The difference between aetheists and religious

[wastepanel]

I've been involved in a few discussions lately that have me wondering what the differences between aetheists (meaning those that believe there was or is no God/creator) and the religious (those that believe there was/is) are.

No matter your position on the subject, what do you think?

I can only think that "faith" differentiates the two groups. Religious have faith in an unproven commodity, while aetheists do not. However, both groups tend to have "faith" that their position is the correct position.

[rharbers]

However, both groups tend to have "faith" that their position is the correct position.

I just don't have any substantial proof one way or the other. So I'll just remain a Skeptic until further notice.

[ReFLeX]

I've been involved in a few discussions lately that have me wondering what the differences between aetheists (meaning those that believe there was or is no God/creator) and the religious (those that believe there was/is) are.

No matter your position on the subject, what do you think?

I can only think that "faith" differentiates the two groups. Religious have faith in an unproven commodity, while aetheists do not. However, both groups tend to have "faith" that their position is the correct position.
Not all atheists go as far as to say there is no God. That's a universal negative, which cannot be really proven. Atheists lack belief. There's no faith necessary to lack belief in unicorns, it just means you've never seen evidence pointing to them. There's no faith necessary to be a non-theist, either, because it's not a claim. It's a lack thereof.

[Thorn]

I think Penn summed it up best in his "This I believe":

I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

[TJ]

I couldn't top that if I tried; nor could I add anything to it either way. Thanks for posting that, Thorn.

[roger]

I've often wondered about the difference between people who collect stamps, and those that don't. I've concluded that it comes down to "hobby". Those who do collect have the "hobby" of collecting stamps, and those who don't collect have the "hobby" of not collecting stamps.

Wait, that's not right.

[H3LL]

Evidence is the key issue IMHO.

Religion does not require it and actively attempts to suppress/destroy/corrupt/mask/distort any evidence that contradicts dogma. Always has and probably always will. It is a successful system.

Atheists require convincing evidence to change opinion. After n years there is none that I've seen.

Religion is a large organisation, well funded, powerful and satisfies a built in human need.

Atheists are none of the above.

Atheists will largely disappear if presented with convincing evidence that they are wrong.

Religion has not and is not likely to whatever the evidence. A 3,000ft Zeus rampaging for weeks smiting with lightning bolts would still not change many fundies ("It's Satan in disguise here to decieve....Jesus will save us!!!")


.

[TJ]

I hope there is a god. That bastard's got a lot to answer for when I meet up with him. :mad:

[Tricky]

Everybody is skeptical about something. Almost everybody is skeptical that telemarketers tell the truth. Most people a skeptical that used-car dealers tell the truth. Lots of people are skeptical that lawyers tell the truth. Parents may be skeptical that their children are telling the truth.

Atheists are skeptical that religion is telling the truth.

[Freethinker]

Atheists think.

[Ladewig]

Very many atheists can tell you what it would take for them to change their position to one that includes a belief in God. For instance, if God stopped the Earth's rotation for an hour or so (using His mighty, mighty power to absorb all the angular momentum so that no one fell over or spilled anything), made an appearance, described Himself, and started the world back up, then I'd believe. It sounds like a pretty big miracle when it is spelled out like that, but given that His followers claim that He has done it before, it should not be that hard.

I cannot recall meeting any religious folk that could describe specific events that would lead them to become atheists.

- - - - - - -

You could also point out that both atheists and the believers you are arguing with do not believe that Thor or Quetzalcoatl or Ra is real. There are hundreds of major and minor deities that neither group considers real. The atheists' list is just one item longer than the list of Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

[Dogdoctor]

However, both groups tend to have "faith" that their position is the correct position.
The difference is that religion is not willing to change their opinion since it is based on faith but skeptics are willing to change their opinion if provided more information. So the faith of a religious person is immutable and the faith of a skeptic is only so far as the logic and data go.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unlike Penn, I do not believe there is no god. I simply don't believe there is a god. Or an Easter Bunny. Or an Invisible Pink Hamster orbiting Neptune. Nor do I collect stamps. All these nonbeliefs are subject to change.

~~ Paul

[Ryokan]

What about people who are both atheists and religious? Not every religion has gods :p

[SirPhilip]

I've been involved in a few discussions lately that have me wondering what the differences between aetheists (meaning those that believe there was or is no God/creator) and the religious (those that believe there was/is) are. No matter your position on the subject, what do you think? I can only think that "faith" differentiates the two groups. Religious have faith in an unproven commodity, while aetheists do not. However, both groups tend to have "faith" that their position is the correct position. Well, I was an atheist for most of my life, and went through two transitions, one was a less mature pro-active period which I was intolerant of any spiritualism, thinking it was deep-seated denial, and religion I thought of as silly to insane. It wasn't until later that It dawned on me that faith, or a set destiny, or what have you, is an integral part of a healthy human psyche. Whatever it should be based on, of course, is anyone's guess. Many naturalists exhibit good character, but ethics and morality are the exception, not the rule when people accept dog-eat-dog mentality as an ultimate truth. Most humans are socialized, and a valid and ultimate reason for living is as natural as hunger or sex. Realizing and accepting this, I tried to choose the most humanistic balance between belief and naturalism. I think the underlying truth behind God though, is what humans will eventually become. "Do you believe in God", essentially you are asking someone if they believe in their own destiny, a logical conclusion to conditional and seemingly inequal existence.

[hammegk]

Atheists think.
At least have faith they do.

[SirPhilip]

The difference is that religion is not willing to change their opinion since it is based on faith but skeptics are willing to change their opinion if provided more information. So the faith of a religious person is immutable and the faith of a skeptic is only so far as the logic and data go.Well, that is not surprising. Any belief in destiny is by nature, fixed.

[Huh-What?]

I would say there is no God.

Many gods have dotted our history and no proof of their existence has ever surfaced. In fact the vast majority of the world would laugh at you if you said you worshipped Zeus or Ra today, but there was a time and a place that denying there existence would get you killed. Today the fad is the one true God. Will our descendants look at our world religions of today and laugh? Given enough time, I think so.

So why can't I come to a conclusion that there is no God. I have had others demanding some proof there is no God. Why? Burden of proof falls on his existence.

Imagine if we were members of a jury sitting in on the God case for last couple thousand years waiting for the believers to supply any concrete evidence. The believer’s lawyer comes up with anecdotal evidence, but nothing concrete. He tries psuedo-science to sway the jury. He tries awe us with the complexity of the universe. Of course this is better then the early part of the trial when he simply threatened the jury and demanded they rule in his favor. When something doesn’t work he moves on to another tactic which is usually an old idea with a new twist and name. I, as a juror, am ready to cast my vote as the opposition simply states, “No evidence = No God.”

So, like a tired juror, I am convinced there is no God. Enough time has passed to convince me otherwise, but no evidence has surfaced.

To answer the original question, atheist have thought about the existence of God and concluded it can not be. Believers follow blindly and never step out of their faith to examine what they believe in.

[SirPhilip]

At least have faith they do.Nominated. Aptness.

[Iacchus]

I would say there is no God.I say we flip a coin. ;)

[Mercutio]

I say we flip a coin. ;)
Ok. If it stays in the air, we'll say god caught it. Ought to be simple enough. Surely somebody must have sufficient faith to try this one...

[Iacchus]

Ok. If it stays in the air, we'll say god caught it. Ought to be simple enough. Surely somebody must have sufficient faith to try this one...Or, better yet, we could just take a vote on it. ;)

[Mercutio]

Or, better yet, we could just take a vote on it. ;)
So an omnipotent being can't rig a coin not to fall, but can be decided by popular opinion?

Strange sort of god you have there.


[sorry to derail--I'll leave]

[ruach1]

Theists are taught to love their neighbor and love God as they understand God to be. They always fall for short--most not for lack of trying.

Atheists seldom talk about universal love. Its always evidence this, proof that, define your terms, (yawn) :boxedin:

[ReFLeX]

Theists are taught to love their neighbor and love God as they understand God to be. They always fall for short--most not for lack of trying.

Atheists seldom talk about universal love. Its always evidence this, proof that, define your terms, (yawn) :boxedin:
Maybe because we see evidence and proof being effectual and universal love not so much.

[Pauliesonne]

If I wanted universal love, I'd watch E.T. again.....

I LOVE THAT GUY!!!!

[Iacchus]

So an omnipotent being can't rig a coin not to fall, but can be decided by popular opinion?

Strange sort of god you have there.My God? Why should I argue for that which can't be proven? Sounds like a big waste of time if you ask me.

[Dcdrac]

For me it is not a matter of faith at all, it is purely a matter of evidence, there is no evidence for a creator (god) so there is noo God end of story move on.

[SirPhilip]

My God? Why should I argue for that which can't be proven? Sounds like a big waste of time if you ask me.Mein gott. When the hell do you not argue for the sake of that which can't be proven.

[ruach1]

If I wanted universal love, I'd watch E.T. again.....
I LOVE THAT GUY!!!!
I'm starting a thread on this. Thanks for the idea! :)

[T'ai Chi]

Atheists think.

Yeah, Newton was such an intellectual lightweight!

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I cannot recall meeting any religious folk that could describe specific events that would lead them to become atheists.

I asked a religious friend this once. He thought awhile and said that nothing could ever make him lose his belief in god.

Now who appears close-minded?

LLH

[T'ai Chi]

I asked a religious friend this once. He thought awhile and said that nothing could ever make him lose his belief in god.

Now who appears close-minded?

LLH


Depends. Did you ask him why he believes? Maybe he is convinced by what he perceives as evidence, and so your question to him might be like asking if he could ever lose his belief that the Earth is spherical.

[CFLarsen]

Depends. Did you ask him why he believes? Maybe he is convinced by what he perceives as evidence, and so your question to him might be like asking if he could ever lose his belief that the Earth is spherical.

It doesn't matter if he thinks he has evidence. New evidence can occur that will change our views.

Obviously, new evidence will not convince him. Which makes him close-minded.

[Iacchus]

Well, I understand Jung (http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/sr/issues-full/30_2/gollnick.html) must have been pretty close-minded then ...

Although he usually avoided discussing his private religious convictions, he seems to have been caught slightly off guard in an interview with John Freeman. When Freeman asked Jung whether or not he believed in God, Jung (1977: 428) answered, after a pregnant pause: ``I know. I don't need to believe. I know.'' What Jung claims to know here is consistent with his definition of God as that autonomous power in the psyche which is greater than the ego. Whatever Jung knows about God is the result of his direct experience of the God-image in the human psyche.

[Tricky]

Depends. Did you ask him why he believes? Maybe he is convinced by what he perceives as evidence, and so your question to him might be like asking if he could ever lose his belief that the Earth is spherical.
The earth is not spherical. It is an oblate spheroid. We've known that for some years. New evidence convinced us. Go figure.

[Mercutio]

Well, I understand Jung (http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/sr/issues-full/30_2/gollnick.html) must have been pretty close-minded then ...
If you go by that quote, then yes, Jung was close-minded.

But we don't have to go by that quote. We can go by most of his other writings as well. As with most psychoanalytic thought, the theory determined the evidence, rather than vice versa. Yup, close-minded.

[Melendwyr]

I wish otherwise intelligent people wouldn't say "you can't prove a negative". Of course you can. You cannot prove a universal negative by referring to limited evidence, though. That's what inferences are for.

[Freethinker]

Yeah, Newton was such an intellectual lightweight!

