Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Discussions about the possibility of consciousness, free will, spirits, deities, religions and so on, and how these might interact with time travel, the Big Bang, many worlds and so on.

Which of these fits you best?

Christian
4
15%
Different Religion
0
No votes
Weak Atheist
5
19%
Strong Atheist
13
50%
Agnostic
3
12%
Deciding/Dont Know
1
4%
 
Total votes : 26

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby Nick » Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:05 am

jadaco wrote:My only issue with the "prove he exists" argument is, um, prove he doesn't?


The burden of proof is on the person asserting the statement, not on the person refuting it. So, if I accused you of murdering my mother ("God" forbid), it would be my job to proof you are guilty, not your job to prove your innocent. OK, that example wasn't entirely fair, but you see what I'm getting at? :)
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby jadaco » Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:40 pm

Yeah, I'm with you, and it looks like I need to reconsider my point.
On the other side of the screen, it all looks so easy.
User avatar
jadaco
Mononian
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:21 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby houserichichi » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:04 pm

There is no proof of a god's existence because by its very definition a deity is supernatural; beyond nature. Proof could come in two major ways: through argument and through evidence. The former is a philosophical statement predicated upon logical truths, sound reasoning, and axiomatic assumptions. The latter comes through the study of nature and our surroundings. Since a deity is supernatural, should one study nature to find evidence of a god they could not (without the means of argumentative assistance) come to the conclusion of a god since, as mentioned, god is supernatural. To blame something natural via evidence on something else supernatural is logically inconsistent. Someone studying nature has to stop within the confines of nature and, should an answer not present itself, they must admit that the flaw is not the result of something supernatural but rather of a flaw in the understanding of something natural. Conversely, should one attempt to prove the existence of a god via argument they cannot say with any certainty that such a thing exists whatsoever. The argumentative method relies on logic which, necessarily, relies on an axiomatic approach. Even assuming that they were to build axioms off the laws of nature that are understood today, we have to admit a large possibility that such axioms will become dated in the future. That in mind, any argumentative proof based on the laws of nature lies on shaky ground, at best. Not relying on natural laws to build a system of axioms is tomfoolery. That's my eight cents, anyway.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby jadaco » Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:42 pm

houserichichi wrote:by its very definition a deity is supernatural; beyond nature.


I think this is the problem I have with most anti-god arguments. This seems to be the presupposition of most of the points made here, that a god can only exist supernaturally, outside of normal existence. Equating the overarching theory of intelligent, sentient design with classic religious deities is more an argument against religion, but not so much focused against the possible existence of a sentient origin (of whatever kind, quality, or volume).

There's no value in any theist trying to argue God's existence with an atheist using the religious text of their preference (for example, Christians claiming the Bible as a source of proof). It doesn't really address the core issue when you generalize those same concepts as the basis for an argument against all theistic theories. The theistic position isn't limited to God as a supernatural space ghost who's fighting against the dark side and throwing all his enemies into the eternal lake of fiery hot sauce. I'm trying to throw away the preconceptions and start over.

My position at this point only tries to state that if higher dimensional beings can theoretically exist, coupled with the theoretical existence of higher dimensions going all the way up to a dimension of infinite space (possibly encompassing all lower dimensional space, if I understand it right), is it then unrealistic to consider an all-encompassing infinite being that is in some way responsible for the lower dimensions? For good, bad, or whatever?
On the other side of the screen, it all looks so easy.
User avatar
jadaco
Mononian
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:21 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby houserichichi » Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:31 pm

jadaco wrote:I think this is the problem I have with most anti-god arguments. This seems to be the presupposition of most of the points made here, that a god can only exist supernaturally, outside of normal existence. Equating the overarching theory of intelligent, sentient design with classic religious deities is more an argument against religion, but not so much focused against the possible existence of a sentient origin (of whatever kind, quality, or volume).


Even if you are correct then there are two possible cases:
1. a god is natural and, thus, exists and affects nature. It is measurable and tests can be performed and repeated to prove its existence
2. a god may or may not exist and an axiomatic argument is required.
The first has not provided irrefutable evidence (to my knowledge) so the experimenter would be safe in saying that, thus far, there is no reason to believe there is a natural god. His hypothesis, thus far, has been proven incorrect. Now, in the future should evidence become available it would be fair to give the argument credence but until such time the theory has been refuted by experiment. The second method follows in the same vein as the supernatural axiomatic argument for god. Should such a thing be logically consistent it would boil down to the axioms which underly it which are shaky at best (as is all science). However, it is on the shoulders of the religious to show evidence for god, not on the atheist to show evidence against in either case.

jadaco wrote:There's no value in any theist trying to argue God's existence with an atheist using the religious text of their preference (for example, Christians claiming the Bible as a source of proof). It doesn't really address the core issue when you generalize those same concepts as the basis for an argument against all theistic theories. The theistic position isn't limited to God as a supernatural space ghost who's fighting against the dark side and throwing all his enemies into the eternal lake of fiery hot sauce. I'm trying to throw away the preconceptions and start over.


The first sentence I agree with wholeheartedly, but then that's what religion is. So the theist must be a superset containing the religious. The theist, in my eyes, is simply one that believes in a god. The religious is the one who believes in a particular god from a particular set of archaic fairytales. Do we agree there as well?

jadaco wrote:My position at this point only tries to state that if higher dimensional beings can theoretically exist, coupled with the theoretical existence of higher dimensions going all the way up to a dimension of infinite space (possibly encompassing all lower dimensional space, if I understand it right), is it then unrealistic to consider an all-encompassing infinite being that is in some way responsible for the lower dimensions? For good, bad, or whatever?


If a higher-dimensional being exists then I don't see any reason against it being viewed as a god of sorts. Go back to my first point on evidence, that's all. With no evidence it's simply a logical argument that has no basis. That's my problem with religion and theism as a whole...it may be all well and good to try and prove it or prove against it but the reality is that without physical evidence there is no way for a philosophical argument of this sort to have any weight in a mature discussion. The theistic vantagepoint is no more consistent than the flying spaghetti monster which, for the record, I am eating tonight.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby jadaco » Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:01 am

I'll back up and break it back down to the main point.

"You can't prove God doesn't exist, so God exists."
"You can't prove God does exist, so God doesn't exist."

Both stances appeal to ignorance. I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Seems like you're playing the burden of proof card in your favor just to turn around and say the second statement up there, but that's just as fallacious as the first.
On the other side of the screen, it all looks so easy.
User avatar
jadaco
Mononian
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:21 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby papernuke » Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:30 am

Whats the point of religion/no religion anyways?
Cant humanity just be real and have one world government and set down one set of humanitary laws?
And have representatives from each and EVERY country vote on the laws?

Why is there even religion if all people do is fight/kill/argue over it?
Why did humanity even come up with religion anyways? To deny the finality of death?

If one religion is actually correct, say, Christianity (since it is the meat of the religious debate), then couldnt the Christian god just smooth everything out?
Give peace throughout the world? Why, every day, if there is an all - mighty being, who has the power of everything, and knows everything, is there so much death, poverty, hunger and those things? If this God can do everything, then why doesn't he help us?

Also, if Christianity is correct, then what would happen to the other religions?
Why arent they correct?
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby houserichichi » Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:10 pm

Ah, but as the one not making the initial claim I have the luxury of making such an assumption. Correct or not it is not the burden of the atheist to give credence to any and all theistic assumptions. In fact, it is the luxury of any individual to assume whatever they will given (no) evidence for or against someone else's claim. You can try and argue the other direction, that it is the luxury of the theist to assume that the atheist is incorrect, however the atheist makes no claim beyond the nonexistence of the theistic claim. Were the theist to cease to exist the atheist would have no more argument as the notion of a god would disappear and, as such, atheism would be a moot point and taken right out of the dictionary. To have atheism one must first have the theist, not the other way around. The theist makes the claim, the atheist refutes that claim. It does not happen that the atheist makes a claim and a theist refutes it. It's pretty hard to say something doesn't exist when that something isn't even in your dictionary until someone else defines it.

Does that make sense?

For a theist to say "god exists" and then an atheist to chime in with "no it doesn't" is a real argument, pointless as it may be. On the other hand, for an atheist to state "god does not exist" and then a theist to claim "yes it does" is logically inconsistent without the initial claim that the theist made in the previous statement. An atheist born to the world would not make such a statement unless the theist had already made his from the previous sentence. Thus, the burden is entirely on the shoulders of the theist and the atheist has the luxury of assuming against. In my eyes, anyway...but I enjoy this discussion...have at it!
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby Nick » Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:34 pm

houserichichi wrote:For a theist to say "god exists" and then an atheist to chime in with "no it doesn't" is a real argument, pointless as it may be. On the other hand, for an atheist to state "god does not exist" and then a theist to claim "yes it does" is logically inconsistent without the initial claim that the theist made in the previous statement. An atheist born to the world would not make such a statement unless the theist had already made his from the previous sentence. Thus, the burden is entirely on the shoulders of the theist and the atheist has the luxury of assuming against. In my eyes, anyway...but I enjoy this discussion...have at it!


In other words, no one is born with a belief in anything. I completely agree.

houserichichi wrote:There is no proof of a god's existence because by its very definition a deity is supernatural; beyond nature. Proof could come in two major ways: through argument and through evidence.


I disagree, for two reasons. If God exists, then God is "natural". Anything that exists is part of the natural world. If God doesn't exist, then well... there's no point talking about it. Also, I don't understand how proof can come from argument; truth is not a democracy, or a debate. Could you explain what you mean here?
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby houserichichi » Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:26 pm

Nick wrote:If God exists, then God is "natural". Anything that exists is part of the natural world. If God doesn't exist, then well... there's no point talking about it. Also, I don't understand how proof can come from argument; truth is not a democracy, or a debate. Could you explain what you mean here?


The proof alone can come through argument if and only if a god is not natural; that is, if god is immeasurable but theoretically plausible, sufficient, and necessary. Just like a multiverse is possible it is not natural, at least not commonly accepted yet. It could make sense, it does make sense, but it doesn't necessarily dictate the way things are. So as a multiverse is mathematically and philosophically possible no evidence has been shown in either direction. Similarly a god can be argued in the same vein. Perhaps it lies outside the abilities of humans to measure. Is it still natural? I argue not, as "natural" to me means something that exists within the nature of the universe. God, as far as I have ever understood it, does not even follow the basic laws of nature (omnipresence, for one, being my first issue). So on this issue, yes, proof is a debate. Of course I'm using the term "proof" quite loosely as philosophical arguments, like science, must first be commonly accepted (and also since there is really no such thing as "proof" in science to begin with, just strong evidence for or against a hypothesis). I suppose the true test would be an amalgamation of both argumentative reasoning and physical evidence but it would never be definitive. A god doesn't have to exist within the confines of nature and, in fact, being the one that created such things I would argue that it necessarily is beyond such. To create nature one must be beyond it as our understanding as humans go. Or do you see a flaw in the logic of that statement?
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby Nick » Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:29 am

houserichichi wrote:
Nick wrote:If God exists, then God is "natural". Anything that exists is part of the natural world. If God doesn't exist, then well... there's no point talking about it. Also, I don't understand how proof can come from argument; truth is not a democracy, or a debate. Could you explain what you mean here?

The proof alone can come through argument if and only if a god is not natural; that is, if god is immeasurable but theoretically plausible, sufficient, and necessary. So on this issue, yes, proof is a debate.

God is neither sufficient nor necessary, but I will admit it is plausible, thus ranking it among conspiracy theories in my mind.

Of course I'm using the term "proof" quite loosely as philosophical arguments, like science, must first be commonly accepted (and also since there is really no such thing as "proof" in science to begin with, just strong evidence for or against a hypothesis). I suppose the true test would be an amalgamation of both argumentative reasoning and physical evidence but it would never be definitive. A god doesn't have to exist within the confines of nature and, in fact, being the one that created such things I would argue that it necessarily is beyond such. To create nature one must be beyond it as our understanding as humans go. Or do you see a flaw in the logic of that statement?[/quote]
I agree that you're using the term "proof" very very loosely, but I see no flaw in your logic. Everything you said is possible; but then again, anything is possible. No physical evidence or argumentative reasoning is ever enough to definitive, for anything, natural or otherwise. Can we agree on this point?
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby Why? How? » Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:13 pm

You cannot prove or disprove God. It's all a matter of faith. Then since God can't be disproved the wouldn't Atheism be a matter of faith to? Or would that be denial?
Why? How?
Mononian
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby zero » Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:50 am

Why? How? wrote:You cannot prove or disprove God.

Well, now -- I think that depends on whether the god involved is well and clearly defined. I'd agree with you that in most cases, the god-ideas people have are so fuzzy and/or incoherent that they obviously defy any possibility of proof or disproof. But that is not to say someone couldn't be a little more precise. Many have tried. The results have not been promising for those who want both a definitive and rational answer.

It's all a matter of faith.

Yet in Western society we see a long, detailed history of theologians, scholastics and others attempting to find some way to "prove" the existence of "God" -- why do you suppose that is?

Then since God can't be disproved the wouldn't Atheism be a matter of faith to? Or would that be denial?

My own atheism is just a matter of introspection. When I ask myself, "Hey, Self! Do you believe in any of these gods people talk about?" -- the answer is no. Thus, I'm an atheist by the time-honored definition of the word, the intersection of how all atheists are alike. Whatever else atheists may think or believe or propose or disbelieve or intuit or whatever, not a single one has a theistic god-belief. That's the central, common feature for atheism. That's all.

In its broadest and most traditional usage as a self-identification by thinkers throughout history, atheism is simply not having a belief in the existence of any god. In other words, if the question is "Do you believe in some god?" then a yes answer means you fall under the category of "theist" (which contains a vast multitude of positions), and a no answer means you fall under the category of "atheist" (which likewise contains a vast multitude of positions). The basic dichotomy between theism and atheism is only the presence or absence of a belief in the actual existence of god(s). Whether or not this dichotomy is really so important is another question altogether.

Some atheists, I suppose, may take a position of faith; there's nothing in the definition of atheism that makes this impossible. However, there's nothing about atheism to make it necessary, either. To the best of my knowledge, I've never personally encountered a faith-based atheist myself. Most are show-me-the-evidence atheists. You know, the ones who explain that if you have no support for the idea that a god exists that can stand up to critical examination (and blind faith doesn't really impress anyone who doesn't already share it), then you have failed to convince them that theism is more than wishful thinking, self-delusion or make believe.

When you pick a particular atheist, though, ah! That's when it gets interesting again. For example, did you know that the Dalai Lama says the existence of a transcendental creator-god is not only false, but completely impossible according to the central tenets of Buddhism? Would you call that a matter of faith?
zero
Trionian
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:45 am
Location: Florida

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby Cairus » Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:41 am

gerren,

After having read and thought about it, I incline toward agnosticism, but I wanted to bring up something which I've noticed about religion/god debate.

I became intrested in science a few years ago and I think the God debate is really intresting in our existance point of view and natural laws etc. It's fascinating for me, but I've understood that few share my enthusiasm with this subject. The usual "If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist"-argument doesn't suit me. To me it's intresting to discuss the point of life, why should a greater being create life and all other questions about the supernatural.

The debate that people have, boils down to not accepting that you can be wrong, to not accepting new ideas. I think it has something to do with psychology - they constantly look at others - if they don't believe it, I don't want to be an outsider. (These are purely my thoughts, I'm not an educated psychologist.)
People think that an intelligent designer/higher being goes against their dignity/honor. Or religious people believe in it without having deeply thought about it, i.e. they have been raised in a religious family and perhaps have blind faith. What I mean is that they miss the deeper thought behind it - why should a god create life in the first place not if we can prove if he exists or not.

People will deny the existance of such a being and if needed, distort facts to their gain. Richard Dawkings is an example (forgive me if I'm making a mistake here - I haven't had the time to read his works). I base on the gerren's post about the Congregation of Israelite not God commanding murder, rape.. So we never know what's right and what's distortion. We have to check everything ourselves to be sure. And more aware people notice this and they'll stop reading ideas by authors of such, even if they have some grain of truth in their ideas. This is happening everywhere and this doesn't help. I have noticed this in the Holocaust revisionism aswell - people are too aggressive, they want to use every possible argument to prove their point, even if they know it's questionable or just plain wrong. It just makes people pointlessly angry and sad. It brings up new conflicts which are unnecessary.

Some atheists are not discussing about the existance of a higher being, but the acts that people do. People, who claim to be enlightened Christians etc.
"That guy murdered a doctor. He said he's Christian. That means Christianity is bad" - be intelligent, do not do such conclusions like Pat Condell. Although I agree with him that Islamic extremists must be dealt with somehow, the ideas behind the religion itself may not be bad. (Again, I'm not actually familiar with the teachings of Muhammed, but that's why forums are for - discussion, right?)

Now about those religion/god differences. I think that an intelligent designer perhaps exists, something that perhaps created the Universe or nature laws. Let's call this being a God. BUT, religion as I see it, (Islam, Christianity for example) is imo a myth to control behavior. Just like Santa is to children. With it's commandments and storied that teach us I think it's essential for societies where most of the people just won't come up with that by themselves. I think that if a person has read, thought, talked about right things, he/she will at some time figure out such things on his/her own. Then the myths of 'hell and heaven' are unnecessary.

To whoever reads this, don't get agressive if my ideas differ from yours or if I have missed something important in my post. My thoughts are based on my yet short life (Internet, school, family, books and movies.) , so if You would like to correct me or argue, if my views seem primitive and you have something to add - please go ahead. I'm always happy to be enlightened. Also, English is not my first language, so ask me if I expressed somewhere myself messy. Thanks for reading.

Cairus

//edit - typos
Cairus
Nullonian
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby goy vey » Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:44 am

I put strong athiest, but I'm not sure what the difference is (positive or negative connotation?). I, personally, greatly dislike religion, maybe to the point of hatred. You ask, why? Why could something so harmless, that brings hope to people, be hated?

The Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. The Salem Witch Trials. Hitler. September 11.
"God is perhaps one of the most unpleasant characters in all fiction." -Richard Dawkins.


Ah yes, the illustrious Mr. Dawkins. It is an unpleasant fact that something like 14 million people lost their lives during the Great Leap Forward, and that was under an atheist regime. Atheists can be bad people too. Fanaticism, evil, and stupidity come in an infinite number of guises.

I suppose Christians make tempting scapegoats, given how pushy we can be, and given what people have tried to justify by God and religion. But you must be able to see that these things are more indicative of common human characteristics than an effect religious belief has on the psyche. Do you think one day the Amish and the Quakers will take up arms, storming schools and hospitals across the nation, Kalashnikovs in hand and dynamite strapped to their chests? I myself am an avowed pacifist, a creed that doesn't make sense to many people but to me is the only rational result of taking the words of Christ literally.

To address the topic directly, what someone believes in life is frequently a result of what they were taught to believe as a child, though sometimes in unexpected ways. I was raised Southern Baptist, and shocked my relatives when I declared myself agnostic. I delighted them with my rededication, but soon scandalized them again with my interest in and eventual conversion to Catholicism.

I think religious belief, or lack thereof, should only properly be the result of a long, intense spiritual journey, but I know well enough that in practice few bother. It depends on the individual. Some people can just have blind faith, never question and end up at the same place as one who does. The value is in the journey as much as what conclusion is eventually arrived at. Because it's all there. All the answers you could ask for and all the questions you would never have thought of. To all of man's troubles and how to cure the physical, social, and psychic ills. It's not a magic formula, but it can certainly have results that seem, at least to me, magical. That is why I am Catholic. That is why I could never be anything else. Because within myself, in my connection to God, I find more than I ever could have dreamed of.
"As a youth I prayed, 'Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.'"
- St. Augustine
goy vey
Mononian
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:35 am

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby Sideshow » Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:25 am

Hmm.

Like goy vey I was raised Catholic too. I even went to Catholic school for six years. By the time I finished with all the lessons and whatnot, I probably had a skewed vision of things. I'm not what you'd call conservative, or even particularly religious. I hold many views on doctrine that would contradict what is "true", and I'd constantly have debates with my teachers that always ended in them saying "Well God is on my side and you lose."

That said, it did give me a perspective on things that I wouldn't have had otherwise. I think it's only rational to approach the world with a scientific mind, and look for what causes things to happen. But to look at the big picture and systematically deny that there may be some sort of planned logic to everything would be to close off major areas of possibility. To close your mind to an idea is exactly what religious fanatics do when they go on crusades or jihads.

I'm not saying you have to believe in a God, or in inteligent design. I just feel that to say it doesn't exist is just as foolish. We don't know everything yet, and until we do it's best to keep an open mind.
Sideshow
Dionian
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:00 am

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby houserichichi » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:31 pm

Sideshow wrote:I'm not saying you have to believe in a God, or in inteligent design. I just feel that to say it doesn't exist is just as foolish. We don't know everything yet, and until we do it's best to keep an open mind.


You speak of knowledge and then you speak of belief. They are not the same thing. Anyone who says they "know" anything about god is not being honest with themselves so in that respect we're (everyone) agnostic. The believer is still agnostic, the nonbeliever is agnostic. None of us really know because it's not something that's knowable in the first place.

Then comes faith. The believer, clearly, believes, and the nonbeliever doesn't. On whose shoulder lies the responsibility to show any sort of evidence in either direction? Well in the purest form of argument it would lie on the shoulders of the believer to justify their belief, not the nonbeliever to justify their non-belief in the believer's belief. Theists don't like this fact because they know as well as we do that their belief isn't founded on anything of merit whereas the atheist doesn't make any claim besides "I don't believe in the god(s) that the theist believes in" which requires no foundational justification. The natural default is disbelief in the sense that atheism wouldn't be a word if theism wasn't one first.

So to keep an open mind to something that is contrary to the natural order of things, let alone based on irrational (non) logic is absurd. If theists believed that ritual killings was a good idea would you suggest that I keep an open mind to that too? When do you draw the line between stupidity and political correctness?
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby Sideshow » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:37 pm

To what natural order of things? I don't believe any of us here know what exactly the natural order is. That is why some assert as higher power as the one who sets the natural order, and some say the natural order comes into its own being.

As to ritual killings, I would still say that an open mind should be kept. I refuse to compromise on this issue. It sounds horrible to some I suppose, but that's their point of view. In other cultures that IS the default.

Another thing, there is no natural "default". There is only what you feel is true. To say that believers would need to assert some sort of proof whilst non-believers would not is irrational. If the religious must support their views, why don't atheists need to support theirs? No one NEEDS any evidence whatsoever to hold a belief. "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean you can't believe in it." That goes for both theists and atheists.
Sideshow
Dionian
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:00 am

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby houserichichi » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:24 am

Sideshow wrote:To what natural order of things? I don't believe any of us here know what exactly the natural order is. That is why some assert as higher power as the one who sets the natural order, and some say the natural order comes into its own being.


The natural order of things are those that follow the laws of nature that have been tested, verified, and conceived over millenia of intellectual scrutiny. It's ordered because it follows lines of rational and reasonable logic and is natural because it introduces nothing beyond these laws as "truth", for lack of a better word. We "know" the natural order of things because we defined what the two words mean initially, all else is beyond either nature, order, or both. The assertion of a higher power goes above and beyond nature and so we say it is "supernatural" or "not natural", semantically identical in this case. It requires an initial (and may I add illogical/irrational/unjustified/unprovable) belief that, first, supernatural things are even possible and second that such a thing is able to affect and impose structure on the natural world. Nobody claims any reasoning for why nature is ordered in the first place but at least the non-believer is humble enough to admit "I don't know" whereas the believer claims outright (and again unjustifiably) that god did it. This is not a logical argument and so must be scrutinized.

Sideshow wrote:As to ritual killings, I would still say that an open mind should be kept. I refuse to compromise on this issue. It sounds horrible to some I suppose, but that's their point of view. In other cultures that IS the default.


