Why are you atheist?

[Camikaze]

Here I disagree with you. In theory I suppose I'm also an agnostic, since I can't exclude anything for sure. But to say atheism is just as likely as any religion is something completely disagree with. Do you really believe that the possibility that the Christian God exists, the flying spaghetti monster exists or that none of them exists are equal?

Okay, that's fair enough. My point is that saying that absolutely no God exists or could possibly exist is an assumption rather than a clear fact, just like atheists may argue any given religion is an assumption rather than a clear fact. The actual content of the specific religion is of course a factor that would make atheism seem much better in relative terms, but it does present quite a double standard.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

What I'm arguing against is atheism, or the acceptance of something that is impossible to prove due to the fact that the opposite is impossible to prove.

That's only because of the "proving a negative" is impossible without infinite knowledge. Unless you know literally everything, then there's no way to prove a negative. But that's just a technicality. Randomly create a fictional creature in your head right now, and be very creative and strange. Now, remember that it doesn't exist. You don't need to prove it; it just happens to be the truth. You'll never be able to prove that it doesn't exist, but you still seem to know it doesn't for the very reason that we're not god, and our imaginings don't become real on command.

Know what I mean?

 

[Camikaze]

That's only because of the "proving a negative" is impossible without infinite knowledge. Unless you know literally everything, then there's no way to prove a negative. But that's just a technicality. Randomly create a fictional creature in your head right now, and be very creative and strange. Now, remember that it doesn't exist. You don't need to prove it; it just happens to be the truth. You'll never be able to prove that it doesn't exist, but you still seem to know it doesn't for the very reason that we're not god, and our imaginings don't become real on command.

Know what I mean?

Well, yeah, that makes sense, but firstly, that's assuming that all Gods are creations of imagination rather than creation of logic (I'm guessing you covered that in your previous post), which is a rather shallow view of various religions, and secondly, still leaves the fact that atheism isn't the rejection of these so called figments of imagination, but the rejection of the basis of religion as a whole. Again, I'm not arguing against agnosticism here (which would be the result of the rejection of these figments of our imagination on a case by case basis), but against atheism, which uses as its basis that very thing which it rails against, albeit to more of a point of technicality.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, yeah, that makes sense, but firstly, that's assuming that all Gods are creations of imagination rather than creation of logic (I'm guessing you covered that in your previous post), which is a rather shallow view of various religions, and secondly, still leaves the fact that atheism isn't the rejection of these so called figments of imagination, but the rejection of the basis of religion as a whole. Again, I'm not arguing against agnosticism here (which would be the result of the rejection of these figments of our imagination on a case by case basis), but against atheism, which uses as its basis that very thing which it rails against, albeit to more of a point of technicality.

Ah, but was I speaking of religion itself... not necessarily. I was speaking of supernatural and mythological beings. Gods, demons, and such.

What of aspects of religion which are more.... tangible, or relevant, whichever you'd like to describe it? What about moral, religious philosophies.... such as a belief that it is always wrong to murder?

Does that have value? Do such premises give religions value? Yes. I can see mankind being focused on that debate. If one believes that there is a.... certain, objective morality in the universe; right and wrong, "good" and "evil", shades of gray, a greater good, and greater evils.... and some rational basis upon which to frame ethical and moral arguments, then yes, I see a point of religion, in this case religious philosophy.

The point about these moral stances being from a specific God though.... that's what mucks it up. And people tend to get stuck on the back-story and mythological narrative of Gods and prophets, rather than focusing on the message of the faith, which is how this deity of yours (the rhetorical you... not you specifically) wants you to behave. Which I would find rather important, considering the source.

Rather than focusing on whether Jesus was really the son of God, or which is the true successor to Mohammed, or whether or not the Bible is the literal word that must be obeyed, what of a philosophical debate involving what is morally right?

I personally find plenty of room for that in life. I honestly thing the whole God story is what is holding the rest of it back. Because once you say "It came from God, God said this" that becomes the red herring that people would rather argue over, than the content and worth of the message anyway.

Lots of good moral messages in religions. Some bad ones. I'd love to see the minds of man focusing on that aspect, rather than the mythological component. Because it seems obvious we'd never all agree on this deity or the mythology... why not focus more on the relevant message? That's the main point I'm driving at. The unanswerable questions about God should remain unanswered. Let's focus on what we mortal, flawed beings can manage: the ethical and moral aspects of our life.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Atheism still is and will always continue to be lack of believe in God(s). Atheism does not reveal whether the atheist makes absolute claims with regard to the existence of God.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Atheism still is and will always continue to be lack of believe in God(s). Atheism does not reveal whether the atheist makes absolute claims with regard to the existence of God.

