Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Polymath257]

So your saying most athiests are really agnostic? Interesting I have not heard that one before. Why do they call themselves athiests?

Hard atheism: I am convinced there is no God
Soft atheism: I lack a belief in God.
Soft agnosticism: I don't know either way
Hard agnosticism: It is impossible to know either way

So, an agnostic atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God but doesn't claim to *know* that no God exists.

There are also other positions:
Ignosticism: the concept of God is too ill-defined for the question of existence to be meaningful.

Apatheism: I don't care if a God exists or not.

For myself, I am convinced the Abrahamic God does not exist. I allow for other possibilities (say, pantheism, or maybe panentheism), but see them as low likelihood. I also think there are too many different conceptions of God for meaningful discussion prior to settling on a definition.

So I have a mixture of hard and soft atheism (depending of the conception of God in question), a bit of agnosticism, and a lot of ignosticism. Every once in a while I feel apatheistic: the whole question often seems pointless.

 

[sojourner]

If you don't know what God is, you have no possible way of knowing whether it exists or not

That’s true. I’m not convinced that “God exists.” I am convinced that the Divine is existence itself.

As I said earlier, the divine is simply an idea in human thought

Of course it is, but it’s not only that. Existence, after all, is.

And you make that point yourself in your post, by saying that "'God' is an avatar -- a metaphor -- for the Divine." But both avatars and metaphors are only ideas -- they exist in our minds, but not in any sort of reality

That’s right, and they point to greater truths. I believe those truths are real.

You think that "God" (or Divinity, or reality) exists in the way in which you imagine it, because it serves your purpose

It does serve my purpose. But that’s not the whole story. I also serve its purposes, or I wouldn’t be here.

But I propose that this is only descriptive -- that you get your purpose from your reality

That’s true. My my reality isn’t the sum total of reality.

and then try to impose that on something that gives it justification outside of yourself

How can I impose existence upon itself?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It does serve my purpose. But that’s not the whole story. I also serve its purposes, or I wouldn’t be here.

The latter, that you "serve its purposes," cannot possibly be true, since you have no idea at all of what its purposes might be, or even whether it has purposes, or even that it exists to have purposes.

Now, if you had said, "I believe I also service its purposes," I might have let that go.

 

[Trailblazer]

I prefer to go with "They can't all be right,but they can all be wrong".

Logically speaking, you are right, they could all be wrong.

However, it is also possible that one religion is right and the others are wrong; or it is possible that one religion is right and the others are partially right.

 

[james bond]

Okay
Okay then, what evidence do you have that unicorns don't exist? None at all, so I presume you believe that unicorns do exist?

Of course, you also have no evidence to prove that unicorns do exist, either -- so you must be horribly confused on the subject, as using your argument, it is analytically intractable.

Using your argument of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is illogical when speaking of the existence of anything. As I've never seen any evidence whatever of a 30 foot tall spider, I naturally assume such things don't exist. And then I can look to nature and realize that the mechanism by which spiders breathe makes it impossible that such a large specimen could possibly exist. Thus, my intuition is backed up by reason.

No one has found an unicorn in the wild, so it just exists in our imagination. With animals, it's assumed they do not exist if it hasn't been discovered for a while. This is how we know an animal has gone extinct. So, while we do not know for sure, this is what we assume.

ETA: This is one way to disprove that chimps and apes were not common ancestors because we find chimps and apes do not mate. Thus, there were no hybrids. Then, it means that there was no common hybrid ancestor for humans and primates.

I don't think you understand logic. if p -> q, then ~q -> ~p. p = universe had a beginning, q = God exists. If universe had a beginning, then God exists. It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning.

 

[sojourner]

The latter, that you "serve its purposes," cannot possibly be true, since you have no idea at all of what its purposes might be, or even whether it has purposes, or even that it exists to have purposes.

Now, if you had said, "I believe I also service its purposes," I might have let that go.

So I don’t serve existence’s purpose through existing?? I don’t serve life’s purpose by living? Existence... isn’t? Interesting. How does that work, exactly?

 

[sojourner]

I don't think you understand logic. if p -> q, then ~q -> ~p. p = universe had a beginning, q = God exists. If universe had a beginning, then God exists. It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning

But “God existing” is an assumption. And the universe being evidence for God is also an assumption. The formula only carries the logic of the assumptions being made. The same formula would work for the existence of Bigfoot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one has found an unicorn in the wild, so it just exists in our imagination. With animals, it's assumed they do not exist if it hasn't been discovered for a while. This is how we know an animal has gone extinct. So, while we do not know for sure, this is what we assume.

ETA: This is one way to disprove that chimps and apes were not common ancestors because we find chimps and apes do not mate. Thus, there were no hybrids. Then, it means that there was no common hybrid ancestor for humans and primates.

I don't think you understand logic. if p -> q, then ~q -> ~p. p = universe had a beginning, q = God exists. If universe had a beginning, then God exists. It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning.

You really should not claim that others do not understand logic and then make such an illogical statement. If the universe had a beginning we can only conclude that the universe had a beginning. That does not point to a god.

 

[sojourner]

Logically speaking, you are right, they could all be wrong.

However, it is also possible that one religion is right and the others are wrong; or it is possible that one religion is right and the others are partially right.

Depends on what you mean by “right.” I think all religions are “right,” because all religions foster metaphors and theologies that serve the purposes of their adherents.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So I don’t serve existence’s purpose through existing?? I don’t serve life’s purpose by living? Existence... isn’t? Interesting. How does that work, exactly?

You fail to see the simplest of all possible explanations.

That there is no purpose, because there is nothing to have that purpose. Existence requires existence -- in no way can you assert that "existence is the consequence of something" -- which something cannot have existence as its purpose unless it already exists.

 

[sojourner]

@james bond said:

“ETA: This is one way to disprove that chimps and apes were not common ancestors because we find chimps and apes do not mate. Thus, there were no hybrids. Then, it means that there was no common hybrid ancestor for humans and primates.”

But... chimps are apes... So, unless chimps are extinct, they do, in fact, mate with apes.

 

[james bond]

But “God existing” is an assumption. And the universe being evidence for God is also an assumption. The formula only carries the logic of the assumptions being made. The same formula would work for the existence of Bigfoot.

No, it's a logical argument for God if the universe had a beginning. We assume the p portion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's a logical argument for God if the universe had a beginning. We assume the p portion.

One does not get to just assume a premise.

 

[sojourner]

Existence requires existence

I exist. That satisfies the requirements for existence. IOW, it serves the purpose of existence.

something cannot have existence as its purpose unless it already exists

But that’s not what I said. I didn’t say that anything had existence as its purpose. I said that I satisfy the purpose of existence by existing.

 

[sojourner]

No, it's a logical argument for God if the universe had a beginning. We assume the p portion.

God is unnecessary, though, for the advent of the universe. Right now, the Big Bang is necessary. Unless one can prove that the Big Bang is God. You’re assuming that God is the beginning of existence. But that assertion necessitates facts not in evidence.

 

[ManSinha]

or me, “God” is an avatar — a metaphor — for the Divine. Same as Allah is a metaphor, and Vishnu, and Ra, and Apollo, and any other deity. We use these avatars because we simply don’t have the language to talk about the Divine in any other way. These metaphors aren’t perfect, but they serve our purposes. “God” is bigger than the Bible, bigger than the Koran, bigger than any religious system or theological construct can manage. For me, the Divine is — for lack of a better way of putting it — existence itself, life itself, purpose, presence, love, causation. Divinity is the “Perfect, Great Unknowable.”
One of the phrases I use in ceremony is to address God as “You who are known by a thousand names and yet are the unnameable One.”

You know - for a duly ordained Christian minister - you, Sir, are dangerously close to Advaita (with bolded underlined pieces of your statement above)

 

[Shad]

So your saying most athiests are really agnostic?

Most are in my experience.

Interesting I have not heard that one before. Why do they call themselves athiests?

Due to practicality. They live their lives as if God does not exist. They are not worried about judgement, some moral code from religion(s), etc. They get on with living to put it simply. Keep in mind the agnostic part can be about knowledge and if God is even "knowable". So that often become an issue regarding methodology not merely a belief in God. The systems we have are inadequate to prove or provide a high probability of existence or non-existence.

Keep in mind belief and faith are similar. The difference is what is used for evidence in the for/against view. Scripture vs philosophy for example. Both categories of people will use philosophy but only one uses scripture

*scripture being an umbrella term for religious texts.

 

[Trailblazer]

Depends on what you mean by “right.” I think all religions are “right,” because all religions foster metaphors and theologies that serve the purposes of their adherents.

I believe all religions are “right,” because all religions foster metaphors and theologies that serve God's purposes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that @james bond has no idea how logic works. Faulty premises, such as his can be rejected out of hand. The Kalam argument in all of its many forms has been well refuted.

 

[james bond]

@james bond said:

“ETA: This is one way to disprove that chimps and apes were not common ancestors because we find chimps and apes do not mate. Thus, there were no hybrids. Then, it means that there was no common hybrid ancestor for humans and primates.”

But... chimps are apes... So, unless chimps are extinct, they do, in fact, mate with apes.

Sorry, I should've specified larger apes like gorillas. There are no gorilla-chimp hybrids. Moreover, we do not see tailed monkeys become tailless. We're missing the transitional evidence in the monkeys.