Why are they so keen to make Atheism a faith?

zornhau said:

Am I the only one who finds the atheism-as-faith trope as sinister as it's insulting?

Click to expand...

Probably not, but I don't see it as sinister - I think it's a quite natural classification.

It's like arguing whether 'zero' should be in a list of numbers. From one point of view, of course it shouldn't. It's not a value. Its the absence of a value.

But it makes mathematical conversations easier. Sure, there are plenty of examples where it gets in the way. eg: "x / 3x = 1/3 .. EXCEPT FOR 'x=0'."

But generally it makes conversations easier.

If you like, just replace the word 'religion' with 'world view'. For most conversations, when people talk about religion that's what they are really talking about.

Of course, there are also people like us. People who like chatting on message boards about the subtleties of world views draw a clear distinction between the differences.

But for most conversations ... just pretend they said 'world view'.

Mac

Mac H. said:

It's like arguing whether 'zero' should be in a list of numbers. From one point of view, of course it shouldn't. It's not a value. Its the absence of a value.

Click to expand...

Well, that's also the kind of wrongheaded thinking that caused place-value notation to be so unintuitive, historically speaking. Consider Roman vs. Arabic numerals. Generally, mathematicians qualify their statements by defining universes of discourse in which their statements apply. Sets, for example.

JimmyB27 said:

Alright, fair point. That was an insufficiently precise sentence of mine. Perhaps better is to say that the evidence we have does not do anything to suggest a god. Or perhaps, that to say 'god did it' is something of a cop out when seeking answers.

Click to expand...

No problem. All the precision I need to respect Science is: that "evidence" not be exaggerated beyond what it can intelligently support (in an effort to defend anyone's faith, whether it's the Believer's faith to defend faith ... or the atheists' faith to attack others' faith)

And I don't see 'God did it' as being a 'cop out' ... since Science could explain everything ABOUT the Universe ... and STILL (possibly) leave us with the final, all-consuming FACT that 'God did it.'

In a multiverse of an infinite number of Universes, functioning by an infinite number of "natural laws" (each alien to ours, by definition) ... all it takes is for ONE Universe to contain an omni-present GOD for them ALL to do so.

Whether that thought belongs in THIS forum, or the religion one, or the Science-Fiction forum ... is unsure.

The evidence we have works perfectly well without positing the existence of a supreme being, so why do it?

Click to expand...

I'd dispute that it works 'perfectly well' since we cannot begin to explain most of the physical Universe or even our own human Consciousness.

Stating that what we have 'works perfectly well' might be an issue of FAITH or it's own brand of 'cop out' ...

The Universe is Big, Science knows only a little. NEWTONIAN physics worked 'perfectly well' until QUANTUM physics pointed to the deeper facts that the foundations of REALITY had not yet even been grasped or even imagined.

What about the teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It's a serious question; where is your valid, intellectual evidence for their non-existence, since you argue I need some for not believing in god.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

Seriously, and generally speaking, those (plus fairies and unicorns, etc) I'd see when offered in discussions such as these as pointless and weak dodges and efforts to deflect the topic, hurled up as defensive camouflage and foreshadowing a retreat from serious discussion.

YOU may have offered them knowing tongue-in-cheek jest, and I take them as happy reparte!

If someone told me they believed there is a teapot orbiting Saturn, I'd be unwise to tell the world that THERE CANNOT BE A TEAPOT orbiting Saturn.

If I claimed Science supports my denial, or evidence supports my denial ... I'd be mis-representing both.

I, sir, am a Teapot-agnostic. Science and reason demand the cautious "We don't know; let's let space probes look for possible teapots as they explore Creation" approach!

I certainly don't want the image to become a point of argument (especially here), but neither would it seem fair that one forum member can dictate or censor another's sincere comments (verbal or visually communicated)

I do not imply that anyone here means to dictate or censor ... I do not suggest that. But for me to REMOVE it, after it's been here for ... years? ... I'd feel dictated to and censored. (Especially if I felt it were due simply to someone's disagreement over our other discussions; sometimes folks attack my choices of underlining or boldface too ... and I wonder if it's more about the things I write than how I write them)

It's an Amnesty International poster, decrying human injustice. It's kept so SMALL so there ISN'T a recognizable person's face or expression (both which are sad, but that's the point, inhumanity touches us all and saddens us all)

It's meant as an iconic symbol, and Amnesty International embraces it as such. (It is a comment too about our humanitarian awareness and goals as WRITERS here in a Writers' forum.)

I accepted their judgements on the validity and sensitivity of the image ... and that's how I respectfully offer it and hope folks can understand it here.

small axe said:

Seriously, and generally speaking, those (plus fairies and unicorns, etc) I'd see when offered in discussions such as these as pointless and weak dodges and efforts to deflect the topic, hurled up as defensive camouflage and foreshadowing a retreat from serious discussion.

YOU may have offered them knowing tongue-in-cheek jest, and I take them as happy reparte!

If someone told me they believed there is a teapot orbiting Saturn, I'd be unwise to tell the world that THERE CANNOT BE A TEAPOT orbiting Saturn.

If I claimed Science supports my denial, or evidence supports my denial ... I'd be mis-representing both.

I, sir, am a Teapot-agnostic. Science and reason demand the cautious "We don't know; let's let space probes look for possible teapots as they explore Creation" approach!

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you have dodged the whole question and implied that the people who are asking you for clarification are insincere. That you don't know whether or not there is a teapot orbiting Saturn is not the same as believing that there is or is not a teapot orbiting Saturn. If your position is that there are a gazillion things that we can't possibly know beyond any shadow of a doubt, that's fine, but then you're largely talking about epistemological distinctions and fine shades of the word "know."

What you refuse to address is that there a great deal of evidence which leads us to believe that there are not, in fact, teapots orbiting Saturn. My position (which is just my personal position) is that I do not believe that there could be a teapot orbiting Saturn because a whole bunch of evidence suggests it would be impossible. I do not know there isn't a teapot out there, because obviously I haven't been there and looked everywhere, and even then, I might have missed one. But this then begins to haggle over what I mean by "know." If someone else says "I know there is not a teapot," I certainly wouldn't call him a liar.

Now your position as teapot-agnostic is not an unreasonable one, but what you have failed to convince me of is that teapot-atheists are hypocrites and liars. Indeed, I think that teapot atheism is probably a more reasonable position, simply because there is a huge space of objects (old shoes, Jimmy Hoffa, pizza) that could be orbiting Saturn by your reckoning, and the space of possible objects is huge, much larger than the actual physical space around Saturn. So in order to keep our space of possible objects from becoming ridiculous, many of us are teapot atheists.

In other words, you're focusing on the wrong point, and ascribing motives to people simply because they agree with you on 99.9999% of the question, but that they disagree with you on the tiny, wholly theoretical, point.

small axe said:

If someone told me they believed there is a teapot orbiting Saturn, I'd be unwise to tell the world that THERE CANNOT BE A TEAPOT orbiting Saturn.

If I claimed Science supports my denial, or evidence supports my denial ... I'd be mis-representing both.

Click to expand...

But in that case, surely you must believe that nothing is actually impossible !

Can you explain which of the following statements you believe are scientifically:
a. True -or-
b. False -or-
c. Possible - you aren't willing to say 'True' or 'False' definitely

Statement 1: The world is flat
Statement 2: There is a small china teapot orbiting Saturn.
Statement 3: We are plugged into some kind of virtual reality machine, and so all the measurements we are making could just be faked.

The problem is that if you start saying that Statement 3 is 'possible', you have to classify every statement as 'possible' as well.

Small Axe - can you answer this query?

Statement 1: a/b/c ?
Statement 2: a/b/c ?
Statement 3: a/b/c ?

Mac

Honestly, it's times like this where I do recognize my choice:
Either I can simply NOT reply, and let something I think to be clearly an error or a misunderstanding stand unchallenged (and leave an issue unexplored, even if it means leaving either others or myself in ignorance) ... or I can reply.

If I were the ONE person defending a viewpoint, against MANY challenging the viewpoint ... I do realize it means that I'm replying seven times more than anyone else. The mere QUANTITY of my replies then opens me up to the (on the surface, to the casual observer) appearance (or, accusations) that I'm badgering, or trolling, or de-railing.

I see it as myself merely answering each person's comments, respectfully. If that means I reply seven-to-one ... cool.

I know I will be 'repeating myself' below ... But when the challenge (or error) is repeated, so too must the reply be repeated.

