Atheism is a set of beliefs that requires very great faith.

[Ransom itch]

Atheists cannot prove God does not exist yet will maintain and defend their position most strongly. Ergo, they have their own unprovable belief system - their own own strongly-held faith in a set of arguments they can never reconcile. Haha! The irony of it. But God does not need to prove or reconcile Himself to anybody. I would argue that maintaining an atheistic position requires greater faith than is required to believe in a Magnificent Creator God.

 

[Teabag Johnny]

Actually, you're right Ransom itch.

 

[Journyman16]

Believers in God and Disbelievers in God both belong over at the same end of the belief line - the opposite end is Agnostics. Both theists and atheists structure by belief rather than facts. Agnostics simply say, "I don't know" and therefore cannot be in the belief camp. Many people misuse the word Agnostic and are really Atheists.

 

[Journyman16]

I tend to approach things with a lack of certainty, for one, but I favor that approach to all things.
ebola

Then you would probably better identify as an Agnostic. Atheists have beliefs - believing something is NOT is no different to believing something IS, unless you can prove it. It is unlikely anyone will ever prove God is not. :D

Come to the light, be an Agnostic and proud. Declare you simply don't know and await more information. :D

 

[ebola?]

I conceptualize religion (quite roughly) as lying along two dimensions, agnosticism defining level of certainty of belief, and a spectrum running from atheism to theism describing (one key aspect of) content. These two dimensions are orthogonal.

So yes, I'm happy to call myself an agnostic atheist (when I'm not allowed to label my beliefs with whole sentences ).

Declare you simply don't know and await more information.

While I don't know, I have some guesses, and I'd...er...guess that most people would.

ebola

 

[Journyman16]

I conceptualize religion (quite roughly) as lying along two dimensions, agnosticism defining level of certainty of belief, and a spectrum running from atheism to theism describing (one key aspect of) content. These two dimensions are orthogonal.

So yes, I'm happy to call myself an agnostic atheist (when I'm not allowed to label my beliefs with whole sentences ).

ebola

How do you see agnosticism as "defining level of certainty of belief" - surely it has NO level of belief at all? Unless you count it as belief that we do not currently have the evidence to determine the presence of God or not?

If you see the 2 scales as orthogonal, where does the agnostic one cross the belief one?

 

[ebola?]

How do you see agnosticism as "defining level of certainty of belief" - surely it has NO level of belief at all?

In that case, not many people are agnostic then. But do you have some guess about how reality functions (this is where some would give recourse to a deity)?

Unless you count it as belief that we do not currently have the evidence to determine the presence of God or not?

Right, and then what do you think there is instead?

If you see the 2 scales as orthogonal, where does the agnostic one cross the belief one?

I don't understand this question. It's like asking where height crosses with length.

ebola

 

[Journyman16]

First, I don't think it is a belief to determine we currently do not have evidence either way about the presence of (a) God. Deciding there is no God is atheist and is a belief. As in it is seeing something as true with no evidence.

Orthogonal means at right angles - you stated you see the Agnostic scale as being orthogonal to the atheist/believer one. So I was curious as to where on the belief line you saw the Agnostic one crossing?

And if I can have a bonus question, Atheist and Theist are both beliefs, so what lies between to constitute a spectrum?

As for what I think, first it is posted about in other threads and second, I prefer not to bother with speculation that can have no meaning, so instead I focus on personal spirituality - if at some point a deity jumps up, I will reconsider. :D

 

[ebola?]

First, I don't think it is a belief to determine we currently do not have evidence either way about the presence of (a) God. Deciding there is no God is atheist and is a belief. As in it is seeing something as true with no evidence.

I know. That's why I conceptualized agnosticism as orthogonal to content of belief, and it's also why I asked you what you think the properties of the universe to be.

Orthogonal means at right angles

Ah. I was using the more general meaning of the word, whereby two characteristics that are orthogonal are statistically unrelated, that is information about one will not give you information about the other. Now, if you were to represent the possible values of each variable as points along a spectrum, these spectra would indeed form right angles.

Atheist and Theist are both beliefs, so what lies between to constitute a spectrum?

Hence why I said "roughly". We might place a completely anthropomorphic god at one end of the spectrum, something like the "first mover" common of Deism in the middle, and a formulation that the universe is entirely mechanical (or just a chaotic, meaningless jumble) at the other end. But really, I'm collapsing many qualitative positions along a spectrum and losing some information in the process.

As for what I think, first it is posted about in other threads and second, I prefer not to bother with speculation that can have no meaning, so instead I focus on personal spirituality - if at some point a deity jumps up, I will reconsider.

Right, so what constitutes your spirituality (or even, what is "spirituality" for you?)?

ebola

 

[ForEverAfter]

I hear what you're saying, OP, but I'm not sure they're quite equal.

Nobody can prove anything.

To believe that the universe began when a pink hippopotamus, dressed as Lincoln, ejaculated life into a snow globe is... crazy.

It cannot be proved - either way - whether or not a pink hippopotamus, dressed as Lincoln, ejaculated into a snow globe.

Does it require the same amount of faith to believe as it does to disbelieve?

The title of this thread says it (atheism) requires "very great faith".

It requires faith, like everything, but I'm not sure it requires a great deal of faith.

It seems to me that it requires a considerable amount more faith to believe in God, particularly if you adhere to a particular religion and believe literally in aspects of that religion. (As you do.)

 

[Journyman16]

IDK... the Big Bang requires considerable faith, AND magic. The theory doesn't give our universe unless we invent Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy so I'd say that's about the same level of belief involved. :D

 

[ForEverAfter]

There is scientific evidence for the Big Bang. There is no scientific evidence for God. Faith is belief without scientific evidence. Since there is more scientific evidence of the origins of the universe (some) than there is that Jesus literally performed miracles (zero), it requires less faith.

Does everything require the same amount of faith?
Believing that the world is round, for example?
Or that (human) conception occurs during sexual intercourse?

Nothing can be proved or disproved. If faith is a constant, that applies equally to all things, it doesn't mean anything.

 

[Journyman16]

Um... actually, no there isn't. There is some evidence which is used to support the Big Bang theory but it isn't exclusive to that theory. And if Redshift is NOT a straight relationship to velocity the whole Universe expansion idea goes kaput and the Big Bang is Big Smoke in the wind...

And there is some hard physical evidence that Redshift is NOT velocity. It's difficult to find an explanation for High RS objects physically linked to low RS objects that doesn't destroy the standard 'consensus' ideas. :D

There is not actually definitive evidence there WAS a beginning to the Universe.

 

[ForEverAfter]

There is some evidence which is used to support the Big Bang theory

there is more scientific evidence of the origins of the universe (some)

What scientific evidence is used to support God?

None.

Therefore there is more evidence of the Big Bang, and it requires less faith (based on the definition of faith).

[sarcasm]You sound very clever, by the way. Like a professor or something. Are you God?[/sarcasm]

 

[-=SS=-]

Therefore there is more evidence of the Big Bang, and it requires less faith (based on the definition of faith).

Actually JourneyMan is right.. in terms of actual evidence there really isn't any, only astrophysical phenomena that is believed to be evidence simply because it fits the predetermined hypothesis. Actual evidence is zero. Red-shift/distance, the microwave background.. both can be attributed to other mechanisms.

Shouldn't forget that a Catholic priest was involved with the origins of the Big Bang Theory. Says it all really.

 

[Mysterie]

belief in an exoteric god requires a hell of a lot of faith and not much self-inquiry imo.

OP used the same line that my fundamentalist catholic parents use which they think trumps any perspective which doesn't align with their belief system surrounding the Magnificent Creator God.

btw god doesn't need any of your accolades, you would hope that if some christian god with a beard exists, he has very little attachment to his ego, which thus would not require pampering from his followers.

<sigh>

 

[ForEverAfter]

Actually JourneyMan is right

Science is based on evidence. Since the Big Bang happened (if indeed it did) a long time ago, we don't have any eye-witness accounts. I am aware of the limited evidence that is available and the conclusions that have been made based on that evidence. While there is more evidence to back up the theory of evolution, it remains a theory. We can't currently prove the entire evolutionary chain. We need to predict it, and make assumptions, based on the limited evidence available. The entire theory of evolution could be wrong. The evidence could apply to a different system. The evidence for the big bang could also be wrong. But it is still evidence, used to support the theory.

And... the more evidence, the less faith is required.

I'm not saying faith isn't required.
Give me a break.

If there is no evidence to support the Big Bang theory, then there's also no evidence to support the theory of Evolution.
(The theory of Evolution is more certain than the Big Bang theory, obviously.)

in terms of actual evidence there really isn't any

What does this mean?
There's no video footage of the beginning of the universe?

The evidence is limited to what it can be.

Hypothetically: what would qualify as "actual evidence"?

 

[Ransom itch]

The Big Bang theory would have us believe that all the order we see around us emerged from primordial chaotic beginnings. Yet not one single scientific experiment or observed natural explosive event has ever reproduced any evidence for this foundational argument for intricate life on earth. That order, of itself and by itself can emerge from chaos.

I'm sorry guys but I just have to sing when I read the following in Psalm 19 vs 1-4. Who can top this narrative?

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."

For me guys, looking upwards and all around us, it is far easier to believe in a magnificent Creator God than it is to believe our universe is the result of a series of random events. A thought experiment: take one reasonably tidy room, pull out drawers, litter clothes and ornaments across floor, generally make room untidier, take one powerful hand grenade, remove pin, lob grenade into room, shut door, wait for explosion, open door, measure how much tidier the room is after explosion. Use evidence to bolster argument that the Big Bang plus evolution explains our amazing universe.

I'll take Divinely inspired Creation any day.

 

[Journyman16]

Well, comparing an explosion to the Big Bang isn't really a good analogy. So the hand grenade thing doesn't really tell us much.

Big Bang was a term originally used as sarcasm by Hubble, also the discoverer of Redshift. He didn't favour the idea of RS being velocity either, but when he was asked about the expansion thing he responded with something along the lines of, "maybe it all started with a big bang!" and it stuck.

But the evidence and conclusions came about in reverse order - FIRST there were the conclusions and THEN the evidence was attached to the conclusions. Science, in many areas, has been off the rails for some time. I think it is a natural result of the dumbing down that has been going on for almost 150 years now. Very few people can break out of the programmed mould and very few of THEm are allowed to contribute anything to the narrative.

But all this is a subject for a different conversation - to bring it back to the topic, Atheists tend to 'believe' there is no god, and they also 'believe' the universe began in a big bang and random events thereafter led to us. There are all kinds of arguments from a variety of fields that question these assumptions, not least from Cosmology itself, with the apparent 'specialness' of the Universe that lets us be here. If any of half a dozen basic factors of the Universe were different by even a millionth of a percent, we would not be able to live here.

It's one of the fundamental questions in Physics and until it is resolved, and adherence to the Big Bang as some kind of fact is, at best, wishful thinking.

@ ForEverAfter - you sound rather petulant. Are you a child? :D

 

[ForEverAfter]

Hypothetically: what would qualify as "actual evidence"?

^How about you don't dodge this question?

adherence to the Big Bang as some kind of fact

Who said it was a fact?