Nard Bagman
Member
.ZZMitch said:I do not believe in God.
I do believe that religion has been a detriment to human progress and growth and bad for the species as a whole.
.ZZMitch said:I do not believe in God.
I do believe that religion has been a detriment to human progress and growth and bad for the species as a whole.
How are these an argument?Sutton Dagger said:1. There are some objective logical absolutes.
Law of Identity
Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction
Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
Law of Excluded Middle
A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
Alright there we go. I can provide examples for the logical absolutes if needed. Will be interested on everyone's take. Let me know if you accept the first premise.
Superimposer said:I'm a Christian but know that I'm not trying to be clever or show anyone up when I ask this. In fact I'm sure that I am more likely to be shown up for the naivety of my question. I've just always wanted to know what the answer for this is, genuinely and out of curiosity.
This is directed at atheists: suppose a god made the Earth and the universe, but for whatever reason decided that he didn't want his creations to know of his existence. Therefore, in his omnipotence and omniscience, he decided to erase any indication that he exists, and add background radiation, fossils, whatever he likes so that we get into the situation whereby people feel they have enough scientific evidence to doubt his existence. He created the scientific laws that we observe in this scenario, so he could 'manipulate' those as it were to lead us to come to this conclusion.
Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god? If God is God, then he/she/it has the ability to direct our reason into thinking he/she/it does not exist.
Monocle said:I'll be more than pleased to change my mind on the god question if strong empirical evidence presents itself. For example, if a being who claimed to be the Lord materialized in a public area and cheerfully agreed to perform over a year's time a set of the same miracles (say, resurrecting a fossilized creature cell by cell, producing a hailstorm concentrated over a single cubic meter, healing an amputee in a matter of minutes, etc.) at the invitation of any scientist, and managed to make good on his promise and win the endorsement and esteem of the scientific community, my notions of the possible and actual would be drastically revised.
Superimposer said:I'm a Christian but know that I'm not trying to be clever or show anyone up when I ask this. In fact I'm sure that I am more likely to be shown up for the naivety of my question. I've just always wanted to know what the answer for this is, genuinely and out of curiosity.
This is directed at atheists: suppose a god made the Earth and the universe, but for whatever reason decided that he didn't want his creations to know of his existence. Therefore, in his omnipotence and omniscience, he decided to erase any indication that he exists, and add background radiation, fossils, whatever he likes so that we get into the situation whereby people feel they have enough scientific evidence to doubt his existence. He created the scientific laws that we observe in this scenario, so he could 'manipulate' those as it were to lead us to come to this conclusion.
Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god? If God is God, then he/she/it has the ability to direct our reason into thinking he/she/it does not exist.
This is an always fascinating take on it:NullPointer said:The original causeless cause is what I go by.
If the universe had a beginning, then what was the initial cause? If it has always been, how can we trust in cause and effect?
Does this exclude paradoxes like: "This sentence is false"Sutton Dagger said:Law of Excluded Middle
A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
Pixel Pete said:It's not really logically sound to claim there is definitely no god. As an atheist, I disagree with the stance that there is not possibly a god. It certain is possible. It is just, given the current collection of evidence, incredibly unlikely.
So, what if the evidence is fabricated, hidden, misleading? Then the question of god because so incredibly vague that it becomes a question of epistemology, not of science or theology.
Thanks for the link. Its a long one so I'll check it out when I get home.MickeyKnox said:
People can't be expected to act on evidence they don't have, even if god didn't sweep the universe of all evidence and some does exists out there, no one has found it yet so there's no real reason to believe a gods out there.Superimposer said:I'm a Christian but know that I'm not trying to be clever or show anyone up when I ask this. In fact I'm sure that I am more likely to be shown up for the naivety of my question. I've just always wanted to know what the answer for this is, genuinely and out of curiosity.
This is directed at atheists: suppose a god made the Earth and the universe, but for whatever reason decided that he didn't want his creations to know of his existence. Therefore, in his omnipotence and omniscience, he decided to erase any indication that he exists, and add background radiation, fossils, whatever he likes so that we get into the situation whereby people feel they have enough scientific evidence to doubt his existence. He created the scientific laws that we observe in this scenario, so he could 'manipulate' those as it were to lead us to come to this conclusion.
Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god? If God is God, then he/she/it has the ability to direct our reason into thinking he/she/it does not exist.
Pandaman said:People can't be expected to act on evidence they don't have, even if god didn't sweep the universe of all evidence and some does exists out there, no one has found it yet so there's no real reason to believe a gods out there.
GTP_Daverytimes said:What reason is there to believe that the universe came from nothingness?
KaotikMind said:You mean as in believing there isn't anything out there isn't a belief as well. It might be rejecting another belief, but it doesn't stop it from being a belief in itself.
Who claims that it does?GTP_Daverytimes said:What reason is there to believe that the universe came from nothingness?
Marius_ said:What reason is there to believe that God came from nothing?
And who created him?GTP_Daverytimes said:What reason is there to believe that God might not have been created by an even higher being?
Define god then. If god isn't the highest being, and it's potentially one of many, what is its significance?GTP_Daverytimes said:What reason is there to believe that God might not have been created by an even higher being?
Gaborn said:I think your problem is that you misunderstand the atheists objection to God. Say that a God came to earth and performed a series of, for want of a better word miracles. Raised the dead for example, instantly turned water into wine, etc. That would essentially eliminate all atheists.
Atheists aren't necessarily saying there is no god in the way that theists believe there IS a God. Atheists generally claim they see no evidence in the natural world that requires there to be a supernatural force such as God. They may say "God does not exist" but it's more in the sense "I see no evidence for the existence of God" rather than "I believe God CANNOT exist."
It's a bit like my objection to Creationism in the classroom. It's possible as you suggest that a God could for example create an "old earth" perfectly consistent with evolutionary biology, but until there is a scientific basis for such a possibility it would be irrational and irresponsible to put that belief in the classroom.
What is your belief/explanation/theory on real reports and stories of supernatural things in this world?
For example those people who say they have seen ghosts, or experienced some form of supernatural phenomenon. And there are a lot of these people around. Heck we even have a thread here in GAF about people that have experienced such things.
Pixel Pete said:As much as I'd likely do the same thing as you, I can't help but be fair in comment.
Atheists complain quite often about the 'moving the goal posts' that theists do.
But in the same vein, couldn't an atheist just say 'well, that's neat, but isn't it just possible that this 'god' is simply an egotistical alien with superb technology.
After all, as Arthur C Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
Maybe the difference is semantics?
I'm actually going to take issue with your law of non-contradiction, as Godel proved this to be false in certain logical systems. So my question to you is, are you using a system sufficiently powerful to define the natural numbers (or, in layman's terms, are you going to reference anything infinite)? If yes, I do not except your premises. If no, I accept them.Sutton Dagger said:Alright, just to be clear this isn't my argument, it has been proposed by an 'apologist', but I will try and use my own terminology where acceptable. I'm also not going to be on GAF very often for the next week, so I may be slow to add the next premise once it has been agreed upon. This argument is for the Biblical god as described in the Old and New Testaments, you can decide if it successfully accomplishes the goal of 'proving' that God's existence.
1st Premise.
1. There are some objective logical absolutes.
Law of Identity
Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction
Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
Law of Excluded Middle
A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
Alright there we go. I can provide examples for the logical absolutes if needed. Will be interested on everyone's take. Let me know if you accept the first premise.
GTP_Daverytimes said:What reason is there to believe that God might not have been created by an even higher being?
Kosmo said:This is agnosticism, one who claims neither faith, nor disbelief - the only rational view, IMO. Atheists definitely believe there God does not exist.
God is the adult version of Santa Claus.NullPointer said:Thanks for the link. Its a long one so I'll check it out when I get home.
And just to be clear, I'm not posting here as somebody who has got any answers or as an expert in any of these categories. Just showing where my personal questions lie. My family is very religious so I get a lot of their perspectives, but I also devour stuff from minds like Dawkins and Hitchens, even if I find their arguments to be better placed against the dogma of established religion instead of the concept of a God. The best argument against the concept I've heard is that "its unnecessary", which may be true. But then that opens up the whole jar of worms of causality.