Ethics and morals aside, ritual killings have to still be justified to be given any sort of "open mindedness". Given that (I'm assuming here) we're talking about ritual killings in the name of a particular or all gods one must first justify that ritual killings make sense, and then they must justify that all initial assumptions are justified, including the notion of a god. Given that god is not natural by definition it falls beyond the bounds of logic and thus is illogical. Thus if god is illogical so is ritual killings in its name. Since that is so then one should be (possibly ethically alone) vehemently opposed to its stupidity, but at the very least opposed to it on the sole basis of faulty logic. Anything built off faulty logic should and will crumble so why not tear down the pillar before it does any more harm?

Sideshow wrote:Another thing, there is no natural "default". There is only what you feel is true. To say that believers would need to assert some sort of proof whilst non-believers would not is irrational. If the religious must support their views, why don't atheists need to support theirs? No one NEEDS any evidence whatsoever to hold a belief. "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean you can't believe in it." That goes for both theists and atheists.


The natural default requires a lack of all knowledge. Knowledge and belief are disjoint sets. A lack of knowledge means that beliefs play no part, simply a lack of understood reasoning. In that situation there is no room for a god without an initial belief, but that belief must be justified in the first place. With no initial knowledge (including logical knowledge) the notion of a god cannot be built axiomatically. Thus without logic (broken as it is) to justify a belief in a god there is no knowledge of one, thus the default (natural) position is atheism. I use the term loosely, however, because "theism" isn't technically a word in that case so atheism couldn't be either.

The theist needs to justify their beliefs because the theist makes the claim that contradicts verifiable, testable evidence (natural things). The atheist does not because their disbelief in supernatural things follows logical reasoning and is natural. To hold a belief is everyone's right but it's not immune to scrutiny and shouldn't be accepted as "ok". I imagine if someone shot your best friend because they believed a fairy told them to you wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt and give his unfounded belief any time of day. The same should be done for any irrational/illogical belief. To believe unfounded things is dangerous as it leaves doors of interpretation open, and when these doors are open to dangerous people then bad things can happen. The same goes for logical beliefs but at least ruling out illogical ones makes rational sense. Some people are dangerous regardless so let's give them fewer tools to justify their stupidity.

"Just because something isn't true doesn't mean you can't believe in it." For children we give Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny all in fun and games. Give an irrational adult capable of doing dangerous and conscious things to other human beings, the planet, or the whole species the illogical justification to believe whatever they want without having to give it any second thought is dangerous and irresponsible.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby Sideshow » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:04 am

Well then I guess we'll need to agree to disagree, and this is why:

When I said something doesn't have to be real for you to believe in it, I wasn't referring to the tooth fairy or whatever. I was more referring to basic principles such as equality, justice, fairness, et cetera. You certainly would be hard pressed to find those in their pure form anywhere on Earth, but I'll bet you that most people you know believe in them anyways. Perhaps you should explain to them why believing in fairness is dangerous and irresponsible.

I could argue that those virtues don't exist because I've never seen any direct evidence of them. I've never seen anything to support the fact that they don't exist, but by your own logic, if there's no proof, it doesn't exist. Many people would then tell me that of course they exist, people act with justice and fairness every day. I would then have to argue that because I've never seen a supreme, pure act of justice ever, it can't possibly exist and that everyone that believes in justice is a hopeless nutcase.

There are just some things you can't apply logic to, because those things are illogical by nature, but exist anyways. Virtues are one, and possibility of higher powers another.
Sideshow
Dionian
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:00 am

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby goy vey » Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:50 pm

There's a difference between open-mindedness and relativism. I know where I stand and I know what I believe. I'm willing to consider alternative points of view, but not if they contradict and overturn my most basic moral principles. At the risk of sounding like strident moral absolutist, some things are just Wrong. There's no justification you can invent to change that.
"As a youth I prayed, 'Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.'"
- St. Augustine
goy vey
Mononian
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:35 am

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby MorgothV8 » Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:51 pm

100% pure atheist. Always
MorgothV8
Mononian
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:57 pm

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby zero » Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:47 am

Cairus wrote:The usual "If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist"-argument doesn't suit me.

But who really makes that argument? Anyone? Stand up and be counted if you do!

The usual argument I see goes like this: "You claim there's a god? That's nice. Do you have any supporting evidence? No? Well, then why should anyone else believe in such a thing?"


People think that an intelligent designer/higher being goes against their dignity/honor.

Some may feel like that, I suppose. There's no accounting for personal taste or individual idiosyncrasies. But I just think all the notions of god I've come across bear a great deal of similarity to phantoms of human inventiveness and imagination, so -- absent any compelling way to distinguish them from make believe -- I just don't believe in them. Honestly, how could I?


Or religious people believe in it without having deeply thought about it, i.e. they have been raised in a religious family and perhaps have blind faith.

That's a bit redundant, in my opinion. What is religious faith if not blind faith?

Consider. Where we have knowledge, faith is not required. Where we are ignorant, faith (blind, arbitrary faith) is whistling in the dark -- a convenient little lie one tells oneself because it is sounds familiar or feels good.


To whoever reads this, don't get agressive if my ideas differ from yours or if I have missed something important in my post.

I trust that a few comments will not automatically be interpreted as aggressive.
zero
Trionian
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:45 am
Location: Florida

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby zero » Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:53 am

goy vey wrote:I think religious belief, or lack thereof, should only properly be the result of a long, intense spiritual journey, but I know well enough that in practice few bother.

How about astrological belief, or the lack thereof? Belief in numerological mysteries, or the lack of such a belief? Belief in bigfoot, or the lack of that notion? There are hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions of crazy notions that have haunted the imaginations of men and women throughout history -- many of which continue to afflict the minds of people who take long, intense spiritual journeys only to discover at some point that they have wasted their time on nonsense (or worse, never to discover this).

I think religious belief should never be compelled one way or another. But i would not go so far as to presume that there is something so special about religion that there must be a flaw of some kind in the many people who do not bother with it very much. perhaps they are far wiser or luckier than I have been.
zero
Trionian
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:45 am
Location: Florida

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby zero » Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:02 am

Sideshow wrote:I'm not saying you have to believe in a God, or in inteligent design. I just feel that to say it doesn't exist is just as foolish. We don't know everything yet, and until we do it's best to keep an open mind.

There's a difference between an open mind, with a welcome mat outside so that any idea or proposal may knock at the door to present itself for consideration -- and a witless mind, with the door flung open so that any vagrant notion may slip inside unannounced and unchallenged, to ply even the most outrageous and absurd claims without even an effort to support them with evidence.

Colloquial English is not as exact a language as that used by philosophers, lawyers or mathematicians. Many will say "God doesn't exist" as shorthand for what I would more carefully pronounce at greater length, "Since no one has ever offered credible evidence that the gods they talk about are anything other than fantastic fables, I neither believe in them nor see any good cause for wasting valuable time pretending that they are somehow superior to any other form of apparent make believe."

Seriously, how is belief in gods qualitatively different from belief in leprechauns?

First there was alchemy, then chemistry. Numerology, then mathematics. Astrology, then astronomy. Religion, then philosophy.
zero
Trionian
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:45 am
Location: Florida

Re: Why be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Christian/Religious person?

Postby zero » Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:11 am

Sideshow wrote:If the religious must support their views, why don't atheists need to support theirs?

It's my pleasure to support any assertions I happen to make. The only assertion an atheist makes (qua atheist) is that she does not possess a belief in any gods existing independently of imagination. I'm willing to take statements about a person's own mental state at face value unless there is strong evidence that the person is lying. If someone says he believes in a god, I accept that. If someone else says he doesn't, I accept that, too. Wouldn't you?

Now if someone asserts that there is a god, then -- if she wants to be taken seriously -- some support for this extraordinary claim ought to be offered. I can understand why it virtually never is. The realization that there are no rational grounds for such belief is why atheists are the fasted growing demographic in places like the United States (which is unusual in the industrialized world for having such a large number of superstitious beliefs being marketed just like shampoo, cars and breakfast cereals).


No one NEEDS any evidence whatsoever to hold a belief.

Agreed. People can be quite arbitrary, and nothing exemplifies this better than the vast number of conflicting, contradictory religious beliefs that so many people cling to without any evidence whatsoever.
zero
Trionian
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:45 am
Location: Florida

Previous

Return to Consciousness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests

cron