Ah, I thought that was technically agnosticism.

There are people who claim it is a fact that there is absolutely no God, which can't be proven. Especially when there is a nebulous or nonexistent definition of God.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ah, I thought that was technically agnosticism.

It can be, the two aren't mutually exclusive. From my point of view anyway, there is some disagreement about that here. Which doesn't matter, as far as I'm concerned but it can be confusing sometimes when discussing it. Simply put:

I see no reason to believe in God, so I don't. I can't prove or disprove the existence of God, so I make no absolute statements about his/her/it's existence.

There are people who claim it is a fact that there is absolutely no God, which can't be proven. Especially when there is a nebulous or nonexistent definition of God.

Which is really the crux of the matter.

How do you define God?

 

[AesronDrosseli]

Spoiler :

Doubt is not the same as faith.

I doubt greatly there is any supernatural creature. I do not place faith or wagers on that, this is why I am an agnostic. I am not saying there is conclusive proof there is no God or gods. I am saying there's massive amounts of evidence that the kind of God man imagines is just his imaginings, primarily because he's imagining it, not actually witnessing it.

I will place an opinion on it though; in my opinion the idea of a God (such as the Biblical God) is beyond ludicrous. Especially as written in the text, because he's often contradictory, wrathful, jealous, hateful, racist, uncaring, misogynistic, and a mass murderer. He's also the embodiment of mercy, compassion, and infinite wisdom. And he will send you to hell forever if you do certain things. So, God is either a psychopath, or there are grave errors in the description of him in the bible.

Add to the fact that this book is written by ancient men, you can account for all of the wrathful, ignorant, unscientific, hateful, racist, uncaring, misogynistic behavior of God. Makes perfect sense if it comes from the imaginings or desires of ancient man. It also explains the historic and scientific inaccuracies.

It also explains the concept of hell; God is full of love, infinite power, infinite wisdom, infinite compassion, and his solution for a person who doesn't believe in him because he caused that person to be of a skeptical personality and therefore doesn't accept the fantastic story of him or his son, is to burn that person (his creation, mind you) forever. Even man is not so cruel and ignorant, callous and cold. That and thousands of other discrepancies show the Biblical god to be a fiction of man, in my view. Not a very advanced man, either.

Now, why only that God? Why not a God just like that, except with flowing white hair and no beard, instead of one with a beard?

-Essentially they are the same God, and the same fiction.

What about a God that doesn't have Jesus as a son?

-Changes one aspect of the fictional character, doesn't change the fictional nature of the character.

What about a seven-headed serpent that will come and devour the world on the 7th hour of the 7th day of the 7th month of the 7th year of the 7th millenia C.E.?

-As cartoonish and predictable as Wile E. Coyote. There's no reason to believe in this obviously fictional deity either.

What about Chaos, Uranus, Gaea? By the beard of Zeus, don't you believe in any of them?

-Why should I? These are all poorly conceived fictional characters, too. Though they make excellent fodder for Hercules and Xena television shows as well as video games.

What about gods from Lovecraftian (Cthulu) mythology?

-Why should I believe in a deity I know was conceived by man's imagination?

What about a nameless, faceless generic Creator... don't you believe in that?

-No... because then that runs into the problem of who created the creator, and what was he doing for ALL ETERNITY before creation happened. Especially since Eternity is so long a time that it isn't over yet and will never be over.... so if there is an Eternity that exists before the universe is created, the universe will never be created. So what began time; what created God? There's nothing that suggests a Creator poofed into existence. If that is the case, so can the universe also just poof into existence. No God required. And we are stretching the definition of God to suggest He is merely "that which began the universe". Then it might not be a God at all, but a natural event. It's certainly not conclusively or even compellingly a God.

There's nothing to suggest a God except man's imagination. And like all random thoughts I have in a given day (The Fire-Breathing Leprechaun is my own creation) I do not believe these are real deities that rule over me.

There's no proof, no reason, and it is rather vain of man to think that if there is such a being, he could comprehend such a thing, and speak with any authority on what it could possibly be. So especially when men say they know what God is, or they understand what God wants, I call that hubris.

The best answer is "I do not know" and "there's nothing suggesting it is so" when it pertains to the supernatural.

If you randomly imagined any god, any diety... surely you realize that there are literally endless other variants and configurations to what comprises this God. Why on Earth would one assume they have got God pictured correctly at all, if such a thing exists? And why would one presume that they know something exists when there's no evidence for it whatsoever?

The Great Fire-Breathing Leprechaun has a mythology of his own. He has a Great Magic Box that he hides inside, and that is why no one can see him. Inside this box with him are an unknown number of items. Either zero or any number.

Describe those items in detail.

Now, why would you assume you know what is inside the Great Magic Box? Why would you think you know that with any level of certainty that suggests you should spend more than a nanosecond of your life thinking about it?

Why would you turn it into a religion and teach others what you think you know about what is inside the Great Magic Box? Why would you dedicate your life to an entirely random, pulled-straight-from-one's-hindquarters GUESS.... and why would you presume you know enough about the contents of the Box to tell others their religion is incorrect, or their guess as to what is inside the Box is incorrect?

It's totally random. it's man's imagination.

You are essentially arguing, ah, what if man could guess what is inside the Magic Box that can never be opened, and describe its contents. What if someone could. What if they were right. What if they were absolutely, 100% right. Or, even partially right. What if they guessed the exact number of things in the box. What then?

Who cares? There's no proof. And still no reason to believe it. No rational mind should waste any more time thinking about it. Yet we have wasted THOUSANDS of years debating the existence of God, what he thinks, and what he wants for us, and what other supernatural beings exist. It's the most pointless, fruitless exercise I've ever seen. And the amount of suffering, hatred, and devastation, the holding back of scientific progress, and the handicapping and fracturing of mankind, based entirely on theories of God, has set humanity back untold generations, with losses of innocent lives, freedoms, and creativity totaling an unknown but staggeringly devastating amount.

Not even a tiny fraction of the time we've wasted on God has been dedicated to turning this world, this human civilization, into a better place. Instead of relegating the status of God and questions about the unknown to its rightful status as a daydream or a hobby, it has been one of the main focuses of the combined might of billions of minds, and the result has been absurd. Most of us disagree. Many of us fight over it. Nothing conclusive has been reached. And we will never, ever settle on who or what or if God is. What might have been a fun diversion and mental exercise has become the intellectual plague of mankind.

Since the odds of any one imaginary mythical beast being real are essentially zero, and there's no evidence for any of it, AND it's obviously our imagination since we have to come up with it ourselves, then it seems entirely logical to suggest "I don't know if it is real, but there's no reason to believe any of it is."

So God, along with an infinite number of other fictional creations, all get placed in the "creative, but useless" section. No 500-foot tall sheep who can travel through several dimensions.... no Invisible Pink Unicorns who are both invisible AND pink at the same time.... no flying Spaghetti Monster... no Fire-Breathing Leprechaun... no Jehovah.... no Santa Claus.... no angels, no demons, no hell. All of it, nothing more than our imagination.

Now, let us suggest, what if God were an alien creature, evolved from a distant planet, who traveled here and made the earth as a science project for school? Ah, now you're in the realm of still absurd, but in the realm of the natural world, even if it is science fiction. That's a theory, just as God is a theory. Well all hypothetical beings are theories of equal weight, without any supporting evidence.

I don't believe humanity was created by an alien being. Which is essentially what God would be, just phrased differently than is commonly stated. Where did the alien being come from? What created that? Who created that which came before that?



Because the probabilities are so greatly in my favor.

How can you be sure the Great Fire-Breathing Leprechaun doesn't exist? Well, it doesn't. I made it up. It's total fiction.

Odds of GFBL existing: as close to zero as mathematically possible.
Odds of GFBL being imaginary: as close to conclusively proven as a negative that can be possible.

I didn't just blindly guess the exact nature of the universe by inventing a fictional deity. The odds are against it. I'm not even done writing all the back-story for this absurd creation, so you know it's still wrong.

Now, the odds are basically the same for all imaginary deities, because they are the same as the Great Fire-Breathing Leprechaun. Without any evidence, you, a flawed mortal human being, with your limited (or my limited) cranial capacity, made the absurdly unlikely exactly correct guess as to the nature of something that is not of this universe; that is outside it, beyond it, superior to it. Right... An ant has an infinitely better chance of calculating the exact number of grains of sand there are in the universe.

That humanity thinks it can conjure up an image of something supernatural in their heads and then also think it is real... and I'm not talking about vehicles that can colonize human beings outside of the solar system, I'm not talking about anything with a rational scientific basis, I'm talking about an indescribably powerful being of pure fantasy, pure fiction, based on absolutely nothing. Then think they know this being exists, even though they just made it up.

The only way I can describe it is a disease of the mind.

And that's just it, everyone's interpretation or imagining of God is slightly different. Are we all correct? Does God look exactly like what Askthepizzaguy imagines it would be? Or is it more like Dave's God, in Butte, Montana? Or Long Chin Pao's 6-headed deity in Asia somewhere?

There's well over 6 billion of us. The odds are near zero that any of us are correct. And then you realize that only one of us would have the correct image of God in our heads, because we all imagine God slightly differently. So only one person, possibly, even remotely, could conceive of this God correctly. Everyone else is wrong.

You see that it is utterly ridiculous to place the non-existence of any god as a "leap of faith". It doesn't take a leap of faith to not believe in a 17-armed plasma-based creature from a dimension so alien from ours that we could never possibly imagine it, because we lack any familiar frame of reference with such a plane of existence. If that were what God was, we would never know, because it is beyond our imagination and comprehension. You factor that in with the stupefyingly ridiculous odds of successfully guessing that there is a God, and what it wants, and what its plans are, what it's nature is, and what it looks like... and you add on top of everything the fact that you probably are literally incapable of intelligently comprehending such a being, and it seems clear to me that man is deluding himself when he thinks he understands God, or knows there is one.

There is an inherent value to a hypothesis... if one tries to guess how many fingers someone is holding up, there is a reasonable assumption that one could eventually guess correctly.

If one tries to guess the exact date and time of the birth of someone now dead for two millenia, that might be possible, depending on how exact you want to be. It would be extraordinarily difficult.

If one tries to guess the exact distance between two random atoms in the universe, 100 years into the future from now, there is no reasonable expectation that you will EVER guess this distance. However, it is still possible. But what would be the point anyway?

If one tries to make a hypothesis about the nature of God, there is no reasonable expectation you will ever know a darned thing, ever. And, I might add, it's very, very likely that it is literally physically impossible because there just doesn't seem to be one, and it is exactly the sort of thing man's mind dreams up on a constant basis, none of it having any relevance. And then you add on the fact that there's no logical method of arriving at that conclusion.

To put it simply: God would have to prove its own existence, since man cannot. And since God is just another name for the creature of one's own unique imagination, out of billions of minds, in a universe too vast to comprehend, it's quite silly to think one has it right. Like all other absurd things, it's only rational to start off placing such concepts in the "No reason to believe it is true" bin. If something changes, then yeah, pull it out of the bin. But until then, I'd prefer to make hypotheses with a far better and real chance of being relevant.

Not all hypotheses and theories are conceived equally, after all. If there are things that don't exist, there is an endless number of such things. Our imaginings are a subset of those things which don't exist except in our heads, and hypotheses about imaginary things existing in the real world, especially when they are based on nothing but our own fantasies and desires, not evidence or even rational deduction, are very likely to be false.

You also have to consider how many other imaginary beings besides God we know are just fictional creations... why would God suddenly not be one of them? I honestly feel, at times, that God is the Santa Claus that adults can't bear to stop believing in.

If there were any way I could thank you for giving that fantastic exposition I would do so. And I'm being totally serious here.

However, throughout what you said you didn't touch on the one thing I would've expected you to. And that is on the subject of miracles. As I said in my unfortunately overshadowed answer just below your behemoth of a response, people claim that miracles do exist. People of the ancient world did claim that miracles happened.

Pillars of fire, the sun standing still in the sky, the parting of the Red Sea, just to name a few. It would seem as if that would be extremely convincing proof of the existence of a God.

Nowadays we still hear of miracles. Tumours being prayed over and disappearing when the next scan comes about, a guy's myopia immediately disappearing, people being cured of their paralysis. While they're of a less colossal scale, they'd still be impressive to witness no doubt. And there are so many people worldwide who seem to believe in the authenticity of these miracles.

Let me ask you now, if you were to see somebody who has been blind from birth, and you know that he's been blind from birth, cured when prayed over by some pastor in a church. Would you take that as proof of God's existence?

Purely a hypothetical, as it also sadly seems that despite all these testimonials, there's always at least a third degree of separation from the source you hear it from.

Edit: Perhaps even more pertinently, do you think that these miracles are all just mumbo jumbo?

 

[Munch]

Honestly, I'm surprised too, especially after what Elta told me. I'm wondering whether it's because I made it clear that I want constructive discussion. Or whether it's because there's a large non-believing population on CFC.

Or both. Whatever, I'm still quite glad.

A significant proportion of people here are not believers, perhaps even a majority. There have been a few 'what is your religion?' polls before so have a look for one of those to get an idea of demographics.

And.. You just don't believe? You mean.. Just like what Basketcase claimed, it's (an act of faith)?

I don't believe in any of the religious claims made by people/organisations. I don't believe in supernatural forces. I don't believe in souls, divinity, or revelation.

However I strongly disagree with the idea that it is an act of faith to take such a position. There is simply no reason to believe in anything supernatural; the only place where faith comes into play is when you assert, without evidence, that something does exist. To reject unfounded claims is not a faith position.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

If there were any way I could thank you for giving that fantastic exposition I would do so. And I'm being totally serious here.

However, throughout what you said you didn't touch on the one thing I would've expected you to. And that is on the subject of miracles. As I said in my unfortunately overshadowed answer just below your behemoth of a response, people claim that miracles do exist. People of the ancient world do claim that miracles happened.

Indeed.

The skeptical mind does what it always does with claims that seem unreasonable; it considers the possibility, the odds of likelihood. It doesn't seem likely.

Now, only an arrogant fool (and in spite of my firm stance on the absurdity of the supernatural, I like to think I know my own mortality and failings) would utterly discount the existence of that which is unknown or not understood. But it still depends on what that thing is.

Let us suppose for example that mathematicians and physicists are right and there's all sorts of dimensions we don't understand and can't quite comprehend intersecting with our present reality. So, we have the factor of something greater than our own imagination, as part of this hypothesis.

The exact effects of things which cross between dimensions, or... fill in the blank inconceivable phenomenon we presently don't understand, obviously, has unknown effects. And there's some math and physical evidence which tends to suggest such a thing is possible, if not proven. That's got more of a leg to stand on than say, Ghosts or spirits. (I still don't believe it... it's a theory, not a proven fact)

So we know there are aspects of our own everyday existence we are barely aware of and have trouble comprehending; fine.

But, I would suggest that something inexplicable that might happen could be a result of the physical world being not 100% understood by us, rather than the shot-in-the-dark instant, pre-packaged, religious guess explanation.

Miracles for example; firstly, if there were a man who could cure all blindness by the touch of a hand, the federal government of the united states would pay him a billion dollars a year to touch 365,000 people a year and save them. Obviously the man is smart enough to understand, if he can prove he is a miraculous man, he will get the support of society to help people en masse, not just in small settings where the entire set-up is rigged.

This is kind of like the "psychic detectives are real" fad. The real police department gets tips from supposed psychics all the time. 99.999% of them end up discarded, forgotten, or proven false. Then one person guesses... much like a horoscope, in a generic fashion, right about where things might be.... maybe he does it several times. Maybe he's been following the case. Maybe a friend tipped him off. Whatever. There are logical explanations for these things and numerous proven examples of fraud, committed constantly, and in the grand majority of cases.

Fact that eventually, statistics will show, someone will guess correctly on stuff, doesn't conclusively prove anything.

UFO sightings, possible. But most of these end up to be hoaxes. I also like how aliens invented technology and wasted untold resources to break the light barrier and make it all the way here, just to be mistaken for a weather balloon. This alien race is secretive, and though they like to leave telltale signs that they exist, they refuse to make direct contact. Uh huh.

Pillars of fire, the sun standing still in the sky, the parting of the Red Sea, just to name a few. It would seem as if that would be extremely convincing proof of the existence of a God.

sure, prove that it happened. I've heard of evidence suggesting that the Red Sea reached a low point at times, and sections of it were made dry, then wet again. But it would not have happened quickly enough to take out Pharaoh's armies. And there's no evidence of an army crossing either.

There's even new evidence suggesting that the Jewish people were never enslaved by the Egyptians at all, that those who built the pyramids were actually native africans, close to the pharaoh, and built it to honor him. Because their bodies were placed near their king, indicating great respect; something a slave wouldn't get.

There's obviously no Noah's ark. Think about it. How come the marsupials aren't distributed evenly over the Earth? Why are there species native only to the Americas that took billions of years to evolve... and were never native to Eurasia or Africa... how did they survive the flood? How did Noah "place two of every animal" when there's no possible way he could have walked the earth collecting all the species. They haven't all even been discovered yet.

Nowadays we still hear of miracles. Tumours being prayed over and disappearing when the next scan comes about, a guy's myopia immediately disappearing, people being cured of their paralysis.

And we also hear of hundreds of thousands dying, uncured. Where were their miracles? Just because a handful of people manage to survive what is diagnosed as terminal, that does not mean God intervened. There's also the body's natural ability to heal itself. It doesn't work in all cases, or even many cases, but things we didn't think were likely can happen. Like a metal spike going clear through someone's head and brain, and they still have reasonably good cognitive function and memory. These things are oddities only; they are not that impressive.

While they're of a less colossal scale, they'd still be impressive to witness no doubt. And there are so many people worldwide who seem to believe in the authenticity of these miracles.

A man jumps off of the Empire State building and is miraculously blown back onto the building by the wind. He tries again, and it keeps blowing him back. A miracle? Or just high wind velocity? Sure, he might think God was intervening. If so, why doesn't he just wait until the wind dies down, and jump again?

What of the thousands each year who die committing suicide? No miracles for them. No God that cared.

Let me ask you now, if you were to see somebody who has been blind from birth, and you know that he's been blind from birth, cured when prayed over by some pastor in a church. Would you take that as proof of God's existence?

No. I'd take it as proof that something unexplained happened.

It's quite a leap to suggest that God did it. Especially when there are no credible sources, and the "miracle" couldn't be repeated with a real blind patient I select at random from a hospital.

Not repeatable, not predictable, not reliable, not science. Not God, either. If someone has such a power, then why can't they use their power on everyone?

Urban myths and legends. And plenty of people who want you to believe it so badly that they'd make it up. Time and time again.

Purely a hypothetical, as it also sadly seems that despite all these testimonials, there's always at least a third degree of separation from the source you hear it from.

Magicians rarely allow you to see how they perform their tricks.





1. Were I able to perform miracles, you bet your butt I'd be doing it for tons of money, curing people en masse

2. Were I really psychic, you wouldn't call me. I'd call you and tell you there's a Carbon Monoxide leak in your home, saving your life. I'd never have to work again.

3. With the money I'd make performing miracles, I'd personally feed the entire population of a starving African country.

4. I'd prove it, conclusively, forever and ever, with scientists and media and repeatable, provable experiments.




If these folks believed in this God so much, wouldn't they settle it, conclusively?

Hoaxes, myths, superstitions. And plenty of money to be had, and plenty of power to be had, convincing people these things are real, when we know they aren't.

 

[Lillefix]

A significant proportion of people here are not believers, perhaps even a majority. There have been a few 'what is your religion?' polls before so have a look for one of those to get an idea of demographics.

From polls, I think the combined ratio of atheists and agnostics(A/A) here are around 70%. Why, I don't know. The Europeans draws the number of definitely, but there are more the American posters that are A/A than you would suspect. Perhaps it's because of the prevalent age group on the forum. But then again, the mentioned totalwarforums were much more religious, and I would expect them to be around the same age. Perhaps a bit younger.

 

[warpus]

Just to make a random general comment that doesn't apply to a lot of people in this thread; it seems that a lot of arguments for being an atheist are more arguments against being a follower of a certain religion. For instance, there is the argument that 'there is no proof of a being with a big beard up above the clouds'. But this does not exclude the possibility of a God existing; it just works as an argument against that particular interpretation of God not existing.

Because not too many people out there fall into the following category: "Yeah, I don't follow any of the established religions, but I believe that God exists anyway"

What is far more common is: "Yeah, I don't follow any of the established religions. As for a God out there somewhere, I don't know, and presently don't care"

Completely discounting the possibility of any deity, as opposed to a specific one, seems to be a rather large leap of faith, though. How can you be any more sure that no God's exist than someone else is that a particular God exists? Both are essentially merely hypotheses.

We haven't come across any Gods yet; it would be illogical to assume that one must exist out there somewhere, just cause.

Well, that's essentially what I'm arguing for. I'm saying that whilst agnosticism is something reasonable, I don't really think atheism is anymore reasonable than any given specific religion.

Depends. I'm a weak atheist as well as an agnostic. I would say that only strong atheism is somewhat unreasonable, and even so, I would argue that it is slightly more reasonable than the theistic position.

 

[lovett]

If someone said "induction is valid" I would expect evidence. Probably not as much evidence as in the case of God - cause to me induction makes perfect sense.

The point is there is no evidence. Yet you believe induction is valid; you show that by believing the sun will rise tomorrow.

"The sun will rise" is inductive?

1. All planets orbit their nearest star.

2. Earth is a planet and the sun is the nearest star.

3. Therefore, the earth will orbit the sun.

Looks deductive to me.

The first two points are inductive. Anyway, I really doubt your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is deductive. It's based on your experience of the sun rising every day in your life. Otherwise you would not believe that the sun will rise tomorrow before learning basic astrophysics.

I have to say that you're line of argument here is very weak. I'm not even really sure the two are comparable. Of course induction exists as a concept, and is routinely used to form what most people might call 'knowledge', but people can't really be said to believe in it, and nobody with even the most rudimentary education would claim that knowledge gained by induction is necessarily true. The fact that I routinely rely on calculated judgements based on induction which I've evolved to make so intuitively that I might not even realise it doesn't in the slightest trouble me philosophically. All the things I've ever learnt have led me to the ever stronger conclusion that many of the things that we 'know' are little more than highly evolved shortcuts. That doesn't make our 'knowledge' useless - it just teaches us that we should learn to deal with a little more uncertainty, and an educated individual should have learnt that lesson long before they've had time to consider the finer points of philosophy.

They are comparable in that 'God exists' and 'Induction is valid' are both propositions. Propositions which are presumably true or false. We believe the latter (always) but not the former. Neither are justified*. Yet our main reason for dismissing the former is that it lacks justification. We do not use this reason to dismiss induction. The question one must answer is why?

*Feel free to provide justification for induction. Your post alludes to what seems like and inductive justification ('the things I've learnt'); this would be rather circular.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Induction is certainly not always valid. It's just usually valid.
Claiming "X happened every time, therefore, X will happen again at that time" is a fallacy.

 

[lovett]

Induction is certainly not always valid. It's just usually valid.
Claiming "X happened every time, therefore, X will happen again at that time" is a fallacy.

Exactly. Yet we tend to believe induction is usually valid. We do not do the same for God. Why?

Incidentally we can substitute induction for logic if that makes the point more clear.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Exactly. Yet we tend to believe induction is usually valid. We do not do the same for God. Why?

How does induction work with regard to God?

edit: In other words, I never experienced God, can't do experiments to verify the existence ... how would I be able to use induction?

 

[Smellincoffee]

At the OP: I left religion on purpose because I thought God was evil and I didn't want any part of the parade of toadyism. Eventually my worldview became "nontheistic" in that neither belief nor contempt for the deity of my youth factored into it. When I began listening to a Christian apologist (Ravi Zacharias) and learning to think logically, I became an atheist. In trying to respond to Ravi, I began realizing things for myself.

As it stands, I'm not concerned with gods except in trying to understand people who do value the idea of deities. If there is a deity that honors virtue, it can count me as an ally -- and if it does not, it can count me as enemy.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Exactly. Yet we tend to believe induction is usually valid. We do not do the same for God. Why?

We think that induction is usually valid based on our experience.

"God is usually valid" doesn't make sense anyway.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

They are comparable in that 'God exists' and 'Induction is valid' are both propositions.

But what exactly do you mean by 'Induction is valid'? Are you saying this is equivalent to 'inductive knowledge is inherently correct'? Because that would be demonstrably wrong. 'Inductive reasoning has its uses' or something along those lines does not imply anything like total faith in induction along religious lines. You seem to be suggesting that the average joe walks around thinking that inductive knowledge equals knowledge, rather than just relying on it without necessarily making any positive philosophical statement about it.

 

[warpus]

The point is there is no evidence. Yet you believe induction is valid; you show that by believing the sun will rise tomorrow.

And you believe that the sun will NOT rise tomorrow?

Who's claim is more extraordinary?

Way to not respond to the rest of my post.

Exactly. Yet we tend to believe induction is usually valid. We do not do the same for God. Why?

How would you prove that God exists with induction? I did it as a joke once, but that was just silly.

It would appear to me as though you are playing devil's advocate in this thread. If so, good job.