Some Questions For Atheists

[Richo83]

Absolutely not!

Atheism is the understanding that a) the belief that the existence of god/gods is unnecessary to explain the existence of the universe/origins of humanity etc and other important philosophical questions; AND
b) the belief that the existence of god/gods is far less probable than the alternate hypotheses regarding those philosophical questions; which leads to
c) the conclusion that it is not necessary to worship or in any way engage with god, religion, spirituality etc.

Any atheist with a modicum of intelligence will admit that it is possible that a god exists. Its just that on the available evidence, god doesn't appear necessary. Now, god could have created the universe in such a way, so that there are natural science explanations for everything; perhaps as a test of faith, or even just because he wanted to stay out of the universe. Similarly, the whole world we live in could be an illusion created by an evil demon or the robots of the matrix. These are all scenarios that are totally possible. They are just far less likely than natural science alternatives; to the point of being almost absurdly unlikely. Of course, absurdly unlikely doesn't rule out the possibility; I am absurdly unlikely to win tattslotto, but someone wins every week so it is entirely possible. But with tattslotto, I can make a judgement about my likelihood of winning (incredibly low), and use it to make a decision about how to live my life (not buying a ferrari and a plasma-screen tv, because I almost certainly won't win). Same goes with God. I don't know for certain that no God exists, but I can certainly make the assumption based on probability that he doesn't, and use that judgement to influence how I live my life.

If that appears to contain an element of agnosticism, then that is because it does. But atheism stems from agnosticism; more than being a 'denial' of God's existence, it is a denial that anyone 'knows' about God's existence - the claim to know god is the first made by the religious (or theists), and it is this claim that atheists refute. There is a continuum between atheism and agnosticism, though, dependent on how likely you think god's existence is. You might think it totally likely, almost 100%, but still be a little bit sceptical, in which case the rational response would be to act as if God does exist. That would be proxy-theism. Or, you might think as above, that it is extremely improbable; atheism. True agnosticism, though, is the position that we can't make an assessment based on available evidence, because that evidence is either insufficient, or flawed. An agnostic might say in reference to tattslotto, that we can't make a judgement about whether we will win or not. Interesting, fence-sitting position, to be honest. For tattslotto, we might not be able to make a judgement if we don't know whether we have a ticket or not (the evidence would be insufficient), or we didn't know the odds.

No true atheist would deny the possibility of the existence of god; that would put them into a religious, faith-based position. Back on the tattslotto example, I might say there is 'no chance of me winning' - this would be a faith-based position, not a logical one.

Absolutely fantastic post.

 

[Chief]

And it has been repeated in one form or another in every thread on the topic of atheism/theism.

Religious people who choose to live without rationality will never listen to it when it is put in front of them.

 

[evo]

It's not bad apart from the Tattslotto analogy.Tattslotto is not a very useful.

We can all speak collectively about a game 'tattslotto',we can agree on the rules etc--what tattslotto IS-- and then discuss the likelyhood of winning it etc.

This doesn't apply to God and his/its potential for existence(or not)

In my opinion a 'thing' can be given existence if it appears to us.If it appears to us then it can be described(at least broadly speaking).Again in my opinion,if 'God' can't be described,then it is fair to say he/it doesn't exist.

 

[Qsaint]

Religious people who choose to live without rationality will never listen to it when it is put in front of them.

What an open minded response PKB

 

[Qsaint]

It's not bad apart from the Tattslotto analogy.Tattslotto is not a very useful.

We can all speak collectively about a game 'tattslotto',we can agree on the rules etc--what tattslotto IS-- and then discuss the likelyhood of winning it etc.

This doesn't apply to God and his/its potential for existence(or not)

In my opinion a 'thing' can be given existence if it appears to us.If it appears to us then it can be described(at least broadly speaking).Again in my opinion,if 'God' can't be described,then it is fair to say he/it doesn't exist.

Talking about Plato and his mate Socra thats a argument happily without the muses


Many things in Physics exist to a point because they have to, not because they can be seen or described.

 

[evo]

Many things in Physics exist to a point because they have to, not because they can be seen or described.

All that shows is that scientists make shit philosophers.

BTW give me a name of something that physicists say exist but they haven't described

 

[Qsaint]

All that shows is that scientists make shit philosophers.

BTW give me a name of something that physicists say exist but they haven't described

Dark Matter, it was first proposed 75 years ago. (I am assuming by described you mean described in some detail)

 

[FIGJAM]

BTW give me a name of something that physicists say exist but they haven't described

Dark matter or energy.

 

[evo]

Dark Matter, it was first proposed 75 years ago. (I am assuming by described you mean described in some detail)

Here's a definition of dark matter.

"In physics and cosmology, dark matter is matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. "

Now give me a definition of God.....

 

[Qsaint]

God had a son Jesus who died on the Cross, and his earthly ambassador is now in Australia. His presence can be inferred from all the believers and that we need a reason for existance


Neither definition is substantial or proves existance or essence

 

[FIGJAM]

"In physics and cosmology, dark matter is matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. "

Pseudoscience.

Science of the gaps!

 

[evo]

God had a son Jesus who died on the Cross, and his earthly ambassador is now in Australia. His presence can be inferred from all the believers and that we need a reason for existance


Neither definition is substantial or proves existance or essence

Thats an unsatisfactory definition.You didn't tell me what God IS,you told me about Jesus.My definition adhered to A=A.

I'd be interested in what your definition of "to exist" is.

In my view for a human to say something exists it would have to conform to the Law of Identity A=A.... othwerwise it is nonsensical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thought

Interestingly the law of identity concept A=A appears in the Diamond Sutras as well as standing the test of time in Western thinking.

It's a shame more people don't follow it.

 

[evo]

Pseudoscience.

Science of the gaps!

Quite so.

Imagine making a religion out of science.

 

[Bretski]

nice post btdg.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

seems I'm late on this thread but here goes anyway:

1) If God does not exist then we all get the same feat. Mother Theresa ends up as the same Hitler, and 6 million bugs being killed is equivalent to the holocaust as life is not worth anything.

Answer: Hmm I'm not even sure what this means? Sorry - I have absolutely no idea what you are on about...

2) Explain this quote:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”


Keep in mind he was not considered mad and by all accounts was a great man.

Answer: Given that I'm happy to consider the world's religious people as being other than as mad as the man who says he is a poached egg, then again I really don't accept the statement, and I disagree that there are only two polar opposite end-points.

3) My stomach exists for food, my faith exists for what reason?

Answer: Also for food.

4) Explain Lourdes, Fatima, Padre Pio, Stigmata, Incorrupt bodies

Answer: There are things we don;t understand about ourselves and the world.

Man I saw so many responses to this thread and thought I'd jsut have a go at the OP but crikey how this got more than 2-3 responses I'll never know. Thanks for wasting my time.

 

[skipper kelly]

Absolutely not!

Atheism is the understanding that a) the belief that the existence of god/gods is unnecessary to explain the existence of the universe/origins of humanity etc and other important philosophical questions; AND
b) the belief that the existence of god/gods is far less probable than the alternate hypotheses regarding those philosophical questions; which leads to
c) the conclusion that it is not necessary to worship or in any way engage with god, religion, spirituality etc.

Any atheist with a modicum of intelligence will admit that it is possible that a god exists. Its just that on the available evidence, god doesn't appear necessary. Now, god could have created the universe in such a way, so that there are natural science explanations for everything; perhaps as a test of faith, or even just because he wanted to stay out of the universe. Similarly, the whole world we live in could be an illusion created by an evil demon or the robots of the matrix. These are all scenarios that are totally possible. They are just far less likely than natural science alternatives; to the point of being almost absurdly unlikely. Of course, absurdly unlikely doesn't rule out the possibility; I am absurdly unlikely to win tattslotto, but someone wins every week so it is entirely possible. But with tattslotto, I can make a judgement about my likelihood of winning (incredibly low), and use it to make a decision about how to live my life (not buying a ferrari and a plasma-screen tv, because I almost certainly won't win). Same goes with God. I don't know for certain that no God exists, but I can certainly make the assumption based on probability that he doesn't, and use that judgement to influence how I live my life.

If that appears to contain an element of agnosticism, then that is because it does. But atheism stems from agnosticism; more than being a 'denial' of God's existence, it is a denial that anyone 'knows' about God's existence - the claim to know god is the first made by the religious (or theists), and it is this claim that atheists refute. There is a continuum between atheism and agnosticism, though, dependent on how likely you think god's existence is. You might think it totally likely, almost 100%, but still be a little bit sceptical, in which case the rational response would be to act as if God does exist. That would be proxy-theism. Or, you might think as above, that it is extremely improbable; atheism. True agnosticism, though, is the position that we can't make an assessment based on available evidence, because that evidence is either insufficient, or flawed. An agnostic might say in reference to tattslotto, that we can't make a judgement about whether we will win or not. Interesting, fence-sitting position, to be honest. For tattslotto, we might not be able to make a judgement if we don't know whether we have a ticket or not (the evidence would be insufficient), or we didn't know the odds.

