Any Atheists here?

[L2R]

quick note, i think that it is absurd to use occum's razor to determine that the universe is more likely to have no deities than to have one or more. there is no real way to compare the two options in a probabilistic fashion. it is, therefore, a fallacious assertion.

the selection of preference is purely a matter of one's own comfort and predispostional attitude. there is no superior logical answer (except agnosticism).

 

[RobotRipping]

I have absolutely no problem with that type of approach, some people find comfort in being spiritual and that can be a very positive thing. What I have a problem with are people that say they know for sure that they have found the truth. Being spiritual in your own way is another thing entirely, although I think you are selling yourself short by attributing your spirituality to some sort of higher power, when the real magic you are feeling is nothing more than the beauty of your own mind experiencing the world in its own unique way.





Have you ever heard of the "god of the gaps" argument. Basically, it states that the idea of God is used by people to explain things that have not yet been explained. In old times there were Gods responsible for the harvest, and the rain, and the game that people would hunt. Gods were thoguht to literally live in the sky, or on top of some enormous mountain. Now that people have advanced to the point where we understand all of those things very well, and have traveled to the top of those mountains and flown in the sky, it seems rather silly for us to attribute them to Gods.

Its is only once all these myths have been dispelled that we now realize there is no God responsible for good/bad harvests, and that there is no god living in the sky or on that mountain. So, as the so called "gaps" of understanding have narrowed, so had the role of God in our lives.

This leads us to our modern situation, where God is used to explain the few questions about life and the world that are still unanswered by science, and the old stories about Gods (which used to be taken quite literally) are now reduced to metaphor. Take the old stories as metaphors for wisdom of old cultures if you want, but if you are taking them to mean anything about a true God, I would encourage you to take a step back and ask yourself why it is you do that.

i dont believe i have found absolute truth or anything at all, i'm still wide open to whatever comes. I sway to theism because of intuition alone and the beauty of the universe and life but realize it's not dependent on creationism or a God or anything, i just appreciate it as it is.

I do understand what you're saying and agree with it but what sways me is that intuitive feeling and that probability that if there is even a tiny chance God exists, then it's like the probability that this universe has the physical constants tweaked in such a manner to support life and this higher thought we have, it's so improbable but here we are. It's like i think therefore i am, that is the only thing that sways me from Atheism, i have no fears of death or of lost loved ones or anything like that. If logic comes to the conclusion that a God is impossible or that it cannot be logically proven one way or the other, i'm open to that as well.

I also agree with L2R about occam's razor i've had to deal with quite a few arguments against the improper use of it here on BL in the past lol.

 

[Care]

quick note, i think that it is absurd to use occum's razor to determine that the universe is more likely to have no deities than to have one or more. there is no real way to compare the two options in a probabilistic fashion. it is, therefore, a fallacious assertion.

the selection of preference is purely a matter of one's own comfort and predispostional attitude. there is no superior logical answer (except agnosticism).

I dont know why people claim that the existence of god should be the only thing that is immune to epistemology and logic when it comes to substantiating itself. The only way it gets away with it in my eyes is the because it is near and dear to the basis of many peoples lives.

The fact is that when you apply the reasoning that we use to answer every other question about our world and the universe, the idea of Gods existence falls flat on its face, so of course religious people are going to claim logic doesnt apply. It doesnt make their claim and more substantiated in my eyes.

I completely reject the idea of faith as a reasoning for believing in God. I think that is the fundamental difference between religious people and myself.

 

[RobotRipping]

^i agree with you there, i'm simply swayed by intuition or this feeling i have, i have stepped back and objectively looked at it and it's rooted deeply in my earliest memories, i'm still trying to desconstruct it as such but it's a work in progress which is why i'm a bit on the fence, that and my experiences with DMT/salvia/dissociatives/lucid dreaming/OBEs and such.

 

[Tromps]

^I took a step back also, and experienced with all those things you mentioned, they progressed to give me a rational and logical belief in God. There is no doubt in my faith now, before I started to begin to delve into spiritually I refuted God and rejected his existence with energy.

Spiritual searching, whether natural methods or chemically induced, have the potential to induce life changing spiritual beliefs in-doubtingly, for better or worse, whatever better or worse for someone may even mean or could be, which might be completely subjective.

 

[L2R]

I dont know why people claim that the existence of god should be the only thing that is immune to epistemology and logic when it comes to substantiating itself. The only way it gets away with it in my eyes is the because it is near and dear to the basis of many peoples lives.

sorry, but that's wrong. it has nothing at all to do with endearment.

a deity of any kind is not subject to the same laws which govern the observable universe. a creator is outside the box, so the terms of reference in the occam's razor in this question are absurd or non-existent. they simply do not compare.

and besides, if we are looking at a power of omnipotence, the razor actually favours it, for there could not be anything more simpler. the whole universe, whether complete nonsensical chaos or complete order, and yet it is so due to the will of the one true power.

I completely reject the idea of faith as a reasoning for believing in God. I think that is the fundamental difference between religious people and myself.

well actually that makes you decidely alike to religious people. outright rejection of anything aside from your own perspective seems to be a trait you both share.

vehemence in this the most inconsequential of topics, regardless of position, is quite telling.

 

[RobotRipping]

completely agree with you there tromps, all of my chemically induced experienced have reinforced my intuitive beliefs over the years as well align with my brief periods of psychosis and paranormal type experiences, i try not to get caught up in deluding myself though so i stay critical.

also definitely agree with L2R and precisely agree with your point on Atheism and the rejection of anything outside of one's own perspective, i find Atheists more than anything to be fundamentalist in thinking and that for the most part they simply outright object to organized religion or the possibility/plausability of a deity in particular but when deconstructed actually have much in common with theists/agnostics or people like me who are on the fence sort of. So long as they aren't the Richard Dawkins type

the power of belief is also something to consider, especially in regards to the cosmic consciousness, all of which are metaphysical and outside the bounds of logic/science for now anyway. Wittgenstein at first decided philosophy had no reason to deal with such issues but i think he reconsidered that in his later works IIRC.

 

[Care]

sorry, but that's wrong. it has nothing at all to do with endearment.

a deity of any kind is not subject to the same laws which govern the observable universe. a creator is outside the box, so the terms of reference in the occam's razor in this question are absurd or non-existent. they simply do not compare.

Just simply saying that something is an exception to the rule doesn't make it an exception to the rule, sorry but we disagree on this, that is what it comes down to.

and besides, if we are looking at a power of omnipotence, the razor actually favours it, for there could not be anything more simpler. the whole universe, whether complete nonsensical chaos or complete order, and yet it is so due to the will of the one true power.



well actually that makes you decidely alike to religious people. outright rejection of anything aside from your own perspective seems to be a trait you both share.

vehemence in this the most inconsequential of topics, regardless of position, is quite telling.

If that is what you think than your understanding of Occams razor is flawed...

Occams Razoris a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate.

Basically the simplest theory is the correct one in the absence of data favoring one side or another. If were breaking it down to diety vs big bang theory, we have plenty of evidence showing how the universe and life could have sprung from nothing and we're finding out more and more every year, which is constantly weakening the argument for God in relation to Occams Razor.

But even in spite of all that, for me it comes down to a very simple idea. There is nothing inherent about life or the universe that indicates the self evidence of God. It is entirely possible for a person to go throughout their life and never come up with the notion that some sort of divine being created everything. If God were self evident there would be actual visible, tangible proof that he exists. Therefore, when people claim that there is a God, the burden of proof to prove his existence in on them.

And if you want to compare my passionate defense of reason to religion, well, you're just downright wrong. As ive said before in this thread, atheism isnt something that I think about on a daily basis. I dont wake up in the morning and say, "damn its great to be an atheist, now let me get on with my day doing atheist things for the glory of atheism". The ONLY time this topic even enters my mind is when other people claim to have found the truth about the big unanswered questions in life through God. Only then am I forced to respond and say, no, youre delusional.

And another thing, I grew up in a major bible belt in the US in a devout christian family. I doubt you aussies can even comprehend the sort of indoctrination that goes on in that type of environment. As an unbeliever in that type of environment I often had verbal sparring matches with Christians about this very topic, hence my passion for the subject.

 

[L2R]

You have a flawed understanding of god. It is why you do not understand how my use of OR is actually correct.

Whatever abuse you might have suffered at the hands of the local bible bashers is irrelevant.

 

[Care]

You have a flawed understanding of god. It is why you do not understand how my use of OR is actually correct.

Whatever abuse you might have suffered at the hands of the local bible bashers is irrelevant.

I have no understanding of God whatsoever because in all the years of my life not once have I experienced anything to lead me to believe that a God exists, and that is how I work. I am not willing to take others at their word that they have the answers.

And the fact that I grew up christian relevant in that it is the reason why I take such a hard stance against theism. If it werent for that background im not sure what I would believe, but I probably wouldn't care enough to argue with others about it.

 

[L2R]

The reason you speak strongly about it is obvious, mate. I don't know what you went through, it must have been real shitty to get your back up like this. I have lots of friends who have similar compulsions, but you know it is impairing your rationality on this subject.

Bringing this conversation back to where it began, you have repeatedly used probability to determine the absence of a god is probable truth. I responded by saying that you can't use probability because the rules would be different. Subsequent posts made it clear that you don't understand why these rules are treating god specially.

