Atheism: how can you be so sure?

axer

Hi all,

I am agnostic (I am pretty sure) and have recently just begun the process of leaving the catholic church because I don't believe we can know, at least at present (and am 99% we can never prove), whether there is (a) god(s) or not.

Just like I don't believe that christians have any tangible proof of a god I am also thinking that aethiests could not possibly have any proof that there is no god either because there is too many unknowns when it comes to life, the begining etc? I believe that there is, if even just miniscule, a possibility that there is a god. Thus in my mind they (christians etc & aethiests) are one and the same i.e. believing in something that lacks proof.

is that fair thought?

I bring it up because I have told people I am not catholic (and am leaving the church) but agnostic to which many people (probably due to ignorance) presumed I was an aethiest. A few of them then began talking about aethiests they know and how they were always arguing that aethiesm is correct and christian etc is wrong. I thought that reminded me of religions like catholicism etc.

Doctor DooM

axer wrote: »

Hi all,

I am agnostic (I am pretty sure) and have recently just begun the process of leaving the catholic church because I don't believe we can know, at least at present (and am 99% we can never prove), whether there is (a) god(s) or not.

Just like I don't believe that christians have any tangible proof of a god I am also thinking that aethiests could not possibly have any proof that there is no god either? I believe that there is, if even just miniscule, a possibility that there is a god. Thus in my mind they are one and the same i.e. believing in something that lacks proof.

is that fair thought?

I bring it up because I have told people I am not catholic (and am leaving the church) but agnostic to which many people (probably due to ignorance) presumed I was an aethiest. A few ofthem then began talking about aethiests they know and how they were always arguing that aethiesm is correct and christian etc is wrong.

Yes.

There is a possibility that A god exists, but lets face it, the chances of an omnipresent and all powerful being being so nuerotic as to desire to be loved by all its creations and to disapprove of homosexuls etc. is kinda ludicrous. It's amazing how God just happens to exactly fit the perceptions, biases, and opinions of those that followed him first.

Kazuma

SDooM wrote: »

Yes.

There is a possibility that A god exists, but lets face it, the chances of an omnipresent and all powerful being being so nuerotic as to desire to be loved by all its creations and to disapprove of homosexuls etc. is kinda ludicrous. It's amazing how God just happens to exactly fit the perceptions, biases, and opinions of those that followed him first.

+1
And why would an omnipresent superbeing who's in all places and times at the same time change his behaviour in the space of 2000 years? Bit fishy if you ask me! Therapy?

axer

SDooM wrote: »

Yes.

There is a possibility that A god exists, but lets face it, the chances of an omnipresent and all powerful being being so nuerotic as to desire to be loved by all its creations and to disapprove of homosexuls etc. is kinda ludicrous. It's amazing how God just happens to exactly fit the perceptions, biases, and opinions of those that followed him first.

Im not talking particularly about a catholic, islamic etc god. I am talking about a god(s) in general i.e. a creator(s) who could also possibly have somewhat control over certain things. Your reasons about god above are the reasons I am not part of any organised religion but at the same time I cannot believe that there is 100% certainty that there is no god either. So if we take what you said without the last part i.e.:

SDooM wrote: »

There is a possibility that A god exists, but lets face it, the chances of an omnipresent and all powerful being

Can one believe there is a chance of their being a god (forgetting about the stuff added on to this supposed creator e.g. homosexuality is wrong etc) and still be an aethiest? i.e. is an aethiest just believing in something he/she cannot be 100% sure of either?

Kazuma wrote: »

+1
And why would an omnipresent superbeing who's in all places and times at the same time change his behaviour in the space of 2000 years? Bit fishy if you ask me! Therapy?

as above.

Doctor DooM

axer wrote: »

Im not talking particularly about a catholic, islamic etc god. I am talking about a god(s) in general. Above is the reason I am not part of any organised religion but at the same time I cannot believe that there is 100% certainty that there is no god either. So if we take what you said without the last part i.e.:
Can one believe there is a chance of their being a god (forgetting about the stuff added on to this supposed creator e.g. homosexuality is wrong etc) and still be an aethiest? i.e. is an aethiest just believing in something he/she cannot be 100% sure of either?

as above.

Yup. Most atheists are like scientists: They only believe the evidence placed before them. There is no evidence for a god: There is no belief in a god. If evidence was irrefutably placed before them, they would have no problem accepting it.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of belief.

Dinner

I am positive there is no god because I have not been given any indication that there is a god. And until such a time that I see proof of it's existance then I will not believe.

I have seen no proof that there is a massive lion in my attic so I'm not going to call the zoo just yet. If I hear footprints and growling then I may believe in the lions existance.

axer

SDooM wrote: »

Yup. Most atheists are like scientists: They only believe the evidence placed before them. There is no evidence for a god: There is no belief in a god. If evidence was irrefutably placed before them, they would have no problem accepting it.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of belief.

But aethiests I presume can still theorise at the possibilty of a creator (god) and still be aethiests? or, like you said, would their have to be irrefutable evidence in front of them to accept the possibility? so possibly have the belief that there could be a god? or does the fact of having a belief negate that they are aethiests in first place? sounds all mixed up but you get the point.

Doctor DooM

axer wrote: »

But aethiests I presume can still theorise at the possibilty of a creator (god) and still be aethiests? or, like you said, would their have to be irrefutable evidence in front of them to accept the possibility?

Yup, you can hypothesise away, but hypothesis remains that until a proof is given.

For example, I can hypothesise there is a flying teapot in orbit of venus. But there's no proof, so it is just hypothesis.

Of course, there is no standard body of atheism, so interpretations vary.

axer

Arabel wrote: »

I am positive there is no god because I have not been given any indication that there is a god. And until such a time that I see proof of it's existance then I will not believe.

The reason why I am agnostic instead of aethiest is because I dont believe how someone can say with 100% certainty that there was no creator(s)/god(s) when we do not know for sure how the universe/us was created thus how can we rule it out as a possibility?

SDooM wrote: »

Yup, you can hypothesise away, but hypothesis remains that until a proof is given.

For example, I can hypothesise there is a flying teapot in orbit of venus. But there's no proof, so it is just hypothesis.

Of course, there is no standard body of atheism, so interpretations vary.

Is believing there is no god a hypothesise in itself since there is no proof either way i.e. we don't know for sure how the universe etc was created.

Doctor DooM

axer wrote: »

The reason why I am agnostic instead of aethiest is because I dont believe how someone can say with 100% certainty that there was no creator(s)/god(s) when we do not know for sure how the universe/us was created thus how can we rule it out as a possibility?

Is believing there is no god a hypothesise in itself since there is no proof either way i.e. we don't know for sure how the universe etc was created.

It's not certain, just bloody unlikely.

axer

SDooM wrote: »

It's not certain, just bloody unlikely.

but possible? One could say that about the world being flat. My point being that I cannot understand how someone can be 100% positive that there is or is not a god when it has not being proven either way and until we have proof either way - how can one commit?

Dinner

axer wrote: »

but possible? One could say that about the world being flat. My point being that I cannot understand how someone can be 100% positive that there is or is not a god when it has not being proven either way and until we have proof either way - how can one commit?

So there could be a lion in my attic?

axer

Arabel wrote: »

So there could be a lion in my attic?

Im sure there is a slight possibility but it can easily be proven either way.

I think whether there is a lion in your attic or not is a different argument to the creator etc argument because we know the difference between a lion in the attic or not in the attic. We also know through experience the probability of a lion being in your attic (presuming you live in Ireland and not in africa where there is a much stronger possibility of a lion in your attic). Since we do not know how the universe was created then we cannot rule anything out - then all hypotheseses should be all on a level playing field (in that one can not rule out any of them unless they are 100% proven not to be the case).

Zombrex

axer wrote: »

Im sure there is a slight possibility but it can easily be proven either way.

I think whether there is a lion in your attic or not is a different argument to the creator etc argument because we know the difference between a lion in the attic or not in the attic.

Firstly you don't believe there is a lion in your attic, you can reject that idea without need to be 100% certain that it is impossible that there a lion in your attic. In fact a lion in your attic is a lot more plausable than a lot of things, since you know lions exist, you know your attic exists, you know a lion could fit in your attic etc. But you can still say "There is no lion in my attic"

Secondly, if Bob, a random guy on the street, came up to you and told you there was a lion in your attic you would most likely say "No there isn't. Go away Bob".

This is what atheists do. Someone comes up and says "My god is the creator of the universe, he sent is son/prophet/angels/golden tables to Earth to reveal his plan for mankind to help us, and we should worship him because he is real and wants to save you from hell/hades/oblivion"

And the atheists says "No there isn't"

axer wrote: »

Since we do not know how the universe was created then we cannot rule anything out - then all hypotheseses should be all on a level playing field (in that one can not rule out any of them unless they are 100% proven not to be the case).

Certainly not, but then that isn't what atheism is actually saying. I have no idea if the universe was created by something or not. Its entirely possible, and as you say we have no way of judging.

What I do know is that humans make s**t up, and that humans make up religions.

When I say I'm an atheist I'm not claiming that there is no chance the universe was created by something, I'm rejecting the human claim that that "something" what religion X.

This is just like your rejecting Bob saying "There is a lion in your attic" It is entirely possible there is a lion in your attic, but it is very unlikely that Bob would know there is a lion in your attic. It is far more likely that Bob is just making s**t up.

Hope that explains at least my position.

Dinner

axer wrote: »

Im sure there is a slight possibility but it can easily be proven either way.

I think whether there is a lion in your attic or not is a different argument to the creator etc argument because we know the difference between a lion in the attic or not in the attic. We also know through experience the probability of a lion being in your attic (presuming you live in Ireland and not in africa where there is a much stronger possibility of a lion in your attic). Since we do not know how the universe was created then we cannot rule anything out - then all hypotheseses should be all on a level playing field (in that one can not rule out any of them unless they are 100% proven not to be the case).

Well I currently don't have a ladder so I won't be able to check for a while.

I assume that there is not a lion in my attic because there are no wild lions in Ireland, or if there is it's keeping itself pretty well hidden and has not let anybody see it.

Similarily, I assume that there is no god because I have not seen, or heard of any possibility of there being a god. If there is a god, then it has done a damn fine job at doing absolutley nothing for millennia.

There is, of course, the possibilty of there being a god, lion or teapot but until I am given some sort of evidence I see no reason why I should entertain the chance of it's existence.

eoin5

Hi axer. At any point in time you are either a theist or you are an atheist, or in other words you either believe or you dont. I've found that a lot of people use agnosticism as a third choice, but most of those people are really agnostic atheists. The question of probability is a seperate issue to what personal belief you hold.

Also its worth noting the power of suggestion in this debate. To say that someone is an atheist doesnt imply a thought process resulting in a belief, its simply the default state of mind. A good comparision is all those people who dont believe in walking rainbows, because they have never heard of them.

aidan24326

eoin5 wrote: »

Hi axer. At any point in time you are either a theist or you are an atheist, or in other words you either believe or you dont. I've found that a lot of people use agnosticism as a third choice, but most of those people are really agnostic atheists. The question of probability is a seperate issue to what personal belief you hold.

Also its worth noting the power of suggestion in this debate. To say that someone is an atheist doesnt imply a thought process resulting in a belief, its simply the default state of mind. A good comparision is all those people who dont believe in walking rainbows, because they have never heard of them.

Good point Eoin. Basically we're all effectively 'nothing at all' with regard to gods and religion until those ideas are planted in our young heads in the first place. (assuming religion isn't hard-wired in some way)

And Axer, the atheist position (in general) is not to be 100% certain about anything. No atheist I ever met or heard of has ever said 'there is definitely no god/creator'. From my position I totally reject the versions of god put forward by organised religions, because like Wicknight said it's pretty clear that people are just 'making sh1t up', and framing the whole thing to suit their own fears/wishes/biases etc.

The possibilty of there having been some sort of creator is one that can't be dismissed outright, and we may never know either way. But the possibility of any of the main religions being correct is as near to zero as makes no odds, so I'm confident that they're just a human invention to satisfy human needs and have no basis in reality.

axer

So aethiests do not reject the idea of a god/creator just the god that humans have created to satisfy their point of view. That is pretty much what I believe.

Eoin5 I guess you are right, I am most likely an "agnostic atheist" then. I await the strange looks from people when it comes up in conversation.

Its a pity their is such a negative image associated with the word "atheist".

Thanks for your responses guys.

Zombrex

axer wrote: »

So aethiests do not reject the idea of a god/creator just the god that humans have created to satisfy their point of view. That is pretty much what I believe.

To me "god" has more meaning that simply creator. "God" is a human concept, a creature or creatures modeled on humans, beings that should be revered and worshiped and that explain various elements of what we don't understand in the concept of human-like agents that do things for human reasons. The Christian "God" is an example of this, but a better example would be Greek mythology. In Christianity you end up with a rather schizophrenic god, where as the Greeks were clever enough to attribute different aspects of nature and humanity with different gods.

If there is "something" out there beyond the universe that is response for its creation (and I see no reason to believe there is), I'm pretty certain humans have not idea what it is or that it exists or not. Gods are an entirely different concept altogether. It is only in recent times that people have tried to marry the idea of a god with concepts like the universe and the big bang. Before that gods lived in the clouds.

Akrasia

Wicknight wrote: »

To me "god" has more meaning that simply creator. "God" is a human concept, a creature or creatures modeled on humans, beings that should be revered and worshiped and that explain various elements of what we don't understand in the concept of human-like agents that do things for human reasons. The Christian "God" is an example of this, but a better example would be Greek mythology. In Christianity you end up with a rather schizophrenic god, where as the Greeks were clever enough to attribute different aspects of nature and humanity with different gods.

If there is "something" out there beyond the universe that is response for its creation (and I see no reason to believe there is), I'm pretty certain humans have not idea what it is or that it exists or not. Gods are an entirely different concept altogether. It is only in recent times that people have tried to marry the idea of a god with concepts like the universe and the big bang. Before that gods lived in the clouds.

+1

Even if there is a creator entity. It is extremely unlikely that it has any more of a relationship with us as individuals (or as a species) than a lab techician has with a bacterial culture in a petri dish

Galvasean

Arabel wrote: »

I have seen no proof that there is a massive lion in my attic so I'm not going to call the zoo just yet. If I hear footprints and growling then I may believe in the lions existance.

I'd e amazed if you heard footprints.

edit: For the record I think there is more chance of a lion living in your attic than there is of God existing. Bear in mind I've never been to your house. For all I know you don't even have an attic!
That pretty much sums up how unlikely I find this whole 'God' thing.

limerick_woody

Thus in my mind they (christians etc & aethiests) are one and the same i.e. believing in something that lacks proof.

is that fair thought?

I don't think this is a fair thought.

I don't 'believe' that there is no god in the same way that a theist believes there is. I simply see absolutely no evidence to make me think that there is and the theist accepts it on faith. At the drop of a hat, if proof arrived i would accept the existance of God as truth immediately. This proof wouldn't even have to be hard for an omnicient being. For example he/she/it could appear before me and tell me, or any prediction in the scriptures that mentioned the dna molocule, or indeed anything that couldnt' have been known a thousand years ago. A cure for smallpox would have been useful long before it was 'revealed' to us. The theist' position for me is intellectually bankrupt and lazy.

An Fear Aniar

axer wrote: »

Hi all,

I am agnostic (I am pretty sure) and have recently just begun the process of leaving the catholic church because I don't believe we can know, at least at present (and am 99% we can never prove), whether there is (a) god(s) or not.

[rant]
I'm all in favour of you walking away from mumbo jumbo religions but what makes you think God is a catholic?

For me God is.

That's all there is to say.

All those religionists are forcing the idea of God into their puny human understanding. Don't ever hope to understand God, that's trying to be God.

If you adopt an open attitude and a willingness to be accepting of the idea that there might be a God, things can start to happen for you. It's not necessary to be holy, God already knows you, there's no need to pretend, or to be fearful.

It just makes me sad when I see this spiritual poisoning, that I suffered from myself.

[/rant]



.

aidan24326

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

For me God is.

That's all there is to say.

Which you must admit isn't saying a whole lot is it?

axer

limerick_woody wrote: »

For example he/she/it could appear before me and tell me

and how could you be sure it is not schizophrenia or some other mental condition? Oh oh, I am starting to sound like all those athiests

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

[rant]
I'm all in favour of you walking away from mumbo jumbo religions but what makes you think God is a catholic?

I don't think god is Catholic. Actually that is just about the one thing I am most sure of.

Akrasia

axer wrote: »

and how could you be sure it is not schizophrenia or some other mental condition?

That would be the most likely cause of such an aparition. One needs to find independent evidence outside of your own personal psyche which wouldn't be very hard for a god to provide.
If he created a 100 foot tall human and sent him walking across the continent of europe performing miracles all along the way, followed by a media circus, that would constitute very strong evidence for a supernatural entity.

axer

Akrasia wrote: »

If he created a 100 foot tall human and sent him walking across the continent of europe performing miracles all along the way, followed by a media circus, that would constitute very strong evidence for a supernatural entity.

Except if you thought that was happening due to your schizophrenia e.g. you are watching it "live" on television!

eoin5

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It just makes me sad when I see this spiritual poisoning, that I suffered from myself.

I think spiritual poisoning is very harsh. I think you can explore your spirituality without having to believe in anything in particular.

pH

axer wrote: »

So aethiests do not reject the idea of a god/creator just the god that humans have created to satisfy their point of view. That is pretty much what I believe.

Then by most common definitions you are an atheist. The word Theist describes someone who believes in a personal, intervening, rule-giving type of God (Christianity, Islam etc), and at its simplest the word atheist means "not-theist". By this definition all agnostics are atheists.

I also think that "belief" in God isn't necessarily the most important thing here, better questions to split atheists from theists are to do with worship of a God, or perhaps if they believe they know what God wants or feel he intervenes in our lives. Belief in God's "existence" - Yes - No - maybe - theist - atheist - agnostic is a very simplistic way of looking at this.

Malari

axer wrote: »

Its a pity their is such a negative image associated with the word "atheist".quote]

Do you find that being an atheist has negative connotations? How so? I think it's a perfectly reasonable position and much easier to explain and back up your arguments for so being than if you were religious.

extopia

Atheism is not the "belief" that there is no God.

Atheists look for the evidence, see that there is none, and conclude that God does not exist.

It is not necessary to have an alternative proof for the creation of the Universe (for example) to discount God. There is simply no evidence, and that's enough.

Atheism is a rational conclusion, not a belief system (i.e. religion) in itself.