Atheists and gods

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You BELIEVE God doesn't exist. Your belief isn't fact. No one can prove that God does, or doesn't exist.

What if we turn the level of certainty down a few notches? Would you still say it's true that no one can show to a reasonable degree that God does or doesn't exist?

How about if we lower the bar to "God is likely to exist"; can we establish that this is true or false?

How about "God is possible"?

If you are wrong, you may very well wish you had the benefit of that belief. To not at least consider a possibility isn't the mark of maturity.

What reason do we have to consider the possibility of your God before we consider the endless list of other unfalsified claims? What makes investigating your God-claim more worthy of my time than, say, investigating the possibility that fairies exist? Or the list city of Atlantis? Or Russell's Teapot?

Each of only has so much time in the day; we have to prioritize somehow. What reason do I have to put your God at the top of my priority list?

 

[ArtieE]

You are asking for two different standards of proof. Can you prove abiogenesis happened, beyond a reasonable doubt ?

I don't know if life on this planet arose through abiogenesis and chemical evolution or came here due to panspermia or exist because of other unknown natural means. But if you are of the opinion that life is here because of SUPERnatural means such as a god you better have some extremely good and pretty convincing evidence that gods exist and created life before I will discard every possible natural explanation. I naturally assume that my great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents were the natural offspring of their parents, and if you want to convince me that they instead were designed and created by a god you better have some extremely good evidence to back up your theory to make me discard the theory that they were natural offspring of their parents.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You BELIEVE God doesn't exist. Your belief isn't fact. No one can prove that God does, or doesn't exist. If you are wrong, you may very well wish you had the benefit of that belief. To not at least consider a possibility isn't the mark of maturity.

I honestly think people put more emphasis on "possibility of god existing; belief rather than knowledge" because it's religious in nature. Yet, if I opened an empty palm and tell you I have a penny, you wouldn't second guess nor say "I believe there is no penny but have no proof." You wouldn't be agnostic; you (I assume) would most likely be an atheist and boldly claim there is no penny there.

God is no exception to this rule that something that does not exist doesn't automatically exist all because it's religious in nature. The laws of physics don't change and spirituality is not "independent" from ourselves.

Everything we experiences is from our minds-our perceptions in thought, interpretation, and what we believe is real and not real.

In the case of god, there is a lot of evidence, if one likes, that god does not exist. More so than the other way around. It isn't dependent on personal experience but basic psychology, physiology, and environmental influences. It's not something "beyond" or "majestic" no matter how much importance and need for worship we try to make of god, it doesn't exist outside the human perception and belief about it.

I know god does not exist. I no longer need to believe this. My experiences, logic, and plain common sense has shown me that an entity does not exist independent of the human body.

If I used the term "god", god (the concept not any religious view) would be life. It is energy and nothing more. Everything is made up of energy. Our thoughts are also energy (nerve impulses) as well as what we call "feelings from our heart." What we call spiritual is just a way of poetically describing the combination of senses we can't describe in language. Nothing wrong with that. We conclude, some of us, these senses are the result of god(s).

It is not so. That is what I know. Another factor is if I took out the Vedas, the physical nature and attributes of life, the sacred text like the bible, and quran even, the stupas, and offerings and asked you to describe god without referring to any physical thing nor any human concept how can you describe it?

John, Paul, and Peter are people just as you. I'd say the same thing to them and Jesus as I do to you; so, their words don't count anymore than Muhammad's and Baha'ullah. Each have their strong points. I rather read the sutras and Upanishads than the Bible and Quran any day.

Personal experience and knowledge (two and two together) shows me spirituality is part of our mind and body way to make sense of the world. Whether we want to revere it or worship it or not is up to the individual's personal preference. However, it's all belief.

There is a post that explains my point well:
Is superstition a widely held justified belief (Post 6)

There is nothing wrong with the belief that god exists. Not all atheists put down people who believe in god and the belief itself.

You just got to accept that many people actually know there are no gods and there is no exception to this rule. It's hard for me to make a god/entity just pop from thin air while it may be hard for you to make god disappear.

