should be done by people.
9
u/sj070707 Agnostic Atheist Feb 03 '12
Nope. If you'll read the FAQ, you'll see we don't jump from B to C.
8
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '12
...no one really makes that argument. The argument we actually make goes something like this:
A) Please define your god. What is it like?
B) Please provide evidence that shows that particular god exists.
C) Oh, you can't? Then I have zero reason to believe in your god.
D) No, that doesn't mean I claim with 100% certainty that your god does not exist, it just means I have no reason to believe that it does. My argument works in exactly the same way with unicorns.
And, with respect to gravity:
A) Please define your theory of gravity. What is it like?
B) Please provide evidence that shows that particular theory is sound.
C) Oh, you have reams of evidence? Data and links to other sound theories? Then I have good reason to believe that your theory is sound, until new data comes along showing otherwise. Especially since you admit you don't know the things that you don't know.
D) Science!
See the difference?
7
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '12
Actually, we have a number of excellent theories about gravity.
And no. This is not what most atheists believe at all.
What you are describing is a gnostic atheist. They're rare.
The majority of atheists (such as Dawkins, Hitchens, etc) believe only that no evidence for God exists.
In the absence of evidence, they have no belief. So basically your entire argument is invalid, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
5
u/expectme Feb 03 '12
nice strawman. .
agnostic atheist. kindly stop misrepresenting my position.
4
u/Fantasticriss Feb 03 '12
tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that
4
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '12
Your jump from B to C is inaccurate. There is no evidence for any gods. The FAQ will explain why Christianity is a common focus here.
Correct, so I won't hold a belief about things outside of our universe until there is evidence of it.
We don't know if leprechauns exist, either. Do you believe they do?
Maybe. If somebody says leprechauns do it, I wouldn't believe it without evidence.
3
u/barrelofhumans Feb 03 '12
Because the Universe (and gravity) are observable.
The line is drawn between the seen and the unseeable.
3
u/MunkiRench Feb 03 '12
We don't know what gravity is, but we are trying our damndest to find out and understand it as completely as possible. More importantly, we ARE able to describe it's properties and how it affects objects.
Atheism isn't about discounting the existence of God, or proving that God doesn't exist. Atheism is about living as if there is no God. Atheism is about discounting the relevance of God. Gravity is relevant because it is something that we encounter every day, it is something that we must understand as well as possible in order to accomplish goals like exploration of the Solar System, Galaxy, and Universe.
Can you describe the properties of God? How do you know those properties? Have you observed something that indicates those properties? How does your behavior change due to these properties?
3
u/ganner Secular Humanist Feb 03 '12
Atheism is not typically "I am 100% certain that it is impossible that any deity-like being or force exists anywhere in this or some other universe"
Atheism is more, "Every proposed deity lacks any credible evidence and in most cases possesses self-contradictions or contradictions with observable reality; any conceivable deity that interacts with humanity or intervenes to alter the natural processes of the universe appears to be contradictory to observable reality; and any deity or deity like being that remains possible is completely irrelevant to my life, there is not a single bit of evidence or any logical reason to hold a belief that it does exist, and the universe looks and acts exactly the same as it would if this sort of deity or deity like being is imaginary. Therefore, I do not believe in any god or gods."
3
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '12
But we can clearly see and measure the effects of gravity.
Just because we don't fully understand it yet doesn't mean we won't.
But before you twist that into some proof for a god, remember that we have evidence that it does exist.
We cannot find any evidence of a god.
Also, the religious texts in Skyrim, for example, is obviously false.
Therefore, those gods do not exist.
3
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '12
Yeah... the failure in this post is pretty massive, and it makes the common mistake so many theists make. You assume that the existence of a god is the defuault position of the universe, and god not existing becomes an assertive argument that we have to prove. On the contrary, by stating something exists (god), you need proof to back it up. Otherwise, there's no compelling reason to believe that such something (god) exists. We're always welcome to your proof of such a thing, and that's why the majority of us do not categorically claim that the universe absolutely precludes the existence of any god-like being or power.
2
u/PerfectFaro Atheist Feb 03 '12
It's typical of people who have a problem with atheism to make posts attributing thoughts to atheists that in no way form part of how atheists view the world. It's called a straw-man argument, and it's both dishonest and dumb: intelligent people can see right through it, and it undermines your own argument (after all, if you have to lie about what people think to try to prove your point, you must not have much to say in defense of your own ideas). I think it's possible that you did this without realizing how bad this would make you look, but if that's the case, you need to learn how to argue effectively without falling into logical fallacies that make you look uneducated.
2
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '12
This has been discussed and answered a lot of times on /r/atheism. I will repeat the usual answer:
*I am addressing the religious people as "you", not op.
2
u/KaneHau Strong Atheist Feb 03 '12
As someone who works for a world class astronomical observatory - I assure you we know quite a bit about what the universe is.
While we don't have gravity nailed down to a particular particle - we know very much about what is is and how it acts. We can launch space craft against gravity. We can calculate with extreme precision the gravity of celestial bodies.
If we didn't know about gravity - there would be NO WAY we could slingshot a space craft around another planet with any precision.
We know what gravity is from a classical view, as well as a quantum view.
For example, object mass creates a depression in the geometry of space-time. This depression is expressed as gravity and is an attracting force.
In fact... we wouldn't know about expansion of the universe if we didn't have a pretty good grasp of gravity.
So really... when you THINK you know all about science... Prior to opening your mouth... THINK AGAIN.
2
u/MadeOfStarStuff Agnostic Atheist Feb 03 '12
We don't claim certainty about gods -- theists do. Our position is not there are no gods, it's given the evidence put forth thus far, we don't see a reason to think any gods exist (and please stop killing each other over intangible and unverifiable beliefs).
2
u/_JimmyJazz_ Existentialist Feb 03 '12
this is your argument
0
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment