-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
A question to atheists.
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Can asking "why" enough times show the difference?
Theist: I believe in god
Why? because the (bible/koran/etc) said so.
Why? because book in question has stood over centuries and consists of several written accounts.
Why? because written accounts = writings as people have observed events, and committed them to paper.
Why? because writing is based on a language, which itself is governed by a strict set of rules concerning grammar, meaning, etc.
Why? because human beings need to communicate with each other, as we are social creatures, and thus need a common basis for communication.
Why? because in comparison with our capabilities with creatures like tigers, we are not endowed with the requisite ability to survive alone.
And so on....
Now, the atheist:
I do not believe in god.
Why? because there is no evidence to prove such an entity's existence.
Why? because a phenomenon is supported by evidence, which is basically a set of observations and findings related to the phenomenon.
Why? because observations of a given phenomenon are intimately connected to that phenomenon by a series of steps, forming a chain.
Why? because each step by itself is a phenomenon, and can be broken down into further steps.
Why? because everything we do follows that rule. in essence, we are "wired" this way.
Now, you may observe, that if you continued breaking down the last "why" statement in the theist case, you will eventually arrive at the last "why" statement in the atheist case.
So instead of doing a top-down analysis, you need to start at the bottom. The difference immediately becomes apparent. Following the logical progression, you notice that the top two statements in the theist case do not have a rigorous foundation (in all fairness, none of the statements do, but they are *less* rigorous.)
Finally, I contend you have it backward. The theist "believes" in god and the theist "believes" in scientific rigor, but as you can see, it is not possible to believe in god without first "believing", or, using evidence in some form or the other. Thus the two "beliefs" are not equivalent, because on the theist side, it isn't as "rigorous".
Phew.
Theist: I believe in god
Why? because the (bible/koran/etc) said so.
Why? because book in question has stood over centuries and consists of several written accounts.
Why? because written accounts = writings as people have observed events, and committed them to paper.
Why? because writing is based on a language, which itself is governed by a strict set of rules concerning grammar, meaning, etc.
Why? because human beings need to communicate with each other, as we are social creatures, and thus need a common basis for communication.
Why? because in comparison with our capabilities with creatures like tigers, we are not endowed with the requisite ability to survive alone.
And so on....
Now, the atheist:
I do not believe in god.
Why? because there is no evidence to prove such an entity's existence.
Why? because a phenomenon is supported by evidence, which is basically a set of observations and findings related to the phenomenon.
Why? because observations of a given phenomenon are intimately connected to that phenomenon by a series of steps, forming a chain.
Why? because each step by itself is a phenomenon, and can be broken down into further steps.
Why? because everything we do follows that rule. in essence, we are "wired" this way.
Now, you may observe, that if you continued breaking down the last "why" statement in the theist case, you will eventually arrive at the last "why" statement in the atheist case.
So instead of doing a top-down analysis, you need to start at the bottom. The difference immediately becomes apparent. Following the logical progression, you notice that the top two statements in the theist case do not have a rigorous foundation (in all fairness, none of the statements do, but they are *less* rigorous.)
Finally, I contend you have it backward. The theist "believes" in god and the theist "believes" in scientific rigor, but as you can see, it is not possible to believe in god without first "believing", or, using evidence in some form or the other. Thus the two "beliefs" are not equivalent, because on the theist side, it isn't as "rigorous".
Phew.
yours truly
Golden Member
were talking about existance of a creator, not religion..
religion is just a path to Gd. we come from different directions, but end up in the same place.
like the old saying, all paths lead to rome
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
Careful. You are implying that all religions lead to the same destination and that they are all correct. That would then infer that god has either willfully pitted religions against each other which negates his benevolence or didn't have the foresight to see the outcome of his actions which would negate his omnipotence.
Either way, god then becomes fallible which negates all religions' belief that there version is the "one true" religion.
yours truly
Golden Member
im implying just that
i'll give you an example. you go to work, you get there because you leave from your home
and take the apppriate path for you. your co workers also get to work but from different directions.,
you can all argue, that the path you take is the correct one, and theres is wrong. but infact all the paths are the right one
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
That's that's not an argument, it's an escape route. A theist cannot prove that a god exists, and an atheist cannot prove the reverse. The emphasis is on prove.
Not all things are subject to proof. There will always be things that cannot be proven one way or another.
Years ago, Whitehead and Russell tried to create a definitive work called the Principia Mathematica
It turns out that this highly rational and well thought out work is fundamentally flawed, because it cannot prove what it tries to state. Does that mean that the authors were somehow deficient? Not at all. It turns out that it is fundamentally impossible to do so. No amount of resources or time or genius can fix the problem. Science has no answer.
Likewise a god who chooses to remain outside the lab is not included in our set of objects we can adequately grasp for our purposes of proof. Note this goes towards both sides of the argument. You believe something. You may think something likely or improbable, but it is absolutely impossible to demonstrate either way.
The human mind is finite. Just as an ant cannot grasp what a car is, there will be things we cannot ever explain simply because their nature is forever beyond our comprehension.
Many people don't like acknowledging our species limitations, but they exist notwithstanding.
I'm comfortable with "I don't know"
Vic
Elite Member
I haven't read the thread, I just wanted to point out that the concept of an Almighty God (or Supreme Being, if you prefer) and the institution of religion are two entirely different and unrelated things. Seriously. If this God exists, then He exists, completely independent of any religion or religious belief. And likewise if He doesn't exist. Your beliefs are irrelevant to reality.
So when someone (ahem... Jake 😉 ) pulls out the famous Stephen Roberts quote, they're missing the point, as Roberts was (rightly) demonstrating the silliness of BELIEVING in one god over another, but not in the possibility of the existence of this Supreme Being. IOW it's not a logical argument in favor of atheism, but against the institution of religion that tells us to believe in one god over another, which itself is simply a manifestation of human ego, one over another (which Moonie would tell you is a behavior antithetical to most religious teachings).
Now... if this Supreme Being does exist, it is not by a process of subtracting one god after another, as Roberts is misinterpreted, but in the sum total of all of them. Not my God or your God or his God, but the God of Everything that is Everything.
So I can say firmly that all the traditional gods and all the institutions of religion are a complete crock, with the exception that some of their writings have passed down to us some valuable wisdom of the ancients (i.e. the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth). However, this notion of universal totality as a sentient being, independent of religion, cannot be proven nor disproven through any scientific method, and contains an intrinsic value of its own, therefore I remain a staunch agnostic.
To those who cling to (or oppose) the institution of religion because of the prospect of death and fear of ceasing to exist, rest assured that -- in a manner of speaking -- none of us will ever cease to exist. Time and space are the same thing, with time another dimension of space just like x, y, and z are dimensions of space. This is why one cannot speak of a time without a place or a place without a time. And in this time and place, here and now, we will always exist. Make the most of it.
So when someone (ahem... Jake 😉 ) pulls out the famous Stephen Roberts quote, they're missing the point, as Roberts was (rightly) demonstrating the silliness of BELIEVING in one god over another, but not in the possibility of the existence of this Supreme Being. IOW it's not a logical argument in favor of atheism, but against the institution of religion that tells us to believe in one god over another, which itself is simply a manifestation of human ego, one over another (which Moonie would tell you is a behavior antithetical to most religious teachings).
Now... if this Supreme Being does exist, it is not by a process of subtracting one god after another, as Roberts is misinterpreted, but in the sum total of all of them. Not my God or your God or his God, but the God of Everything that is Everything.
So I can say firmly that all the traditional gods and all the institutions of religion are a complete crock, with the exception that some of their writings have passed down to us some valuable wisdom of the ancients (i.e. the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth). However, this notion of universal totality as a sentient being, independent of religion, cannot be proven nor disproven through any scientific method, and contains an intrinsic value of its own, therefore I remain a staunch agnostic.
To those who cling to (or oppose) the institution of religion because of the prospect of death and fear of ceasing to exist, rest assured that -- in a manner of speaking -- none of us will ever cease to exist. Time and space are the same thing, with time another dimension of space just like x, y, and z are dimensions of space. This is why one cannot speak of a time without a place or a place without a time. And in this time and place, here and now, we will always exist. Make the most of it.
LumbergTech
Diamond Member
I don't think most atheists say there "ISNT" a god so much as they say that its an intangible concept. No can prove that they have found a god in the past, therefore they have no pathway to show how you might find such a thing. also..
you are using the term god in such an incredibly broad sense that it really doesn't mean anything..its like saying all of existence ..what does that mean exactly?
you can make generalizations but you cant really clearly define it because we simply don't know what all exists
if you want to define god as some guiding force that dictates the laws of the part of the world which we can verify to "exist" , to me that seems to me like you are calling god anything (refer to incredibly broad above)...is a car then a god of a person? is the grit of the road a god of the car because it determines how it can interact with the ground? and you can keep breaking this down into more microscopic problems..
saying there is a god really means nothing....its too muddy and unclear what it means and you cant expect atheists to argue or prove when there is an ever shifting definition of the term..not to mention that it means different things to different people..
atheists believe in a rational approach, however, the smarter ones know that humans are not always rational and we can only work within the limitations of our abilities (ability to identify "truth" etc)
you are using the term god in such an incredibly broad sense that it really doesn't mean anything..its like saying all of existence ..what does that mean exactly?
you can make generalizations but you cant really clearly define it because we simply don't know what all exists
if you want to define god as some guiding force that dictates the laws of the part of the world which we can verify to "exist" , to me that seems to me like you are calling god anything (refer to incredibly broad above)...is a car then a god of a person? is the grit of the road a god of the car because it determines how it can interact with the ground? and you can keep breaking this down into more microscopic problems..
saying there is a god really means nothing....its too muddy and unclear what it means and you cant expect atheists to argue or prove when there is an ever shifting definition of the term..not to mention that it means different things to different people..
atheists believe in a rational approach, however, the smarter ones know that humans are not always rational and we can only work within the limitations of our abilities (ability to identify "truth" etc)
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
That's fair enough, but the common usage for an atheist is one who believes there is no God. Agnostics say "I don't know" and the theist says "I believe in a God"
Now as to the nature of God, that would be an entirely different matter. We haven't nailed down our semantics well enough to deal with that, as you have alluded to.
BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
To me, It doesn't matter if there is a God or not.
I fail to see how the existence of a creator makes life more meaningful. The very word "meaningful" has to mean something. What meaning is to be derived from a God? Or when you say "meaning" do you really mean "reward"?. The very idea of "meaning" is based in our minds - when we say something is meaningful, it's because our minds are constructing connections between causal events and our personal value system.
If there were a God, do you really think he would be impressed by prayer or any other forms of worship? He would be able to go right into your head and know what you think.
We have a word, 'religion', and it means two different things: one is what you believe in your head, and the other is an organization of people who collectively believe something. The two are tangled together, so people think they can't have one without the other.
The whole faith thing is the first step towards being indoctrinated into this culture. If you believe that there's a God, and that He had/has representatives here on this planet who are closer to him than you are, then you've made the first step down that road of denial. You've accepted the concepts of class and status, and are ready to perceive everything in terms of these concepts. You've proven yourself as having a pliable mind, and you're ready to accept the other principles of our warped culture.
If we run out of food, water, and energy, mankind will still be arguing over whose God is the better one, or if there is one at all, and after we are all gone, it will be as true as it ever was, that: it doesn't matter.
I fail to see how the existence of a creator makes life more meaningful. The very word "meaningful" has to mean something. What meaning is to be derived from a God? Or when you say "meaning" do you really mean "reward"?. The very idea of "meaning" is based in our minds - when we say something is meaningful, it's because our minds are constructing connections between causal events and our personal value system.
If there were a God, do you really think he would be impressed by prayer or any other forms of worship? He would be able to go right into your head and know what you think.
We have a word, 'religion', and it means two different things: one is what you believe in your head, and the other is an organization of people who collectively believe something. The two are tangled together, so people think they can't have one without the other.
The whole faith thing is the first step towards being indoctrinated into this culture. If you believe that there's a God, and that He had/has representatives here on this planet who are closer to him than you are, then you've made the first step down that road of denial. You've accepted the concepts of class and status, and are ready to perceive everything in terms of these concepts. You've proven yourself as having a pliable mind, and you're ready to accept the other principles of our warped culture.
If we run out of food, water, and energy, mankind will still be arguing over whose God is the better one, or if there is one at all, and after we are all gone, it will be as true as it ever was, that: it doesn't matter.
miketheidiot
Lifer
i view the entire concept as irrelevant.
miketheidiot
Lifer
qft
this whole exercise reeks of wanting to equate science and religion as equal and compareble topics when really its an apples/oranges comparison
thraashman
Lifer
Ok, I know this thread is several pages long now and this was an early post on page one, but the ridiculousness of the comment "Because it's possible that he does exist." has got me needing to respond. The problem with making a statement like "you should believe in something becuase it's possible" is that alot of things are "possible".
It's possible fairies are real
It's possible dragons exist.
It's possible someone in the world craps 24K gold.
I don't believe in any of those things, and if someone asked me why not I'd tell them the answer is because there's not a single good reason I should. I think most atheists are skeptics. We don't view not believing in a god as an absence of something and that to not believe in god means we must believe in something else. Atheists (or at least myself) tend to feel that believing in god is putting something in place that's not necessary. My life isn't less rich without faith or god or belief. I don't need it. There's NO benefit to believing. And were I to believe and let it rule my life, I wouldn't be thinking for myself. I'd be relying on some outside source to make at least some of my decisions for me. That's not me, I have to take responsibility because god won't. I have to make my decisions because god won't. I have to perform good acts, because god won't miracle the world a better place. In truth, I think god makes people lazy. Why do anything when you can rely on god? I don't try to justify my life, what I do, how I think, what I say on some standard some god has made up and everyone interprets differently. I live by a high standard that I myself set. It's a simple standard too. And that is that you don't do anything that would negatively impact the life or well being of another.
And the one that bothers me most is the concept of "what's the point of life without god and an afterlife?" That's really the dumbest thought and concept I've ever heard. There doesn't have to be a point to life outside of living. You don't have to inject a higher meaning into everything. Can't life be its own meaning and be enough?
OrByte
Diamond Member
"because it's possible that he does exist"
is not anymore ridiculous a comment as
"I think God makes people lazy"
Just because one has faith in god doesn't mean one is absent of 'free will.' It doesn't mean that one is free of responsibility.
your "simple standard" sounds amazingly similar to standards set in all sorts of religions.
you do not have a monopoly on 'free will' because you choose to believe in something other than God.
is not anymore ridiculous a comment as
"I think God makes people lazy"
Just because one has faith in god doesn't mean one is absent of 'free will.' It doesn't mean that one is free of responsibility.
your "simple standard" sounds amazingly similar to standards set in all sorts of religions.
you do not have a monopoly on 'free will' because you choose to believe in something other than God.
I am. You didn't come here with an open mind, looking for a discussion. You came here with some very deeply set preconceptions, and are not listening to anything that was said.
You are also creating your own bizarre rationalizations to support your positions, which are not what is actually taught on Sunday mornings OR what is taught in school. Open your mind, or close the thread.
Let me try a different angle. Explain to me why you do not believe in the Greek Gods of Olympus.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
[shrugs] OK
I read through most of this, but I had to skip a few parts, and there seems to be a serious definition problem.
Merriam Webster
Unless I have missed a definition, atheist only means they believe there is no supreme being, or gods. That does not imply they believe in anything, one may believe in science, and another may believe that we are all made of microscopic pink dresses.
The main point is that what every atheist believes IN is different, they just all believe there is no god.
I can't read the whole thread, it's too stupid. Anyone interested in atheism can start, for Christ's sake, at the Wikipedia entry, where they would learn that there are many different types of atheism. At a minimum, atheism just means that a person does not believe in any god, not that he believes that a god does not exist.
smack Down
Diamond Member
No you don't. I don't believe in anything related to God. It isn't even a question.
JSt0rm
Lifer
I haven't read nearly any of this thread but I will give you *my* reasons for being a atheist. I will also state that I have never talked about my beliefs with people because i feel that it is important for some to believe in god and conform to a religion and i don't really feel like putting the doubt in their minds. i think a true atheist shouldn't try and make other disbelieve for the natural state of human existence is belief.
Please note what follows is my personal take on these things...If you think I'm wrong fine but please realize that no one is "right" when on these topics.
Now I think that belief in god on a fundamental level came about through evolution. As we became creatures that were self aware and realized that death existed and that we were going to die, evolution must put something into play that would allow this creature to function through everyday life. If we existed only with our thoughts of death then I don't believe this would be a good strategy for a creature. Massive amounts of depression would sink in and it would not survive. Whats the point? This is the question that would be in the minds of the simple human 20000 or more years ago. Spirituality is evolutions answer to this. Now this is a good thing for it was a package deal it gave us imagination and creativity as well.
So there you go. It's perfectly natural for you to believe in god. So enjoy it, just don't force others to believe what you do and we don't have any problems.
Please note what follows is my personal take on these things...If you think I'm wrong fine but please realize that no one is "right" when on these topics.
Now I think that belief in god on a fundamental level came about through evolution. As we became creatures that were self aware and realized that death existed and that we were going to die, evolution must put something into play that would allow this creature to function through everyday life. If we existed only with our thoughts of death then I don't believe this would be a good strategy for a creature. Massive amounts of depression would sink in and it would not survive. Whats the point? This is the question that would be in the minds of the simple human 20000 or more years ago. Spirituality is evolutions answer to this. Now this is a good thing for it was a package deal it gave us imagination and creativity as well.
So there you go. It's perfectly natural for you to believe in god. So enjoy it, just don't force others to believe what you do and we don't have any problems.
yours truly
Golden Member
no need to read the Koran, Bible, Bhagavata Gita etc (ive read them all)
bill & ted said it best
"Be excellent to one another"
🙂
bill & ted said it best
"Be excellent to one another"
🙂
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