My original post was not "Atheists can think" it was "Atheists think". Having the ability to think and actually doing it are not the same thing. Newton also spent time in alchemy. Of course Einstein, who proved Newton's theories were lacking in the areas of time and space, was an atheist.

his Autobiographical Notes (1949, pp. 3-5): "Thus I came--despite the fact I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived...Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude... has never left me..."

Most religious people who can think choose not to delve too deeply into thinking about their faith. Those who do think deeply about their faith figure it out and become atheists or agnostics.

Incidentally , the above from Einstein is the origin of my screen name here.

[Rufo]

My original post was not "Atheists can think" it was "Atheists think". Having the ability to think and actually doing it are not the same thing. Newton also spent time in alchemy. Of course Einstein, who proved Newton's theories were lacking in the areas of time and space, was an atheist.
In the passage quoted, Einstein says he "reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true", and that he had "a skeptical attitude". Not that he's an atheist.
I never thought one of edge's posts would turn out to be useful, but you might want to look at this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1446511#post1446511).

I'm not saying Einstein was necessarily a theist, but I would not call him an atheist until sufficient proof has been provided.

[geni]

So why can't I come to a conclusion that there is no God. I have had others demanding some proof there is no God. Why? Burden of proof falls on his existence.

Why?


Imagine if we were members of a jury sitting in on the God case for last couple thousand years waiting for the believers to supply any concrete evidence. The believer’s lawyer comes up with anecdotal evidence, but nothing concrete. He tries psuedo-science to sway the jury. He tries awe us with the complexity of the universe. Of course this is better then the early part of the trial when he simply threatened the jury and demanded they rule in his favor. When something doesn’t work he moves on to another tactic which is usually an old idea with a new twist and name. I, as a juror, am ready to cast my vote as the opposition simply states, “No evidence = No God.”

So, like a tired juror, I am convinced there is no God. Enough time has passed to convince me otherwise, but no evidence has surfaced.


Supose we took your jury and tried to convince them that the nutrino untill 1931 the approach by the defence of the trial could have been no different from that proposed by the defence in the god case. Thus unless you claim there is something amazing about the last 75 years you are also forced to reject the existance of the neutrino


To answer the original question, atheist have thought about the existence of God and concluded it can not be. Believers follow blindly and never step out of their faith to examine what they believe in.

Not consistant with the evidence since that forces you to conclude that no religion can grow faster than the rate at which it's adhearents can have offspring.

[wastepanel]

Thank you all for answering my question to the best of your abilities. After reading all the responses, I see I have drawn all three sides of the spectrum: Believers, skeptics, and atheists.

Some of the posts I read can be taken as quite disturbing (depending on who the reader is). I can't see how someone can have blind faith and not ever question their beliefs. I also can't see how someone can rule out any possibility that something exists that has not been discovered yet. Yet, it seems perfectly reasonable for somebody to be skeptical towards the entire topic.

EDIT: Keep 'em coming...

[Freethinker]

I'm not saying Einstein was necessarily a theist, but I would not call him an atheist until sufficient proof has been provided.

Perhaps Einstein wasn't an atheist in an absolute sense, but certainly any Christian would consider him such. To me, the following quote from a 1927 letter indicates his lack of belief in the god of the Jews and Christians.

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation.

This 1954 quote is also telling:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Or this one from 1941:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.



One must remember that Einstein was under fire from both the Catholics and Jews for his work. Many of his comments about god and religion were made to defend himself from such pressure. Considering that in the times in which he lived the Catholic church still had the kind of influence that could stifle scientific progress, Einstein at least had to publicly placate the church.
In my opinion, when Einstein referred to god, he was referring to the order that makes up the universe, or that "Nature is God". He often referenced Spinoza when discussing his beliefs.
Edge's post doesn't change my opinion.
I will also grant that this is all our interpretation of bits and pieces of what he said.

[wastepanel]

Religion and Science: Irreconcilable?