That is something we got to accept.

 

[ArtieE]

No, I haven't read that document. Science ? Well, just tell me how unknown chemicals combined in an unknown environment, to create an unknown organism that had to come into life programmed with genetic information from an unknown source to make it function. Of course, you can't. It is all based upon faith in a story that no scientist using the scientific method can remotely explain. Sounds like the classic fairy tale formula to me.

It is based on the simple fact that no theist has ever managed to provide a shred of evidence for the existence of any gods much less shown that any gods have ever created anything. Until you do, the natural explanation is the most logical and rational explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I haven't read that document. Science ? Well, just tell me how unknown chemicals combined in an unknown environment, to create an unknown organism that had to come into life programmed with genetic information from an unknown source to make it function. Of course, you can't. It is all based upon faith in a story that no scientist using the scientific method can remotely explain. Sounds like the classic fairy tale formula to me.

Like I said:

- you can't see how it could've happened without God.
- therefore, it couldn't have happened without God.

This is an irrational position.

BTW: when I asked "what science?", I was referring to the lack of actual science in the Intelligent Design movement. If you disagree, feel free to give any scientific study that, with a reasonable degree of scientific rigor, supports any part of the ID position.

ID is a political movement, not a scientific one.

 

[ArtieE]

Like I said:

- you can't see how it could've happened without God.
- therefore, it couldn't have happened without God.

Isn't that the logical fallacy called the argument from incredulity? Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

 

[Cephus]

You BELIEVE God doesn't exist. Your belief isn't fact. No one can prove that God does, or doesn't exist. If you are wrong, you may very well wish you had the benefit of that belief. To not at least consider a possibility isn't the mark of maturity.

Oh good, Pascal's Wager. I don't think you could come up with a weaker, more pathetic argument if you tried.

 

[shmogie]

It is based on the simple fact that no theist has ever managed to provide a shred of evidence for the existence of any gods much less shown that any gods have ever created anything. Until you do, the natural explanation is the most logical and rational explanation.

Why ? If it doesn't work, it can't be an explanation. So, I can't prove the existence of God, you can't prove a natural explanation to the universe/life. I can't prove that God made anything, you can't prove that any combination of any chemicals, in any environment can make life. So, then believing fairy tale A is more logical than fairy tale B. What pap. Your fairy tale is no more logical or rational than mine. No matter the pretense of sophistication or the faith you hold, an unprovable premise has no more value than another unproven premise.

 

[shmogie]

Oh good, Pascal's Wager. I don't think you could come up with a weaker, more pathetic argument if you tried.

Oh, you are back. This was in answer to someone else's post, but Pascal's wager is worth considering. Methinks you object way too much. I note that you can't handle the science, re abiogenesis, so your sad reversion to childishness is a pathetic attempt to maintain a little dignity. No matter, I always consider the source, and you appear to be a very poor one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is true. There is conversion both directions, and cultures adapt. They adapt or they fail, so they adapt.

It depends upon age group, life stage etc. What happens very often is that unless you have a stable secular culture you wind up chasing people back into church, and churches provide things that can be hard to find. Churches are family environments and community centers. People smile and believe in each other there. Where in population centers can you find a relaxed country atmosphere, where people trust each other and freely greet strangers? The answer is "In a church." Secular culture seems relatively cold sometimes, and I do not see religion coming to an end. I see it transforming and constantly updating.

Now, I find this an interesting remark. If religion -- instead of coming to an end -- constantly transforms and updates, then it stands to reason that what was, in the religious sense "TRUE" becomes not so, after such transformation. In other words, what people believe today is TRUE today, but after those beliefs have transformed and adapted, then new beliefs will be TRUE, and the older ones no longer TRUE.

Which kind of flies in the face of the idea that religion is somehow about eternal, transcendent TRUTH.

 

[SkepticX]

Oh good, Pascal's Wager. I don't think you could come up with a weaker, more pathetic argument if you tried.

