Is Athiesm The Answer?

[Neildo]

why must there be a "first place"? And why, most importantly, must it resemble a "person"?

Why must that first place resemble a person? Obviously you haven't been reading my posts for I never said it must resemble a person as I gave many other examples of what God *could* be, I never once said what he/she/it *is*.

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.

Oh, I agree, those are my beliefs as well. I'm agnostic and believe the origins of everything will most likely never be known, but that's not to stop me from philosophying and trying to think of how it all may be without ever making a definite answer.

Again, I said God could very well be an inorganic process or act. God could have been the Big Bang and numerous other things. Heh, no wonder why Islamic extremeists prefer to blow themselves up much-like God could have sacrificed him/her/itself that way to create all. Allaaaah! *BOOM* there's that first act to create the universe and all. And from there on, God's rules, computer program loop, or whatever, continues to go on without him/her/it. No more God, but we have that first act of creation to jumpstart it all.

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.

That's exactly why while I believe there is a God, who/whatever it may be, I do not follow any religion because all religion is is one person's philisophical ideas that many have accepted and believed. And that one person is no more wrong or correct in their theories than anyone else about our origins. Religion is wrong because people are following someone else's beliefs and not their own. They are following the beliefs and ideas of someone who defined that which they do not know so those people are most likely 99.9999% following falsities.

- N

 

[Katazia]

Neildo,

I didn't mention a god. I referred to a first event which is what you implied. I also make no assumptins about what is meant by god. Bu we weren't discussing any gods.

The issue is about the logic of a creation event or first event as opposed to an infinite universe, right?

Kat

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

It was just there all along.

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

I have not made any claims that require a proof. I have not said anywhere that the universe is infinite but have suggested that that is a reasonable assumption as a working hypothesis. It is the creationists who insist that at one time the universe didn’t exist and required a creator.

Can you prove your claim that at some point the universe didn’t exist?

Kat

 

[Neildo]

Can you prove your claim that at some point the universe didn’t exist?

It all depends on what theories you want to believe. What about the Big Bang? As with God, much is unknown about the universe as well so it's kind of silly to try and prove the unknowable using more things unknown.

It is the creationists who insist that at one time the universe didn’t exist and required a creator.

Well that's what many creationists say but I've never said the universe has never just been here all this time. I'm merely saying that there *has* to be something that has always existed before creation has existed in which to create things in the first place. If the universe has always existed, then I say the universe is God. Whatever the origin of all life and creation is, to me, that's God. Remember, I'm not going to try and define that which I do not know so God could be the universe or it could be something else, and I'm open to many possibilities since it's all unknown.

- N

 

[Katazia]

Neildo,

It all depends on what theories you want to believe. What about the Big Bang?

But that isn’t a proof since we don’t know how the big bang began, presumably there had to be something before the BB to start it.

As with God, much is unknown about the universe as well so it's kind of silly to try and prove the unknowable using more things unknown.

So I’ll be a little pedantic here – God is not unknown but rather the existence of God is unknown. And whether the universe once did not exist is not inherently unknowable it is simply unknown; we do not know whether future technology will not be able to prove the condition. To state that something is unknowable implies it can never be known under any circumstances.

I'm merely saying that there *has* to be something that has always existed before creation has existed in which to create things in the first place.

That is simply an additional level of abstraction beyond my earlier statement that something infinite must exist.

If the universe has always existed, then I say the universe is God.

Why call the universe anything other than the universe?

Whatever the origin of all life and creation is, to me, that's God.

Why? An originating event might have been entirely natural and not godlike at all. Why give an unknown event such a name as God?

Remember, I'm not going to try and define that which I do not know so God could be the universe or it could be something else, and I'm open to many possibilities since it's all unknown.

Then why even introduce the name God which has enormous implications?

Kat

 

[spuriousmonkey]

There are many reasons why people become atheists or why people are atheists. I think Kat pointed this out already in the beginning of the thread.

Therefore in the end we (atheists) can only give you personal reasons why we are atheists, and why atheism is the answer.

Here is my personal reason:

It is obvious to me that religion is not based on a real god or gods, but a social construct. A social construct that has been most helpful in our early history in building civilizations. However, there doesn't seem to be a valid reason anymore in this respect to continue maintaining this artificial social construct.

Atheism allows for more personal freedom, which fits the requirements of a modern society better and the restrictive mental restrainer of organized religion.

 

[Alpha]

A social construct that has been most helpful in our early history in building civilizations.

You're wrong there. It has been the opposite of helpful. It held us back (the Dark Ages), and destoyed civilizations (Pagans) more than built them.

 

[Cyperium]

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.

Is that the best "proof"?! The churches are good for us, but still they have no life of it's own. That a church burned down also brings peoples attention to God because it has to be rebuildt.

 

[Alpha]

Or maybe God does exist and he's annoyed at all the people that believe in him on pure faith instead of reasoning for themselves that he exists.

 

[Neildo]

But that isn’t a proof since we don’t know how the big bang began, presumably there had to be something before the BB to start it.

Exactly, we have no proof, only theories. There are only so many outcomes about the universe. Whether it's always been here, whether it was created, or whatever other reason there may be. Since we have no way to prove either theory correct or false, for now, we get to pick which side of the fences we'll be on. Simple as that.

Just as with God, since it's all currently un-knowable and provable, for now we can think up as crazy a theory as we want because currently, neither of us are any more right or wrong than the next person. It's all speculative philosophy of the unknown. The only debate that we can have with one another is the question "Why" in which the other person replies "Why not". And it then becomes an endless circular debate about something we don't know much about. So long as nobody is spouting off any false truisms, it's all good for now, until we actually do learn more to prove theories wrong.

That is simply an additional level of abstraction beyond my earlier statement that something infinite must exist.

So are we in agreement with that or somthing? You mention the universe being infinite, so there's that something which may have always existed. Case closed, I would assume.

I say that everything has a creator except for that first thing to have existed (otherwise the act of creation wouldn't be possible) yet you continue to say that's wrong yet you use the universe as your example. Well uh, if the universe has always existed and it creates, then how is my statement wrong? Remember, I am not defining God, I realize all the many possibilities of just what God can be. I mentioned that God could very well be the universe and just because I may be more appreciative of the universe, if that is the origin of all life, it does not make me worse than you, only different. I'm glad to be here, that's all I can say.

Why call the universe anything other than the universe?

Well, as I said in my earlier posts, I use the term "God" loosely, so if the universe is the origin of all life which most would consider that God, I would simply call it the universe.

Then why even introduce the name God which has enormous implications?

Why? An originating event might have been entirely natural and not godlike at all. Why give an unknown event such a name as God?

Enormous implications? Don't blame me for others assumptions, that is not my way of thought. What is god-like? Anything profound that is considered "god-like" are all human definitions of something which they know nothing of. How do we know those god-like actions are things that God does? We don't. So anyone or thing saying that God is omnipotent, all-powerful, or even sentient and whatnot, I toss aside because it's all philosophical, unprovable theories.

As for giving an unknown event a name such as God, I wouldn't. That's an action so who/whatever made that action happen would be God. What makes a bomb explode? It doesn't just go off by itself, *something* makes it ignite, whether it's a person or it being out in the sun too long. Actions don't happen by themselves so if you dig deep enough and find the root of it all, you will find the origins of existance that which is God.

So while the unknown entirely natural event you speak of which made life happen, what is that natural environment that allowed the event to take place in? Nothing? Vast emptiness?Why do those natural molucles act the way they do and what made them act as they do? Why did that event happen in the first place? Go ahead and try to define the origins of existance rooting it through quantum physics or some other means, I've already tossed it up to being unknownable. You'll be the one to wrack your brains over trying to find the answers to everything, not me.

I do not need to know the origins of life but rather just realize that there is an origin of life, whatever it may be, and for that, I am grateful. I am content with the mere fact that everything comes from something except for the first thing to have created. You're the one that is left with all the questions. I know when something is way over my head and infinity is one of those things. I accept this as a losing battle in the endless pursuit of knowledge so I move on to the next task at hand. Even if the next task may be difficult, we'll at least able to some day find the answer unlike when it comes to infinity. With infinity, we'll never have any answers, only philosophical thought, and with that, nobody is wrong. And who is the bigger fool? The one who realizes and accepts their fate or the one who tries to make their own fate when they don't realize they'll never be able to change anything? Ahh, vanity. Ain't infinty grand? Welcome to Hell.

- N

 

[Jan Ardena]

Katazia,

It is a fact in so much as it would be perverse to call it anything else

I'm afraid it is not a fact because you believe so.

...in the light of the overwhelming evidence, and fanciful ideas about gods,

Produce this overwhelming evidence.

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.

Your analogy was too limiting IMO, it did not take everything into account. Remember we are not just talking about physics and mathematics, but the origin of everything.
You said;

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

a) if the dice is designed specifically, the real world must also be designed specifically. You should not accept one aspect and disregard another.

b) by deciding that the analogy was in some way asociated with the real world, implies that you have knowledge of everything natural. I don't think you do.

The issue was to determine if something can be declared possible

I asked if spidergoat thought if there was a possibility that God was not created by man, there was no declaration on my part.

...and the point was that you cannot unilaterally make a statement of possibility unless you have evidence of that condition.

Everything is evidence of that condition if you have any real understanding of the description of God as put foreward in the scriptures. One only needs to learn where to start. Obviously you won't agree with that, but that's just the way it is.

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.

There is evidence for Gods existence, you just won't accept it.

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.

Where did i insists that God exists?

...in what way would pleasure be inherrently illogical?

Not pleasure itself, but our pursuit, our desire, our use of pleasure can be illogical.

If the objective was to make someone happy then pleasure could well be a perfectly logical response.

Its not always that simple.

It is true that many people do not behave or think logically, that is tragic and a sad observation of our species.

Why are you so arrogant?
What makes you think you can so loftily observe the human race as if you are separate ?

But what does natural mean in this sense? This is simply the current state of our evolutionary progress.

In what way do you think we, as human beings, have progressed?

The alternative is to accept irrational behavior and I do not find that an acceptable outcome for the species.

And who are you?

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.

I have never said such practices are inadequate. They are extremely adequate in their own sphere, they just do not account for everything due to the nature of their ethics.

That’s fine but you do not demonstrate any alternative that can be shown to be superior.

Aquiring knowledge is not a competition or sport. There is knowledge to be found in every step we take through life. Science and logic are ways of understanding information and experience, but only up to a point.

Can you show some new knowledge that can be discovered by your method where science would fail or perhaps come in last?

I don't see how there can be new knowledge. Because we were'nt aware of something until the point of awareness, doesn't mean it has only just come into existence. I believe knowledge unfolds as we learn to accept it for what it is.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Q25]

Q25,

If God didn't love, He wouldn't discipline.

if you kill your children,what will they learn?

 

[§outh§tar]

if you kill your children,what will they learn?

If you give your children an entire lifetime to "learn" and yet they don't.. they obviously never will.

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

If you give your children an entire lifetime to "learn" and yet they don't.. they obviously never will.

Is that their fault or their tutors?

Kat

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar,

Is that their fault or their tutors?

Kat

Since their Tutor is perfect, the "blame" lies elsewhere.


Me smells a discussion on free-will coming out of this..

 

[Nasor]

Several people have already made heroic attempts at explaining this, so I don't know why I should expect to do any better, but I'll give it a shot.

Atheism does not require faith. It is reasonable to not believe a claim until there is evidence for it. The amount of evidence that's necessary for belief varies depending on the person you're trying to convince and the nature of the claim. An atheist is simply someone who says “I have not been presented with convincing evidence that god exists, and therefor I do not believe that god exists.” It doesn't mean that the atheist has somehow logically deduced or proven that god can't or doesn't exist - it just means that because of the lack of convincing evidence the belief has been left in the default 'off' position.

Hopefully now you can see the difference between saying “I don't believe in god” and “I believe that there is no god”. The first statement is a simple lack of belief caused by lack of evidence. The second statement is a positive claim, and as such it would be appropriate to ask “All right, what evidence do you have to support your claim that god doesn't exist?” The first statement is a simple expression of Atheism, while the second is a major philosophical/religious claim that requires proof on the part of the person who's making it.

Of course if Yazdajerd ever shows up with that 'proof' that he mentioned in the first post, I suppose the discussion could get a lot more interesting.

 

[§outh§tar]

Several people have already made heroic attempts at explaining this, so I don't know why I should expect to do any better, but I'll give it a shot.

Atheism does not require faith. It is reasonable to not believe a claim until there is evidence for it. The amount of evidence that's necessary for belief varies depending on the person you're trying to convince and the nature of the claim. An atheist is simply someone who says “I have not been presented with convincing evidence that god exists, and therefor I do not believe that god exists.” It doesn't mean that the atheist has somehow logically deduced or proven that god can't or doesn't exist - it just means that because of the lack of convincing evidence the belief has been left in the default 'off' position.

Hopefully now you can see the difference between saying “I don't believe in god” and “I believe that there is no god”. The first statement is a simple lack of belief caused by lack of evidence. The second statement is a positive claim, and as such it would be appropriate to ask “All right, what evidence do you have to support your claim that god doesn't exist?” The first statement is a simple expression of Atheism, while the second is a major philosophical/religious claim that requires proof on the part of the person who's making it.

Of course if Yazdajerd ever shows up with that 'proof' that he mentioned in the first post, I suppose the discussion could get a lot more interesting.

That is erroneously assuming the 'default' position is off. We are all created with a 'default on' position. Atheism is rejection and consequently insubordination.

 

[Katazia]

Jan Ardena,

I'm afraid it is not a fact because you believe so.

Why not when my belief is based on evidence – i.e. rational belief as opposed to irrational religious belief.

Produce this overwhelming evidence.

There are some things that are so obvious like this that it is a waste of time to describe the obvious for someone who can’t see it. Show anything else that can generate ideas other than humans.

The dice analogy is widely used to describe possibilities and probabilities in the general sense. It appears you simply cannot understand the concepts.

There is evidence for Gods existence, you just won't accept it.

Not even religionists accept such claims since they still insist on faith and hence acknowledging that there is no evidence and which in turn reduces your claim to a simple fallacy.

Where did i insists that God exists?

Just now when you claimed there was evidence for it.

Not pleasure itself, but our pursuit, our desire, our use of pleasure can be illogical.

That doesn’t really explain how even such pursuits are illogical. An individual object or event can never be deemed illogical outside of appropriate context. Do you have a scenario in mind where our use of pleasure could be irrational?

Why are you so arrogant?
What makes you think you can so loftily observe the human race as if you are separate ?

What? Weird statements. The inverse would be to praise illogic as commendable. And do you really think that that is somehow worthwhile?

In what way do you think we, as human beings, have progressed?

The issue concerned the evolution of logical thought – clearly we are able to think more logically than our predecessors and lower animals, presumably we will continue to evolve and hence very likely acquire increased ability to think more clearly and logical.

I have never said such practices are inadequate. They are extremely adequate in their own sphere, they just do not account for everything due to the nature of their ethics.

Science is the search for knowledge anywhere – there is no sphere where science cannot operate. Can you give an example?

Aquiring knowledge is not a competition or sport. There is knowledge to be found in every step we take through life. Science and logic are ways of understanding information and experience, but only up to a point.

I think you are confusing the learning process where we learn about already discovered and established knowledge as opposed to the formalized scientific method used for the discovery of entirely new knowledge which was what I had in mind. However, you say up to a point – in what way is science and logic limited? I don’t see any limitations.

I don't see how there can be new knowledge.

Once we didn’t know about Pluto and now we do – that is new knowledge. I do not see how you could not understand this.

Because we were'nt aware of something until the point of awareness, doesn't mean it has only just come into existence.

Surely only an idiot would make such assumptions. Why are you stating something so obvious?

I believe knowledge unfolds as we learn to accept it for what it is.

Why not simply accept it for what it is from the beginning?

Kat

 

[Nasor]

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.

And what if your 'first cause' turns out to be some sort of non-deterministic quantum vacuum fluctuation, or something equally impersonal and random? I suppose you could still define it as god, but then the term seems to start to lose all meaning. Further, even if you do believe that there's some sort of godly original creator, the logic train stops there. It's impossible to draw any further conclusions based on that alone, so even if we reach that point it's still a pretty meaningless proposition.

 

[§outh§tar]

Not even religionists accept such claims since they still insist on faith and hence acknowledging that there is no evidence and which in turn reduces your claim to a simple fallacy.

You are a liar and I do hope you will retract that statement as it is fully incorrect.