Randi's explanation of his atheism:

[beam me up scottie]

Short and sweet.

I’ve said it before: there are two sorts of atheists. One sort claims that there is no deity, the other claims that there is no evidence that proves the existence of a deity; I belong to the latter group, because if I were to claim that no god exists, I would have to produce evidence to establish that claim, and I cannot. Religious persons have by far the easier position; they say they believe in a deity because that’s their preference, and they’ve read it in a book. That’s their right.

http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html

[Beetwasher]

1. Yup, Short and Sweet

and sums up nicely the debates we end up having all the time w/ people who like to define us.

[beam me up scottie]

2. That's exactly what I was thinking.

Boy, am I ever keeping that one ready.

[toddaa]

3. A third type of atheist

"What the fuck is the god thing, and what do you do with it?"

That's me.

[wli]

18. and a fourth type of atheist...

One who has no particular stance on evidence, but does not feel any belief.

I actually "evolved" to this state from what might be termed "more militant" stances. I'm not really sure why or how. I think I got moderate or tolerant in my old age or something.

The way this goes in more detail is that the truly religious truly feel however they do, with passions in the desert, their guts wracked by paroxysms of faith, more subtle variations like solemn admiration in places of worship, and so on. In short, whether the deity is real or imagined, "the spirit moves them" in some way.

Whatever these things are, I don't feel them. Maybe I've just gone soft in my old age, but my nonparticipation in religion is nowadays based more on avoiding desecrating people's cherished beliefs via hypocrisy than any kind of intellectual debate.

Or maybe I just lost interest entirely in the intellectual debate. It gets pretty close to the irrelevance or disinterest forms of atheism such as those proposed by existentialist writings.

[alarcojon]

4. Sounds like me

I call myself an agnostic for precisely this reason - I can't prove the nonexistence of a deity. But I don't live my life as if there might be a deity.

[SlackJawedYokel]

5. I'm the latter.

I claim there is no supernatural.
Deities of all sorts fall into that category.

That *belief* in the supernatural is wholly and completely a human fabrication based on psychological need is almost so obvious as to not require actual evidence that the supernatural, as a thing, does not exist.
Kinda like how you don't really bother to "prove" that the voices Crazy Bob hears are "real" or "not real" since they're really just a manifestation of his psychosis.

because if I were to claim that no god exists, I would have to produce evidence to establish that claim,
And if he claimed that no blue faeries existed, instead?
And if he brought historical evidence that sourced the invention of blue faeries, demonstrated that every claim of blue faery sightings was false and posited a scientific theory with overwhelming supporting evidence as to how the world worked *without* the presence of blue faeries?

Would there *really* be any doubt whatsoever that blue faeries did or did not exist?

Really?

Cletus

[beam me up scottie]

6. Yeah.

Good luck with that.

Sorry, but your claim begs the question.
I'm not going to claim that something that cannot be defined does not exist.

[SlackJawedYokel]

9. It keeps me happy :D

Sorry, but your claim begs the question.
How so?
Quite obviously the concept of "god" has been used as a crutch by humanity just as a security blanket is used by a child.
That these "gods" have come and gone is conclusively documented.
And just as obviously, believing something to be true does not make it true.
Knowledge/science has reduced most believers to an ever retreating "god of the gaps" logical fallacy no matter how hard they fight against it and it seems silly to justify such an assertion just as it would to justify the voices in Crazy Bobs head.(if their jaws are secured so they can't speak, the voices go away... they are hearing themselves)

I'm not going to claim that something that cannot be defined does not exist.
But the supernatural *can* be defined.
Ask anyone who believes and you'll get a different definition from every person you ask.
IMO, proof enough, right there. lol

Cletus

[beam me up scottie]

10. You just proved my point.

"Ask anyone who believes and you'll get a different definition from every person you ask."

That's right, believers can't even define their deity.
So how can I actively disbelieve in their god(s) if I don't understand what they are?

Not to mention all of the gods I've never even heard of.

I think my blob of a cat, Cecil is god.
Can you prove he doesn't exist?
I have a cat food bill that would love to argue.


Randi has it right.

[SlackJawedYokel]

13. If you say so.

That's right, believers can't even define their deity.
LOL
Well, they *can*, it just isn't logical, systematic or coherent.
Ask them... they'll all give you *some* kind of definition.
Invariably you'll get to the illogical/fallacious "omni-powered", "first cause" definition.

So how can I actively disbelieve in their god(s) if I don't understand what they are?
Ok first, what I posited was disbelief in the supernatural which encompassed these god-things.
And this ties in with religious belief because at some point all of those beliefs hinge on the supposed reality of that thing they believe in, be it Zeus, Yahweh, ghosts or Elvis, minus any concrete evidence of their existence.

The belief exists. The object of that belief does not.
Crazy Bob's voices say so.

I think my blob of a cat, Cecil is god.
Can you prove he doesn't exist?
How is Cecil being a god different from Cecil being a cat?
:D

Quite obviously anyone can prove the existence of a cat, right?
And if need be, specifically your cat Cecil.
Cecils "godhood", however, will need to be demonstrated.
(And just to be clear, historical literature is quite adamant about just what constitutes "godlike" qualities... miracles, supernatural behavior, etc. So when you talk about "defining "god", it really has to be taken within that historical context... we're not talking about the Q, after all)

I have a cat food bill that would love to argue.
You do know cats can feed themselves, right? :D

As you've pointed out, you can take a *thing*(in this case Cecil) and believe it to be "god", but you can't take that belief and make a Cecil from them.
So anyone can worship a thing as if it were "god", but that thing is still only what it is... not supernatural at all.

If you didn't have a cat named Cecil, no amount of you *believing* you did would change that.
Right?
And then what would I be left to "prove", exactly?

Just like Crazy Bobs voices.

Randi has it right.
Randi was half right.
The problem with simplifying it to a logical dichotomy is that this tends to ignore reality/evidence as well.

Logic is a tool. Logic is not reality.
Which is why I've always found the pure agnostic position quite unsatisfying.

Cletus

[BlueEyedSon]

7. and this gem:

"My personal stance is that religious claims are of the same nature as any other claims made without supporting evidence, that is, they are superstitious claims"

[Zhade]

8. Perfect.

Nicely said, Randi.

[Synnical]

11. Randi has said this so many times

I don't know why it's news now. But, then again, his Foundation is all of a mile from my home and I've attended several meetings there. So, maybe it's just me.

:P

[beam me up scottie]

12. Wow!

An insider!!!
Are they hiring?

[onager]

14. I've seen him at the Skeptics Society conventions.

He's a real character. I'd like to have half his energy when I'm more than 75 years old. Hell, I'd like to have half his energy right now!

One of his best "gotchas" involved that lame-ass phony James Van Praagh. (At least John-Boy-Edward is a fairly competetent cold reader. But Van Praagh is awful. When he's not getting any "hits" with a subject, you can see the flop sweat on his forehead.)

Randi was filming Van Praagh on some TV show, and caught his promise that he had not spoken to any member of the audience.

Cut to commercial, but Randi kept his camera running. During the commercial break, when the TV audience couldn't see him, Van Praagh asked many members of the studio audience why they had come.

End commercial. And guess who Van Praagh just happened to "spontaneously" pick out of the studio audience for sessions? Why, yes, the very same people he had talked to during the commercial!

If you were only watching at home and didn't know what happened, it probably looked pretty impressive.

[beam me up scottie]

15. No wonder the woo woos hate him so much.

They want to believe this crap, it's the same reaction you get when you tell a kid there's no Santa when he's not ready to hear it.

[onager]

16. Sorta like this?

[beam me up scottie]

17. ROFLMAO!!!

I just saved that in my photodump account!!!