And that's even if you ignore the completely dishonest and cynical use of the term "believe" (as if you can genuinely "believe" for purely strategic purposes), and the fact it depends upon such "believers" fooling God (or perhaps that it's not really about belief at all, and God's fine with pretense--with "believers" faking it purely for the benefits).

So yeah ... not the most impressive apologetic, but then apologetics are far more about affirmation for believers than in convincing anyone of anything they're not already invested in believing ... or at least "believing".

 

[ArtieE]

So, I can't prove the existence of God, you can't prove a natural explanation to the universe/life.

A natural explanation is always the default logical and rational explanation. Now if you could provide convincing evidence showing beyond reasonable doubt that God exists and created the universe/life we can discard natural explanations and adopt your theory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't that the logical fallacy called the argument from incredulity? Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

Sure - the argument from ignorance and the argument from incredulity overlap quite a bit.

 

[Cephus]

Oh, you are back. This was in answer to someone else's post, but Pascal's wager is worth considering. Methinks you object way too much. I note that you can't handle the science, re abiogenesis, so your sad reversion to childishness is a pathetic attempt to maintain a little dignity. No matter, I always consider the source, and you appear to be a very poor one.

If you think Pascal's Wager is at all valuable for anything but showing theists are idiots, you're simply wrong.

 

[shmogie]

If you think Pascal's Wager is at all valuable for anything but showing theists are idiots, you're simply wrong.

No, I am totally correct. Name calling is always the refuge of the factually challenged. Buffoonery and childishness follow closely behind, as you have demonstrated.

 

[shmogie]

A natural explanation is always the default logical and rational explanation. Now if you could provide convincing evidence showing beyond reasonable doubt that God exists and created the universe/life we can discard natural explanations and adopt your theory.

Who determines what a default position is ? Is there a committee that has decreed this, or has it come from Congress ? Once again, the I can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the natural explanation lacks any scientific evidence to come even close to establishing it is fact. You seem a little confused, I am not trying to prove that God exists, I am pointing out how the natural explanation is an utter failure.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Because it is presuming too much when applied universally. This means we should be open to an almost infinite number of things that can only be dreamt of like:

• Unicorns pooping rainbows
• Pink monkeys with PEZ dispensers for their privates
• A funny George Lopez
• 9 meter tall ants with duck tails
• Honest politicians

All of these things are ludicrous and as far as most are concerned inconceivable. So why would you keep them at the forefront of your thinking yet alone the back as an afterthought.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Now, I find this an interesting remark. If religion -- instead of coming to an end -- constantly transforms and updates, then it stands to reason that what was, in the religious sense "TRUE" becomes not so, after such transformation. In other words, what people believe today is TRUE today, but after those beliefs have transformed and adapted, then new beliefs will be TRUE, and the older ones no longer TRUE.

Which kind of flies in the face of the idea that religion is somehow about eternal, transcendent TRUTH.

Every generation in some way changes the story it was told. Let us back up. Every little thing has to be taught to a person from childhood on up and in a certain order. Truths have to be taught to people in order, starting with language and manners, then songs and stories, then other things, plus life experience and finally people are ready for hard facts when there is no escape from them.

 

[ArtieE]

Who determines what a default position is ? Is there a committee that has decreed this, or has it come from Congress ? Once again, the I can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the natural explanation lacks any scientific evidence to come even close to establishing it is fact.

Oh. I see. So what you are saying is that "It is January 16 2017 and since science hasn't yet been able to come up with enough scientific evidence to establish the natural explanation to be a fact we must declare that the natural explanation is an utter failure." Did I get it right?

 

[shmogie]

Oh. I see. So what you are saying is that "It is January 16 2017 and since science hasn't yet been able to come up with enough scientific evidence to establish the natural explanation to be a fact we must declare that the natural explanation is an utter failure." Did I get it right?

No. Without evidence a theory cannot be a fact. Without evidence to explain how it works the natural explanation fails right now. You may have faith that someday that evidence will exist, but your faith does not convert to fact. As to abiogenesis it is not a matter of "enough" evidence, it is a matter of virtually no evidence.