Merged: Atheism=Religion=Pointless

[phantomb]

Originally Posted by Yig

Atheism and theism are the same.

Okay. First I want to note what I would say is the actually important distinction, which is that the majority of theists claim to know that God exists, while the majority of atheists merely believe that God does not exist (if they even go that far).

Second, I want to clarify. We're talking about a theist who says "I believe in God, but I don't claim to know that God exists", and an atheist who says "I believe God doesn't exist, but I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist", and we want to discuss which of those two positions is more logical to take. Is that right?

[nvidiot]

Having beliefs around and as a consequence of atheism is not the same thing as atheism is a belief though.

And I don't care how you say it, given the knowledge we have about the world and the rules of the universe as we understand them (important qualifier there) theism of any flavour is not as logical as atheism.

[Yig]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

It is NOT a philosophical point to ask how the universe begain. It is inherently a scientific question.

No it isn't. Why? Because any theory would contain unverifiable claims.

[Yig]

Originally Posted by roger

How do you think an intelligent designer came into existence (or always existed, if that is your spin on things)

I have a theory, but that's another thread for another time.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

Having beliefs around and as a consequence of atheism is not the same thing as atheism is a belief though.

And I don't care how you say it, given the knowledge we have about the world and the rules of the universe as we understand them (important qualifier there) theism of any flavour is not as logical as atheism.

Of course, but I don't think that means that someone might not believe there is no god (e.g. have that thought encoded in their brain however it is encoded). Atheism can certainly be a belief, I think, but not all beliefs are equally valid.

[Yig]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

And just to add, there must some special kind of weirdness which compels someone to come to a skeptics forum and demand that there be no evidence entered into a discussion.

Sorry. I thought I was having a philosophical discussion in a philosophy forum. Besides, if I'm not allowed to ask for evidence then you aren't either.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Yig

I have a theory, but that's another thread for another time.

ah i see, you are not an agnostic like you claimed to be.......

[phantomb]

Originally Posted by Yig

He does exactly what everyone in this forum does. Assume that any person who is challenging atheism, must be a theist, and then proceed to ridicule the belief that they assert the challenger to have.

I'm assuming you're completely ignorant of the context of that clip then, because the location was Liberty U, a private Christian university infamous for teaching young earth creationism. I don't think Dawkins was going out on a limb when he assumed that the student pulling out the oldest religious "argument" in the book was a theist.

And regardless, that's still not an example of "group mentality", which is what you claimed it was in the first place.

Originally Posted by Yig

He also doesn't seem like a very open minded guy.

Again, closed minded != group mentality

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Yig

No it isn't. Why? Because any theory would contain unverifiable claims.

How do you know it would contain unverifiable claims? How do you know it would also not contain falsifiable claims?

Frankly, anything that has neither means nothing.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Well, I think the atheism thing might be different in a society where theism is so prevalent. You are inherently confronted by it, so you're going to build up thoughts and memories related to it. There's certainly going to be a framework in the brain about the topic that includes your opinion. I think one could say that constitutes a belief, objectively speaking.

That said, strictly speaking, atheism does not require any belief, anymore than not believing Truthers requires a belief. If you're forced (or choose) to deal with the issue though, you're going to develop beliefs about it.

surely most in our society have some opinion about god's. but calling that a believe is strange, since Atheism describes the lack of a believe in gods.
we dont have names for all the other things people do not believe.
How should we call people that do not believe in Dragons and Unicorns?

[Yig]

Originally Posted by phantomb

Yes, I know. If you like, I can link you to a few threads where the issue of conflicting definitions of "atheist" has been discussed here in the past. Regardless, are you seriously trying to argue that the word "atheist" has no common usage definition? That when I say to someone "I am an atheist" they do not gain any new information about me from the exchange? Because that's incredibly silly.

You've ignored the meat of my post. If it's true that atheism is fraught with groupthink, why are atheists known to be diverse and difficult to organize? Why are atheists one of the weakest represented groups politically?

I'm saying that the definitions of atheism don't mean anything because at the end of the day there's always some sort of belief involved and if there isn't then atheism is pointless.
There are atheist groups in most communities. I know because I've gone to the atheist group meetings in mine. They're about as open minded as you guys.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Yig

I'm saying that the definitions of atheism don't mean anything because at the end of the day there's always some sort of belief involved and if there isn't then atheism is pointless.
There are atheist groups in most communities. I know because I've gone to the atheist group meetings in mine. They're about as open minded as you guys.

this place is full of openminded guys, but they are somekind of special here, here you need a little key to open the minds, its called evidence or a good argument.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Yig

Why is it ridiculous?

I just answered that in the quote. You're asking people if they can entertain the idea of an intelligent designer. My response is to point out that I accept that many intelligent designers exist. Therefore, your definition of "god" as "an intelligent designer" is useless, unless you wish to suggest that the design department of Samsung are gods.

Originally Posted by Yig

When a belief is "true" and the truth can be justified, then it becomes knowledge. This makes having a belief that X exists something like having a theory that X exists.

There.... happy now?

No. This in no way addresses what I said, which was: No. You can't wander around casually redefining words, it results in nonsense. As was pointed out in your previous thread, defining "God" as "an intelligent designer" is ridiculous. I believe in an intelligent designer, in fact I believe in many. The ones who designed my computer, the ones who designed my mobile phone, the ones who designed my television, etc, etc.

Similarly, a "belief" is not "a theory that the given something exists." What dictionary are you using?

Originally Posted by Yig

Ok......good............ we have a definition. Now what is your justification for not believing that God exists?

There's no evidence that God exists. I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in fairies. What is your justification for believing in God?

Originally Posted by Yig

What is the justification for your belief that God does not exist? Whatever it is, it's probably about as logical as a justification for a belief in God. This is the point I'm making. You are not being more logical. Atheism and theism are the same.

How is "There's no evidence for this, therefore I don't believe it" just as logical as "This book was written by God acting through men, despite all the errors and contradictions it contains"?

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Yig

No it isn't. Why? Because any theory would contain unverifiable claims.

Missed this one. A theory cannot contain unverifiable claims. That's kinda the point of a theory: that it puts forwards claims that can be tested, that it makes predictions of things we can observe. That's why religion fails, every testable prediction or claim it makes fails. Pray to God and your prayer will be answered? Failed. The world is flat with a dome over it? Failed. There was a great flood that covered the whole world? Failed. Etc, etc.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by DC

surely most in our society have some opinion about god's. but calling that a believe is strange, since Atheism describes the lack of a believe in gods.
we dont have names for all the other things people do not believe.
How should we call people that do not believe in Dragons and Unicorns?

I don't think having beliefs about major concepts that exist in a culture is at all strange, whether it is belief of agreement or disagreement. How an atheist's brain would theoretically reflect their atheism structurally is going to be different from that of say...purple fuzzy tentacle beasts that give hugs and travel in space. It's nigh-unavoidable not to form beliefs on the god issue, one way or another in our culture. Even agnostics have beliefs on it (as much as they might pretend otherwise).

The fact we have a word of not believing in gods in particular signifies how its a significant enough aspect of our culture that it deserves a word. Dragons and unicorns are different in that regard, though I suppose it is possible we'd find similar structures for whatever denotes the disbelief of them in at least some peoples brains as one does find for atheists regarding god beliefs.

Anyhow, when you get right down to it, an opinion IS a type of belief. The word "belief" isn't a naughty.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

I don't think having beliefs about major concepts that exist in a culture is at all strange, whether it is belief of agreement or disagreement. How an atheist's brain would theoretically reflect their atheism structurally is going to be different from that of say...purple fuzzy tentacle beasts that give hugs and travel in space. It's nigh-unavoidable not to form beliefs on the god issue, one way or another in our culture. Even agnostics have beliefs on it (as much as they might pretend otherwise).

The fact we have a word of not believing in gods in particular signifies how its a significant enough aspect of our culture that it deserves a word. Dragons and unicorns are different in that regard, though I suppose it is possible we'd find similar structures for whatever denotes the disbelief of them in at least some peoples brains as one does find for atheists regarding god beliefs.

Anyhow, when you get right down to it, an opinion IS a type of belief. The word "belief" isn't a naughty.

Dragons and Unicorns are not different. we know them very well in our society from old and new fairytales. and we form opinions about them already as children, just like with other things human fantasy has created.

But there is a difference in the believes. I do not believe in gods because i have not seen any evidence that justifies to believe in their existence.
Believing in gods requires blind faith or the impression of having evidence or an experiance.

Many Theists would say, i believe in god and nothing can change my mind.
many atheists would say, i dont believe in god but evidence could change my mind.

i think there are justified believes and irrational believes.

[Yig]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Without evidence there is no difference between fantasy and your theory. You could jsut use the exact same reasoning for an INFINITY of made up stuff. Replace god intelligent designer , with small alien of the 7th dimension. Replace them with a mega magic particle in an unstable state bound to fission in smaller particle and making up a big bang. The bottom line is that ONE can make an infinity of such theory. Even if that god /alien /particle existed, WITHOUT evidence, you would simply be ACCIDENTALY correct, like a broken mechanical clock is correct twice a day.

You are allowed to make up your own fantasy. But anybody with 2 cent of common sense would refuse to believe in your fantasy until you provide evidence. Religion are shared fantasy. Well mostly, because if you get 7 people from a religion group, and ask them about their religion, there are probably 8 different point of view on that religion.


Basically a rational state is to start from ZERO entity, then see evidence of what exists, then build up rational theory on that.

Your "I make up theory on the fly, evidence not necessary" is a big fail.

I think that people put too much emphasis on the empirical aspect of the scientific process and not enough on the rational. To me, philosophy, is the application of reason to the knowledge that we already possess, an extrapolation process. Reason and knowledge are what disqualify certain theories from that infinite set of "made up stuff" that you are referring to.

[phantomb]

Originally Posted by Yig

I'm saying that the definitions of atheism don't mean anything because at the end of the day there's always some sort of belief involved and if there isn't then atheism is pointless.

It doesn't matter if you personally think the term is pointless, it still has a definition. You'll find it in the dictionary under A. Alternatively you could open your window and ask someone on the street what it means because "atheist" is a very popular word right now.

Originally Posted by Yig

There are atheist groups in most communities. I know because I've gone to the atheist group meetings in mine. They're about as open minded as you guys.

All I can tell you is that it's a well known fact among political organizers and atheists, of which I am both, that atheists are not organized on even close to the same scale as most religions.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by DC

Dragons and Unicorns are not different. we know them very well in our society from old and new fairytales. and we form opinions about them already as children, just like with other things human fantasy has created.

You're not seriously arguing that the significance of dragons and unicorns in our society is the same as the significance of god and other religious beliefs, are you? Culturally, the two are extremely different.

Originally Posted by DC

But there is a difference in the believes. I do not believe in gods because i have not seen any evidence that justifies to believe in their existence.
Believing in gods requires blind faith or the impression of having evidence or an experiance.

Many Theists would say, i believe in god and nothing can change my mind.
many atheists would say, i dont believe in god but evidence could change my mind.

i think there are justified believes and irrational believes.

And I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying it is hard to imagine how someone in our society could call themselves an atheist and not believe there was no god. I agree 100% that it is a rational belief. My only point is that it is a belief, just like thinking evolution is true is a belief.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

You're not seriously arguing that the significance of dragons and unicorns in our society is the same as the significance of god and other religious beliefs, are you? Culturally, the two are extremely different.



And I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying it is hard to imagine how someone in our society could call themselves an atheist and not believe there was no god. I agree 100% that it is a rational belief. My only point is that it is a belief, just like thinking evolution is true is a belief.

i didn't say they are significant, but just like most people here have heard about at least one god, most people have heard of Dragons and unicorns. Probably even before they heard about god. as they very often are part of stories told to children. or used in cartoons by Disney etc. in that aspect there is no difference between gods and dragons.

and for the rest. i think this is entering the field of extremist skepticism. what do we really know? your belief in your existence is merely a belief.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Yig

I'm saying that the definitions of atheism don't mean anything because at the end of the day there's always some sort of belief involved and if there isn't then atheism is pointless.
There are atheist groups in most communities. I know because I've gone to the atheist group meetings in mine. They're about as open minded as you guys.

I have no atheist ''beliefs''. There are no gods,mankind invented them all,end of story.You can indulge in all the sophistry you want,but it won't change anything.

[DC]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I have no atheist ''beliefs''. There are no gods,mankind invented them all,end of story.You can indulge in all the sophistry you want,but it won't change anything.

i think his point is.

you cannot bring up evidence for the bolded part, thus it is a believe.

[Yig]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

That's hypocritical, I think. An agnostic's position is "I don't know", meaning they ARE uncertain. To say "I know for certain" is ok, and "I don't know at all" is ok, but exclude the middle as valid is a logical fallacy.

Further, in real life we are often faced with many things where one cannot be 100% certain. Let's say it is around Christmas and you see a mysterious charge on an account you share with your wife. You know she usually buys things for you on your joint account, so you might be reasonably certain that's the case here. You can't rule out with 100% certainty that it isn't a case of theft until you talk to her, however. Criminal law probably provides even better examples (I'm avoiding using science as an example on purpose here). The case against an alleged criminal can leave uncertainty, and indeed it is expected to leave some uncertainty even in a conviction; the case against someone must be one that rules out reasonable doubt, but very unlikely doubts are still sometimes true (as overturned convictions show). It can make perfect sense for a member of the jury to vote "Guilty" and not be 100% certain the guy did it.

I just think that it's very difficult to talk in probabilistic terms about something so abstract. So much so that it is pointless to even try.

[Cuddles]

Threads merged. Do not start multiple threads for exactly the same discussion.

Posted By:Cuddles

[Mahaha]

SERIOUS ANSWER, NOT CHALLENGING, DON'T EVADE PLEASE

Originally Posted by Yig

I do think that on some level atheists believe something about God and the origins of the universe. How could and why would anyone lack belief?

You keep saying that, but you don't answer the opposite question, that some have already asked: why should one have belief?

I mean, it's not like there's any indication of a god anywhere. And as far as your "why not try to explain the universe" argument is concerned, it's not really an argument.
Trying to explain something doesn't mean make up an explaination. If it where that, we could assume that the unverse started from a giant fart of chtulhu.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against religion: my girlfriend is religious, while I'm not, and I couldn't love her more. I'm just saying that it is a little arrogant to say that our point of view is just a rationalization while yours is the only truly honest.

Can you see what I'm talking about? Are you willing to admit that your opinion is worth as much as mine?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by DC

i think his point is.

you cannot bring up evidence for the bolded part, thus it is a believe.

I disagree.The default position is no gods.I do not have to provide any evidence.If anyone believes in any god or gods,they have to prove it to me.Nobody ever has.

[TobiasTheViking]

Originally Posted by Yig

I wanted to start fresh.....ok.

I do think that on some level atheists believe something about God and the origins of the universe. How could and why would anyone lack belief?

I was brought up with no religion.

My parents rarely (if ever) spoke about religion. Religion was something weird that everyone around me did for no apparant reason.

How could i have any belief?
Why would i have any belief?

Actually what do you mean by "why would anyone lack belief?". That seems like a rather loaded question.

I ask you "How could and why would anyone have belief, if they weren't brought up with it?".

ETA: Also answer this. "How could and why would anyone have belief at all?".

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Yig

One makes assumptions in all cases. Like I already said, it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

Fair enough. So according to you trying to answer this question we must ignore the accumulated knowledge of mankind and work from total ignorance.
From that point of view the ideas that the universe has a creator or that the universe has no creator are equally valid.

However, looking at this, there a a multitude of creation myths. So the sum of all these creation myths is equal to the likelyhood that there is no creator.
Since all the creation myths are mutally exclusive each individual creator is thus less likely than no creator. If there are 100 mutually exclusive creators that means each of these is 100 times less likely to exist than not exist.
And this only works when, as stated before, one ignores human knowledge as each creation myth known to man contains things not found in nature, making it even less likely.

So using that logic it is far more likely that the universe has no creator than a specific creator.

[laca]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Intellectual integrity.

This.

ETA: Oh my, two whole pages later... This was in response to a response to this.

[Yig]

Originally Posted by Sledge

I just answered that in the quote. You're asking people if they can entertain the idea of an intelligent designer. My response is to point out that I accept that many intelligent designers exist. Therefore, your definition of "god" as "an intelligent designer" is useless, unless you wish to suggest that the design department of Samsung are gods.

Wow. You really can't imagine a scenario in which a lifeform becomes sentient and advances in technology to the point where it is able to create a universe resembling ours. How such a lifeform might, through technology, gain some of the properties that we attribute to God. Tell me why this is impossible.

I'm aware that I'm not being very scientific here. That's fine because we are having a philosophical discussion.

Originally Posted by Sledge

No. This in no way addresses what I said, which was: No. You can't wander around casually redefining words, it results in nonsense. As was pointed out in your previous thread, defining "God" as "an intelligent designer" is ridiculous. I believe in an intelligent designer, in fact I believe in many. The ones who designed my computer, the ones who designed my mobile phone, the ones who designed my television, etc, etc.

Similarly, a "belief" is not "a theory that the given something exists." What dictionary are you using?

Fine, define belief then. I'm asking because I know you won't accept any definition I give you.

Originally Posted by Sledge

There's no evidence that God exists. I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in fairies. What is your justification for believing in God?

Originally Posted by Sledge

How is "There's no evidence for this, therefore I don't believe it" just as logical as "This book was written by God acting through men, despite all the errors and contradictions it contains"?

You obviously won't accept my definition so what do you think God is? You must have some notion because it would be impossible to say that there is no evidence of God without first having an idea of what God might be.

[Matt the Poet]

‘God’ as a mysterious, incredibly powerful alien being who is invisibly tinkering with all life on Earth in a way that looks almost exactly like it isn’t is, I suppose, possible. I don’t ‘believe’ such a god exists in the same way that I don’t believe Donald Trump has all his own hair – it seems on the face of things unlikely but I could be persuaded with evidence

‘God’ as an infinite, omnipresent, single Substance or Entity that froms the origin and ground of all being – Heidegger’s ‘Dasein’ – is a metaphysical possibility. I don’t ‘believe’ in this kind of God (which is the only kind I will captalise mid-sentence) the same way that I don’t ‘believe’ that a pigeon landed on the roof of Sydney Opera house at exactly 2pm yesterday – even if it seems entirely possible I have no way of verifying it and the answer doesn’t matter. ‘Believe’ is not an appropriate verb to apply to the situation.

‘God’ as an infinite, omniperesent, single substance or entity that both creates and forms the ground of all being and yet at the same time is separate from me and intervenes in my life and the life of humanity through vague and indirect means is a logical contradiction in terms. I don’t ‘believe’ in this god in the same way that I don’t ‘believe’ that red things are also green – for the world to make any kind of sense at all it is necessary that such a god doesn’t exist.

That covers all the bases and doesn’t require me to take any philosophical stance beyond that of believing in metaphysically necessary properties and considering intellectual consistency to be an absolute good, both of which seem pretty reasonable.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Yig

Wow. You really can't imagine a scenario in which a lifeform becomes sentient and advances in technology to the point where it is able to create a universe resembling ours. How such a lifeform might, through technology, gain some of the properties that we attribute to God. Tell me why this is impossible.

