random thoughts for atheists/agnostics

doom: And atheism is kinda like firm belief without logical proof,cos both ways there is no proof,and as you say an atheist is not absolute 100%,but they are like the believers in that its close to that absolute and may act like there 100%.

Jade Squirrel: I see the point you are making. It seems like you are referring to strong atheism, which is belief that there is no God. Weak atheism, on the other hand, is simply lack of belief that God exists. Note that there is a significant difference between the two. I can see how you would think that strong atheists have faith that God doesn't exist. Since I prefer weak atheism, I feel no need to argue for or against that point.
Click to expand...
I've put some thought into this issue and have now decided to argue against your assertion that strong atheism requires faith. First of all, faith is associated with firm belief. Strong atheists believe that God does not exist. Theists typically have firm belief that God does exist.

Also, strong atheism is not faith because faith is belief without proof. There is some evidence to support strong atheism, albeit weak atheism is easiest to defend. First, a lack of any evidence, especially given that many theists constantly try to prove the existence of God, is evidence in itself. Add to that the almost universal human tendency to anthropomorphize. Then there's the logical contradictions that are inherent in the concept of an omnipotent creator.

I will admit that this is not conclusive proof, and such proof will in all probability never be obtained. But the strong atheistic perspective is scientific in that it uses the existing evidence to form the most likely hypothesis: God does not exist. It is scientific because it is a falsifiable statement. Simply show that God exists and the theory must be abandoned. The statement that God does exist is not scientific because there is no good evidence to indicate this, and the statement is not falsifiable.

Hmm... I seem to have now talked myself into preferring strong atheism. :)
 
There is no proof against the existence of god.

You cant prove there was no outer limits creator,they have as much proof of god as there is proof against.

The watchmaker argument is still fairly strong,and the fact that god in the strictest sense is assuming something outside all known physics created it all,remember god made physics,if theres a creator(god) then its higher physics than we can observe or maybe physics of god is wrapped up so tiny into all atoms that it cant be seen,smaller than superstrings,or the thing creating the music to which these theoretical strings play.

I personally thought classical physics was always inconclusive on god,but more to the point i think quantum physics makes it more inconclusive,quantum physics chages what you see in common sense and classical terms,yet it is the underpinning of all of what we see in classical and common sense terms,even though under observation some weird shit happens.
 
Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
I seem to have now talked myself into preferring strong atheism.
Click to expand...
I tend to prefer a qualified strong atheism. That is, specific conceptions of God are either evidentially or logically false. For instance, pretty much everyone today is a strong Atheist if we define God as the Greek God Zeus. Reason being, is that there are some conceptions identified as God that are either evident or disprovable but not disproved (Pantheism for instance).


Originally posted by doom
There is no proof against the existence of god.
Click to expand...
It depends upon your definition of God.

The watchmaker argument is still fairly strong
Click to expand...
No, the watchmaker argument is reasoned backwards. It assumes that the outcome is necessary. It's the same as looking at a cake and marveling at the pan that fits the shape of the cake exactly, "What are the odds? (Well, 100% actually). Another example would be to roll a die and wonder that a 1 in 6 outcome occurred when actually, every outcome is a one in six probability. Now imagine a 10,000,000 sided die. Every time it is rolled a 1 in 10,000,000 chance event would occur.

The other problem with the watchmaker argument is that it attempts to define the probability from an unknown set of original conditions. No one knows what the conditions were at or before the Universe's inception. Some hypotheses (such as an infinite number of Universes) make the 'odds' of this one irrelevant. Other hypotheses suggest that there are boundary conditions for any Universe to exist and therefore any given Universe would be fairly close to what we find. Quite simply, there is nothing upon which to base a calculation.

maybe physics of god is wrapped up so tiny into all atoms that it cant be seen
Click to expand...
Maybe, but religion has been telling us that God was just under the surface of what we know for a long, long time. Yet each discovery has failed to reveal him.

quantum physics chages what you see in common sense and classical terms
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Quantum physics is in full accord with what we see on a classical scale. It simply shows that events occurring on a quantum scale do not behave according to classical conditions.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by doom
There is no proof against the existence of god.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There is some evidence, but not definitive proof.

they have as much proof of god as there is proof against.
Click to expand...
I disagree. See some of the evidence against the existence of God that I mentioned above. Conversely, all the alleged evidence of God's existence is either based on poor arguments (e.g., the Bible says God exists) or on human conceptions that do not take into consideration recent advances in science (e.g. the relativity of time combined with the mass of the Big Bang excludes the possibility of a "creator", the existence of virtual particles show that something can come from nothing).

Originally posted by Raithere
It's the same as looking at a cake and marveling at the pan that fits the shape of the cake exactly, "What are the odds? (Well, 100% actually). Another example would be to roll a die and wonder that a 1 in 6 outcome occurred when actually, every outcome is a one in six probability. Now imagine a 10,000,000 sided die. Every time it is rolled a 1 in 10,000,000 chance event would occur.
Click to expand...
The Anthropic principle. This is very good at shooting down arguments appealing to how there must be a designer because everything is so finely tuned for us.

The other problem with the watchmaker argument is that it attempts to define the probability from an unknown set of original conditions. No one knows what the conditions were at or before the Universe's inception. Some hypotheses (such as an infinite number of Universes) make the 'odds' of this one irrelevant. Other hypotheses suggest that there are boundary conditions for any Universe to exist and therefore any given Universe would be fairly close to what we find. Quite simply, there is nothing upon which to base a calculation.
Click to expand...
Another good point.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Raithere
I tend to prefer a qualified strong atheism. That is, specific conceptions of God are either evidentially or logically false. For instance, pretty much everyone today is a strong Atheist if we define God as the Greek God Zeus. Reason being, is that there are some conceptions identified as God that are either evident or disprovable but not disproved (Pantheism for instance).
Click to expand...
A good point about pantheism. However, practically speaking, most people conceive God through the Abrahamic religion or deistic sense, so defending strong atheism is no problem in the vast majority of the cases.

Only when you encounter a pantheist (or one with similar beliefs) would you need to clarify your "qualified" strong atheism. Actually, I used to consider myself a pantheist, but I got so damn tired of explaining it to everyone that I decided to label myself as an atheist, although I still retain the reverence for Nature.
 
(pardon my uneducated opinion) I think there are so many confident atheists because christianity and judaism (some most popular religions) do not fit our society anymore (religion is basically used to explain certain happenings and instill certain values and ethics)

i personally believe that life is a dream, whoever dreams it is the only god i worship. so far it's my self. to all atheists: go prove me wrong!:) arguments are quite welcome, since im trying to find the truth on the subject
 
WhiteWolf-

So I take it thats a yes. So in a way are you saying that other people and surrondings could be a figure of your imagination? So basically you can only be sure about your consciousness.

This is an interesting view.
 
Originally posted by DefSkeptic
So basically you can only be sure about your consciousness.
Click to expand...
Or can you? :bugeye:

Yes, it's interesting. But being conscious myself, I will have to disagree with you, whitewolf. But then again, I could just be a figment of your imagination doing exactly what you would expect it to do. Subjectively, no one could prove you wrong. But a safer bet, I'd say, is to accept reality for what it appears to be. You might enjoy it more that way.
 
Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
A good point about pantheism. However, practically speaking, most people conceive God through the Abrahamic religion or deistic sense, so defending strong atheism is no problem in the vast majority of the cases.
Click to expand...
As long as you remain in the US or Europe this is largely true but still I fid it 'safer' to take the broader approach.
Of course, the best course in debate is to make the theist specify... it's their assertion, let them support it.

~Raithere
 
Just a note: as I was reading the posts on strong atheism the notion of "weak Christianity" ocurred to me. Nowhere does the Bible even attempt to provide proof of God's existence. There is only Psalm 53:1 that says "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' ".

Faith has never been based on scientific proof, and will probably never be. The ancient Sumerians or whoever did not discover God by accident after an experiment with some string and bone went horribly wrong... That does not mean that the evidence faith is based on is invalid. It is just of a different nature - it has more to do with life, love, and history, than with electrons, particles and the future.

Quantum physics behaves differently than classical physics, even though they do overlap. Faith behaves differently than science, although they do overlap. But in the end it makes no difference because God exists anyway.

***
Trying to catch God by scientific reason is like a blind man trying to hit God with a stick, and saying God doesn't exist because he didn't hit anything.
 
Science and religion are like two hands holding the same bat, giving a swing at anything that comes close, and hoping to hit the truth eventually.

Science will tell you the trick is all in the wrist, and religion will say you should keep your eye on the ball. Both have faith that they will be successful in hitting it, based on previous home runs. Both vehemently defend any mistakes, or blame them on each other.

They overlap in their intention and in the human condition. One focusses on the mechanics of the game, and the other more on how it is played. But both share the same playing field.

(Anyone want to watch Field of Dreams again? :) )
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
Just a note: as I was reading the posts on strong atheism the notion of "weak Christianity" ocurred to me.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as "weak" Xianity because the "weak" modifier denotes the default position of simple absence of belief. Xianity is "strong" because it is a positive belief that it is correct.

That does not mean that the evidence faith is based on is invalid.
Click to expand...
What evidence? Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence.

Faith behaves differently than science, although they do overlap.
Click to expand...
There is no overlap. In fact, they are polar opposites.
 
Well, there definitely is such a thing a weak molecular forces, and that doesn't denote the absence of belief...

I believe your belief about faith is wrong - at least of Christian faith - if it were not for the legacy that Israel left, and for the testimony of Jesus' miracles, and the ultimate miracle of the resurrection, our faith would have died with Zeus and Olympus.

I agree, if it faith just depended on belief, it would have been "without evidence". You might believe in something, but you might still not have enough evidence to have faith in it.

The Israelites had faith in God, but when it became evident that their faith could not keep them from sin, Jesus came to carry that burden, and we entrust our faith to Him. Jesus compensated for our lack of faith.
 
Jenyar-

Well, there definitely is such a thing a weak molecular forces, and that doesn't denote the absence of belief...
Click to expand...

To denote weak to the word atheist is to give a definition of that particular classification regarding beliefs. Its a defining term, it doesnt apply to other realms (molecular forces for example)
 
Jenyar,

Merriam-Webster defines faith as firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Oxford defines faith as firm belief, especially without logical proof. You don't need a certain amount of evidence to have faith in something. Conversely, faith is belief without evidence or proof.

Faith is required to believe that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead because there is no evidence or proof of these events.
 
All I'm saying is that it depends whether you accept the evidence as proof. Some people accept fossilized remains as proof of macro-evolution, others don't. That would indicate how much faith you will put in the theory. I agree, you don't need evidence to believe something is true - it's quite possible to convince yourself to such a degree that you will die for a belief that has no merit, like David Koresh & Co. They had to blindly have faith in what they believed. If I were surrounded by hypocritical or shallow Christians, I might also have lost any reason to believe - but I'm not. I owe and give my life to God, because it belongs to no-one else. It might have belonged to me, but I didn't even ask to exist - so if it did belong to me I wouldn't have existed. But as it is, my belief has merit, my life has merit and my faith has merit.

Faith is required to believe that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead because there is no evidence or proof of these events.
Click to expand...
As with any event in history, its only "evidence" is what remains afterwards. I sometimes think if there were less reason to believe - if Christianity were more mystical - it would have been less controversial and less threatening. But the faith does not depend on mystical effort or divine revelations, it rests simply on one event: the resurrection of Christ. To me, my faith is both evidence of and testimony to the event. To you, it is an illogical fantasy.

Tell you what. If Jesus wasn't resurrected by God, you win - and you can rely on Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Grolier or Brittanica to tell you what faith is, rather than someone to whom the word actually means something.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
But the faith does not depend on mystical effort or divine revelations, it rests simply on one event: the resurrection of Christ.
Click to expand...
No, it rests simple on one story. There is zero credible evidence for a resurrection - simply hearsay and fabrication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top