Atheism - Yet another faith ?

Rev Hellfire · 04-12-2005 8:59am

Athiest don't avoid the question, they just don't claim to have answer.

Actually if we go by the strict dictionary definition of an atheist, then they do claim to have the answer and the answer is there is no god. To be an atheist you need only one requirement and that is the total conviction in the non-god; otherwise you’re an agnostic.

The creation of the universe as an atheist subject is only relevant as a disproof of god, otherwise you may as well be swapping knitting patterns.

samb · 05-12-2005 2:30am

But saying there is no god does not answer the question.

Something came from nothing, or something always existed.
How does athiesm answer this question? it doesn't, nobody can answer this question.

For an athiest the question is ''something (could say universe) came from nothing, or something always existed''

For most religions it is '' God came from nothing, or God always existed''

Dades · 05-12-2005 11:11am

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Actually if we go by the strict dictionary definition of an atheist, then they do claim to have the answer and the answer is there is no god.

That's nonsense.

"How did the universe come into being?"
"It wasn't God."

That is not an answer (and is not purported to be).

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The creation of the universe as an atheist subject is only relevant as a disproof of god, otherwise you may as well be swapping knitting patterns.

Technically there is no shared belief on the subject but it is surely a prominant subject in the atheist arena?

samb's notion fits well with my thinking.

Rev Hellfire · 05-12-2005 11:59am

The Atheist wrote:

That's nonsense.

"How did the universe come into being?"
"It wasn't God."

That is not an answer (and is not purported to be).

Technically there is no shared belief on the subject but it is surely a prominant subject in the atheist arena?

samb's notion fits well with my thinking.

I wasnt refering totally to how the universe came about, more to the idea that an atheist is open minded and have no common beliefs with other athiests, which ofcourse they do.

To be an athiest is to claim there is no god, you cann't be one and say 'I know there isn't a god but i could be wrong'. Therefore you do claim to have at least one answer totally ruled out, theres no god therefore a god cann't have a part in its creation.

hope that clears up where I'm coming from.

robindch · 05-12-2005 12:56pm

> Something came from nothing, or something always existed.
> How does athiesm answer this question? it doesn't, nobody
> can answer this question.

Atheism doesn't answer this question because it doesn't have to -- atheism, again, is simply a denial of the claims of other people that there's a god, in the absense of any incontrovertible, or even controvertible, evidence that there is one.

Physics does have some interesting stuff to say on the beginning of the universe and it's suggested, in recent years, that the concept of 'before' simply does not apply to the beginning of the universe, because time itself came into existence with the creation and expansion of space. This strange conclusion lives at the far end of a sackful of impenetrable tensor maths and seems counter-intuitive, as much of modern physics tends to be (on a side note, I can't help but wonder why our creationist friends never bother to grouch about QM and relativity, instead confining themselves to scratching about in biology, which is much easier)

Anyhow, it seems to me to be a better and more honest way of approaching reality and seeing what's there, instead of simply throwing ones hands up into the air and announcing that we were created for unknown reasons by an unknown thing to which the rules of the universe do not apply. Looks far too much like an "I don't want to look in case I discover something I don't like" cop-out to me. Others may disagree.

Dades · 05-12-2005 2:43pm

robindch wrote:

Others may disagree.

And frequently do (though not usually on this forum...)

solo1 · 19-01-2006 10:23pm

Atheism is "just another religion" in the same way that not collecting stamps is "just another" hobby.

robindch · 19-01-2006 10:33pm

> Atheism is "just another religion" in the same way that
> not collecting stamps is "just another" hobby.

Hmmm... thanks -- that's a good way of putting it -- must remember this.

Zillah · 20-01-2006 12:13am

Would this not be a fair scenario?

Person: Does God exist?
Atheist: No.

and

Person: Does God exist?
Agnostic: Maybe

Atheism provides a definitive answer to a question for which we do not have an answer. In that way it is a faith. You can switch the blame and burden of proof around all you like, but an Atheist provides an answer with absolute certainty which he logically could not have.

Now you could answer "Maybe, but I think not." Thats an agnostic answer. You can lean in one direction, but as long as you don't commit then you're agnostic. If you commit to a definitive answer the its Atheism.

Zillah · 20-01-2006 12:17am

robindch wrote:

> Atheism is "just another religion" in the same way that
> not collecting stamps is "just another" hobby.

Hmmm... thanks -- that's a good way of putting it -- must remember this.

I wouldn't if I were you, its not an apt commparison. Its hits the issue at a fallacious angle. Sure it sounds catchy and it would probably put of some discussion members, but its not accurate.

nesf · 20-01-2006 12:19am

Zillah wrote:

Person: Does God exist?
Agnostic: Maybe

"We can't know for sure either way to be honest. So maybe" would be better but not as catchy.

Maybe "I don't know" or "We don't know".

Zillah · 20-01-2006 12:22am

nesf wrote:

"We can't know for sure either way to be honest. So maybe" would be better but not as catchy.

Maybe "I don't know" or "We don't know".

"Maybe" suffices. "I don't know" is also good. Some would argue "We can't know", but I believe thats another strain of Agnoticism again.

nesf · 20-01-2006 12:26am

Zillah wrote:

"Maybe" suffices. "I don't know" is also good. Some would argue "We can't know", but I believe thats another strain of Agnoticism again.

It's like a strong/weak division.

Strong: "We can't know"
Weak: "We don't know"

samb · 20-01-2006 12:45am

Zillah wrote:

Would this not be a fair scenario?

Person: Does God exist?
Atheist: No.

and

Person: Does God exist?
Agnostic: Maybe

Atheism provides a definitive answer to a question for which we do not have an answer. In that way it is a faith. You can switch the blame and burden of proof around all you like, but an Atheist provides an answer with absolute certainty which he logically could not have.

Now you could answer "Maybe, but I think not." Thats an agnostic answer. You can lean in one direction, but as long as you don't commit then you're agnostic. If you commit to a definitive answer the its Atheism.

I agree that ultimately we do not and cannot have an answer to this question. I think most athiests would agree with that. However, when i look at the nature of life on earth it seems to me that if a God(s) does exist then he is a very strange/sadistic creature (evil scientist maybe). with this in mind I would say that I do not BELIEVE that there is a God although I admit that I cannot say for sure. If I said that I am on pluto right now, would you believe me, no?. To be consistent you would have to say; maybe, I don't know or whatever.

nesf · 20-01-2006 1:15am

samb wrote:

However, when i look at the nature of life on earth it seems to me that if a God(s) does exist then he is a very strange/sadistic creature (evil scientist maybe).

You are assuming that God must be an interventionist god or an omnipotent one. What about one who simply created our present world and who doesn't or can't intervene in it directly?

Zombrex · 20-01-2006 1:21am

Zillah wrote:

Atheism provides a definitive answer to a question for which we do not have an answer. In that way it is a faith.

But the point is that from an atheists point of view, we invented the question and the possibility of an answer.

Atheist don't just say "there isn't a God", they say "we invented the entire concept of gods, so how could they possibly exist except in our imagination"

There is only a possibility that God can exist or not exist if you accept that the concept of a "god" is valid in the first place, and not just something we thought up (like an agnostic would). If you don't accept that the concept of a "god" is valid then gods cannot exist because the entire idea is illogical.

nesf · 20-01-2006 2:01am

Wicknight wrote:

Atheist don't just say "there isn't a God", they say "we invented the entire concept of gods, so how could they possibly exist except in our imagination"

That doesn't work. No concept exists outside of the mind. You can argue that concepts can only be "tied" or "not tied" to reality, but tbh that's a whole new and extremly complex argument.

Zombrex · 20-01-2006 8:12am

nesf wrote:

That doesn't work. No concept exists outside of the mind.

Sure they do. Most concepts are simply models based on what we observe in the real world. The concept of a machine made up of a combustion engine attached to a gear shift attached to 4 wheels that moved people around is based on your car sitting outside

A "god" isn't a concept that we have gotten directly from the world around us, we invented the entire concept ourselfs to answer questions we don't understand

Another example would be the "tooth fairy" ... there is absolutely no way science or anything can ever show the tooth fairy doesn't actually exist.

But we can be pretty certain it doesn't exist when we look at the origin of the concept of a tooth fairy, where it came from and why it was invented by human society in the first place.

When you do that it (and most people do at some point in their lives, often leading to a bit of disappointment) becomes clear that the tooth fairy doesn't actually exist and a question like "How do you know for certain the tooth fairy doesn't exist?" becomes nonsensical, since the entire concept of tooth fairies has been rejected as simply an invention of human imagination.

robindch · 20-01-2006 9:17am

Zillah -

> > Atheism is "just another religion" in the same way that
> > not collecting stamps is "just another" hobby.
>
> I wouldn't if I were you, its not an apt commparison.

Could you tell us what's inappropriate in this comparison?

nesf · 20-01-2006 10:06am

Wicknight wrote:

Sure they do. Most concepts are simply models based on what we observe in the real world. The concept of a machine made up of a combustion engine attached to a gear shift attached to 4 wheels that moved people around is based on your car sitting outside

That doesn't suffice as an example. You've pointed at reality, pointed at a concept and said look, see how they are the same! You need to explain the relation better. A model is just an abstract concept, ie not something that is real.

Your reasoning here is too simple. If you want to call God a human construct or whatever cool. But to say that there can be no God because he is a concept is non-sensical.

Plus you seem to forget that we don't have absolute knowledge. Therefore we cannot rule out everything that we cannot observe right now. Think of this, did the quark exist before it was discovered? It would have been an imaginary concept and thus unreal by your logic beforehand. Surely there is more to this than a polar existance/non-existance that you seem to apply?

Zombrex · 20-01-2006 11:15am

nesf wrote:

That doesn't suffice as an example. You've pointed at reality, pointed at a concept and said look, see how they are the same! You need to explain the relation better. A model is just an abstract concept, ie not something that is real.

Yes, and there are two types of concepts, those based on models of reality, and those based on imagination.

The concept of a car is based on reality. The concept of the tooth fairy is based on imagination.

The concept of a god (in my opinion as an Atheist) is based on imagination, just like the tooth fairy or Santa Clause or any other concept invented by human imagination.

nesf wrote:

But to say that there can be no God because he is a concept is non-sensical.

I am not saying that the possibility of god existing is nonsensical because he is a concept, I am saying it is nonsensical because he is a concept purely from our imagination.

nesf wrote:

Plus you seem to forget that we don't have absolute knowledge.

We don't have absolute knowledge, which is why we cannot show for certain that the tooth fairy doesn't exist and that Santa Clause doesn't really enter the homes of every person in the world on 25th December and give them their presents.

But if you look at the concepts of the tooth fairy and Santa Clause, and look at how they came about you can see they are purely from our imagination.

Therefore the statement "its possible the tooth fairy could exist, even if we are not sure she does or not" is nonsensical. If you accept that statement you could say that about anything anyone could ever imagine.

You could say you can't prove that something like the film "Star Wars" didn't actually happen in a distant galaxy some where, and the the "Force" doesn't exist. But it didn't and it doesn't. And I can say for pretty much certain, because the story of Star Wars came from the head of George Lucas, who is a movie screen writer and director in America.

I wouldn't give much time to someone saying "well you can't know this didn't actually happen somewhere", though I am sure a lot of die hard (read "nuts") SW fans maintain it could have happened and that we don't know for certain they can't some day become Jedi and move space fighters out of swamps with their minds.

nesf wrote:

Therefore we cannot rule out everything that we cannot observe right now.

You are thinking about it the wrong way round. Just because we can imagine something is no reason to believe that it is possible that this imaginary concept actually exists

Dades · 20-01-2006 11:31am

Person: Does God exist?
Atheist: I believe not, because...

and

Person: Does God exist?
Agnostic: We can't know, because...

Zillah wrote:

Atheism provides a definitive answer to a question for which we do not have an answer. In that way it is a faith. You can switch the blame and burden of proof around all you like, but an Atheist provides an answer with absolute certainty which he logically could not have.

There is no definitive answer to ANY question in this arena. For a start everybody is singing off a different hymnsheet.

nesf wrote:

You are assuming that God must be an interventionist god or an omnipotent one. What about one who simply created our present world and who doesn't or can't intervene in it directly?

In order to answer the question about the existence or not of something it has to be given characteristics. My atheism is based on a dictionary-type definition of a god, that is one that possibly created life and interferes with or simply watches the affairs of man. God is not simply a term for something we can never understand (though often used to explain it).

Other people claim "god is nature" or "we are all god" - well frankly that does not constitute a god for me. They are people who don't believe in a god but are afraid to let go of the notion, so apply it to some other concept. That just muddies the water.

As wicknight says the god concept was (in many's opinion) made up by man. That isn't to say that a god cannot exist. But a line must be drawn as to what constitutes a god for any discussion to proceed.

Article: Why define God?

Zillah · 20-01-2006 2:02pm

robindch wrote:

Zillah -

> > Atheism is "just another religion" in the same way that
> > not collecting stamps is "just another" hobby.
>
> I wouldn't if I were you, its not an apt commparison.

Could you tell us what's inappropriate in this comparison?

Thinking over it, I offer my apologies. I mistook the word religion for "faith". Atheism is not a religion, but as I have pointed out above, I view it as a faith.

My thoughts on the matter are like so. On an emotional level, if someone asks me "Does God exist" I would immediately respond "No of course not, the very idea is ludicrous", but on a more strict intellectual level I must concede that "I don't know" is the only answer I can support.

There is no definitive answer to ANY question in this arena. For a start everybody is singing off a different hymnsheet.

Hence why agnoticism is the only tenable position. Even in science they technically say "To the best of our ability we can show that XXX is true, and therfore...", rather than "XXX is true, and therfore".

Person: Does God exist?
Agnostic: We can't know, because...

Please note that "I don't know" is the answer I forwarded, Not "can't know", that was something mentioned offhandely and has nothing to do with my point.

One is not required to supply a "because" with an "I don't know".

Wicknight wrote:

I am not saying that the possibility of god existing is nonsensical because he is a concept, I am saying it is nonsensical because he is a concept purely from our imagination.

You're using your opinion to support your opinion. You cannot answer that question with the degree of certainty you claim, however many ways you rephrase it.

Wicknight wrote:

"How do you know for certain the tooth fairy doesn't exist?" becomes nonsensical, since the entire concept of tooth fairies has been rejected as simply an invention of human imagination.

Again, you can't be sure of that. However, its not an important question, as very few people believe in such a thing, so most are happy to leave it at "probably not". The God question is only more relevant for discussion because its such an overwhelmingly powerful influence in our culture.

Zombrex · 20-01-2006 2:30pm

Zillah wrote:

Again, you can't be sure of that.

I can be as sure of that as I can be sure of anything.

I can't be sure that an alien species didn't visit George Lucas in 1975 and transcribe the entire story of Star Wars to him, and that the story of Star Wars didn't actually happen a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, and that the Force is a real concept flowing between all living things in the galaxy.

But I am pretty certain that Star Wars is just a work of fiction ...

(btw I keep using Star Wars as an example because of the recent attempts to get "Jedi" recongised as an offical religion)

Zillah wrote:

The God question is only more relevant for discussion because its such an overwhelmingly powerful influence in our culture.

I was actually just about to move onto that point.

The concept of a "god" is given some kind of false validity by the fact that a lot of people actually believe in the concept. To me it is like the story a while back about asylum seekers getting cars that took on a life of its own once it reached a tipping point of people repeating it. It suddenly was everywhere, even though it was complete bulls**t. Once you hear a concept, idea or "fact" repeated enough times we naturally assume there must be something behind it, but that is not always the case.

But I was going to point out that that is largely irrelevant to the issue. The fact that a lot of people believe in the possiblity of gods has very little bearing on if the concept is plausable or just a work of fiction (like Star Wars)

Zillah · 20-01-2006 2:48pm

Wicknight wrote:

I can be as sure of that as I can be sure of anything.

...no, you really can't. You can be vastly more sure that that burger taste yummy, and that the sun is setting or gravity goes down.

The only way to prove a neagative is when you have two mutually exclusive posibilities and you prove the existence of one. The God question does have such a symmetry.

I can't be sure that an alien species didn't visit George Lucas in 1975 and transcribe the entire story of Star Wars to him, and that the story of Star Wars didn't actually happen a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, and that the Force is a real concept flowing between all living things in the galaxy.

But I am pretty certain that Star Wars is just a work of fiction ...

George Lucas has forwarded his work as fiction, so its really a non issue. No one is going to seriously ask you the question "Did aliens secretly write Star Wars?" If they did ask you that question then your only truly valid response would be "I don't know" (with an optional "but I seriously doubt it").

(btw I keep using Star Wars as an example because of the recent attempts to get "Jedi" recongised as an offical religion)

And why not? Jedi beliefs are very similar to a great number of eastern religions.

The concept of a "god" is given some kind of false validity by the fact that a lot of people actually believe in the concept.

I said relevance, not validity.

robindch · 20-01-2006 3:02pm

> Hence why agnoticism is the only tenable position.

Agreed. Although from the functional point of view, like Russel's china teapot orbiting the sun, I think that there is enough negative evidence to indicate that the creator-father figure suggested by all religions that I'm aware of does not exist. That's not to say that one doesn't exist in some other form, or with attributes rather different from what our religiously inclined colleagues say they are, but simply that the god(s) of most earthly religions is/are such a daft, brutal and insensitive character(s) that to assert its/their existence with no more evidence than the text of one old book or another, is simply banal.

However, you get stuck down between the cracks of meaning trying to say this, and there's sadly no word for "I believe that *your* god does not exist, but do not deny the possible existence of a more convincing deity". The word 'heretic' comes close to meaning this, but as with almost all of the vocabulary which surrounds religious philosophy, also comes loaded with a sackful of value-judgements of variable usefulness.

Zillah · 20-01-2006 3:34pm

I would certainly agree that the existence of, say, the Christian God, is something of a self contradictory impossibility, but as for the matter of a "universe maker", we can't be sure either way.

Agnostics of the "we can't know" variety would argue that if there is a universe creator, then he existed before* space and time, and so is by definition outside the universe as we understand it, and therefore can never be known. Its a bit like the basis of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; something has to bounce off a particle before we know its there.

And while Agnosticism may be something of a dead end, its the only one I can be comfortable with.

(*Im sticking to "before" for linguistic simplicity)

Dades · 20-01-2006 4:30pm

Person: Does God exist?
Atheist: I believe not, because...

and

Person: Does God exist?
Agnostic: We can't know, because...

Zillah wrote:

Please note that "I don't know" is the answer I forwarded, Not "can't know", that was something mentioned offhandely and has nothing to do with my point.

One is not required to supply a "because" with an "I don't know".

Just a quick note as I'm up to my eyes...

I wasn't quoting you there, Zillah - the first part of my post was my opinion of what the answers to the questions you posed should be. I very specifically used "can't" instead of "don't" and the word "believe" in regard to the first.

Just because we can't know - doesn't mean we can't have a belief. And because it only a belief there must be a reason behind it.

Yossie · 20-01-2006 4:38pm

Zillah wrote:

And while Agnosticism may be something of a dead end, its the only one I can be comfortable with.

What always gets me about agnostics is how un-agnostic they are when it comes to questions of everyday life. They don't bring the same ultra-skeptical views to whether to get out of the way of an on-coming car, or whether WWII happened, etc.

Fine - we can never know anything for "certain" (other than our own existence) but we can still have overwhelming evidence for one thing over another. Hence, in the absence of any evidence I can understand the agnostic position, but there is plenty of evidence for the non-exisatence of god.

So why not decide?

Zillah · 20-01-2006 4:50pm

The Atheist wrote:

Just because we can't know - doesn't mean we can't have a belief.

...thereby making it a "faith", if not a religion, which is my very point. Perhaps I didn't make that clear though...

I very specifically used "can't"

Well, dictionary dot com gives both versions:

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

If you only accept the first one, then what would you call a person who asserts that they "don't know"?

there is plenty of evidence for the non-exisatence of god.

Please give me a piece of evidence as to the non-existence of a God.

Zillah · 20-01-2006 5:00pm

Yossie wrote:

What always gets me about agnostics is how un-agnostic they are when it comes to questions of everyday life. They don't bring the same ultra-skeptical views to whether to get out of the way of an on-coming car, or whether WWII happened, etc.

Yes I do. I will still technically admit that I don't know for certain that there is a car heading for me, but I'll strongly lean towards "yes" as there is strong evidence that it is. As the car gets closer I am forced to make a decision, yes or no, so I go with the most logical answer. That does not mean that I can intellectually argue that the car exists, merely that I had to make an educated guess. If I were able to touch the car, perform some tests, drive it for a while etc, then I would feel comfortable asserting that its existence is definate, as I have shown that to the best of my ability to test that it does.

I can satisfy no such criteria on the matter of God however.

Zombrex · 20-01-2006 5:30pm

Zillah wrote:

I can satisfy no such criteria on the matter of God however.

Ok to put it another way ..

Do you worry about a two headed dragon falling out of the sky and killing you when you leave your house? Probably not.

But the ultra-agnostic position would say "Its unlikely but it is still possible that a two headed dragon could fall out of the sky crushing me like a bug"

The atheist position would be "Nope, I can be certain that of all the things that are going to happen to me, one of them is not going to be a two headed dragon falling out of the sky and crushing me like a bug"

Now the atheist might be a bit surprised if a dragon actually did fall on their head, but really the threat that this is possible isn't going to effect his life much, because to the atheist "dragons", let alone 2 headed dragons, don't exist and were purely a fantasy creation invent by humans in times past.

Anyway ... we are repeating ourself at this stage

I see the point you are making, that we don't know, and probably can never know, how the universe was created so really we should not dismiss the possibility that a god did it. But then we technically shouldn't dismiss any of the possibilities of how the universe was created, and the possibilites are as infinate as our imagination.

As Yossie points out we eventually have to start using a bit of filtering of what ideas we take seriously and what ideas we don't. To an atheist the concept of a god is not an idea that is taken seriously.

Otherwise we would be constantly looking up in a worried fashion just to check for dragons ..

Dades · 20-01-2006 5:34pm

Zillah wrote:

...thereby making it a "faith", if not a religion, which is my very point. Perhaps I didn't make that clear though

You are suggesting that you cannot have a belief without it being a "faith".

<analogy mode>
I used this before - if I walk into a room and you are standing over a dead man with a smoking gun I am entitled to believe you shot him. I don't have faith that you shot him, it's just that evidence would suggest you did. I cannot know for sure as the man was dead before I walked in, but my belief is justified.

Zillah wrote:

Please give me a piece of evidence as to the non-existence of a God.

Some might accept studies suggesting that God was created by man as evidence for his non-existence.

In the same way if it was discovered that the dead man burned your house down - that might be evidence to further the belief that you shot him.
</analogy mode>

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 20-01-2006 5:39pm

I don't think atheism can really be regarded as a faith as a faith, more or less by definition is holding assumptions to be correct with no real proof, one merely regards them as truth because it is what one wants to believe (or is told to believe but that is a different story).
Atheism however makes no real assumptions. We do not assume the existence of a God as this is superfluous to the needs of the universe in terms of its evolution and existence. Put simply there is no real need for a God

You also may be familiar with a concept known as Occams Razor, which states that the hypothesis requiring the fewest assumptions should always be prefered...sounds fairly reasonable to me
EDIT:oops, just realised this has already been posted in its native Latin as second post in this thread

nesf · 20-01-2006 5:41pm

Wicknight wrote:

You are thinking about it the wrong way round. Just because we can imagine something is no reason to believe that it is possible that this imaginary concept actually exists

What? You really do not understand what I'm getting at Wicknight and tbh, I don't have the patience to explain my points any further.

Zombrex · 20-01-2006 6:05pm

nesf wrote:

What? You really do not understand what I'm getting at Wicknight and tbh, I don't have the patience to explain my points any further.

As far as I can tell you are saying the same thing as Zillah, that because we cannot know what process or event created the universe, we cannot rule out the possibility that it was some form of god

NB (I would point out now, as Atheist has done, is that we are getting very abstract it what we classify as a god. Any intelligent energy, or even non-intelligent energy, that created the universe is not necessarily a "god")

But as I said to Zillah, under that logic we can't rule out anything we could possibly imagine, and what we can imagine is infinite.

So like the example with dragons, one would have to consider that anything we can imagine is possible until we directly observe it is not possible.

So it is possible a 2 headed dragon is about to fall on top of our heads until we look up and observe that it isn't there. And as soon as we look back down the possibility returns until we check again.

Extending that one, it is possible that anything I could possibly imagine could happen to me right now, from bursting into flame, to having a UFO beam me up to its mother ship, to Cindy Crawford bursting into the room and saying "Take me now, big boy".

That position seems to lead straight to a padded cell.

Eventually we have to start narrowing down what possibilites we actually take seriously. And I think there are few people who would take the possibility of a 2 headed dragon falling on their heads as possible (or Cindy Crawford, unfortunately). The main reason being is that the concept of a "dragon" is just something invented by human imagination. Dragons aren't real. We can never know this for certain, but it is a safe bet. This is especially true when you look at where the concept of a dragon came from.

To an atheist the same is true of God (well to me at least, I don't want to talk for all atheists, as I am always going on that it is a description, not a way of thinking). There is no more reason to believe a god created the universe than there is to believe that a dragon is going to fall on my head at 2.34pm next Tuesday. Both are technically possible in so far as anything is technically possible

As I said to Zillah I would certainly be surprised if a dragon did fall on my head next tuesday, but right now I can say for pretty much certain that isn't going to happen, even though I can imagine that it could happen.

Zillah · 20-01-2006 7:49pm

Wicknight wrote:

I see the point you are making, that we don't know, and probably can never know, how the universe was created so really we should not dismiss the possibility that a god did it.

No, we can't rule it out. Not shouldn't, can't.

But then we technically shouldn't dismiss any of the possibilities of how the universe was created, and the possibilites are as infinate as our imagination.

Precisely.

If you'll dismiss dragons, and you'll dismiss Star Wars as aliens, and you'll dismiss God, eventually you'll hit something that seems unlikely but is in fact true, and you'll dismiss it anyway. Thats what makes it intellectually sloppy, you are indulging in assumptions.

Eventually we have to start narrowing down what possibilites we actually take seriously.

Define seriously in this context. You have no consistency here. You're going on gut instinct and assumptions and whims, and its not a viable stand point.

" wrote:

You are suggesting that you cannot have a belief without it being a "faith".

You either believe something or you don't(or you accept you don't know). If you believe something without sufficient proof then it becomes a matter of faith. A priest has faith in God, you have faith in there being no God, neither of you can prove your position. Both of you can explain why you were convinced, how you came to this position, but in the end neither of you can prove it.

if I walk into a room and you are standing over a dead man with a smoking gun I am entitled to believe you shot him.

The problem with the word "faith" is that it has religious connotations. I'd summarise "faith" as "belief without proof", an assumption if you will.

You would be making an assumption in the above scenario. I however would believe that a man was shot, and it is likely that the guy with the gun did it, but I don't know. In fact, if you looked a little deeper you'd find out that the guy with the smoking gun was in fact a police officer, and he just shot the actual killer, who has fallen behind the couch. You did not deign to investigate to the best of your ability. Hence, your belief, as probable as it was, was in error.

Some might accept studies suggesting that God was created by man as evidence for his non-existence.

In a kind of complex way, that would be a strawman. I could explain with an analogy(style of the times and all that).

Bob and Jill live on the moon. They both believe that a giant lives on the dark side of the moon. We then prove that Bob's reason for believing this is false. However, it turns out that Jill actually saw the giant, and that the giant is real.

To link up the analogy, you would dismiss the Giant's existence based on the fact that Bob's reasoning is flawed.

Just because we don't have a Jill on hand doesn't mean that there is no giant.

EDIT: Dictionary.com gives the following definition (which is 2 of 7) of "Faith"

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

This is the useage of Faith I would be applying. So if you have either "logical proof" or "material evidence" for the non existence of God, stop wasting your time here and go make millions on books and TV. Maybe even a movie. Otherwise, its faith.

Dades · 20-01-2006 8:06pm

Zillah wrote:

So if you have either "logical proof" or "material evidence" for the non existence of God, stop wasting your time here and go make millions on books and TV. Maybe even a movie.

Therein lies the crux. Evidence strong enough for one man may not be enough for another.

Anyways, I'm off to write my memoirs.

Zillah · 20-01-2006 8:12pm

The Atheist wrote:

Therein lies the crux. Evidence strong enough for one man may not be enough for another.

I'm just asking for some. Any. A shred, a spec, anything that counts as evidence exclusively pointing towards the non existence of God.

Anyways, I'm off to write my memoirs.

Well good luck...

lostexpectation · 20-01-2006 8:59pm

I do. Don't let anyone insult your faith in dragons. Its not nice.:mad:

Zillah · 20-01-2006 9:13pm

I bet you thought that was so clever!

nesf · 20-01-2006 10:06pm

Wicknight wrote:

As far as I can tell you are saying the same thing as Zillah, that because we cannot know what process or event created the universe, we cannot rule out the possibility that it was some form of god

No. I was at lenght trying to get you to think about concepts, reality and the fact that we don't live in a world with absolute knowledge or a clear division between reality and our minds.

It's not as simple as concept a) = real, concept b) = not real. That's playground stuff. You need to start thinking in terms of potentials and contexts within which to place said concepts. Are the above catagories final? Can things go from a) to b) or back again in your understanding?

This is important stuff to have a good grasp of if you are going to debate stuff like this.

Wicknight wrote:

But as I said to Zillah, under that logic we can't rule out anything we could possibly imagine, and what we can imagine is infinite.

That's a very old argument used by Decartes that is far from certain. There are plenty of very fine rebuttals to it if you care to search around for it.

nitrogen · 20-01-2006 10:20pm

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I suppose I should refine the issue I have with Atheism is the idea of how did it all start as in the universe, is its a case that a) was always there or b) Something or event created/started it. It seems to me that atheism seems to avoid the question.

So, if a higher being (god) did create the universe, who created it? Life and natural selection don't work on the basis of something guiding it, nothing designs or plans natural selection. Hence, life doesn't need a god for it to produce amino acids and a replicator, why should a god be needed to create gravity, energy, atoms and electrons in the universe...

nitrogen · 20-01-2006 10:26pm

Atheism is a little like coming out of the Matrix (Religion) and not being ignorant of the truth and how life, and the universe came into existence. It's not a faith! Truth comes from evidence.

Yes, religion is a creation by man but so is god!

Rev Hellfire · 20-01-2006 10:41pm

I'm not saying there has to be, want I actually say is that the existance of god is unimportent.

But thats different from Atheism which states that there is absolutely no creator, its that total absolute stance which in the face of a total lack of proof places it on level pegging in my mind with those who believe in a god, both the athist and god beliefs are just theories. The former I will give you has a strong grounding in science (typically), but still fails to provide a difinative answer to where did it all come from and how did it start. Until such time as it can, then the possibilty of a god/force/something kickstarting it off since must be entertained. At thleast thats my view.

Zombrex · 20-01-2006 10:57pm

nesf wrote:

Can things go from a) to b) or back again in your understanding?

No

nesf wrote:

That's a very old argument used by Decartes that is far from certain. There are plenty of very fine rebuttals to it if you care to search around for it.

I wasn't arguing for that idea, I was arguing against it.

And I don't think metaphysics needs to be brought into this. Challanging the nature of reality and what is real is not really necessary for this discussion. The division between reality and our minds might not be clear, but its clear enough for this discussion

Dades · 20-01-2006 11:37pm

My feckin' posts keep disappearing.

Zillah wrote:

I'm just asking for some. Any. A shred, a spec, anything that counts as evidence exclusively pointing towards the non existence of God.

I respectfully suggest that the burden of proof lies with the one who claims something invisible exists.

Atheism is not about proving an entity does not exist, it is about rejecting the claims that such an entity does exist - on the basis of a lack of evidence.

It's that simple.

lostexpectation · 21-01-2006 1:18am

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm not saying there has to be, want I actually say is that the existance of god is unimportent.

then what is important

Asiaprod · 21-01-2006 1:56am

The Atheist wrote:

My feckin' posts keep disappearing.

Must be those damn Lemsips again:)

Zillah · 21-01-2006 8:15am

The Atheist wrote:

My feckin' posts keep disappearing.

I blame the obviously incompetant moderator of this forum

I respectfully suggest that the burden of proof lies with the one who claims something invisible exists.

Of course. My initial request for evidence was in response to this:

there is plenty of evidence for the non-exisatence of god.

And you forwarded this:

Some might accept studies suggesting that God was created by man as evidence for his non-existence.

I was simply following up.

Atheism - Yet another faith ?

Comments