Evangelical Atheist / Proof of no God

[alswiader]

Someone repplied to me with this link in my introduction.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... %20atheist

I am a little intolerant of religions and preachy of my beliefs as an atheist, but I need further clearity. 1) I do not support verbal bashing, but do we have the right/obligation to preach our truth as atheists in order to bring about a more civil and peacful world? 2) Do we have all the needed proof that any recognized god, and doctrine associated with it, is a false assumption? 3) Is this definition a little exagerative? It is my assumption that an evangelical atheist is someone like Richard Dawkins. Please correct me if I'm confused. Atheists preaching the true message is better than atheists watching on the sidelines. Once again, I do not support verbal bashing or emotional rants. That is not the part of "evangelical" atheism I agree with.

[Whitney]

Your link didn't work.

I'd rather have atheists sit on the side minding their own business than have them be making a religion out of non-belief.  What is an atheist to be evangelical about...the only thing we share is not having a belief in god.

While it may be possible to show that most religions are too absurd to be true that doesn't mean there is proof of no god; ultimately there simply isn't evidence for one (which is different from proving a lack of a god).

What I am for is atheists getting together under whatever common ground they can find and setting up secular community groups...the one thing religion does do right is create a support network and that is something many people who leave religion end up lacking.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Personally, I 100% agree with Whitney.

I think there is just too much diversity among the "non-believers" to really spear-head any kind of movement that would be effective. There are a lot of gray areas in people's belief (or lack thereof) and I think that's what's so great about leaving religion, you can believe whatever you want and you don't get the threat of hell-fire every five seconds.

I do agree that a world without religion would be a much better place, but how do we get there without the same kind of bigotry and zealotry that that makes religion so distasteful to a lot of us? I don't know and I'm not certain it's possible.

[Crow]

I also have to wholeheartedly agree with what Whitney said.

There is no need to become what is so negative and imposing about religion by trying to impose your own beliefs on others. You do have the right to stand up for your beliefs when somebody confronts you or tries to impose there view on you which is very different than trying to convert others to your way of thinking.

[Stevil]

I disagree,
People need to learn that it is OK to live without a god or church. That you can still be good and live a fulfilling and independant life. That it is OK to accept people for who they are, that we should not judge each other, we should understand that life is complex and each person is living it (to a degree) how they see best. We need to suppport each other not support a guilt culture. Above all we need to support and promote tolerance of differences in culture, sex, age, race, lifestyle, religion, skin colour, sexual preferences, family definitions ...

[DeterminedJuliet]

People need to learn that it is OK to live without a god or church. That you can still be good and live a fulfilling and independant life. That it is OK to accept people for who they are, that we should not judge each other, we should understand that life is complex and each person is living it (to a degree) how they see best. We need to suppport each other not support a guilt culture. Above all we need to support and promote tolerance of differences in culture, sex, age, race, lifestyle, religion, skin colour, sexual preferences, family definitions ...

I absolutely agree with these ends, but what are the means to getting there? I'm not convinced it's evangelism. I know when I was Christian, "Evangelist" atheists were down right scary to me. In fact, I remember when I met my husband (while I was still Christian) and he told me he was atheist, my first reaction was "You seem too nice to be atheist!" It seems silly now, but my only experience with openly atheist people was "Rawwrr, rawwrr. Believing in God is dumb." type stuff.

I agree that we should be open and visible as a viable option to religion, but I don't think getting aggressive is going to help our cause. Just my opinion.

[fester30]

I don't think atheists need to be pushy, but we do need to make sure theists understand that we're living among them, and that we're capable of being good people.  There is a big stereotype in the theist community that godless atheists are out to recruit souls for Satan.  Somehow, within the halls of a religious building, atheists go from being non-believers to being devil-worshipers.  I think that's why we get marginalized so often.  Theists I grew up around were warned to avoid us and fear us for the good of their eternal soul.  We're out to destroy the church.  In some theist minds, if you aren't with me you are my enemy.  If you don't follow the religion, you're going to hell, just the same as the Satanists and such.

While the Air Force is sometimes oppressively Christian, the people in my immediate office understand that, while I may be an atheist, that doesn't mean I'm not a good person.  Because of exposure to me, a couple of them have changed their minds about atheism.  They realize I'm not evil, I just don't believe the same as they do.  I've explained that I'm going to hell just the same as a Jew, Mormon, or Jehovah's Witness, so they can at least treat me as well as they treat one of them.

[Stevil]

That's why I have issues with the Atheist billboard campaigns that go on. They focus too much on god or "without god", which scares the theists. We need to be seen standing up for equal rights issues, charities etc. We need to be joined by a cause of wanting to do good rather than a cause of being "anti-god".

There also needs to be a strong focus with regards to support of people thinking about or recently coming from theism. It seems that a lot of damage is done to their minds, their way of thinking, e.g. thoughts of hell and guilt etc. I don't know how these people can be addressed, only an ex theist would know the issues and how best to approach. But I reckon Atheism needs support groups, need to support women rights, gay rights, scientific progress, medical advances (stem cell research). We need not oppose religion, support them when we agree with them, we can't paint ourselves as the enemy.

[dgmort19]

While it may be possible to show that most religions are too absurd to be true that doesn't mean there is proof of no god; ultimately there simply isn't evidence for one

Yep. This is the baseline defense of metaphysical claims. Advocates essentially insist that these spiritual realities are simply not measurable by human means (i.e. logic, science, etc.). What you are forced to admit, as a human, is that if these claims are true, then you would not be able to detect them due to their immeasurable status. Thus, you also have to admit the (SLIGHT) possibility of their existence because you can't disprove them. They're unfalsifiable.

It's like if I build a portal that will not allow entry to people with your name. No matter what, you can't get in. These claims set the boundaries just outside human capacity to disprove. Should we, then, respect metaphysical claims as things that "might" be true?

I don't think so.

But what's the difference between a thing that "might" be true and a thing that is technically disprovable, though practically impossible? This has been plaguing me...

[Davin]

Dunno, to me when you can't differentiate a thing from not existing, then it's reasonable to take the stance that it doesn't exist.

[Ulver]

I'm early in my atheism, and I will admit I am so annoyed with many religious people and spirituality in general. I get aggressive in my reactions sometimes (only to myself or a couple certified morons online, I am not hostile or rude) but I agree with what everyone is saying. Maybe when I've matured a bit, I can take the high road more easily and see it as just "live and let live" because that is precisely the point!

For now, it all seems so stupid I can't believe people fall for it and harm others in the name of it...similar to when my eyes were opened to issues regarding patriarchy in my early teens. The shock fades

[Davin]

^ Aye, I suppose when I started seeing that the evidence I was provided for the existence of the Christian god was either non-existent and/or insufficiently researched, I was a little upset at those that provided them to me and any one who helped keep them going... I suppose I've calmed down a bit since then, but I've yet to lose my dislike for perpetuating falsehoods, invalid logic and utilizing dishonest argument tactics.

[Ulver]

^ Aye, I suppose when I started seeing that the evidence I was provided for the existence of the Christian god was either non-existent and/or insufficiently researched, I was a little upset at those that provided them to me and any one who helped keep them going... I suppose I've calmed down a bit since then, but I've yet to lose my dislike for perpetuating falsehoods, invalid logic and utilizing dishonest argument tactics.

I suspect I will be this way too.

[alswiader]

Looks like many of you answered my questions, and many of you didn't. I have been associating "God" to be differently and specifically defined from one religion to the next. However, we all remark upon a unified god that is still recognized, but only partially associated from one religion to the next. This is confusing me. How is it possible to generalize the title of "God" , whether atheist or theist, when it's recognition and origin stems from "the word"? It makes sense to me that you cannot define god if you do not believe in it. Only theists can define god. To them, they are the only ones with the proof. This theory of god we remark upon, an unfalsifiable god, is not really a god anyone should or could believe in because 1) A generalization of god, as an atheist or theist, is only a bastardized theory of god handed DOWN from displaced texts. 2) If we do accept god to be defined as unified, we move UP in our understanding as our acceptance becomes unified. aka New New Testament.

To summarize, God is not unfalsifiable. God is true. It says it in the books. If you choose not to believe that, you are an atheist or a believer of part of a god that makes it unfalsifiable and unified. No one on earth should be recognizing god, either way, to be so profound and so generalized, but they do. Everyone seems to want God to be as simple as possible. Understanding existence by means of breaking apart it's complexities into it's fundamentals is known as philosophy. Unfortunately, (now, here's the point) philosophy of religion is an oxymoron.

[dgmort19]

Well, when I mention "God," I usually mean the dude from the Old + New Testament.

How is it possible to generalize the title of "God" , whether atheist or theist, when it's recognition and origin stems from "the word"?

The word "god," or the "Word of God"?

you cannot define god if you do not believe in it. Only theists can define god.

I define God as necessary, with respect to the person making claims about his existence. For instance, if a theist defines God as Allah, and I am discussing the matter with this theist, then I will use this definition when I employ the term "God." Ultimately, however, I define God as an entity in whom some people believe.

A generalization of god, as an atheist or theist, is only a bastardized theory of god handed DOWN from displaced texts.

I'm not sure I follow.

If we do accept god to be defined as unified,...

Unified?

To summarize, God is not unfalsifiable.

The definition of God which states that he is an entity who/that cannot be measured by human standards is unfalsifiable.

Unfortunately, (now, here's the point) philosophy of religion is an oxymoron.

How come?