Ask an atheist

[Clement]

This is a different question to the one I was answering though, and it's one I'm not really interested in answering because I have no desire to "convert" anyone. I'm sure there are already lots of posts in this thread about the burden of proof and whatnot, so there's no real point in me saying it all again.

Indeed, i don't claim god exists.

Technically I will agree that are correct in that it can't be 100% discounted, but that isn't the point.

It is of importance to me, i cannot take absolutism seriously in any field, because there are no area's in which we are completely knowledgeable.

The point is that there isn't the slightest suggestion to think that there might have been an intelligent creator, and so whether or not this can be 100% discounted is a question that should only be of interest to philosophers or other people who enjoy tying themselves in mental knots for no real purpose.

There could be reasons, not leaving any stone unturned and testing idea's are good enough reasons for me.

I can't 100% discount that the universe wasn't started by a farting goat that lived in the previously existing universe that was made of orange peel, but I don't think you'd waste your breath trying to make me justify myself if I talked as if I knew that that didn't happen. You might even be willing to consider it as "patently absurd" yourself, even without 100% proof.

Indeed, but tell me, what are the chance percentages of the universe being started by a farting goat, and what are the chances of it being started by a being that could actually have the power to do so? what even, are the chance percentages of the universe just willing itself into existence from a flat-line?

Whatever those percentages may be, either in favour of one or the other, i would bet they probably aren't equal chances once life's unanswered questions are taken into account.

From a scientific point of view, the initial question to ask is not "can this be 100% discounted", but "is there any reason why I should even suspect this to be the case". Only if the answer to that is "yes" do you even bother to start to investigate it. Unless, as previously stated, you like to debate questions like the one about trees in the forest falling when no-one's around. Interesting little philosophical debates if you like that sort of thing, but not really much to do with actually working out how the world works.

In your opinion, because in my own opinon philosophical thought can get very deep indeed, much deeper than someone like me could handle, i think it is a great exercise that can uncover very interesting idea's and not of little importance to our daily lives.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Indeed, but tell me, what are the chance percentages of the universe being started by a farting goat, and what are the chances of it being started by a being that could actually have the power to do so? what even, are the chance percentages of the universe just willing itself into existence from a flat-line?

You can't work out the odds because there is no information from which to work them out. Replace my farting goat with a farting magical goat and I would argue that, as far as anyone can say, there is exactly the same chance of a farting magical goat being responsible as there is for a God to be responsible. In fact you could argue that they are exactly the same thing.

But anyway, I can't be 100% sure that Brazil exists as I've never been there, but does that make it reasonable to suspect it doesn't? I can't be 100% sure that anything I have ever seen or heard or touched or read actually exists as I can only experience the world through my own flawed senses, but does that make it reasonable to suspect that nothing I have ever seen or heard or touched or read doesn't exist? There are an infinite number of things that I can't disprove 100%, but nearly all of them (or an infinite amount of them, if you want to get into a debate about what infinity actually is) I have no reason to suspect in the first place. If we demand 100% proof or disproof for every single thing we ever hear of then we would never have time to actually do anything. To me, "God" exists in that hazy cloud of infinite unproveable and unsuspected things that include farting magical goats, sentient blocks of chalk called Ian living on the Moon and 12-headed warrior-maidens from beyond the stars that it's simply a waste of time to even start to consider without the slightest shred of evidence. Things that I would label as "patently absurd", even if I can't 100% disprove their existence. After all, the word absurd would be pretty useless if that would be the only circumstance in which I was allowed to use it, as it's not really possible to 100% disprove anything at all if you're going to push the extremes of logical and philosophical counter-argument.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

, as it's not really possible to 100% disprove anything at all if you're going to push the extremes of logical and philosophical counter-argument.

No offence, but if I understand it correctly, then there is a possibility of slight chance that you are actualy magical farting goat made of orange peel?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Goats can't type - their hooves are too big.

 

[Clement]

You can't work out the odds because there is no information from which to work them out. Replace my farting goat with a farting magical goat and I would argue that, as far as anyone can say, there is exactly the same chance of a farting magical goat being responsible as there is for a God to be responsible. In fact you could argue that they are exactly the same thing.

But anyway, I can't be 100% sure that Brazil exists as I've never been there, but does that make it reasonable to suspect it doesn't? I can't be 100% sure that anything I have ever seen or heard or touched or read actually exists as I can only experience the world through my own flawed senses, but does that make it reasonable to suspect that nothing I have ever seen or heard or touched or read doesn't exist? There are an infinite number of things that I can't disprove 100%, but nearly all of them (or an infinite amount of them, if you want to get into a debate about what infinity actually is) I have no reason to suspect in the first place. If we demand 100% proof or disproof for every single thing we ever hear of then we would never have time to actually do anything. To me, "God" exists in that hazy cloud of infinite unproveable and unsuspected things that include farting magical goats, sentient blocks of chalk called Ian living on the Moon and 12-headed warrior-maidens from beyond the stars that it's simply a waste of time to even start to consider without the slightest shred of evidence. Things that I would label as "patently absurd", even if I can't 100% disprove their existence. After all, the word absurd would be pretty useless if that would be the only circumstance in which I was allowed to use it, as it's not really possible to 100% disprove anything at all if you're going to push the extremes of logical and philosophical counter-argument.

The chance percentages of god existing and the chance of Brazil existing are different of course and far easier to come to terms with as we are pretty sure that brazil does exist through much human corroboration, to both you and me (i assume) the chances of brazil existing are higher than that of god existing.

However, that is one specific scenario, we are talking about the the coming into existence of the universe itself, a mysterious event we definitely cannot verify yet and in which different chance percentages must be involved when taking into account how it came to be, percentages we just cannot guess which makes comparing different possible causes, whether they be considered absurd or not an impossible thing to do.

To my way of thinking, the chances of a recognisable animal or caricature that we know cannot exist in space being responsible for the universe's creation are far less than a super-being having a hand in it as it would be more likely to have the power to do so, even if the chances of that super-being existing are already very low.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Goats can't type - their hooves are too big.

its magical

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

To my way of thinking, the chances of a recognisable animal or caricature that we know cannot exist in space being responsible for the universe's creation are far less than a super-being having a hand in it as it would be more likely to have the power to do so, even if the chances of that super-being existing are already very low.

That. But also what if the super-being claiming omnipotence and omnipresence was actualy deliberately beyond the reach of our mental faculties as it is beyond the reach of our senses. Should not we aproche it by some other means?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

To my way of thinking, the chances of a recognisable animal or caricature that we know cannot exist in space being responsible for the universe's creation are far less than a super-being having a hand in it as it would be more likely to have the power to do so, even if the chances of that super-being existing are already very low.

We have no idea what the odds are in either case of a magical space goat existing or an ill-defined super-being existing, and we can't know the odds without more information which we don't have, therefore it's a false statement to say that either is more likely than the other, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter.

That statement about me not being 100% sure of the existence of Brazil was a separate statement and I wasn't comparing the odds of that.

 

[Clement]

That. But also what if the super-being claiming omnipotence and omnipresence was actualy deliberately beyond the reach of our mental faculties as it is beyond the reach of our senses. Should not we aproche it by some other means?

Thats an interesting thought, science and the search for god would have to part ways, as in that situation we couldn't try to use science as a tool to find god, would be like the little men in one of peter molyneux's god simulations trying to reach him from their own pixelated existence in the world he made for them, god as peter molyneux, now there's an image

We have no idea what the odds are in either case of a magical space goat existing or an ill-defined super-being existing, and we can't know the odds without more information which we don't have, therefore it's a false statement to say that either is more likely than the other, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter..

yes i agree with that, but what is somewhat arguable there is what exactly different people are willing to see as an indication if not proof, of either the goat or god having started the universe, there are other factors that could possibly be taken into acount when thinking of chance percentages regarding that scenario by some people that may be rightly or wrongly dismissed by others, such as some of the universe's un-answered and more mysterious questions.

 

[Gogf]

Do you consider being an atheist to be an important part of your identity?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

No. The only thing being an atheist says about me is that I don't believe in the supernatural. It says nothing else about who I am as a person. However, I must say that being an athiest (and therefore a minority) where I live seems to automatically attach more meaning to being an atheist than it should. I also take strength, pride, and comfort that I am not a slave to the whims of any supernatural forces.

 

[emzie]

Do you consider being an atheist to be an important part of your identity?

Not directly. It's a consequence of things I do consider to be important.

 

[Fr8monkey]

Do you consider being an atheist to be an important part of your identity?

For me, it isn't like all I do and all I think is; "I need to prove there is no God...". I just am and go through life like that.

Just like there are "fundamentalists" on both sides; there are others that just go through life following what they think is right.

 

[Theov]

Do you consider being an atheist to be an important part of your identity?

Not believing in unicorns is not important for anyone.
It's just that quite a lot of people believe in gods that it makes it a deal.

 

[Ayatollah So]

On the topic of Free Will, I don't suppose anyone has a working definition of that, do they?

Sure. When a conscious, intelligent creature imagines multiple courses of action and rationally evaluates them, that is called choice. When this evaluation causes a suitable action, that is called free will. (These are sufficient conditions, not necessary ones.) The rationality in "rationally evaluates" need not be perfect, but the creature needs to have some substantial tendency to be rational sometimes, and the particular occasion needs to bring the creature's A game, or at least its B game. In situations where it would be rational for the creature to follow a policy of, in these situations acting on whim, acting on whim counts as an A game. There are degrees of free will; it's not binary yes/no.

You're alive right now, aren't you?

Thats why i said philosophically speaking there is a me, because the sum parts make up the whole, technically though there isn't a me

In that case please speak philosophically rather than technically. Technical-speak sounds like poor communication skillz.

 

[LucyDuke]

Do you consider being an atheist to be an important part of your identity?

When I was fifteen I did. Now for the most part I don't even like to talk about it very much. What causes it, the whole needing good reasons to believe stuff, that's a pretty important part of my identity, but not one of the conclusions it's led to, that's not really important.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Do you consider being an atheist to be an important part of your identity?

In a way, yes. I set myself against the god I believed in months before I started questioning the veracity of religion's claims and the existence of deities. I looked at the god I'd been raised to believe in, realized how vile and wretched it was, and determined I'd go to hell before worshipping it. For me, setting myself against this god was a way of saying that my private principles were more important than this god's dictates. I would not abide by murder, torture, and similar abuses. In the 5-6 years that I have followed, I have learn to rely more on my own judgment and values, to the point that my political beliefs have developed a distinct anarchist edge.

 

[Gogf]

In a way, yes. I set myself against the god I believed in months before I started questioning the veracity of religion's claims and the existence of deities. I looked at the god I'd been raised to believe in, realized how vile and wretched it was, and determined I'd go to hell before worshipping it. For me, setting myself against this god was a way of saying that my private principles were more important than this god's dictates. I would not abide by murder, torture, and similar abuses. In the 5-6 years that I have followed, I have learn to rely more on my own judgment and values, to the point that my political beliefs have developed a distinct anarchist edge.

What religion were you?

 

[Smellincoffee]

What religion were you?

My parents' church was founded by the United Pentecostal Church International. The four labels they like to use most are Apostolic/Pentecostal/Holiness/Oneness.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Do you consider being an atheist to be an important part of your identity?

Nope. Hardly ever registers outside of discussing it here.