Support NeoGAF

[Orayn]

But the view always changes because science is not static and some theories don't hold up. Further, the universe functions with God in view too so the two aren't really related.

this is fine although being religious I have to add that no evidence exists for anything regarding how life started (The primary point that matters with the existence of [insert deity] and the scientific world as we know it doesn't contradict the existence of a God.

On the first point: That's totally fine. Science can and does change, and the existence of one or more gods is something I could potentially accept, though I currently consider that possibility to be highly, highly unlikely. Defaulting to godlessness instead of a non-intervening god is just the whiny ghost of logical positivism, rattling its chains.

On the second point: Having problems with our current ideas about abiogenesis is fine. I don't think that a god just making it happen is the best alternative, though. If a god could use processes like evolution to develop life, could he not use similarly naturalistic methods to initiate it?

 

[JGS]

It's completely useless? Especially since you can make up thousands of equally unprovable concepts.

No argment there, but it's equally pointless to have a definite conviction on the matter. Some just do which is fine. I'm just asking.

 

[Raist]

I've always found the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of a god to be quite interesting. What is the point in using a process (the scientific method) that was created for the sole purpose of learning more about our physical surroundings to answer a question that is purely metaphysical in nature? The existence of God (at least, the God of the Bible) is not a scientific question, so why would we expect his existence to be proven scientifically?

Well if you're going to ask this, the next logical question is: Why would anyone use the metaphysical [ie god(s)] to explain the natural world? If you don't, the concept of god as it was developed by human beings in every single religion becomes completely useless.

 

[The Technomancer]

I've always found the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of a god to be quite interesting. What is the point in using a process (the scientific method) that was created for the sole purpose of learning more about our physical surroundings to answer a question that is purely metaphysical in nature? The existence of God (at least, the God of the Bible) is not a scientific question, so why would we expect his existence to be proven scientifically?

There isn't. However people use the metaphysical concept of God to make decisions that affect the physical world, therefore placing the rationale behind those decisions into the realm of science.
Or: metaphysical concepts should not be used as reasoning for rational behavior.

 

[JGS]

Why isn't a unicorn a concept? It seems to me as though its the concept of a magical horse with a horn on its head.

That's an interpretation of the unicorn. Just like any other concept, it can be accepted or not. Middle ground is not about believing or not believing, it about the extent of it. Middle ground is very much a "I don't care" mentality. It's compromise.

For example, religious people are completely different from each other depending on the faith. I don't care what a Muslim believes and there's no requirement for me to take the extra step of saying Allah is not the true god or seeking to limit their teachings since it is highly unlikely to influence me one way or the other.

And what does our ability to explain the origins of a unicorn, imaginary or not have to do with finding the middle point between unicorns and nothing?

Again, middle point and middle ground have nothing to do with each other.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Well if you're going to ask this, the next logical question is: Why would anyone use the metaphysical [ie god(s)] to explain the natural world? If you don't, the concept of god as it was developed by human beings in every single religion becomes completely useless.

Is there some type of logical problem with the belief that an intelligent being that exists outside of time and space could influence what we know as time and space? I'm not being snarky, it's a genuine question.

There isn't. However people use the metaphysical concept of God to make decisions that affect the physical world, therefore placing the rationale behind those decisions into the realm of science.
Or: metaphysical concepts should not be used as reasoning for rational behavior.

Again, I think it is logical to believe that an all-powerful creator that is metaphysical in nature could choose to influence what we know as the physical world if he so desires.

 

[The Technomancer]

Again, I think it is logical to believe that an all-powerful creator that is metaphysical in nature could choose to influence what we know as the physical world if he so desires.

If he can influence the physical world then there will be evidence of his influence in the form of the changes he makes. Either God affects the physical world and is therefore under science's umbrella, or else he doesn't and so he isn't.

 

[Dude Abides]

Isn't there an assumption required regarding the origin of the universe?


I've always found the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of a god to be quite interesting. What is the point in using a process (the scientific method) that was created for the sole purpose of learning more about our physical surroundings to answer a question that is purely metaphysical in nature? The existence of God (at least, the God of the Bible) is not a scientific question, so why would we expect his existence to be proven scientifically?

Sure it is. The God of the Bible interacts physically with the world on numerous occasions. He causes it to rain for 40 days, seas to split, people to rise from the dead, water to turn into wine, etc.

 

[JGS]

If he can influence the physical world then there will be evidence of his influence in the form of the changes he makes. Either God affects the physical world and is therefore under science's umbrella, or else he doesn't and so he isn't.

This assumes:
1. That there is no evidence (i.e. life)
2. That we actually know the canopy size of science's umbrella.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

If he can influence the physical world then there will be evidence of his influence in the form of the changes he makes. Either God affects the physical world and is therefore under science's umbrella, or else he doesn't and so he isn't.

Right, so you're basically saying that "miracles" would be scientific evidence for God's existence. The problem is, miracles and science don't get along very well. So every time something happens that I might call a miracle an atheist will say, "well that sure is a strange anomaly. I can't imagine how astronomically small the odds must be of that event occurring." So I don't really think God's interactions with the world can be studied scientifically, much less his nature.

 

[IpsoFacto]

@Salacious Crumb

Yes, that is the crux of the issue. We know or at least we can agree on a idea of how the universe was created, but it inevatiably brings us back to the same question.

 

[Zaptruder]

That's an interpretation of the unicorn. Just like any other concept, it can be accepted or not. Middle ground is not about believing or not believing, it about the extent of it. Middle ground is very much a "I don't care" mentality. It's compromise.

That's a fair point. But the default of not caring is to treat it as if it wasn't there... which is kinda what we do with unicorns.

Only problem is, it's not really practical or applicable with religion, because people will make you care about it - they'll get up in your face about it, and tell you to do things a certain way, because of their belief in this thing you don't care about.

Well, you don't care, except you can't treat it as if it's not there, because there's someone trying to tell you contrary.

A more concrete example; I don't care about god or the morality of the doctrine associated with it. So I operate on other principles - principles that lead me to believe that there are no moral problems with behaviours like homosexuality. Where as if say, my mother was telling me that I can't hold that stance; I can't have homosexual friends, because of her belief in god... then it's no longer an option for me to not care about it one way or another.

 

[Orayn]

This assumes:
1. That there is no evidence (i.e. life)
2. That we actually know the canopy size of science's umbrella.

Even with the limitations of our current theories of life's origin, we don't necessarily have to turn to gods as our explanation. There are holes in our understanding, but they are not uniquely "god-shaped," if that makes any sense.

The umbrella of science is the natural world - Anything that can be externally observed, recorded, measured, duplicated, etc. If someone speaks of a god intervening in such matters, said god is fair game, scientifically.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

A more concrete example; I don't care about god or the morality of the doctrine associated with it. So I operate on other principles - principles that lead me to believe that there are no moral problems with behaviours like homosexuality. Where as if say, my mother was telling me that I can't hold that stance; I can't have homosexual friends, because of her belief in god... then it's no longer an option for me to not care about it one way or another.

I'm not intending this as a derail so I'll try and keep it simple but let me just say that Christianity does not teach that you cannot have friends who are homosexual. I find that stance to be completely un-Biblical and quite frankly, hateful.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

The umbrella of science is the natural world - Anything that can be externally observed, recorded, measured, duplicated, etc. If someone speaks of a god intervening in such matters, said god is fair game, scientifically.

How can we form a scientific theory regarding the origin of the universe itself? How can that event be measured, duplicated, recorded, or even observed? Is the origin of the universe outside of the realm of science?

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm not intending this as a derail so I'll try and keep it simple but let me just say that Christianity does not teach that you cannot have friends who are homosexual. I find that stance to be completely un-Biblical and quite frankly, hateful.

Even if I agree with this, you can understand that there are wide ranging interpretations of christianity and doctrine and faith that does end up with that line of thinking.

Whatever the case is; I can't just simply hold a default view of not caring, because the world will force you to care one form or another.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Even if I agree with this, you can understand that there are wide ranging interpretations of christianity and doctrine and faith that does end up with that line of thinking.

Those views are un-Biblical --- that is, they directly defy the teachings of Jesus. It goes beyond interpretation at some point.

Whatever the case is; I can't just simply hold a default view of not caring, because the world will force you to care one form or another.

You're right, and once the idea of god/no god is introduced to you your mind naturally chooses a side. There is no neutral position, you either believe or you don't.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm not intending this as a derail so I'll try and keep it simple but let me just say that Christianity does not teach that you cannot have friends who are homosexual. I find that stance to be completely un-Biblical and quite frankly, hateful.

But there is certainly support for that view in the Bible.

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/5-11.htm

 

[Orayn]

How can we form a scientific theory regarding the origin of the universe itself? How can that event be measured, duplicated, recorded, or even observed? Is the origin of the universe outside of the realm of science?

We infer. The observations we've made about the universe's density indicate that it's getting less dense and cooler, and the forces that act on a large scale indicate that the universe was once much, much hotter and more dense. Follow it back far enough and you have what's commonly postulated to be the universe's state prior to the Big Bang. Various other phenomena we've observed, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, are consistent with what we'd expect from an expansion like the Big Bang, and thus serve to corroborate it. None of this is set in stone, but it's the best we've been able to come up with given the data we have. It's not complete or perfect, but it's something.

 

[Zaptruder]

We infer. The observations we've made about the universe's density indicate that it's getting less dense and cooler, and the forces that act on a large scale indicate that the universe was once much, much hotter and more dense. Follow it back far enough and you have what's commonly postulated to be the universe's state prior to the Big Bang. Various other phenomena we've observed, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, are consistent with what we'd expect from an expansion like the Big Bang, and thus serve to corroborate it. None of this is set in stone, but it's the best we've been able to come up with given the data we have. It's not complete or perfect, but it's something.

The key point is really corroboration. That we have a theory, and that new data serves to reinforce is rather than discredit it is a sign of a very accurate theory of our natural universe.

Hell, a theory is only as useful as it's ability to accurately predict outcomes of which you previously had no data.

 

[F#A#Oo]

This is just another atheism vs theism debate...we already have an official thread for that...o_0

 

[sajj316]

But there is certainly support for that view in the Bible.

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/5-11.htm

Translation of "brother" of Paul's letter to the Corinthians is one that is a "professing Christian". He's basically saying to not associate oneself with a hypocrite.

 

[usea]

Q: Atheist-GAF what comprises morality? Is moral truth objective or relative?

A: I think morality is relative. To me, it is very arrogant to think that one knows some universal truth about all possible life in the universe, even without having knowledge of the possible diversities and cultures out there. How can you say you know what is right and wrong for every living thing out there, without even knowing the first thing about what living things even exist?

Maybe this speaks to my personal philosophy more than what is necessarily accurate, but I always err on the side of ignorance. That is to say, I will always assume there is more to know about a subject; that there is a greater subtlety and depth to all things than I have yet grasped.

You might point out that the existence of a universal, objective morality doesn't mean I have to know what that morality is in detail. I can remain ignorant of its detail but still believe it exists. I guess a better answer is that, if morality is what is 'right' and 'wrong', then given all the diversity of life, culture, circumstances, etc, the only possible accurate morality I can imagine would be either pointlessly vague or pointlessly complex. "Do good, depending on the situation." or "In this culture, on this planet, on these days of the week, in this situation, the right thing to do is statistically X. Subject to change."

Morality, I think, is a flawed human construct. Another way for us to try and categorize and label things so they're easier for our brains to handle. I think that letting ourselves succumb to our instincts for such pattern recognition and categorization is a mistake. The world around us is more complex than that. The human experience is more nuanced than that. It's simply not a good approach.


On a related subject, I agree with the poster who said that he/she feels all acts are selfish, even selfless ones. Maybe not all people act this way, especially those we consider insane, but for me the best way I've found to act is to consider the short- and long-term results from each action, and choose the action you feel leads to the best results. Selflessness has a ton of upsides, where selfishness rarely does in my experience. Treat others with respect and consideration not because some morality says you blindly should, but because you think the outcome is optimal. That's how I live.

