Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

If we define fundamental atheism as: Then that makes me a fundamental atheist, I suppose, and I would agree with PaulK that this does not mean that I know God doesn't exist, at least not in the absolute philosophical sense you seem to be driving at. Indeed, because we can't absolutely say for certain that the rules of logic are time invariant, we end up in all sorts of knots, if we follow this route. I go through life having adopted the language that I say I know something if I have about 95% confidence in it (don't ask how I calculate the 95%) or I might say it for impact. This way, I can say stuff like "I know the Sun will rise tomorrow" with breezy confidence. Under this scheme, whether I know God doesn't exist or not is a toughie - philosophically, I'd say I didn't know, but politically (for expediency perhaps) I might say I did know.Are you sure that the fundamental atheists you've been in contact with have been giving you their philosophical as opposed to their political position?My belief in no Gods derives from 2 aspects:1) the lack of evidence for a Godin this regard, I would probably agree with agnostics2) positive evidence that there is no Godand this is where I differ from agnostics. As positive evidence I might cite things like:- the incoherency of God as a concept
- religion as a social meme and its cultural significance (& psychological impact) up to and including now
- contradictions between various religions about the nature of this God
etcEach of which probably deserves its own forum.Now, none of the above in (2) is proof positive that God that does not exist, but it does offer a rational basis for why one might take that position.I weigh up these facts and decide that on balance, God is a man-made concept. Others may balance these facts deifferently or have access to more information than me so decide differently, but that doesn't mean that I'm being irrational.A lack of evidence by itself is not, as you say, enough reason to believe that something does not exist. But there may well be rational reasons for believing that that thing does not exist (e.g there's no evidence for Santa Claus, but I'm aSanta-ist as well - I don't see this as a faith position).PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-08-2005 07:30 AM

Thanks very much. May only be a flying visit - though I have been reading this thread with interest. One could say the same about fundamental agnostics - could they brook any doubt that their' belief that there exists no evidence either way is wrong?I might have missed your response to the chocolate brownies argument, so maybe you've already responded to it, but I just want to spell things out here, in case you haven't. Would you agree or disagree with the statements below?1) it is as rational to believe in God as it is to believe in invisible chocolate coated fairies.2) one can never know anything for sure - using your own idea of whatever "for sure" means.3) the laws of logic are time invariantThe reason I ask, is that in your syllogism: the basis of disagreement is what it is that might constitute proof and further whether all things held to be true are beliefs (such as the "belief" that the laws of logic themselves are time invariant).If nothing can constitute a proof, or all things are beliefs, then this isn't really saying very much - but I don't think this is quite what you're driving at. From what you seem to be saying is that there are some things which can be proved and the whole God concept has not (yet) - so it is rational to keep an open mind. Others have argued that in their own view, God has been disproved, inasmuch as you can disprove anything - so this is a rational choice.Also, not sure where you're going with the dark matter/energy line - there's plenty of evidence for the existence of both. Just because we don't know what exactly ot consists of doesn't mean we can't discern anything about its existence and its properties - I don't know what an electron's made from either.PE