for atheists

i was honest, all along I said I wasn't sure what I was, i am confused, so i am open to everything, i wanted to push the envelope. I believe a mix of mine and X's thoughts.

I can easily respect that. There are not many on these boards that will admit they are not certain about what they believe (including myself sometimes), but you have shown to be one of those. I don't believe in any sort of religion, but I know deep down there is a glimmer of a doubt. What if? What if it's all real? Mind you, it's very small, but it's there. Let me tell you right now, anyone who tells you they have not even a sliver of a doubt about their belief either doesn't know what they believe or are lying.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed this discussion, I wish more of the discussions on this forum could be like this, even if in the end we really didn't get anything resolved ;)
 
Xelios,

Some loose ends -

I don't believe in any sort of religion, but I know deep down there is a glimmer of a doubt. …. anyone who tells you they have not even a sliver of a doubt about their belief either doesn't know what they believe or are lying.
We never did define what ‘true atheist’ meant. A Buddhist is an atheist but believes in an afterlife. We were really discussing the dualistic issue, but whatever.

As for doubt: This depends on what type of atheism you follow. If you believe there is no god but have doubts then your comment is fair, but if you just disbelieve that gods exist then that really says you do not know. It isn’t really a question of doubt but one of inadequate evidence to decide. Remember that disbelieving something is not the same as believing it is false.

For example I have no doubt that the Christian, Islamic, Judaist, gods do not exist as they have defined them. I can honestly say ‘I believe’ they do not exist, since there is significant evidence in the biblical contradictions and historical research that shows the mythological roots of these religions.

But if I were asked whether any other type of god might exist then I would have to admit that I don’t know. Could something beyond our comprehension have created everything? Since I can’t prove otherwise then it would be irrational to exclude that possibility. I guess this is more like the Deist approach. But when I consider what we do know about the universe then I don’t see the idea of gods as really a credible explanation, or a necessary explanation.

So much like you, while I don’t see the idea of gods as credible I cannot rule out something that is currently beyond our ability to detect, it would be arrogant to do otherwise.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed this discussion, I wish more of the discussions on this forum could be like this, even if in the end we really didn't get anything resolved ;)
And here I would agree, but I am a little disappointed that this thread seems to be ending sooner than it needs to.

Take care
Cris
 
For example I have no doubt that the Christian, Islamic, Judaist, gods do not exist as they have defined them.

No one can be 100% sure of anything in this world. Perfection is not possible. Everywhere we look we see this message time and time again. A perfect belief cannot be attained. Some people have very strong beliefs (like yourself, judging from that text), others are very open minded, but no one is absolutly certain, just as the Bible cannot be the "absolute truth".
 
Xelios,

No one can be 100% sure of anything in this world. Perfection is not possible.
There is a famous quote by a scientist, which I cannot find for the moment that says that it is not possible to provide an absolute proof unless you have complete knowledge of the entire universe, except perhaps in mathematics.

A perfect belief cannot be attained.
You don’t mean that. What you mean is a perfect proof cannot be attained. I can believe something perfectly. But I know what you mean. Perhaps a decade ago I might have had some doubts, but after 50 years of study and thought, when so many aspects fall into place there comes a clarity that shouts.

In the same way that inductive logic leads scientists to accept evolution, and the big bang, then I take the same approach with how the universe and life appeared without specific gods.

Please note though that I did specifically say ‘as they defined them’. The bible and its paradoxes and contradictions, the illogic of the Quran, and the mythology of Judaism, all add up to an impossibility that their claims could be true. Could such gods exist if the definitions didn’t conflict then maybe, but then such gods are not being presented, and my logic is based on the claims of existing religionists.

In terms of a proof, like any inductive conclusion, there always remains the possibility that the proponent is wrong, albeit perhaps a very small probability. The weight of the evidence determines the strength of the conclusion. In this sense I will agree that I might be wrong. But in terms of my belief based on the weight of the evidence then I have no doubt.

You cannot question my belief or my certainty; you can only question whether I am right or wrong, and for that we need to debate the evidence and that should be the jurisdiction of these forums.

Please be clear that I have no doubt.

Cris
 
Yes, sorry, that second point didn't come across very well. Your first arguement can go both ways.
 
Cris,

<i>Please be clear that I have no doubt.</i>

While we're at it, let's be clear about what you have no doubts about. :)

I assume you mean you have no doubts that the Gods of particular religions do not exist as described. Or do you mean you have no doubt that NO gods exist?

The former position is defensible, but I don't think the latter one is - at least not on logical grounds.
 
If I may chime in...

Originally posted by Xelios and agreed to by Cris:

No one can be 100% sure of anything in this world. Perfection is not possible.

1) Do you exist? Is there even a 0.000000000000000001% chance in your mind that you don't exist? Aren't you 100% sure of your existence?

2) What sort of "perfection" are you talking about? There are many possible definitions of the word, and I dare say that for some it is not only possible but extant.

Originally posted by James R:

... do you mean you have no doubt that NO gods exist?

... I don't think the latter one is [defensible] - at least not on logical grounds.

I take that latter position, and precisely on logical grounds. The religious idea of god is that of an intelligent being that is the point of origin for all existence. I would argue that intelligence cannot be a primary quality, that it arises out of (and indeed demands by its nature) finer, more fundamental, structure. Therefore I argue that if there is any sort of a primary reality, it is not intelligent.

One could of course still hypothesize secondary gods within that primary reality, but such constructs are:

1) not the point advanced by any religionist I know (except perhaps some Buddhists)
2) still presuppose a purely material and mechanistic primary cause and substrate
3) become completely redundant and unnecessary when it comes to explaining our origins
 
Another thought...

I concur with Cris as to the obvious human origins of all cultures and religions. For a sufficiently informed individual, there can be no doubt any longer that humanity never has had and still doesn't have any clue whatsoever as to the origins or any humanly-translatable purpose of the universe. In particular, this places all the extant and past religions in the realm of pseudo-random guessing within the narrow anthropomorphic subset of all possibilities -- and therefore all such guesses are incorrect with an infinite certainty.
 
Bambi,

<i>I would argue that intelligence cannot be a primary quality, that it arises out of (and indeed demands by its nature) finer, more fundamental, structure.</i>

I assume you reach that conclusion by inference from the kinds of intelligence you already believe in. But it does not follow from logic that other kinds of intelligence are impossible.
 
James,

I assume you reach that conclusion by inference from the kinds of intelligence you already believe in. But it does not follow from logic that other kinds of intelligence are impossible.

The problem with logic is that it cannot operate on ill-defined or even worse undefined propositions. Since we are talking of intelligence, then it is true that ours is the only one we know. Hence, using that operational definition my conclusion follows logically.

If, on the other hand, you can propose a plausible definition of intelligence that does not entail finer structure as its substrate, then you would have a point. However, I don't hear anyone making such proposals.

When one thinks of intelligence (admittedly, in human terms) one considers various faculties -- e.g. memory, introspection, emotion, problem-solving, imagination, coordination, perception (very important -- otherwise what would intelligence operate upon?) Such functional "blocks", even if poorly defined and not always clearly separated, already comprise an underlying structure that is more fundamental than the sum total of intelligence. Of course, as you get into the mechanics of each "block", you are bound to postulate further and even finer and even more fundamental structure. Then, if you take an abstract view of intelligence within an information-processing paradigm, you get into the essense of that which carries information. It seems that for intelligence to exist, there first has to exist a way to store and transmit information -- and that layer of detail has to be even more fundamental than any considered above (since the rest are dependent upon it.) With all of these considerations, it seems to me a foregone conclusion that intelligence cannot be a primary feature of existence.
 
Last edited:
James,

I assume you mean you have no doubts that the Gods of particular religions do not exist as described. Or do you mean you have no doubt that NO gods exist?
Sorry, it wouldn’t have hurt me to add the extra words since I was stressing clarity. :D

My arguments were targeting your first statement, which has been my position for some time. But I have until now left open the possibility of as yet undefined entities existing that might be called gods. However, I have to admit I have not given these other possible candidates much thought until reading Bambi’s post.

A culmination of research into such areas as the mechanisms of myth making, the origins of religions, ancient history, and the inconsistencies of the man made stories comprising modern religions, etc., lead me to conclude, that religions are purely man made and have no other origins. And in these cases the gods imagined clearly cannot exist.

But the concept of a god remains and we should consider whether it has any credibility in reality. There is no evidence for gods and that is clearly not in their favor. But how could a god be defined that does not possess the paradoxical qualities that make the products of current religions impossible. As soon as we begin to remove the problematic properties of omnipotence and/or omniscience, for example, we are not left with very much that we could call godlike.

But Bambi has provided me an additional consideration, that of a primary quality, and where intelligence could not be the first.

With current leading cosmology leaning towards infinite big bangs indicating a probable infinite universe, and with the idea of a primary quality, then I can see myself clearly leaning towards the impossibility of a creator. Once that attribute is removed, then omnipotence becomes impossible. The downhill slide then seems inevitable.

Bambi’s thinking is more advanced than mine at this point, so I think I need to think on this longer to see if I can bring myself up to speed if I can.

Enough for now.
Cris
 
Bambi,

A god, almost by definition, is a supernatural being. A supernatural being is literally "above nature". Therefore our ideas of physical substrates for intelligence are irrelevant when it comes to considering the nature of a god. A god need not be constrained by the requirements of the natural world.
 
Iccabod! America!

Well put there, James R! GOD is in no ways subject to our concepts of Him, He is above nature, time, space, science! He is the Supreme Being! And most mistierious, to all that know not GOD their Creator!

Just a bounch of kids playing with fire! And they can get burnt!:eek:
 
Re: Iccabod! America!

Sir. Loone,

GOD is in no ways subject to our concepts of Him, He is above nature, time, space, science!
If that is true then that must also include YOUR concepts of him. Or do you claim to have some special way of knowing god, e.g. he has spoken with you directly?

So explain why you think your concept of God is any more accurate than anyone else's.

Cris
 
Concepts!

Hi Cris!

You forget that a "born again" believer has the Holy Spirit of GOD within him or her! And that we have the Word of GOD from GOD Himself, the Bible, and the Spirit that is in us bears whitness to our own spirit that we are His! He is very real to me! More then you! The Holy Spirit of GOD, is GOD the 3thrd. person of the GOD Head.

We all were created in the image of GOD, so that we can fellowship, on a personal bases with the Supreme Being! Our GOD is LOVE! And we have a Great High Preiast that sits on the right hand of GOD Throne, and He is GOD and man but now is Gloryfied! I could tell you much more but you have been hostal to the Faith, and the Bible says you would not understand, nor want to! Only the Holy Spirit of GOD can deal with your spirit to have your eyes opened! (spirital eyes)

I and my familey were Christians as far back as the 1800's and maybe further back in time, we believe and love the Lord our GOD who loves us so very much! I thank my father and mother for showing me Je'sus when I was very young! Je'sus is a real person that is GOD you could talk to if you ask for His pardon, it's the only way. And you too can see that the GOD of Abraham, Isacc, and Jacob, is reality!

Hatred is a posion that blinds the minds, the hearts of men! So that you would not know or want the truth! Ask Je'sus for your self!

He, GOD has left you to your own will. He will not tamper with your will, that's fair! It's all up to you! Or you will find out too late.
 
Loone,

Yes I understand completely.

You are suffering from absolutely pure self-delusion.

Your fantasies are so wonderful I am sure many psychiatrists would even consider paying you for the delight in treating someone with such extreme mental disorders.

I can give you a list of psychiatrists if you are not sure where to look. Just let me know.

Keep taking the pills. I assume you are on medication right?

Cris
 
Rabit brain

No Cris, its not fantasies, but reality, you will know one day and we hope in life! So you won't ask Je'sus for your self?:eek: Then you may never know the GOD you scorn untill its too late! You really don't know that you were created with purpose and meaning that is higher then you think of self at this momment! So live like an animal, die like animal, and after that the Judgement!

You are diluted with the god of this world, Satan the Devil! He lies to you! You are more then an animal or mutant ape! Your concepts of life will not work well in a civilzed sociatey! No! It's really a cancer to sociatey! GOD is real, and you must face Him on a one on one, one day soon! Your throwing away a lot and don't know it! But JE'SUS saves the worst of sinners! GOD is far above nature! And puny little man (that know not GOD) shall fall! And Great is his fall!

Pitty party will countinue! For you, but Je'sus can make an awsome change in your lives! The truth shall set you free but lies and decieveing of your own heart shall damn thee for eternity!

My God is GOD! Je'sus is His name! Amen!:)
 
James,

How do you in good conscience reconcile your own statements:

that 1),

it does not follow from logic that other kinds of intelligence are impossible.

and simultaneously that 2),

A god need not be constrained by the requirements of the natural world.

As I've already demonstrated (rather informally, granted), it quite indeed follows logically that the typical conception of god is inconsistent (and therefore false.)

On the other hand, one can claim, as you now do, that God is beyond logic (which is itself an outgrowth of the natural world.) Ok, no argument from me (matter of fact, that's one of my main points in showing that no god exists.)

However, can we at least stay consistent in our discussion of the issue? If you claim that the idea of gods is logically consistent, then why don't you support your claim in a logical context? I'm still eagerly awaiting an "unnatural" conception of intelligence that does not conform with the general outline of the logical argument I've presented above.
 
why do you need to experience it, for what? in less than 100 years after you die, no one will remember you, know who you are or were, everything you do will be forgotten as if you never existed in the first place. remember you life is sooooo short compared to infinity that it almost never existed in the first place. it wouldn't mattre if you experienced anything, it's meaningless and you will die into nothingness just like before you were born.
That is a very selfish view of the world. The reason we exist is to insure the continued existence of life. When one dies, the collective continues. Notice also that all that you were is reabsorbed into the system. In that view death is only an end to the small minded.
this is a good analogy, but too specific for this arguement. if i were a true atheist i would throw out my computer and then kill myself, for everything is for nothing.
Then you will probably never have the pleasure of a clear, objective thought. I am an atheist, and yet I do not kill myself. That is not a contradiction, to most of my religious friends. This is not the first time I have heard that argument. I could say the same about you: you say that humans need a god to live. In this I say that you expose your own weakness. You are weak and therefore inhibit the growth of life. For this reason you should kill yourself, for the good of the whole. You are in a stasis, unable to learn. You will never be a better person, so kill yourself.
because suicide in most religions is a forbidden sin and you'll goto hell
Why is that so? That was a tool of control. Tell them that being poor is a virtue. Tell them that they will go to a better place after death. Why would they then endure? Invent an artificial mechanism to keep them from ending their suffering.
well i can't accept this answer, you are speaking in the moment, i am taking about your life timeline as a whole.
To you that is limited in scope to yourself. Again you show weakness, kill yourself! When you die the world goes on.
if something begins meaningless and ends meaningless then the middle must be meaningless.
Beginning, ending, and middle have no true meaning. You set these points of measurement due to a lack of understanding.
race that will die soon compared to the universe time. everything you do will be done in vain and in the end be a waste your your energy.
No. Consider, where did we arrive from. To you we start here and end here, but consider that life probably didn't suddenly sprout here. Viruses have a long lifespan, long enough to make a journey through space. Also consider that we have a chance to continue the existence of specific lines of creatures. That is another good reason to continue this existence.
no, i never said we all should do this, no no no. remember I am not an atheist. I said any TRUE atheist should by reason, kill themselves. If they don't then they are not a true atheist, becuase it implys he/she believes in some afterlife or continuation. or atleast has doubt.
Your definition of atheist is your barrier. Your limited view of this continuation inhibits your comprehension. As I said previously, when I die the world goes on. Others will live because I have died. If I were to live forever we would certainly be doomed. Consider that death is an adaptation of life to change. If we live forver we will never have random gene changes. This exists to a degree in complex life. They cannot adapt and thus they become extinct. Their weakness means the discontinuation of their species. Again it all comes with your perspective of the matter at hand. If you are selfish then your afterlife matters. If you are a realist only the continued existence of life matters. Also consider that we have a very subjective view of consciousness. What may seem special to us, is probably not so spectacular. You assume that we are better than inorganic matter. This is another jaded view you need shed.

All I ask is that you judge only after reviewing the facts. From your conclusion I know your awareness on these issues to be lacking. Please return when you have found more perspective.
 
in response to Sir Loone

/My Master is our universe, reality is Its name/

/My God is Me, Andris is His name/

/My Prophet is my computer, Desperado is His name/

/My fingers are my Muses, through my Prophet They use to speak/

/My friends are Gods, @ sciforums do they dwell/

/My food is Information pure, @ i-net it can be found/

/Avatar is my incarnation, see His myght on i-net and in life/

/True knowledge is for what I seek, I can't taste the lie and missinformation from my mates and foes/

/So consider when saying there's one true God, or you will taste the wrath of Gods/

/ENTER/:D



Hmmmmmmm, nice. I might consider making a poem with such background script,
Bye!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top