Atheism

[CheddarJack]

Hardcore atheists and hardcore religious people are so damn annoying. they're beliefs are flawed for the same reasons and they call each other out on it while doing it themselves.

Besides the fact that your shift key is apparently broken, that was a very interesting story.

 

[judmaster77]

The same reason religious people put things in their twitter bios like John 16:33 and post things about god.

 

[ndye]

We should take note that there can be meaningful talk of God separate from religion. Many philosophers, physicists, etc discuss God an ultimate starting point or an ultimate cause that is separate from a religious deity. Quite often these such beings are said to be unaware of our existence and unconcerned with our existence. They simply are logical possibilities that are non-contradictory and ultimate postulates of knowledge and existence.

Such beings can easily co-exist with modern science (I'm not saying I believe in them, just putting this out there) and quite often many notable physicists, biologists, and chemists adhere to some.

For these people, the idea of God is not grounded in religion but instead in reason.

I would concede that as a possibility, its interesting, and I remember learning about it in a philosophy class at some point. I guess in a way I just do not put a lot of weight in it, its an interesting mindset and completely harmless from science and everyday life.

I find my issue with religion on a more practical level, as people inside of heavily organized and dogmatic religion begin to push their beliefs either onto others or into the laws of the land. I do not believe in a watching and active personal deity, which is what to me is the most ridiculous assertion of many.

 

[onenerdykid]

I do not believe in a watching and active personal deity, which is what to me is the most ridiculous assertion of many.

Totally. For some of these thinkers, they even go so far as to say that let's grant the idea of an all powerful, all knowing, totally perfect, unchanging, and eternal being exists. Such a being would therefore need to be completely outside of space and time (things can only change if they are in time, for example) and thus it could never have a personal relationship with anything.

They would argue that some of the precepts of Christian theology render the possibility of a personal God as absurd.

 

[Bogs]

I'm always down to have a conversation, but I'm not going to push anything and certainly not act as the morality police to the rest of the world.

And this is exactly the way it should be. Personally, I'm extremely agnostic, I don't know what to believe, and I'm not going to pretend I can definitively prove or disprove the existence of a higher power. Personally, I feel that if whatever you believe (whether it's atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, or whatever else) helps you get out of bed in the morning and fall asleep at night, then follow that belief and stick with it. Just don't try to tell people who believe something different that they're wrong. And if you're a member of a belief system that's done some shitty things in the past in the name of spreading your belief system, even if it is all in the past, try not to get mad at newer, younger belief systems for now going through the same thing.

 

[deleted5]

That's quite the bold statement from your part to claim that I do not know what I am talking about but go ahead and say it.

FYI- logic proves negatives every day. Look to the Modus Tolens logical rule for proving a negative position. So, be careful when you say it is logically impossible.

What I think you mean is that it is logically impossible to negatively prove that something exists. Which is natural because you can't logically prove the existence of anything. Existence is not a logical predicate, and this is what ultimately defeats any logical proof for the existence of God.

Russell's "teapot theory" (while I do believe to be correct) combats the position "if you cannot prove me to be wrong, I am therefore correct" is not what I was arguing against. I was remarking that atheists often times claim that God does not exist, and therefore they commonly seek to prove it. They claim not-X, and seek to prove not-X. It is not the same as Russell's teapot. Moreover, I was not suggesting they do. I was not suggesting they should. I am not an atheist and do not claim to be one.

Sam Harris has his opinions on atheism, but he simply can't write it out of philosophy because he thinks he should. His polemic arguments are half philosophical and half emotionally charged/belittling against his opponents and fall dangerously close to frequently committing the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. And they are his opinions. People can be technically atheists, as well as non-racists, or secularists etc. despite what he says.

I will watch this specific youtube video and see what he is up to again.

I find your logic to be slightly flawed, because you seem to be matching up atheism and religion at 50/50 which it is not.

Atheism does not believe in an entity, because it's never been proven which gives it much more validity. If proof appears then I will start believing in it, but because there's no proof. I can believe that it doesn't exist. Do I know that for certain no, but I also can't say for certain that Bigfoot doesn't exist because I can't prove he doesn't exist either.

So from my logic we can come to the conclusion that God is Bigfoot.

 

[louie.mirags]

After reading some of these post, God seems like the easy and comfortable answer to all of life's questions.

 

[onenerdykid]

I find your logic to be slightly flawed, because you seem to be matching up atheism and religion at 50/50 which it is not.

Atheism does not believe in an entity, because it's never been proven which gives it much more validity. If proof appears then I will start believing in it, but because there's no proof. I can believe that it doesn't exist. Do I know that for certain no, but I also can't say for certain that Bigfoot doesn't exist because I can't prove he doesn't exist either.

So from my logic we can come to the conclusion that God is Bigfoot.

Concerning the possibility of knowing that God does exist and the possibility of knowing that God does not exist, both are unknowable since their answer lies beyond the human experience. In that respect, and insofar of that respect, they are similar because the both lack what is called apodictic certainty. They are not provable.

The difference between God and Bigfoot is that it is possible to prove that Bigfoot does or doesn't exist- it would just take a lot of time and effort. Just as the same we prove that Tyrannosaurus Rex or the Dodo do not exist (any more at least). Concerning God, that knowledge lies outside human experience and thus the possibility of knowing (as true knowledge) is unattainable.

 

[deleted5]

Concerning the possibility of knowing that God does exist and the possibility of knowing that God does not exist, both are unknowable since their answer lies beyond the human experience. In that respect, and insofar of that respect, they are similar because the both lack what is called apodictic certainty. They are not provable.

The difference between God and Bigfoot is that it is possible to prove that Bigfoot does or doesn't exist- it would just take a lot of time and effort. Just as the same we prove that Tyrannosaurus Rex or the Dodo do not exist (any more at least). Concerning God, that knowledge lies outside human experience and thus the possibility of knowing (as true knowledge) is unattainable.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

[JAHpow]

Totally. For some of these thinkers, they even go so far as to say that let's grant the idea of an all powerful, all knowing, totally perfect, unchanging, and eternal being exists. Such a being would therefore need to be completely outside of space and time (things can only change if they are in time, for example) and thus it could never have a personal relationship with anything.

The second part of that statement would render the being imperfect.

Therefore, wouldn't having the quality of a personal relationship provide more perfection?

 

[onenerdykid]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

I am totally aware of this fallacy, but it is not my argument.

My argument precedes Russell's in that I am saying that it is not possible to know that God exists or doesn't exist. While we have a meaningful concept of God, we have no object to measure. When you have no object to measure, there is no scientific knowledge that is possible. Nowhere I am saying that God does or does not exist. I am saying that the basic knowledge of it in general is not possible.

 

[onenerdykid]

The second part of that statement would render the being imperfect.

Therefore, wouldn't having the quality of a personal relationship provide more perfection?

In their eyes no, because in order to do that the being would also not need to be omniscient (as omniscient he wouldn't need to interact with you because he would already know what would happen) and ultimately he would be subject to temporal change and thus you throw the eternal/unchanging bit out of the window.

If a being is unchanging & eternal, then it cannot exist in space & time and must exist outside of it. As such, the being would see all pasts, presents, and futures in one single instant thus negating the possibility of interaction since interaction requires a time sequence.

I'm just regurgitating their thoughts, not necessarily defending them.

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

I am totally aware of this fallacy, but it is not my argument.

My argument precedes Russell's in that I am saying that it is not possible to know that God exists or doesn't exist. While we have a meaningful concept of God, we have no object to measure. When you have no object to measure, there is no scientific knowledge that is possible. Nowhere I am saying that God does or does not exist. I am saying that the basic knowledge of it in general is not possible.

How so? If the bible is considered the word of god, and science can disprove statements and "truths" written in the bible, then how is that not disproving the existence of god? at least in some way?

 

[deleted5]

In their eyes no, because in order to do that the being would also not need to be omniscient (as omniscient he wouldn't need to interact with you because he would already know what would happen) and ultimately he would be subject to temporal change and thus you throw the eternal/unchanging bit out of the window.

If a being is unchanging & eternal, then it cannot exist in space & time and must exist outside of it. As such, the being would see all pasts, presents, and futures in one single instant thus negating the possibility of interaction since interaction requires a time sequence.

I'm just regurgitating their thoughts, not necessarily defending them.

If there's no proof than......... let me change my example when we die we go to a room full of Ice cream, and a talking bucket of hot fudge made all of us and the universe. You cant disprove that so therfore I can believe it exists.

 

[onenerdykid]

How so? If the bible is considered the word of god, and science can disprove statements and "truths" written in the bible, then how is that not disproving the existence of god? at least in some way?

This is Islam's critique of Christianity: you guys wrote stuff down too late and it got messed up. We wrote it down as soon as we heard it.

The Christian Bible was not directly handed down from God, but it was written by humans that contain the words of God after the death of Christ. But it is not regarded as directly coming from God. And in this way, when you argue/disprove things in the Bible, you are not necessarily disproving God but the men who may or may not have gotten it right.

 

[onenerdykid]

If there's no proof than......... let me change my example when we die we go to a room full of Ice cream, and a talking bucket of hot fudge made all of us and the universe. You cant disprove that so therfore I can believe it exists.

Yes- when you say "you can't disprove that, so therefore I can believe it exists" is correct in that you are using knowledge and belief correctly.

As our knowledge is limited by what we can experience, anything past possible experience is then only be thought of as "belief".

If you want to believe that the afterlife is a room full of ice cream (preferably Ben & Jerry's Mint Chocolate Cookie) etc, then that is fine since you are saying "belief in" rather than "knowledge of".

Just like with all religion then, it would be problematic if you tried to make scientific and/or moral arguments that stem from that belief.