Is atheism as dogmatic as piety?

[Cerril]

Well if you can't make odds, then either you're left with no evidence, conceding the point of Atheism, or saying that the existence of God is self evident.

If you say there's no evidence in God's favor and still suspend judgement, then you're left in a sticky spot, unless you really just don't care to find out enough to decide for yourself. Suspending judgement on anything without evidence leads to the sort of comparison above.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well if you can't make odds, then either you're left with no evidence, conceding the point of Atheism, or saying that the existence of God is self evident.

If you say there's no evidence in God's favor and still suspend judgement, then you're left in a sticky spot, unless you really just don't care to find out enough to decide for yourself. Suspending judgement on anything without evidence leads to the sort of comparison above.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[LargeCents]

If you pressed an "atheist" to the point of 100% disbelief in a "god", most "atheists" would have to become "agnostics". I know Webster's definition of Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity is more exact than most people's colloquial definition of atheist: one who believes that there is no deity (that can be reasonably understood or accepted). I paraphrased the second definition, based on how I understand most "atheists" as they approach atheism. It's not so much that they claim "There IS no God.", but rather they claim "If there is a God, which is a big IF, God probably doesn't conform to any standard/current human religion/understanding."

100% certainty of ANYTHING is a pretty high test. "I think, therefore, I am.", everything else is uncertainty.

[Valuebettingtheriver]

-100% certainty of ANYTHING is a pretty high test. "I think, therefore, I am.", everything else is uncertainty.

That may be a misunderstanding since Descartes used "I think, therefore, I am" to establish certainty in most things. An omni God would not deceive (deception = imperfection), and therefore things we experience and reason are not deceptive.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that to be 100 percent certain of anything that can neither be affirmed nor denied is foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the term “100 percent certain” is inappropriate, I think it kind of misses the point. I consider certainty to be an emotional reaction to something.

I see something and I feel certain that it is true. If questioned about it, I will admit that in theory what I am certain of might be false, however the certainty = emotional response still exists. It is an emotion I distrust deeply because being certain of something can cause problems if what you are certain of is false, however it is necessary in order to actually do anything.

If I am considering opening the door there are an uncountable number of considerations, has someone painted it recently, is the door booby trapped, is there a 100’ fire breathing red dragon on the other side. It is necessary to reduce the number of things to think about to a manageable number. While I would agree that there might by a 100’ fire breathing red dragon on the other side, I am certain (100% if you like) that there is not.

This reducing process is done by an inbuilt routine that I was born with, that automatically classifies numerous things as impossible or certainly false. This is done quickly and automatically and is a great aid in deciding whether or not to open any door.

The emotions of certainty and belief are the results of this inbuilt routine.

Belief is not a result of probabilistic analysis, it an instinctive way of categorising concepts as an aid to determining ones actions.

So I am certain that every religious belief theory I have examined is a load of nonsense. I find this useful in deciding what to do and not do during my life.

Am I 100% certain that these religions are nonsense? No as I think the question is a misapplication of probability theory, and irrelevant to the running of my life.

[ QUOTE ]

Granted everything can be subject to doubt to some degree, however, the existence or non-existence of God is extremely controversial because there is virtually no scientific evidence to either side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is a collection of models of the real world, which are useful in doing things and in some way will map fairly well onto some feature of the real world. Use them or abuse them as you wish.

There are also religious models of the world. With different justification and derivations.

The idea of ‘evidence for the existence of god’, can only be formed inside a world model: Scientific, religious whatever. Which begs the question why did you choose that model. Use what works for you I guess.
[ QUOTE ]
In the Apology, Socrates argues that to fear death is ignorant for any man who does so is foolishly presuming its nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Die = stop working. I don’t fear death; just regret all the things I will not be able to have done.

[ QUOTE ]
I apply this reasoning to God, and therefore, maintain an agnostic position precisely because there is no negative or positive proof. Atheism seems as flawed and stubborn as piety because it wrongly denies the first premise of religion--God exists--without any convincing argumentation or evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism is if anything a more confusing concept than God.

If someone presents an explanation of what god is I can give my reaction to that presentation, otherwise I don’t have an opinion.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
-100% certainty of ANYTHING is a pretty high test. "I think, therefore, I am.", everything else is uncertainty.

That may be a misunderstanding since Descartes used "I think, therefore, I am" to establish certainty in most things. An omni God would not deceive (deception = imperfection), and therefore things we experience and reason are not deceptive.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Decarte's God" is an axiomatic mathematical abstraction. What is the misunderstanding? I might as well have said "1+1=2". You don't get 100% certainty outside a "logical construction" was my point.

[Cerril]

Maybe, but Descartes' Clear and Distinct Perception is more circular than usual. There isn't any entry point that doesn't rely on already accepting God to get to a certainty of God.

Thought being evidence of existence of some sort (even if all the details are deception) is about all you get from that. And all that is is a tautology.

[drudman]

"When I dissect the process expressed in the proposition 'I think'. I get a whole set of bold claims that are difficult, perhaps impossible, to establish, - for instance that I am the one who is thinking, that there must be something that is thinking in the first place, that thinking is an activity and the effect of a being who is considered the cause, that there is an 'I', and finally, that it has already been determined what is meant by thinking, - that I know what thinking is. Because if I had not already made up my mind what thinking is, how could I tell wheteher what had just happened was not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'?"

-Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil