An appeal for the logic of religious belief

[Zeno]

If you want to get into a serious insult fest there little nerd wanna be you'd better go get your big boy pants on.

I was being facetious...

 

[Autodidact]

Ah, so "I don't know" is worth more than "God did it"?

Yes, if it is correct. That is, "I don't know" is a more accurate answer than to assert that you know, when you don't. For example, "I don't know" is a better answer than: Hordes of enormous dustballs collected under the couch of eternity until the cosmic broom swept them into significance.

It's an unanswerable question for both sides.

Indeed, it may be. But only one side admits this.

 

[Azakel]

Not necessarily. The universe may be eternal.
Also, atheists are often content with "I don't know," which is a perfectly valid answer. The theist says that he does know, so the onus is on him to show that he does.

Not all theist, I don't know.

 

[Super Universe]

Not necessarily. The universe may be eternal.
Also, atheists are often content with "I don't know," which is a perfectly valid answer. The theist says that he does know, so the onus is on him to show that he does.

By the same onus, some might view the universe as being eternal but it would then conflict with the whole big bang theory and thus they should provide some evidence that contradicts the big bang.

Also, a thiest does not have to show or prove to you, or anyone else, what he or she believes. No other person can change your mind, there is no perfect answer that explains everything to you the way you want it. If you don't see it in a tree, a playful puppy, or in a kitten being born, if the bad things in life have made you endlessly bitter, then you will never see it.

 

[Super Universe]

Yes, if it is correct. That is, "I don't know" is a more accurate answer than to assert that you know, when you don't. For example, "I don't know" is a better answer than: Hordes of enormous dustballs collected under the couch of eternity until the cosmic broom swept them into significance.

Indeed, it may be. But only one side admits this.

But how do you know they don't know?

Also, I really enjoyed your poetic example. I would take it a thousand times over a more truthful "I don't know" answer.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Well, I was not doing the anthropomorphizing. Penguino is the one who said that everything has a generator. He didn't say everything except God...

By definition everything means everything. Yes, even those concepts (or um, approximations??) that conveniently "transcend conceptualization."

Furthermore, coming up with something better as you propose would be superfluous. As these basic (childish as you call them) questions have yet to be answered.

I can easily claim that the universe, the big bang, and the origin of life are all natural, but they transcend conceptualization. Don't bother critiquing this claim though, for you will only be displaying your childish arrogance.



Oh, it's not just relevant. It is the most relevant.

A generator cannot be generated?? I beg to differ. What you mean to say is that your idea of an ultimate generator (which conveniently "transcends conceptualization" ) cannot be generated. This is an extraordinarily strong conviction to hold by weight of a (not so) common sense definition that you propose.


If people enjoy holding these beliefs, so be it. I would just hope that at the same time they could admit how tragically un-compelling this rhetoric is to someone not sharing these views. I think compelling arguments are out there - I used to be a Christian. Transcending conceptualization is certainly not one of them!

I wish people would speak english.

By using big words, it doesent make you look clever.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Our generator was made by Powermate; however Kohler makes better ones. None of them are eternal.

These are generators of two differnt sizes

 

[UnTheist]

By using big words, it doesent make you look clever.

Maybe he actually knows how to use those big words and you just don't understand them.

 

[Quath]

One problem I see over and over is that we see cause/effect working within the universe and assume it must apply everywhere.

Quantum mechanics shows that cause effect is not an underlying property of the universe. It is just something that falls in place when dealing with macroscopic observables. For instance, a photon may go along a certain path based on something that will happen in the future. In that case, the effect happened before the cause.

Time is part of the univsers. So when the universe began, it appears that time began. (There are some theories that has time continuing at the big bang, not starting.) So if time is part of the Universe, then the universe both has a beginning and has existed for all time (eternal).