ChristineR said:

I'm sorry, but you have dodged the whole question and implied that the people who are asking you for clarification are insincere.

Click to expand...

I reply alot.
I reply alot because I don't 'dodge' questions, in my opinion. I by-passed the 'teapot' comment the first time because, yes, I think it's a silly argument. But I answered it the second time it was posed so I wouldn't be 'dodging' anything ... silly (imo only) or not.

As to the second point: There is a difference between thinking someone is being 'insincere' (which I never suggested anyone was)... and trying to reasonably point out possible sincere oversights ... or knowing, self-serving hypocrisy.

I merely point out a possible spectrum of error or intent there, ranging from innocence to guilt. I make no suggestion where anyone (including myself) belongs on that spectrum.

To answer you comment ... No, I don't think anyone asking for 'clarification' is insincere, though. (They might belong elsewhere on the spectrum though, either more innocent or more guilty.)

That you don't know whether or not there is a teapot orbiting Saturn is not the same as believing that there is or is not a teapot orbiting Saturn.

Click to expand...

I agree totally. Agnostics then would be those who simply remain more open-minded because they KNOW they don't know. Those who take a definite position risk being definitely WRONG.

Those who honestly accept a thing by FAITH are 'faithful' ...

Those who dishonestly accept or reject a thing by faith (while claiming it is by science or by evidence that they cannot support) would be ... well, why WOULDN'T they be called 'hypocrites' ... ???

The HONEST answer is: "We don't know" (or "I have faith ...")

If your position is that there are a gazillion things that we can't possibly know beyond any shadow of a doubt, that's fine, but then you're largely talking about epistemological distinctions and fine shades of the word "know."

Click to expand...

Well, my only concern is that we intelligently distinguish between what we "know" versus what we "guess" or "have faith in"

Call that what you dare, I call it Reason, Fact, accurate Science, etc ...

What you refuse to address is that there a great deal of evidence which leads us to believe that there are not, in fact, teapots orbiting Saturn.

Click to expand...

On the contrary. What "evidence" do YOU have ruling out teapots?

I don't need to have any evidence to rule them IN, to point out that YOU have none to definitely rule teapots OUT.

Here, in the non-faith thread ... you must make your CLAIMS of evidence (pro or con) based upon actual EVIDENCE! Not mere assumption, nor faith.

It's like a scientific experiment, where someone has the perfect reasonable right to point out how your conclusions are flawed due to an error in evidence or observation.

To paint an absurd story as illustration:

"No one saw a unicorn walk past the window," says Doubter #1. "So there was no unicorn"
"Who was there to see, though?" I'd ask.
"The blind guy, the blindfolded guy, and the guy who wasn't looking out the window because he doesn't believe there was a unicorn to even see! Oh, and the guys who couldn't see what's out the window ... hidden on the FAR SIDE of Saturn's moons."

It's not valid proof of no unicorns, it's not a valid scientific conclusion.

My position (which is just my personal position) is that I do not believe that there could be a teapot orbiting Saturn because a whole bunch of evidence suggests it would be impossible.

Click to expand...

Again, I believe you are merely claiming 'evidence' you cannot have.

And if you cannot even support a conclusion about simple teapots (material world teapots) ... you have even less hope of ruling out something as complicated as a non-material GOD/gods/souls/etc.

We find pieces of MARS on Earth. Who amongst us can rule out the mysteries or the odysseys of the eternally mischeivious china teapot?!

I do not know there isn't a teapot out there, because obviously I haven't been there and looked everywhere, and even then, I might have missed one.

Click to expand...

Well said!

But this then begins to haggle over what I mean by "know." If someone else says "I know there is not a teapot," I certainly wouldn't call him a liar.

Click to expand...

I'd call them 'mistaken' and challenge them whether they understood what is valid evidence or not ... then I'd ask to see their evidence.

ETA: I meant (and I'm glad I caught my mis-comment myself, to correct it) I'd think they were 'mistaken' to claim to 'KNOW' what isn't there. There may indeed NOT be teapots in orbit ... I just dispute that anyone can KNOW or have 'evidence' of their non-existence today.
As usual, I don't mean to argue anyone's BELIEFS ... but am uncomfortable to accept mere belief to be argued as evidenced fact. (And yes, i've squirmed when some Theists claim they can "prove" God via material evidence. It means they don't understand evidence, or that their own faith needs a crutch of physical evidence, or that they don't recall Jesus telling the devil that folks shouldn't "test" God on principle)

If they still insisted they could provide the evidence, and that I was a superstitious fool to even challenge them ...
I'd suggest they were a 'lying' by claiming to have evidence they don't have.

Now your position as teapot-agnostic is not an unreasonable one, but what you have failed to convince me of is that teapot-atheists are hypocrites and liars.

Click to expand...

I don't worry whether they are 'hypocrites' or 'liars' (they can be that or not, and it alters my Universe in no way) and thus don't need to convince you here in our friendly conversations.

I try to defend valid science, evidence and reasoning ... I challenge defective science, evidence and reasoning.

I try to distinguish fact from fallacy (when I can, but I am not perfect, obviously)

Indeed, I think that teapot atheism is probably a more reasonable position, simply because there is a huge space of objects (old shoes, Jimmy Hoffa, pizza) that could be orbiting Saturn by your reckoning, and the space of possible objects is huge, much larger than the actual physical space around Saturn. So in order to keep our space of possible objects from becoming ridiculous, many of us are teapot atheists.

Click to expand...

I would fear that by taking a flawed position (and jumping on mere faith to the conclusion that Santurnian teapots cannot exist) one would make one's own position 'ridiculous'.

To say "I don't know" protects one from such errors, imo.

In other words, you're focusing on the wrong point,

Click to expand...

What 'point' am I 'wrong' about, exactly?

and ascribing motives to people simply because they agree with you on 99.9999% of the question, but that they disagree with you on the tiny, wholly theoretical, point.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to 'ascribe motives' to anyone (You'll recall, I rejected others calling folks 'sinister' because I don't really like attempts at mindreading or ascribing motives)

I offer (and I only offer my possible illumination of the issues, others obviously may disagree. As the saying goes, "You are entitled to your own opinions ... but not to your own facts") to demonstrate or illustrate certain ERRORS in certain positions, facts, or reasoning.

****************************************

Again, sorry when I repeat myself. But the same question asked x5 gets the same basic answer x5.

Mac H. said:

But in that case, surely you must believe that nothing is actually impossible !

Click to expand...

I'd definitely resist calling anything "impossible" (because human KNOWLEDGE cannot fully distinguish yet what may be possible or not)

The burden of proof demands (and thus SCIENCE and REASON demand, imo) to know WHY any thing can be ruled out as "impossible"

Can you explain which of the following statements you believe are scientifically:
a. True -or-
b. False -or-
c. Possible - you aren't willing to say 'True' or 'False' definitely

Statement 1: The world is flat
Statement 2: There is a small china teapot orbiting Saturn.
Statement 3: We are plugged into some kind of virtual reality machine, and so all the measurements we are making could just be faked.


The problem is that if you start saying that Statement 3 is 'possible', you have to classify every statement as 'possible' as well.

Click to expand...

I enjoy a puzzle, and you're Mac H. so happily I'll play.

Small Axe - can you answer this query?

Statement 1: a/b/c ?
Statement 2: a/b/c ?
Statement 3: a/b/c ?

Mac

Click to expand...

I can assume the answer if i assume your question.

Statement 1: Is the Earth flat? One could ask in what sense, in what context? I don't know much physics, but I recall a debate on whether or not ALL Spacetime is "flat" or curves. In presence of INTENSE gravity, spacetime does bend or curve, but whether the sum total of ALL spacetime (across the Universe) isn't in fact "flat" I don't recall (it was either "flat' or shaped like a converse or concave saddle, I think were the ideas)

But playing devil's advocate I'd say one could insist that a sphere in four dimensions might somehow become 'flat' in extreme, multi-dimensional physics' 11 or 12 dimensions.

So to rule out a thing as "impossible" or "flat" one would have to define the CONTEXT of the impossibility.

To deny GOD's existence, one would be claiming to be able to KNOW and define the ENTIRE CONTEXT of the universe (and possible multiple universes) ...

That's not a DODGE if we're considering GOD, who by (some) definitions whose existence demands that ATHEISTS consider OMNIPRESENCE in every possible Universe.

