1. Comment #52679 by GodlessHeathen on June 27, 2007 at 5:45 pm

He lost me at Jell-O. =^.^=

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

2. Comment #52685 by konquererz on June 27, 2007 at 6:18 pm

I love the thought and idea behind the argument, but it causes some major problems for atheists. We have been saying over and over that we don't BELIEVE anything. But this will be clipped all to hell and used to say that its a belief, a religion, just like they said the whole time.

However, everything else he said is dead on. I love the way he puts things, the way he puts it bluntly and in your face. Brilliant as he always is in relaying the point.

Other Comments by konquererz

3. Comment #52688 by Cairnarvon on June 27, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I really, really want to like Penn Jillette. He's right about most things, and has a great way with words. His association with the Cato institute, and the various talking points he's parroted over the years, though, have almost completely destroyed my respect for him. He's rather selective about the things he wants to be sceptical about.

Still, he's completely right about religion, of course.

Other Comments by Cairnarvon

4. Comment #52696 by Mel Z on June 27, 2007 at 7:20 pm

He's made it very clear that atheists do not believe in god, and that his belief that there is no god is his. This is probably one of the best ways I've heard someone put this, not believeing in god actually enriches my life.

Other Comments by Mel Z

5. Comment #52697 by eggplantbren on June 27, 2007 at 7:48 pm

This "lack of belief" argument is stupid. It was never atheism. Atheism is the belief that the most probable number of Gods is zero, and this has a fairly high probability.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

6. Comment #52698 by eggplantbren on June 27, 2007 at 7:49 pm

>>Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word ''elephant'' includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?<<

I loved this. Perfect example of how moderates shift the goal posts.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

7. Comment #52700 by daddy_phantom on June 27, 2007 at 7:52 pm

As a "religious" listener to Penn's old radio show, I remember hearing him complain about two aspects of the "This I Believe" segment.

1) NPR takes the highs and lows out of his voice
2) The requirement for the essays is that the be "positive".

I think he did a very serviceable job.

:-Dan

Other Comments by daddy_phantom

8. Comment #52701 by PeterK on June 27, 2007 at 8:15 pm

Mr. Jillette:

Bravo! I'd love to hear more well written testimonials expressing the same feelings about NOT being bound by the myths from the cave.

Other Comments by PeterK

9. Comment #52712 by BT Murtagh on June 27, 2007 at 10:24 pm

This was my favorite part:

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

To err is human, to forgive more so.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

10. Comment #52718 by Happy Hominid on June 27, 2007 at 11:04 pm

Konquererz said: "We have been saying over and over that we don't BELIEVE anything."

I've been an atheist for 34 years and, maybe I don't go along with the "game plan", but I haven't been saying that.

I clearly BELIEVE there is no god. What I say is that if your definition of an atheist is one who claims to KNOW that there is no god (a false definition, I believe) then maybe I'm not an atheist in your book. I agree with EggplantBren when he says, "Atheism is the BELIEF [my emphasis] that the most probable number of Gods is zero, and this has a fairly high probability."

That's me right there. I can actually respect those who say that the available evidence leads them to believe there is a god, but that they can not support any current religion as having any knowledge of god (let alone, his infallable word). I don't agree with their analysis of the evidence, but it's a tenable position that I wouldn't argue too much with.

Penn hit the nail on the head. Good job. I could have lived without the jello though.

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

11. Comment #52719 by Wrongsideoftheworld on June 27, 2007 at 11:11 pm

His association with the Cato institute, and the various talking points he's parroted over the years, though, have almost completely destroyed my respect for him.

Can I just point something out? Not every intelligent, freethinking person is a bleeding-heart liberal. One side-effect of the alliance between the Republicans and the Evangelicals in the U.S. has been that liberals tend to think all conservatives are backward, inbred clods. I'm no conservative, but I'm not so self-righteous that I can't respect someone's right to political freedom.

Other Comments by Wrongsideoftheworld

12. Comment #52725 by Philip1978 on June 27, 2007 at 11:56 pm

"It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more."

I love that, begging the invisible for more, good article, I enjoyed reading that a lot. Never had Jell-O but from what I have heard already mixing it with family, people, love, truth, beauty and sex does not seem a good idea!!

(Mel Z, call me presumptuous, but I have the slight inkling that you are an Iron Maiden fan, I would just like to congratulate you on your choice of band, I once discovered Fear of the Dark and never looked back!)

Other Comments by Philip1978

13. Comment #52726 by CJ on June 28, 2007 at 12:06 am

I suppose how you see this article depends on where you sit on the theist/atheist scale posited by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. Penn appears to have arrived hard up at the end stop of 7 so anybody who rates themselves lower than this will consider him more extreme to a greater or lesser extent than themselves.

I rate myself 6.99 in my head because I know I can't prove there isn't an elephant in my car's boot, but in my heart I'm with Penn at 7. I agree with him that once you free yourself of that last 0.01 of doubt things just get disproportionately clearer.

So I have a philosophical certainty that God does not exist. How does this make me different from a theist that is philosophical certain that God does exist? Well I have the whole body of human knowledge that shows that nearly every single thing claimed as the specific work of God has an alternative naturalistic explanation that is repeatedly verifiable by thousands of scientist all around the world every day. The theist on the other hand has an ever eroding pile of superstitious assertions based on the uninformed, uneducated political infighting of a bunch of desert tribes.

I'm sorry if it upsets some people but I'm going to behave as a 7 until some demonstrable proof moves me away from that position.

Come on God, do something, do anything to move me back by just 0.01. No? Well I'm not surprised.

One other point, belief is the effect not the cause. Belief can be based on faith or evidence and we all know that faith isn't worth the paper it's written on when it comes to describing reality.

Other Comments by CJ

14. Comment #52731 by GBile on June 28, 2007 at 12:25 am

I might not believe that there is a god, but let's face it: When I am out in the open and the skies will part and a bearded face will command "Attention !!",
I will stand at attention ... for about three seconds and then I will turn around and try to sink my putt.

Other Comments by GBile

15. Comment #52734 by Logicel on June 28, 2007 at 12:48 am

Criticism is often directed at atheists for being alienated, lonely, nihilistic, etc. Though atheists do often emphasize a lack of belief in God, Jillete, with his positive, unabashedly life-enhancing and appreciative stance, is paving the way for a positive approach to atheism, without forming a church. Jillete is pointing out that once God-bothering is out of the way, one can REALLY focus on living to the fullest.

His stance reminds me of my own response to a Catholic boss for whom I worked about a decade ago in London. We were talking about my atheism, and he just looked shocked and said, "How could this just be it? This can't be it!" I was just as shocked as he was and said, "How can this not just be it? It is all so much, so very rich and fulfilling, how can you expect that there could possibly be more than this wonderful reality of life?"

As for Jillete, he is big, loud, and unrelenting. Gotta love him.

Other Comments by Logicel

16. Comment #52747 by bitbutter on June 28, 2007 at 1:44 am

@eggplantbren

This "lack of belief" argument is stupid. It was never atheism. Atheism is the belief that the most probable number of Gods is zero, and this has a fairly high probability.

I don't think you should dismiss it so easily. atheism as a negative--a 'lack of theistic belief'--is a definition many atheists subscribe to.

So even if this wasn't the original meaning (betrand russell seemed not to think so http://www.xmission.com/~cquinton/religon.html ), it is an important meaning of the word now.

Other Comments by bitbutter

17. Comment #52748 by dsainty on June 28, 2007 at 1:44 am

I believe there is no god too.

If actual forceful evidence of God existing was found (this isn't going to happen), I would admit I was wrong - that I had held a belief that was wrong.

If a person had never considered nor thought about what it would mean if there were a God, they would also be an atheist. So the definition technically has to be broader than a belief there is no God. But how many people here really fall into that category?

Making the distinction always seemed a bit picky to me.

Other Comments by dsainty

18. Comment #52763 by Severus on June 28, 2007 at 3:02 am

Scarlet inside

i do not believe i am who i am; i just am.
i do not have to look in the mirror in the morning to check if i am still me, i am me.
believing there is no god is the wrong issue. belief in the abscence of something, starts from the position that there is a possibility that, that thing exists and i do not believe in that thing.
put simply, my point of view is that there are no gods, i do not have to believe that there are none as i do not have to believe in many other equally obvious things; that the sun moves around the earth, that an aardvark can attain an honours degree in particle physics, that the colour green ia an insect. we could argue for all of these seemingly impossible things but that's what it would be, an argument, a debate an intellectual(ish)discussion. these are things that just are not. i am a thing that is me.
if we begin the argument from the religious point of view, we start on a losing foot, the religious can never be convinced if they 'understand' that we are arguing against the thing which they 'know' exists.
we must begin the argument with, i am who i am, we are who we are, the world is what it is, the universe is the universe and could not be anything else, otherwise it would be something else. if you want to add something else to my life then you have to prove to me that that thing exists.
'i do not believe', is the wrong place to start my life.
i am me, i am happy, i am a useful and self-fulfilled member of society, now what was it you had to tell me about invisible super beings in the clouds?

Other Comments by Severus

19. Comment #52770 by Bremas on June 28, 2007 at 3:43 am

"I believe that there is no God."

I feel better just typing it.

Other Comments by Bremas

20. Comment #52775 by David James on June 28, 2007 at 4:05 am

I'm really pleased that this issue is being discussed here. I've been a little dismayed for some time, reading the comments of so many of my fellow atheists here, so caught up in making it absolutely clear that they DON'T subscribe to "I believe there is no God" but to "I have no believe that God exists".

What's all the fuss about? I too believe that there is no God. I COULD be wrong but I'm pretty sure there's no God. I don't merely LACK a belief and I don't think this 'goes beyond Atheism' in some way. Surely the only people who MERELY lack belief are those people who have never heard of God and never considered the question.

I BELIEVE there is no God. I also believe there is no tooth fairy and no Celestial Teapot. I have absolutely loads of similar beliefs.

But this is not a "leap of faith". I think it was a mistake to use that phrase in this article. It's either highly misleading or points to a real flaw in Penn Jillette's thinking. We don't need a leap of FAITH to say there is no Tooth Fairy and we don't need it for God either.

And with regard to your point Konquerers,

("this will be clipped all to hell and used to say that its a belief, a religion, just like they said the whole time.")

You may be right:

This may be clipped to hell and used against 'us' but there's nothing wrong with saying "I believe there's no God" and I think it confuses the issue if people who have this belief don't come out and say it. LET the idiots misunderstand. That's what they do. We need to be as lucid and open as possible if we want to have an intelligent discussion. Having a belief is not the same thing as having a religion if you have good reasons to hold the belief.

God doesn't exist.

Peace my friends.

D-J

Other Comments by David James

21. Comment #52776 by David James on June 28, 2007 at 4:06 am

Oh dear. I won't be cutting and pasting any more. Sorry.

(edit) Cool! Now I've discovered you can edit your comments after subitting them. This truly is a wonderful world.

(for those of you wondering what I'm on about, I used Word and discovered that the Website doesn't like Word apostophes.)

Other Comments by David James

22. Comment #52785 by CJ22 on June 28, 2007 at 4:44 am

I'm certain there is no God (7.0). The evidence suggests there probably is no God (6.99). No problem.

Other Comments by CJ22

23. Comment #52798 by monoape on June 28, 2007 at 5:28 am

"If actual forceful evidence of God existing was found ..."

What would that be for any of us? Parting of the waves? Storms of locusts? A second moon suddenly appearing in orbit around our planet?

For me, if something 'way out there' happened with no natural explanation, I'd still be no closer to believing in a god. I might be comfortable discussing the possibility that some alien race, millions of years in advance of us had popped round to see us.

Imagine how any of us would be viewed if we popped back 4000 years with a few 'toys': Harrier jump-jet, automatic weapons, TV, pennicilin, fireworks, laser show, etc. Blow up a few things, fly around, smite a few non-believers, cure some nasty rashes, put on a show at night ... in no time at all they'd be building temples in my name and sending half a dozen virgins up every night. ;)

Other Comments by monoape

24. Comment #52799 by Donald on June 28, 2007 at 5:29 am

Excellent article by Penn Jillette.
It is worth keeping for reference. It is rare to see positive aspects of atheism presented so well. (I think Penn Jillette took religious pious propaganda as a template, and carefully replaced reliance on god with benefits from tackling the real world directly. The result is brilliant.)

[ Josh - I think think this deserves to be a "featured article", not merely in the "news list". ]

I too particularly liked the thought singled out by BT Murtagh:

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Incidentally, it would be a perfect item for BBC's "thought for the day" if only they would give up their insistence that only religious believers are permitted in that slot.

Other Comments by Donald

25. Comment #52806 by RabbitDynamite on June 28, 2007 at 5:51 am

"If actual forceful evidence of God existing was found ..."

What would that be for any of us? Parting of the waves? Storms of locusts? A second moon suddenly appearing in orbit around our planet?

For me, if something 'way out there' happened with no natural explanation, I'd still be no closer to believing in a god. I might be comfortable discussing the possibility that some alien race, millions of years in advance of us had popped round to see us.

How about if a plane was about to crash in the middle of a crowded city, and a giant human hand came out of the sky, placed the plane gently on the ground, and lo, in a voice understandable to peoples of all nations "I am the Lord, thy God, Yahweh, Jesus Christ, the Alpha nd the Omega. Her my voice and know my will. Incidentally, I don't hateth the gays. I used to, but now I don't. Don't argue with me, monkeys, or verily, thou shall be smite-ed. Ciao."

Interesting meteorological phenomenon? :)

Other Comments by RabbitDynamite

26. Comment #52823 by monkey2 on June 28, 2007 at 6:27 am

I believe there is no god nor was there a creator
Heaven and hell do not exist
Jesus christ was no gods son
being neither conceived nor born supernaturally
If he lived then he died and stayed dead
Having neither descended nor ascended
He neither sits nor judges
I do not believe in spirits churches saints resurrection
Or everlasting life Amen

Other Comments by monkey2

27. Comment #52824 by wagnerpe on June 28, 2007 at 6:30 am

I don't think it was an incredibly interesting or eloquent op-ed piece, but I did like this part in particular.

I don't travel in circles where people say, ''I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith.'' That's just a long-winded religious way to say, ''shut up,'' or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, ''How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do.'' So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

I think what he's addressing here is the common misconception that we atheists think we got it all figured out. When we try to explain the truth to someone, we are immediately characterized as being intellectually arrogant. In fact, there is a lot that I know I am ignorant about and am very humble to admit it. However, I find that when I talk with people about their faith, it is exactly these areas of my own ignorance that they exploit in order to further their own claims. It goes something like this,

"Oh, you don't know what caused the big bang? How do you know it wasn't the work of God? Can you prove to me God didn't do it? You really don't know much about the subject, do you?"

I don't mind being proven wrong and learning new things, but why is it that these people think they can manipulate us in the process? This "God is in the gaps" philosophy just angers me.

Other Comments by wagnerpe

28. Comment #52830 by bitbutter on June 28, 2007 at 6:41 am

What's all the fuss about? I too believe that there is no God. I COULD be wrong but I'm pretty sure there's no God. I don't merely LACK a belief and I don't think this 'goes beyond Atheism' in some way. Surely the only people who MERELY lack belief are those people who have never heard of God and never considered the question.

The fuss, as i understand it, has to do with the burden of proof.

Strong atheism (which incorporates weak atheism too, incidentally) is a position which does carry the burden of proof--and on the face of it it seems like a more legitimate target for the criticism: 'atheism also needs faith'.

Weak atheism--the lack of belief--on it's own is pretty unassailable, it merely waits for sufficient evidence or a convincing argument--and the case for god falls at this first hurdle.

(Incidentally i'm working on a mini-site which talks about the distinction: if anyone has the chance to test it out and PM me with feedback/suggestions i'd be very grateful: http://www.asktheatheists.com/amianatheist )

Other Comments by bitbutter

29. Comment #52831 by jshuey on June 28, 2007 at 6:43 am

"His association with the Cato institute, and the various talking points he's parroted over the years, though, have almost completely destroyed my respect for him."

Two comments on this statement:

1. CATO is not "conservative" nor "right wing". It is libertarian...something very different; and

2. I never cease to be amazed that folks who are clear-thinking enough to no longer require a god in order to get through life, then turn around and place equal reliance on big government for many of the same things they once prayed to god for. Government and religion both have many similar features, not the least being that they both demand deep access to your pockets as well as significant control over how you live your life.

To my mind, libertarianism (classical liberalism ala Locke, Jefferson, etc) is little more than atheism toward government.

Other Comments by jshuey

30. Comment #52846 by CJ22 on June 28, 2007 at 8:01 am

I don't have any problem not being able to prove my certainty about the non-existence of God. I accept it is a faith position, and would never claim it proven beyond doubt. I would claim it proven beyond REASONABLE doubt, but that's an opinion. I would however, then refer them to the more standard atheist position, that the non-existence of supernatural elements in the universe is unlikely, can be considered proven.

Other Comments by CJ22

31. Comment #52852 by pewkatchoo on June 28, 2007 at 8:28 am

Good article, but really Jell-o. Hmmm.

Philip1977.99 are you a seventh son of a seventh son?

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

32. Comment #52856 by Spinoza on June 28, 2007 at 8:41 am

I'm sorry... as much as I sort of admire Penn (I think anarcho-capitalism is dumb though, among other things), he's no philosopher, and he totally bastardizes this.

Atheism is NOT "not believing in God". No philosopher would take that seriously.

The definitions go like this:

Agnosticism is the negation of two propositions:

a) I believe in God.
b) I don't believe in God.

Atheism is the claim that one KNOWS the following proposition:

a) It is the case that God does not exist.

So he's not beyond atheism. He's just an atheist.

Just to make that clear. (ask Bertrand Russell)

Other Comments by Spinoza

33. Comment #52860 by liberalartist on June 28, 2007 at 9:11 am

"...it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day."

I really like this part. Being as atheist is not negative nor hopeless. Its actually quite liberating.

I believe there is no god. Just a I believe the earth revolves around the sun. Like Richard Dawkins says in his book, if new evidence is found then I am free to change my position because my belief is not "faith". It is based on an understaning of the natural world and my place in it. And that understanding is always subject to knowledge and new information.

Other Comments by liberalartist

34. Comment #52861 by nosaer78 on June 28, 2007 at 9:12 am

I personally don't like the word "believe". I don't "believe" God doesn't exist. I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept evolution as the best answer. I accept the reality that God doesn't exist.

Sam Harris said it best when he defined an atheist simply as "Someone who refuses to deny the obvious." It is hard to say it better than that.

Other Comments by nosaer78

35. Comment #52865 by Shining666 on June 28, 2007 at 9:39 am

I thought Douglas Adams put it very well: " I am convinced"

Other Comments by Shining666

36. Comment #52866 by bitbutter on June 28, 2007 at 9:40 am

@Spinoza

Atheism is the claim that one KNOWS the following proposition:

a) It is the case that God does not exist.

Thats not MY atheism ;)

My bet is that most people identifying themselves as atheists would disagree with you--Russell's definition notwithstanding.

Other Comments by bitbutter

37. Comment #52871 by happyatheist on June 28, 2007 at 10:03 am

Have any of you seen the episode of Showtime's "Penn and Teller's Bullsh-t" where Penn figuratively tears apart the Bible? Penn and Teller BOTH have been longtime atheists...but Teller just never says anything. LOL!

Other Comments by happyatheist

38. Comment #52877 by whieber on June 28, 2007 at 10:47 am

Well as far as the article goes he makes good points. I personally alternate in my opinion and reserve the right to change my mind if enough evidence presents it self to believe in God or not. I can't say that I find everything or most of what I read in the Bible objectionable or agreeable. However, I'm glad to live in a time and place where I can straddle the fence so to speak. I live a life with more emotional satisfaction when I operate with my beliefs in agreement with a God concept but I feel much more justified by logic and science when I argue against the existence of a personal God. As far as reality is concerned who really has access to all the facts all the time?

Would you tell this guy (Nick Vujicic) that his beliefs are meaningless? It's the one thing that gives this guy any reason to be alive. And he inspires people to reach beyond their circumstances because of his beliefs.

http://chackochan.blogspot.com/2006/05/no-arms-no-legs-no-worries.html

All the logic in the world is not going to give me the justification to burst this guys hopes.
Walter

Other Comments by whieber

39. Comment #52883 by ChrisMcL on June 28, 2007 at 11:34 am

The implication of the definition of "atheism" has always bothered me. It serves to reinforce the idea that there IS a god, and atheists just don't BELIEVE. I don't believe in unicorns either, but I wouldn't call that "a-unicornism". Unicorns simply do not exist, and neither do gods. Using a word that implies that gods MAY exist, is troublesome. I wish someone smarter than me would come up with a more acceptable word. Maybe "Realitarianism"....

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

40. Comment #52884 by bitbutter on June 28, 2007 at 11:40 am

ChrisMcl: how about Materialism, Naturalism or Secular Humanism?

Other Comments by bitbutter

41. Comment #52895 by Cairnarvon on June 28, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Can I just point something out? Not every intelligent, freethinking person is a bleeding-heart liberal. One side-effect of the alliance between the Republicans and the Evangelicals in the U.S. has been that liberals tend to think all conservatives are backward, inbred clods. I'm no conservative, but I'm not so self-righteous that I can't respect someone's right to political freedom.

No shit. That's not at all what I was saying.

I have no problems with libertarianism as such, I have specific problems with the Cato Institute, and the fact that a self-proclaimed skeptic would associate with them.
The Cato Institute has been pumping out laughable pieces on, among other things, second-hand smoke (which they believe to be harmless) and global warming (which they don't believe exists), and Penn & Teller have been blindly repeating this on Bullshit.

This doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they're right-wingers, it's about the fact that they let their politics guide their "skepticism" and lead them to ignore actual science. I'd be just as disgusted by it if a liberal or a socialist did it.

Other Comments by Cairnarvon

42. Comment #52899 by ChrisMcL on June 28, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Materialism has become a synonym for greed. If I told told someone that I was a materialist, they might assume that I was telling them that I was greedy (which I may well be).

Naturalism isn't too bad, but it may be mistaken for "nudism" or some hippie philosophy.

And Secualr Humanism is a terrible name. Not only is it a mouthful, but Secular Humanists are something of a "sect" of atheism. I personally don't agree with their core philosophy.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

43. Comment #52901 by dgulbran on June 28, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Ha! You can't *prove* Jello-O.

Also, why do you capitalize the name of a deity you don't believe in?

"No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future."

Oh, if only that were true... there is no god now, and there's still plenty of suffering.



Other Comments by dgulbran

44. Comment #52927 by nancy2001 on June 28, 2007 at 2:34 pm

I think it's terric Penn Jillette was allowed to promote atheism on Public Radio's "This I Believe" series. Like Penn, I believe there's no God. In fact, I'm sure there's no God and have known this ever since the moment I became an atheist at the age of eleven.

Fine distinctions between 6.99999 and 7.0 don't interest me. Nor do I care what dusty philosophers have to say on the subject. To me, it's perfectly obvious -- God simply does not exist. Do I care that I'll never be able to prove this? Absolutely not.

Other Comments by nancy2001

45. Comment #52938 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Careful…

There is a difference between doubt and defeasibility* (a.k.a subject to nullification).

To say that a statement is doubtful (i.e. God exists) is to say one is not sure about it's validity. To say that a statement is defeasible merely means that it can be disproved. These are two different things.

You can say that you have no doubt concerning the validity of the statement that 'God does not exist'.

You cannot say that that the statement 'God does not exist' is non-defeasible.

Truth claims do not work that way. To argue that any statement is non-defeasible is to go lightly tripping down the path to 'faith'. Case in point: Intelligent design is non-defeasible.

You can say that you "believe there is no God". However, the term "believe" can be easily confused with "faith". It is very easy to lose all intellectual credibility here. I would not make this statement, although I can completely understand where people are coming from when they do :) ... I fear confusion would ensue.

(*Some people use the term 'falsifiable' in this context. I don't, simply because this term has a huge baggage in relation to scientific claims. I am not talking about just scientific truth claims here: I am talking about all truth claims.)

…….

Re the Jell-o debate: I f+"king hate Jell-o (or jelly). It is made with the vile substance that is gelatine. Which is used by lazy 'chefs' and cheap and nasty food manufacturers with; I suspect; with the sole purpose of pissing off vegetarians.

Other Comments by Corylus

46. Comment #52939 by Cairnarvon on June 28, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Also, why do you capitalize the name of a deity you don't believe in?

Because it's a proper noun. We also capitalise Santa Claus, don't we?

"No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future."

Oh, if only that were true... there is no god now, and there's still plenty of suffering.

But at least it's not preordained by a higher power, so there's the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Other Comments by Cairnarvon

47. Comment #53011 by MrEmpirical on June 29, 2007 at 2:21 am

Since when does Bertrand Russell have a monopoly on the meaning of the word "atheism"?

Atheism is derived from the Greek 'atheos', meaning 'godless'. My belief system is less a belief in God. Thus, I am an atheist. I think the origins of the word 'atheist' allow for it to be defined as the absence of a belief in God.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

48. Comment #53020 by David James on June 29, 2007 at 2:54 am

Hi Mr. Empirical,

I just want to be clear (and please forgive me if this is a silly question - I just feel this discussion is a bit wooly):

Are you saying that you wouldn't go so far as to say,

"I believe there is no God"

prefering only,

"I do not have a positive belief that God exists"

or something like that?

Other Comments by David James

49. Comment #53022 by David James on June 29, 2007 at 3:00 am

Hi Spinoza,

Do you think you could say something about your use of the word "knows" in your comment above? I think that was a bit cavelier.

D-J

P.S. Like the name. The writings of (the original) Spinoza were a big factor in my becoming an atheist.

Other Comments by David James

50. Comment #53135 by PaulJ on June 29, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Comment #52856 by Spinoza

I'm sorry... as much as I sort of admire Penn (I think anarcho-capitalism is dumb though, among other things), he's no philosopher, and he totally bastardizes this.

Atheism is NOT "not believing in God". No philosopher would take that seriously.

The definitions go like this:

Agnosticism is the negation of two propositions:

a) I believe in God.
b) I don't believe in God.

I'm no philosopher either, but the negation of two opposite propositions? Either I do believe in God, or I don't. If it's not one, then it must be other. Am I missing something here? I don't see how I could deny both propositions simultaneously, any more than affirm both simultaneously.

If I said I didn't (and couldn't) know whether a) or b) applied, then I would be agnostic. Actually in my case b) applies -- I don't believe in God. That doesn't mean I'm 100% certain that God doesn't exist, just that the evidence I've found suggests a convincing probability that God doesn't exist, and as far as I can know or 'believe' anything about the world, I'm happy to proceed on that basis. (I suppose it depends on your definition of 'knowledge'.)

I may be wrong about God, but it's unlikely.

Other Comments by PaulJ