The Significance of Our Insignificance

[BikerDude]

"I threw my soul in a deep dark hole and followed it in".

Cool article..
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-significance-of-our-insignificance

[Hominid]

A good read. 

[DigitalBuddha]

The only problem I have with Atheism is that it can't be proven as a factual truth. To say that there is IN FACT no God (as Atheism states) is to say that you have personally searched in all of space and time, all through all of eternity, searched all possible (or even impossible) reality and can state emphatically, because of direct scientific observation, that 'there is no god.' No one can even come close to doing that. Therefore, I prefer the more humble position of 'agnostic.'

Of course, IMHO

Agnostic...

ag-nos-tic (agˈn-stik)
noun

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Atheism...

a-the-ism (āTHēˌizəm)
noun

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


And now; the search for God...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmq5PxHpLNw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Xf8IGuuIk

[Hominid]

I hear you DB, that's why when it comes to the old Abrahamic religions, I call myself a non-theist.  Doesn't stop me from giving credence to unexplained mystical things though...

[Masked Dude]

I can't speak for all atheists since I'm but one man. Atheism is just not having a god. There are some who say they "know" there are no gods. But most of us just say we don't believe in any. Generally speaking atheism doesn't make the broad stroke saying there definitely is not. Big difference and common misconception.

[BikerDude]

The only problem I have with Atheism is that it can't be proven as a factual truth. To say that there is IN FACT no God (as Atheism states) is to say that you have personally searched in all of space and time, all through all of eternity, searched all possible (or even impossible) reality and can state emphatically, because of direct scientific observation, that 'there is no god.' No one can even come close to doing that. Therefore, I prefer the more humble position of 'agnostic.'

Of course, IMHO

Agnostic...

ag-nos-tic (agˈn-stik)
noun

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Atheism...

a-the-ism (āTHēˌizəm)
noun

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


And now; the search for God...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmq5PxHpLNw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Xf8IGuuIk

NO NO NO NO NO!
It is a lack of belief in God. It does not say there is no God any more than it says there is no Dragon in my refrigerator.
If a person says "I have never seen any convincing proof that there is a God" they are an atheist. You don't need to prove that there is not a Dragon in the refrigerator. Or a teapot orbiting Jupitor. The default state is not belief.
If a person says there is an invisible all powerful being that hears my thoughts he obviously needs some convincing evidence. I don't need to prove he DOESN'T exist. That is an absurd concept.
An Agnostic believes that it is impossible to know.
An atheist believes that if there was a God we could know it. But we don't.

[Hominid]

...it's a common logical fallacy.  I see it all the time.

[Red Back Dragon Dude]

there is no Dragon in my refrigerator.

do you rely know that though ? i would say there is a small dragon in everybody refrigerator , he turns the light on and off and is the one who keeps drinking the damm milk all the time.

[DigitalBuddha]

The only problem I have with Atheism is that it can't be proven as a factual truth. To say that there is IN FACT no God (as Atheism states) is to say that you have personally searched in all of space and time, all through all of eternity, searched all possible (or even impossible) reality and can state emphatically, because of direct scientific observation, that 'there is no god.' No one can even come close to doing that. Therefore, I prefer the more humble position of 'agnostic.'

Of course, IMHO

Agnostic...

ag-nos-tic (agˈn-stik)
noun

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Atheism...

a-the-ism (āTHēˌizəm)
noun

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


And now; the search for God...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmq5PxHpLNw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Xf8IGuuIk

NO NO NO NO NO!
It is a lack of belief in God. It does not say there is no God any more than it says there is no Dragon in my refrigerator.
If a person says "I have never seen any convincing proof that there is a God" they are an atheist. You don't need to prove that there is not a Dragon in the refrigerator. Or a teapot orbiting Jupitor. The default state is not belief.
If a person says there is an invisible all powerful being that hears my thoughts he obviously needs some convincing evidence. I don't need to prove he DOESN'T exist. That is an absurd concept.
An Agnostic believes that it is impossible to know.
An atheist believes that if there was a God we could know it. But we don't.

There is a bit of a difference when talking about the existence of some all powerful god as opposed to a dragon in your fridge. A dragon in your fridge in highly unlikely, and not too many people would waste their time looking in refrigerators to find one. On the other hand, some of the greatest minds in human history have given considerable thought to the existence of god, dragons in ice boxes not so much. In my way of thinking, the existence of god is at least 50/50, and no one can prove that wrong.

IMHO

[jgiffin]

You don't need to prove that there is not a Dragon in the refrigerator. Or a teapot orbiting Jupitor. The default state is not belief.
If a person says there is an invisible all powerful being that hears my thoughts he obviously needs some convincing evidence. I don't need to prove he DOESN'T exist. That is an absurd concept.

As Hitchens memorably phrased it, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence."

[BikerDude]

I suppose that this comes down to the meaning of the word believe.
I find that in these discussions one side means believe and the other means believe is possible.
Personally I don't think that believing something possible equates to believe.
Because I haven't opened the fridge and seen a dragon means that I can't believe it.
I might say that it is possible but that is not the same as believing it is true.
Likelihood plays into believing something possible.

As far as the great minds thing I'd say that tracking belief in God as it relates to education goes the other way. Of course some people think that is a "plot" on the part of higher education.
It's really really important to define what is meant by believe and what is meant by God.
I've found that some very intelligent people have "believed it is possible" that there may be a god. Usually indicated in the order and laws of the universe.
Very few that I've heard of capital B believe in a god that hears our prayers.

[BikerDude]

there is no Dragon in my refrigerator.

do you rely know that though ? i would say there is a small dragon in everybody refrigerator , he turns the light on and off and is the one who keeps drinking the damm milk all the time.

Exactly. And he stole my f'in beer.

[MindAbiding]

Inneresting thoughts here, Dude. I, personally, am one of those atheists (perhaps a rare species?) who doesn't have a problem with thinking of atheism as a belief system. I believe strongly and sincerely that there is no god, and there are a number of other beliefs I hold that follow from that.

I know many atheists who have a different view -- that atheism isn't a belief, it's the absence of a belief (in god). The trouble is you can never really prove the non existence of something (the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc.), so if you're working on the basis of evidence alone there will always be a non-zero probability (however remotely small) that the thing you think doesn't exist actually does (even that fucking dragon, man).  I embrace that and am proud to say that my atheism is a firm belief about the nature of the world.

Not to piss on anyone's rug here, man. I get where everyone's coming from.

NO NO NO NO NO!
It is a lack of belief in God. It does not say there is no God any more than it says there is no Dragon in my refrigerator.
If a person says "I have never seen any convincing proof that there is a God" they are an atheist. You don't need to prove that there is not a Dragon in the refrigerator. Or a teapot orbiting Jupitor. The default state is not belief.
If a person says there is an invisible all powerful being that hears my thoughts he obviously needs some convincing evidence. I don't need to prove he DOESN'T exist. That is an absurd concept.
An Agnostic believes that it is impossible to know.
An atheist believes that if there was a God we could know it. But we don't.

[BikerDude]

Inneresting thoughts here, Dude. I, personally, am one of those atheists (perhaps a rare species?) who doesn't have a problem with thinking of atheism as a belief system. I believe strongly and sincerely that there is no god, and there are a number of other beliefs I hold that follow from that.

I know many atheists who have a different view -- that atheism isn't a belief, it's the absence of a belief (in god). The trouble is you can never really prove the non existence of something (the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc.), so if you're working on the basis of evidence alone there will always be a non-zero probability (however remotely small) that the thing you think doesn't exist actually does (even that fucking dragon, man).  I embrace that and am proud to say that my atheism is a firm belief about the nature of the world.

Not to piss on anyone's rug here, man. I get where everyone's coming from.

NO NO NO NO NO!
It is a lack of belief in God. It does not say there is no God any more than it says there is no Dragon in my refrigerator.
If a person says "I have never seen any convincing proof that there is a God" they are an atheist. You don't need to prove that there is not a Dragon in the refrigerator. Or a teapot orbiting Jupitor. The default state is not belief.
If a person says there is an invisible all powerful being that hears my thoughts he obviously needs some convincing evidence. I don't need to prove he DOESN'T exist. That is an absurd concept.
An Agnostic believes that it is impossible to know.
An atheist believes that if there was a God we could know it. But we don't.

Yes both fall under the term Atheism since it's definition is typically "Disbelief or Lack of belief in God".
But I still don't buy that there is any sense in the idea that there is a burden to prove non existence at all.
A lack of belief in God is just that. The absence of evidence that the individual deems adequate.
Most atheists are open to any evidence but have never seen anything resembling adequate. Most strongly doubt the existence of God. Some (strong atheist) go so far as to actively believe that there is no God.

I believe everyone is born an Atheist and "told" there is a God.
Not believing it doesn't put the burden on the doubter who never would have even asserted a belief one way or the other hasn't someone else made a claim.