No true atheist would deny the possibility of the existence of god; that would put them into a religious, faith-based position. Back on the tattslotto example, I might say there is 'no chance of me winning' - this would be a faith-based position, not a logical one.

agnostic.

Anyway these categories are all of no importance.

 

[Richo83]

It's not bad apart from the Tattslotto analogy.Tattslotto is not a very useful.

We can all speak collectively about a game 'tattslotto',we can agree on the rules etc--what tattslotto IS-- and then discuss the likelyhood of winning it etc.

This doesn't apply to God and his/its potential for existence(or not)

In my opinion a 'thing' can be given existence if it appears to us.If it appears to us then it can be described(at least broadly speaking).Again in my opinion,if 'God' can't be described,then it is fair to say he/it doesn't exist.

He's talking about likelyhood, not nature. But heck, if you want to start preaching the cognitive ignostic argument, I'll sit front row for that one.

 

[Richo83]

agnostic.

Anyway these categories are all of no importance.

Atheist. Anyway these categories are of importance and I wish people would learn them.

 

[Richo83]

God had a son Jesus who died on the Cross, and his earthly ambassador is now in Australia. His presence can be inferred from all the believers and that we need a reason for existance


Neither definition is substantial or proves existance or essence

You haven't described what god is, just who god is and who its representative is. And btw, about that earthly ambassador, I'm sure the anglicans would have something to say about that. To say that a group of crotchety old men can make a man god's representative illustrates their stupidity, and dare I say it, devalues god as to say that it needs or has a representative in a white robe and a group of old fools know who it should be. The pope is as close to god as a man on a mountain.

 

[Richo83]

Pseudoscience.

Science of the gaps!

No-one pretends that science is perfect.

 

[Qsaint]

You haven't described what god is, just who god is and who its representative is. And btw, about that earthly ambassador, I'm sure the anglicans would have something to say about that. To say that a group of crotchety old men can make a man god's representative illustrates their stupidity, and dare I say it, devalues god as to say that it needs or has a representative in a white robe and a group of old fools know who it should be. The pope is as close to god as a man on a mountain.

Alot of Anglicans actually would like to be in Union with the Bishop of Rome

I agree I didn't because the Dark Matter definition didn't either

 

[skipper kelly]

Atheist. Anyway these categories are of importance and I wish people would learn them.

Atheism is the denial of the existance of God. You dont like that definition so you choose something else. Big deal. They are only words. Unless of course all atheists think exactly the same, then that is beyond importance, that is weird. Most that call themselves atheist like the idea of the word atheist rather than agnostic. It a status thingo. With age you will learn they are only words.

Now please explain why does it matter if I call myself theist, atheist, agnostic or goat herder.

 

[Richo83]

Atheism is the denial of the existance of God. You dont like that definition so you choose something else. Big deal. They are only words. Unless of course all atheists think exactly the same, then that is beyond importance, that is weird. Most that call themselves atheist like the idea of the word atheist rather than agnostic. It a status thingo. With age you will learn they are only words.

Now please explain why does it matter if I call myself theist, atheist, agnostic or goat herder.

Yes, it's the denial of the existence. Does not mean that atheists deny any possibility though, completely different skip. I have shown this before, if you want to know why, read the thread. I've got more important things to do than explain again why atheists can accept there is a possibility of god while still denying that it exists though. Atheism is belief, not knowledge.

 

[skipper kelly]

Yes, it's the denial of the existence. Does not mean that atheists deny any possibility though, completely different skip. I have shown this before, if you want to know why, read the thread. I've got more important things to do than explain again why atheists can accept there is a possibility of god while still denying that it exists though. Atheism is belief, not knowledge.

Heres an idea. Go away and do them and dont respond to my posts you arrogant little dweeb.

 

[Chase the Ace]

Ha ha, comes into the sandbox kicks some sand around at the little kids, and when someone kicks some sand back at him, starts whining that the big kids won't play fair.
Lovely to watch Richo