Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheist or Agnostic?
Options
-
09-03-2010 3:44pmHello all, apologies if this has been discussed here before.
My question to you is "What is the rational basis of your atheism"?
I'd hope we'd all agree that it cannot be proved that God doesn't exist. As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist but you have no proof. You see no evidence for God and in most cases I'd imagine you hold a materialist view.
But why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence? Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?
I think there are very good philosophical arguments for God. Have you read these and found them lacking?
Is your atheism simply based on lack of evidence? Or is it more to do with the implausibility of the theological arguments you've heard?
And please don't give me any nonsense about flying teapots/spaghetti monsters and Norse gods! Richard Dawkins has said that the God hypothesis "explains precisely nothing". That's true in scientific terms because science cannot by definition venture beyond the material. Sure, God can't be subjected to scientific testing but does that mean such a being cannot exist? Science can mathematicall formulate the laws of nature but we cannon explain why such laws exist and how the various constants have the values they have. Even in a multiverse situation, there might be different laws in each universe but there would have to be overall laws governing the multiverse. Where would those laws come from? And what is the ultimate nature of reality, mind or matter? And what is matter? Wave or particle? What comes after quarks and where does it end? How real is it? Anyway, that's enough rambling from me!
Regards,
Noel.0
Comments
-
Atheist because while there is no evidence for or against god, there is plenty of evidence that religion is made in man's image.0
-
Because while there is no evidence for or against god, there is plenty of evidence that religion is made in man's image.
So why hold an opinion on God based on the lack of evidence of a science which will never be able to "detect" God in the first place? Like I said before, it's like trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.
And of course there are plenty of man-made religions but what does that prove? But I think it is reasonable to say that any true religion must be based on divine revelation.0 -
And of course there are plenty of man-made religions but what does that prove? But I think it is reasonable to say that any true religion must be based on divine revelation.
It proves nothing beyond that men are capable of creating religion. In absence of further evidence it is reasonable to assume that all religions are man made.0 -
Thanks. When you say evidence, I presume you mean scientific? Science restricts itself to the material world, so God will never be found by scientific means if God isn't made of physical matter. And I don't know of any major religion that claims God to be physical.So why hold an opinion on God based on the lack of evidence of a science which will never be able to "detect" God in the first place? Like I said before, it's like trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.
You claim that there's a golf ball in this field and you know how to find it. An atheist doesn't deny that it's possible to find this golf ball, if it even exists, but they consider the chances of finding that golf ball to be next to impossible, so why waste your time even talking about it?
Atheists aren't looking for God, I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Atheists don't believe for certain that there is no God in the same way that Catholics belief for certain that there is a God. Atheists simply have no belief in any God.And of course there are plenty of man-made religions but what does that prove? But I think it is reasonable to say that any true religion must be based on divine revelation.0 -
I'd hope we'd all agree that it cannot be proved that God doesn't exist. As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist but you have no proof.
My position is the same as it would be if someone told me that he knew what next week's lotto numbers are going to be. If I told him he was wrong I would be telling him that I know that those numbers are not going to come up next week, I would also be claiming to know something I cannot possibly know. What I would say is that I don't believe that he knows what the numbers are going to be and, while the numbers he predicts may well come up, he has given me no reason to suggest that those numbers are actually going to come up. I don't believe his claim but that is different to believing that his claim is false. I simply don't think religious people know what they're talking about and if they do turn out to be right it will be nothing more than luck that they happened to pick the right religionBut why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence? Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?
"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have knowledge of such."
So yes that would be a more honest view, which is why I hold it0 -
Advertisement
-
Thanks. When you say evidence, I presume you mean scientific? Science restricts itself to the material world, so God will never be found by scientific means if God isn't made of physical matter. And I don't know of any major religion that claims God to be physical.And of course there are plenty of man-made religions but what does that prove? But I think it is reasonable to say that any true religion must be based on divine revelation.
What it proves is that, as I said, people have a compulsion to make up religions. When all religions demand a leap of faith, why should I leap in your direction? I might as well pick my religion by the flip a coin tbh0 -
But why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence? Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?
There's been a thread here, with a range of values between theism and atheism. Most people were on a 6 in a range of 1 to 7. I'll try and dig it up in a while.And please don't give me any nonsense about flying teapots/spaghetti monsters and Norse gods!
In all fairness, I'd dump your Christian God in there too. I don't see anything to separate him from the gods of old except that one is popular now. Given another few thousand years, someone else might be dismissing a comparison between the deity in vogue and the old Judeo-Christian God.My question to you is "What is the rational basis of your atheism"?
