Thread: So...if you're SO sure that no "God" exists...

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Completely agreed.

I'm not really used to this. I'm leaving this thread.

I hope some people here realize the hypocrisy in saying they don't waste their time "fantasizing" about god. Instead, one contradicts themselves by finding it worthier to waste their time sitting here in R/S arguing about their assumption that god doesn't exist?

Last I checked, that's exactly the same thing only from the other side of the coin...

Fantasizing or not, contemplation into the nature of the universe is hardly what I would call, a waste of time.

O's outlook is by far the best way to remain-- that of an open-minded skeptic who doesn't write off the mysterious inherent order and nature of the universe as simply an ongoing fluke or accident. I understand that the way people and religions arbitrarily anthropomorphize God with all sorts of contradictory statements is the problem which causes people to deny it's existence as soon as those three letters are uttered, and rightfully so.

However, to jump off the ledge of open-minded skepticism, and into fervent disbelief is an entirely different decision altogether. It requires the same leap of faith that religious zealots take, only in the opposite direction.

Originally Posted by Mark75

I'm not really used to this. I'm leaving this thread.

LOL!. Be afraid, Mark.


Be very afraid.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I hope some people here realize the hypocrisy in saying they don't waste their time "fantasizing" about god. Instead, one contradicts themselves by finding it worthier to waste their time sitting here in R/S arguing about their assumption that god doesn't exist?

Last I checked, that's exactly the same thing only from the other side of the coin...

O's outlook is by far the best way to remain-- that of an open-minded skeptic who doesn't write off the mysterious inherent order and nature of the universe as simply an ongoing fluke or accident. I understand that the way people and religions arbitrarily anthropomorphize God with all sorts of contradictory statements is the problem which causes people to deny it's existence as soon as those three letters are uttered, and rightfully so.

However, to jump off the ledge of open-minded skepticism, and into fervent disbelief is an entirely different decision altogether.

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

Because there is aboslutely no reason rationally to believe in a higher creator. Not a single piece of evidence, or one logical a priori argument.

How much lit. on this subject have you read?

Would you call yourself agnostic about the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun, because you can't be 100% sure it doesn't exist?

Yes.

Also all you're doing is fluttering around with definitions. The vast majority of 'atheists' are in the 99% sure that a God doesn't exist level. To say any more would be completely paradoxical to many of the points atheists try to triumph.

What is this certainty based on? How can you be 99% cirtain about something whoes statistics are unknown. I am 49% certain a coin will land on heads, 49% certain a coin will land on tails, and 2% certain that it will do neither, either landing on its side or getting snatched out of the air( providing someone is there to do it). I have based this on known facts and statistics. What do you base this 99% certainty that God doesn't exist on? Are you sure you are 99% certain?

Anyway how does what label you give someone matter really as long as we know their view? This isn't contribution, its just pedantic.

"Labels".

Labels help people know just what there beliefs are. You might as well say there is no such thing as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Republican, Democrat etc. Would you call a Buddhist a Hindi?

I do agree with you, though. Labels arn't always accurate. Sometimes someone is more then one thing.

Note- By your reasoning Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist.

This is good (well, not good, but at least he does not deny that the Creator might exist).

I feel far more charitably to someone who thinks something might be possible then to someone who says it does not.

Originally Posted by Mark75

I think I'm going a little off-topic, here, but...

I'd agree with you about the use of the term atheist. It causes more problems than it's worth, I think. Not only is it not necessarily accurate, it's also easy for someone to say "Well, you're an atheist. Atheists are wrong, atheists deny god in their hearts, etc." So proclaiming yourself as such leaves you open to these sort of dismissals. However, if you avoid the label game and simply reasonably refute illogical claims and support correct ones where you find them, the only applicable response is addressing the argument itself. Anything else is an obvious cop-out to all involved.

I agree

"Reality begins as a source of sound, light and color, resembling a pulsating orb which is a consciousness program through which 12 spiraling cones burst forth to create endless grid programs. "Cones" link with "horns" or creational harmonics and other "horn" references found in mythology, especially those linked to gods and angels. It all began with a tone and so it shall end.

Souls sparks of light spiral out from the central source, randomly moving into the grids to consciously experience programs simultaneously. This movement of souls resembles spiraling galaxies linked with creation through the eye, the lens of time, projected illusion through the looking glass, Eye of God, etc."



"Perpetual rhythmic motion [dance] of sound, light, and color
that creates endless grids in which we consciously experience."



"The Eye, Rods, Cones, Pupil, You are the Pupil, 'I', Iris, Isis, Source of Creation
Cones, Pyramids of light energy, project images into the Collective Mind, Water, Grids.
You attach your consciousness to the grids and experience the universe, university."

Originally Posted by Mark75

Actually, I don't think you're going to get much. Most of us here probably are agnostic about such a god. If I would be so bold as to speak on the behalf of the atheists here, we don't believe in that god because we don't have a reason to. Obviously this could be because of something we don't know yet which is why we don't say this god certainly doesn't exist. The main problem in asking to argue against this god is that we don't really even know what it is. Is it an intelligent being or some kind of force, energy or principal of the universe?

Pretty much. I'm agnostic in the sense that I believe in that there could be a god just as much as there could be a large system of tunnels underneath my house inhabited by a colony of invisible pink miniature elephants and polka-dotted unicorns. There's just as much a possibility of god as any other infinitely ridiculous thing.

So i guess really Atheists don't exist, if you want to define it as a 100% belief God does not exist?

I mean I'd call myself Atheist only because I'm on the fence pondering whether or not God exists and are right in the middle. If someone asks me if i think God exists i will say "No", however I'm not going to go and say oh with 100% certainty i believe that. Only because taking a scientific approach, i have no evidence that proofs he does not exist because it is impossible to carry out tests on something which cannot be seen, heard, touched, sensed etc. I cannot take samples from God or anything, he's out of the reach of science because he supposedly lives outside of our reality and of time itself, he is unreachable if he does indeed exist.

Maybe it's weak Atheism? I don;t know, basically I'm 99.9999% no God but i can't say 100% because that makes a statement i can not prove and makes me look illogical. From what i have seen in my ..6-7 years( 17atm) of thinking about the subject, the evidence to me suggests God does not exist, and 100% i'd say any God in human history is wrong, i do say that with certainty. A human could not know God, it would be beyond us. Maybe their is some kind of Ultimate consciousness controlling everything, almost as if our Universe is alive, but not a deity.

If people cannot prove how and why we have come into existence then it cannot be proven either way.
So there we sit with two believers. Both believing in something that are polar opposites but yet sharing one thing in common and that is belief.

By becoming aware of this fact it can be concluded that belief is an innate property of our human psyche. With that in mind, belief will exist in all cases.

I really have no ideas what the hell I am saying. It's early and I'm tired.

Atheism is lack of theism, hence the 'a'.

Agnosticism is a form of atheism.

Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence thereof.

What's so hard to understand? No, atheism doesn't need to justify its position in the same way theism does. The word "God" doesn't even mean anything.

Yeah, atheism doesn't mean "100% sure that god doesn't exist." Simply saying it doesn't. I can be agnostic and atheist at the same time (and I am). It's really not that complicated, people.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

There are logical arguments in favor of a creator. As I was saying (in taking the term of "creator" as a metaphor for "whatever it is that is the source of what we perceive is a physical universe") David Bohm, who was an associate of Einstein, worked on (and even vexed Einstein on) a theory surrounding the idea that there is no physical universe. That it is all perception. That we are simply byproducts of a system of waves, sensing the field around us and interpreting it as sight/sound/tactile-sensation/etc...

...that we are simply multiple whirlpools swimming around in the same ocean of "data"; each seemingly individual, but connected on a level that (to our "individual selves") seems unintelligible, from our perspective.

Should this be the case, this "system" of waves, or whatever it may be, could very well be self-aware, just as we, ourselves, are self-aware. It would be no different, really, than our being the divisions of a multiple personality, when put into context with the whole - the singular entity/person, that harbors all of the personalities.

In that case, though not the traditional interpretation of "God," it would be that system of waves, or that "macro-consciousness," that could be defined as the "Creator."

And again: as humans, what can we say (aside from the mysterious Universe, itself) works with that sort of efficiency, being so complex? What causes planets to have gravity, which causes solar and lunar orbit, which causes seasons, which cause regularity, which causes sustainable conditions for life?

OK; so your first point about the waves, is indeed very interesting, and reminiscient of idealism, which is an epistemological train of thought requiring God, but really it is a thoery, that there is no physical world, and a very interesting theory, I have to agree. But what you are doing here is theorising what could be true possibly, about a theory [which by definition could be true, but not certainly until proven]. So although fascinating as speculation, I don't know how legitiment an argument for the existence of a creator it is.

And of course the design argument. A cosmos having the appearance of being designed had to exist, a universe like ours was virtually inevitable, or, more circumspectly, any cosmos in which intelligent beings found themselves would have to have some threshhold level of order and complexity, that being a necessary condition for the existence of any such observing intelligent beings to begin with.
Also, the design argument usually rests on 3 main hinges which it says are present in the universe which point to a designer. The first is complexity, the second is purpose and the third is pattern. On individual inspection these are in fact the creation of our viewing the universe, present only in our perception. For example complexity is an entirely relative idea, we wouldn't call a block of rock complex, although it is highly complex at a small level; and similarly our universe in complexity seems to stand neither here nor there; it wouldn't be seen as complex in contrast to something infinitely larger, yet it is complex now becqause we know nothing larger. This is oncemore a matter of our perception.
Purpose, I think we can agree is pretty void in the universe, in the sense it is meant here. We create purpose in our lives fine, but as far as a wider scale goes there is no purpose other than what we interpret.
And so on, pattern follows in a similar way to complexity, with humans creating pattern in anything we percieve.

So the design argument does have some problems, I find and finally I think on an overall scale it is more convincing to take scientific current theory to the origin of the universe and our ever accelerating scientific grasp of it in contrast to the idea of design, which is admittedly a very human idea and seems almost to be a projection of ourselves and our processes onto the cosmic level.

Anyways enough walls of text.

Originally Posted by keeper

How much lit. on this subject have you read?

Alot. Essentially all the classic philosophy of religion ideas and thinkers; as well as more contempary arguments [Richard Swinburne etc].

I know there is a multitude of arguments for the existence of God; yet the problem lies in that not one is solid and holes can be picked very easily in both the logic and reasoning of them. In fact even the few deductive arguments for the existence of God have massive problems.

Originally Posted by keeper

What is this certainty based on? How can you be 99% cirtain about something whoes statistics are unknown. I am 49% certain a coin will land on heads, 49% certain a coin will land on tails, and 2% certain that it will do neither, either landing on its side or getting snatched out of the air( providing someone is there to do it). I have based this on known facts and statistics. What do you base this 99% certainty that God doesn't exist on? Are you sure you are 99% certain?

This is entirely inconsequential. I meant it merely as an example for how the modern atheist tends not to rule out God with full certainty, rather he says it is highly highly unlikely, but he can't entirely say it isn't. In the same way you can't entirely rule out the teapot around the sun, but you are highly sure it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

But I DO bother about religion. If I didn't bother about it, I wouldn't be in R/S.

Look, you are really misunderstanding what I am saying. I can't say 100% god doesn't exist in the exact same way I can't say that magical shit appears in my toilet when I'm not looking with 100% certainty. The fact of the matter is you can't prove or disprove these things. But logically, one might assert that there probably is no god, there probably is no magic shit.

Actually, if you want to talk about logic and probabilities, the probability of there being a 'god' under the broad definition is much greater than the probability of their being magical shit in your toilet. In fact, as the definition of 'god' is broadened, the probability increases. Logically, there is a definition of god that has a probability of 1 (absolute certainty) of being true.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, if you want to talk about logic and probabilities, the probability of there being a 'god' under the broad definition is much greater than the probability of their being magical shit in your toilet. In fact, as the definition of 'god' is broadened, the probability increases. Logically, there is a definition of god that has a probability of 1 (absolute certainty) of being true.

QFT

Nice!:bravo:

Amazingly civil topic so far. May it remain so.

I identified myself as agnostic for many years. More recently, I have begun identifying myself as atheist. It's a little bit of a scary thing to do because there tends to be much more of a reaction from people when you use that term.

But the truth of the matter is that I do not believe there is a god as defined in any religion, nor anything similar. The more I ponder the question, the further I move in this direction, and I doubt there is any turning back.

But it should be pointed out that agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms, as they cover different conceptual territory. Most atheists are also agnostic, and many agnostics are also atheists. I suppose I am both as well, but "atheist" feels more specific to my own belief system.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Amazingly civil topic so far. May it remain so.