Return to Top
A response to a greeting sent by the Liberal Ministers' Club of New York City. Published in The Christian Register, June, 1948. Published in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1954.

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."

As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach.

As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.

It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.

When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to differ as basically from each other as the proponents of the "relativistic" or conventional theory wish us to believe. And this is by no means surprising. For the moral attitudes of a people that is supported by religion need always aim at preserving and promoting the sanity and vitality of the community and its individuals, since otherwise this community is bound to perish. A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long.

When confronted with a specific case, however, it is no easy task to determine clearly what is desirable and what should be eschewed, just as we find it difficult to decide what exactly it is that makes good painting or good music. It is something that may be felt intuitively more easily than rationally comprehended. Likewise, the great moral teachers of humanity were, in a way, artistic geniuses in the art of living. In addition to the most elementary precepts directly motivated by the preservation of life and the sparing of unnecessary suffering, there are others to which, although they are apparently not quite commensurable to the basic precepts, we nevertheless attach considerable imporcance. Should truth, for instance, be sought unconditionally even where its attainment and its accessibility to all would entail heavy sacrifices in toil and happiness? There are many such questions which, from a rational vantage point, cannot easily be answered or cannot be answered at all. Yet, I do not think that the so-called "relativistic" viewpoint is correct, not even when dealing with the more subtle moral decisions.

When considering the actual living conditions of presentday civilized humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious commands, one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful disappointment at what one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relations among the individuals and groups, the actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere, in economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of one's fellow. men. This competitive spirit prevails even in school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection.

There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is necessarily inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such views that are the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby that religious teachings are utopian ideals and unsuited to afford guidance in human affairs. The study of the social patterns in certain so-called primitive cultures, however, seems to have made it sufficiently evident that such a defeatist view is wholly unwarranted. Whoever is concerned with this problem, a crucial one in the study of religion as such, is advised to read the description of the Pueblo Indians in Ruth Benedict's book, Patterns of Culture. Under the hardest living conditions, this tribe has apparently accomplished the difficult task of delivering its people from the scourge of competitive spirit and of fostering in it a temperate, cooperative conduct of life, free of external pressure and without any curtailment of happiness.

The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they wouid hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.

-Albert Einstein, 1930

The way I read this statement, Einstein was saying that in order to be truly religious, one must be able to seperate their beliefs from science.

[Freethinker]

The way I read this statement, Einstein was saying that in order to be truly religious, one must be able to seperate their beliefs from science.

Yet here from M. M. O'hare published 1982 (don't know the original source), he seems to say that science is religion:

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

[Iacchus]

If you go by that quote, then yes, Jung was close-minded.

But we don't have to go by that quote. We can go by most of his other writings as well. As with most psychoanalytic thought, the theory determined the evidence, rather than vice versa. Yup, close-minded.Yes, isn't that pretty much the way Occam's Razor works? We go with "the best" theory which closely matches the evidence? Of course he stated outright that it scientifically can't be proven and, that may very well be the case. That should not necessarily preclude it from being inaccessible, however ... i.e., on a personal level.

[wastepanel]

Yet here from M. M. O'hare published 1982 (don't know the original source), he seems to say that science is religion:

I've read that before too. Einstein (in my opinion) never came off as an aethiest, but more of anti-structured religion. From what I believe, that statement came from a larger paper and had a quote to the effect of "In order for the preacher to become a teacher, that person must be able to seperate their personal beliefs from their structured beliefs". Einstein, like alot of people here, believed that nobody should have control of his own beliefs or how he rationalized what his "religion" was.

[Iacchus]

Einstein was more of a pantheist or, deist.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Depends. Did you ask him why he believes? Maybe he is convinced by what he perceives as evidence, and so your question to him might be like asking if he could ever lose his belief that the Earth is spherical.

He believes because he saw god in a dream.

BTW: I could lose my belief that the Earth is spherical. If I went into space and looked back and the Earth was shaped like a coin, I would be convinced that it is not spherical.


LLH

[chriswl]

Some of the posts I read can be taken as quite disturbing (depending on who the reader is). I can't see how someone can have blind faith and not ever question their beliefs. I also can't see how someone can rule out any possibility that something exists that has not been discovered yet.
I'm convinced there is no God. You seem to be treating the existence of God as an empirical issue. For me, it's not about "evidence". There is no physical evidence that could point to God - how would we know that apparent evidence of God wasn't just evidence of a very powerful but non-godlike creature? How would we know that apparent "magic" was not just the exploitation of laws of nature that we hadn't discovered?

The things that make a God a God are not amenable to scientific investigation. How would you scientifically investigate His goodness, his moral perfection? Does the concept even make any sense? And without that why would anyone worship Him or accept his right to judge them?

The idea of God is just ridiculous, an infantile projection of a giant father figure onto the world. You wouldn't prostrate yourself in from of another human being in awe of his magnificence, however wonderful he was. Is it an appropriate response to any being? Could a creature who desired that kind of grovelling response really be worthy of it?

To me the whole God-concept seems stupid and ill thought-out and impossible to reconcile with the world we live in. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but it won't be "evidence" that would put me right. It would be a new argument, or a way of looking at the world or religion, a new perspective from which this would all make sense and I would see my mistake.

But I'm obviously not going to call myself an agnostic on the ground that someone might change my mind. On that logic we could never claim to believe anything. Right now, my mind is such that I totally reject the idea of God. I rule it out.

[Iacchus]

I'm convinced there is no God. You seem to be treating the existence of God as an empirical issue. For me, it's not about "evidence". There is no physical evidence that could point to God - how would we know that apparent evidence of God wasn't just evidence of a very powerful but non-godlike creature? How would we know that apparent "magic" was not just the exploitation of laws of nature that we hadn't discovered?Everything is contingent upon the ability to know, in my opinion.

[elliotfc]

In general which group has better overall hygeine? Atheists or Christians? I'd say atheists. Damn hippies always dragging us down.

-Elliot

[Iacchus]

If God did not exist, it would be impossible to know. However, since we do have the capacity to know, of just about everything else, it only stands to reason that it should also include God if, in fact He does exist. If not, then we are forever stuck, trying to explain how a complete Universe could come about bereft of any logical consequences ... our thoughts being a direct result of the logic inherent in the Universe by the way.

[Mercutio]

If God did not exist, it would be impossible to know. However, since we do have the capacity to know, of just about everything else, it only stands to reason that it should also include God if, in fact He does exist. Or else we would really have to bear down, and try to explain how a complete Universe could come about bereft of any logical consequences?
:eek: :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp

:covereyes


:boxedin:

"X is impossible. However, since Y is possible, it only stands to reason that X is possible. Or how could we explain how we know that Y is possible?"

Is that about it?

[elliotfc]

:eek: :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp

:covereyes


:boxedin:

"X is impossible. However, since Y is possible, it only stands to reason that X is possible. Or how could we explain how we know that Y is possible?"

Is that about it?

I think it's more like...It is impossible *to know* X. However, since it is possible *to know* Y, it stands to reason that it is possible *to know* X.

Is he/she saying that if we can know a ton of stuff, we should also be able to know God, if God exists? Or, that we should be able to derive God's existence logically given the fact that we can know a ton of stuff?

-Elliot

[Mercutio]

I think it's more like...It is impossible *to know* X. However, since it is possible *to know* Y, it stands to reason that it is possible *to know* X.

Is he/she saying that if we can know a ton of stuff, we should also be able to know God, if God exists? Or, that we should be able to derive God's existence logically given the fact that we can know a ton of stuff?

-Elliot
Arguably, your interpretation would be an argument against the existence of god--er, X, I mean, since it should be, but is not, possible to know X, and since it is possible to know Y, the only reason it would be impossible to know X is that X does not exist.

And I don't think that is what Iacchus had in mind. But then, he rarely thinks through his posts anyway.

[Iacchus]

:eek: :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp

:covereyes


:boxedin:

"X is impossible. However, since Y is possible, it only stands to reason that X is possible. Or how could we explain how we know that Y is possible?"

Is that about it?Actually I meant to say that if it God doesn't exist, it would be impossible to know that He does. In fact I was inclined to change it but, it seemed to read better the way it was. Either way, there are those folks who seem to think it's impossible to know.

[Tricky]

If God did not exist, it would be impossible to know. However, since we do have the capacity to know, of just about everything else, it only stands to reason that it should also include God if, in fact He does exist. If not, then we are forever stuck, trying to explain how a complete Universe could come about bereft of any logical consequences ... our thoughts being a direct result of the logic inherent in the Universe by the way.
Is there a big sale at the gobbledygook warehouse today?

[Iacchus]

... the only reason it would be impossible to know X is that X does not exist.Yes, and why is it possible to explain anything at all, in a Universe which, for all intents and purposes has no origin? In other words we seem to be able to explain everything but that.

And I don't think that is what Iacchus had in mind. But then, he rarely thinks through his posts anyway.Eh.

[Iacchus]

Is there a big sale at the gobbledygook warehouse today?Yes, if God doesn't exist, it would be impossible to know that He does.

[TJ]

Yes, if God doesn't exist, it would be impossible to know that He does.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

If I say the opposite:

No, if god does exist, it wouldn't be possible to know that he doesn't.

It's still no clearer.

[Iacchus]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

If I say the opposite:

No, if god does exist, it wouldn't be possible to know that he doesn't.

It's still no clearer.Really? All I'm saying is that you can't prove a negative. In which case if God does exist, it would seem much more likely that we could prove that He does. In fact, it would all be contingent upon our ability to know, at least according to what I'm saying here.

[wastepanel]

Way too picky in your defining the search for God, Iacchus. Whether you are proving a negative or a positive is irrelavant. Getting the proof necessary is.

[Iacchus]

And would you not agree that the rules which govern the Universe are inherently bound to logic and, that our ability to know is directly attributable to this?

[Mercutio]

And would you not agree that the rules which govern the Universe are inherently bound to logic and, that our ability to know is directly attributable to this?
No. Clearly not.

Your ignorance of logic, the laws of physics, and the processes of learning, are letting you down.

[Iacchus]

No. Clearly not.

Your ignorance of logic, the laws of physics, and the processes of learning, are letting you down.You don't believe in science and it's ability to explain the world around us? How do you explain consciousness then, if not bound to the constraints of logic and a logical Universe?

[Mercutio]

You don't believe in science and it's ability to explain the world around us?
Thank you for this sentence. It, as much as anything you have written, shows how disconnected you are from reality. Only in some bizarre alternate universe could you be chastising me about science.

How do you explain consciousness then, if not bound to the constraints of logic and a logical Universe?Gee...maybe you should go back to the half-dozen or so threads where this was already discussed to death?

[Iacchus]

So, in what way is science not a wasted effort then? Are you suggesting that there is no logical consistency to the Universe? By the way, this has always been my claim. ;)

[Mercutio]

So, in what way is science not a wasted effort then? Are you suggesting that there is no logical consistency to the Universe? By the way, this has always been my claim. ;)
I am saying that there is no logical consistency to your posts.

Disagreeing with your view of science is not at all the same thing as disagreeing with science.

[Iacchus]

I am saying that there is no logical consistency to your posts.

Disagreeing with your view of science is not at all the same thing as disagreeing with science.So, in what way would you disagree that science is the study of the logical consistency of the Universe? Is there any other way that it can be maintained? Wouldn't you agree that the Universe is, for the most part, logical?

[Iacchus]

No. Clearly not.How so?

[Iacchus]

I am saying that there is no logical consistency to your posts.Why? Simply because my conclusion doesn't follow yours?

[Mercutio]

So, in what way would you disagree that science is the study of the logical consistency of the Universe?
By directing you to a dictionary.
Is there any other way that it can be maintained? This question is rendered irrelevant by the incorrectness of your first assumption.
Wouldn't you agree that the Universe is, for the most part, logical?How so?

I am in too good a mood to continue to argue with you. Go read a dictionary, realize your mistake, and you can have the last word.

[Iacchus]

By directing you to a dictionary.Why? Because I'm not repeating what it says verbatim? How does this make it incorrect?

This question is rendered irrelevant by the incorrectness of your first assumption.No, I don't think so.

How so?With all these piles and piles of books with inherent/factual knowledge of the Universe ... what we would otherwise term as "non-fiction."

I am in too good a mood to continue to argue with you. Go read a dictionary, realize your mistake, and you can have the last word.Really?

[Iacchus]

Why would science promote the theory of evolution if it didn't believe it were logically consistent?

[Melendwyr]

Please do not feed the trolls.

[Iacchus]

Please do not feed the trolls.Wow ... denial runs deep.

[Tricky]

How so?
How do you keep your consciousness from falling asleep out of sheer boredom with itself?
Why would science promote the theory of evolution if it didn't believe it were logically consistent?
Why do you ask questions when you neither care about, understand or are able to address the answers you are given?

[wastepanel]

Tricky...I gotta laugh everytime I see your signature.

[Mercutio]

Tricky...I gotta laugh everytime I see your signature.
I've never managed to make it all the way through...is it funny?

[wastepanel]

I've never managed to make it all the way through...is it funny?

LMAO

[Pae]

I'm an atheist because in my interpretation of reality and phenomenon, I have not come to the conclusion that deities are present. It has nothing to do with religion.

[elliotfc]

I'm an atheist because in my interpretation of reality and phenomenon, I have not come to the conclusion that deities are present. It has nothing to do with religion.

This is, to me at least, the most sensible atheism. Slightly less sensible (to me that is, of course it's sensible to others) is people who achieve atheism through their examination of a particular religion, or a particular religious text.

-Elliot

[wastepanel]

This is, to me at least, the most sensible atheism. Slightly less sensible (to me that is, of course it's sensible to others) is people who achieve atheism through their examination of a particular religion, or a particular religious text.

-Elliot

Very good statement Elliot.

[alfaniner]

Wow, a new thought I really like. A religion should be chosen by examining your own personal experiences (without the preconceptions of indoctrination), and seeing which one (if any) fit that model. Chances are, none would.

[Tricky]

This is, to me at least, the most sensible atheism. Slightly less sensible (to me that is, of course it's sensible to others) is people who achieve atheism through their examination of a particular religion, or a particular religious text.
True, but some suggest it is wrong to reject a concept of God until you understand it. However, this leads to the problem of having to be a theology student in order to be an atheist.

[elliotfc]

Wow, a new thought I really like. A religion should be chosen by examining your own personal experiences (without the preconceptions of indoctrination), and seeing which one (if any) fit that model. Chances are, none would.

I think that's a bit unfair...because you're suggesting that atheism is a religion (arf arf)...unless you're trying to extend the idea that is.

Also, this gives credibility to people who claim that they have, in fact, had personal experiences which leads them to religion.

In addition, religions do not have a monopoly on indoctrintion.

We can identify many people who have claimed to have personal experience, and then erect a religion around that, so I think your last statement is wrong.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

True, but some suggest it is wrong to reject a concept of God until you understand it. However, this leads to the problem of having to be a theology student in order to be an atheist.

Right. A *particular* concept of God. Meaning, if you reject the Judeo-Christian God, and translate that to rejecting God, end of, you're extending the particular to the general.

Most atheists actually know more about overall theology (i.e. non Judeo Xtian) than the average Judeo-Christian believer. They ain't losing any sleep over that probably.

-Elliot