Why do atheists not believe in God?

Original post by slade p

Atheists think they are so rational but they are actually extremely ignorant and irrational.

Atheists tend not to be the ones who deny evolution, anthropogenic climate change, the big bang and the fact the Earth orbits the Sun.

It is completely out of order to call such a huge group of people (of which I am included) 'extremely ignorant and irrational'.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 122

BefuddledPenguin

15

Original post by The Assassin

I can't really make sense of this, sorry. Theism encompasses all sorts of belief in God, and classical theism, which is what you're referring to, doesn't have to necessitate anything from any scripture (as many philosophers have shown).

Theism is belief in a god who actively takes an interest in what human beings get up to. This includes notions of sin, fate and life after death.

Deism is a belief in a god which permeates the universe, maybe puts some laws of physics into place etc but does so in a disinterested manner. Belief in such a god wouldn't matter because it doesn't require any action on the part of the believer.

Theism doesn't require scripture that's right. But theism as a belief means a god who cares what people get up to, and given modern definition of a monotheistic god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc) this amount of power inevitably leads towards totalitarianism.

If you are referring to believe in a god which has no interest in humanity then you are referring to deism. That is a different debate. Remember it's aTHEISM not aDEISM we are talking about here.

Reply 123

The Assassin

Original post by RayApparently

Atheists tend not be the ones who deny evolution, anthropogenic climate change, the big bang and the fact the Earth orbits the Sun.

It is completely out of order to call such a huge group of people (of which I am included) 'extremely ignorant and irrational'.

98% of the posts he makes are anti-atheist lol; think he's a troll

Reply 124

mariachi

Original post by Supermonkey92

Does the universe seem that it has existed without a beginning?

Posted from TSR Mobile

who knows ? does it even make any sense to speak of time before the existence of the Universe ?

and what about "God" ? did he exist without a beginning ? why ? because someone says so ?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 125

Original post by The Assassin

98% of the posts he makes are anti-atheist lol; think he's a troll

I've seen that username before but couldn't put my finger on where.

You might be right.

But anyone who puts that much effort in is more likely some kind of fundamentalist.

Reply 126

Original post by Gwilym101

Possibly, we have no way of knowing.

Well I didn't mean to ask if we are certain. Just if it looks like the universe is eternal. I take it as a given that it's possible for the universe to either exist without a beginning or have a beginning :tongue:

(not that I wouldn't be interested to know if you think one is impossible?)

So really I should have said: 'does the evidence point towards it being eternal'?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 127

Original post by RayApparently

I would question that very first premise. And note that if there were a 'creator god' they would be, in all religious traditions 'inexplicable'.

Could you be specific? What would you question?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 128

Original post by Supermonkey92

Could you be specific? What would you question?

Posted from TSR Mobile

That it is 'a very common claim' by atheists that 'the universe exists inexplicably'. I emboldened it when I quoted your post.

I also don't see a theistic argument solving the explicability conundrum as that would require an inexplicable 'creator god'.

Excellent question!!

Original post by mariachi

who knows ? does it even make any sense to speak of time before the existence of the Universe ?

and what about "God" ? did he exist without a beginning ? why ? because someone says so ?

But I didn't ask if there was time before the universe existed. Unless you could point out where I assumed or suggested it?

I simply asked if it seems that the universe is eternal, or beginning less.

So far you've asked why the universe couldn't be beginning less. I take that, from the context of the whole post, to simply mean it's possible that the universe could be eternal. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

If I am, I can only assume that you meant it in a stronger sense. Not only is it possible, but it is plausible or likely that the universe is eternal.

Any reason for this? (if you meant that).

When you say 'who knows' - it seems you aren't saying it's likely at all. Simply, 'well it's possible that the universe could be eternal'.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 131

Original post by RayApparently

That it is 'a very common claim' by atheists that 'the universe exists inexplicably'. I emboldened it when I quoted your post.

I also don't see a theistic argument solving the explicability conundrum as that would require an inexplicable 'creator god'.

Sorry the TSR app doesn't even let me see emboldened font.

OK, what would atheists posit as the explanation for why the atheists exist?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 132

generallee

16

Not enough evidence.

The OP is an atheist for a hundred gods without realising. They just believe in one religion, and are an atheist for all the other religions and gods men have dreamed up or still believe in.

Reply 133

Original post by Supermonkey92

Sorry the TSR app doesn't even let me see emboldened font.

OK, what would atheists posit as the explanation for why the atheists exist?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah it's a pretty poor app.

Not knowing the answer is not the same as believing there is no answer. For example, I don't know the integration of ((e^4x)/75)^x but I'm pretty sure the answer isn't 6. In fact I may even suggest that it is beyond my intellectual abilities to find the answer. But that wouldn't make the answer 6 either.

Reply 134

The Assassin

Original post by BefuddledPenguin

theism is belief in a god who actively takes an interest in what human beings get up to. This includes notions of sin, fate and life after death.

Theism includes all beliefs in God. The notions of morality and the afterlife are not exclusive to theism, since many forms of deism have the view too

Deism is a belief in a god which permeates the universe, maybe puts some laws of physics into place etc but does so in a disinterested manner. Belief in such a god wouldn't matter because it doesn't require any action on the part of the believer.

deists straightforwardly affirmed that there was a supreme agental intellect who designed and created the universe. What they deny is that this intellect intervenes in its creation (in a non-natural sense) and thus also any sort of special revelation.

This doesn't mean he doesn't care about morals or has no interest

See here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/#RelEnl

Theism doesn't require scripture that's right. But theism as a belief means a god who cares what people get up to, and given modern definition of a monotheistic god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc) this amount of power inevitably leads towards totalitarianism.

Again, you're speaking of classical or Anselmian theism or theistic personalism - not 'theism' by itself.

If you are referring to believe in a god which has no interest in humanity then you are referring to deism. That is a different debate. Remember it's aTHEISM not aDEISM we are talking about here.

Adeism isn't a word, and rightfully so. Atheism rejects all beliefs in God. Theism can also include pantheism, panentheism, process theology, open theism, none of which hold the totalitarian characteristics you're talking about (btw these have already been addressed above why it's not inherently totalitarian)

We've had this exact discussion before on the idea of 'deism' before: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=348254 5&page=9&highlight=&p=58192499#post 58192499

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 135

mariachi

Original post by Supermonkey92

When you say 'who knows' - it seems you aren't saying it's likely at all. Simply, 'well it's possible that the universe could be eternal'.

Posted from TSR Mobile

without time, there is no beginning, no end. If you ask if the Universe has a beginning, you place yourself within a temporal; dimension. If you take away time, the question becomes meaningless

Once again : if there is no time then , no "beginning", no "ending"

Reply 136

chemting

16

Original post by Supermonkey92

But I didn't ask if there was time before the universe existed. Unless you could point out where I assumed or suggested it?

I simply asked if it seems that the universe is eternal, or beginning less.

So far you've asked why the universe couldn't be beginning less. I take that, from the context of the whole post, to simply mean it's possible that the universe could be eternal. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

If I am, I can only assume that you meant it in a stronger sense. Not only is it possible, but it is plausible or likely that the universe is eternal.

Any reason for this? (if you meant that).

When you say 'who knows' - it seems you aren't saying it's likely at all. Simply, 'well it's possible that the universe could be eternal'.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well, a flat or an open universe would be "eternal" (but with different fates)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 137

generallee

16

Original post by slade p

Atheists think they are so rational but they are actually extremely ignorant and irrational.

You are ignorant of the finer points of Ancient Greek and Roman theology. Everyone is because the religions have to all intents and purposes died out.

Are you irrational in disbelieving it yourself? Or is it perfectly rational to be an atheist towards Zeus and Minerva and all the rest of them?

And what is rational in a belief in whichever revealed religion you subscribe to?

Reply 138

Original post by RayApparently

Yeah it's a pretty poor app.

Not knowing the answer is not the same as believing there is no answer. For example, I don't know the integration of ((e^4x)/75)^x but I'm pretty sure the answer isn't 6. In fact I may even suggest that it is beyond my intellectual abilities to find the answer. But that wouldn't make the answer 6 either.

Very good. I agree that it's the more rational position to hold. Obviously, to say that the universe is a brute fact - inexplicable - is to say that their is no explanation. It seems more consistent with every other way we analyse things.

However, I also agree with the point made by Luke Barnes:

'It is important to realise that no amount of progress in physics will change this situation. Imagine the final equation,*the*law of nature, written on a blackboard to thunderous applause. After the adoration dies down, we will still be faced with the question “why does a universe described by that equation actually exist?”. The answer cannot be found in the equation.'

'....... If you are a philosophical materialist – if you believe that everything that exists is ultimately the stuff of physics – then this question is unanswerable. Not just unanswered – I have no problem with questions that science cannot currently answer. It’s because of such questions that I have a job. But materialism simply doesn’t have the resources to answer that question. To be a materialist, one must convince oneself that the question is somehow meaningless, that it is nonsense masquerading as one of the deepest and oldest philosophical questions mankind has ever asked.'

https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/why-science-cannot-explain-why-anything-exists/

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 139