[questor]

some people seem quite proud that they are atheists and are eager to look with derision at those who have faith in a deity. the assumption seems to be that they are more intelligent than the faithful and have discovered the REAL
TRUTH. i would like to know why an atheist is, or becomes atheist and why some intelligent people are believers. for the sake of discussion, would some of you declare your belief and explain the reasons why?

[InfiniteNow]

questor,
I am pretty sure I understand what you are driving at with your post, however, I feel you have inaccurately defined an atheist. If nothing else, perhaps you could edit to say "My experience with atheists implies to me that they exhibit traits like... If YOU exhibit traits like this, can you help me to bridge the gaps in my understanding of why you do this?"

Just a thought. Cheers.

[questor]

this thread is not about me or my thoughts. it is simply an invitation for atheists or believers to tell why they believe the way they do.

[Tormod]

I don't believe. I am an atheist. There is no reason.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I don't believe. I am an atheist. There is no reason.

Tormod is a pretty articulate guy, and I think he shortchanged us a bit here. It is important (for this discussion) to separate the notion of an atheist from an agnostic.

1) An atheist contends that God does not exist. This is a faith position, in that that the absence of God is no more provable than the presence of God

2) An agnostic contends that the existence of God cannot be known. If one were to suggest (for example) that any information that could not be demonstrated by the Scientific Method was (by definition) unknowable, then you would default to being an agnostic

3) A theist contends that God does exist. This is a faith position just as the position in #1 above.

Given my knowledge of Tormod, he usually falls much more closely into the agnostic category.

Tormod, please feel free to correct me. I don't think you would defend that God absolutely does not exist (even if you suspect it is true).

[GAHD]

Without splitting hairs, I'll ride the fence on this one.
Logic leads me away from it, but chaos brings me right back; so, like The Cat, I'll remain in two states untill this box is opened and resolved with a good look-see.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by GAHD

Without splitting hairs, I'll ride the fence on this one.
Logic leads me away from it, but chaos brings me right back; so, like The Cat, I'll remain in two states untill this box is opened and resolved with a good look-see.

Does this put you in the Schroedinger camp, or the agnostic camp? If we need a Schroedinger camp, you will have to provide a definition.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Given my knowledge of Tormod, he usually falls much more closely into the agnostic category.

Tormod, please feel free to correct me. I don't think you would defend that God absolutely does not exist (even if you suspect it is true).

He he. I knew someone would say this.

Using empirical knowledge I cannot disprove a God. I do, however, not accept that I am by logic required to *believe* that something *does not exist*.

Therefore I am an atheist - I have no God, and I do not have non-faith.

To claim otherwise is to say that I must believe that everything that does not exist, in fact might exist, and as such everything I believe is both right and wrong. The only way out of this conundrum is to prove that something *exists*, because a proof of non-existence will not be acceptable proof according to the three bullet points in Bio's post.

This is flawed logic. I accept the logic of the scientific method, which means that I can assume that what best describes the world is *currently* a reasonable thing to place my bets on. I don't need to "believe" that there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I *know* there is no planet there.

By reason I accept that the scientific theories we currently have for the birth and evolution of the universe overwhelm the beliefs of any religion, and therefore I accept those theories. I do not *believe* in them in the sense that I have *faith*.

I can thus safely state that no, there is no God just the way I can say that no, there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I am an atheist. There are no gods.

I cannot, however, claim that there will never *be* a god. But that is acceptable logic: I cannot determine what can happen tomorrow. Nor can I prove that noone will ever be able to create a universe and be god for the beings in that universe.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Tormod

...Using empirical knowledge I cannot disprove a God. I do, however, not accept that I am by logic required to *believe* that something *does not exist*....To claim otherwise is to say that I must believe that everything that does not exist, in fact might exist, and as such everything I believe is both right and wrong...I don't need to "believe" that there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I *know* there is no planet there....I can thus safely state that no, there is no God just the way I can say that no, there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I am an atheist. There are no gods...

Articulate response (as usual), Tormod.

Semantically, I would still put you in the agnostic camp, but I don't see a lot of value in that debate. I do think it is deceptive to suggest that the no-God evidence is as strong as the no-planet evidence. We actually can scan the heavens (at that range) with a known degree of statisticaly validity. Most of use would agree that a construct that is 99.999% unlikely to be true is "untrue" in the sense that we typically use the word. Such is not the case for existence of a God generally. To contend there is no God (as opposed to contending one can't prove it) is a more assertive position, and I suggest it requires a shred of belief. It might be a small enough shred that one might call it bias, but that is still belief.

Thanks for the response, Tormod.

[Tormod]

I suggest we keep this discussion in the other thread, since it is basically the same thing.