Clarifying your Atheism

[Mr Spinkles]

In another thread, I said:

I would say I don't believe in god or Mother Goose...however, my position doesn't quite stop with an absence of belief in them: I believe something about God and Mother Goose. I feel there is strong evidence that both God and Mother Goose are mythical creations of societies and individuals which manifest themselves purely within the human psyche.

This is not to say that I *know* Mother Goose and God do not exist. Rather, I feel that belief in them does not stem from knowledge of their existence but from the myths of societies and individuals I explained earlier. Any relationship these beliefs have to reality is purely coincidental.

I would add that I believe the definitions for some gods are unreasonable. For example, the existence of any god who has the ability and motive to remove {A} from the world is inconsistent with the existence of {A} in the world. If {A} exists in the world, something must be lacking in either the god's motive or ability.

Furthermore, the definitions of some gods are so vague as to render themselves utterly meaningless, and therefore do not warrant consideration (much less beleif). I'm thinking here of New Age definitions of god (e.g. god is the "source" of all things, god is "an energy that binds us all", god is "all that is good").

Finally, there is good evidence against the existence of some gods. For example, if a given god is defined as a man with an alligator's head who has special powers and regularly walks around in big cities, there is very good evidence against the existence of that god. Why? Because if that were true, we would expect that god to have been captured on film numerous times, and that his appearances would be commonplace and lots and lots of credible witnesses would corroborate the event. The absence of the predicted evidence is good evidence against the existence of this particular god.

How do you clarify your atheism? Do your views fall along the same lines as mine?

 

[linwood]

I`m with you Spinkles.

Lately I`d rather not have to clarify my atheism though.

 

[bholly72]

Well, heck, I don't have any problem saying that I "know" that Santa doesn't exist. Why, since the evidence is the same, would I fudge about saying that I know God doesn't exist? - Brian

 

[osuwagner]

Hey Spinkles,

We've already had several in-person conversations in which we've clarified exactly what we think, but just for the record...I believe firmly that there is no cognitive being who actively makes decisions pertaining to the world, and furthermore that neither humans nor any other creature posesses free will.

Instead, the course if history is dictated by the laws of physics and the cause-and-effect reality which they set up. In other words, every time an event occurs, is causes another event to occur, then another and another....and so forth. There is no room for any random event to just appear on its own,...instead every event is already "destined" to happen because of what has occured right before it. (I don't like using the word destined, because many people begin to think that I'm talking about some Biblical or theological destiny, which is not the intended meaning).

Also, I would oppose any view of agnosticism, because I think that one view will inevitably be proven correct. All science has to do is prove how the universe began,...which (depending on your view of the facts) could be accomplished through string theory. Then, because of the cause-and-effect nature of the the world, we can theoretically retrace exactly what brought about the belief in god to begin in the first place, and show either its validity or invalidity. Such a feat probably seems a little far-fetched to most, however I have yet to see any reason why it could not be accomplished once we have enough technology.

 

[Fluffy]

Id totally agree with you bholly except that I have not seen proof in Santa's non existence. Therefore I can only say I believe he doesn't exist since I am making the smallest of jumps to a conclusion that is not proven. It is merely likely. Surely you cant say you KNOW anything which isnt proven. Thats just like a Christian saying that he KNOWS that God exists which is something that irritates me since believe and know have clearly seperate meanings and mixing them together like this causes aggravation between religions. It also leaves you wide open to being disproved. If Santa suddenly appeared infront of you then you would accept his existence surely? This is a possibility and so you can only define what you think as a belief not knowledge.

Thats just what I believe anyway .

 

[bholly72]

We don't have to be able to prove something in any strong sense to know it. All that is required is that the belief is justifed and true. So go ahead, take the leap and tell people that you actually know that there is no Santa. - Brian

 

[linwood]

All science has to do is prove how the universe began,...which (depending on your view of the facts) could be accomplished through string theory.

You`re assuming the universe had a beginning.

I still do not see how the concept is possible.

 

[osuwagner]

You`re assuming the universe had a beginning.

I still do not see how the concept is possible.

Yeah, actually i do know what you are trying to get att, that the universe has just always existed, and I would have shared that belief with you before I learned more about why physicists do think the universe was created with the big bang.

Because of Einstein's relativity theory, time cannot exist if objects are not moving relative to one another. Astronomers have done extensive research on galaxies and stars and have determined that they are all seperating from the same point and that they were all at that point at the same "time." Now, if all the stars in the universe are moving away from the same point in space, yet they are all moving in different directions, the only possible way to conclusion is that there was some type of "explosion," and that the stars were stationary before-hand. If they were not moving before-hand, time was not passing, and so therefore this explosion is the beginning of time and thus the "beginning" of the universe.

Now what caused this "explosion" is still highly debated, and to be honest, no one knows for sure. Yet there are theories, and I feel it is only a matter of time until one is proven correct and is accepted by the scientific community.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Also, I would oppose any view of agnosticism, because ...

Really? What is your defnition of knowledge and how, for example, do you solve the "Problem of Induction"?

... I think that one view will inevitably be proven correct. All science has to do is prove how the universe began,... Then, because of the cause-and-effect nature of the the world, we can theoretically retrace exactly what brought about the belief in god to begin in the first place, and show either its validity or invalidity.

Assuming that were in principle possible (and there is absolutely no reason to believe it is), you are still left with a fallacy:

"what brought about the belief in god to begin in the first place"​

is not equivalent to knowing if the belief reflects reality. As noted elsewhere, should I conclude that 16/64 = 1/4 by the bogus process of cancelling 6's, the answer is no less correct.

Such a feat probably seems a little far-fetched to most, however I have yet to see any reason why it could not be accomplished once we have enough technology.

Heisenberg?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

- -- Stephen Roberts, quoted from Rob Fenton, in a letter to Cliff Walker (September 29, 2000)

I can think of no clarification superior to this.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey what's up wagner?

Because of Einstein's relativity theory, time cannot exist if objects are not moving relative to one another. Astronomers have done extensive research on galaxies and stars and have determined that they are all seperating from the same point and that they were all at that point at the same "time." Now, if all the stars in the universe are moving away from the same point in space, yet they are all moving in different directions, the only possible way to conclusion is that there was some type of "explosion," and that the stars were stationary before-hand. If they were not moving before-hand, time was not passing, and so therefore this explosion is the beginning of time and thus the "beginning" of the universe.

This was my understanding of the big bang...until I took astronomy this semester. It's actually important not to think of the big bang as an explosion: explosions happen at certain places, and the big bang happened everywhere. In fact, the big bang is still happening, right now. Furthermore, the galaxies are not traveling away from a certain point in space, but rather space itself is expanding. This increases the distances between galaxies and stretches photons of light traveling through intergalactic space, giving the light from distant galaxies a red-shift. To an observer on any galaxy, it appears that all galaxies are receeding and that his/her galaxy is the center of the universe.

Kind of difficult to wrap one's imagination around.

I don't share your confidence that nothing is random. Remember, you once thought the universe had to be eternal and couldn't have a beginning...however, it seems that the universe did have a beginning. It may seem counter-intuitive, but quantum physics suggests that some things are random.

 

[linwood]

Now what caused this "explosion" is still highly debated, and to be honest, no one knows for sure. Yet there are theories, and I feel it is only a matter of time until one is proven correct and is accepted by the scientific community.

I understand the concepts, for the most part , I simply cannot find empirical evidence to support the supposition that the Big Bang is the only possibilty or that it has happened in the manner scientists claim it has.

I believe it will be a matter of a long time before this can be accepted as "law" if ever.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I believe it will be a matter of a long time before this can be accepted as "law" if ever.

Before what can be accepted as law? Hubble's law?

Anyway do any fellow atheists and/or agnostics disagree with anything I've said in my first post? It seems everyone pretty much agrees with what I've said as far as I can tell. I'm glad Deut posted that particular quote, it does sum things up nicely. I had no idea it was written so recently.

 

[osuwagner]

Assuming that were in principle possible (and there is absolutely no reason to believe it is), you are still left with a fallacy:

"what brought about the belief in god to begin in the first place"​

is not equivalent to knowing if the belief reflects reality. As noted elsewhere, should I conclude that 16/64 = 1/4 by the bogus process of cancelling 6's, the answer is no less correct. :

Actually I completely agree with you on this one. If a person takes a belief in God to be their core assumption, there is nothing that can be done to prove otherwise to them. Any attempt you make to disprove them will be futile, because to them the very idea of logic is a creation of God, so using logic to attempt to prove the nonexistence of God actually just offers them further proof that there is a God. Perhaps I argued my point a little clumsily, but let me try to reword.
What I was saying was that I think it is possible to prove that due to the way a human brain works, humans have an inherent inclination towards a belief in something greater than them. Perhaps this could be due to an evolutionary advantage, because any animal who is constantly wary of something more powerful than themselves is going to be more likely to survive. If this could be proven (it is still a BIG if), then I think it would do a lot to raise doubts as to the belief in God to begin with.

Although it would not thoroughly disprove the belief in God once and for all, it would put that belief on a similar level as a belief in Greek mythology, or a belief that pigs can fly.

Every single person in the world has some core assumption, which they cannot prove and which cannot be disproved. For some it is the belief in God, for others it is that the laws of physics are universal, still for others it could be something seemingly ridiculous such as a belief that humans can digest rocks. In actuality, it makes no difference, so long as they refuse to accept the validity of any fact which disproves their initial assumption. Therefore, the only way to disprove someone’s belief structure is if they do accept the rules involved in logic, and they have at some point in their beliefs made an assumption which contradicts their initial assumption. So a belief that humans can digest rocks could easily be disproved if that person also accepted the validity of biology science.

The same might be accurate for a person who makes any second assumption after the initial assumption of God. It would take a much cleverer man than myself, but I have a hunch that a belief in God and a belief that the laws of physics are accurate are mutually exclusive.

 

[linwood]

I would say I don't believe in god or Mother Goose...however, my position doesn't quite stop with an absence of belief in them: I believe something about God and Mother Goose. I feel there is strong evidence that both God and Mother Goose are mythical creations of societies and individuals which manifest themselves purely within the human psyche.

I`m in agreement.

 

[huajiro]

:bonk: I "know" nothing....ignorance is bliss:bonk:

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Spinkles -

I do not disagree with anything in your first post, until, toward the end. I do not accept the premise that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence - whether we are talking about God or Santa Claus, thus leading me to my position as an Agnostic. One can never logically prove a (universal) negative.

I have no problem whatsoever with an individual being an Atheist, because in my mind, that indicates that they have accepted the premise that I cannot - not that said Atheist deems himself to have "divine" knowledge that others do not possess.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - with every passing year, I move closer and closer to Atheism - if God exists, He could easily reveal himself to me. I would surmise that this really means that, on my death bed, I'll take that last step into Atheism, barring some last minute "revalation" by God himself. If that occurs, I'm gonna be one pissed off believer. :tsk:

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[linwood]

Spinkles -

I do not disagree with anything in your first post, until, toward the end. I do not accept the premise that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence - whether we are talking about God or Santa Claus, thus leading me to my position as an Agnostic. One can never logically prove a (universal) negative.

I have no problem whatsoever with an individual being an Atheist, because in my mind, that indicates that they have accepted the premise that I cannot - not that said Atheist deems himself to have "divine" knowledge that others do not possess.

Thanks,
TVOR

I`ll tell you a secret TVOR.

I don`t believe in agnostics either.



Are you telling me there is a possibility the Easter Bunny exists simply because we cannot find evidence to the contrary?

Furthermore, if you do do you have faith in the possibilty of the existence of the Easter Bunny?

I`m not talking blind or revealed faith here i`m talking rational faith.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do not accept the premise that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence - whether we are talking about God or Santa Claus, thus leading me to my position as an Agnostic. One can never logically prove a (universal) negative.

While the absence of proof is not proof of absence, the absence of evidence is everywhere and always evidence of absence. The only question is: how good?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Great question, Linwood. I think I can get my hands on some empirical evidence of the existence of Agnostics, just to help you disspell your doubts.

Seriously, I have no rational belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or God. I have absolutely no empirical evidence of any of them - on the contrary, all the evidence that I do have points toward a distinct probability that they do not exist. The evidence against Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, however, is much stronger than the evidence against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being.

TVOR