So this leads to many non-religious ways to see how the universe was created:
1. The universe is the uncaused cause. In other words, take the religious notion of God and rename it to the Universe. And remove the anthropomorphic property that it thinks.
2. The universe is really bigger than we imagine such as higher dimensions and unknown physics. We only see a part of it.
3. The cause of the universe happens later (such as the Big Crunch could cause this universe to exist).
4. We are all in the Matrix and have no idea what reality really is since we are only fed false computer sensory information. In other words, we can really 100% know reality.

 

[Rioku]

I was an atheist for a long time, and it nearly killed me.

Can you explain why?

 

[Somkid]

I love it when "atheists" anthropomorphize God. It shows they aren't atheists after all: they just have a funny concept of God.

No, don't misunderstand a hypothesis based on what others believe, my point is that one has a bit more credibility than the other no matter how silly it sounds. If ET's exist which there is a very good chance that they do, due the the size and nature of the universe(s) they are bound by the natural laws as are we as would be any god that (supposedly) created them. I assure you I'm not confused I don't call myself an atheist because that would mean "I don't believe in god" I on the other hand know there is no god.

 

[Rioku]

I assure you I'm not confused I don't call myself an atheist because that would mean "I don't believe in god" I on the other hand know there is no god.

Knowing there is no god and not believing in god is the same thing. Unless you state that even if there is undeniably verifiable evidence for god you will still know there is no god, in which case you are a fundamental Atheist, or maybe an orthodox Atheist. In either of the two cases it is arrogant to claim you know there is no god because there is no way for you to know that he does not exist. The best claim you can make is that the probability for god is so insignificant that you are convinced there is no god. So like myself I tell people I am atheist, but in reality I am agnostic with a strong lean towards atheism.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Maybe he actually knows how to use those big words and you just don't understand them.

Maybe im just 13 and i am not grammatical genius. Maybe he uses them so i dont understand them.

 

[yossarian22]

Maybe im just 13 and i am not grammatical genius. Maybe he uses them so i dont understand them.

Why do people complain about the use of vocabulary. I suggest you stop whining and look up what those words mean. Just google them, its not like it takes too long.

 

[Rioku]

Maybe im just 13 and i am not grammatical genius. Maybe he uses them so i dont understand them.

Sorry to say kid but your limited vocabulary is not an excuse. If you do not know a word just go to wikipedia it really is not that hard.

 

[Quath]

Knowing there is no god and not believing in god is the same thing.

I disagree with this statement. What you say later shows you have the basic idea that we work off of probabilities (or more precisely confidence in data). Knowing there is no God is a stronger statement than not believing in God. The latter can be rephrased "I have no belief in God." You may have no belief in sky faeries that carve sleet into snowflakes, but you can not prove they do not really exist.

Unless you state that even if there is undeniably verifiable evidence for god you will still know there is no god, in which case you are a fundamental Atheist, or maybe an orthodox Atheist.

Strong atheism would basically say that they have seen the evidence and it leads away from all gods. A weaker version of this is to say that all God the atheist has theought about has been found to be self-contradicting. So they know some Gods do not exist, but can not prove all Gods do not exist. However, if positive evidence becomes available, then every atheist I know says they would believe.

The best claim you can make is that the probability for god is so insignificant that you are convinced there is no god. So like myself I tell people I am atheist, but in reality I am agnostic with a strong lean towards atheism.

I agree with you. However, I go one further and say that by the basic definition, everyone is agnostic with leanings. So the agnostic label is useless since it includes everyone. So people have backed off a little and try to make it mean "undecided" or "polite atheist" or "spiritual but no solid beliefs."

 

[Rolling_Stone]

No, don't misunderstand a hypothesis based on what others believe, my point is that one has a bit more credibility than the other no matter how silly it sounds. If ET's exist which there is a very good chance that they do, due the the size and nature of the universe(s) they are bound by the natural laws as are we as would be any god that (supposedly) created them. I assure you I'm not confused I don't call myself an atheist because that would mean "I don't believe in god" I on the other hand know there is no god.

Yes, you do. Or, rather, your understanding is very limited, leading you to humanize God. By definition, God transcends conceptualization: the best and highest conception of God is only an approximation. When atheists compare God to something along the lines of a pink unicorn or aliens or anything else that is finite and the effect of an antecedent cause, what they are really doing is positing a ridiculous concept of God and saying that because such a God does not exist or has no more credibility than aliens, God does not exist. Concepts range from (your) primitive anthropomorphic concept to something like the Integrated Theory of Intelligence. When you are doing is defining God in a primitive way and saying that because such a God cannot exist, God does not exist. You are not "atheist" because you are Buddhist. You are not atheist because you "know" God does not exist.

When the conception of Suchness is established, the reason of Mahayanism becomes evident. Buddhism is no more an agnostic system than a system of atheistic ethics. For in Suchness or Dharmakaya it finds the reason of existence, the true reality, the norm of morality, the source of love and goodness, the fountain head of righteousness, absolute intelligence, and the starting point of karma— for Suchness, according to the Mahayana thinkers, is not a mere state of being, but it is energy, intelligence, and love. But as Suchness begins to take these attributes upon itself, it ceases to be transcendental Suchness; it is now conditioned Suchness. So long as it remained absolutely transcendental, allowing neither negation nor affirmation, it was beyond the ken of the human understanding, and could not very well become the object of our religious consciousness. But there was the awakening of a will in Suchness, and with this awakening we have conditional and self- limiting Suchness In place of the absolutely unknowable. (As to the why and how of this process, we have to confess a profound and eternal ignorance.) It is in this transformation, so to speak, of Suchness that the Mahayana system recognizes the religious significance of Dharmakaya. (D.T. Suzuki)

A rose by any other name...

FYI: My son is a major in philosophy and an atheist, but even he sees philosophical problem of your argument.

P.S. The fact that you, as a Buddhist, say that you "know" there is no God makes me doubt you are Buddhist. The Buddhists I know would be disappointed in your assertions, if not disgusted in your dualistic thinking.

 

[crystalonyx]

"...the existence of an unseen force at work in human history is no less plausible and no less scholarly as an explanation for events than it is to consider the influence of unseen forces at work in the natural world (e.g. gravity)"...John S. Hatcher, The Ocean of His Words p 27

Does considering that make a difference in how you feel on the subject?
"

No, as it is an illogical antiquated belief, sort of a "god must exist because you can't see it" type of belief.

 

[Rioku]

I disagree with this statement. What you say later shows you have the basic idea that we work off of probabilities (or more precisely confidence in data). Knowing there is no God is a stronger statement than not believing in God. The latter can be rephrased "I have no belief in God." You may have no belief in sky faeries that carve sleet into snowflakes, but you can not prove they do not really exist.


Strong atheism would basically say that they have seen the evidence and it leads away from all gods. A weaker version of this is to say that all God the atheist has theought about has been found to be self-contradicting. So they know some Gods do not exist, but can not prove all Gods do not exist. However, if positive evidence becomes available, then every atheist I know says they would believe.


I agree with you. However, I go one further and say that by the basic definition, everyone is agnostic with leanings. So the agnostic label is useless since it includes everyone. So people have backed off a little and try to make it mean "undecided" or "polite atheist" or "spiritual but no solid beliefs."

You make some good points but in the end the specifics are what matter. The definition of Atheist is that you do not believe in god. In which case you would be wrong to believe that for there is no evidence proving god does not exist, and there never will be. So saying that you know god does not exist ( as you claim to be a stronger statement, which is true semantically) makes you even more incorrect then claiming you are atheist. In the end as long as you understand this point then you can call yourself whatever you want just make sure you take the point into consideration. I think you were getting at this when you were saying everyone is agnostic in a sense, basically you want to change the definition of atheist to include the understanding that no one can prove god does not exist, which is a change that I do not think I would disagree with.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The best claim you can make is that the probability for god is so insignificant that you are convinced there is no god.

No, it is not. The best assertion one can make is that one is aware of no evidence that one believes warrants an appeal to supernatural agency. Talk of probability is simply misplaced.