Deities do or do not exist?

[mike47]

I don't know about you but I was grown, not created.

I was created as I am so complex in everything .
Are you afraid of being created would automatically imply a creator ?. .

 

[wynn]

I cannot see how it is possible to live life as an agnostic, one must fall into either camp, at various times.
Agnosticism seems only to be an intellectual position.

I agree. It seems to me that (strong) agnosticism is a kind of effort to "keep up appearances", a defensive pose.

(Strong) Agnosticism seems to be an extreme reaction to other extremes found in religion. For example, there is the extreme of some Christians who claimed to know the whole truth about God and who burnt alive anyone who didn't subject themselves to those Christians. Some people, appalled by that, went into the other extreme of claiming that the truth about God cannot be known.

From an emotional perspective, such a reaction is understandable. Imagine witnessing how someone was actually burnt at the stakes (and they used to do that in public, for everyone to see, hear, feel the heat and smell) on the charge of heresy. It's only natural that many people were shocked by this, and we can be shocked by this simply by reading about it and imagining what it must have been like.

Even theists look for evidence, this is what folks like Enmos fail to understand. I believe in God, but would undoubtedly welcome the same
evidence as Enmos.

I find this interesting.

Some atheists seem to think that theists are steadfast in the subjective knowledge of their beliefs,

Actually, some theists do so too, although for other reasons than atheists.

Theists also have the potential to change within their beliefs due to experience.

Yes.

I suppose it could be said that western civilisation is based on agnosticism.
That is to say, it picks and chooses its theism to suit itself.

That too. Because in order to keep a perpetual interest in material nature, one has to believe that the truth about it cannot be really known.

 

[wynn]

Do you know god exists ?

Good question.
Not in the sense that I could say "here is God", and you would undeniably agree.
I would say that what knowledge I do have, leads me to understand that
God exists. So my knowledge of God is subjective.

This is a very interesting answer, thank you.

It is something I have been wondering about as well, for a long time, actually. How to approach epistemological questions and answers about God, God's existence and a person's position on all this.

 

[wynn]

Why be silent?
They can argue from this position equally against those who claim there is evidence, or who nonetheless believe while in acknowledgement of the lack of evidence.

Not having evidence is also different to claiming the matter to be unknowable, although both are agnostic positions.

Most agnostics might not even know or be able to explain what evidence would suffice, but know (or claim to know) that all evidence thus presented is not it.

To say "there is inadequate information", "inadequate evidence"
is to say that one's means for assessing the adequacy or inadequacy of some information and evidence
are adequate.

Which then immediately brings in the issue of how they and everyone else can know and be sure they have adequate means for assessing the adequacy or inadequacy of some information and evidence.

 

[Enmos]

Just because you acept a person is there doesn't mean you must accept the have a hat or that the hat must be black or white. Theye are no necessary causal relationships between people and head gear or head gear and color.

But the "god" question is even more nuanced that that which is where the objection comes in.

The theist is trying to use language which implies that there is a god and the atheist just doesn't believe it as opposed to the truth that the theist has failed to establish any reason to even consider believing there is a god.

It would be much clearer if the dialog went:

theist: I believe in my god.
atheist: So what?

Someone tells you there is a person behind a wall. You believe it.
That same someone tells you the person is wearing a hat. You don't believe it.
How logical is that ?

Could you please comment on my illustration in post 46 ? It seems to go unnoticed.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos,
Would you?
It would still rely on your acceptance.

Probably, assuming he doesn't look like a regular person.

It is more a case of accepting that God exists.
This is the same thing we are discussing in another thread.

If you accept something to be true it's because someone or something else tells you that something is true without providing evidence for it.
So you believe it solely based on the persons, or its, good reputation or believability.
Who or what did you accept it from that god exists ? And why was that someone or something believable ?

We acquire knowledge to 'understand' and to 'know' something.
If we come to the conclustion that God does, or does not exist
that ultimate knowledge is subjective, because it has to be accepted.

Knowledge is the data, "God exists."
This data is the end result of your assessment of your experiences, either personal or second-hand.

We obviously agree.
So what is the purpose of your questioning?

The purpose of the questioning is to get it out of you that you KNOW that god exists.
Who in their right mind would devote their life to something they are not even sure of ? You must know it's true.

 

[wynn]

Perhaps I am, but how about this:

One thing that tends to get bypassed in online debates is that there needs to be a genuine and mutual attitude of well-wishing for a conversation about theistic topics to accomplish anything.

I think that if a conversation about theistic topics conjures up in one's mind an image like the one above, then progress of understanding is difficult.

To me, the figures in that image seem to be in a situation where there is proposed, but not accepted authority; attempts of blind trust; attempts of getting the upper hand in the communication.

Too much competition, too little trust to accomplish anything other than more competition, more bad blood.

 

[Enmos]

One thing that tends to get bypassed in online debates is that there needs to be a genuine and mutual attitude of well-wishing for a conversation about theistic topics to accomplish anything.

I think that if a conversation about theistic topics conjures up in one's mind an image like the one above, then progress of understanding is difficult.

To me, the figures in that image seem to be in a situation where there is proposed, but not accepted authority; attempts of blind trust; attempts of getting the upper hand in the communication.

Too much competition, too little trust to accomplish anything other than more competition, more bad blood.

No, you misunderstand. It's an alternative for Sarkus's example (the one with the wall and the hats).

 

[S.A.M.]

Well there's not much motivation to get along with people who think your beliefs justify their behaving like retarded assholes towards you. The only defence is a good offense in that case and behaving like an even more retarded bitch is the only way you can actually get them to stop harassing you [not entirely, but at least they know that you bite]

 

[Enmos]

Well there's not much motivation to get along with people who think your beliefs justify their behaving like retarded assholes towards you. The only defence is a good offense in that case and behaving like an even more retarded bitch is the only way you can actually get them to stop harassing you [not entirely, but at least they know that you bite]

Huh ? What are you talking about ?

 

[Cris]

signal,

To say "there is inadequate information", "inadequate evidence"
is to say that one's means for assessing the adequacy or inadequacy of some information and evidence are adequate.

Which then immediately brings in the issue of how they and everyone else can know and be sure they have adequate means for assessing the adequacy or inadequacy of some information and evidence.

I think you are creating two issues here when they are really the same thing.

When we say "inadequate" evidence we mean - to the best of our abilities to assess the claim we cannot reach a point where we can make meaningful conclusions. The nature of the evidence and the mechanism for collecting the evidence are inseparable. Science uses an empirical approach that has proven its worth countless times.

The theist then objects to that approach and says you obviously aren't using the correct method, but then doesn't offer a credible alternative. This then degrades into arguments over what "knowledge" means and how it is obtained. And that whole subject area is called epistemology, and largely where the arguments end because no one can agree.

 

[S.A.M.]

signal,

I think you are creating two issues here when they are really the same thing.

When we say "inadequate" evidence we mean - to the best of our abilities to assess the claim we cannot reach a point where we can make meaningful conclusions. The nature of the evidence and the mechanism for collecting the evidence are inseparable. Science uses an empirical approach that has proven its worth countless times.

The theist then objects to that approach and says you obviously aren't using the correct method, but then doesn't offer a credible alternative. This then degrades into arguments over what "knowledge" means and how it is obtained. And that whole subject area is called epistemology, and largely where the arguments end because no one can agree.

The theist then objects? Are you telling me athiests never critique any scientific enterprise. Or that theists are not scientists?

Your attempt to conflate science with atheism is intellectually dishonest and goes against the separation of science and religion

 

[wynn]

I think you are creating two issues here when they are really the same thing.

How are they the same thing?

When we say "inadequate" evidence we mean - to the best of our abilities to assess the claim we cannot reach a point where we can make meaningful conclusions.

Aww, if only things would stay at such humility ... but they do not.

The nature of the evidence and the mechanism for collecting the evidence are inseparable. Science uses an empirical approach that has proven its worth countless times.

Worth to whom, for what?

The theist then objects to that approach and says you obviously aren't using the correct method, but then doesn't offer a credible alternative.

Credible according to whom?

This then degrades into arguments over what "knowledge" means and how it is obtained. And that whole subject area is called epistemology, and largely where the arguments end because no one can agree.

This absence of agreement probably indicates something important.
For example that different people have very different motivations for obtaining knowledge, and that some motivations and some methods are incompatible.

 

[Cris]

sam,

The theist then objects? Are you telling me athiests never critique any scientific enterprise. Or that theists are not scientists?

Your attempt to conflate science with atheism is intellectually dishonest and goes against the separation of science and religion

I make no mention of atheism here, although I am not aware of any atheists who object to the scientific method, but that isn't relevant anyway.

The issue is how is evidence gathered and qualified, science has a method and religionists tend not to accept that, at least in regard to matters of spirituality and supernatural claims. If the supernatural exists then science does not have a method to explore it.

 

[Cris]

Signal,

How are they the same thing?

The nature of evidence is dependent on the method used to gather it and often determined by the method. Distant objects that can only seen using radiation sensors outside of our visual range for example.

“ When we say "inadequate" evidence we mean - to the best of our abilities to assess the claim we cannot reach a point where we can make meaningful conclusions. ”

Aww, if only things would stay at such humility ... but they do not.

Why the condescending attitude coupled with no explanation?

“ The nature of the evidence and the mechanism for collecting the evidence are inseparable. Science uses an empirical approach that has proven its worth countless times. ”

Worth to whom, for what?

Do you somehow doubt that the countless advances made by human technology and medicine were not the result of using the scientific method?

“ The theist then objects to that approach and says you obviously aren't using the correct method, but then doesn't offer a credible alternative. ”

Credible according to whom?

Everyone capable of logical reasoning. The basic standard for determining if something is credible is to construct an appropriate experiment. To meet a meaningful conclusion the subject needs to be testable and falsifiable. If this cannot be achieved then we cannot distinguish between something real and something simply imagined. No religious claims have met that standard yet, hence the claims are not yet credible.

This absence of agreement probably indicates something important.
For example that different people have very different motivations for obtaining knowledge, and that some motivations and some methods are incompatible.

Yes possibly heavily biased closed-minded entrenched positions.

 

[wynn]

Do you somehow doubt that the countless advances made by human technology and medicine were not the result of using the scientific method?

I doubt they are indeed "advances".

Everyone capable of logical reasoning. The basic standard for determining if something is credible is to construct an appropriate experiment. To meet a meaningful conclusion the subject needs to be testable and falsifiable. If this cannot be achieved then we cannot distinguish between something real and something simply imagined. No religious claims have met that standard yet, hence the claims are not yet credible.

I yet have to see a test of religious claims that I would consider relevant and capable of producing relevant results.

Yes possibly heavily biased closed-minded entrenched positions.

So what is the ideal then, according to you? To be without any biases, values and preferences, but instead make logical, neutral, objective decisions?

 

[Cellar_Door]

'I am an atheist and I believe deities may exist'

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. I am very cynical about every religion I have ever come across, but 'deity' is a fairly loose and inexact term.

 

[The Esotericist]

I AM connected to nature, I am part of it. Existence has no meaning objectively seen, but it still has meaning to me.

why? I would say you are wrong. It does have meaning objectively viewed. There is not a person on the planet, unless they are not in mental health, that feels life is meaningless.

Obviously I can and do care for "creation" without any believe in some conscious god.
Isn't it more beautiful that life has come into existence and has made it on its own, than when it would all have been orchestrated ?

Supposition. In a strictly naturalistic world governed by mechanical laws, beauty does not exist, per sea.

Only in a world with a "consciousness" with an eternal balancing, a yin and a yang, continually eddying around a flux point of balance can any concept of beauty exist. By your own admission of beauty, you tacitly acknowledge this struggle between "beauty" and "disgrace/perversion," and hence, the consciousness of the unmanifested whole.

 

[Enmos]

why? I would say you are wrong. It does have meaning objectively viewed. There is not a person on the planet, unless they are not in mental health, that feels life is meaningless.

Supposition. In a strictly naturalistic world governed by mechanical laws, beauty does not exist, per sea.

Only in a world with a "consciousness" with an eternal balancing, a yin and a yang, continually eddying around a flux point of balance can any concept of beauty exist. By your own admission of beauty, you tacitly acknowledge this struggle between "beauty" and "disgrace/perversion," and hence, the consciousness of the unmanifested whole.

We have fundamentally different views. I'll leave it at that.

 

[WillNever]

But atheists do not act as though God does not exist; thats how the ignostics and apathetic act. Atheists are tormented by the theist position, they feel religion interferes in their life, they want to oppose and eliminate and challenge the theist position. They believe "THERE ARE NO GODS". An agnostic has no position, an ignostic questions the premise that God is a meaningful term and an apathetic, religious or otherwise, does not consider it to be significant.

Someone who challenges a position does not behave the same way as someone who questions it is a position that can be challenged one way or the other or as someone who thinks its an impossible question or who simply does not care. They are not all the same position.

SAM, what you're trying to do is pigeonhole a group of people based upon a single expression that is used. Some self styled atheists believe there are no gods. Some self styled atheists don't believe in a god. We both know that... and this discussion is, at heart, merely a definitional one without an actual point that is being made. If you were to substitute the word "atheist" with either "people don't believe in gods" or "people believe there are no gods," you would very quickly realize that you aren't saying anything truly substantive. The ambiguity concerning the word is the reason why the most chosen result in this poll is "some other opinion." In this poll, different belief options are being categorized as all belonging to one term: atheist.

If the word is annoying, then simply cease to use it and refer to people by their actual beliefs, not by one umbrella type expression.