 

[Dude Abides]

Translation of "brother" of Paul's letter to the Corinthians is one that is a "professing Christian". He's basically saying to not associate oneself with a hypocrite.

Which would include gay Christians.

Since there is also support for the view that Christians are also not supposed to associate with non-Christians, if you take these two passages together, there is a reasonable case to be made that the Bible teaches not to have gay friends.

 

[Opiate]

Right, so you're basically saying that "miracles" would be scientific evidence for God's existence. The problem is, miracles and science don't get along very well. So every time something happens that I might call a miracle an atheist will say, "well that sure is a strange anomaly. I can't imagine how astronomically small the odds must be of that event occurring." So I don't really think God's interactions with the world can be studied scientifically, much less his nature.

There are definitely things which Scientists would recognize as supernatural. For example, if a man came to me and claimed to be God, I would not nececssarily believe him. However, if he then proceeded to conjure mythical creatures from the air, create Tornadoes at will, and stab himself repeatedly with no harm done whatsover, I would be much more likely to believe him, because those are abilities which break with the physical laws of nature as we know them.

However, the validity of this claim could still be tested by science. A God should be able to produce these results over and over again, if he so chose. If this person went in to a science laboratory and was able to repeatedly and consistently conjure mythical creatures whenever prompted, then yes, that would be strong evidence that this person was a God. However, in the real world, most presumed "miracles" occur in remote areas with few skeptical witnesses (small south american villages, for example) and cannot be repeated. Every single miracle worker (faith healers, for instance) who has ever allowed himself to be subjected to rigorous scientific analysis has seen his powers vanish under close scrutiny. If the faith healer was indeed capable of miraculously healing people even when studied closely, then yes, Scientists would have more reason to believe in miracles.

 

[JGS]

Even with the limitations of our current theories of life's origin, we don't necessarily have to turn to gods as our explanation. There are holes in our understanding, but they are not uniquely "god-shaped," if that makes any sense.

No one is asking you too. Christian belief doesn't interfere with scientific teaching at all.

The umbrella of science is the natural world - Anything that can be externally observed, recorded, measured, duplicated, etc. If someone speaks of a god intervening in such matters, said god is fair game, scientifically.

This just re-emphasizes the limitations of science. It can't explain what it doesn't know. That doesn't mean that what it doesn't know doesn't exist or that what it doesn't know exists isn't operating within scientific boundaries.

Life on other planets is impossible until it is explained by science as happening. That has nothing to do with the supernatural. Likewise, science can't have the abiltiy to observe interference anymore than it can observe who someone will fall in love with.

 

[The Technomancer]

This just re-emphasizes the limitations of science. It can't explain what it doesn't know. That doesn't mean that what it doesn't know doesn't exist or that what it doesn't know exists isn't operating within scientific boundaries.

Yes, this is the old "absence of knowledge" argument. You're right that things that we don't know or understand can exist. However because we don't have evidence about them yet its irrational to argue for their plausible existence.
There are lots of things that we can conceive of without evidence, should we give them all high plausibility? Is there another criteria besides evidence and predicative power for deciding which claims about reality are plausible and which are not?

 

[JGS]

Which would include gay Christians.

Since there is also support for the view that Christians are also not supposed to associate with non-Christians, if you take these two passages together, there is a reasonable case to be made that the Bible teaches not to have gay friends.

Not necessarily. The assumption would be that gay Christians would be as celibate as single hetero Christians.

Otherwise, why would they even want to be Christian? If one is not Christian, then what's the point in hanging out with them regularly? This doesn't mean that Christians are hermits since they are required to talk to ones who aren't Christians (Verses 9 & 10) and Scripturally, it's mentioned that merely by their example they can win ones over. So not being close to non-Christians is not the same thing as banning them when they aren't even a part of the church.