Its fascinating stuff, and the hardest thing for me to believe in are people who sit smug in their absolute acceptance of one perspective or another.
It might drive some people nut too, but I don't see why so much faith is placed in Logic and Reason. Those are just tools and the universe may just be larger and more impenetrable than we can contain in mathematical notation, language or thought. Not to say we shouldn't keep trying though ;P
Falcs00 said:I've got a question for those who are "non-theistic" or Atheists...
What is your belief/explanation/theory on real reports and stories of supernatural things in this world?
For example those people who say they have seen ghosts, or experienced some form of supernatural phenomenon. And there are a lot of these people around. Heck we even have a thread here in GAF about people that have experienced such things.
Thoughts? Comments?
GTP_Daverytimes said:What reason is there to believe that the universe came from nothingness?
Obsessed said:Incorrect. Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheis/theist, or a gnostic atheist/theist.
I'd imagine most people that call themselves atheists are agnostic atheists.
But this is a semantic debate.
The human mind is incredible, however, it can also misinterpret things. Have you ever heard a howl in the wind that sounded like speech? It's not because it actually was speech, but it's because your brain tries to interpret the sound using previous experiences. Ever seen a mirage that looks like water? Same thing, but with your vision.Falcs00 said:I've got a question for those who are "non-theistic" or Atheists...
What is your belief/explanation/theory on real reports and stories of supernatural things in this world?
For example those people who say they have seen ghosts, or experienced some form of supernatural phenomenon. And there are a lot of these people around. Heck we even have a thread here in GAF about people that have experienced such things.
Thoughts? Comments?
I dont share the assumptions you've taken to make this question meaningful, so i cant really answer.GTP_Daverytimes said:What reason is there to believe that the universe came from nothingness?
Kosmo said:Explain. You cannot be an agnostic atheist - it's one or the other. Their definitions are mutually exclusive.
Gaborn said:I think your problem is that you misunderstand the atheists objection to God. Say that a God came to earth and performed a series of, for want of a better word miracles. Raised the dead for example, instantly turned water into wine, etc. That would essentially eliminate all atheists.
Atheists aren't necessarily saying there is no god in the way that theists believe there IS a God. Atheists generally claim they see no evidence in the natural world that requires there to be a supernatural force such as God. They may say "God does not exist" but it's more in the sense "I see no evidence for the existence of God" rather than "I believe God CANNOT exist."
It's a bit like my objection to Creationism in the classroom. It's possible as you suggest that a God could for example create an "old earth" perfectly consistent with evolutionary biology, but until there is a scientific basis for such a possibility it would be irrational and irresponsible to put that belief in the classroom.
Kosmo said:Explain. You cannot be an agnostic atheist - it's one or the other. Their definitions are mutually exclusive.
Believe me, I've heard this argument a million times, and I've made it a million times myself. While it sounds nice, I would like some better scientific models for the beginning of the universe. Specifically how causality is derived.Korey said:God is the adult version of Santa Claus.
Invented by early humans because they found themselves with a brain big enough to contemplate their own existence and to explain natural events like lightning and fire. In modern times, science has explained all of these things and yet the relic notion of god remains, but it's dying out.
A lot of people don't realize we're just another animal on this earth (out of what, several million species?). We're more advanced than ants and dogs but we're just another species. A whale in the ocean or eagle in the sky or an elephant in Africa have no notion of gods. We only do because our minds can't grasp concepts like "a billion objects" much less things like "what happens after you die" and "how did the universe come about" and that's why we invent things like God.
Our minds are primitive compared to what they will be like in a few million years. At that point humans will be able to conceptualize what a billion objects looks like. They won't grasp at such primitive ideas as souls and afterlives.
The fact that there's been literally thousands of religions on earth since the beginning of man should make you question why the current fads (ie Christianity if you happen to live in 2011 USA) have any more credibility than any other that has ever existed. People who lived in The 300 times probably believed in Zeus as passionately as you believe in yours. People who lived in Aladdin times believed in genies and crap.
Also the fact that 99% of people believe in whatever religion they grew up being indoctrinated with. While not realizing the irony that if they happened to be born on the other side of the world they would be Hindu or Muslim or Voodoo or Buddhist. And those people believe they are just as right as you think you are.
-----
For any religious person reading this, I'd advise you to write down your beliefs and replace all instances of "God" with "adult version of Santa Claus" to see how ridiculous your belief system is.
There's a different definition of "agnostic" floating around that is distinct from the term as Huxley coined it. The idea is that "agnostic" is the antonym of "gnostic," so that an agnostic atheist is one who disbelieves in god without claiming certainty on the matter, while a gnostic atheist asserts that he or she knows god does not exist.Kosmo said:Explain. You cannot be an agnostic atheist - it's one or the other. Their definitions are mutually exclusive.
So are you saying everyone who posted in that thread is simply full of crap or was high?bounchfx said:people that claim they've seen ghosts, or experienced some 'phenomenon' ? either they're full of shit, or they're acting on assumptions and don't know the entire situation. Seeing something out of the corner of my eye or while high on LSD doesn't mean anything.
People are very good at convincing themselves to believe ridiculous shit.
Fair enough. That's a perfectly valid answer.ciaossu said:The human mind is incredible, however, it can also misinterpret things. Have you ever heard a howl in the wind that sounded like speech? It's not because it actually was speech, but it's because your brain tries to interpret the sound using previous experiences. Ever seen a mirage that looks like water? Same thing, but with your vision.
Korey said:God is the adult version of Santa Claus.
...
For any religious person reading this, I'd advise you to write down your beliefs and replace all instances of "God" with "adult version of Santa Claus" to see how ridiculous your belief system is.
Falcs00 said:I've got a question for those who are "non-theistic" or Atheists...
What is your belief/explanation/theory on real reports and stories of supernatural things in this world?
For example those people who say they have seen ghosts, or experienced some form of supernatural phenomenon. And there are a lot of these people around. Heck we even have a thread here in GAF about people that have experienced such things.
Thoughts? Comments?
Because it's already been scrutinized, I imagine. That's why science is, well, science.JohnTuk said:You seem to have it all figured out, do you?
This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate".
Why don't you do the same exercise yourself? Only, instead of God or Santa Claus, write down everything you think is a fact, everything you are certain is true. Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?
JohnTuk said:Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?
JohnTuk said:You seem to have it all figured out, do you?
This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate".
Why don't you do the same exercise yourself? Only, instead of God or Santa Claus, write down everything you think is a fact, everything you are certain is true. Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?
Well Korey's rant is shaky in a lot of places and pure conjecture in some (like "Our minds are primitive compared to what they will be like in a few million years", Really? A few million years?). He ignores a lot of social, economic and political reasons behind the dominance of Christianity versus, say, early shamanism in nomadic tribes.Sharp said:Because it's already been scrutinized, I imagine. That's why science is, well, science.
Marius_ said:And who created him?
JohnTuk said:You seem to have it all figured out, do you?
This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate".
Why don't you do the same exercise yourself? Only, instead of God or Santa Claus, write down everything you think is a fact, everything you are certain is true. Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?
Because as an atheist, my "beliefs" are the default position to take based on observation and tests.JohnTuk said:You seem to have it all figured out, do you?
This is exactly what I can't stand with most atheist, that annoying self-importance most have when talking about this subject. No room for debate, no room for coherent discussion, no room at all. Most are even more deluded than the theist folk they try to "educate".
Why don't you do the same exercise yourself? Only, instead of God or Santa Claus, write down everything you think is a fact, everything you are certain is true. Why don't you examine how YOUR belief stand up against scrutiny?
Which parts?GTP_Daverytimes said:In my opinion i think science(Some parts at least) should be classified as a religion because their is simply no evidence to prove for or against...
This isn't true, at least not to my knowledge. Humans don't start out with ANY beliefs, they're formulated later on through life. There is no genetic code that says "okay you are of the belief that no gods exist".Korey said:Because as an atheist, my "beliefs" are the default position to take based on observation and tests.