I need a little help. I've been an Atheist most of my life and since I've been on RF I have realised how little I know about the argument for belief in god. I simply have not been exposed to religion that much beyond maybe as a kid in primary school.
I am currently on the border between implicit Atheism (no belief in god) and explicit Atheism (believing there is no god). I would like to become an expicit atheist and know that for me at least I have put my mind at rest, but in order to do so I feel I have to at least examine the arguments and the possibility more deeply.
For those who don't know, the difference between implicit atheism and explicit atheism is considerable. The New Atheists are implicit atheists in so far as they argue that atheism is an unreasonable position to hold based on scientific evidence and therefore have no belief in god. it therefore has similarities with agnosticism and is more a question of degrees. Most Atheists on this forum would appear to be implicit atheists.
An explicit atheist goes much further and would argue that the non-existence of god is a scientific fact as did the Communists in the Soviet Union. In other words, in explicit atheism the burden of proof falls on the Atheist to prove "god does not exist". I've been sympathetic to the Communist position, but have felt deeply uncertian about it and some of it's implications.
To some extent explicit atheism changes the very definition of proof- and its the latter than interests me since that has implications of free thought which I may or may not be familar or comfortable with. It also changes the definition of science as well. The ethical implications are also extreme as this is where problems of nihilism, relativism come in as god has historically been the source of objective ethics. I think we'll get to that eventually. Given the scope, I welcome contributions from both atheists, theists and agontiscs to see if this position really holds up to scruitiny.
I don't know what the outcome will be and half expect to lose horribly, but I'm pretty certian it will be clear just how difficult such a position is to accept which I hope will be interesting to believers and non-believers alike. I'm comfortable holding an unpopular position, but I want to be sure it is right and exactly how I know it is right and where it's weaknesses are. I'm going to have to look up the finer points as a I go along, so yeah, I'm asking for trouble- here it goes.
I am a dialectical materialist. I would therefore argue that God does not exist because consciousness is a property of matter and can therefore only be a property of the brain as an organ of thought. If God is a Consciousness that does not originate from matter, God cannot therefore be real and can only ever be the product of thought; man therefore created god.
As a philosophy, Materialism is the basis of our understanding for the objective world in contrast to idealism. A Materialist position can therefore be considered to be 'real' as a reflection of that objective reality and therefore a scientific fact. (Edit: As there is no god, Man is the only source of ethics).
I am currently on the border between implicit Atheism (no belief in god) and explicit Atheism (believing there is no god). I would like to become an expicit atheist and know that for me at least I have put my mind at rest, but in order to do so I feel I have to at least examine the arguments and the possibility more deeply.
For those who don't know, the difference between implicit atheism and explicit atheism is considerable. The New Atheists are implicit atheists in so far as they argue that atheism is an unreasonable position to hold based on scientific evidence and therefore have no belief in god. it therefore has similarities with agnosticism and is more a question of degrees. Most Atheists on this forum would appear to be implicit atheists.
An explicit atheist goes much further and would argue that the non-existence of god is a scientific fact as did the Communists in the Soviet Union. In other words, in explicit atheism the burden of proof falls on the Atheist to prove "god does not exist". I've been sympathetic to the Communist position, but have felt deeply uncertian about it and some of it's implications.
To some extent explicit atheism changes the very definition of proof- and its the latter than interests me since that has implications of free thought which I may or may not be familar or comfortable with. It also changes the definition of science as well. The ethical implications are also extreme as this is where problems of nihilism, relativism come in as god has historically been the source of objective ethics. I think we'll get to that eventually. Given the scope, I welcome contributions from both atheists, theists and agontiscs to see if this position really holds up to scruitiny.
I don't know what the outcome will be and half expect to lose horribly, but I'm pretty certian it will be clear just how difficult such a position is to accept which I hope will be interesting to believers and non-believers alike. I'm comfortable holding an unpopular position, but I want to be sure it is right and exactly how I know it is right and where it's weaknesses are. I'm going to have to look up the finer points as a I go along, so yeah, I'm asking for trouble- here it goes.
I am a dialectical materialist. I would therefore argue that God does not exist because consciousness is a property of matter and can therefore only be a property of the brain as an organ of thought. If God is a Consciousness that does not originate from matter, God cannot therefore be real and can only ever be the product of thought; man therefore created god.
As a philosophy, Materialism is the basis of our understanding for the objective world in contrast to idealism. A Materialist position can therefore be considered to be 'real' as a reflection of that objective reality and therefore a scientific fact. (Edit: As there is no god, Man is the only source of ethics).
Last edited: