A Million to One Chance

[RedDragon94]

I was just reading a book by Armin Navabi (you know, the Atheist Republic guy).

He says in his book Why There is No God on page 91,

"Religious Claims Are Not Proof
There's a common thread running throughout many of the claims of this book: believing in something does not make it true. Similarly, wanting something to be true does not affect its likelihood of actually being true. I might want to be a billionaire, but wanting it does not cause my bank account to swell. If I say that I'm a billionaire without anything to support the claim, no one has any reason to believe me. And if it turns out that I am not, in fact, a billionaire, then I am either a liar or delusional."

My response: Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either. Our opinions are subjective. There are thousands upon thousands of religions out there. That's what, 100,000 to 1 chance that one of them is true? What's to say one of our "imaginary friends" doesn't actually exist? Look at how many there are. If this were a scientific theory you'd say it was likely.

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue. And I'm not saying believe in a certain God or religion, just think about it. You may give me the argument "I'm good enough without God!" Well that's a dangerous place to be because your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power. If you approach the wrong deity in the wrong way what's to say they don't annihilate you? See, when you really give this some thought then it becomes a total nightmare for some people. Because they just aren't playing the game.

Thoughts?

 

[corynski]

You're wrong, atheism is not a weak answer to reality, it is an honest, reasoned answer to reality. You're stumbling on the same old problem, you can't distinguish reality from non-reality. That is what science is for, but I see no mention of science, or evidence, or corroboration, all I read in your post is guess work. Atheism does make a decision - it says 'until I see some valid evidence for a god, then to me no god exists. Your telling me to 'just think about it' as if I haven't been thinking about it for 50 years, well, it's evidence that is required. It's that simple. Where is any archeological evidence of hundreds of Jews coming out of Egypt? Where is any evidence of anything biblical? What I read in your post is that you have already accepted the idea that 'gods' exist, you don't still question this. So where is any evidence or proof that any god exists?

 

[SabahTheLoner]

Atheism is a stance and not an answer. It's based upon reasoning without gods in the picture.

As an ex-atheist (in the purest sense) I don't believe it is a weak position. On the contrary it's more believable in today's reality.

 

[Skwim]

My response: Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either.

I assume you're contending that atheists don't want the existence of god to be true. My Thoughts? Simpleminded.

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue.

As SabahTheLoner said: "Atheism is a stance and not an answer."

 

[Lyndon]

Atheists don't impress me with being logical at all, they think they are, but I'm not buying it. Atheism is not scientific, Agnosticism is scientific, theism is scientific if you personally have evidence, but your perceived lack of evidence of God's existence, does not constitute evidence that God does not exist, just that you haven't seen the evidence.

 

[Skwim]

Atheists don't impress me with being logical at all, they think they are, but I'm not buying it. Atheism is not scientific, Agnosticism is scientific, theism is scientific if you personally have evidence, but your perceived lack of evidence of God's existence, does not constitute evidence that God does not exist, just that you haven't seen the evidence.

Gotta say, as an agnostic I never used the scientific method in arriving at my agnosticism.

.

 

[blü 2]

He says in his book Why There is No God on page 91,
"Religious Claims Are Not Proof"

Can't argue with that.

I mean, if gods have objective existence then they can be shown to us; so it's about time someone laid on a satisfactory demonstration, no?

There's a common thread running throughout many of the claims of this book: believing in something does not make it true.

Can't argue with that either. An accurate, unmisleading statement about reality is called 'true'. Imagination is the place for 'If only it were true',

My response: Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either.

What is the true statement about reality that you say he's trying to wish away?

There are thousands upon thousands of religions out there. That's what, 100,000 to 1 chance that one of them is true? What's to say one of our "imaginary friends" doesn't actually exist?

The problem isn't simply whether they exist. The problem is, what exactly is it that's claimed to exist? What real qualities does it have such that if we come across a candidate we can tell whether it's a god or not?

I've never heard a useful answer to that question. Can you offer one?

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue.

Is it? I think I'll wait for your answer to the previous question before I answer that.

your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power.

That won't be my fault. If the higher power has a definition of what's good, it's blindingly obvious that he / she / it / they / other has never made it known down here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I was just reading a book by Armin Navabi (you know, the Atheist Republic guy).

He says in his book Why There is No God on page 91,

"Religious Claims Are Not Proof
There's a common thread running throughout many of the claims of this book: believing in something does not make it true. Similarly, wanting something to be true does not affect its likelihood of actually being true. I might want to be a billionaire, but wanting it does not cause my bank account to swell. If I say that I'm a billionaire without anything to support the claim, no one has any reason to believe me. And if it turns out that I am not, in fact, a billionaire, then I am either a liar or delusional."

My response: Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either. Our opinions are subjective. There are thousands upon thousands of religions out there. That's what, 100,000 to 1 chance that one of them is true? What's to say one of our "imaginary friends" doesn't actually exist? Look at how many there are. If this were a scientific theory you'd say it was likely.

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue. And I'm not saying believe in a certain God or religion, just think about it. You may give me the argument "I'm good enough without God!" Well that's a dangerous place to be because your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power. If you approach the wrong deity in the wrong way what's to say they don't annihilate you? See, when you really give this some thought then it becomes a total nightmare for some people. Because they just aren't playing the game.

Thoughts?

That one chance? There's zero chance for a dieity because there's nothing to even base that one chance on.

 

[Lyndon]

Good example on a very non scientific atheist argument!

 

[Revoltingest]

Gotta say, as an agnostic I never used the scientific method in arriving at my agnosticism.

.

Aye, I've heard many fairy tales over the years.
And no one has ever offered convincing evidence that they're real.
It would be "weak" to pick one as true.
To eschew belief in things not evidenced isn't "science"....it's just good practice.

 

[Stevicus]

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue. And I'm not saying believe in a certain God or religion, just think about it. You may give me the argument "I'm good enough without God!" Well that's a dangerous place to be because your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power. If you approach the wrong deity in the wrong way what's to say they don't annihilate you? See, when you really give this some thought then it becomes a total nightmare for some people. Because they just aren't playing the game.

Thoughts?

I don't agree that it's a "weak answer," although I'm not really sure what that means. As you noted, there are thousands and thousands of religions, so they can't all be correct. Most, if not all, are just guessing - and guesses are no answer at all. Even a "weak answer" is still better than a guess or simply making stuff up.

As far as I can tell, the only honest answer a human can give is: I don't know. I don't know what's out there beyond our ability to observe scientifically. I don't know if there is a "God" or not. Even if there is/was some creative, sentient, intelligent "force" which brought this whole universe into existence, we still are just guessing as to what that "thing" might be.

I don't know if I'd use the argument that "I'm good enough without God," although I don't see how that would be a dangerous place to be. From all indications, we have no other choice but to muddle through our lives without any hope of any "divine intervention."

Personally, if there is a God, it might even be more dangerous for a human to presume to speak on behalf of such an entity, especially if one has never personally met that entity or can possibly know what that entity might be thinking or feeling. If it was me, I'd be very insulted if someone who doesn't even know me presumes to speak on my behalf or claim to know what I think or feel. Yet, people who claim to praise and worship God sometimes set themselves up as God's representative on Earth. They may even issue stern warnings and promises of eternal punishment in a fiery afterlife, as if they're setting themselves up as the Ultimate Judge and Jury. Isn't it possible that God might see it as a tad bit presumptuous for one of us mere mortals to take on a role that He ostensibly reserves for Himself?

As far as "approaching the wrong deity in the wrong way," I can say that I've never approached any deity, because I've never seen any deity. As far as I can tell, no deity has ever approached me, either. I've met a couple of people claiming to be the Messiah, and I approached them in a cordial and respectful manner; we had some friendly chats. I never believed either of them were the Messiah, but they were pretty nice guys, even if a bit odd.

 

[blü 2]

As far as I can tell, the only honest answer a human can give is: I don't know. I don't know what's out there beyond our ability to observe scientifically.

How do real gods differ from real unicorns in terms of being hard to observe scientifically, or casually, or by squinting, or at all?

Is it not sufficient to say that we have no grounds for thinking unicorns exist?

We have much better grounds for thinking the earth is flat and the sun goes round it than we do for thinking supernatural beings are a problem, no?

 

[Father Heathen]

Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either.

Except that atheism has nothing to do with want or choice. It's a stance from being unconvinced due to inadequate evidence.

Our opinions are subjective. There are thousands upon thousands of religions out there. That's what, 100,000 to 1 chance that one of them is true? What's to say one of our "imaginary friends" doesn't actually exist? Look at how many there are. If this were a scientific theory you'd say it was likely.

Math doesn't work like that.

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue.

What exactly is the question that you feel requires an answer?

And I'm not saying believe in a certain God or religion, just think about it. You may give me the argument "I'm good enough without God!" Well that's a dangerous place to be because your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power. If you approach the wrong deity in the wrong way what's to say they don't annihilate you? See, when you really give this some thought then it becomes a total nightmare for some people. Because they just aren't playing the game.

This is known as Pascal's Wager, which is a fallacy. Drawing a random god from a hat as an insurance policy based simply on silly presumptions regarding god's nature would probably be far more offensive to any god than not believing in them.

 

[HonestJoe]

My response: Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either.

True but so what? That doesn’t invalidate his point. I’d not really heard of the guy and I’ve not read the book but I get the impression that he is simply challenging claims for the existence of a god. Even if he does go on to make positive arguments in favour of atheism (in some form or another), he isn’t doing that in this quote.

There are thousands upon thousands of religions out there. That's what, 100,000 to 1 chance that one of them is true? What's to say one of our "imaginary friends" doesn't actually exist? Look at how many there are. If this were a scientific theory you'd say it was likely.

No, the number of different proposed gods doesn’t impact the possibility of any one of them being true. The possibility that there is (or has been) some kind of divine being or beings can be seen separately from all the questions of the specific characteristics such beings could have.

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue. And I'm not saying believe in a certain God or religion, just think about it.

Given that you’re not saying we should believe in a certain god, why is it a problem that atheism isn’t making a decision? An atheist can think about the ideas of gods and religion – this book is an example of exactly that.

You may give me the argument "I'm good enough without God!" Well that's a dangerous place to be because your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power. If you approach the wrong deity in the wrong way what's to say they don't annihilate you? See, when you really give this some thought then it becomes a total nightmare for some people. Because they just aren't playing the game.

That’s essentially Pascal’s Wager, which is fundamentally flawed on a number of aspects. Basically, it doesn’t matter whether you follow a specific religion, have some generic belief in a high power or don’t believe at all, we all face the same risk of angering a god we don’t believe in.

Another issue that seems to be being overlooked (including by some pro-active atheists like Armin Navabi) is that we can’t choose what we believe even if we wanted to. We can seek out further information from different sources but our ultimate conclusions based on that information isn’t one we can consciously control. It’s just a function of how our minds processes it.

 

[JJ50]

I was just reading a book by Armin Navabi (you know, the Atheist Republic guy).

He says in his book Why There is No God on page 91,

"Religious Claims Are Not Proof
There's a common thread running throughout many of the claims of this book: believing in something does not make it true. Similarly, wanting something to be true does not affect its likelihood of actually being true. I might want to be a billionaire, but wanting it does not cause my bank account to swell. If I say that I'm a billionaire without anything to support the claim, no one has any reason to believe me. And if it turns out that I am not, in fact, a billionaire, then I am either a liar or delusional."

My response: Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either. Our opinions are subjective. There are thousands upon thousands of religions out there. That's what, 100,000 to 1 chance that one of them is true? What's to say one of our "imaginary friends" doesn't actually exist? Look at how many there are. If this were a scientific theory you'd say it was likely.

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue. And I'm not saying believe in a certain God or religion, just think about it. You may give me the argument "I'm good enough without God!" Well that's a dangerous place to be because your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power. If you approach the wrong deity in the wrong way what's to say they don't annihilate you? See, when you really give this some thought then it becomes a total nightmare for some people. Because they just aren't playing the game.

Thoughts?

The definition of good is certainly not mine if the Biblical god is supposed to be good, as it appears to be all that is evil, imo.

 

[Laika]

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue.

You're probably reading an agnostic atheist. You should give Fredrich Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ a read:

"What is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to Power, and power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? - the feeling that power is increasing- that resistance has been overcome.

Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue but efficiency. The weaken and the botched shall perish; first principle of humanity. And they ought even to be helped to perish.

What is more harmful than any vice? - Practical sympathy with all the botched and the weak- Christianity."

This is page 1. He wrote it shortly before his complete mental breakdown. Can you tell?

 

[LuisDantas]

My response: Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either. Our opinions are subjective. There are thousands upon thousands of religions out there. That's what, 100,000 to 1 chance that one of them is true? What's to say one of our "imaginary friends" doesn't actually exist? Look at how many there are. If this were a scientific theory you'd say it was likely.

Not at all. It seems that you missed the point of the text that you quoted.

Besides, it is really useless to talk about "the chance of a religion being true" like that, even before considering what makes a scientific theory.

Religions are supposed to be made true on their own merits. That historically they have sometimes been associated to matters of belief is just an inconvenient nuisance that must be transcended. Treating them as glorified lotteries serves only to cheapen the discourse.

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue.

Atheism is not supposed to be an answer to anything. It just is.

There is an issue to be decided on? It is not apparent in the OP. Which would that issue be?

And I'm not saying believe in a certain God or religion, just think about it. You may give me the argument "I'm good enough without God!" Well that's a dangerous place to be because your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power.

Is that for laughs? Such an approach is just another variation of that tired old joke, Pascal's Wager, and just as unworthy of consideration as the classic configuration.

Why would anyone choose to bet both on the existence of a deity and on the inherent worthlessness and thuggishness of that deity?

If you approach the wrong deity in the wrong way what's to say they don't annihilate you?

Why would I care? I won't. It is for the deity to earn my respect. Its problem, not mine.

See, when you really give this some thought then it becomes a total nightmare for some people. Because they just aren't playing the game.

Thoughts?

Quite so! I am not playing the game. Thanks for noticing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I was just reading a book by Armin Navabi (you know, the Atheist Republic guy).

He says in his book Why There is No God on page 91,

"Religious Claims Are Not Proof
There's a common thread running throughout many of the claims of this book: believing in something does not make it true. Similarly, wanting something to be true does not affect its likelihood of actually being true. I might want to be a billionaire, but wanting it does not cause my bank account to swell. If I say that I'm a billionaire without anything to support the claim, no one has any reason to believe me. And if it turns out that I am not, in fact, a billionaire, then I am either a liar or delusional."

My response: Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either. Our opinions are subjective. There are thousands upon thousands of religions out there. That's what, 100,000 to 1 chance that one of them is true? What's to say one of our "imaginary friends" doesn't actually exist? Look at how many there are. If this were a scientific theory you'd say it was likely.

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue. And I'm not saying believe in a certain God or religion, just think about it. You may give me the argument "I'm good enough without God!" Well that's a dangerous place to be because your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power. If you approach the wrong deity in the wrong way what's to say they don't annihilate you? See, when you really give this some thought then it becomes a total nightmare for some people. Because they just aren't playing the game.

Thoughts?

There are problems with this gambit. It is called Pascal's Wager, because Pascal is famous for positing it. Commitment to do good and fulfilling that commitment is better than belief. Pascal's wager also draws out the response like what corynski has replied: "Where is the evidence?" The choice to believe in God is a choice but is useless without a commitment to serve others, and that commitment and that service are together what faith is. That is hermeneutic. That is Bible. That is taking away the trappings and gaudy ornaments which apparently have Pascal blinded and frustrated. His church government has got him worried about hell so that he will bow to the crown and/or the priesthood, and they have confused him deeply. It is important not to go down the same path as him.

 

[Valjean]

Withholding belief in a phenomenon without evidence strikes me as the only logical stance.

 

[shunyadragon]

Atheists don't impress me with being logical at all, they think they are, but I'm not buying it. Atheism is not scientific, Agnosticism is scientific, theism is scientific if you personally have evidence, but your perceived lack of evidence of God's existence, does not constitute evidence that God does not exist, just that you haven't seen the evidence.

Religious belief is not scientific at all, and personally 'having evidence' is about as anecdotal and non-scientific as you can get.

All beliefs require philosophical and theological assumptions not falsifiable, including atheism and agnosticism. Nonetheless atheism and agnosticism are well grounded in science, but yes require philosophical assumptions not grounded in science.

There is no scientific justification for Theism.