Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[Atreus21]

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't hold any beliefs in any gods, because not only is there no evidence, but I don't think there really could ever be any evidence that truly, unequivocally proved such an existence. Maybe after death that might be possible, but not while alive. I also acknowledge that in the same way I don't hold any beliefs in any gods because there is a lack of evidence, and likely can't even be proven, the same goes for a lack of any gods, so both realities are equally possible.

I will say that I definitely don't believe in any religion, or any religion's definition of what God (or any of the other synonyms) is.

Sounds like Pascal's wager would be a good prescription for you.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Correct. As an agnostic, that is true. An atheist says, "We know there is no god."

Depends on your definitions.

As I wrote in post #33:

There are those who say categorically, as a positive statement, that there are no gods. Some even go so far as to say there cannot be gods. This is commonly called "strong atheism", and while not a religion, is by definition a belief system, since it is impossible to prove whether or not gods exist.

Then there are those who simply state they do not believe in gods because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate their existence. Just as they don't believe in unicorns or pixies or a thousand other myths. This is called "weak atheism", even though it is, in many ways, a more logically consistent position than "strong atheism".

Weak atheism is in no way, shape or form a religion.

Agnosticism is saying "I don't know if there is a god or not, either is likely". Weak atheism is saying "I don't believe in gods because there is no real evidence for them, and I don't believe in things without evidence". Both are consistent with saying we don't know the origin of the universe. Claiming that there "had to be a first cause" is not.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're right. I don't understand. What conceivable reality would render the proposition false that someone madthese my coffee? To my mind, only the absence of coffee, in which case you wouldn't be looking for evidence of a coffee maker in the first place.

If there was no coffee, we could say that the proposition is false. If a machine made the coffee, we could say the proposition is false. That is apart from the fact that "made" is not rigorously defined, but the point really is that you simply lack the intellect to grapple with these concepts in the first place. It's no wonder you're a theist.

Contrast this with your suggestion that everything is "evidence" for a creator. What could we observe that could tell us that the proposition is false? What would an un-created universe look like? I'm not going to be holding my breath for an answer to that one.

 

[OCNewbie]

Sounds like Pascal's wager would be a good prescription for you.

I don't think one can fake belief, and if one tried, I don't thing any being worthy of being called "God" could be fooled by such a false belief, if a time for judgement (and thus reward for belief) were to come.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You're exactly right, and that's why trying to use science to prove or disprove something exclusively in the realm of religion and philosophy is a mistake. It's using the wrong tool for the job. That's why I'm against teaching ID in science classes.

Logic can be applied to the question, but logic is not monopolized by science.

I don't understand how you can disagree with using science to prove or disprove things related to religion, and then say "logic can be applied to the question". Again, seems self-contradictory.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Correct. As an agnostic, that is true. An atheist says, "We know there is no god."

You do not know what atheism is. This should surprise exactly no one.

As I said earlier, it's one of only two possibilities. Either you have an uncaused cause at the origin of all this, or there is an infinite regress of causes. Either one is impossible to comprehend.

Do not project your inability to comprehend infinite regress on to those of us with IQs greater than our shoe sizes.

 

[Atreus21]

If there was no coffee, we could say that the proposition is false. If a machine made the coffee, we could say the proposition is false. That is apart from the fact that "made" is not rigorously defined, but the point really is that you simply lack the intellect to grapple with these concepts in the first place. It's no wonder you're a theist.

You know, for awhile we were actually being civil. I was surprised.

Contrast this with your suggestion that everything is "evidence" for a creator. What could we observe that could tell us that the proposition is false? What would an un-created universe look like? I'm not going to be holding my breath for an answer to that one.

You're right. It's unfalsifiable. In terms of science, there is no way to prove God. But science is not the authority on concepts that cannot be described by science, as I was discussing with Charles.

In terms of the cup of coffee, I think we see it this way. I see atheists as looking at a cup of coffee and saying, "No one made it." You see theists looking at nothing and saying, "Someone made a cup of coffee."

So is there a cup of coffee on my desk or not?

 

[OCNewbie]

That is apart from the fact that "made" is not rigorously defined, but the point really is that you simply lack the intellect to grapple with these concepts in the first place. It's no wonder you're a theist.

I don't think insulting someone's intelligence is conducive, or necessary, to enhancing discussion. Perhaps your ultimate goal is just to insult.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think there's a gross misunderstanding that's become pervasive within our society. Many seem to think that science somehow precludes the exisitence of a creator. Our schools need to do a much better job of teaching our children as nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't think one can fake belief, and if one tried, I don't thing any being worthy of being called "God" could be fooled by such a false belief, if a time for judgement (and thus reward for belief) were to come.

I thought the same thing, until I heard a lecture by Peter Kreeft on that. "God, who is love, stoops to conquer."

 

[IronWing]

Sounds like Pascal's wager would be a good prescription for you.

Pascal's wager is only useful if the choice is simply "this god or no god" and if there is no ante required to play. As there are a plethora of gods to choose from and making the wrong choice of gods has the same effect as choosing no god the odds are rather poor. The basic assumption of the wager is that belief doesn't come at a cost. This is not accurate as belief, at a minimum, requires one to spend a bit of time defining the god in whom one chooses to believe. If one chooses to believe in a version of one of the more popular gods and join other believers the costs can be quite extravagant.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I refuse Pascal's Wager because any deity able to be fooled by such isn't worth worshipping, even fraudulently.

Many seem to think that science somehow precludes the exisitence of a creator.

That results from Christians insisting on trying to blur the line between science and religion. Even though these philosophical discussions often end up with possible compatibilities between science and the ultimate source of the universe being a "creator", that's all theoretical. In practice, religious people are actively trying to conflate the two.

Our schools need to do a much better job of teaching our children as nothing could be further from the truth.

Our schools need to do a better job of teaching our children science, and telling them to go to a church if they want to learn about religion.

 

[Juddog]

I'll repeat the quote again, because it bears merit for those who don't understand the basics of atheism.

"Atheism is to religion as abstinence is to a sex position." Just dwell on that, before making ridiculous assertions such as this:

An atheist says, "We know there is no god."

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Strong atheists *do* say they "know there is no god". But IME they are a minority group overall.

Most atheists don't believe in the Christian God for the same basic reason that Christians don't believe in Zeus.

Many of them, like me, are open to the possibility of some sort of creator existing, but want to see the evidence first. (Real evidence, not "things exist so they must have been created".)

 

[Retro Rob]

Strong atheists *do* say they "know there is no god". But IME they are a minority group overall.

Most atheists don't believe in the Christian God for the same basic reason that Christians don't believe in Zeus.

Many of them, like me, are open to the possibility of some sort of creator existing, but want to see the evidence first. (Real evidence, not "things exist so they must have been created".)

Well someone like myself would use the complexity of creation as some evidence, but seeing that isn't sufficient for you, nor is Bible "prophecy" (or the lack thereof), what evidence would like to see?

Outside of a physical manifestation of God, I can't think of any.

What would you deem "Real evidence", Charles?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What would you deem "Real evidence", Charles?

Some of the stuff the bible claims actually happened would be a good start.

 

[zsdersw]

Well someone like myself would use the complexity of creation as some evidence,

Complexity itself is not evidence for or against anything.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I refuse Pascal's Wager because any deity able to be fooled by such isn't worth worshipping, even fraudulently.

Agree, if there is a God, I highly doubt you would be able to fool him. You would have a much better chance of fooling yourself.

That results from Christians insisting on trying to blur the line between science and religion. Even though these philosophical discussions often end up with possible compatibilities between science and the ultimate source of the universe being a "creator", that's all theoretical. In practice, religious people are actively trying to conflate the two.

Both religious and non-religious people conflate the two. If non-religious people use the absurdities of some religious people to justify their beliefs...then it's quite clear that their beliefs are absurd as well. Kind of ironic isn't it?

Our schools need to do a better job of teaching our children science, and telling them to go to a church if they want to learn about religion.

Actually I think they do need to teach the fundamentals of the world's religions in our schools in a respectful way...ignorance and intolerance are rampant as evidenced by many in this thread.

 

[Retro Rob]

Some of the stuff the bible claims actually happened would be a good start.

Ok - theoretically, what if some of the things could be proven to you, would you require more evidence, or would that be enough?

 

[Retro Rob]

Complexity itself is not evidence for or against anything.

That's why I went a went one step further and asked what else would be needed.

 

[Ausm]

Can anyone tell me why the Egyptian Gods wouldn't really be a better choice to pray to?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Actually I think they do need to teach the fundamentals of the world's religions in our schools in a respectful way...ignorance and intolerance are rampant as evidenced by many in this thread.

I'll agree with that. It's certainly an entirely valid part of a social studies or world history course.

Ok - theoretically, what if some of the things could be proven to you, would you require more evidence, or would that be enough?

I can't answer this question; it's too vague.

In general, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to back it up. I would have a much easier time believing in God if there were world-wide floods that disappear in 40 days, the sun stopping still, towers of flame, food falling from the sky, seas splitting apart, God appearing and speaking in a booming voice, etc.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Our schools need to do a better job of teaching our children science, and telling them to go to a church if they want to learn about religion

Oh no no no . Thats the worse place to learn about religion all they will teach is dogma

 

[Nemesis 1]

Can anyone tell me why the Egyptian Gods wouldn't really be a better choice to pray to?

You Mean Aman RA or Amen Ra Or Amun Ra . YOU do pray to this god . Its at the end of all prayer AMEN

 

[Ausm]

Oh no no no . Thats the worse place to learn about religion all they will teach is dogma

I agree that religion has absolutely no place in schools.