It would be like Newton demanding that future physics NOT CONSIDER quantum reality, when in fact we know (where Newton did not) levels of physical reality he could not know.

The atheist of course could demand we limit our discussion of God to CURRENT KNOWN data ... but then the entire atheist position would have claimed defense via closing our minds and intellects to unknown future understanding ... and of course THAT is nothing I KNOW (no sarcasm there) an atheist would accept as a foundation for their position.

I don't understand brane theory physics, no. But I respect its ability to possibly pull the nails out of previously nailed down assumptions about "Reality"

Statement #2. We don't know what unknown wonders might be orbiting Saturn, teapots could be there, nothing in the material Universe seems to rule the possibility out. "Teapots" seem ridiculous ... but if our Hubble Telescope saw a wrecked alien spaceship orbiting Saturn tomorrow ... we'd be amazed but Science wouldn't recoil at the "impossibility" of it.

If that spaceship turned out to have a leaking cargo hold full of smuggled teapots stolen from the British Museum ... is that any more "impossible" scientifically-speaking?

SCIENTIFICALLY more "impossible" ??? No.

Science is full of xenobiologists who accept that there must be alien life. They could be a billion years more evolved than we are, both biologically and technologically.

First the space villains come for our Women.
Next they come for our teapots (because the women won't stop saying how a nice cup of tea would be nice, etc)

Out of respect for science, we can respect its limits, and not let science make undue claims.

Statement 3: We are plugged into some kind of virtual reality machine, and so all the measurements we are making could just be faked.

Click to expand...

I probably see your point, but I probably think that however extreme and science-fictiony it reads ... it supports MY position better than any atheist's.

BECAUSE we cannot explain how human Consciousness works, BECAUSE we cannot separate objective reality from subjective reality ... is all the MORE REASON to understand how we (all of us, but Atheists in focus)cannot "prove" the fundamental REALITY of Existence or rule out things as "impossible"

Ruling things out as "impossible" is like a big open pit right where we all like to walk.

Some folks see the pit and avoid it by gladly saying "We don't really know what's impossible, so we won't go too close to that damn pit by saying what is or isn't impossible. We're SAFE when we admit God may exist, we just don't -- or know we CANNOT -- know"

Some people fall into the pit by making claims they cannot support.

Some say "There wasn't a pit on the last path, so there are no pits anywhere" ... others say "Me, I'm keeping my eyes OPEN looking for pits, just in case!"

"Godspeed you on your space mission, crew of the Saturn explorer spaceship! Watch out for asteroids!" says one wellwisher.
"Watch out for the teapots," adds another, then shrugs. "Well, it can't hurt."

Extending the story into the METAPHYSICAL, some folks think there might be a HEAVEN in the pit (y'know, call it a grave, so it's the AFTERLIFE after the grave) ... some say there's nothing in the pit/grave except being dead & non-existence. (Hindus might point out that there ISN'T non-existence, there's still change, both physical and spiritual)

I couldah edited the above, obviously. I riffed.

MacAllister said:

I'm going to back small axe up on this one, guys. You're within your rights to simply ask, certainly. She's given a quite coherent explanation, though, and politely declined. The image is certainly well within our TOS.

But I will also remind everyone that if the image is absolutely not something you can or are willing to deal with, you can turn sigs off in your preferences. You can turn images off, board wide. In addition, every user cp comes equipped with an ignore button. So you have a range of options.

(And if this needs further discussion in general terms, I'm sure our esteemed moderator would be willing to split the thread so we don't further derail the conversation.)

Click to expand...

Thank you for your understanding. It is such (to me) a poignant image (as are the Gandhi quotes), I'd be sad to lose it. And I'm sorry if it distresses anyone enough to put me on ignore ... but I'm glad that's an option.

For whatever it's worth: I sometimes "challenge" comments in goodnatured discussion. Please accept my apologies where due and know that I would never purposely "challenge" anyone's tastes or patience with a sorrowful image like that ... I feel the tragedy in it ... I just feel the HOPE too.

small axe said:

I'd definitely resist calling anything "impossible" (because human KNOWLEDGE cannot fully distinguish yet what may be possible or not)
...
Statement 1: Is the Earth flat? One could ask in what sense, in what context? I don't know much physics, but I recall a debate on whether or not ALL Spacetime is "flat" or curves. In presence of INTENSE gravity, spacetime does bend or curve, but whether the sum total of ALL spacetime (across the Universe) isn't in fact "flat" I don't recall (it was either "flat' or shaped like a converse or concave saddle, I think were the ideas)

But playing devil's advocate I'd say one could insist that a sphere in four dimensions might somehow become 'flat' in extreme, multi-dimensional physics' 11 or 12 dimensions.

So to rule out a thing as "impossible" or "flat" one would have to define the CONTEXT of the impossibility.

To deny GOD's existence, one would be claiming to be able to KNOW and define the ENTIRE CONTEXT of the universe (and possible multiple universes)

Click to expand...

So, to summarise:

"It is scientifically possible that God exists, in the same way that it is scientifically possible that the Earth is flat."

I think I understand your position now.

In that sense, I agree. It is impossible to determine anything as a phillosophical 'fact'.

However, when we talk about science, scientisits would agree that 'The World is not flat' is a 'scientific fact'.

If you want to use a different definition - fine. Although I think you are using philosophy rather than science !

Thanks !

Mac

It's cool.

I'd agree with you that even though my answers to the quiz were meant to suggest how CONTEXT and clear definitions are equally important in framing any question or safely ruling out a possibility as being 'impossible' -- (what is the ultimate geometry or 'flatness' of a three dimensional sphere, in a 12 dimensional 'flat' spacetime, etc) -- It's been pointed out (by people who actually grasp the math, which again, I don't begin to) that the extreme ideas of Physics themselves are less about 'evidence' (too wee to see, unless the Large Hadron Collider throws us a bone) and enter the realm of (as you say) 'philosophy'

However, when we talk about science, scientisits would agree that 'The World is not flat' is a 'scientific fact'.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Reining myself back in, then, yes you're right, the world is not 'flat' ... but (paraphrasing Pontius Pilate) "What is 'flat?'

And that's just offered as a quip, since I fear I am (even if I'm merely answering others' questions) not helping to return the thread to its topic. Which hopefully I now do:

Why are they so keen to make Atheism a faith?

Click to expand...

The short answer would be, because some simply reason that 'faith' is what it factually is based upon.

I've suggested why I reason that, already (see above).
Others obviously may disagree and do.

I certainly can state that my reasons or others' reasons need not be 'sinister' in doing so, but instead be simply a fair pursuit of truth and understanding.

------> With that: z-z-z-z-z-zipppppp!

Lemme shush on the subject. The polar ice is melting, ladies and gents ... and I don't want to personally harm any polar bear cubs with any more of my feverished (tho sincere) verbosity!

For me, it all comes down to the question 'what is the best explanation we have?' Once upon a time, the best explanation was 'god did it', because mankind had very little knowledge of the universe. Now we can explain a lot more.
Why does the sun rise in the morning? God did it.
Well, now we know that the sun doesn't rise in the morning, as such, the Earth orbits it, and that gives the illusion of it moving through the sky.
What makes science different to faith, imho, are the questions. The reason 'God did it' is a cop out is because that's where the enquiry stops. It is simply assumed to be the answer, and that's the end of it. Science goes looking for more answers. That's not faith, that's enquiry.

As for the teapot and the FSM; the point is simply that, if you accept god on faith, why don't you accept them, and everything else you can't disprove on faith?

Okay, here's some evidence against there being a teapot orbiting Saturn. There's enough evidence to make me a teapot-atheist.

1. There's reams of evidence, which you can read in astronomy and astrophysics journals, that Saturn is gaseous and has a hydrogen and helium atmosphere.

2. The tea plant won't grow in that atmosphere. You can read about this in botany books.

3. Therefore, even if there have been aliens living on Saturn, it's unlikely that they drank tea while they were there.

4. The ecology of Saturn is inhospitable to life as we know it.

5. Considerable observations of Saturn have been made, and there's no signs of life, either present or past, and no obvious signs that aliens have visited.

6. If an earth expedition had sent tea-drinking humans to Saturn, we likely would have heard about it on the news. In theory, it could have been done secretly, but so many experts would have been involved that it's unlikely it could have been covered up.

7. You can't make tea in a teapot in a no-gravity environment anyhow.

I could go on like this for hours and hours, and I suspect you could also, but I'm sure you can see that there is a great deal of support for the teapot-atheist position. The scenario you suggest--tea drinking aliens with artificial gravity--is not absolutely impossible, but it is not supported by any actual evidence out there. So if you base your belief on the existence of teapots on the evidence, there's no teapots.

If you choose to believe only those things that can be shown unequivocally, you're left with a huge selection of highly unlikely and rather silly possibilities that you're agnostic on.

Now this is fine, I guess, but I have to wonder if you're actually agnostic about the teapot. I suspect that what is actually happening is that you ascribe special properties to God, which cause you to be at least agnostic about his existence. If you can't say why the theory of the existence of God is superior to the theory of the existence of the teapot, you are forced to describe yourself as a teapot-agnostic.

I know it's unfair to speculate about someone else's motives, so I'll try and keep this general. If someone were to be forced to teapot agnosticism in hopes of forcing others to modify their God-atheism to God-agnosticism, I'd suggest that there might be special features of God that make Him different from a teapot. I point out that quite a few theologians have thrown these features out there. Not that they're necessarily convincing to actual God-atheists, but that they exist.

For what it's worth, I describe myself as an agnostic atheist (yes, there is such a thing), simply because I feel that the concept of God is so slippery that you can never say it doesn't exist in the same way you can say a teapot doesn't exist.

When we talk of 'possibility' it might mean any of four things:

1. It has occurred under similar circumstances before (e.g. rain is possible, because rain has happened)
2. It hasn't occurred before, but I can show how to make it occur (e.g. human flight became possible once it was demonstrated)
3. There is no credible record of it occurring, and I can't show how to make it occur, but I'll act as though it's true
4. There's no credible record of it occurring, I can't show how to make it occur, and I don't act as though it's true but I'm telling everyone it might be true anyway

For me, only 1 and 2 actually mean 'possible' in any rational sense. '3' is acting on fantasy, and '4' is just noise.

But doesn't '3' sometimes give rise to '2'? Yes, but only when the person doing '3' actually has demonstrable insight. Fantasy and ignorant guesswork don't count. Hot-air ballooning was shown to be possible because a model succeeded first. Once we have a functional model we move from '3' toward '2'. I don't believe that we're obliged to listen to anyone talking about '3' until they have a functional, consistent, working model, grounded in shared experience.

I don't see a world of infinite possibility around me. Rather, I see many variations on the probable. I don't normally type as though my keyboard will spontaneously explode, or walk as though gravity may instantaneously cease, nor does anyone whose views I respect. It is not an act of faith to live my life as though the world contains permutations of the probable because the world itself not only creates that expectation, it routinely makes a mockery of any other view.

Thus, when people take a fantasy from '3' and ornament it with further fantasy, it changes nothing about the world. Adding aliens, spacecraft and an unsubstantiated theft from the London Museum to the Saturnian teapot tale merely hooks readers in, as might claiming to have smelled the tea or heard the lid rattle. But for me, if it changes nothing about probability then it changes nothing about possibility either. All it can accomplish is to weaken the listener's judgement by getting them emotionally invested.

So, why do that?

Many people live their lives immersed in fantasy, and not all of it is religious. Some think they're gorgeous and in popular opinion they're not. Many think they're smarter, kinder, more important than they are. Many think they're less likeable, less capable than they are. Some think they'll live forever, or be rewarded for being gracious about every little thing they secretly hate, or that people who irritate them get their comeuppance. Some live in fantasies because they want to; some do it because fantasy is all they've ever known.

Fantasies are compelling, even when they harm us. It's not fair to mock people for living fantasies because they're almost ubiquitous in human psychology. But you can tell the difference between realism and fantasy because realism fits beliefs to the facts, while fantasy fits facts to beliefs. The moment we see someone doing the latter, we know they're living a fantasy.

So what has this to do with wanting to believe that atheism is a faith position?

Unless they depend on them for something, realists can afford to leave fantasists alone. But fantasists can't leave realists alone, because fantasy requires collusion. So they have to try and weaken a realist's judgement, create social pressures to at least admit the possibility that the fantasy is real. I want to feel important so I just know that I'm the reincarnation of Alexander the Great and you must admit that it's at least possible, right?

Sorry but no, I don't. Show me evidence of 1 or 2, or a solid working model grounded in shared experiences, or I reserve the right to dismiss such claims outright as fantasy -- especially when you're clearly fitting facts to belief, rather than exploring the facts and seeing what might emerge. And if you call that a faith position, then that's your fantasy talking too.

The scenario you suggest--tea drinking aliens with artificial gravity--is not absolutely impossible, but it is not supported by any actual evidence out there.

Click to expand...

Well, if you read my comment, that is NOT what I 'suggest' ...

So I'll just quote that here as an example of how someone shouldn't try to characterize someone else's position in a debate, just to then "argue" (and I choose the word for dramatic effect, I don't think you're arguing) against the false characterization.

So if you base your belief on the existence of teapots on the evidence, there's no teapots.

Click to expand...

That too would be a basic difference in how we interpret what "evidence" can or cannot support -- I'd repeat the oft-heard expression that 'Non-existence of evidence is not evidence of non-existence' -- whether it's teapots or gods or undiscovered Americas.

I'd say (wrapping it up) that "Science" and "Reason" cannot rule out anything for lack of evidence, when the evidence might simply be as-yet-undiscovered.

Ruling out gods (that is, drawing an Atheistic conclusion of claiming fact not faith, not an Agnostic one of not knowing and admitting it) is thus not supported by Science or Reason. Period.

Pointing that out isn't 'sinister.'

Small_Axe: Are you saying that in a universe of infinite possibilities, including the Saturnian Teapot, it is Faith alone that allows us to distinguish the Truth?

Click to expand...

No. And where did you draw that idea from?

I'm answering the question of the thread: why are some interested in recognizing that Atheism is based on faith, rather than scientific evidence or firm reason?

Because if that is recognizing a fact, then we should ALL be interested in understanding FACTS, and the limits of human knowledge (the flipside is to serve hypocrisy and hubris ... which we can all rightfully see as bad things)

small axe said:

Ruling out gods (that is, drawing an Atheistic conclusion of claiming fact not faith, not an Agnostic one of not knowing and admitting it) is thus not supported by Science or Reason. Period.

Click to expand...

I think you're arguing along the same lines as me, and probably the others. It's just that what you call atheism, I call strong atheism, and what you call agnosticism, I call weak atheism. And I call myself a weak atheist. IE, I don't believe gods exist, rather than believing they don't.
Weak atheism is not faith based - can we agree on that, assuming you accept my definitions?

I don't like the term 'weak atheism' as it muddies up a perfectly clear concept in agnosticism, and there is simply no need for it. Even by just the sound of it, 'weak atheism' doesn't mesh with agnosticism. Agnosticism is the original truth, while atheism is founded to counter theism.

knight_tour said:

I don't like the term 'weak atheism' as it muddies up a perfectly clear concept in agnosticism, and there is simply no need for it. Even by just the sound of it, 'weak atheism' doesn't mesh with agnosticism. Agnosticism is the original truth, while atheism is founded to counter theism.

Click to expand...

Hm, perhaps. I still think weak atheism is slightly different to agnosticism.

However, if I'm honest, I don't really like either term. I think I mentioned earlier in this thread Dawkins's scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is absolute, unshakeable belief in god, and 7 is an equally unshakeable belief in a lack of god. I think this provides a far clearer, and far more useful way to place one's beliefs.
On that scale, I think 6 is the most rational, and this is where I would place myself. Not accepting any gods, and being pretty staunchly against the idea, but grudgingly accepting that there is a minute possibility of their existence.
And, again, I don't think that's a position of faith.

The scale of 1-7 doesn't truly make sense to me. I see it as either one decides to believe in a god or gods or one doesn't. Then there's the third, more rational option of just tossing the question out the window as absurd and unnecessary.

The scale is based on probability, but probability is based on samples and this can't be sampled so I think it's a flawed scale.

Moreover how are 'weak' and 'strong' distinctions useful, other than politically? And how does an emotional conviction compare to a rational appraisal?

I don't think it's useful in creating understanding.

zornhau said:

Politically, it's only useful to the theists, who can say, "Well since you're only a weak atheist, you won't object if your child's school has prayers."

Click to expand...

Or to theists who worry about weak theism, or atheist lobbyists who worry about weak atheism.

Belief and rejection do not lie on not a linear scale, and I suspect that the main people who want it to be are folk at the poles who want to fight over the middle.