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

The only reason one would deny intelligent design is they themselves decide to take the leap of lack-of-faith not to see it. Most scientists eventually humble themselves into the realization that this world is simply too mysterious and too paradoxical to be just an ongoing explainable accident.

It would be the same as an orange denying it's orangeness... it's simply self-defeating to use your own rationale and logic to deny the moment and all it took to get there...If anything, we are the object that becomes the subject.

If anything, science should do nothing but affirm intelligent design because they are using intelligence to observe the design of the universe. Something that clearly can't be done without intelligence. However, along the way it somehow got twisted into a atheist approach instead.

I don't even know what to debate because I don't see any argument in that post, but I'll try anyway.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

It could exist.. but there are ways it happened. Scientists could have genetically mutated spaghetti.

Or it came out a squirrels butt. There are plenty of possibilities for a deity to form.

But the existence of God, It simply something that has no options or ideas or its origination.

Yes. Because the word "God" doesn't denote anything that is real. Tell me the origin of the Zwrafelkf. Or Terfhaebut perhaps?

The closest word you can come to is infinity.

Why? Infinity is infinity. Not God.

Please explain me the origination of infinity.

No. Why should I? Please explain the origin of this mighty rash on my balls.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

...convince me!

(I may regret this, later on, but I've been drinking, and a FOXNews segment provoked me into having a little fun. )

This is not about the Judeo-Christian God, Buddha or Shiva. It is about disputing the idea of a creator, and what just might separate the atheists from the agnostics. Remember; if the only arguments you have against a God are ones against the God of any specific religion, you are not giving credence to atheism. You are simply presenting an argument against that particular religion. This is for a more objective debate about whether or not a creator possibly exists, and how well you're able to state your case. As an (albeit drunk, at the time of this OP) agnostic, I'll try to argue from a neutral position - one that does its best to present a rationale for the possibility of a creator, against opposition.

So, do your worst...

(Well...maybe not your worst. I'm only one man. Don't bury me with text. )

Hard to answer without knowing more details about the god you are proposing... But if you're talking about some conscious being that is at the origin of everything we know, then it's just vastly simpler to assume that it's a product of human psychology and our attempts to rationalize... everything into a concept we can understand (something exists ---> somebody had to make it). You know how the human brain attempts to "fill in the gaps" when it's missing information, our minds can't accept unknowns.

We could also easily interchange "a conscious being we can't possibly comprehend" with "physics and cosmology we can't possibly comprehend", but people cling to the notion of a god because they believe that if god chose to create them, then there was a purpose behind it. Purpose is another human concept, and it's very difficult for us to accept that pretty much everything around us has none. So of course, we invented a way for everything to have meaning.

It really boils down to:

A supreme being created everything we know.

vs

We created a supreme being to make sense of everything we don't know.



(And yeah, I ignored everyone who was arguing semantics there ...)

Originally Posted by Aquanina

I will admit...this single post is the only post that has given me any real insight into the "atheist" mindset and makes sense to me. It's just a real shame that wasup can't stick to offering such informative posts without being a sarcastic asshole who I want nothing more to do with.

Don't let your attitude degrade the validity of your posts. Just a thought for the future.

Sorry, the sarcastic asshole is a primary aspect of my internet debating persona. I suppose it's unfortunate that that attitude degrades my posts though, I'll try to have it less...

I am glad that that post has helped you understand our view more, and I think the fact that it might have actually influenced (or at least supplemented) your thought process inspires me to write more about it. The only reason I did it in quick bullet points was because I felt nobody (specifically solsyke) would understand or agree, so I felt it was futile to explain fully. Later I will write more about atheism as as passionate, optimistic, inspired social movement which has almost, ironically, spiritual elements of fascination and appreciation of the universe and other people.

(Holy shit. This thread jumped from page 2 to page 5 in just two hours?? LOL.)

Originally Posted by Korittke

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

What's so hard to understand?

Apparently, it's not as cut and dry. Webster's dictionary even got it "wrong, " then.

Originally Posted by wasup

It's really not that complicated, people.

See above.

I realize that there is a gray area. (This conversation is probably, ultimately, doomed by this, really. But, it's brought about some interesting conversation, so far, so let's run with it. Hehe.) This, though, goes back to the argument I sometimes make that many atheists say one thing, and act another way. They can say "Oh, well, sure, it's possible that some sort of higher being exists. I'm not asserting any belief that it's not," and then, they will turn right around, and say how arguing for that very possibility is "ridiculous," "ignorant," "idiotic," "pathetic," "primitive," etc. etc. And though I'm not meaning to insult anyone here, I can bet that a good number of you who identify yourselves as atheists have done the same thing.

Does what you decree actually define your true position (as far as "absence of belief" vs. "belief of absence")?, or do you allow yourself some "case-by-case" wiggle-room?

-Not that I really intend for this to be a conversation about ethics, but really can't help making the point.

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

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 that's fair enough, however is it not something to be considered? Remember, theology embodies the entire mythos of their being a supreme being, no matter the religion. So, while not an argument for the existence of a creator, in and of itself, it certainly increases the possibility that there may be more to theology, itself, than previously thought by many (though many established religions may have just gotten it wrong).

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

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.

That's a very good point.

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

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.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

And so on, pattern follows in a similar way to complexity, with humans creating pattern in anything we percieve.

That, I'm not so sure about. There are definitely patterns that exist, whether we perceive them or not (not adhering to the Schrodinger's Cat paradigm, of course ). Those patterns may not be stable to the tiniest of details, but many do exist.

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

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.

I can agree with the idea of creationism "seeming as a projection of ourselves and processes onto the cosmic level" (well-put, by the way), but I don't believe the fundamental concept of "creationism" is in that much contrast to our scientific findings thus far. In fact, I think the two could very much compliment each other, if the former were taken seriously. I think that the atheistic world view (generally speaking, and by "atheistic," I mean that those who are 99.999999+% sure that there is no "God") gets caught up in organized religion's (many) definitions of "God," and they get so disgusted by the idea, that they refuse to take any concept of a Higher Being/Consciousness/Spirit/Soul/Whatever with even enough seriousness to approve of scientific inquiry into the subject.

I'm somewhat opposed to this, and I believe that the concept "should" be broadened, because, when broken down to the fundamental idea of a Higher Consciousness being behind the veil and (maybe not so much as "governing" but) setting the playing field for what we have perceived as this physical universe, scientifically discovering that concept holds a lot more merit.

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.

Originally Posted by skysaw

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.

That's true, but it just makes it a hell of a lot harder to pin-point where people stand, in the argument. I suppose, on this, I go back to my argument about ethics, and whether not "agnostic atheists" really act the part...but I digress.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

As I said before, it's not necessarily that cut and dry. That is but one interpretation of the word atheist.

"Are you actively for abortion?"

"No."

"So you're against it?"

"No. I just don't care. People can do what they want. Why the hell should I care whether John and Jane Doe abort their children or not?"

In that example, the word "No," when first used, is analogous to the word "atheist." It has more than one implication.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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.

No. I, personally, am interested more along the lines of a third interpretation, one in which is analogous to us all being different facets of the same mind, and that one mind being that which governs us, maybe not actively, but indirectly. This probably goes back to what Omega was saying about trying to personify the universe, but it is simply an idea that I'm interested, and one that has been supported (albeit to no degree of certainty) by some credible, scientific paradigms - not least of which are the principles of non-locality, Schrodinger's cat(sp), Holomovement, Bohm's Implicate/Explicate order, and other "less scientific" ideas such as the Akashic Records.

It's not really that I'm trying to get anyone to disprove any one interpretation. It's more that I'm trying to get down to the meat and potatoes of everyone's "atheism," to see exactly how they are viewing themselves, exactly how deep their atheism is, and whether or not they are atheistic (anti-theistic) against only organized interpretations, or the idea of a Higher Being, in and of itself.

Originally Posted by The Tao

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.

Agreed on all counts.

Originally Posted by Korittke

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.

Not impossible, but I would not be surprised if it took 3 days, and 1000 water-into-wine type parlor tricks for said strong atheist to be convinced. And, I'm not calling that a logical fallacy, either, I'm just saying.

And your "coming down from the sky," implies that you are simply hinging on the organized concept of a God. I understand that it's not easy to see the concept in any other way (and, even in doing so, I may be skewing the argument because I interpret the word differently), but I believe that, to be a strong atheist, you'd have to look more into the concept than into the established "tales" of "God/Zeus/Isis." I'm using the term more along the lines of a creative consciousness. Still, it is a concept that is relative to theism/atheism, and one that should be considered, if someone is to declare his/herself a strong atheist...

...UNLESS, of course, the interpretation of "God" that I'm using is not one that falls into the realm of theology (which is very possible. I don't know,) in which case, we can talk about why or why not.

Originally Posted by Korittke

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.

I can see my toilet. I can my toilet. I have the tools presently needed to declare whether or not there is a monkey in my toilet. This is not the same thing as a "God," or higher being. When conceding to the idea that we just may not have the tools, at this time, to discern whether one exists or not, it does require a leap of faith to declare that one doesn't.

If we didn't have the tools to discern the truth, it would take a leap of faith to strongly believe or strong disbelieve that the Aurora Borealis is created by gases interacting with the Earth's atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Korittke

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.

Again, this goes back to the semantics of "God." Maybe there is no evidence for the existence of an anthropomorphic "God" that we hear in the fairy tales, but does any other interpretation still fit the name? If so, there is more to it than what most people refer to as "atheist" takes into account.

Sure, it doesn't take a leap of faith to not believe the reincarnated Charlie Chaplin is standing behind me, but would it not take one to believe that he is not?

Originally Posted by Korittke

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.

I don't really agree with the first part. Atheists can easily ignore the evidence for God. They do it all the time. Many of them don't deal with "evidence." Anything less than proof is explained away as something else, regardless of how ridiculous the association. Happens everyday.

Originally Posted by Korittke

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.

That's very true. I'm not sure I see your point, though. (And I don't mean that in a condescending way. I honestly just may have missed it.)

Originally Posted by Korittke

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.

Could you explain this analogy a bit more?

(I'll reply to more, when I have a little more time.)

Originally Posted by Korittke

I don't even know what to debate because I don't see any argument in that post, but I'll try anyway.
Or it came out a squirrels butt. There are plenty of possibilities for a deity to form.Yes. Because the word "God" doesn't denote anything that is real. Tell me the origin of the Zwrafelkf. Or Terfhaebut perhaps?Why? Infinity is infinity. Not God.No. Why should I? Please explain the origin of this mighty rash on my balls.

Whats your definition of God may I ask? And if God has no beginning isn't that infinite? Correct me I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The only reason one would deny intelligent design is they themselves decide to take the leap of lack-of-faith not to see it. Most scientists eventually humble themselves into the realization that this world is simply too mysterious and too paradoxical to be just an ongoing explainable accident.

Your last statement is wrong. Unless you're talking about 80+ scientists. In those cases it's simple dementia.

And the rest is just, as previously stated, nonsense. Only because you feel a certain way, doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't constitute an argument at all. I might feel that pissing is great, but that doesn't necessarily imply that this world was created by someone pissing somewhere.

It might however imply that I have a rather questionable tendency to use fecal humor.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Whats your definition of God may I ask?

I don't define God. The word is to me without meaning. I argue against the definitions of others. The default definition that I assume is "mighty sky man". When arguing against deists, I go with "Unmighty out-of-the-world man".

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The only reason one would deny intelligent design is they themselves decide to take the leap of lack-of-faith not to see it.

LOL! There is no negative form to "leap of faith."I was going to say "nice try," but that would have been only half true.

"Leap of faith" means you have a hole in the understanding that would bridge two ideas. If you have evidence to fill the hole, no leap is made; the evidence is a stepping-stone. Without evidence, you "leap" over this gap of understanding.

The reason lack faith requires no leap is that although one might acknowledge there is a gap in the understanding, they don't attempt to bridge the gap without evidence.

Most scientists eventually humble themselves into the realization that this world is simply too mysterious and too paradoxical to be just an ongoing explainable accident.

As far as I can tell, you just made that up. An extremely small percentage of scientists give up in this manner.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Your last statement is wrong. Unless you're talking about 80+ scientists. In those cases it's simple dementia.

And the rest is just, as previously stated, nonsense. Only because you feel a certain way, doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't constitute an argument at all. I might feel that pissing is great, but that doesn't necessarily imply that this world was created by someone pissing somewhere.

It might however imply that I have a rather questionable tendency to use fecal humor.


I don't define God. The word is to me without meaning. I argue against the definitions of others. The default definition that I assume is "mighty sky man". When arguing against deists, I go with "Unmighty out-of-the-world man".

Oh so you caught I'm a deist. I don't think God as a sky man.. if you have been arguing against the belief of a mighty sky man, I believe you have been debating nobody.. that is nobody's definition of God.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Oh so you caught I'm a deist. I don't think God as a sky man..

More like...?

Originally Posted by Korittke

More like...?

Everything I do not have an option of believing in, such as before the creation of the universe.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Everything I do not have an option of believing in, such as before the creation of the universe.

So use the word "God" more as a shortcut so you don't have to write that long phrase every time? It's not actually referring to anything that couldn't be referred to with other words, yes?

Originally Posted by Korittke

So use the word "God" more as a shortcut so you don't have to write that every time? It's not actually referring to anything that couldn't be referred to with other words, yes?

Since everything derived from my definition of God all words come from God yes?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Since everything derived from my definition of God all words come from God yes?

OK now I get it. So God is for you just the origin of everything? But he doesn't actually exist now because, after all, he is the origin?

What do you mean, 'all words come from God'? Language originated in the human species for lack of better communication skills when they started to become very useful in surviving, living in tribes etc.

Originally Posted by Korittke

I haven't understood that sentence, unfortunately.

What do you mean, 'all words come from God'? Language originated in the human species for lack of better communication skills when they started to become very useful in surviving, living in tribes etc.

If my Great grand mother created my grandmother, in a sense she created who I am. You can go down and down the devolution process, then down the cellular process, then the atomic process, subatomic, and energy function, before you hit the creation of the universe.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

If my Great grand mother created my grandmother, in a sense she created who I am. You can go down and down the devolution process, then down the cellular process, then the atomic process, subatomic, and energy function, before you hit the creation of the universe.

Yes, and at some point you can only guess.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Yes, and at some point you can only guess.

All my argument is that theists do not believe in some sky man. Even if someone reads the bible it says God created all. Whether or not he was the clockmaker, or has his hand in it is our opinion. I believe he is the clockmaker. But knew what the clock was going to do, and created it in such a way. Also all theists do not believe in a sort of deity, or a human like being, I just don't know, but if I am breathing, there has to be an origin. Theres no way to know why we are here, but we are here aren't we?

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

O, if i may.

Think about the past and evidence of a creator or god. There has been non that definitely proves the existence.

True enough, but this is where the line between "evidence and proof" gets blurred. Many atheists ask for "evidence," when they immediately dismiss anything that isn't "proof" as "not evidence." I'm sure you've seen it happen often.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

For a start, faries are ideas that have been created by individuals. These ideas have over time been used in stories, fairytales and more and the majority can admit that it is based on an idea, there is no proof in the existence of faires. The idea may be widespread and words can be twisted, people tend to create rules around ideas and maybe even expand the idea so far that in their mind they wish that this idea could become a reality. They suddenly decide that because there is nothing to disprove it, there must be a chance of its existence.

That, I've agreed with.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

I can come up with the idea now of a flying pig with shoes for eyes, it sound absurd not only for its nature, but if it gains any form of social

The idea of a god would have been created many thousands of years ago, well before christianity began, the idea of a creator filled in that gap of how are we here. It is appealing to those who want a quick answer to the universe and since it something that explains the complexitys of the world and even the universe it became more socially accepted, however it is still a belief without evidence.

What you have to remember O is that god is an idea, not something that was true, it may be socially accepted by many, but it does not mean that people should believe it because the majority do. We all share different beliefs and there are many things we disagree on. For example we all can safely say that there is a moon in sky, and that is because evidence backs it up, there is no belief involved. God however has no evidence, it is solely belief based on a bigotted, racist ideaology that got blown way out of proportion when people began embracing the idea.

Again, you are basing your idea of a "God" on the "man in the sky" interpretation. Does any interpretation of a creator have to revolve around the one that has been personified in the Bible and other "Holy" books? Or are there other possible avenues that we could explore the concept of "A Creator" through? That's part of what I'm getting at.

Is the denouncing of an organized (and probably misperceived) idea of a Creator synonymous with the denouncing of any sort of creator-concept? If not, would the idea merit more inquiry into what other interpretations might be correct?

And if there are other interpretations that could possibly be correct, and have more evidence to show for them than those established and organized religions, is Strong Atheism the most logical stance, or is neutrality?

Those questions are probably the best way that I can show the crux of my position, and probably my impulse to start this thread (...assuming I had any reasoning behind starting this thread. Heh).

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Oh...and another thing I don't understand.

Why do some admitted agnostics argue for the atheists? Just for the sake of arguing?

Because it's the best way to get information from both sides. I love to make both arguments, against opposition. It gives me better understanding of my own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, without allowing them to be completely one-sided.

Originally Posted by wasup

Did any of us say there is no chance of a god existing? Of course there is a chance, but just as infinitely small chance of one existing as any other thing.

Do you believe that the flying spaghetti monster exists? Do you believe it COULD exist?

Again, I could give you that argument, if we were solely talking about the "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, smite-the-if-you're-lusty" God. But are there not other interpretations that might fit the moniker? Actually, forget the word, itself, as some suggest. Do you think there is as much a chance of the FSM existing as there is a Supreme Being? A Supreme Consciousness, as it were?

Originally Posted by Mes Terrant

I think all of the atheists here have made clear that they are open to evidence, just like any rational, intellectual person would be.

I'll keep that in mind. However, this does change that actively believing that there is no God, is not a leap of faith. Sure, in the face of evidence to the contrary, you could be willing to change your mind. You would be facing something that counters your faith that there is no supreme entity (in all its forms). But, with the information that we have now, the lack of sufficient enough evidence to believe that there is a God, I think, is not necessarily sufficient enough to believe that there is none. There is that gray area of neutrality. This, I suppose, is where the atheist/agnostic wordplay argument dwells.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The universe being intelligently designed doesn't imply an anthropomorphized deity... it implies the undefinable and unknowable nature of infinity which we reside in...

If anything, it could mean an intelligent system of which we are a part.

Exactly. For us to consider God, we must consider, first, there are already many established interpretations of God, in organized religion. So, right off the bat, the concept shows multiplicity.

Taking it further, someone may not believe in the Christian God. Is that person atheist? Not necessarily. What if he believes in the Muslim God. What if he believes in Zeus?

Now, if the toggling of "atheist/theist" changes for such a thing, how many more interpretations of God, could it change for? If someone believes in a higher consciousness, an entity not described by organized religion, but more of a Super-Brain outside of it all, if you will, is that person an atheist, or has he found belief in something that could be accurately attributed to the name "God?"

Originally Posted by Korittke

I'm saying that it doesn't matter to me personally. I would never call myself an agnostic because the notion of God is just as absurd as the notion of a three legged talking carpet. The intellectual value of agnosticism and considering Santa Claus to be possible is identical.

See most of the above - particularly what I said to wasup about the FSM, and my reply to SolSkye about the "atheist/theist" name and the many interpretations of God.

Surely there are fitting interpretations that are much more logical to consider than Santa Claus. Agnosticism is to acknowledge those possibilities, and is more intellectually valuable than settling on one interpretation of an idea, that you do not believe, and denying all others, thus denying merit in the exploration of those other interpretations, for truth.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Hard to answer without knowing more details about the god you are proposing... But if you're talking about some conscious being that is at the origin of everything we know, then it's just vastly simpler to assume that it's a product of human psychology and our attempts to rationalize... everything into a concept we can understand (something exists ---> somebody had to make it). You know how the human brain attempts to "fill in the gaps" when it's missing information, our minds can't accept unknowns.

I've never really subscribed to Occam's Razor, in that I don't really believe that "simpler" is synonymous with "most likely."

Originally Posted by Spartiate

We could also easily interchange "a conscious being we can't possibly comprehend" with "physics and cosmology we can't possibly comprehend", but people cling to the notion of a god because they believe that if god chose to create them, then there was a purpose behind it. Purpose is another human concept, and it's very difficult for us to accept that pretty much everything around us has none. So of course, we invented a way for everything to have meaning.

For the most part, I agree with most of that, from the standpoint of that I know why many people decide to believe in a God, or even welcome the possibility, but I don't necessarily believe that having a God, whatever the interpretation, implies purpose. So yeah, I agree that linking the two is a leap of faith, and one that is often made for the reason you stated above.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

It really boils down to:

A supreme being created everything we know.

vs

We created a supreme being to make sense of everything we don't know.

True enough.

Well, what type of God do you propose?

In any case, if it is a creator, it must be a separate being, because 'creation' is an act and only separate entities can act, within the meaning of that word 'acting'. And once it is a being with the ability to act, you would usually go as far as to say that it is some sort of "spirit" with vaguely psychological properties which just so happen to be quite similar to your own.
In fact, it would be hard to interpret this any other way, because "acting" is in itself directly connected to the concept of both subjectivity and human psychological experience. We know acting from our own psychological day-to-day-life and we use the word in that frame of meaning and none other. Because there is none other. Once we conclude that something - anything - created the universe, we imply that this certain something bears human properties, because it can act and is therefore a separate entity with a psychological component to it.

Once you propose that god is an entity, you can basically go fuckfarts all over the concept and attach many other properties to it because there is absolutely no valid reason to assume that god would be a separate entity that has the ability to act. Why would it even have the ability to act? That's a purely arbitrary proposition.

Once you assign any type of remotely human attribute to the god in question (such as capability to act or intelligence), it seems to me to be transparently obvious that you are merely projecting your own human properties into the unknown. Why is god not a stupid elk, incapable of doing things?

If evolution is true, why would it just so happen that the randomness of human existence seems to be a relatively exact model of what the creator of the universe looks like?

Isn't it rather strange that only because your brain creates the illusion of self-directed action, it just so happens that none other but the creator of the universe himself would bear such a close resemblance to yourself, being capable of exactly that perceived self-directed action?

Anthropocentrism, I figure.

(Insert generic Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy here.)

Originally Posted by Korittke

Isn't it rather strange that only because your brain creates the illusion of self-directed action, it just so happens that none other but the creator of the universe himself would bear such a close resemblance to yourself, being capable of exactly that perceived self-directed action?

This is a good point. I like the idea of self directed action in a creator as projection; I hadn't thought of that before.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

(Insert generic Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy here.)

[insert generic response referencing irrelevance here]

Originally Posted by wasup

[insert generic response referencing irrelevance here]

Please insert why the analogy is irrelevant. My explanation for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and not believing in any god are the same explanation.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Please insert why the analogy is irrelevant. My explanation for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and not believing in any god are the same explanation.

I thought we were playing the "[insert x argument here]" game. If you have read my posts in this thread you can tell I used the flying spaghetti monster argument many, many times and everyone was telling me it was irrelevant.