An absolute negation needs the proof of the positive to be certain?
Absolute negation: "You will never be anything but a drunk."
To be certain, requiring no faith, the positive, observing the rest of the life, have had to been witnessed. Yet, how could it have? It has yet to exist in the circumstance.
The same can be said about Atheism?
Are Atheist Certain?
2+2=4 only in certain circumstances.
two cats plus two more cats equals four cats. But it also equals 16 legs, 8 eyes and countless fur balls.
A circle may have 90 corners. Draw a straight line. Now, is that really a straight line? The earth is an oblate spheroid yet when looking down at the ground under your feet, does it appear round? If you measure length of the ground, how would you calculate it? Using an equation to measure an oblate spheroid?
Truth is absolute and exclusive.
wordplay. Mathematically, 2+2=4 is absolutely true.
True 1D lines do not physically exist in 3D space. They are a representation of an idea - just like a point or infinity.
No, the ground under my feet does not appear round.
I would measure distance relative to another object or some standardized arbitrary system like the metric system.
Anyway, I don't see what any of this has to do with Atheism.
The kind of whimsical fun logic you're using here does not apply to the question of the existence of God.
No sir. 4+4+4+4 legs = 16 legs. 2+2 cats = 4 cats and nothing more. By your logic 2+2 could equal ANY number in the known (and maybe unkown) universe. You're needlessly stirring confusion. You're breaking it down to parts of cats. And parts of cats change the dynamic of the math entirely. We're specifically talking about 2+2 cats....that's 4 cats who have a minimum of the parts it takes to be accepted as what we have constituted to be an actual cat. It doesn't actually have to have all four legs, it's still a cat. 2+2 still equals 4. The sum of all the parts is an entirely different equation undeniably. You are causing confusion without any justification for doing so. It's not necessary by any means. A circle has no corners. A straight line is straight enough to be called straight, human error is assumed and allowed, this does not mean that straight lines do not exist, but whether a line is straight or not is subjective outside of the verification of science. The ground is round for sure, but it's not a mystery just because I am too small to view earth from the scope it would take to see it's circular contour. The earth has been measured. So the last part is not nearly as tricky as you think it is.
I came to the conclusion of being an Atheist because of my skepticism. I'm 100% NOT sure of everything.
I've always envisioned a fence. The fence itself is agnostic. Anyone above the fence is theist, anyone below is atheist. I think there are varying degrees of the above and below areas, as one can believe (or not believe) while still having certain doubts. I'm EXTREMELY cautious of anyone that claims to know for a fact one way or another, as this sorts (on both sides of the fence) usually seem to have some sort of agenda for claiming what they do/do not believe. I'd say I'm something like 85% sure in my own mind god does not exist. I'm 99% sure the god(s) most people speak of do not exist.
Because of your strange grammar I couldn't really understand where you were going with this question. The only answer I can give is that certainty is not a prerequisite to atheism. Lack of certainty, does not imply sufficient probability that an atheist is wrong about his inability to believe in something there is no evidence to support anywhere in the world or in the entire history of the human race.
This false notion that certainty must be present for an atheist to be "relevantly atheist" is ludicrous. "Certainty" in this context is becoming a misused word.
But the lack of certainty in atheism discredits the atheist not. Nor does it provide any form of adversary challenge to his/her ideals.
Are Atheists certain? Of course not.
Under the Uncertainty Principle and the axiom of "N + 1," a person can witness an actual observable phenomenon - e.g., watch a dropped ball fall down - 100 times ("N"), yet can never be certain that the 101st time, it won't fall up. We can apply all of our acquired knowledge about physics and gravity, and combined with common sense and personal experience, predict with a great deal of certainty that the 101st ball will also fall down, but never with 100% certainty until we have actually released the ball and watched which way it goes. And it begins all over again with the issue of the 102nd time. We can spend our lives dropping balls, or we can accept some things as given, and go on to more meaningful and fulfilling objectives.
Regarding religion, we can study documents relating to the subject - in the case of the Judeo-Christian religion, the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. We can trace the Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden stories, as well as the Flood story, the Tower of Bable fable, and the roots of the Abraham-Issac-Jacob/Israel myths to ancient Mesopotamia, most specifically Iraq. Yahweh himself can be found to have his roots in early Mesopotamia, and was fleshed out with beliefs from Canaan and ancient Egypt. We can study biblical scholars who prove that Moses likely never existed, and if he did, certainly did not write the five books of the Old Testament attributed to him, that in fact those five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were written much like a patchwork quilt by at least four separate, anonymous groups known as the Yahwist, Eloist, Priestly, and Deuteronimist Sources, and afterward, cut and pasted together by an editor known as The Redactor, all between the years of 900 and 600 BCE. We can learn from our studies that the Hebrews didn't even acquire a written language until 1000 BCE, over half a millennium after the supposed lifetime of the alleged Moses. These are things about which we can be certain and about which, every Minister knows but will never reveal to his congregation. From this we can extrapolate that if parts of the Bible are provably untrue, the likelihood exists that other parts are false as well. But as with the N + 1 axiom, only a fool would claim to be 100% certain of anything, including those who claim there's a god. Personally, I'm sufficiently certain that I choose to live my life without religion. I'm also sufficiently sure the next ball I drop will fall down, that I choose not to spend my life dropping balls.
A wise man once wrote: "Philosophy consists of questions that may never be answered. Religion consists of answers that may never be questioned." - only the religious seem afraid to say, "I don't know."
For myself, were I religious, I would belong to the Church of Jerry Springer, which has only one commandment - at the close of Springer's "Final Thought," near the end of each of his shows, he consistently issues that commandment to his audience: "Be good to yourselves, and each other." That's all of the religion I will ever need, and yes, of that I'm certain.
pax vobiscum, archaeopteryx in-His-own-image.com
From the wording of the question it would appear that the meaning of Atheism is not correctly understood. As an Atheist I am absolutely certain that I do not believe in any god. It is my opinion (my belief) that they don’t exist.
However I am not making any absolute knowledge based claims that a Deity does not exist. It just appears highly unlikely that there is one. I have formed this opinion because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise and no believer has ever been able to show even a tiny shred of evidence. If there was any evidence then people would not need Faith.
The only people who assert that Atheists make the absolute negation are believers, especially Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. I do not believe in your god. Not believing (in) something is not the same as positively asserting that it absolutely does not exist.
Maybe the line in the question could be rephrased to read:
“You will never be anything but a drunk if you keep drinking” If people stopped taking their own form of the reality numbing drug called religion for a time life would appear better for them too. All those with a dependency live in denial. Addicts need to see that for themselves first before they can get head sorted. They just don’t realise that they have an addiction because they usually live amongst other addicts and get their daily doses of confirmation bias to keep them from thinking critically. Once they move away and try to stand on their own feet they become less zealous and more reasonable.
I speculate that the concept most people have of a supreme being, stems directly from evolutionary hard wiring in our brains, that evolved to help people survive in difficult circumstances.
In other words, generally people have a deep seated yearning to hope or believe there is a parental archetype power figure that will make every thing alright, as this is a common experience for humans when they are infants (caretakers meeting their every need).
No hungry baby wants to let go of the bottle, but soon there comes a time when the little human will begin to realize the world was not created to cater to its every need and it will need to start problem solving for itself. This is almost always an unpleasant experience for the little human and is one they must contend with for the rest of their life.
I don't blame people for succumbing to this desire to believe but it has its pitfalls, as well as benefits. The big pitfall is that often people can be easily manipulated to do things out of a false sense of fear that may result in very negative consequences for themselves and others.
People who decide it is not worth worrying about the existence of this impossible to prove supreme being, who are generally referred to as atheists, mostly do not feel 100% certain that a supreme does not exist, but certain enough not to give two farts in the wind about it, as there is not one shred of evidence for the existence of this being (yet).
Even if we ever do discover advance life forms/form, I doubt they/it would fit out usually perceived notion of Gawd.
Aren't you treating BEING certain (absolutely correct) with FEELING certain? Atheists can feel certain and in that sense, yes, many atheists are certain.
What was I thinking? I meant to write "Aren't you confusing BEING certain..."