Atheism does not exist

[pungopete468]

It looks like this is going nowhere...

Extreme -
Atheist - There is no such thing as god. You can prove it to me be beyond a reasonable doubt; I will refuse to acknowledge your proof and I would rather kill you than believe in god.

* Everything in between

Middle -
Agnostic - I was born an inquisitive being; I learn things using a scientific process. I would believe in god if you could prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that god existed; likewise, I would accept that god might not exist. If I die and go to heaven; great. If I die and just cease to exist; then that's just how it is...

* Everything in between

Extreme -
Religious - God is absolutely real. I don't have to prove it because I believe it and I want to force you to believe it in order to "save your soul." I will die if I must in order to force you to believe in god.

From the perspective of existence the OP is correct; existence is eternal. However; only that which existed before the big bang is infinite. Eternity will eventually end and this eternal plane will no longer exist.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed from within our Universe. This indicates a lack of equilibrium and hints that an inverse of energy must exist for existence to be possible. Equilibrium is infinite until acted upon by an external force. Recent tests at the Hadron Particle Accelerator reveal that when an atomic particle is "smashed," the pieces can no longer exist and form a black hole. The creation of a black hole at such low energies is indicative of an alternate plane containing the inverse of energy and mass. Black holes are the equilibrium of energy.

http://www.livescience.com/27811-creating-mini-black-holes.html

http://www.livescience.com/27888-newfound-particle-is-higgs.html

Your atheist definition is wrong many levels, firstly nobody has proven any religion beyond a responsible doubt. The very definition of faith is belief without evidence. If you wish to use the legal term of beyond reasonable doubt, you will require a great deal of irrefutable evidence, which religion provides none. Religion doesn't even come close to the balance of probabilities threshold.

Atheism merely means not convinced. The extreme version would be, extremely not convinced.

Your definition may be more suited to an anti-theist. Somebody that "KNOWS" there is no God

Not a definition; more of a range from one extreme to the other with Atheist being on one end and highly religious on the opposite.

<-----Atheist--------------------------Agnostic--------------------------Religious----->

There's no level that I'm wrong on. It's not hard to find references to support the extreme polar opposites that I'm describing. Heinous crimes have been committed in the name of every religion except Agnosticism, and that's just because it can't even be described as a conventional religion.

Your definition of Atheism is different from mine, and conflicts with my definition of Agnosticism.

Atheism is a belief; it establishes a single absolute conclusion to the same question.

Agnosticism is not a belief; There is no conclusion drawn because of a lack of supporting evidence. When god can be proven or dis-proven mathematically or personally then a decision will be made.

Other religions are beliefs; drawing absolute conclusions without verifiable explanations.

[1714970382]

1714970382

[richo262]

Arguable, some may interpret the universe as more a container.

Such as, "everything in the universe" as opposed to "the universe is everything".

For the purpose of this exercise, I'll agree with you

[organofcorti]

Atheism is a belief; it establishes a single absolute conclusion to the same question.

Agnosticism is not a belief; There is no conclusion drawn because of a lack of supporting evidence. When god can be proven or dis-proven mathematically or personally then a decision will be made.

Other religions are beliefs; drawing absolute conclusions without verifiable explanations.

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is artificial and of recent origin.

Most people who are not religious now, are not religious for the same reason: There is no proof that a god is required for the universe to exist.

Any reasoning person, when shown incontrovertible evidence of something, must come to accept that same something. It's how science works.

Show me simple, repeatable and verifiable proof that god exists, and I'll be a believer.

[pungopete468]

Noting the prefix uni (one) and the definition "totality of existence," can we also agree that the universe means everything?

I can't agree. "Uni" does mean "one," and "totality of existence," but it doesn't mean "only." The Universe only means that which we have the ability to observe; or the contents within our Universe. The content within other Universes may not be observable to us outside of its interactions with the fields contained within our own.

With the verification of the Higgs Boson particle; we now know that our Universe has a finite lifespan. As time reaches infinity the Universe will no longer be able to bond atoms together, and then when all the atoms have been broken down, the subatomic particles will fall apart. Everything that once existed will no longer exist in it's current observable state. The result will be a new big bang and a new Universe formed with new matter. Quantum tunneling will cause propagation at various central points all moving relatively together. Time will not exist as it's a non-linear function with no observers moving at un-relative speeds.

The matter within the Universe will become mass-less; the energy is converted to velocity (galaxies are speeding up) and the physical laws of our universe will become null. Without the interaction of the Higgs Field, all atoms will burst into the subatomic particles that compose them.

[pungopete468]

Atheism is a belief; it establishes a single absolute conclusion to the same question.

Agnosticism is not a belief; There is no conclusion drawn because of a lack of supporting evidence. When god can be proven or dis-proven mathematically or personally then a decision will be made.

Other religions are beliefs; drawing absolute conclusions without verifiable explanations.

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is artificial and of recent origin.

Most people who are not religious now, are not religious for the same reason: There is no proof that a god is required for the universe to exist.

Any reasoning person, when shown incontrovertible evidence of something, must come to accept that same something. It's how science works.

Show me simple, repeatable and verifiable proof that god exists, and I'll be a believer.

I wouldn't consider the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism artificial.

It's the difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I don't know if God exists, or in what manner or form God may or may not exist."

I view it as the difference between choosing an answer and searching for an answer... This isn't a time sensitive question where the lack of an answer counts as a "no."

[organofcorti]

Atheism is a belief; it establishes a single absolute conclusion to the same question.

Agnosticism is not a belief; There is no conclusion drawn because of a lack of supporting evidence. When god can be proven or dis-proven mathematically or personally then a decision will be made.

Other religions are beliefs; drawing absolute conclusions without verifiable explanations.

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is artificial and of recent origin.

Most people who are not religious now, are not religious for the same reason: There is no proof that a god is required for the universe to exist.

Any reasoning person, when shown incontrovertible evidence of something, must come to accept that same something. It's how science works.

Show me simple, repeatable and verifiable proof that god exists, and I'll be a believer.

I wouldn't consider the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism artificial.

It's the difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I don't know if God exists, or in what manner or form God may or may not exist."

I view it as the difference between choosing an answer and searching for an answer... This isn't a time sensitive question where the lack of an answer counts as a "no."

Or, it's the difference between "I don't believe in God because I've seen no evidence a god exists" or "I don't know if God exists, or in what manner or form God may or may not exist because I've seen no evidence a god exists".

It's no good trying to define a way of thinking without defining its basis. Saying "Atheists don't believe in god" without referring to why they don't believe in god provides no insight into what atheism really is.

In the example I gave above atheism == agnosticism. You'll be able to give an example where  atheism != agnosticism. This is why I call the distinction artificial, since adding a reason for the statement changes the meaning of the statement.

[pungopete468]

Atheism is a belief; it establishes a single absolute conclusion to the same question.

Agnosticism is not a belief; There is no conclusion drawn because of a lack of supporting evidence. When god can be proven or dis-proven mathematically or personally then a decision will be made.

Other religions are beliefs; drawing absolute conclusions without verifiable explanations.

The difference between atheism and agnosticism is artificial and of recent origin.

Most people who are not religious now, are not religious for the same reason: There is no proof that a god is required for the universe to exist.

Any reasoning person, when shown incontrovertible evidence of something, must come to accept that same something. It's how science works.

Show me simple, repeatable and verifiable proof that god exists, and I'll be a believer.

I wouldn't consider the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism artificial.

It's the difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I don't know if God exists, or in what manner or form God may or may not exist."

I view it as the difference between choosing an answer and searching for an answer... This isn't a time sensitive question where the lack of an answer counts as a "no."

Or, it's the difference between "I don't believe in God because I've seen no evidence a god exists" or "I don't know if God exists, or in what manner or form God may or may not exist because I've seen no evidence a god exists".

It's no good trying to define a way of thinking without defining its basis. Saying "Atheists don't believe in god" without referring to why they don't believe in god provides no insight into what atheism really is.

In the example I gave above atheism == agnosticism. You'll be able to give an example where  atheism != agnosticism. This is why I call the distinction artificial, since adding a reason for the statement changes the meaning of the statement.

I feel like this is one of those awkward debates where both of us actually agree on the topic at hand, yet we both use clever wording which forms a distinction between our points that allows the debate to actually continue...

I'll continue our little agreement/debate:

"I don't believe in God because I've seen no evidence a god exists" is along the same lines as making the assumption that X + 40 = 42. Unless you know the value of X you shouldn't consider your answer to be correct.

"I don't know if God exists, or in what manner or form God may or may not exist because I've seen no evidence a god exists" is comparable to saying X + 40 = Y. You don't know the answer so you leave it as a variable.

(X + 40 = 42) != (X + 40 = Y)

Atheism is a belief based on a lack of evidence and parallels religious belief.

[organofcorti]

I feel like this is one of those awkward debates where both of us actually agree on the topic at hand, yet we both use clever wording which forms a distinction between our points that allows the debate to actually continue...

I'll continue our little agreement/debate:

"I don't believe in God because I've seen no evidence a god exists" is along the same lines as making the assumption that X + 40 = 42. Unless you know the value of X you shouldn't consider your answer to be correct.

"I don't know if God exists, or in what manner or form God may or may not exist because I've seen no evidence a god exists" is comparable to saying X + 40 = Y. You don't know the answer so you leave it as a variable.

(X + 40 = 42) != (X + 40 = Y)

Atheism is a belief based on a lack of evidence and parallels religious belief.

No, I disagree.

"I don't believe in pink unicorns because I've seen no evidence pink unicorns exist"

Is this also a belief based on a lack of evidence and which parallels religious belief?

[pungopete468]

I feel like this is one of those awkward debates where both of us actually agree on the topic at hand, yet we both use clever wording which forms a distinction between our points that allows the debate to actually continue...

I'll continue our little agreement/debate:

"I don't believe in God because I've seen no evidence a god exists" is along the same lines as making the assumption that X + 40 = 42. Unless you know the value of X you shouldn't consider your answer to be correct.

"I don't know if God exists, or in what manner or form God may or may not exist because I've seen no evidence a god exists" is comparable to saying X + 40 = Y. You don't know the answer so you leave it as a variable.

(X + 40 = 42) != (X + 40 = Y)

Atheism is a belief based on a lack of evidence and parallels religious belief.

No, I disagree.

"I don't believe in pink unicorns because I've seen no evidence pink unicorns exist"

Is this also a belief based on a lack of evidence and which parallels religious belief?

By the nature of your disagreement you've actually complimented my argument...

Have you observed all observable life within the Universe? Because we don't have pink Unicorns on Earth doesn't mean they don't exist. It simply means that we have never observed of a pink Unicorn on Earth.

Statistically, with the amount of time, energy, and matter available in the Universe; it's highly unlikely that a pink Unicorn has never existed anywhere within the Universe. In fact, it's plausible because you can envision what a pink Unicorn might actually look like should one exist.

[organofcorti]

I feel like this is one of those awkward debates where both of us actually agree on the topic at hand, yet we both use clever wording which forms a distinction between our points that allows the debate to actually continue...

I'll continue our little agreement/debate:

"I don't believe in God because I've seen no evidence a god exists" is along the same lines as making the assumption that X + 40 = 42. Unless you know the value of X you shouldn't consider your answer to be correct.

"I don't know if God exists, or in what manner or form God may or may not exist because I've seen no evidence a god exists" is comparable to saying X + 40 = Y. You don't know the answer so you leave it as a variable.

(X + 40 = 42) != (X + 40 = Y)

Atheism is a belief based on a lack of evidence and parallels religious belief.

