It is clearly evident that a great deal of people here at Sciforums are Atheists, and seeing as many profess to be rational defenders of these theological viewpoint, I'd like to see rational, well-thoughout out, logical defenses of this viewpoint by those who profess it as truth. So please, Atheists, assert the reasons for your disbelief in the notion of God, so long, of course, as they fit the "rational, well-thought out, logical defenses of the viewpoint", and not "lolz god suxs", or "grr, I hate God!". I would also kindly ask all people who profess to being religious to abstain from posting, as this is meant to be a discussion purely of the Atheistic viewpoints as expounded upon by the members here at SciForums, and is not an Atheism v. Theism debate.
Foundations for Atheism
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
There has simply not been any physical, tangible, viewable evidence for the existance of any deity. The theories of earth and humanity existing for onlya few thousand years have been proven false, and with it, the basis of christianity, islam, and judaism proven false.
There is, also, no real historical evidence for the existance of Jesus of Nazareth, no written Roman records of an execution of a man by that name, or similar names...and the Romans kept records of EVERYTHING, a'ight...they would've written that down, had it happened, which it didn't.
There is, also, no real historical evidence for the existance of Jesus of Nazareth, no written Roman records of an execution of a man by that name, or similar names...and the Romans kept records of EVERYTHING, a'ight...they would've written that down, had it happened, which it didn't.
You can't define what God is, therefore how would I even know what it is I'm supposed to believe?
A "notion" isn't logically defensible, it's too vague.
A "notion" isn't logically defensible, it's too vague.
I don't think many here are Athiests at all. It just turns out the non religious will end up acting that way when confronted with a religious bafoon.
I would say most people here are Agnostic. It's not the concept of an "intelligent designer" most people find difficult to believe, it's just the way people blindly follow the rules of their religion as though they know it is true, no matter how obviously fabricated they may be.
I personally find it as equally difficult to believe that our universe was some accidental result of a nature of sorts than I do a "God" like thing created it at some point down the line. Everything is so perfect to seem like an accident.
If there's a God, no religion on Earth is representative of she/he/it/them/they etc.
I would say most people here are Agnostic. It's not the concept of an "intelligent designer" most people find difficult to believe, it's just the way people blindly follow the rules of their religion as though they know it is true, no matter how obviously fabricated they may be.
I personally find it as equally difficult to believe that our universe was some accidental result of a nature of sorts than I do a "God" like thing created it at some point down the line. Everything is so perfect to seem like an accident.
If there's a God, no religion on Earth is representative of she/he/it/them/they etc.
Roman:
Roman, this isn't really a logical reason to be an Atheist, nor a well defended position. Have any solid reasons?
Hapsburg:
Two flaws:
1. This is really more Agnosticism.
2. God isn't the sole property of Abrahamic faiths.
spidergoat:
Let's take the standard Western theological model for God. A necessary being/thing which has the following attributes:
Omniscience
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Eternity
Infinity
Omnibenevolence (if he is a true being)
KennyJC:
What about it is perfect?
(Q):
See my answer to Spidergoat.
Roman, this isn't really a logical reason to be an Atheist, nor a well defended position. Have any solid reasons?
Hapsburg:
Two flaws:
1. This is really more Agnosticism.
2. God isn't the sole property of Abrahamic faiths.
spidergoat:
Let's take the standard Western theological model for God. A necessary being/thing which has the following attributes:
Omniscience
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Eternity
Infinity
Omnibenevolence (if he is a true being)
KennyJC:
What about it is perfect?
(Q):
See my answer to Spidergoat.
Ummm... slash out that omnibenevolence bit, Prince James. There is no reason at all why god would have to be absolutely good, if the term would even mean anything to him. Humans just tacked that bit in to make ourselves a bit more comfortable with the universe.
Eh. I've been reading sciforums for maybe three or four years now (and I actively participated for about two years - Hi Q!!) and I can't tell you how many times this 'debate' has come up. So here, though I'm a little out of practice, is how I remember it going...
[cough cough]
Okay, atheism is, technically "without theism". That is, it means non-theistic, having no god-related beliefs.
Agnosticism is this crazy little arguement certain philosophers (and I use the term loosely) and others have adopted to try and distance themselves from a third category.
That is, the category of people who genuinly hold the arguement "there is no god, there definitely is no god". I don't know what the right thing to call these people is, but it ain't atheism.
Now, within the agnostic tribe there is certainly a split (if not many). Some will pose the arguement "well, I just don't see any proof of god, so I have no belief". These people, while identifying themselves as agnostic, seem more suited to what atheism always was and generally is considered among philosophers and theologians. But hey, whatever floats your boat. Then, there are the agnostics that better fit the term. The ones who say "well, there's no proof either way".
It is with this type of agnostic that an atheist generally marks his split. There's no proof a giant invisible manta ray doesn't live underneath mars. That doesn't mean I'm going to adopt some weird ass agnosticism towards manta rays underneath mars. Essentially, saying "there's no proof it's not true" (which, firstly, being a very flawed arguement to begin with) opens the door to forcing one into taking an "agnostic" stance towards every single possible thing that hasn't been disproven.
I give no credibility to the claim of the existence of god (in any modern sense) any more than I do to the claim of the existence of Ra the Sun God or Sasquatch the Bigfoot. Lots of people have thought or think they exist, but that doesn't mean a damn thing. Human beings spent most of their early lives attributing every possible natural phenomenon to a higher being. It's the old quote: "If god didn't exist, it would have been necessary for us to invent him".
To return to the original point full circle:
Saying "There's no proof for x, therefore I don't believe in x" means your agnostic towards x (as Prince James is doing) means that you must be agnostic towards a literal N number of possibilities. And that's just silly.
An addendum to my previous post:
One can prune some concepts of God from the standard Western theological model and retain a God which we can discuss. Omnibenevolence, for instance, is a pretty weak idea which can be demonstrated to be wrong and which does not impact the other attributes and thus can be dropped.
One can prune some concepts of God from the standard Western theological model and retain a God which we can discuss. Omnibenevolence, for instance, is a pretty weak idea which can be demonstrated to be wrong and which does not impact the other attributes and thus can be dropped.
(Q):
Presumably, a logical theological system produces large scale agreement. For instance, the Greek and Roman philosophical schools have often agreed, without any real contact, with the Hindu philosophical schools as to the nature of God on many, many levels.
Clockwood:
I agree.
Tyler:
It is not simply enough that something does not have any proof for its existence, but as regards the necessary being, but that one also has reasons to -not- believe in him. A contingent being (such as manta rays on Mars) can never be proven or disproven until empirical evidence deals with it, but God would not be a mere empirical being, but a logically demanded being we ought to have positive proof against in order not to believe in.
Hapsburg:
You have not considered any positive proof against God as a full concept.
We're not dealing with any Abrahamic deity, we are dealing with God. I am not asking whether you are a Jew, Christian, or Moslem, or whether you find their idea to be good or bad, specifically the religious nonsense involved with it, but rather, the notion of God as determined from logical theological arguments and other such things.
Presumably, a logical theological system produces large scale agreement. For instance, the Greek and Roman philosophical schools have often agreed, without any real contact, with the Hindu philosophical schools as to the nature of God on many, many levels.
Clockwood:
I agree.
Tyler:
It is not simply enough that something does not have any proof for its existence, but as regards the necessary being, but that one also has reasons to -not- believe in him. A contingent being (such as manta rays on Mars) can never be proven or disproven until empirical evidence deals with it, but God would not be a mere empirical being, but a logically demanded being we ought to have positive proof against in order not to believe in.
Hapsburg:
You have not considered any positive proof against God as a full concept.
We're not dealing with any Abrahamic deity, we are dealing with God. I am not asking whether you are a Jew, Christian, or Moslem, or whether you find their idea to be good or bad, specifically the religious nonsense involved with it, but rather, the notion of God as determined from logical theological arguments and other such things.
James [discalimer:been drinking],
Well, being raised whatever hasn't much to do with logic. It's more of a socio-biological thing.
From a logical standpoint, I guess, here's my reasoning:
not enough proof
holy books too old
no god in my life, no direct evidence
life is too absurd, ugly, dangerous and unjust to allow a divine creator
biblical shit of any kind reeks of supersition, which is ugly and so 15th century
evolution and ecology are far more aestheically pleasing than a supra-sentient duality in a struggle for my immortal soul. I like my wickedness to come from my humanity, and my humanity to be from humanity
the idea of a supra-father figure reeks of all kinds of freudian fuck ups.
THE END.
Well, being raised whatever hasn't much to do with logic. It's more of a socio-biological thing.
From a logical standpoint, I guess, here's my reasoning:
not enough proof
holy books too old
no god in my life, no direct evidence
life is too absurd, ugly, dangerous and unjust to allow a divine creator
biblical shit of any kind reeks of supersition, which is ugly and so 15th century
evolution and ecology are far more aestheically pleasing than a supra-sentient duality in a struggle for my immortal soul. I like my wickedness to come from my humanity, and my humanity to be from humanity
the idea of a supra-father figure reeks of all kinds of freudian fuck ups.
THE END.
Last edited:
atheism is not theological, it's the complete opposite, non-theological.Prince_James said:
it's not a disbeleif, you must have first have a belief, for you to then have a disbelief. gods or non-existent. plain and simply, read on and you will understand why.pj said:
There is no such thing as a god or gods or devils demons, fairies, elves, orcs, dragons, flaming blue polka dotted yellow yetis, who dance the samba, they are all pure fantasy.pj said:
The reasoning behind this is, thus, they have no effect on any of the sense, they are purely fictious, and most certainly are not necessary to humanity, well I surpose they are necessary to the imagination, else we would never be creative, but they must stay there, it's when these imaginings are let out, into the real world and people start to believe these imaginings that we get problems.
I have no hatred for a god/gods that would be stupidly infantile, as they are fantasy entitys, but I hate the way man becomes, because of his inane and irrational belief in them, once the idea is irradicated for the human mind set, it will be the best day in human history.
Meritedly the proof of a gods non-existence cant be wholely proven, as we at this time cant check under ever nook and cranny, in the universe, to see where it's may be hidden. but the same can be said for flaming blue polka dotted yellow yetis, who dance the samba. it is not rational to believe they exist so why so a god.
Roman:
And ancient is equatable with wrong?
So you think God must be just?
Interesting. Elaborate?
geeser:
It's a position on the matter of God, and thus rightfully included under the category of "theological".
The opposite of belief is disbelief. If one says God does not exist, one does not believe in God, and thus it is a disbelief.
Foundation?
Actually, many people profess to see such things. Are you saying the totality of all people who have experienced things related to gods, devils, demons, faeries, were not of sense? Socrates believed he had a guardian angel of sorts. Are you going to call Socrates a fool?
And ancient is equatable with wrong?
So you think God must be just?
Interesting. Elaborate?
geeser:
It's a position on the matter of God, and thus rightfully included under the category of "theological".
The opposite of belief is disbelief. If one says God does not exist, one does not believe in God, and thus it is a disbelief.
Foundation?
Actually, many people profess to see such things. Are you saying the totality of all people who have experienced things related to gods, devils, demons, faeries, were not of sense? Socrates believed he had a guardian angel of sorts. Are you going to call Socrates a fool?
What the hell is up with things? I've been replying to a whole bunch of stuff and seemingly it isn't popping up. Where is Raithere's post?
Your understanding of atheism is wrong.Prince_James said:
Atheism is merely not having the belief in God. This is deemed "weak atheism".
Some go further and actually have a belief that God does not exist. This is deemed "strong atheism".
Agnosticism is about knowledge - not belief.
I am an agnostic atheist.
I do not have a belief that God exists.
But I do not go as far as saying that I believe God doesn't exist.
Why? Because there just isn't the knowledge to support a belief in either God's existence or non-existence.
I am an atheist because there is zero evidence to support the existence of God - whether it be the God supported by the Bible, by the Romans, Greeks, Pagans, etc.
The only "Gods" that have any evidence for them are those where the word "God" is merely used to describe natural phenomena for which science hasn't yet worked out the finer details - e.g. "consciousness". In these instances I do not see a need for what is nothing more than a confusing label - with implications of deity, immortality etc.
All other "Gods" lack evidence.
Given there is zero evidence it is illogical to have a belief that it exists.
This is true for anything - including God.
Likewise, if there is zero evidence that it DOES NOT EXIST it is also illogical to have a belief that IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Do not confuse the word "belief" with merely "there is a chance that" - as "belief" in this context equates to having an utter conviction of truth.
So basically, it is the "belief without evidence" that I do not hold with - whether it be God, non-God, invisible Unicorns, ghosts etc.
The lack of this belief in God makes me an Atheist.
theological: Of or relating to theology or to specialized religious study. it was, when I questioned it, but I know the truth, I no longer study of follow it, therefore my stance is of the non-theological base anti-theological if you like, I am an anti theist, a/thiestPrince_James said:
that is what an atheist is.
your idea of atheism is wrong, I have no belief in a god I have no disbelief in a god, gods to me simply do not exist, get it, good.pj said:
it only takes one instant of any one of the mythical creatures, I listed to prove they exist, one micro instant.pj said:
To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
The thing exists.
It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
most definitely.pj said:
socrates may have been wise in other ways, but when it came to believing in a fantasy figure he was quite clearly imagining it.