 

[Zaptruder]

There are definitely things which Scientists would recognize as supernatural. For example, if a man came to me and claimed to be God, I would not nececssarily believe him. However, if he then proceeded to conjure mythical creatures from the air, create Tornadoes at will, and stab himself repeatedly with no harm done whatsover, I would be much more likely to believe him, because those are abilities which break with the physical laws of nature as we know them.

However, the validity of this claim could still be tested by science. A God should be able to produce these results over and over again, if he so chose. If this person went in to a science laboratory and was able to repeatedly and consistently conjure mythical creatures whenever prompted, then yes, that would be strong evidence that this person was a God. However, in the real world, most presumed "miracles" occur in remote areas with few skeptical witnesses (small south american villages, for example) and cannot be repeated. Every single miracle worker (faith healers, for instance) who has ever allowed himself to be subjected to rigorous scientific analysis has seen his powers vanish under close scrutiny. If the faith healer was indeed capable of miraculously healing people even when studied closely, then yes, Scientists would have more reason to believe in miracles.

On one hand, that's kinda how it would go... but realistically, as a scientist, you keep digging and looking for explanations. There's gotta be an explanation. It's the assumption that has allowed us to so successfully pull back the veil of the natural world.

But it's also a rule of thumb that would go haywire in the face of real supernatural occurrences. Basically, any god that would chance revealing himself to our skeptical inquiry is going to have to be really fucking patient with us.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

There are definitely things which Scientists would recognize as supernatural. For example, if a man came to me and claimed to be God, I would not nececssarily believe him. However, if he then proceeded to conjure mythical creatures from the air, create Tornadoes at will, and stab himself repeatedly with no harm done whatsover, I would be much more likely to believe him, because those are abilities which break with the physical laws of nature as we know them.

However, the validity of this claim could still be tested by science. A God should be able to produce these results over and over again, if he so chose. If this person went in to a science laboratory and was able to repeatedly and consistently conjure mythical creatures whenever prompted, then yes, that would be strong evidence that this person was a God. However, in the real world, most presumed "miracles" occur in remote areas with few skeptical witnesses (small south american villages, for example) and cannot be repeated. Every single miracle worker (faith healers, for instance) who has ever allowed himself to be subjected to rigorous scientific analysis has seen his powers vanish under close scrutiny. If the faith healer was indeed capable of miraculously healing people even when studied closely, then yes, Scientists would have more reason to believe in miracles.

All great points, and they demonstrate that if a god really does exist then his interactions with this world (if there are any at all) are subtle and low-key.

 

[usea]

Yes, this is the old "absence of knowledge" argument. You're right that things that we don't know or understand can exist. However because we don't have evidence about them yet its irrational to argue for their plausible existence.
There are lots of things that we can conceive of without evidence, should we give them all high plausibility? Is there another criteria besides evidence and predicative power for deciding which claims about reality are plausible and which are not?

It's irrational to argue that existence of something we've no evidence for is plausible? Are you saying that everything we don't have evidence for is implausible? Or is an actual plausibility unrelated to the rationality of arguing for a plausibility? Neither of those sound right to me.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Question for non-believers:

Is the choice to believe that no god exists born out of fear of damnation/judgement? a desire to not follow the "rules"? Seems like saying "bleh there is no God" and looking for lack of evidence in science is the easy way out to feeling guilty or affraid of consequences to your actions.

 

[Buckethead]

Not necessarily. The assumption would be that gay Christians would be as celibate as single hetero Christians.

English: "Sexual immorality" = Greek: "porneia" = adultery, fornication, homosexuality, beastiality.

Dude Abides is mostly correct, even if I disagree with some phrasing.

More saying that the company you keep will influence you.
Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." -1 Corinthians 15:33.

If they aren't living a lifestyle you approve of or are seeking to yourself, it's counterproductive to both of you.

 

[usea]

Question for non-believers:

Is the choice to believe that no god exists born out of fear of damnation/judgement? a desire to not follow the "rules"? Seems like saying "bleh there is no God" and looking for lack of evidence in science is the easy way out to feeling guilty or affraid of consequences to your actions.