I'll try to be as clear as i can. Whether it takes the form of some abrahamic overlord or not, a creative force comes before and beside the creation. what we live in is the latter. this alone means that there can not be evidence of a god. If it were a part of its creation, it would have created itself, so if it is anything, it is everything, which is essentially the same as saying it is nothing. This isn't just some alien life form we are talking about.

enjoy your trekking, dude. i don't go for mine for another 3.5 weeks.

 

[RobotRipping]

God does not have to be self evident or evident at all to exist. And if that statement is true, then God doesn't exist only until we find out God exists, like the black swan theory, that is why empiricism or reductionism is flawed and esotorosicism plays a role in spirituality and the metahpysical or parapsychology world.

all metals expand when heated .... until we find a metal that doesn't

or all swans are white, until we found out there were black ones too.

an object can only be in one place at one time... until we found out that this is not necessarily the case in quantum physics.. see logic changes as we progress and 2 of Aristotles syllogisms (can't remember which ones) were found not necessarily true or sound in predicate logic developed later by Frege and others. The laws of physics/science also progress and change as our understanding of the world does. It is simply silly to say there is no plausibility for the existence of some God - you can argue the definition is so vague that it cannot be argued against but i think that is an argument about semantics that leads us no where.

The argument for a pantheistic God has gathered much support in recent years and many agnostics have leaned towards similar view points with good reason, it feels intuitively correct to me at least and to others. You can go the Wittgenstein Tractatus route if you wish but i don't think even Wittgenstein was satisfied with that.

The existence of God is going to the be exception to the rule, the exception, to the exception that there is an exception to every rule, likely a paradox so we will not be able to tell one way or the other; i think that is how it is set up intentionally, which is where faith comes in.

Not to attack Atheism or anything but if my reasoning is flawed, show me where. You can believe whatever you want but if the burden of proof is on Theists then we have intuition as proof and parapsychology/esotoricism in the future as well as progress in neuroscience, math, logic and particle/quantuam physics to look forward to, as do Atheists but until then, who can ultimately say one way or the other logically? which is the more sensible side of the fence to be on ATM?

IMO ATM we have 2 solid competing theories for the existence or non-existence of God that of intelligent design or that something cannot come from nothing without an infinite regress (Aquinas and others) and that of infinitely many universes (stephen hawkings as well as others), one will show that God exists by probability (ie it's an impossible coincidence this is the only universe, tho u can still argue against that) and the other shows that God does not necessarily exist, but still plausibly exists. If it were a gamble, i'd put the odds on God existing than not but it's matter of opinion ATM.

feel free to correct me if i'm off on anything.

Occam's razor is essentially the rule not to multiply entities without necessity, it is not a rule that says the most simple theory is true, it's a rule of thumb if anything but not an absolute rule and does not necessarily apply to arguments against or for God.

 

[MrGrunge]

I feel like the term "atheism" is not well understood. Most people subscribe to the narrow idea that atheism is the "belief that there is no God", when in fact it is the "rejection of belief in a God", and within that definition there is still a wide range of philosophies. You can be atheist and live your life with the idea that there might be a God - atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

 

[RobotRipping]

while true (somewhat, there are atheists on both sides and in between) how many Athiests subscribe to that particular belief? and really what is the distinction? if you reject belief in a God you are simply rejecting that you can't believe something without evidence? or have faith? that's kind of another argument all together. How many Athiests just think the idea that there is a God is absurd and hate organized religion? i'd love to see actual numbers on that but i doubt they exist.

think of the anti-gravitists before newton, rejecting the belief that gravity could exist lol

someone had to have a belief to find out that it did or even look into it which required some faith of some sort at least. i don't think it was just stumbled upon correct me if i'm wrong tho, i can find a better example, like splitting atoms and such.

 

[MrGrunge]

I think many self-professed Atheists are really Antitheists that don't understand the distinction.

while true how many Athiests subscribe to that particular belief? and really what is the distinction? if you reject belief in a God you are simply rejecting that you can't believe something without evidence? or have faith? that's kind of another argument all together. How many Athiests just think the idea that there is a God is absurd and hate organized religion? i'd love to see actual numbers on that but i doubt they exist.

The point is, Atheism, just like Theism, can take on a number of forms. By refusing to believe in God, one does not necessarily deny his existence. Within that idea there exists a spectrum of philosophies and cosmic perspectives. It's difficult to quantify lack of belief in something.

think of the anti-gravitists before newton rejecting the belief that gravity could exist lol

Newton's theory requires that you accept the evidence, Theism requires that you accept the lack of evidence otherwise. I don't think your example is analogous.

someone had to have a belief to find out that it did or even look into it which required some faith of some sort at least. i don't think it was just stumbled upon correct me if i'm wrong tho, i can find a better example.

Science advances because you cannot be taken at your word. People didn't "believe" Newton's theory, they tested it and studied it and did their damnedest to disprove it. Just like Darwin and Einstein. Science advances under scrutiny whereas religion recedes under it.

 

[RobotRipping]

I think many self-professed Atheists are really Antitheists that don't understand the distinction.



The point is, Atheism, just like Theism, can take on a number of forms. By refusing to believe in God, one does not necessarily deny his existence. Within that idea there exists a spectrum of philosophies and cosmic perspectives. It's difficult to quantify lack of belief in something.



Newton's theory requires that you accept the evidence, Theism requires that you accept the lack of evidence otherwise. I don't think your example is analogous.



Science advances because you cannot be taken at your word. People didn't "believe" Newton's theory, they tested it and studied it and did their damnedest to disprove it. Just like Darwin and Einstein. Science advances under scrutiny whereas religion recedes under it.

well take Galileo then or electrons or subatomic particles being in two places at once, we stumbled on to that shit and it defied logic as we knew it. Science cannot study the object in itself, how can you get around that? you can't unless there's a huge paradigm shift in science.

Religion is not mutually exclusive with theism either though. Religion does not necessarily have a God (Buddhism for example). My belief system advances with science and how do you quantify belief/lack of belief in anything? evidence is never 100% true, ie the black swan problem. Or as i pointed out in other examples, all metals expand when heated... that is until we find one that doesn't ... can't really quanitfy that belief can you? not absolutely anyway. If you're going to argue that the burden of truth is on theists then you're stuck in a circular argument with theists and this will get no where.

In any case i can rest my belief system on the progress of science if i want to, what's the difference?

Einstein's theory of relativity is merely a belief as it stands or a theory which is a belief or an idea based on evidence which is not absolute truth, it does not stand as absolute truth by any means. All it takes is one instance or observation of a rejection to that truth or better yet a paradigm shift and it falls, see the black swan problem for further info if u haven't already.

i'm all argued out - hope someone else can take over if needed, as well i'm not exactly up to par on my particle physics, quantum mechanics or physics in general so if someone wants to explain how an electron or subatomic particle can be in a range of places at a particular time and whatever that entails go ahead. I've read into it and it goes well over my head.

 

[mal3volent]

I feel like the term "atheism" is not well understood. Most people subscribe to the narrow idea that atheism is the "belief that there is no God", when in fact it is the "rejection of belief in a God", and within that definition there is still a wide range of philosophies. You can be atheist and live your life with the idea that there might be a God - atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Thank you... I said this like two pages ago but maybe people will listen to you.

 

[RobotRipping]

the issue is more so that atheism is at odds with theism (by definition even or nomenclature at least) and where the burden of proof lies, as i see it, both sides are equally affected by a lack of evidence and the burden of truth at this time. that is my argument, argue against that and let's not get all caught up in semantics cause it really makes for a boring discussion. That is the issue at heart and what is most controversial among the two sides, wherever you lie on the spectrum of either side. I don't think academia has come together on it either.

 

[Maya]

I feel like the term "atheism" is not well understood. Most people subscribe to the narrow idea that atheism is the "belief that there is no God", when in fact it is the "rejection of belief in a God", and within that definition there is still a wide range of philosophies. You can be atheist and live your life with the idea that there might be a God - atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

I believe as for now I fall at the Agnostic category tbh.

 

[Juvenile]

any other Atheists here? Do you face a lot of persecution and hatred here or in other places in your life?

I was raised by atheists to be you guessed it, atheist. In fact when growing up, the only contact I really had with "god botherers" as my parents called them was the odd occasion that they showed up at our door.

It wasn't until I was much older that I met some actual church going christians. I know the Australian christian lobby likes to claim the represent 60% of the population in this country on account of there allegedly being that many christians here, but the christians I have met don't even agree with any of their policies like censoring the internet and assorted other bigotries. And I would eat my boots if even 20% of our population actually went to church regularly, let alone 60%. Even so, they still have too much sway over politicians here. Equal marriage rights shouldn't even be debated, it should just be granted. The internet filter was the idea of conservative christians, thankfully that appears to have been put in the too hard basket for the time being.

In my part of Aus, religion isn't really spoken about in schools or workplaces ever. The longest conversation I've had about it is usually with other atheists about how we don't follow christianity or anything, but are happy to take xmas day off to eat tasty food and drink beer all the same. I suspect that maybe the religious do walk among us at work, but they keep pretty quiet about it here.

Do people really talk about god at work in the USA? On random drugs documentaries I have watched the L.E. guys were praying before they went out to bust some dealers on one of them. I can't imagine that shit flying in this country.

I imagine the persecution of atheists is only a thing in places where religious nut jobs are allowed to run riot. (yes, you are a fucking nut job if you persecute someone for simply not believing in something that has not been proven to exist)
Like wtf is this really http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm