What type of atheist are you?

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

A knowable creator of the universe does not exist. However, the subconscious mind is capable of creating a fictional God if you really need one.

What are people talking about or expecting when they say "knowable creator of the universe"?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What type of atheist are you?

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God


2) God is like Aliens: There are no good and conclusive arguments for or against the existence of Aliens. Let’s simply avoid/hold belief in Aliens until good evidence is presented….. Analogous to there is no strong evidence for nor against God I will hold my belif in good until someone presents evidence…


3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs: there are good arguments for the asteroid theory and good arguments against the asteroid theory … you simply belive that the argumetns against are stronger…… Analogous to there are good arguments for and against God, the arguments against are better.

If limited to only those three choices, I'd pick 1. But that's not very close to my belief system at all.

It's like asking a kangaroo if they're most like a mouse, a chair, or the Great Wall of China.

Mouse is the correct answer, but only because of how the question is framed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ah okay thank you. Most creator conceptions I've seen are 4. Like the invisible fairies in my pocket. Their existence is unfalsifiable and thus we have no reliable way to assess the claim.

By the way, I spoke to those fairies. They are going to unionise and strike for better pay and conditions.

I can't believe you keep your pocket zipped close in this day and age. And apparently the fairies don't even get paid parental leave. You're setting them up for generational issues.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I honestly think most Atheists think that most Theists think of God as a Santa Klaus figure and that most Theists think of God as "aliens" one way or another if they are thinking very anthropomorphically, but that there is No God that is like Santa Klaus or Aliens, except the Aliens, except Aliens is the closer bet, since the Angels are pretty much by definition "Extra-Terrestrial" as they weren't made from Earth or on Earth according to most beliefs, and are the more "substantial" seeming beings that get discussed, whereas God is their God, who seems to mind-control them and in turn they force their Alien God upon us, by force. Yeah, Aliens.

 

[Valjean]

I think many see him as a stern, judgemental father figure.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I think many see him as a stern, judgemental father figure.

I hear people referring to God as a "loving Father" a lot too, makes me cringe.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

I hear people referring to God as a "loving Father" a lot too, makes me cringe.

And then followed by utterly pathetic (but logical in response to such kinds of false views) questions such as "if God is so loving then why is there suffering?"

 

[leroy]

Have you heard of Ockham's Razor?

Yes if 2 explanations are equal in terms of explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power, etc.... You shoukd take the simplest explanation.


So can you provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that is equally good than "God" but simpler?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes if 2 explanations are equal in terms of explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power, etc.... You shoukd take the simplest explanation.

Moreso the explanation with the fewest assumptions, although its often paraphrased the way you have.

So can you provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that is equally good than "God" but simpler?

Whilst a somewhat useful tool in general life, Occam's Razor has no place in science.
God is not falsifiable, and is not a sufficient scientific explanation for anything. Even if God exists.

So ultimately it's going to depend on what sort of answer you're looking for, and how you measure it...heck, even what sort of attributes you want to put on 'God'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And then followed by utterly pathetic (but logical in response to such kinds of false views) questions such as "if God is so loving then why is there suffering?"

That's pathetic only in relation to some beliefs. It's a complete fair challenge against others.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

That's pathetic only in relation to some beliefs. It's a complete fair challenge against others.

Yes, well firstly anything that is an entity or a being with an intellect is not God, and is, in Theistic terms, in the category of creation.

Then the concept of love, is an idea that implies dependence, so it relates to entities and beings, like humans, animals (potentially, for some) and speculated extra terrestrials.
Love is related to sex and bonding (to the attraction and sense of incompleteness between two parties), both things that are antithetical to the concept of God, being the ground or substrate upon which all things exist.

So yeah, I laugh very much at those who claim to be theists that also conceive some kind of being that has those traits.

Though if we were to tease such ideas, one could say that "God loves through us", which would work for some worldviews.

 

[exchemist]

Yes if 2 explanations are equal in terms of explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power, etc.... You shoukd take the simplest explanation.


So can you provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that is equally good than "God" but simpler?

Nope, nothing to do with "two being equal" and nothing to do with simplicity.

Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate. Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.

That means, do not add more hypotheses than are necessary to account for a phenomenon.

As there is no objective evidence for the existence of God, there is no need to invoke God as a hypothesis. God is an unnecessary entity, in purely scientific terms.

Those of us who think - or hope - there may be a God do so for subjective, aesthetic or cultural reasons. The physicalist will, quite understandably and rationally, reject such notions.

 

[ratiocinator]

So can you provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that is equally good than "God" but simpler?

"God" has no well defined meaning (there are endless different and contradictory versions) and no explanatory power, you might as well just say "it's magic".

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am a Hindu atheist, and a strong one at that. There is no possibility of existence of any God (or Goddess).

 

[Altfish]

A man with a costume.

Your parents, or some other adult who lives in your house…

The point is that there are good reasons to reject the existence of Santaclause (we both agree)……….do you have good reasons to reject the existence of God?

The point I'm making is that i see vast amounts of evidence for Santa; I see none for a god or gods.
Why should I believe in something without evidence when you dismiss all my evidence for Santa

Well , we know (with high degree of certainty) that Santa Clause is not the cause of gifts in the Christmas tree… parents are……

So unless you can provide an explanation for the origin of the universe and show that this explanation is better than God…….. you shouldn’t compare God with Santa Clause.

"God did it", so that's your explanation!!!
What evidence is there that god did it?
You may not like my "We don't know" answer, but at least I'm being honest. You are making answers up without evidence to do so.

why?

Because you said you wanted a one word answer; you got a one word answer. I can't even remember the question...??

well reed the complete article
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event - Wikipedia

I will look at them later.

 

[leroy]

"God" has no well defined meaning (there are endless different and contradictory versions) and no explanatory power, you might as well just say "it's magic".

All words have many meanings..... But nobody makes a big deal out of that.... If you have any doubt all you have to do is ask for clarification

 

[leroy]

Nope, nothing to do with "two being equal" and nothing to do with simplicity.

Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate. Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.

That means, do not add more hypotheses than are necessary to account for a phenomenon.

As there is no objective evidence for the existence of God, there is no need to invoke God as a hypothesis. God is an unnecessary entity, in purely scientific terms.

Those of us who think - or hope - there may be a God do so for subjective, aesthetic or cultural reasons. The physicalist will, quite understandably and rationally, reject such notions.

Ok so what is your point with okams razor?....... Do you have an explanation for the origin of the universe that is more parsimonious than "God"?



The only point that i whant to make is that there are good empirical conclusive arguments that suggests that parents (and not Santa Clause) are the cause of gifts

So... if... You whant to compare God and Santa Clause claiming that both ideas are equally ridiculous you most provide good conclusive arguments for say a naturalistic origin of the universe and show that this explanation is better than God..in the same way one can show that parents are a better explanation for gifts than Santa Clause... If you cant do that then you shouldn't compare God with Santa Clause.

 

[leroy]

You may not like my "We don't know" answer, but at least I'm being honest. You are making answers up without evidence to do so.

Because with "we don't know" what you actually mean is "we dont know, but we know God isn't the cause of the universe"


That possition requires a burden proof...... How do you know that God is not the cause of the universe?

 

[oldbadger]

What type of atheist are you?

..... the type of 'non-theist' Deist that atheists won't let in to their club.

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs:

God is the entirety of everything and every force, plus all the rest of it.
So that asteroid....... a small part of the whole, changed so much on this spec of dust.

 

[ratiocinator]

That possition requires a burden proof...... How do you know that God is not the cause of the universe?

I don't know that something you might refer to as "God" is not the cause of the universe (although some versions of "God" can be ruled out by evidence or reasoning), but it's nothing more than a guess. It's just as (un)likely to be true as any other guess, like the universe was weaved together by a tribe of supernatural elves called Eric or sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure and we should all live in dread of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief.