Why do Atheists exist?

[InformedIgnorance]

One major fallacy of this whole statement is that there IS a metaphysical. How can you tell me for certain that there is even a metaphysical? If it is something outside the bounds of our universe, how could you, a human being, whose parts are completely physical and material in nature, sense anything metaphysical? Do you think that we as humans have something special that allows us to connect with the metaphysical? If so, how do you know we have such a thing?

I am not making an assumption that it exists, I am making an assumption that it is possible to exist - huge difference and one that is supported by logic (while the other is not).

How could I of the physical detect the metaphysical? I could not unless it interacted with me. And even then, personally I would merely suggest that it was some aspect of the physical universe which I did not understand well enough (such as some advanced technology that operates under a more intricate understanding of the natural laws) - or some type of delusion perhaps - as I said, proof that the concept of God exists is also impossible (given the unreliability of the application of logic, as well as other factors were to to assume that logic could at least be applied to OUR own experience of such metaphysical concepts)

I look at the metaphysical only to examine that which we do not know (which is a lot), it is useful for modelling such concepts - but that in no way means that these metaphysical concepts 'exist' in the traditional sense at ALL.

 

[Daviso452]

I am not making an assumption that it exists, I am making an assumption that it is possible to exist - huge difference and one that is supported by logic (while the other is not).

How could I of the physical detect the metaphysical? I could not unless it interacted with me. And even then, personally I would merely suggest that it was some aspect of the physical universe which I did not understand well enough (such as some advanced technology) - or some type of delusion perhaps - as I said, proof that the concept of God exists is also impossible (given the unreliability of the application of logic, as well as other factors were to to assume that logic could at least be applied to OUR own experience of such metaphysical concepts)

I look at the metaphysical only to examine that which we do not know (which is a lot), it is useful for modelling such concepts - but that in no way means that these metaphysical concepts 'exist' in the traditional sense at ALL.

But we have no reason to think that their is any metaphysical at all. As far as we know, the physical universe is all there is. However just because there is a possibility it is out there does not mean we should give it any thought. It has no practical usage and may very well wind up as a wild goose chase with no results.

Give credit where credit is due. Even if you do not believe in the metaphysical, just because we don't know does not mean we should consider it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yet it is only through the study of metaphysics that we have had many of the advances in our understanding of science, we give these abstract concepts thought not because they themselves must have some sort of physical counterpart or parallel, but rather because they hint at possible physical counterparts! True, many metaphysical concepts probably may not have physical counterparts (this may well include concepts such as god), however study of the metaphysical is by no means useless and in the study of theology metaphysics can provide a means by which to examine different preternatural concepts that they often mention in a way that enables the use of cognitive tools like logic; mostly this is a level of metaphysics that we use without even considering it.

 

[Daviso452]

Yet it is only through the study of metaphysics that we have had many of the advances in our understanding of science, we give these abstract concepts thought not because they themselves must have some sort of physical counterpart or parallel, but rather because they hint at possible physical counterparts! True, many metaphysical concepts probably may not have physical counterparts (this may well include concepts such as god), however study of the metaphysical is by no means useless and in the study of theology metaphysics can provide a means by which to examine different preternatural concepts that they often mention in a way that enables the use of cognitive tools like logic; mostly this is a level of metaphysics that we use without even considering it.

I think we're referring to two different things. There is a difference between metaphysics and metaphysical. Metaphysics is a huge umbrella of philosophy concerned with existence. A metaphysical object is something that is, more or less, a supernatural object, which defies the boundaries of our universe and its laws. Please not the difference.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It may be that the common usage of the term metaphysical is synonymous with spiritual existences and the supernatural, but that is not the true meaning of the term - which is indeed for use in metaphysics.

In metaphysics, concepts such as God CAN be examined and evaluated, it is also possible to examine the possibility of existences where the constraints of our logical framework do not apply, though for the later, such examinations are mostly useless as they result in a situation where cognitive processes are unreliable, so they are non-rational at best since they examine the possibility that the law of noncontradiction can be contradicted!

 

[Willamena]

A metaphysical object is something that is, more or less, a supernatural object, which defies the boundaries of our universe and its laws.

Some call that objective reality.

 

[connermt]

How can there be so many humans that are so blind to the splender and maginifecence and epicness and wonder of this universe and say there is no inteligence behind it's design?

It's like they never took Biology or a Physics class!

How can so many christians/people be so blind to think that their belief is the only way to enjoy the splender and magnifencence and epicness and wonder of this universe as to say, their book is true and that their god created everything - even things we don't yet know about.
It's like they never took a Biology or a Physics class!
You get the point, no?

People like to see what fits in their world view no matter the facts or lack thereof. Christians tend to be very guilty of this to a large degree because they have nothing but conjecture to back up their claims.
Not that's there anything wrong with that, for them. If they want to believe in a magical unicorn with a yellow velvet cape that travels the universe in a hot dog bun, so be it. The issue I have is when they try to pass that bunk off as science/fact.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

However FTP, an intellectually honest atheist will then admit that such a proof logically cannot exist nor can a proof that no god exists, therefore they would be agnostic or perhaps apatheistic.

Perhaps you are confusing the terms atheism and agnosticism. Or perhaps I am. atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism and agnosticism deal with two different things. Atheism deals with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Atheism is the belief it is NOT true; weak atheism (not believing) is not really atheism (disbelieving), though the colloquial often expresses as much - that is my personal opinion, however from a more practical perspective I generally simply overlook this while in discussion in preference for using terms to refer to specific concepts that others wish to refer to (if someone wishes to call a rose a porcupine, then for that conversation I have no qualms about doing so)

However my point was not that the two were a sliding scale but rather to suggest that 'proof' is impossible against most metaphysical concepts as they are generally unfalsifiable, as a result, to be intellectually honest, it is important for those who proclaim their atheism to recognise the inability to falsify for to proclaim otherwise (for MOST metaphysical concepts of god) is to be dishonest.

Though I would also amend this position to include the recognition that most claims are also unverifiable (without getting into solipsism)

 

[cablescavenger]

How can there be so many humans that are so blind to the splender and maginifecence and epicness and wonder of this universe and say there is no inteligence behind it's design?

It's like they never took Biology or a Physics class!

:foot:

 

[MD]

Most scientists are not atheist, they're either agnostic or theists/deists. Most strong atheists are just bored and have issues with religion growing up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most scientists are not atheist, they're either agnostic or theists/deists.

Most agnostics are atheists.

 

[9Westy9]

Most scientists are not atheist, they're either agnostic or theists/deists.

What 9/10ths said

Most strong atheists are just bored and have issues with religion growing up.

and your evidence for this is?

 

[yoheisato]

If everything must be made by someone, who made god then? You are saying that it's a beautiful world. There must be some design, intention, or whatever it is that made this beautiful world. Then, pursue the question further. Who made this someone who made this beautiful world? Why do you stop pursuing the question at the point of god? What's your justification for stopping there?

In fact, I also feel it rather unrealistic that everything (structure of flowers, etc.) was entirely made by chance and evolutionist process. I can admit some intention there. For example, there was some intention which was like a seed, then evolutionist process carried it over to develop. A hybrid notion, maybe?

However, it does NOT mean that this creator is to be worshiped by its creatures. As we all know, this world is full of injustice. It's not a perfect world at all. Think of tragedies occurring everyday in Africa. Take an extreme example. If a child is abused by parents in every possible way, should the child still respect the parents just because of the mere fact that they gave her/him birth? So, why should we consider this creator 'god' or someone to be worshiped?

So, as in the idea of 'intelligent design', I can accept that there is or are creator(s), but that does not make her/him/them god automatically.

 

[crocusj]

Most scientists are not atheist, they're either agnostic or theists/deists. Most strong atheists are just bored and have issues with religion growing up.

Well that's fairly insulting. How about: most theists proclaim their beliefs in order to reaffirm a faith that they do not actually have but can't say that they have been wrong. This would be as true as what you just said and just as disingenouos.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The hole isn't made to fit the puddle. The puddle forms due to the hole, and thus automatically fits the hole.

 

[waitasec]

Most scientists are not atheist, they're either agnostic or theists/deists. Most strong atheists are just bored and have issues with religion growing up.

you are going to have to back that up.

you realize that you are also saying that life experience has proven the idea of god is for children.