[KingMessi]

Actually, my understanding is that agnosticism is the only logically viable option...?

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Xotol)
Simply being an 'agnostic' says nothing about your belief. The fact that you do not worship one means that you do not believe in any God, so you are an atheists. The fact that you accept the possibility that one exists means that you are an agnostic.

Put those two together and you are an agnostic atheist! (Which is what the vast majority of atheists are.)

haha ok, guess that's what I am then

(Original post by Mdawg)
Atheists don't take the position that there can not be a god, it's just that we are given no reason to believe that there is a god. If anyone claims it's impossible then they're claiming knowledge that no human could possibly possess. You're never going to get hard evidence that there is no god because it's pretty much an unfalsifiable theory. Fortunately, just like somebody claiming the existence of unicorns, the burden of proof is on those who claim the existence of their god.

ok fair enough, what is the difference between true atheists and agnostic atheists? Because that explanation sounds a lot like agnostic atheism.

tbh a lot of the atheists I have come across have been complete dicks. They think think they are better than those that believe in a god or believe they are much smarter individuals and scoff at the idea that someone could believe in a god without conclusive proof. I just don't like the arrogance that some atheists possess when talking to those who are believers.

(btw that wasn't a jibe at you or any other atheists I haven't met before, simply recalling past experiences with atheists at school etc.)

[Barden]

(Original post by py0alb)
What on earth is transcendental about wave particle duality?

what isn't transcendental about it?

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by KingMessi)
Actually, my understanding is that agnosticism is the only logically viable option...?

Twas exactly what I thought.

[Holz888]

Even if there was proof of a certain creator, there would still be different opinions in religion. People would view this figure as a God, then there would be disagreements on how to worship, for example Catholics and Protestants believe in the same God, but not all of the same views. Also, religions which worship other figures to Jesus, still believe that Jesus existed, therefore a similar thing may happen: they may believe in other figures to the proven one as well. Finally, there would be the people who remain ignorant to any proof. Consider the numbers who, despite the clear evidence, do not believe that evolution occurs

[py0alb]

(Original post by Barden)
what isn't transcendental about it?

"Transcendence refers to the aspect of nature and power which is wholly independent of (and removed from) the material universe."

The concept of wave-particle duality - that all objects simultaneously possess both wave-like and particle-like properties, although this simultaneity can only be observed at the microscale - is a well understood phenomena with a precise scientific and mathematic definition. Just because it is initially counter-intuitive to the layman does not make it in any way transcendent or "supernatural".

[Barden]

(Original post by py0alb)
Just because it is initially counter-intuitive to the layman does not make it in any way transcendent or "supernatural".

Even though it is actually defined as being paradoxical?

[Mdawg]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
haha ok, guess that's what I am then



ok fair enough, what is the difference between true atheists and agnostic atheists? Because that explanation sounds a lot like agnostic atheism.

tbh a lot of the atheists I have come across have been complete dicks. They think think they are better than those that believe in a god or believe they are much smarter individuals and scoff at the idea that someone could believe in a god without conclusive proof. I just don't like the arrogance that some atheists possess when talking to those who are believers.

(btw that wasn't a jibe at you or any other atheists I haven't met before, simply recalling past experiences with atheists at school etc.)

What you call true atheists refers to strong, gnostic atheism - that god is impossible. This is a reasonable thing for people to claim about the Abrahamic god but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that holding this position about gods in general is ridiculous. If you've met people like this then they simply haven't throught through their position very well - Dawkins for example does not take this position and most would see him as a very strong atheist. However I'd say the same about gnostic theists - people who say they know their god is the correct one and cares about human affairs are making a claim to knowledge they can't possibly possess. They don't provide anything remotely resembling proportional evidence to back up such a claim.

As for arrogance / dickishness, it's really entirely irrelevant to the point at hand as you'll find dicks of every belief.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Mdawg)
What you call true atheists refers to strong, gnostic atheism - that god is impossible. This is a reasonable thing for people to claim about the Abrahamic god but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that holding this position about gods in general is ridiculous. If you've met people like this then they simply haven't throught through their position very well - Dawkins for example does not take this position and most would see him as a very strong atheist. However I'd say the same about gnostic theists - people who say they know their god is the correct one and cares about human affairs are making a claim to knowledge they can't possibly possess. They don't provide anything remotely resembling proportional evidence to back up such a claim.

Is that not what faith is though? They have faith in the fact that the god they believe in is the correct one and they don't need any proof to confirm their belief. Personally I couldn't have that sort of blind faith, although I have no problem with others having such faith as long as they don't force it on others.

As for arrogance / dickishness, it's really entirely irrelevant to the point at hand as you'll find dicks of every belief.

I was simply making an observation from my experiences, wasn't trying to make a point. There are dicks in every belief, but I believe what I described is much more prevalent in atheists than theists (again, simply from my experiences).

[Mdawg]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Is that not what faith is though? They have faith in the fact that the god they believe in is the correct one and they don't need any proof to confirm their belief. Personally I couldn't have that sort of blind faith, although I have no problem with others having such faith as long as they don't force it on others.



I was simply making an observation from my experiences, wasn't trying to make a point. There are dicks in every belief, but I believe what I described is much more prevalent in atheists than theists (again, simply from my experiences).

People are free to believe what they want based on faith, I'm not contesting that. However as you've pointed out, their beliefs have no foundations so they have no right to force it on others. This means religion must have no part in politics and ideally people should not be able to indoctrinate their children into their religion, as this constitutes forcing on others.

You say atheists are more arrogant, but everyone who subscribes to either Christianity or Islam claims to know both the origin of the universe and the purpose of humanity based on almost no evidence. They also claim that if we don't choose to accept their specific strand of the untrue then they know we will spend an eternity in suffering. Again based on no evidence at all. Please explain to me how this is not the ultimate form of arrogance?

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Mdawg)
People are free to believe what they want based on faith, I'm not contesting that. However as you've pointed out, their beliefs have no foundations so they have no right to force it on others. This means religion must have no part in politics and ideally people should not be able to indoctrinate their children into their religion, as this constitutes forcing on others.

agreed

You say atheists are more arrogant, but everyone who subscribes to either Christianity or Islam claims to know both the origin of the universe and the purpose of humanity based on almost no evidence. They also claim that if we don't choose to accept their specific strand of the untrue then they know we will spend an eternity in suffering. Again based on no evidence at all. Please explain to me how this is not the ultimate form of arrogance?

Arrogance is an overbearing pride or offensive display of superiority. If they aren't flaunting their beliefs around or forcing it upon others, then they are not arrogant. From my experience it is more likely that an atheist would judge someone for believing in god, than a theist judge someone for not believing in god. This is a crude example and is usually displayed much more subtly, but: "haha you're so stupid, why would you believe in something with no proof" is something I have heard said to theists before. Whereas I have very rarely seen a theist criticise someone for not believing in god.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Barden)
Even though it is actually defined as being paradoxical?

Its not paradoxical at all. Its just an initially counter-intuitive and occasionally confusing mathematical model combined with a series of repeatable empirical observations. There's an important difference.

[Clare~Bear]

I'm an atheist, but I don't understand your argument.

Yes religion is based on faith, but wouldn't proof of god mean that more people follow them?

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by lrs_17)
Now this is just how I feel about it, I'm not trying to say I'm right, and am very open to debate

I believe entirely in Science, and therefore find the possibility of a "God" or "Gods" highly unlikely (especially that of an intervening "God"), and I can only assume almost all other atheists do not believe in "God/s" because of scientific reason. But therefore, if there was proven to be a creator "God" I would quite happily (though I'd be rather embarrassed!) accept this as fact, as there would be no point in denying the obvious truth, as would almost all atheists.

From a religious perspective, the whole point of religion is that it is based on faith and not fact, hence, once it becomes fact, it can therefore no longer be religion. Sure, people could still "worship" this creator, whichever form they/it be in, but it would be a bit like worshipping a wall. Therefore, atheism would become the undeniable default.

This scenario is based upon the discovery simply of a creator though, and not an intervening "God", in this case, I still feel religion would become obsolete though. Again, many people may "worship" this God, but again, due to faith no longer being necessary, why is it religion?
It is just like asking someone for a favour (if s/he/it answers prayer) etc.
Therefore, atheism would again become the default.

Any thoughts?
Sorry if this isn't very well written, I don't know why I'm doing it at 4:30am

So you have no spiritual attachments what so ever? Personally I think religion is what ruined God, if you ignore religion I can't see a problem with god as he does not in himself contradict, I believe in science, but that doesn't discredit the idea of god whatsoever, even Einstein had a personal god, not in the way others know a Spinoza's God. Religion has proven itself obsolete simply through history repeating itself...

[Like a BAWS]

(Original post by py0alb)
Indeed. The only known effective cure for blind faith is a daily treatment of electroconvulsive therapy.

If you think about it, people rely on blind faith every day, for pretty much everything.

When i ask someone what they've been up to today, and they say "awr I've done some chem revision", I just believe them, without asking them to prove it.

On a much greater scale, I've never seen an atom in my life. Yet I blindly believe these scientists who argue that atoms exist, and they're made up of these things called sub-atomic particles which I've never experienced either etc etc. I've never experienced Hawaii in my life, I've just seen a picture of a nice volcanic island, and blindly accepted that Hawaii exists.

Once you think about how much you rely on faith, it doesn't become that ridiculous to 'blindly' believe in Christianity etc

[py0alb]

(Original post by Like a BAWS)
If you think about it, people rely on blind faith every day, for pretty much everything.

When i ask someone what they've been up to today, and they say "awr I've done some chem revision", I just believe them, without asking them to prove it.

On a much greater scale, I've never seen an atom in my life. Yet I blindly believe these scientists who argue that atoms exist, and they're made up of these things called sub-atomic particles which I've never experienced either etc etc. I've never experienced Hawaii in my life, I've just seen a picture of a nice volcanic island, and blindly accepted that Hawaii exists.

Once you think about how much you rely on faith, it doesn't become that ridiculous to 'blindly' believe in Christianity etc

That's not blind faith at all, don't be ridiculous.

If someone says "I've done some chemistry revision", then that is evidence that they have done chemistry revision. Its not particularly compelling evidence, and I might have other information that I'm going to weigh up in judging the probability that they're telling the truth. The point is I will reach a rational conclusion based on evidence I am presented with; and the strength of my confidence in my conclusion is dictated entirely by the strength of the evidence. Faith does not come into it at all.


I could easily present the same argument with regard to the likelihood of the presence of atoms vs the alternative explanation of a huge and brilliantly managed scientific conspiracy theory. Once again, faith doesn't come into it, its simply a rational assessment that scientists probably know what they're talking about and probably aren't lying, hence atoms probably do exist.

[Arekkusu]

(Original post by lrs_17)
Now this is just how I feel about it, I'm not trying to say I'm right, and am very open to debate

I believe entirely in Science, and therefore find the possibility of a "God" or "Gods" highly unlikely (especially that of an intervening "God"), and I can only assume almost all other atheists do not believe in "God/s" because of scientific reason. But therefore, if there was proven to be a creator "God" I would quite happily (though I'd be rather embarrassed!) accept this as fact, as there would be no point in denying the obvious truth, as would almost all atheists.

From a religious perspective, the whole point of religion is that it is based on faith and not fact, hence, once it becomes fact, it can therefore no longer be religion. Sure, people could still "worship" this creator, whichever form they/it be in, but it would be a bit like worshipping a wall. Therefore, atheism would become the undeniable default.

This scenario is based upon the discovery simply of a creator though, and not an intervening "God", in this case, I still feel religion would become obsolete though. Again, many people may "worship" this God, but again, due to faith no longer being necessary, why is it religion?
It is just like asking someone for a favour (if s/he/it answers prayer) etc.
Therefore, atheism would again become the default.

Any thoughts?
Sorry if this isn't very well written, I don't know why I'm doing it at 4:30am

Well done, by showing that you understand scientific proof of God is incompatible with faith you have elevated yourself above the common herd of atheists. If God does exist, he wouldn't want to prove it because then what would be the point of bothering with this whole "creating humans with free will" thing?

I also think the idea of an intervenor god is ridiculous. Why would he bother running the experiment if he's just going to fiddle results along the way?

But there is room, for me, for a creator god, one who sets the experiment in motion. In fact, I believe that to meaningfully talk about the universe as a real thing, and not a superposition, you need an outside observer. Would that not be rather consonant with the laws of physics as we know them?

We certainly can't ever hope to describe the whole universe from our observational perspective. How could we - we're part of it!

[Like a BAWS]

(Original post by py0alb)
That's not blind faith at all, don't be ridiculous.

If someone says "I've done some chemistry revision", then that is evidence that they have done chemistry revision. Its not particularly compelling evidence, and I might have other information that I'm going to weigh up in judging the probability that they're telling the truth. The point is I will reach a rational conclusion based on evidence I am presented with; and the strength of my confidence in my conclusion is dictated entirely by the strength of the evidence. Faith does not come into it at all.


I could easily present the same argument with regard to the likelihood of the presence of atoms vs the alternative explanation of a huge and brilliantly managed scientific conspiracy theory. Once again, faith doesn't come into it, its simply a rational assessment that scientists probably know what they're talking about and probably aren't lying, hence atoms probably do exist.

On face value though, the only evidence you have is someone telling you they've been doing some chemistry revision. There are literally millions of people who would tell you they've had an experience of God. Evidence? Some would argue there's an enormous amount of evidence, miracles confirmed by the catholic church, conversion experiences, regenerative experiences, I could go on. Therefore wouldn't you consider it wholly rational, considering the amount of people who pay testimony to the existence of God, supported by evidence?

For anything else in the world that wasn't related to something religious, if millions of people all experienced something, people wouldn't dream of doubting it. So why when it comes to religious experiences of God are we so quick to judge? Are you suggesting its more likely and rational that millions of people, including some of the greatest minds of all time were just totally deluded, than for just one religious experience of God to be authentic?

[Like a BAWS]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
Well done, by showing that you understand scientific proof of God is incompatible with faith you have elevated yourself above the common herd of atheists. If God does exist, he wouldn't want to prove it because then what would be the point of bothering with this whole "creating humans with free will" thing?

I also think the idea of an intervenor god is ridiculous. Why would he bother running the experiment if he's just going to fiddle results along the way?

But there is room, for me, for a creator god, one who sets the experiment in motion. In fact, I believe that to meaningfully talk about the universe as a real thing, and not a superposition, you need an outside observer. Would that not be rather consonant with the laws of physics as we know them?

We certainly can't ever hope to describe the whole universe from our observational perspective. How could we - we're part of it!

Exactly, thats what many atheists don't understand. (though I'd like to point out I'm not exactly a theist, more agnostic theist)

If God exists, he gave us free will. This free will is vitally important because the augustinian theodicy explains that evil is in the world due to man's free will. If God were to 'prove himself' by showing his face here and tear mountains or whatever, people would no longer have the free will to choose to believe him anymore, since we would know he exists and therefore have to believe in him.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Like a BAWS)
On face value though, the only evidence you have is someone telling you they've been doing some chemistry revision. There are literally millions of people who would tell you they've had an experience of God. Evidence? Some would argue there's an enormous amount of evidence, miracles confirmed by the catholic church, conversion experiences, regenerative experiences, I could go on. Therefore wouldn't you consider it wholly rational, considering the amount of people who pay testimony to the existence of God, supported by evidence?

For anything else in the world that wasn't related to something religious, if millions of people all experienced something, people wouldn't dream of doubting it. So why when it comes to religious experiences of God are we so quick to judge? Are you suggesting its more likely and rational that millions of people, including some of the greatest minds of all time were just totally deluded, than for just one religious experience of God to be authentic?

Oh get real. The weight of the evidence is strongly, undeniably, irrefutably stacked against the outlandish claims of the minority of religious delusionists. There has never been a single reliable claim for evidence for the existence of god. There has never been an alleged "miracle" that couldn't be explained or wasn't a hoax. The prevalence of proto-religious "experiences" have been explained by neuroscientists. Don't be so bloody gullible.


Rational people (ie not religious morons) doubt things all the time. Nothing is beyond doubt. If I tell you I have the power of teleportation, would you just completely believe me based on the evidence of my claim?
If not, you're a hypocrite. If so, you're an idiot. Take your pick, hypocrite or idiot. Most religious people are both, so you should think yourself lucky.