A complete lack of evidence of the supernatural, lack of a coherent argument for same. I just haven't found anything put forward by believers to hold any water.0 -
An atheist is someone who lacks religious belief. I don't need to have disproven God to lack religious belief. Just like you are an atheist with respect to other religions.
How can you possibly know anything about God if he is outside the material world?
To me it is more reasonable to assume God doesn't exist until some evidence is presented that would shift the probability of such an existence.
The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. You are asserting that the Christian God exists, so you need to back up your position.0 -
toiletduck wrote: »There's been a thread here, with a range of values between theism and atheism. Most people were on a 6 in a range of 1 to 7. I'll try and dig it up in a while.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415
66% say "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' "
So do you want to rephrase your question in light of this new information kelly1, since you now know that the majority of us do not hold the position you think we do?0 -
An atheist is someone who lacks religious belief. I don't need to have disproven God to lack religious belief. Just like you are an atheist with respect to other religions.
Theism = I believe in a god or gods
Atheism = I don't believe in any gods.
"I don't believe in any gods" is not the same as "I believe there are no gods".
Saying that Atheists believe there is no God is like saying that Vegetarians believe there is no meat.0 -
Advertisement
-
Here we go - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415&highlight=strongly
Might be worth a look Noel
Edit: Beaten to it!0 -
toiletduck wrote: »Here we go - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415&highlight=strongly
Might be worth a look Noel
Edit: Beaten to it!
Moohhaawwwwww0 -
Hello all, apologies if this has been discussed here before.
My question to you is "What is the rational basis of your atheism"?
I'd hope we'd all agree that it cannot be proved that God doesn't exist. As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist but you have no proof. You see no evidence for God and in most cases I'd imagine you hold a materialist view.
But why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence?
Which God?Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?
Wouldn't it be more honest for you to be agnostic too?I think there are very good philosophical arguments for God. Have you read these and found them lacking?
Yes, many, although maybe not the same ones as you have read.Is your atheism simply based on lack of evidence? Or is it more to do with the implausibility of the theological arguments you've heard?
Both. Firstly, no theological argument has ever come close to describing a logically sound god that accounts for reality as it is. Secondly, starting from first principles (considering the creation of the universe-intelligently/unintelligently driven, naturally arisen, etc.), there just is no reason to say that any of it had an sentient drive behind it.And please don't give me any nonsense about flying teapots/spaghetti monsters and Norse gods!
Why? These are reasonable arguments.Richard Dawkins has said that the God hypothesis "explains precisely nothing". That's true in scientific terms because science cannot by definition venture beyond the material. Sure, God can't be subjected to scientific testing but does that mean such a being cannot exist?
But if god exists, and god acts on/in the material, then the effects of his acts should be scene in the material (answered prayers, miracles ect). Anything time these have examined scientifically, they have always failed to confirm the god hypothesis.Science can mathematicall formulate the laws of nature but we cannon explain why such laws exist and how the various constants have the values they have.
Neither can religion. "God did it" is not an explanation, no more than me saying "I did it".Even in a multiverse situation, there might be different laws in each universe but there would have to be overall laws governing the multiverse.
Why? Who says they cant have arisen randomly?Where would those laws come from? And what is the ultimate nature of reality, mind or matter? And what is matter? Wave or particle? What comes after quarks and where does it end? How real is it? Anyway, that's enough rambling from me!
I think that you are assuming that these questions must have some human centric answers, answers that are emotionally relevent to humans and humanitys existence. There is, however, no reason to assume this.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Why? These are reasonable arguments.
Indeed, the only nonsense there is the arguments that the teapot and the FSM argue against, ie you can't prove something doesn't exist, therefore you should believe in it0 -
Thanks. When you say evidence, I presume you mean scientific? Science restricts itself to the material world, so God will never be found by scientific means if God isn't made of physical matter. And I don't know of any major religion that claims God to be physical.
Science usually works on the effects of things on the physical universe, it actually rarely works directly on things themselves (ie, a lot of science is inference). If god exists and acts on the physical universe, then evidence of these acts will be seen in the physical world. They are not however.So why hold an opinion on God based on the lack of evidence of a science which will never be able to "detect" God in the first place? Like I said before, it's like trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.
That may be a perfectly acceptable thing to do. If the metal detecter scans a golf ball sized area, can scan very quickly and the area you are searching in is metalic, then you are simply looking fo rthe spot where the detector detects nothing. You just have to be searching for the right thing.And of course there are plenty of man-made religions but what does that prove?
That man can simultaneously be wrong in many, many different ways0 -
So why hold an opinion on God based on the lack of evidence of a science which will never be able to "detect" God in the first place? Like I said before, it's like trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.
When all you have is a metal detector, why go looking for golf balls?0 -
Blackhorse Slim wrote: »Your metaphor is seriously flawed. The Athiest/agnostic viewpoint is more comparabale to not trying to find golf balls with a metal detector.
When all you have is a metal detector, why go looking for golf balls?
What the theist wants us to do is throw away the metal detector, walk to a random point in the field because someone told us to go there (the bible) and say that we have faith that the golf ball is there......even though we can't see it0 -
-
Thanks. When you say evidence, I presume you mean scientific? Science restricts itself to the material world, so God will never be found by scientific means if God isn't made of physical matter. And I don't know of any major religion that claims God to be physical.
- God is supposed to be loving and benevolent, yet the world we live is filled with suffering and torment, and the weak, innocent and faithful usually feel the brunt of the violence.
- The planet we live on tries to kill many it's inhabitants every single day by drowning, wildfire, earthquakes, molten lava/ash, bacteria, etc.
- The God of the bible has been attributed unmistakably human attributes (and not all good ones), which suggests that he is a creation of humans themselves. He is even supposed to have a "son" which, for an entity outside of space and time, is a embarrassingly benign.
- Evolution. No it doesn't disprove God, but it makes the idea that we were just "created" to be Gods playthings seem rather outdated. And the eons-long process and seems somewhat removed from the idea that we are special amongst creatures.
- The size of the universe. What the heck is all that space for, if we are the chosen ones?
Okay, so there's nothing scientific about them, but they represent some significant elephants in the room for that religion.0 - God is supposed to be loving and benevolent, yet the world we live is filled with suffering and torment, and the weak, innocent and faithful usually feel the brunt of the violence.
-
It proves nothing beyond that men are capable of creating religion. In absence of further evidence it is reasonable to assume that all religions are man made.Science is restricted to the material world because no other "world" has ever been shown to exist.Atheists aren't looking for God, I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Atheists don't believe for certain that there is no God in the same way that Catholics belief for certain that there is a God. Atheists simply have no belief in any God.How so? What's a "divine revelation"? How do you tell the difference between someone who's had a divine revelation and someone who's had an hallucination or other psychological abberation?toiletduck wrote: »In all fairness, I'd dump your Christian God in there too. I don't see anything to separate him from the gods of old except that one is popular now.toiletduck wrote: »A complete lack of evidence of the supernatural, lack of a coherent argument for same. I just haven't found anything put forward by believers to hold any water.An atheist is someone who lacks religious belief. I don't need to have disproven God to lack religious belief. Just like you are an atheist with respect to other religions.How can you possibly know anything about God if he is outside the material world?To me it is more reasonable to assume God doesn't exist until some evidence is presented that would shift the probability of such an existence.The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. You are asserting that the Christian God exists, so you need to back up your position.http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055588415
66% say "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' "
So do you want to rephrase your question in light of this new information kelly1, since you now know that the majority of us do not hold the position you think we do?"I don't believe in any gods" is not the same as "I believe there are no gods".0 -
Advertisement
-
-
No, you can't make that assumption. You have no solid reason to rule out genuine divine revelation.Only according to science. You're dismissing personal experience as invalid.Therefore it's not logical to dismiss God due to lack of evidence.Sorry, I don't see the difference. Can you explain please?
You believe that Ford make the best motor cars. I don't have a car and have no opinion in any case about cars. That doesn't mean that I believe that Ford *don't* make the best motor cars. Ford may or may not make the best cars from my POV.0 -
This is what I find silly. Nobody claims that the FSM created the universe or is omnipotent/omniscient! It's a silly strawman argument. Philosophers and theologians propose God for sound reasons but the same can't be said of teapots and crap like that. God can explain lots of things such as the origin of the universe and the existence of scientific laws and the fact that these laws can be understood rationally. So let's drop the nonsense and we might actually make some progress in understanding each other's view.
And what about the Norse gods?
And as for the part in bold, it seems god(s) can explain anything you want. Part of the nonsensical nature of religion imo.Maybe you need to read more philosophy by authors such as Keith Ward or Richard Swinburne. Science is no help here.
Because you proclaim it so..? Hardly good enough.0 -
Hello all, apologies if this has been discussed here before.
My question to you is "What is the rational basis of your atheism"?
I'd hope we'd all agree that it cannot be proved that God doesn't exist. As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist but you have no proof. You see no evidence for God and in most cases I'd imagine you hold a materialist view.
But why believe that God doesn't exist in the absence of solid evidence? Why aren't you agnostics? Wouldn't that be a more honest view?
As I am sure other people have said many many times, I cannot prove that there isn't an invisible undetectable fairy flying around my head sticking it's tongue out at me, that doesn't mean that I should believe someone who tries to convince me of it.I think there are very good philosophical arguments for God. Have you read these and found them lacking?Is your atheism simply based on lack of evidence? Or is it more to do with the implausibility of the theological arguments you've heard?
And please don't give me any nonsense about flying teapots/spaghetti monsters and Norse gods! Richard Dawkins has said that the God hypothesis "explains precisely nothing". That's true in scientific terms because science cannot by definition venture beyond the material. Sure, God can't be subjected to scientific testing but does that mean such a being cannot exist?Science can mathematicall formulate the laws of nature but we cannon explain why such laws exist and how the various constants have the values they have. Even in a multiverse situation, there might be different laws in each universe but there would have to be overall laws governing the multiverse. Where would those laws come from? And what is the ultimate nature of reality, mind or matter? And what is matter? Wave or particle? What comes after quarks and where does it end? How real is it? Anyway, that's enough rambling from me!
Regards,
Noel.0 -
This is what I find silly. Nobody claims that the FSM created the universe or is omnipotent/omniscient! It's a silly strawman argument. Philosophers and theologians propose God for sound reasons but the same can't be said of teapots and crap like that. God can explain lots of things such as the origin of the universe and the existence of scientific laws and the fact that these laws can be understood rationally. So let's drop the nonsense and we might actually make some progress in understanding each other's view.
I think everyone not nobody, that professes a belief (however jokingly) in the FSM claims that he is omnipresent/omniscient and that he created the universe. You just apply this to Yahweh instead. But let's drop the joke God FSM.
Zulu's believe the Ancient one came from the reeds and created the world.
Hindus believe that the universe had no beginning but is instead a cyclical event recurring for infinity overseen by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
The ancient greeks believed that the sun and the moon were created by Vulcan giving arrows to other gods.
Some Australian aborigonies believe the world was painted into existance in the dreamtime by one of the many gods.
There are dozens of others, some which have fallen from belief with the inevitable calapse of the religion, some are still believed by millions and millions of people to explain the origin of the universe. I place no more value on the story of Yahweh creating the universe and life in the most roundabout and backwards manner I can imagine anyone, in six days flat no less, going about the task, than I do on the idea of the Hindu triumvirate overseeing the constant creation and collapse of a cyclical universe that has always existed. (infact if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I'd throw my money on the Hindu concept, rather than the Judeo-Christian)
Give me one proper reason why I should???? Please, I would love that.0 -
I don't think I do need to rephrase the question. I still think agnosticism is the more honest view. I get the impression that people hold atheistic beliefs due to lack of scienctific evidence. What I'm trying to get across is that science is quite limited in it's scope and should be used to support a materialist position.
You kind of missed the point there. You started with "As an atheist, you believe God doesn't exist" but that is wrong. I am an atheist but I do not believe god doesn't exist. your understanding of what atheists call atheism is wrong. What you call the more honest view is the view that the vast majority of us hold but we still call ourselves atheists because our understanding of the word is different to yours
It's kind of like if I went into the christianity forum and insisted that all christians were creationists and asked "wouldn't it be more honest of you to accept evolution?", ignoring the fact that the vast majority of christians do in fact accept evolution and so already hold the position I am saying they should hold0 -
God can explain lots of things such as the origin of the universe and the existence of scientific laws and the fact that these laws can be understood rationally.0
-
Sorry, I don't see the difference. Can you explain please?
I've already explained the difference. I'll paste it again:My position is the same as it would be if someone told me that he knew what next week's lotto numbers are going to be. If I told him he was wrong I would be telling him that I know that those numbers are not going to come up next week, I would also be claiming to know something I cannot possibly know (the equivalent of believing there is no god). What I would say is that I don't believe that he knows what the numbers are going to be and, while the numbers he predicts may well come up, he has given me no reason to suggest that those numbers are actually going to come up. I don't believe his claim but that is different to believing that his claim is false. I simply don't think religious people know what they're talking about and if they do turn out to be right it will be nothing more than luck that they happened to pick the right religion
No?0 -
toiletduck wrote: »And what about the Norse gods?I consider myself an Atheist because while I cannot prove that god doesn't exist I feel that the arguments against the existence of a god are more substantial and better made than the arguments for the existence of a god.Yes, I have read them and none of them fill me with confidence. For example the good old "complexity of the human eye" as an argument for a creator debate holds absolutely no water for me personally.I'm not sure what your points are about the laws to be honest. For example Pi can never be anything other than the value it is because a circle is a circle and pi is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter. It can never be any other value from what I can tell no matter what the multiverse.. Can you explain some specific examples of what natural you laws think might support the idea of there being a creator and the reasons for that support..0
-
Advertisement
-
Proposing multiple gods raises too many questions. The simplest proposition is a single God.0
Advertisement