Is Athiesm The Answer?

[TheERK]

Yes, one can. One needn't first hear something to think it. All a person needs to do is realize the simple fact that everything has a creator and that's not a hard thought to come by. Everything comes from something. And in that case, all one needs to do is think higher and higher up the creation pyramid and a person will reach a conclusion of there being an almighty creator. Heck, that's the only reason why I believe there is a god -- whatever it may be -- and I use the term "god" loosely.

I think you know what I meant by 'hear'--not necessarily literally heard of, but conceived of, whether it be through self-reflection, reading, or hearing. Some people have never even *thought* about God, and these people are atheists.

If everything comes from something, where does God come from? It is not a 'simple fact' that everything has a creator, because the only logical conclusion to that is infinite regression. If that is your only reason for believing in God, prepare to become an atheist once you understand why the reasoning makes no sense.

 

[Neildo]

If everything comes from something, where does God come from? It is not a 'simple fact' that everything has a creator, because the only logical conclusion to that is infinite regression. If that is your only reason for believing in God, prepare to become an atheist once you understand why the reasoning makes no sense.

Remember, I said I use the term "god" loosely. I'm not saying god is a physical being, is omnipotent, nor has any more magical powers other than the first jumpstart of all of creation being made, or whatever else because we just can't know. For all we know, god is.. or was. Everything is created from something except for the first thing to have existed and created. Whether science figures it out in that god is the black mass in everything, the most tiniest of atoms that we may find, or whatever else we'll eventually reach an end and will find that that's the begining which would then be god, the creator of all. Whatever that begining is, that's god, whatever form it may be: an atom, emptiness, a spirit, the big bang, a being, etc. Anything that tries to define god, is all unprovable philisophical rubbish and has no bearing on my thoughts of what god is. We'll know when we know.

- N

 

[TheERK]

I'm sorry that you choose to call that 'first thing' God. It is misleading to nearly 100% of the population to call an impersonal, non-conscious force or entity 'God'.

What you describe is essentially atheism.

 

[Neildo]

I'm sorry that you choose to call that 'first thing' God. It is misleading to nearly 100% of the population to call an impersonal, non-conscious force or entity 'God'.

What you describe is essentially atheism.

I'm not calling god anything for I do not know who or what god is. I was merely using unknown "for all we know" examples of what he/she/it could be (did you not notice that I also said god could be a being or a spirit which implies consciousness?) and also reinforcing the point of that while everything has a creator and comes from something, how that rule can begin and end with god for those that ask "but who made god". It's not athiesm all because I realize there can be many possibilities of who and what god is other than some old man in a white robe or some spiritual entity.

- N

 

[antifreeze]

ahh, but the monkeys would probably be drinking bourban, so looking for bottles would yield tangible evidence...joking of course. the way i understand christian proof is thus, say we have the monkeys again; you and i run into nyc only to find no monkeys. i say to you, i knew there weren't any monkeys. and you say to me, of course there were, let's ask this guy, i'm sure he saw them. now, relating this back to christianity, the bible is taken as an account of what really happened - that is people telling the story of how the monkeys came and danced around all crazy-like. and furthermore, you might look for effects that the dancing monkeys had on the surrounding environment. this correlates into what effects god had on our environment, the answer to this is simple, the fact that our environment exists. but it is not that simple. there are many things wrong with the notion of an omni-max god. things that can't be resolved as easily as saying, well how do think we got here then.

and as for why i - being an atheist - don't kill people, it's called prison.

As Buddah said, the middle road is the key.

yeah, because buddha is infallible.

and there are not various types of atheists. what? how does that work? you mean quiet ones and loud ones? :bugeye:

 

[Lemming3k]

Everything comes from something. And in that case, all one needs to do is think higher and higher up the creation pyramid and a person will reach a conclusion of there being an almighty creator

An almighty creator that created himself? As you say everything comes from something.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Katazia,

...since there is no choice other than humans.

There are other choices, it could be that God exists, or beings more advanced than humans came up with the idea.

Your question is simply redundant, unless indeed you want to propose some type of animal.

Redundant or not, it still stands; How do you KNOW that God is an idea composed by humans. If you say that you believe it is, based on simple logic, you won't get an argument from me. But if you claim it as fact or truth, then i want to know how.

You are using the term ‘possibility’ in a very loose sense, but you expect a precise answer.

I asked if he thought there could be a possibibilty. How does that imply the expectation of a precise answer?

The typical and simple example to demonstrate what is possible or not is to use something like a dice. A throw of a dice will give a single result out of 6 possible results. The 6 possibilities are known, and the probability of any one number occurring can be precisely calculated.

That's great, but you fail to see the whole picture. The dice is an intelligently created object, and is designed for a purpose.

The problem with stating whether a god is possible or not is that we do not know of any conditions under which a god has a finite probability of occurring.

You mean "you do not know" or people who you know or associate with do not know, but it doesn't mean it is not known.

The real world analogy to the dice is that the known possibilities all lie in the natural world.

a) you do not know the length, breadth or possibilities of the natural world and the chances are you will never know, so you are just speculating. Which means you do not know whether God exists or not, nor whether God is a created Being based on imagination or fantasy.

b) the dice is a created phenomenea which can be manipulated to make someone believe they have six possible outcomes on a throw, when in fact they don't. The world could be created in much the same way, to accomodate different mentalities, which was the basic point of my question.

We know of no other scenario, e.g. a supernatural realm. In terms of the dice you would be suggesting that the number 7 is possible, when we only know of 6 possibilities.

The super-natural element of the dice is already there to begin with. The fact that there are 6 possibilities is purely by design, not by chance or natural law. We only know of 6 because a designer decided on 6.

The issue with making a logical conclusion is that all valid premises must be based on facts, i.e. known conditions.

I do not know anybody who is purely logical. I believe it unatural (for humans anyway) to cnduct their lives in such a way. It may be argued that pleasure is logical because it helps the human beings evolution, for example. But pleasure itself is illogical and irrational, and is way more important in life than anything else, including its analasys.

Since a god is beyond the known natural conditions then there is no known condition (i.e. no facts needed for logic) that would allow a god to be considered a possibility.

But that is just a speculation based on what you believe to be the right way to obtain knowledge. While that may be your method, i think it is too simplistic and suppressed in that you are not allowing your whole being, nor any other whole being to express their natural human potential.
This is why i think you are no different to any other institutional religion.

The idea of a god is more strictly just an imaginative speculation, you cannot declare god a possibility unless you can provide credible evidence.

What you regard as credible evidence is set down by the institution which only recognises certain things and discards others. I for one am not satisfied with this particular institutions ideals or guidelines, so i understand and accept the above statement on the grounds that you are a part of this institution. But in the real world i regard your sentiments as childish, stubborn, close-minded and conditioned.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Neildo]

and there are not various types of atheists. what? how does that work? you mean quiet ones and loud ones?

There are different kinds of athiests just as there are different types of religious people. It's more of a degree than type. As there are humble religious types that follow their faith, there are zealots as well and those zealots exist in atheism too. There are athiests just feel "iffy" that there may or may not be a god so they have slight disbelief in him/her/it, but then there are those extreme zealot types that say flat out NO with no ifs, ands, or buts, about his existance that want to spread their word and break other people's faith. Surely you should see the difference.

An almighty creator that created himself? As you say everything comes from something.

No, I did not say everything comes from something. I said everything comes from something except for the first thing to have created. Creation does not exist until that first action.

- N

 

[Katazia]

Jan Ardena,

Concerning the statement that the idea of God was created by humans - It is a fact in so much as it would be perverse to call it anything else in the light of the overwhelming evidence, and fanciful ideas about gods, aliens, fairies, or the numerous other imaginary characters having some influence really doesn’t mean anything unless you can show otherwise.

The dice analogy – you missed the point here and allowed yourself to be diverted by the mechanics of the analogy rather than the principle that it was demonstrating. The issue was to determine if something can be declared possible and the point was that you cannot unilaterally make a statement of possibility unless you have evidence of that condition. Hence, not only can you not state that a god exists you also cannot even state that one is possible – you have no evidence for either.

Not having evidence for something doesn’t mean that it is impossible or does not exist, but simply that the state of the claimed object’s existence or possibility is unknown. Under such circumstances if one insists that the object does exist and the claim is incredible then they are simply fantasizing, as is the case for claims for gods.

The issue of being logical – I'm not sure you quite grasp the fundamentals of logic, in what way would pleasure be inherrently illogical? If the objective was to make someone happy then pleasure could well be a perfectly logical response.

It is true that many people do not behave or think logically, that is tragic and a sad observation of our species. I would hope through future improved education and perhaps even through future genetic engineering that the human race will vastly improve. But what does natural mean in this sense? This is simply the current state of our evolutionary progress. The alternative is to accept irrational behavior and I do not find that an acceptable outcome for the species.

But you also seem to feel that the processes of logic used extensively and predominantly in science as a way to ascertain knowledge are inadequate. That’s fine but you do not demonstrate any alternative that can be shown to be superior. Can you show some new knowledge that can be discovered by your method where science would fail or perhaps come in last?

Kat

 

[Katazia]

Neildo,

No, I did not say everything comes from something. I said everything comes from something except for the first thing to have created. Creation does not exist until that first action.

Why must there be a first action?

Kat

 

[GuitarToadster]

A subject I like to discuss is how much athiesm is logical or scientific (as its folowers claim it to be)??

Personally, I only found them to claim that God's existance can't be proven, and when confronted with proof they change the subject or ask questions which are basically self contradicted ( I ment the question itself ).

And they only attack religion ( any religion ) by taking the verse out of its context to builed a false case!!

They claim to follow ethical principals with no need to religion at the time religion is the source of ethics and it is only by it that you come to refuse something ethically or not, religion is built into the social thinking, weither you are a beleiver or not, you are affected by it.

My conclusion about athiesm is that it is only a way to give themselves a reason why they are (athiests) committed to nothing!!

But that's only my opinion!!

I gotta ask.... what proof is there that "god" exists? Because a book has it written in it? I have books written about dragons too... and ghosts and aliens so I guess that would prove them to be real. I haven't spent much time perusing these forums in a good many months but unless there has been some "new breakthrough" information about "god" and and of these mythological stories in the Bible I see no proof. As in court, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff and in this case the religious factions are the plaintiffs with no physical evidence. So there is no case. You got pictures? Finger prints? DNA? Didn't think so. Atheists say there is no "god" and since we've been to the moon and fly through clouds and we still haven't found "heaven" it seems to be rather absurd to live by words written in a book.

I don't build any false cases about religion... I quote nothing from scriptures because there is no need to... it's just paper with words on it.

In what way is religion the basis of ethics? You kill people then someone will kill you... rather simple concept. We live in a society that there are things that other people will accept and things they will not. You learn from parents, teachers, friends, t.v., radio, newspaper, etc what is right or wrong and you decide to follow the path of your chosing. Very simple indeed. Religion did not teach me ethics.

I would be called an atheist by definition and I am committed to living my life the way I see fit, based on the knowledge I have gained through life. Nothing more, nothing less.

That is the truth, the way I "see it!"

 

[Neildo]

Why must there be a first action?

Because without that first moment of creation, the act of creation would not exist.

- N

 

[Lemming3k]

I said everything comes from something except for the first thing to have created.

But what created the first thing? If that first thing simply has always been there then why the need for a creator at all? Your logic about a creation pyramid is flawed as there can be no top, the first creator will simply have always existed and its illogical to say a creator can always have existed but nothing else can do the same.

 

[Katazia]

Neildo,

Because without that first moment of creation, the act of creation would not exist.

I understand but why suggest that the universe was created? There is nothing in science that shows anything is ever created or destroyed.

What you are suggesting is something from nothing and that is far from being intuitively possible. If we go with science then we should start by assuming the universe has always existed and then look for evidence that might suggest otherwise.

In an infinite universe you avoid all the paradoxes of a first event being required.

Kat

 

[spidergoat]

“ The best circumstantial proof for the non-existence of God is the fact that Churches often get hit by lightning and burn to the ground. ”


why?

Why indeed! Why would God (presumably in control of things) intentionally destroy something intended to further belief in him?

But there is no middle road – either you believe in a god or you don’t. There are only theists and non-theists (atheists).

I don't agree, you may believe in something halfway in between such as agnostics, or think that there is some other creative power that doesn't fit the western ideas of God.

spidergoat,

The evidence against God is circumstantial.

That is a matter of opinion and/or belief.

The idea of God was created...

How do you know?

...specifically so it could not be disproven.

So the person who created it, must know the real truth as there must be a reason why he/she went to so much trouble?

Yup, its just my opinion/belief. I think, in the search for explanatory ideas about existence, that those ideas that could be easily disproven were rejected. In this way, religion was created in such a way as to be a fully circular self-sustaining system of reasoning. Its not that someone knew any real truth, or that any one person created it with bad intentions. I think religion evolved, and the natural selection was disprovability, so only those religions containing sufficiently vague and non-disprovable statements survived.

Do you think there could be a possibility that God was not created, and He actually exists as described in all authorititive scripture thereby giving intelligent beings the option of belief or dis-belief?

No, because, as my example of Bog pointed out, there are thousands of ideas about existence, most have gone extinct, and they all have the option of belief or disbelief. God is just one idea among many that happened to become popular. It is the most improbable reason one can think of for why we are here, and it really doesn't explain anything, it just passes the buck on to another level. I think there are secular reasons for the evolution of religion that believers may not be aware of. Religions can give a population survival advantages. For example, some religions outlaw pork. At one time, pig diseases may have been a real threat, and those people avoiding pork survived and prospered, enabling them to spread their religion.

I could create an idea of something so insubstantial and indefinite too, and call it Bog. What is your proof that Bog does not exist? Bog was God's creator, and contained both good and evil. Does it take faith to say there is no Bog?

Okay! Do it. And try not using the any concepts which can be traced back to any religious scripture. Something totally original.

It's just an example, I would not want to create a religion. But tell me, why does God exist and Bog doesn't? What if I suggested that it was, say, the bacteria of the earth that created the entire system of atmosphere, and "higher" life forms specifically for their own enjoyment. Such a hypothesis makes more sense than God, after all, we know bacteria changed the atmosphere, which made plant life possible, which caused a cascade effect that led to us. Why centralize creation into the container of a single being, doesn't that sound very human, very kinglike, very middle eastern? What about the idea of many Gods? Wouldn't a comittee of Gods be more probable, a sustainable community of beings? Because beings never occur singly.

Also, millions of religious people are atheists, they are called Buddhists.)

Don't they believe in reincarnation of the soul/essence?
Which atheist do you know that shares those beliefs?

Jan Ardena.

Buddhist belief does not imply separate souls, like the christian view, and certainly no God. Reincarnation seems more probable to me than the idea of God, since we know that our molecules do not just disppear, but are constantly being recycled through the earth's larger cycles. Buddhists feel that the separateness of the individual ego is an illusion, so a single person does not get reincarnated. We were never separate, so there is no separateness of souls. I am an atheist, and I share this belief. Between matter and soul, there is no separation; matter is soul, and soul is matter. Buddhism points out the essential unity of apparent opposites.

 

[spidergoat]

Also, Buddhists don't believe in a creator, because they don't think there was a beginning, just an endless circular cycle. Every effect has a cause, so there could be no first cause.

 

[Neildo]

I understand but why suggest that the universe was created? There is nothing in science that shows anything is ever created or destroyed.

What you are suggesting is something from nothing and that is far from being intuitively possible. If we go with science then we should start by assuming the universe has always existed and then look for evidence that might suggest otherwise.

In an infinite universe you avoid all the paradoxes of a first event being required.

That's the whole point of me not defining who or what God is. You look down upon my reasoning for there being a creator of all that existed before the act of creation was ever done, yet you use the example of the universe always having existed without ever having been created. Is that not the same thing? The reason why you avoid all the paradoxes of a first event being required due to an infinite universe is because you are saying that is God.

Remember, I said I do not know who or what God is, I also gave examples of what God could be. Heck, God could simply be the universe if that is what that "first" thing ever was. And to say that things aren't created or destroyed is silly. Planets are created, books are created, desks are created, etc. I know what you mean in that everything is relative, and in that sense, we are then apart of God and God is all around us. We just aren't yet able to trace everything back to that one root from whence everything came. Once we do find that, that is what God is, whether it's a being, a subatomic atom which is a part of everything, or whatever else. But when it all comes down to it, there *is* at least one thing that has existed before the act of creation has existed which means it can create even though it was never created, whether it creates knowingly or without knowing, whether it's some spiritual energy, a subatomic atom, a being, "just is", the big bang, or whatever it may be. This is why we do not know who or what God is because we've yet to trace everything back to the very begining, whether quantum physics, religion, or philosophy answers that for us.

- N

 

[§outh§tar]

we should start by assuming the universe has always existed
Kat

It was just there all along.

//What's wrong with the alternative assumption, Kat? Is there "proof" for that?

 

[Neildo]

Also, Buddhists don't believe in a creator, because they don't think there was a beginning, just an endless circular cycle. Every effect has a cause, so there could be no first cause.

And what do you call the washer on spin cycle that makes that endless circular cycle happen? You can't just "have" an endless circular cycle because even that points to something having to put that all in motion. Something has to write the rules of "every effect has a cause" for otherwise there would be no effects or causes to happen in the first place. Whether it's someone writing an endless loop program on their computer, hits the okay button, then dies and is never heard or seen from again, something has to jumpstart the motion we're all in, even if it was just a one-time deal, and that person would be the root of it all and is God, whether he/she/it still does, or no longer, exists.

- N

 

[spidergoat]

"Something has to write the rules..."

why must there be a "first place"? And why, most importantly, must it resemble a "person"? In buddhism the answer is that the origins of the universe are essentially mysterious, and can never be known. Why is God associated with living beings rather than inorganic materials? Inorganic processes create lots of things, volcanos, stars, planets, which organic things mostly create shit.

The idea of a mysterious creator is one thing, but why then, or how could anyone translate that into such banal concerns as "don't pass out condoms in school", or "marriage is a sacred institution", it doesn't follow. As a philosophical idea, I have less of a problem with God than with the social institutions that the idea generates.