Why are you atheist?
- Thread starter AesronDrosseli
- Start date
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
Why?
It's rather tangential anyway. We treat it as if it were generally true and we have no justification for doing so.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
It doesn't have to be, but in the case of the sun rising in the morning all bets are on "it's gonna happen again, yo"
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
Exactly, this is entirely my point!
All bets are on the sun rising tomorrow and we justify this in induction because we're really very attached to induction. Yet induction is unjustified. Nobody cares! Thus we must decide why we care about God's existence being unjustified if we wish to be consistent.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
My parents are atheists, and neither of them did anything to encourage or discourage me from fulfilling any spiritual needs. I have never felt the need to submit myself to some mystical being's will, little alone the will of its followers who effectively control (or try to) everyone else. I have never found any kind god or similar to be remotely plausible.
I also strongly dislike christianity, no major reason just dozens of various reasons, it has been abused at age 6, molested at 12 and raped at 18. Although I don't necessarily dislike someone just because they are christian, most of them are fine regular people.
I also strongly dislike christianity, no major reason just dozens of various reasons, it has been abused at age 6, molested at 12 and raped at 18. Although I don't necessarily dislike someone just because they are christian, most of them are fine regular people.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
How is it unjustified? I really don't know if my justification for putting my bets on the sun rising tomorrow is based on induction.
But if it is? Then hey, it seems to be working just fine - the sun has been rising continuously, every single day, since we started keeping track... meaning, people who have been guessing that it will rise tomorrow have been right every single time. Meaning that it's a sensible thing to assume that the exact same thing is going to happen tomorrow - especially given what we know about astrophysics.
Greizer85
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
Why must astrophysics be true tomorrow? By inductive reasoning...
I think I have a new favourite poster. He has you rationalists' heads all in a spin (literally enough).
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Why must astrophysics be true tomorrow? By inductive reasoning...
It doesn't have to be, but what makes you think that it won't be?
I think I have a new favourite poster. He has you rationalists' heads all in a spin (literally enough).
Nah, what he's saying isn't really making much sense.
Greizer85
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
What makes you think it does? You are the one making a positive claim and so you must answer first. Sounds awfully like "what makes you think God does not exist?" to me...
Edit: I can answer anyway: I simply take it for granted (simply believe induction is true in this case) as is human and must be done with some things. I feel that it must be true. I know that it's irrational but then I have no problem with occasional irrationality.
Edit2: Didn't answer properly... I've been up 30 hours, maybe that's it.
Well I did answer indirectly. I don't think induction is not true, but I have no rational justification for it, and I admit it. That justification is what lovett is trying to get from you, and has so far been unsuccessful.I'd rather say sense doesn't always make much sense.
Veritass
Emperor
Yes, I use induction, but I don't believe in the Abrahamic God.
Yes, the "problem of induction" shows us that induction doesn't prove anything, but it is really more of a shorthand way of thinking. The sun will "come up" tomorrow until it doesn't, i.e. when the sun goes nova in a few billion years. We cannot really "know" or "prove" that gravity behaves the same everywhere in the universe, but it is a useful shorthand to say that it does.
This inductive step is useful in the scientific method to try to get to the greater truth or the more fundamental rule. The old rule that gravity caused everything to move "down" is replaced by the more general rule that all matter attracts all other matter, and this is replaced by the more general rule that matter warps space time around it, etc. All of this is backed up with more speculation on what else that might imply, and then we test whether the new rule holds up empirically.
None of that "proves" anything, but it provides greater and greater evidence for the rules, unless or until it disproves a rule and we have to come up with a better rule. Having a counterexample is a crucial step. I can induce that the sun will (i.e. is vastly probable to) come up tomorrow, because I have millions of examples and no counter-examples.
On the other hand, the only evidence for the Abrahamic God is a few old books that mention it. There are also plenty of old books that speak against the existence of this God. There are plenty of counter-examples.
God cannot be proved by logic, but might be disproved.
We have centuries of philosophical posturing with attempts to "prove" that God exists, and all of it still ends up boiling down to faith, or some special pleading that God exists outside of the universe. There is neither evidence nor even (dare I say it) logical induction that God exists.
However, for some versions of God we can provide evidence that they do not exist, merely by showing that they are inconsistent. The tri-omni God can be shown not to exist with the "problem of evil": if that version of God were to exist, then there would not be gratuitous suffering in the world; since there is gratuitous suffering in the world, then that version of God must not exist.
There is also the problem that arguing for a (your) particular definition of God means to argue against all of the others. Logically, we can state that since the existence of any of several of the proposed versions of God all imply that the other proposed versions do not exist, then at least some large percentage of these Gods do not exist, and possibly all of them do not exist.
God is not useful, but can make you feel good.
That all being said, I do not believe in the Abrahamic God because it is of no use to me. I have my own belief system that I have freely chosen, which is different than the one that I was indoctrinated into in my youth. I am also clear that I believe what I believe because I choose to believe it, not because it is the "Truth".
I do believe that prayer/meditation can allow the mind to have an experience that feels like expanded awareness. I believe that most people can have these experiences, and likely do have them at certain times in there lives. I also believe that most people have these experiences "framed" by their indoctrinated system of belief so they identify them as being "spoken to by Jesus", or being "touched by Allah", or "getting a glimpse of the Divine". All of these metaphors are just metaphors for an experience that is ineffable.
Yes, the "problem of induction" shows us that induction doesn't prove anything, but it is really more of a shorthand way of thinking. The sun will "come up" tomorrow until it doesn't, i.e. when the sun goes nova in a few billion years. We cannot really "know" or "prove" that gravity behaves the same everywhere in the universe, but it is a useful shorthand to say that it does.
This inductive step is useful in the scientific method to try to get to the greater truth or the more fundamental rule. The old rule that gravity caused everything to move "down" is replaced by the more general rule that all matter attracts all other matter, and this is replaced by the more general rule that matter warps space time around it, etc. All of this is backed up with more speculation on what else that might imply, and then we test whether the new rule holds up empirically.
None of that "proves" anything, but it provides greater and greater evidence for the rules, unless or until it disproves a rule and we have to come up with a better rule. Having a counterexample is a crucial step. I can induce that the sun will (i.e. is vastly probable to) come up tomorrow, because I have millions of examples and no counter-examples.
On the other hand, the only evidence for the Abrahamic God is a few old books that mention it. There are also plenty of old books that speak against the existence of this God. There are plenty of counter-examples.
God cannot be proved by logic, but might be disproved.
We have centuries of philosophical posturing with attempts to "prove" that God exists, and all of it still ends up boiling down to faith, or some special pleading that God exists outside of the universe. There is neither evidence nor even (dare I say it) logical induction that God exists.
However, for some versions of God we can provide evidence that they do not exist, merely by showing that they are inconsistent. The tri-omni God can be shown not to exist with the "problem of evil": if that version of God were to exist, then there would not be gratuitous suffering in the world; since there is gratuitous suffering in the world, then that version of God must not exist.
There is also the problem that arguing for a (your) particular definition of God means to argue against all of the others. Logically, we can state that since the existence of any of several of the proposed versions of God all imply that the other proposed versions do not exist, then at least some large percentage of these Gods do not exist, and possibly all of them do not exist.
God is not useful, but can make you feel good.
That all being said, I do not believe in the Abrahamic God because it is of no use to me. I have my own belief system that I have freely chosen, which is different than the one that I was indoctrinated into in my youth. I am also clear that I believe what I believe because I choose to believe it, not because it is the "Truth".
I do believe that prayer/meditation can allow the mind to have an experience that feels like expanded awareness. I believe that most people can have these experiences, and likely do have them at certain times in there lives. I also believe that most people have these experiences "framed" by their indoctrinated system of belief so they identify them as being "spoken to by Jesus", or being "touched by Allah", or "getting a glimpse of the Divine". All of these metaphors are just metaphors for an experience that is ineffable.
therefore god doesn't exist
this was what i was gonna say, but then i realised i could use lovett's statement to disprove the Christian god, which is much better:
Premise 1 - Jesus Christ is the son of God, and by all definitions of "son", he must therefore contain part of his father, i.e. part of God. that means that part of God was, at least briefly according to Christians, part of this universe.
Premise 2 - if part of god isn't in the universe, then all of god isn't in the universe. and if part of god is in the universe then all of god is in the universe. its a black or white issue so to speak. this is because if part of God did exist in the universe, then God would hence belong to the set of "things" as per the definition of the universe presented by cardgame, and hence, since all things are part of the universe, all of God would therefore be part of the universe.
Intermediate Conclusion - Since God, and therefore Jesus, is either part of the universe or not part of the universe, then either God is part of the universe or Jesus was not the son of God.
Conclusion - If God is part of the universe, then he is subject to the universe's laws of science and logic. If God isn't part of the universe, then the very basis of Christianity is wrong (Jesus was not the son of God)
Greizer85
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
(It might be better to let lovett answer since he has a philosophical training, or so it seems. But here goes.) Your evidence is only valid (even in the probabilistic sense) if induction is justified. So far there have been no justifications other than inductive ones (i.e. "since induction has appeared to always work in the past, it will still work today"). That the Sun is "vastly likely to rise tomorrow" is a statement that has been arrived to by induction just the same as "The Sun will surely rise tomorrow". It may appear to be on more "solid ground", but the whole planet is still floating in open space, so to speak.
People's personal experiences count as proof to many of them. I agree that is irrational to believe in any form of god(s) - but so is to believe in induction. Intuitively it seems more irrational to believe in God than in induction, but that is because intuition is itself mostly inductive.
I agree with all of this (for now, my opinions are not that consistent).
I'd say that feeling good is one of the most useful things there is. If you feel bad enough, they will lock you up so you won't harm yourself. If logic or meds do not help you enough in any situation, I don't see why you should not believe in God(s) if it makes you feel better. Delusions are not a bad thing imo (on the contrary, they are interesting!), unless they make you harm yourself or someone else.
As for the mystical experiences: if the descriptions are accurate, then either there must be something divine or the rational world holds many more secrets that we can possibly imagine. The notion of Divinity is useful for artistic purposes (it gives dignity to mundane things; meaning to a meaningless Universe), which is why I like to entertain the idea of something "greater" than normal physical reality. But I have no proof for it (even "personal proof" as of yet), and if I never will, that's fine with me.
Ecofarm
Deity
I have a confession. I believe in a god. I have explained this before, in threads such as "what is your religion", "what is god", etc; yet, I will give a brief explainaion here again.
1. To me, god is something that cannot be entirely seen nor understood.
2. Each of us has an influence in this world.
2a. This influence exists conciously and unconciously, according to our desires.
2b. This influence exists collectively.
3. There is no god as an independant entity.
3a. It's not a person, or in any way individual.
3b. It is the collective will.
The collective will, or our influence in this world, can neither be completely seen or understood; yet, it exibits a power over us and is thus our god.
Our influence is never ending, unpredictable, inconceivable and pwns us; it is all that we are or ever will be. We will use our influence and go to heaven, where children do not cry in vain, because I have faith in mankind and my soul (influence) will never die.
1. To me, god is something that cannot be entirely seen nor understood.
2. Each of us has an influence in this world.
2a. This influence exists conciously and unconciously, according to our desires.
2b. This influence exists collectively.
3. There is no god as an independant entity.
3a. It's not a person, or in any way individual.
3b. It is the collective will.
The collective will, or our influence in this world, can neither be completely seen or understood; yet, it exibits a power over us and is thus our god.
Our influence is never ending, unpredictable, inconceivable and pwns us; it is all that we are or ever will be. We will use our influence and go to heaven, where children do not cry in vain, because I have faith in mankind and my soul (influence) will never die.
Ecofarm
Deity
We cannot predict lagtime nor butterfly affect. Those things are inconceivable individually, let alone collectively.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Not really.
I'm saying: "Hey, so the sun has risen every day for the last 4,000 years, it's gonna rise again tomorrow, right? I mean, given what we know about what the sun actually is, and how the Earth orbits it, and all that stuff, it's pretty much inevitable that it's gonna rise tomorrow, right?"
You: "Nope"
You're the one who's gotta explain why you don't think it's going to rise.
Greizer85
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
Why is it inevitable? Because it has always been so until now? Again, that is inductive reasoning.
Why is it certain or even likely that just because something has happened exactly the same for billions of years, it will happen the same tomorrow? Why will the laws of physics extremely likely still be the same tomorrow? How does it follow from the fact that they've always been the same until now? That is what we're asking here. Your intuition is inductive, which is why it says that it's absurd to ask such questions. But the answers are not at all obvious, when you go beyond intuition.
Again, I think that induction is true (well, not always but most of the time and when it comes to natural laws, absolutely). I have no proof for it other than my feelings (and I am ofc biased by my intuition being mostly, perhaps wholly inductive). So I do think the Sun will rise tomorrow but I cannot say how the past rises validate that.
In fact it's so late/early here I can almost see the sunrise.
Better get some sleep; nothing like the smell of logical arguments in the morning. (Rarely smells like victory, though. 
)
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
I would comment here that this is a similar situation which causes similar feelings of frustration; we get bogged down in a back-and-forth with no discernible progress about trivial things. After much time spent on induction here, we're just where we started.
When we get trapped in such discussions as "how do you KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow?" then we are being distracted by rhetoric. We don't know with absolute certainty, but it is a reasonable assumption because there is nothing stopping the earth from spinning or the sun from shining in the foreseeable future. That's that. Inductive reasoning isn't always conclusive or correct, but sometimes it is a useful shortcut.
Now we should move on to more productive lines of thought, but we don't. And that happens often when religion is being discussed. People will for centuries divide themselves into factions over the most trivial of disagreements, and they won't budge or acknowledge that they agree 99.99% of the time on the rest of the issues. It only matters that they win this argument. And then it becomes the only focus of the discussion, when in the scheme of things it does not matter. And the larger and more pertinent issues, such as what is right and what is wrong, and why, are overlooked.
Another reason why people should simplify things. God is unknown, IMO and based on evidence and reasoning, it is likely an imaginary concept. But regardless of whether it is or it is not, that does not justify millennia of hatred, distrust, or persecution. And regardless of whether it is or it isn't, and especially since we can't conclude anything without God doing something to prove it exists, the point should really have been moot all along. There can be a side discussion about God and what proof there is, but it isn't a side discussion, it becomes the whole point for people. The only point that matters for some is that there is or isn't a God; it doesn't matter that you and the person next to you agree on most other things, it only matters to you that they think differently than you on whether or not an unprovable assumption is true or false.
That's part of the annoying absurdity of all this. Who cares? You can't ever win this debate. You will never prove God exists, only God could do that, so why are you wasting your time? I can spend a few moments of my day showing why I don't rank God's existence as being a very likely scenario, but after that, I move on to bigger and better issues, like... how should we live our lives, what is ethical, what is moral, what is right? And these are things that the faithful and the faithless should be discussing. These are things which I believe can have conclusions to them. Murder is easy, capital punishment is not, but I believe we can reason things out as a people.
The problem is that God isn't proven, and likely will never be proven either way, but some use God to justify their arguments. It isn't a logical justification, it's an opinion. And everyone has opinions. We can shout back and forth all day about our beliefs, but with nothing to back it up, and no logical or rational foundation upon which to base our arguments, we are turning red and wasting our breath for nothing.
In the meantime, just because you believe in God doesn't mean you can't use logic and reason and evidence to argue your opinions about other subjects; and that is where discussions about what we "should" be doing with our lives should be confined: in the realm of reality that we can see/taste/touch/interact with/hear and prove, with real consequences. It should be based on intellect, not faith.
A lot of bad ideas have been based on faith. A lot of them. Reason has led us to reject many of those bad ideas. Reason has led us to a freer, healthier, safer, richer, moral society. Those who state an opinion, make it law, and have no justification for it, or have really baseless or irrational justifications for it, have made the world worse, and they continue to do so every day. Such opinions as racial superiority, for example... the unfounded belief that people of different cultural or genetic backgrounds are inherently superior to others. It's not based in reason, but upon faith in one's own opinion, in spite of the facts. Such opinions as divine right, the belief that one has a right to do something because "God wills it", which has led to the installation of imperialistic dictators ruling for life, slavery, and conquest, just to name a few.
Basing our decisions on faith alone is a very dangerous and often disastrous way to live. The dangers are at least twofold: Firstly, if you don't base your decisions on facts, or on predictable or provable things, then the consequences will be much more unpredictable; chaotic; dangerous. It is like closing one's eyes while driving down the road. Being ignorant to the facts on purpose is like choosing to be blind. Faith does not help one steer.
Secondly, you cannot be reasoned with, if you rely purely on faith. Faith might cause that driver to ignore warnings that they are driving into a tree, because they have faith that they can drive safely without looking. Faith being the sole justification for things is the same as having no justification.
So, if faith isn't a source of wisdom, morality, or intelligent decision-making, why do we govern ourselves with faith?
Perhaps faith does have its purposes. I have faith that humanity can make itself better, even when things seem to get worse at times. However, I do not rely on that faith; I do not count on it. The best path forward is to use reason to help that process along; don't simply wait on the sidelines praying and wishing for things to improve. That's faith, and it's the same as doing nothing.
If you absolutely must pray, then fine; but do something FIRST. Make a positive change first, and then hope that it helps. Faith alone does nothing. I argue that faith does nothing except give people hope, and hope affects nothing except one's attitude. It can also give people false hope, and that can lead to unnecessary failures.
It's obvious that we should not base our arguments and decision-making on faith alone. And since one can arrive at the same conclusions with or without faith, it doesn't really matter who has faith. So let's stick to reason. Let's solve our problems rationally, since reasoning at least gives us a common, real framework upon which to lay the foundation of an argument or hypothesis.
When we finally stop arguing over minor technical details of rhetoric and debate that don't matter in the grand scheme, and finally stop debating the unprovable, and move on to more productive lines of thought, then I might have more to say. Otherwise, I really feel the discussion is futile.
When we get trapped in such discussions as "how do you KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow?" then we are being distracted by rhetoric. We don't know with absolute certainty, but it is a reasonable assumption because there is nothing stopping the earth from spinning or the sun from shining in the foreseeable future. That's that. Inductive reasoning isn't always conclusive or correct, but sometimes it is a useful shortcut.
Now we should move on to more productive lines of thought, but we don't. And that happens often when religion is being discussed. People will for centuries divide themselves into factions over the most trivial of disagreements, and they won't budge or acknowledge that they agree 99.99% of the time on the rest of the issues. It only matters that they win this argument. And then it becomes the only focus of the discussion, when in the scheme of things it does not matter. And the larger and more pertinent issues, such as what is right and what is wrong, and why, are overlooked.
Another reason why people should simplify things. God is unknown, IMO and based on evidence and reasoning, it is likely an imaginary concept. But regardless of whether it is or it is not, that does not justify millennia of hatred, distrust, or persecution. And regardless of whether it is or it isn't, and especially since we can't conclude anything without God doing something to prove it exists, the point should really have been moot all along. There can be a side discussion about God and what proof there is, but it isn't a side discussion, it becomes the whole point for people. The only point that matters for some is that there is or isn't a God; it doesn't matter that you and the person next to you agree on most other things, it only matters to you that they think differently than you on whether or not an unprovable assumption is true or false.
That's part of the annoying absurdity of all this. Who cares? You can't ever win this debate. You will never prove God exists, only God could do that, so why are you wasting your time? I can spend a few moments of my day showing why I don't rank God's existence as being a very likely scenario, but after that, I move on to bigger and better issues, like... how should we live our lives, what is ethical, what is moral, what is right? And these are things that the faithful and the faithless should be discussing. These are things which I believe can have conclusions to them. Murder is easy, capital punishment is not, but I believe we can reason things out as a people.
The problem is that God isn't proven, and likely will never be proven either way, but some use God to justify their arguments. It isn't a logical justification, it's an opinion. And everyone has opinions. We can shout back and forth all day about our beliefs, but with nothing to back it up, and no logical or rational foundation upon which to base our arguments, we are turning red and wasting our breath for nothing.
In the meantime, just because you believe in God doesn't mean you can't use logic and reason and evidence to argue your opinions about other subjects; and that is where discussions about what we "should" be doing with our lives should be confined: in the realm of reality that we can see/taste/touch/interact with/hear and prove, with real consequences. It should be based on intellect, not faith.
A lot of bad ideas have been based on faith. A lot of them. Reason has led us to reject many of those bad ideas. Reason has led us to a freer, healthier, safer, richer, moral society. Those who state an opinion, make it law, and have no justification for it, or have really baseless or irrational justifications for it, have made the world worse, and they continue to do so every day. Such opinions as racial superiority, for example... the unfounded belief that people of different cultural or genetic backgrounds are inherently superior to others. It's not based in reason, but upon faith in one's own opinion, in spite of the facts. Such opinions as divine right, the belief that one has a right to do something because "God wills it", which has led to the installation of imperialistic dictators ruling for life, slavery, and conquest, just to name a few.
Basing our decisions on faith alone is a very dangerous and often disastrous way to live. The dangers are at least twofold: Firstly, if you don't base your decisions on facts, or on predictable or provable things, then the consequences will be much more unpredictable; chaotic; dangerous. It is like closing one's eyes while driving down the road. Being ignorant to the facts on purpose is like choosing to be blind. Faith does not help one steer.
Secondly, you cannot be reasoned with, if you rely purely on faith. Faith might cause that driver to ignore warnings that they are driving into a tree, because they have faith that they can drive safely without looking. Faith being the sole justification for things is the same as having no justification.
So, if faith isn't a source of wisdom, morality, or intelligent decision-making, why do we govern ourselves with faith?
Perhaps faith does have its purposes. I have faith that humanity can make itself better, even when things seem to get worse at times. However, I do not rely on that faith; I do not count on it. The best path forward is to use reason to help that process along; don't simply wait on the sidelines praying and wishing for things to improve. That's faith, and it's the same as doing nothing.
If you absolutely must pray, then fine; but do something FIRST. Make a positive change first, and then hope that it helps. Faith alone does nothing. I argue that faith does nothing except give people hope, and hope affects nothing except one's attitude. It can also give people false hope, and that can lead to unnecessary failures.
It's obvious that we should not base our arguments and decision-making on faith alone. And since one can arrive at the same conclusions with or without faith, it doesn't really matter who has faith. So let's stick to reason. Let's solve our problems rationally, since reasoning at least gives us a common, real framework upon which to lay the foundation of an argument or hypothesis.
When we finally stop arguing over minor technical details of rhetoric and debate that don't matter in the grand scheme, and finally stop debating the unprovable, and move on to more productive lines of thought, then I might have more to say. Otherwise, I really feel the discussion is futile.
Similar threads