Tell me how this is relevant to the discussion. Tell me how you've taken what I said and concluded I can't imagine what you claim I can't imagine. You really should stop trying to tell other people what they think.

Quote:

I'm aware that I'm not being very scientific here. That's fine because we are having a philosophical discussion.

Explain.

Quote:

Fine, define belief then. I'm asking because I know you won't accept any definition I give you.

Open a dictionary.

Quote:

You obviously won't accept my definition so what do you think God is? You must have some notion because it would be impossible to say that there is no evidence of God without first having an idea of what God might be.

"God" being written with a capital "G" is used to refer to the Christian/Jewish god. There is no evidence that such a being exists. Do you have a different god in mind?

[laca]

Originally Posted by Yig

I do think that on some level atheists believe something about God and the origins of the universe.

You couldn't be more wrong. You could try, but you'd fail.

Originally Posted by Yig

How could and why would anyone lack belief?

Lack of evidence. You see, some of us like to base our beliefs on evidence. Especially if said beliefs influence our actions. We're weird that way. Deal with it.

[Yig]

Originally Posted by Mahaha

SERIOUS ANSWER, NOT CHALLENGING, DON'T EVADE PLEASE



You keep saying that, but you don't answer the opposite question, that some have already asked: why should one have belief?

I mean, it's not like there's any indication of a god anywhere. And as far as your "why not try to explain the universe" argument is concerned, it's not really an argument.
Trying to explain something doesn't mean make up an explaination. If it where that, we could assume that the unverse started from a giant fart of chtulhu.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against religion: my girlfriend is religious, while I'm not, and I couldn't love her more. I'm just saying that it is a little arrogant to say that our point of view is just a rationalization while yours is the only truly honest.

Can you see what I'm talking about? Are you willing to admit that your opinion is worth as much as mine?

Of course. That is my central point. One is free to believe anything they want regarding that which is unverifiable all beliefs are equal. Especially when it comes to something as abstract as God. Any process of inquiry regarding such an idea must involve something resembling belief or else it would be impossible to ascribe evidence for or against it. That said one should still "extrapolate" based on the knowledge we already have. I think this is the source of most of the argument in this thread as I think that one does not have to limit themselves as much as what is commonly accepted.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Yig

I got tired of having separate arguments with 12 different people.

So this thread will solve that? You really don't have an argument here, just your own opinion, which you are very, very welcome to.

ETA: Oh snap, I didn't notice the merge. Thanks, Cuddles!

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Yig

Are you open to the idea of an intelligent designer?

My atheism is not a result of any refusal to entertain the possibility of the existence of a god or gods on my part. My atheism is a result of the lack of evidence for the existence of a god or gods. I am open to any evidence that might be presented, but so far none has been.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Yig

I do think that on some level atheists believe something about God and the origins of the universe. How could and why would anyone lack belief?

This is called argument from personal incredulity. It is a type of logical fallacy.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Yig

There seem to be a lot of atheists on this forum and they all seem to like to use whatever definition of atheism suits them at the moment.

The great majority of atheists on this forum define 'atheist' as a lack of belief in deities. It is that simple.

[Matt the Poet]

Yig, do you believe I'm wearing a hat right now?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Yig

Don't ask for evidence. It's a philosophical discussion.

This is a cop out.

Quote:

Complexity creates intelligence, intelligence creates complexity. How do you think the universe came into existence?

Oops, you are presenting evidence. I thought that this was a philosophical matter.

The above assertion may seem self evident to you, but then it once seemed self evident that time was a universal constant and that the continents were forever fixed in their present positions. The counter intuitive revelation of science is that complexity is built up from simpler origins by natural processes. Hydrogen atoms are forged by stars into the various elements. Carbon atoms form polymers that can result in copies of themselves. Natural selection acts on variations in these copies to produce an astounding array of forms.