I'll try not to ruin it. (Sky --I know I'm going against what I said last night. )

Maybe I am being repetitious of what has been said already, but it seems like people have a hard time understanding, so I think I can make it very simple.

Here is the question: "Do you believe that God exists?"

Agnostic: "I don't know. I neither believe nor disbelieve. It is an unanswerable question for me."

Atheist: "No, I do not believe it, because there is no evidence of God, but of course I cannot perform the logical impossibility of proving a negative."

That seems very simple to me.

O, from all these discussions we've had, it seems to me that there are two types of Gods.

1) The humanoid one made up by people who don't understand what is going on, which has shown obvious changes over the years and amongst different groups, becoming less and less powerful, and is easy to destroy with logic and rational thought. (The ultimate argument for this one is the existence of "stuff", which obviously does not prove that there had to be a god to make it.)

2) The one which is not really a being, the vague and non-specific "god-is-everything" one, which is meaningless because we already have a name for that; it's called the universe.

Are you are wanting us to disprove the first type of god? If so, are you agnostic to the possibility of any imaginary creature, or just "God"? Is there a heirarchy of possible nonimaginaryness of these creatures, (this is to O, so nobody else get offended) such as: Tooth Fairy < Santa Claus < Unicorns < Thor < Christian God? If so, can't you judge the evidence for yourself, trying to disregard the bias that comes from the culture that we live in?

If it's the second one, I have nothing to say because I don't think any discussion about that is meaningful. I'll let those with a lot more imagination than me carry on with that.

The Term "God", when not used in conjuction with any religion, is a rather loose term... Is it possible that humans were "created" by another race? Sure. I have no doubts that, some races who are millions of years more advanced, would be capable of terraforming the earth.

If we're assuming the role of God is just a creator of life, or the one who brought life here, then I suppose it would be possible.

But the term of God, All Knowing/Powerful, doesn't strike me as even remotely possible.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I hope some people here realize the hypocrisy in saying they don't waste their time "fantasizing" about god. Instead, one contradicts themselves by finding it worthier to waste their time sitting here in R/S arguing about their assumption that god doesn't exist?

Last I checked, that's exactly the same thing only from the other side of the coin...

Fantasizing or not, contemplation into the nature of the universe is hardly what I would call, a waste of time.

O's outlook is by far the best way to remain-- that of an open-minded skeptic who doesn't write off the mysterious inherent order and nature of the universe as simply an ongoing fluke or accident. I understand that the way people and religions arbitrarily anthropomorphize God with all sorts of contradictory statements is the problem which causes people to deny it's existence as soon as those three letters are uttered, and rightfully so.

However, to jump off the ledge of open-minded skepticism, and into fervent disbelief is an entirely different decision altogether. It requires the same leap of faith that religious zealots take, only in the opposite direction.

QFT

I guess I'm just open-minded like that. I don't understand people who blindly believe that their God exists, or that no God, and nothing "else" could possibly exist. It seems ignorant to me. *shrugs*

No.

It just doesn't make any sense.

Let's just assume that one day God does actually does come down from the clouds to provide evidence to us humans. What do you think a "fundamental atheist" (for lack of a better term) will think about that? Still claim that he doesn't exist?
Because he isn't "open" to the possibility, it is impossible for him to accept that which he sees as de-facto evidence.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Strong atheism doesn't require a "leap of faith", much like it doesn't require a leap of faith to not believe that a monkey lives in your toilet.

It doesn't require a leap of faith to not believe in something that is purely made up and for which there is no evidence. It doesn't require a leap of faith to not believe that a reincarnated Charlie Chaplin is standing behind you right now. It's just COMMON SENSE.

That's the funny thing, it only works that way around. A fundamental atheist cannot ignore evidence for God because it is right there while a theist can ignore the lack of evidence exactly because it is not there.

Consider this:

A belief is a subjective representation of a certain aspect of the world. Once you believe something, there is an infinite amount of beliefs that are incompatible to that belief. By believing that your toilet is just a "normal" toilet, you automatically abandon the possibility of a monkey or a shark living in there. However, both of these are perfectly reasonable and relatively probable, just like God.
For each belief you have, you automatically exclude the possibility of an extremely high number of alternative beliefs being true.

Actually, by assuming that your toilet does not inhabit mid-sized mammals, you are taking a leap of faith practically as huge as that of an Islamistic terrorist.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, if you want to talk about logic and probabilities, the probability of there being a 'god' under the broad definition is much greater than the probability of their being magical shit in your toilet. In fact, as the definition of 'god' is broadened, the probability increases. Logically, there is a definition of god that has a probability of 1 (absolute certainty) of being true.

Of course, here you're implying that the more sensibility with which humans attribute to the thing which may or may not exist increases or decreases its probability of existing. I'm not saying that's completely wrong (as it has some sense to say "oh, so Jesus didn't really do all that magical mumbo-jumbo and it was all just a metaphor? Christianity has perhaps some more merit, then"), but it still is rather fallacious. For example, what if we broadened Mes Tarrant's magical shit? What if it became magical urine, and it did not necessarily present its self before Mes, but in fact beyond any one in the world? What if this magical shit or urine was not in fact restricted to the realm of toilets, bathrooms, or plumbing alike? What if we let this magical shit or urine be present anywhere in the world, no, anywhere in the UNIVERSE, no... the MULTIVERSE (as it were) at any point in the history of time! Now, as we both have to agree, the probability for this magical waste to exist increases to one, as we continue to broaden the definition and loosen the restrictions on its existence. Right...?

Wrong. I don't see how "logically" the probability can increase to one. I suppose your assumption on this basis is that we extend the definition of "god" to the point where it is no longer considered a "god," then I agree. We can broaden the definition of "god" to say something which created the universe or makes things happen. Hey, the big bang and the laws of physics are god. In fact, I agree with your statement. As we broaden the definition, the probability of it existing comes to one, because we broaden the definition enough to include things which we already know do or have existed. And as such, it is simply a trivial statement to refer to god in the sense of a "broadened definition."

Ah, thank goodness there are more articulate people here!

I'm entirely new to the whole atheist/agnostic debate...but would it be wrong to consider atheists...pessimists? I'm not saying that I do and please don't take offense or get upset...I'm really just asking a question and would like your guys' input on that.

I guess I just can't get past the view that being so sure that there is no god, and no intelligent design to our universe, in light of soooo many uncertainties...is...pessimistic?

Again, not meaning to offend anyone.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

I'm entirely new to the whole atheist/agnostic debate...but would it be wrong to consider atheists...pessimists? I'm not saying that I do and please don't take offense or get upset...I'm really just asking a question and would like your guys' input on that.

I guess I just can't get past the view that being so sure that there is no god, and no intelligent design to our universe, in light of soooo many uncertainties...is...pessimistic?

Again, not meaning to offend anyone.

In short: Yes, yes it would be wrong to consider them as such.

Wait a second... is it wrong to consider creationists, who subscribe to the belief that for the past 10,000 years we have not improved, and that we are in fact at the exact same state of development as 10,000 years ago... pessimists? Is it wrong to consider theists, who have morals simply because they are afraid of retribution... pessimists? Is it wrong to consider theists, who tell me if I swear I'm going to burn and be tortured for the rest of eternity... pessimists?

Considering atheists pessimistic implies that the universe is better off WITH some sort of god. Why would that be so?

Originally Posted by Aquanina

I'm entirely new to the whole atheist/agnostic debate...but would it be wrong to consider atheists...pessimists? I'm not saying that I do and please don't take offense or get upset...I'm really just asking a question and would like your guys' input on that.

I guess I just can't get past the view that being so sure that there is no god, and no intelligent design to our universe, in light of soooo many uncertainties...is...pessimistic?

Again, not meaning to offend anyone.

How do you figure? I am quite the realistic optimist and find the universe as such to be rather beautiful because it is what it is all by itself, without someone 'designing' it. Again, I can't really follow your reasoning, maybe you can expand on that.

Are you referring to a nihilistic outlook on life? Like "No god = no morals = no meaning of life"? It would be the other way around for me.

I find it to be rather pessimistic to assume that a flying totalitarian despot watches every second of my life and that I will be judged upon that after death, with the possibility of eternal damnation.
I also think it's pessimistic to maintain that mature humans wouldn't be able to live self-responsibly, without the external guidance of a rather questionable moral code.