Explain why you dont beileve in god if your athiest.

[brennan]

That is not what i'm saying strawman boy.

 

[Sidhe]

That is not what i'm saying strawman boy.

'Swhat it sounds like, basically your proof that God does not exist is that some people ascribe odd attributes to him? If that's not what you meant kindly explain it. And while your at it explain why you think Fred's argument a better/more logical argument than agnosticism? Based on what line of reasoning? Was it his own self defeating ending which destroys his own argument? Or was it the clever use of words to convey > than or more consistent with out actually having done so. I'm keen to understand why something that is essentially fairly meaningless and without logical merit has got so many people enraptured? It reminds me of a one of those charismatic evangellic preachers to be frank. It's not so much what you say but how you say it: Praise JESUS!!!

 

[mdwh]

Atheism is not "I do not believe in God." It is, "I believe there is no God." Atheism is, ironically, a faith system itself.

Not true.

I used to call myself an atheist until I heard Madalyn Murry O'Hare interviewed. She defended the concept of 'no God' just as ardently as any deeply religious person defends the concept of 'God'. It is (IMHO) pretentious preposterous for a human being to claim absolute knowledge of the cosmos, regardless if that claim is that God definitely exists or definitely does not.

So if I made stupid arguments about how ghosts couldn't possibly exist, this would mean you'd start believing in ghosts?

The Agnostic response to "Does God exist?" is some form of "I don't know."

Correct.

Theism = Belief in a God (Greek again, I think, but not sure)

a- = a prefix indicating negation, the opposite of

Atheism = The belief no god exists.

Nope, the negation of believing in God is just that - not believing in God.

The Atheistic response to "Does God exist" is some form of "Nuck fo!"

It might be, or it might be "I don't know", or perhaps "Maybe but probably not".

The relevant question here is "Do you believe in God" - an atheist answers "No".

Agnosticism is a separate issue to atheism, I don't know why people consider it to be some 3rd state in limbo between theism and atheism. One can be both.

If I said "Do you believe in ghosts?" it would be a simple yes or no - there wouldn't be people going out of their way to say they are fence-sitters - that they don't believe, but that they "don't disbelieve" either, and that somehow people who don't believe have faith and are just as irrational as those who do believe.

 

[skadistic]

600,000 years ago did mans ancester worship gods? If so what gods? If not why not? When was the first god worshiped? What was it/they called? What did it/they represent?


Not rhetorical questions. And I don't want philosophical answers either. Can any one honestly truthfully answer?

 

[brennan]

If someone describes their God to me as a logical impossibility then I can safely say 'Your God does not exist'. To defend the possible existence of such a God goes beyond the 'you don't know for sure' argument into the realms of pure sophistry. I feel quite comfortable with the logic of stating the non-existence of such an entity with the same certainty that I can say there is no such thing as a blue frog that is red. If it's existence is logically impossible, it cannot be.

If you back down to a slightly more reasonable God, then I cannot indeed absolutely rule out the possibility that such an entity exists. But in the face of a fairly overwhelming lack of evidence, and the realisation that the whole hypothesis only gets the lip-service it does because it's an idea that has hung around infecting peoples' minds for a couple thousand years, the idea is palpably laughable.

Theist arguments boil down to the risible 'unmoved mover' and 'uncaused causer' and an emotional argument about there having to be a reason for existence. Neither argument has the slightest merit logically, and indeed the nature of the universe appears to contradict the very observations that these arguments are founded on - the ideas that creation is not a property of the universe itself becomes roadkill when we observe particles popping in and out of existence all around us and the suggestion that the universe is 'designed' to suit us is obvious nonsense. Most of it is totally inhospitable, consisting as it does of a vacuum.

No, the God Hypothesis deserves no attention at all. Let it die.

 

[El_Machinae]

600,000 years ago did mans ancester worship gods? If so what gods? If not why not? When was the first god worshiped? What was it/they called? What did it/they represent?


Not rhetorical questions. And I don't want philosophical answers either. Can any one honestly truthfully answer?

Maybe this?

Africa's San people may have used a remote cave for ceremonies of python worship as much as 70,000 years ago—30,000 years earlier than the oldest previously known human rites—the team says.

"The level of abstract thinking within the peoples of [this period] and the continuity of their cultural patterns is proving to be astonishing for such an early date," said Sheila Coulson, an archaeologist at Norway's University of Oslo.

A lot of experts believed that humanity's ability for abstract thought (pictures, writing, etc.) occured much later.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061222-python-ritual.html

 

[skadistic]

Maybe this?



A lot of experts believed that humanity's ability for abstract thought (pictures, writing, etc.) occured much later.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061222-python-ritual.html

Interesting read. Not exactly conclusive but an interesting view.

I think abstract thinking and then religion came soon after control over fire. The use of fire as a protecterant at night and cooking properties to allow a more diverse and protine rich diet greatly redused stress. That reduction of always being on edge gave way to a more complex imagination wich in turn gave way to assigning answers to questions like what makes it rain with the stuff like the Dik Dik god. When this happened I have no idea.

 

[FredLC]

But although you have no substance or proof you say that your view has more merit than another, based on what? This is the problem atheism comes up against when it's argued as a better view, based on what?

I don’t need substance or proof, Sidhe. Only positive claims need to be proved. Negative claims do not, unless there is previous proof of the positive, which is not the case here.

It’s based on the remarkably reasonable conclusion that something that can’t be seen, heard, tasted or felt in any objective way does not have objective existence. Remarkably reasonable indeed, whether you like it or not.

Are you saying that only that which has been witnessed can ever be true? Or that because you haven't seen it it is less likely to be true, or does not exist, because none of those tennants are logically tenable.

No. Only that what have not been witnessed cannot be presumed. It’s evident the absurdity of factoring in as “assumption of existence”.

this is an argument for rationalisization not for atheism. You have never studied quantum mechanics obviously. At the heart of everything is an inability to percieve the true nature of matter. If it's simple' it's doing a remarkable job of comlicating everything.

Actually, my knowledge of quantum mechanics, while evidently crude, is probably not much worst than yours. And because of that, I feel rather comfortable to say two things: First, evidence is showing that quantum particles appear and disappear randomly apparently without cause (what opens to the conclusion that all the matter/energy of the universe having appeared without any cause whatsoever may not be as absurd as it originally sounds); and, second, that our presets (like nothing come out of nothing) of experience can be changed, but with new and contradicting experience.

Things that common sense calls on can be wrong, than? Yup, like matter, energy coming out of nowhere. But it has been witnessed, while “God” hasn’t – and if you are willing to go to a Lab, it can be reproduced. This is the realistic nature of induction which God lacks. Quantum mechanics diminishs the “need” of God, actually, for suggesting the viability of a headless start, so evoking it does not takes you further ahead into defending your argument that the “God” thesis deserves one iota of credit.

This is an assumption based on doubt, I fail to see how that makes it a more valid argument than agnosticism

Fail being the key word in the sentence. Anyway, it’s not an assumption as much as it is an extrapolation – ordinary things, ordinary starts, as it has been every time the investigation succeeds. Different conclusions need a proof that don’t exist in this case.

Huh? Who cares? My view is that their is no proof either way, with which to make a logical conclusion. God is neither spawned nor banished to non existence by my view.

Yes, I get that. You refuse to value experience. This is the core of our disagreement, really, isn’t it? What makes the rest of our debate irrelevant?

In the end, this is all that matters. In the subject of God, the theists trusts their subjective experience; the agnostics trusts no experience at all; the atheists, their objective experience. What is the wisest choice, I believe, is something we aren’t prone to agree on.

No simply we must not dismiss something if we have no proof as not existing, just that we have no basis of judgement. One of the founding principals of both logic and science. And one it is impossible to get around with denial.

As Carl Sagan said, and I agree, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”; in that much, we can concur. Science, however, does not factor in absent factors, and, as the principle of parsimony shows, also rejects needlessly complicated alternatives. God falls within this scope. I hardly doubt that your actual “factoring in’ of an arbitrary thesis (such as God) as an alternative can, as you suggest, be regarded as a behavior in line with due scientific excrutination. At the very best, science accepts God just as I do – does not state a blanket denial, but excerpt it from any development whatsoever – a meaningless philosophical doubt.

Logic is different. Anything can be proved through sheer logic as long as the pertinent paradigms are accepted. In this here we can’t actually argue, for we have diffetent paradigms to begin with – yours, that anything but a hard proof merits a conclusion; mine, that centuries of human experience have shown how to attrib value to both objective and subjective experience, and allows reasonably for a conclusion.

Pretty diagnosed, this is our axiomatic dissent. And, again, one, which’s wisdom have to be decided personally by each eventual reader.

I think you should understand that when I said replacing one doubt based logical system with a doubt based belief system is not a more reasoned argument, to say so is meaningless. But your entire argument revovles around doing just that, by your own means you render your own argument worthless at the end.

You can poof and shout, but my house won’t fall, for it’s made of bricks. Call it “believe” if it suits you, Sidhe, really do. But you are mistaken. I don’t positively believe that “there is no god”, my atheism is a negative worldview, based on the lack of reasonability of the "God" thesis. All in all, IMHO, more believe is necessary in agnosticism, where an absurd has to be accepted as minimally credible – and this is what renders your argument ultimately worthless at the end.

ascribing possibilities and claiming that something does not exist are two very different things. However how can you ascribe possibility with a straight face to something philosophical such as Should I beleive in God or does God exist, that is irational. In science I have actual tangible evidence with which I can after many many repetitions assign a possibility to. If I toss a coin it has two sides, possibility 1 in 2 of getting heads. Where do you place god's existence or lack of here? What 1 in 10?

No, it’s not. Ascribing probabilities means exactly making a conscientious decision of what exists and what doesn’t based on experience. What is irrational is to disregard that and refuse to conclude. Come on now, you have said yourself that you are an agnostic regarding from the likes of God, Agnostious, and the flying spageth monster. While you go around consider the possibility of a noodle which created live and is decorated with meaty appendages, I simply say “show me anything to substantiate that, or I won’t factor it in”.

Again, deciding where absurdity lies, I’ll, one more time, leave it to the prudent judgement of our readers.

So you acknowledge he exists then? Prove it.

Actually, I don’t. But since it's absurdity appears to have no effect on your disposition to indulge, you may as well humor me.

Regards .

 

[Sidhe]

Nothing you have said makes atheism a more rational or valid theory than agnosticism. It just makes it a difference of opinion. I really fail to see the philosophical value of a over b being anything more than complicated by your rhetoric, or substituted with assumption based ideas, essentially you could replace agnosticism with atheism in your argument and with a few phrase changes make the same argument for agnosticism, if people want to substitute one lack of belief for another belief fine, but don't dress it up as more logically consistent without anything more than philosophical opinion to go on. Basically atheism is a method of viewing the world, agnosticism is a method of not making judgements without proof. One is more logical to my mind, but better or worse? Completely meaningless.

 

[FredLC]

Wow, that was fast.

I know, I have disgnosed myself that our dissent is axiomatic, and axioms are political decisions - strictly opinative. Obviously, I consider that a better judgement lies in atheism, and you don't. I can live with people disgreeing with me. Nonetheless, You can consider agnosticism, better if you want, sire, just don't call "extrapolation" "believe", for they differ entirely.

It's in that misrepresentation of what I, and many like me, actually think, that I can't settle with your last post, really, buddie.

Regards .

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Many times I hear the atheist vs agnostic argument, but how about turning the tables. Many theists themselves can be considered agnostics

Agnosticism:
"Belief that the existence of God cannot be proven; that in the nature of things the individual cannot know anything of what lies behind or beyond the world of natural phenomena. The term was coined 1869 by T H Huxley. Whereas an atheist denies the existence of God or gods, an agnostic asserts that God or a First Cause is one of those concepts (others include the Absolute, infinity, eternity, and immortality) that lie beyond the reach of human intelligence, and therefore can be neither confirmed nor denied."

Many theists agree that God cannot be confirmed nor denied because it's a matter of faith. "God works in mysterious ways". Since the belief in God is a personal one and not a scientific one, the definition above can be applied to some theists as well.

It's all a matter of greyscaling. There are no pure atheists or theists. Stretch the definition far enough and only agnostics remain. Which immediatly invalidates the term.

 

[Sidhe]

I precisely said that better or worse is meaningless, I said more logically consistent. I think the crux of the issue is that you have asserted that one philosophy is better than the other without actually backing it up, philsophical thinking is unlikely to be radically altered by arguments such as this.

I say it's impossible to say better or worse without something tangible to work with. Essentially the two arguments are allied but only differentiate on what someone believes. I believe that I cannot find proof of something not existing so it doesn't exist is not logically consistent, you believe it is. I see no distinct or tangible reason to shout this theory of rationality as being a better one from the roof tops.

Agreeing to disagree appears to be the best idea that's come from this thread so far

 

[warpus]

I see no distinct or tangible reason to shout this theory of rationality as being a better one from the roof tops.

How about the hypothesis that things which have no evidence for their existence have a low probability of existing?

I mean, they may exist, but it is just very improbable. That makes sense to me, and I consider myself to be an agnostic leaning towards atheism.

 

[Sidhe]

How about the hypothesis that things which have no evidence for their existence have a low probability of existing?

I mean, they may exist, but it is just very improbable. That makes sense to me, and I consider myself to be an agnostic leaning towards atheism.

From a scientific viewpoint or philosophical one this would be more logical, although in this question you can't really asssign a probability as such. almost no chance however is better than no chance, and I cannot make a valid reasoned conclusion with no evidence is probably more logically consistent still. But in the end it breaks down to what you are prepared to believe or not believe based on the evidence at hand. Neither agnosticism or atheism are without their merits.

 

[toh6wy]

Similarly to what others have said, I don't find the idea of deities or "higher powers" to be very likely at all, just like I don't find the ideas of leprechauns, dragons, or the FSM to be very likely. While I do remain open to the (IMO extremely slight) possibility that I am wrong, I go about my life as though none of these things exist.

 

[ComradeDavo]

What started the big bang?

Just to pick up on this pacific point, I don't know for sure and I don't think any human will know for sure any time soon. To speculate, I think that the big bang came from nothing. How did that happen? Well it's more that it had to happen. If it hadn't of happened then we wouldn't be here and there would be nothing. So something had to happen. It didn't need to be started by anything, it just had to be.

I think alot of people can't comprehend this, and thus say that God had to have made everything. I never get an answer about what made God though.

The universe was not made by a pacific entity. The universe just was. It had to be. It had to be because if it wasn't then we would not be here.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I don't believe anything untill it is somewhat proven. All the evidence for god is a series of books writen a few hundred years later by people trying to convert others. I mean you can't even trust a journalist about what happend yesterday.

 

[Bill3000]

From a scientific viewpoint or philosophical one this would be more logical, although in this question you can't really asssign a probability as such. almost no chance however is better than no chance, and I cannot make a valid reasoned conclusion with no evidence is probably more logically consistent still. But in the end it breaks down to what you are prepared to believe or not believe based on the evidence at hand. Neither agnosticism or atheism are without their merits.

The probability is a bit arbitary, but inductive reasoning works on probabilities. All inductive reasoning has its premises merely supporting the conclusion, and thus the truth of the conclusion is a measure of probability. (which doesn't necessarily have to be measured) Only deductive reasoning deals in absolutes; that is, the truth of the premises guarentee the truth of the conclusion. Most reasoning is inductive; the scientific method is inductive, not deductive.

The measure of probability of this case is not assigned by some mathematical formula, but through nonempirical arguments and evidence, Since there is no empirical evidence.

 

[Sidhe]

That's what I've been saying all along, pitty I didn't sum it up that concisely but in essence, you can't assign mathematical probability in what is a philosophical argument was stated a while back. This is not a scientific debate if it was then the answer would be quite simple: not enough data to reach a valid conclusion either way.

EDIT: Actually I think I made that point on the ask an agnostic thread. But anyway

 

[warpus]

That's what I've been saying all along, pitty I didn't sum it up that concisely but in essence, you can't assign mathematical probability in what is a philosophical argument was stated a while back. This is not a scientific debate if it was then the answer would be quite simple: not enough data to reach a valid conclusion either way.

EDIT: Actually I think I made that point on the ask an agnostic thread. But anyway

There is not enough data to determine whether invisible donuts exist either, but I'd say the probability is pretty low.

Given that no evidence for something exists, how can you say that anything but "Well, it could exist, but it's improbable" is a sensible position to take?