No, I disagree.

"I don't believe in pink unicorns because I've seen no evidence pink unicorns exist"

Is this also a belief based on a lack of evidence and which parallels religious belief?

By the nature of your disagreement you've actually complimented my argument...

Have you observed all observable life within the Universe? Because we don't have pink Unicorns on Earth doesn't mean they don't exist. It simply means that we have never observed of a pink Unicorn on Earth.

Statistically, with the amount of time, energy, and matter available in the Universe, it's highly unlikely that a pink Unicorn has never existed anywhere within the Universe. In fact, it's plausible because you can envision what a pink Unicorn might actually look like should one exist.

In that case, how do you figure out what things exist and what don't? What level of proof do you need? Do you often carry a pink unicorn poop scoop just in case?

My point was that the statement is "pink unicorns exist" unable to be falsified unless a pink unicorn is detected. If a statement is unfalsifiable, then arguing its merits is pointless.

Unless you're religious, in which case unprovable somethings are the basis for an enjoyable afternoon's debate.

[pungopete468]

In that case, how do you figure out what things exist and what don't? What level of proof do you need? Do you often carry a pink unicorn poop scoop just in case?

My point was that the statement is "pink unicorns exist" unable to be falsified unless a pink unicorn is detected. If a statement is unfalsifiable, then arguing its merits is pointless.

Unless you're religious, in which case unprovable somethings are the basis for an enjoyable afternoon's debate.

The answer is simple; until you know everything, never discount the probability of something. That doesn't mean you should carry around a pink Unicorn poop scoop; unless of course you have a reason to suspect that you might find a good use for it.

The Higgs Boson particle was theorized in 1964 but humanity lacked the technology to verify it's existence. It took scientists 49 years to develop the knowledge base that allowed for the verification of this particle. The existence of this particle was therefore un-falsifiable from the time is was theorized until the time when the technology was developed that allowed it to be verified and observed.

My point is; when dealing with questions that we can't know the answers to we shouldn't answer them incorrectly just because un-answered questions naturally bother us.

[organofcorti]

In that case, how do you figure out what things exist and what don't? What level of proof do you need? Do you often carry a pink unicorn poop scoop just in case?

My point was that the statement is "pink unicorns exist" unable to be falsified unless a pink unicorn is detected. If a statement is unfalsifiable, then arguing its merits is pointless.

Unless you're religious, in which case unprovable somethings are the basis for an enjoyable afternoon's debate.

The answer is simple; until you know everything, never discount the probability of something. That doesn't mean you should carry around a pink Unicorn poop scoop; unless of course you have a reason to suspect that you might find a good use for it.

The Higgs Boson particle was theorized in 1964 but humanity lacked the technology to verify it's existence. It took scientists 49 years to develop the knowledge base that allowed for the verification of this particle. The existence of this particle was therefore un-falsifiable from the time is was theorized until the time when the technology was developed that allowed it to be verified and observed.

My point is; when dealing with questions that we can't know the answers to we shouldn't answer them incorrectly just because un-answered questions naturally bother us.

That's fine when a probability is quantifiable, as in your higgs boson example. What is the probability of the existence of god?

 

[pstop1]

idk what i just read but... okay then

[pungopete468]

That's fine when a probability is quantifiable, as in your higgs boson example. What is the probability of the existence of god?

The probability only became quantifiable once a separate problem was solved; allowing scientists to draw up a new question using a better understanding of the old question.

until we can account for all of the variables surrounding the creation of our Universe and the events that took place upon the creation of our Universe the probability can never be anything more or less than 50/50.

For as long as there is a single "wild card" the probability will be un-quantifiable and will revert to basic odds that the existence of God will be either true or false.

Hypothetically, even if you have a probability of 99.99999% that God does not exist and yet you also have a single variable with an unknown magnitude then you still can't answer the question certainly as the entire equation is still off-balance.

The probability that I personally assign to God existing in some manner or another is much greater than pink Unicorns existing. Still, un-quantifiable...

[organofcorti]

That's fine when a probability is quantifiable, as in your higgs boson example. What is the probability of the existence of god?

The probability only became quantifiable once a separate problem was solved; allowing scientists to draw up a new question using a better understanding of the old question.

until we can account for all of the variables surrounding the creation of our Universe and the events that took place upon the creation of our Universe the probability can never be anything more or less than 50/50.

For as long as there is a single "wild card" the probability will be un-quantifiable and will revert to basic odds that the existence of God will be either true or false.

Hypothetically, even if you have a probability of 99.99999% that God does not exist and yet you also have a single variable with an unknown magnitude then you still can't answer the question certainly as the entire equation is still off-balance.

The probability that I personally assign to God existing in some manner or another is much greater than pink Unicorns existing. Still, un-quantifiable...

Which is it, p = 0.5 or p = NA ?

[pungopete468]

That's fine when a probability is quantifiable, as in your higgs boson example. What is the probability of the existence of god?

The probability only became quantifiable once a separate problem was solved; allowing scientists to draw up a new question using a better understanding of the old question.

until we can account for all of the variables surrounding the creation of our Universe and the events that took place upon the creation of our Universe the probability can never be anything more or less than 50/50.

For as long as there is a single "wild card" the probability will be un-quantifiable and will revert to basic odds that the existence of God will be either true or false.

Hypothetically, even if you have a probability of 99.99999% that God does not exist and yet you also have a single variable with an unknown magnitude then you still can't answer the question certainly as the entire equation is still off-balance.

The probability that I personally assign to God existing in some manner or another is much greater than pink Unicorns existing. Still, un-quantifiable...

Which is it, p = 0.5 or p = NA ?

There's a difference between ones personal inclination towards a subject expressed as a ratio or probability to illustrate an un-quantifiable thought and a real scientific probability which can be expressed and verified.

It's an oxymoron. I obviously wasn't making a claim to know the probability of either; I thought the context of the statement was clear. I chose the best way to compare the two unknown probabilities in a manner consistent with our previous conversation...

I was providing you with my personal opinion as to the outcome of the question in the form of a comparison.

I can't answer your question where p=probability because I don't know all of the conditions or variables. I can tell you that the raw probability of a yes or no statement is 50/50 as there's no third conclusion to the question.

[organofcorti]

That's fine when a probability is quantifiable, as in your higgs boson example. What is the probability of the existence of god?

The probability only became quantifiable once a separate problem was solved; allowing scientists to draw up a new question using a better understanding of the old question.

until we can account for all of the variables surrounding the creation of our Universe and the events that took place upon the creation of our Universe the probability can never be anything more or less than 50/50.

For as long as there is a single "wild card" the probability will be un-quantifiable and will revert to basic odds that the existence of God will be either true or false.

Hypothetically, even if you have a probability of 99.99999% that God does not exist and yet you also have a single variable with an unknown magnitude then you still can't answer the question certainly as the entire equation is still off-balance.

The probability that I personally assign to God existing in some manner or another is much greater than pink Unicorns existing. Still, un-quantifiable...

Which is it, p = 0.5 or p = NA ?

There's a difference between ones personal inclination towards a subject expressed as a ratio or probability to illustrate an un-quantifiable thought and a real scientific probability which can be expressed and verified.

It's an oxymoron. I obviously wasn't making a claim to know the probability of either; I thought the context of the statement was clear. I chose the best way to compare the two unknown probabilities in a manner consistent with our previous conversation...

I was providing you with my personal opinion as to the outcome of the question in the form of a comparison.

I can't answer your question where p=probability because I don't know all of the conditions or variables. I can tell you that the raw probability of a yes or no statement is 50/50 as there's no third conclusion to the question.

The probability is a priori unknowable. Until someone can make some falsifiable hypothesis about god that is not made false by the evidence, the question of god is uninteresting - unless you're religious, of course.

[pungopete468]

The probability is a priori unknowable. Until someone can make some falsifiable hypothesis about god that is not made false by the evidence, the question of god is uninteresting - unless you're religious, of course.

Well the question about god may be uninteresting but I think it's the wrong question to ask at this time, given how little we know... I'm Agnostic.

I think a few more interesting questions would be,

- Do the laws of the Universe allow God to exist?

- If the laws of the Universe do allow God to exist, then what can God do that we cannot do and by what process?

- If God existed would God be trans-dimensional? Would God be subject to the laws regarding time?

- If God exists within our Universe, what then will happen as our Universe unravels and eventually ceases to exist?

- Do living things have souls?

- Is the subconscious brain in some manner connected to other living things? Is it further connected to God?

- Is life the birth of a new soul or the continuance of a timeless one? Both? What decides?

Just a few questions...

But it's 4:00 AM here and I'm done for now.

Good debate!

[organofcorti]

The probability is a priori unknowable. Until someone can make some falsifiable hypothesis about god that is not made false by the evidence, the question of god is uninteresting - unless you're religious, of course.

Well the question about god may be uninteresting but I think it's the wrong question to ask at this time, given how little we know... I'm Agnostic.

I think a few more interesting questions would be,

- Do the laws of the Universe allow God to exist?

- If the laws of the Universe do allow God to exist, then what can God do that we cannot do and by what process?

- If God existed would God be trans-dimensional? Would God be subject to the laws regarding time?

- If God exists within our Universe, what then will happen as our Universe unravels and eventually ceases to exist?

- Do living things have souls?

- Is the subconscious brain in some manner connected to other living things? Is it further connected to God?

- Is life the birth of a new soul or the continuance of a timeless one? Both? What decides?

Just a few questions...

But it's 4:00 AM here and I'm done for now.

Good debate!

I think a more relevant question is "Why do you think there needs to be a god to investigate?". Belief in gods have added nothing to our knowledge of the universe; why should that change?

Thomas Aquinas says it best when he presents a point of view against which he is arguing:

"Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence."

I completely agree with this and in some ways it summarises my views. What point is there of a god if that god has no measurable effect?

BTW, Aquinas' answer to this is wrong since it assumes nature is directed than otherwise, when it's clear now that nature is not directed and does not need a god in order to exist.

Sleep well, bud.

[richo262]

Regarding our differing of 'definition'. This is the most accurate definitions. I am not debating your reasoning, I do not appreciate an 'anti-theist' as they are CERTAIN and will insult somebody else for their views. Just like a religious person is CERTAIN and in the past, collectives have killed others for their views.

-------
antitheist
Web definitions
Antitheism is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheist
-------
atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
noun: atheism
1.
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms:   non-belief, non-theism, disbelief, unbelief, scepticism, doubt, agnosticism, irreligion, godlessness, ungodliness, profaneness, impiety, heresy, apostasy, paganism, heathenism, freethinking, nihilism More
antonyms:   belief, faith
Origin

late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.
-------
agnostic
agˈnɒstɪk/
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
synonyms:   sceptic, doubter, questioner, doubting Thomas, challenger, scoffer, cynic; More
antonyms:   believer, theist
adjective
adjective: agnostic
1.
relating to agnostics or agnosticism.
synonyms:   sceptical, doubting, questioning, unsure, cynical, unbelieving, disbelieving, non-believing, faithless, irreligious; More
-------
theism
ˈθiːɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
1.
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
"there are many different forms of theism"
-------


Just type into google, Atheist definition.

Then you will realise, an atheist is merely not convinced. It is an antitheist that wants to tell another they are wrong. You can only tell someone they are wrong if you know what is right. Atheists don't know what the answer is, we humble in not knowing, we are (well some don't care) in the pursuit of that answer and we don't have a desire to fill in the gaps with dogma and superstition that we see no evidence backing it.