Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism

[Rathma]

I find it interesting that you can claim with absolute certainty that there was nothing.

Pretty much my sentiment towards athiests......that it's claimed with a confident/cocky level of certainty that there is no God.

That's why I prefer not to identify myself as an atheist, even though I technically am.

Well it's up to you but if people do not use correct terminology the negative or incorrect attitudes will overwhelm reality.

Negative attitudes towards atheists don't come out of misuse of terms. They come from the people who, somehow or another, have come to represent atheism in our cultures with their pompous middle fingers raised high towards religion. I don't care what the technical meaning of atheism is, the problem is that it carries to an extent the emotional weight of "fuck you religion" in a world where the majority of people are religious.

[Ħ]

WTF @ this thread.

This video demonstrates why agnosticism is the best belief if you don't have any evidence for or against God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcnZRctcleM

[El JoNNo]

Negative attitudes towards atheists don't come out of misuse of terms. They come from the people who, somehow or another, have come to represent atheism in our cultures with their pompous middle fingers raised high towards religion. I don't care what the technical meaning of atheism is, the problem is that it carries to an extent the emotional weight of "fuck you religion" in a world where the majority of people are religious.

Really? So when Jessica Ahlquist was threaten with murder and rape from Christians for fighting for her rights and indeed every Americans rights. That was because she was being pompous? Or when there are polls taken the indicate that atheists are the least trusted group in America, that is because they are "pompous"? How about the bible or qu'ran in which it demands the non-believers death.

Sure the odd atheist here and there can be pompous. What is more pompous those who don't believe claims or those who assert them without evidence and demand you live by them? Those who hold the doctrine that condemns the whole of humanity just by their very nature.

[El JoNNo]

Again not using the word atheist because it hold negative connotations will only compound the issue and validate it in their eyes.

[Ħ]

Negative attitudes towards atheists don't come out of misuse of terms. They come from the people who, somehow or another, have come to represent atheism in our cultures with their pompous middle fingers raised high towards religion. I don't care what the technical meaning of atheism is, the problem is that it carries to an extent the emotional weight of "fuck you religion" in a world where the majority of people are religious.

Really? So when Jessica Ahlquist was threaten with murder and rape from Christians for fighting for her rights and indeed every Americans rights. That was because she was being pompous? Or when there are polls taken the indicate that atheists are the least trusted group in America, that is because they are "pompous"? How about the bible or qu'ran in which it demands the non-believers death.

Sure the odd atheist here and there can be pompous. What is more pompous those who don't believe claims or those who assert them without evidence and demand you live by them? Those who hold the doctrine that condemns the whole of humanity just by their very nature.

What you're saying is that the atheist is justified in being a jerk because the theist is a jerk. I don't see how the behavior and actions of others should determine your behavior and actions. You're just as unjustified in how you behave as they are.

[El JoNNo]

Negative attitudes towards atheists don't come out of misuse of terms. They come from the people who, somehow or another, have come to represent atheism in our cultures with their pompous middle fingers raised high towards religion. I don't care what the technical meaning of atheism is, the problem is that it carries to an extent the emotional weight of "fuck you religion" in a world where the majority of people are religious.

Really? So when Jessica Ahlquist was threaten with murder and rape from Christians for fighting for her rights and indeed every Americans rights. That was because she was being pompous? Or when there are polls taken the indicate that atheists are the least trusted group in America, that is because they are "pompous"? How about the bible or qu'ran in which it demands the non-believers death.

Sure the odd atheist here and there can be pompous. What is more pompous those who don't believe claims or those who assert them without evidence and demand you live by them? Those who hold the doctrine that condemns the whole of humanity just by their very nature.

What you're saying is that the atheist is justified in being a jerk because the theist is a jerk. I don't see how the behavior and actions of others should determine your behavior and actions. You're just as unjustified in how you behave as they are.

No, I didn't say any of it was justified at all. Not sure where you got that idea. No he said that there are atheists that are pompous. I then gave examples of the unjust treatment given to atheists who where not being pompous at all and  were still treated poorly by the majority of people surrounding them. 

Many religious feel threatened by the very existence of an atheist. Even more so than those of other religions because at least those of other religions believe in some supernatural force.

Now when it comes to scientists being pompous, I would almost just almost give them a pass. Because scientists are in the field of studying reality and for the most part enhance civilization. Religions undermine that noble cause by asserting either complete non-sense or that which is unknown. Like what Neil Degrasse Tyson once said "The day that you stop looking, because you’re content God did it. I don’t need you in the lab." 

And believe it or not there are far to many in this world that are content with god did it.   

[Rathma]

Negative attitudes towards atheists don't come out of misuse of terms. They come from the people who, somehow or another, have come to represent atheism in our cultures with their pompous middle fingers raised high towards religion. I don't care what the technical meaning of atheism is, the problem is that it carries to an extent the emotional weight of "fuck you religion" in a world where the majority of people are religious.

Really? So when Jessica Ahlquist was threaten with murder and rape from Christians for fighting for her rights and indeed every Americans rights. That was because she was being pompous?

Duh fuck? I was talking about negative sentiment towards atheists in general. Who the fuck is Jessica Ahlquist lol. I'm just saying that if the term atheist had a connotation of neutrality, I wouldn't mind identifying myself with that term. But it comes with this image



... so I don't really call myself atheist. This could also have something to do with me having a Christian background and I don't want there to be too much conflict with friends and family.

[Rathma]

Now when it comes to scientists being pompous, I would almost just almost give them a pass.

Yea, I can understand Dawkins' frustration with religious people who want to teach intelligent design in schools and what not. I don't understand why he had to go off and become a pop anti-theist writer though. Should have stuck to genetics.

Because scientists are in the field of studying reality and for the most part enhance civilization. Religions undermine that noble cause by asserting either complete non-sense or that which is unknown.

I've read this over several times and haven't a clue what you're trying to say.

[Omega]

I'm afraid you have a very misguided understanding of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory simply states that as you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually, you reach a point in which the distance between any two points is 0. You reach the boundary of space and time. Space and time can't be extended any further back than that. It's literally the beginning of space and time. Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It's the beginning of the universe. There is simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time.

1.) I find it interesting that you can claim with absolute certainty that there was nothing. 2.) Also quantum fluctuations could have gave rise to the big bang.

1.) I'd say that this is a reasonable conclusion. Just follow the evidence where it leads: when the universe exhibits a distance between any two points as zero, then that is the boundary of space-time and space-time cannot be extended further back than that.

2.) Look at what you are saying here closely: a quantum event, which only occurs in the presence of space, time, energy and matter, caused space, time, energy and matter to come into existence. The notion is gravely incoherent. Quantum fluctuations are events and observations that occur in the presence of the universe; they describe a process that occurs in the universe and cannot occur in its absence. In order for there to be a quantum fluctuation in the first place, a universe must first exist. So what you really are saying is: "the universe caused its own self to come into existence." That is a patently incoherent assertion.

So it is simply gravely untrue to state both that the Big Bang model "proves matter can arise from empty space" or

I simply didn't type that at any time. I said "Matter can arise from empty space, which is part of the Big Bang theory." Not that it proves that matter can arise from empty space.

"Matter can arise from empty space, which is part of the Big Bang theory" = The Big Bang model (attempts to) prove(s) matter can arise from empty space. Regardless, it doesn't, and that is certainly not part of Big Bang theory.

that "the Big Bang explains how our universe came to be using physics".

Yes according to our current understanding of physics it appears to be possible.

Same situation as with the "quantum event causing the universe to come into existence." The laws of physics merely dictate powers and their constants of the universe. They describe the universe. What would they govern were the universe absent? Nothing. This is the same mistake as postulating that a quantum event caused the universe to come into existence. It like saying "the universe's laws caused the universe to come into existence." In order for there to be any "laws of physics," the universe must exist. It would be like saying "in order for the universe to come into existence, the universe must have first existed." Yet, again, that is patent nonsense. The idea of self-causation is fantastically ludicrous. Any non-believer who holds to the fantastically absurd idea that the universe caused itself to come into existence could not dare call believers "crazy" or "illogical" and retain any semblance of integrity and sincerity.

Steven Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow make a similarly absurd statement in their recent book, The Grand Design, by proclaiming that "because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation. Put to one side the question of whether the physics of their account is correct. Forget about where the laws of physics themselves are supposed to have come from. Just savor the manifest contradiction: The universe comes from nothing, because a law like gravity is responsible for the universe.

Frankly, I'd recommend you to save your money and pass on buying any of Krauss' or Hawking's recent literary endeavors.

Hilariously enough I bought Hawkings book today. I'll have to read it for myself as people tend to misrepresent things in there favour. I'm not calling you a liar but earlier you misquoted me.

That's a direct quote from the book. Oh, and I should warn you that the book, facetiously enough, begins by proclaiming that "philosophy is dead" and then proceeds to concern itself (about 40-60% of the book) with speaking on philosophical matters. And, boy, is it bad philosophy...

[El JoNNo]

Yea, I can understand Dawkins' frustration with religious people who want to teach intelligent design in schools and what not. I don't understand why he had to go off and become a pop anti-theist writer though. Should have stuck to genetics.

To be fair that is only one book out of 10 to 12 or something like that. One of the reasons why he is the poster boy for it is he was more or less the first to do so. As him sticking to his field, he did. He has since wrote 2 more books on evolution.

Because scientists are in the field of studying reality and for the most part enhance civilization. Religions undermine that noble cause by asserting either complete non-sense or that which is unknown.
I've read this over several times and haven't a clue what you're trying to say.

Religion undermines reality by asserting that which is known to be false or that which is not known by anyone.

1.) I'd say that this is a reasonable conclusion. Just follow the evidence where it leads: when the universe exhibits a distance between any two points as zero, then that is the boundary of space-time and space-time cannot be extended further back than that.

2.) Look at what you are saying here closely: a quantum event, which only occurs in the presence of space, time, energy and matter, caused space, time, energy and matter to come into existence. The notion is gravely incoherent. Quantum fluctuations are events and observations that occur in the presence of the universe; they describe a process that occurs in the universe and cannot occur in its absence. In order for there to be a quantum fluctuation in the first place, a universe must first exist. So what you really are saying is: "the universe caused its own self to come into existence." That is a patently incoherent assertion.

"Matter can arise from empty space, which is part of the Big Bang theory" = The Big Bang model (attempts to) prove(s) matter can arise from empty space. Regardless, it doesn't, and that is certainly not part of Big Bang theory.

that "the Big Bang explains how our universe came to be using physics".

Yes according to our current understanding of physics it appears to be possible.

Same situation as with the "quantum event causing the universe to come into existence." The laws of physics merely dictate powers and their constants of the universe. They describe the universe. What would they govern were the universe absent? Nothing. This is the same mistake as postulating that a quantum event caused the universe to come into existence. It like saying "the universe's laws caused the universe to come into existence." In order for there to be any "laws of physics," the universe must exist. It would be like saying "in order for the universe to come into existence, the universe must have first existed." Yet, again, that is patent nonsense. The idea of self-causation is fantastically ludicrous. Any non-believer who holds to the fantastically absurd idea that the universe caused itself to come into existence could not dare call believers "crazy" or "illogical" and retain any semblance of integrity and sincerity.

It is entirely possible that I am wrong. I can only go on what physicists say and I have no knowledge of the subject that I have obtained on my own. It still is jumping to conclusions to insert a god into the equations.

Hilariously enough I bought Hawkings book today. I'll have to read it for myself as people tend to misrepresent things in there favour. I'm not calling you a liar but earlier you misquoted me.

That's a direct quote from the book. Oh, and I should warn you that the book, facetiously enough, begins by proclaiming that "philosophy is dead" and then proceeds to concern itself (about 40-60% of the book) with speaking on philosophical matters. And, boy, is it bad philosophy...

Hmm, that line in the book did jump out at me. I thought it was a bit crass.

[Ħ]

Okay, so I've been thinking about what "belief" is for a while and I'm totally confused.

Imagine a circle which contains belief in God. Anyone who believes anything in the circle can state "I believe in the existence of God."

Now, anywhere outside that that circle is not belief in God. Therefore, anyone outside of the circle must state, "I do not believe in the existence of God."

So, where's room for agnosticism? Even agnostics must state, "I do not believe in the existence of God." But isn't that the exact same thing as atheism? Unless there is a subtle difference between the statements "I do not believe in the existence of God" and "I believe in the nonexistence of God."

Let me diagram it for you:



Is this correct? Intuitively I feel there's something wrong with it, but I can't figure it out.

[Ħ]

It looks like "Belief" is a subset of "Not Belief", but the big circle is supposed to represent the pool of all possible viewpoints, and anything that doesn't fall into "Belief" must fall into "Not Belief".

[hefdaddy42]

You are getting hung up on semantics rather than the underlying concepts.

Theism = "I think/am certain that there is a God."
Atheism = "I think/am certain that there is not a God."
Agnosticism = "There may or may not be a God, I'm not certain either way."

[Ħ]

But when people like Dawkins come in and say basically everyone is an agnostic, skewed across a spectrum of "how sure" you are, it basically defeats the purpose of words like "theism" and "atheism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

There's just no line between the categories.

[hefdaddy42]

I give a fuck what he thinks about word definitions.

[El JoNNo]

Well Hef your wrong.

[hefdaddy42]

So are you.

What's wrong with my definitions?  Those are the classical definitions.  Theism is a belief in (at least one) god.  Atheism is a negation or rejection of theism.  In the same way, agnosticism is a negation or rejection of "knowledge" of god.

[El JoNNo]

Actually I am, I completely misread that. Carry on 

[hefdaddy42]

lol

[Adami]

As an agnostic, I can firmly say that all theists and atheists are wrong.


Maybe.

[RuRoRul]

Agnostic means you don't think humans can know with certainty whether God's real or not. So I'd imagine everyone is an agnostic except for religious people who believe their holy texts constitute proof of God's existence or atheists who for some reason think they can absolutely disprove God's existence (these ones are probably pretty rare since disproving something that's supposedly "outside the universe" or can be found after death is impossible).

As I've said before, I don't think "agnosticism" means "50-50, it could go either way". It only refers to what you think about human's ability to know about the existence of God. Someone agnostic could be not sure whether they think God is real or not, or they could very much believe in his existence / non-existence but admit that it's just a belief, not absolute knowledge since we can't know for certain. Which is where the "theistic" and "atheistic" agnostics terms are coming from.

[Rathma]

Proof is overrated. Very overrated.

[Scheavo]

Is this correct? Intuitively I feel there's something wrong with it, but I can't figure it out.

I wouldn't put atheism and theism inside agnosticism. I'm not sure these terms are clear enough to properly make into a good venn diagram.

Also, as for the thread in general, even though most people buckle down under pressure, and admit some skepticism into their belief of God's existence or non-existence, I don't think most people truly take agnosticism seriously. It's more a secondary trait, than being fully agnostic. It's not simply saying that you don't know for sure if what you believe is true, it's acknowledging the own belief or what you think to be true, as well as acknowledging the possible truth of beliefs which you don't hold up. If I never said it before, I'll say it now, the Cosmomological Proof is rational, logical and seems highly probable, but it hinges upon premises being true, and we can never know for sure if those premises are true.

*edit*

To be clear, the above isn't about anyone in this thread, or anyone who claims to be this or that. Simply that while it's true most people will admit ignorance, I don't think that makes most people agnostic.


Omega:

You just aren't fully understanding the opposing Physical argument for how this universe came into existence. You are right that physics doesn't give us final answers as to the nature of existence, but you ignore what science does tell us, and why the scientific method was formulated in the first place. Quantum mechanics can explain the existence of our universe, the only problem being that it does so by expanding all that "is" to something larger than what we can experience, ever could experience, and is no more problematic than any theory regarding God's existence, and his role in all of this.

You've brought up math before, and I gather it holds some importance to you regarding reality: well, math can be used to postulate some rather weird possibilities. I believe the math holds up that gravity may not be a true property of our universe, but a property leaking over into our universe, and is the reason why gravity is so weak. I mean, I don't propose to you that this is true (and although theoretically falsifiable, I don't see how it's practically so, so it may not even be science property), but what does it mean that math can be used to present such possibilities?

I say it means we just had to admit that we have no fucking idea what's going on.

[Ħ]

What's wrong with my definitions?  Those are the classical definitions.

A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.

That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.

[Scheavo]

It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.

I think this is true, I just don't see how you get this from what came before. Logically, I think you're being correct in the dissection of A and not A, but you're ignoring other possibilities that don't really fit into such a dichotomy. Atheism becomes a very, very broad term, enough to encompass both agnosticism and people of religion and faith.

[ClairvoyantCat]

What's wrong with my definitions?  Those are the classical definitions.

A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.

That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.

I understand how agnosticism technically falls under the "atheist" umbrella, but I think there ought to be a distinction between the "religion is a fairy tale" kind and the "I don't know/care" kind (I'm the latter) in some way.  That's why I call myself agnostic and avoid the atheist term.  Too broad/ambiguous. 

[GuineaPig]

What's wrong with my definitions?  Those are the classical definitions.

A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.

That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.

Can't you believe in a god without knowing there is one?  In that case, you would be agnostic, and a theist.

[Ħ]

What's wrong with my definitions?  Those are the classical definitions.

A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.

That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.

Can't you believe in a god without knowing there is one?  In that case, you would be agnostic, and a theist.

Isn't a belief based on conviction of some fact?

[Omega]

Omega:

You just aren't fully understanding the opposing Physical argument for how this universe came into existence. You are right that physics doesn't give us final answers as to the nature of existence, but you ignore what science does tell us, and why the scientific method was formulated in the first place. Quantum mechanics can explain the existence of our universe, the only problem being that it does so by expanding all that "is" to something larger than what we can experience, ever could experience, and is no more problematic than any theory regarding God's existence, and his role in all of this.

You've brought up math before, and I gather it holds some importance to you regarding reality: well, math can be used to postulate some rather weird possibilities. I believe the math holds up that gravity may not be a true property of our universe, but a property leaking over into our universe, and is the reason why gravity is so weak. I mean, I don't propose to you that this is true (and although theoretically falsifiable, I don't see how it's practically so, so it may not even be science property), but what does it mean that math can be used to present such possibilities?

I say it means we just had to admit that we have no fucking idea what's going on.

What?

[Rathma]

Omega:

You just aren't fully understanding the opposing Physical argument for how this universe came into existence. You are right that physics doesn't give us final answers as to the nature of existence, but you ignore what science does tell us, and why the scientific method was formulated in the first place. Quantum mechanics can explain the existence of our universe, the only problem being that it does so by expanding all that "is" to something larger than what we can experience, ever could experience, and is no more problematic than any theory regarding God's existence, and his role in all of this.

You've brought up math before, and I gather it holds some importance to you regarding reality: well, math can be used to postulate some rather weird possibilities. I believe the math holds up that gravity may not be a true property of our universe, but a property leaking over into our universe, and is the reason why gravity is so weak. I mean, I don't propose to you that this is true (and although theoretically falsifiable, I don't see how it's practically so, so it may not even be science property), but what does it mean that math can be used to present such possibilities?

I say it means we just had to admit that we have no fucking idea what's going on.

What?

Omega:

You just aren't fully understanding the opposing Physical argument for how this universe came into existence. You are right that physics doesn't give us final answers as to the nature of existence, but you ignore what science does tell us, and why the scientific method was formulated in the first place. Quantum mechanics can explain the existence of our universe, the only problem being that it does so by expanding all that "is" to something larger than what we can experience, ever could experience, and is no more problematic than any theory regarding God's existence, and his role in all of this.

You've brought up math before, and I gather it holds some importance to you regarding reality: well, math can be used to postulate some rather weird possibilities. I believe the math holds up that gravity may not be a true property of our universe, but a property leaking over into our universe, and is the reason why gravity is so weak. I mean, I don't propose to you that this is true (and although theoretically falsifiable, I don't see how it's practically so, so it may not even be science property), but what does it mean that math can be used to present such possibilities?

I say it means we just had to admit that we have no fucking idea what's going on.

[Ħ]

[Scheavo]

Well, good to know it made sense to someone, but let me put it differently.

You're objection to quantum mechanics explaining the big bang is that such an event requires something to exist in order for a quantum event to happen, but there's no reason to assume that what created our universe has to be something completely alien from our own. As I said, this doesn't fundamentally answer the question of why we exist, as it just begs the question of what this multiverse/metaverse is. It could be "God," under some definition, or it could basically be part of something even larger, and completely beyond our comprehension to understand. We're tiny, naive and ignorant creatures, who are but a tiny nothing of just our own, known universe.

I bring up math, because math is perhaps the most powerful human invention ever. The scientific method is not possible without math, and math's power is admittedly rather profound. Einstein demonstrates this more than anyone. And the physics and math can lead to some possibilities that make me lean towards the latter of the possibilities I mentioned above, that what we know and can experience isn't all of reality. Even Math should humble us to our own ignorance, and beg of us to be skeptics, and deny proof to anything other than what we say and demand to be true via human language (which math is).

[Ħ]

I bring up math, because math is perhaps the most powerful human invention ever.

Math is a discovery.

[hefdaddy42]

What's wrong with my definitions?  Those are the classical definitions.

A theist believes in God. Anyone that is not a theist is a person that does not believe in God. Agnostics are not theists. Therefore, agnostics do not believe in God. Therefore, agnostics are atheists.

That's my train of thought. It's why I think there's a difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the nonexistence of God.

Can't you believe in a god without knowing there is one?  In that case, you would be agnostic, and a theist.

Isn't a belief based on conviction of some fact?

YES, which is why an agnostic is not an atheist.  They have no conviction of a belief.  In fact, an agnostic thinks that no such conviction is possible.

Theists have conviction, and atheists have conviction.  Agnostics believe that there is no conviction.

[GuineaPig]

I'm an atheist.  I don't believe in any gods.  That being said, I'm not sure that there isn't a god.  How could I be?


Agnosticism is a full rational mindset.  It is not, however, a theological position.  It is merely an indication of the surety of one's theological beliefs.