For me, I was born not believing in a god and I've never been convinced of one. It's just that simple. For me, belief or disbelief in something is based only on evidence and never on consequences. I guess it just happened that when I was young enough to not do such a good job at discerning truth, nobody tried very hard to convince me of a god.

 

[Omegasquash]

Question for non-believers:

Is the choice to believe that no god exists born out of fear of damnation/judgement? a desire to not follow the "rules"? Seems like saying "bleh there is no God" and looking for lack of evidence in science is the easy way out to feeling guilty or affraid of consequences to your actions.

My apologies for inserting my "neither" side answer here, but since I fall more on the side of a non-believer than a believer, but I can say that it wasn't fear, rebellious inner feelings, or guilt. It's because I didn't see anything in front of me that told me that religion was right. There was no proof. No miracles, no angels or demons.

That said, I believe that there's something out there, but I don't have faith that there's something out there. It's deeply personal.

 

[Opiate]

Question for non-believers:

Is the choice to believe that no god exists born out of fear of damnation/judgement?

Wouldn't this compel us to reach the opposite conclusion? If I was afraid of being damned for not believing in God, I'd have strong motivation to believe in God. If I want to be judged well by God, I'd devote myself to him. What advantage is there to being an atheist, on a purely emotional level?

a desire to not follow the "rules"? Seems like saying "bleh there is no God" and looking for lack of evidence in science

I'm not looking for a lack of evidence, I'm looking for the existence of evidence. There just isn't any that I've seen. I very much want to believe in God; my life would be much easier and simpler if there were a clear set of rules to follow. Instead, I assume that I am stuck on an unremarkable planet adrift in a vast universe without any real purpose, which is what evidence suggests is the case.

is the easy way out to feeling guilty or affraid of consequences to your actions.

A lack of God does not remove consequence from action. There are still morals even without a God.

 

[The Technomancer]

It's irrational to argue that existence of something we've no evidence for is plausible? Are you saying that everything we don't have evidence for is implausible? Or is an actual plausibility unrelated to the rationality of arguing for a plausibility? Neither of those sound right to me.

Plausibility is how accurate we suspect a claim is. How accurate a claim is is a function of how well its predictions match up to observations. Things that we don't have evidence for reside on the bottom rung of plausibility, since we don't have any indications of how accurate they are.

 

[Conciliator]

Life on other planets is impossible until it is explained by science as happening. That has nothing to do with the supernatural. Likewise, science can't have the abiltiy to observe interference anymore than it can observe who someone will fall in love with.

What? Not only is it not impossible, it's extremely likely. Any scientist or scientifically-minded person could tell you this. We can't say aliens exist definitively at this moment, but that surely doesn't mean their existence is impossible. Likewise, we can observe who people fall in love with and make insightful statistical analyses using that data, and we have.

This is the difference: Science is very comfortable not knowing. Science looks into the universe and says 'There is so much we do not understand and we do not know.' Religions look into the universe and say 'There is so much we do not understand and we do not know. Therefore is it unknowable, and this one really specific thing must be true'.

 

[Salacious Crumb]

Question for non-believers:

Is the choice to believe that no god exists born out of fear of damnation/judgement? a desire to not follow the "rules"? Seems like saying "bleh there is no God" and looking for lack of evidence in science is the easy way out to feeling guilty or affraid of consequences to your actions.

There has been many religions before the Abrahamic religions, were they all wrong?

There is 0 evidence that there's any God, and I don't see a need for God to be the answer for something we don't understand yet.

That's why, and I wouldn't say I chose to not believe, I just can't make myself believe it.

Maybe if every religion on earth was consistent with each other, or if there was evidence for God I would change my mind.

 

[Machspeed007]

Even with the limitations of our current theories of life's origin, we don't necessarily have to turn to gods as our explanation. There are holes in our understanding, but they are not uniquely "god-shaped," if that makes any sense.

The umbrella of science is the natural world - Anything that can be externally observed, recorded, measured, duplicated, etc. If someone speaks of a god intervening in such matters, said god is fair game, scientifically.

Someone posted this in the the other thread:

Just as we have already recognized that the believer does not live immune to doubt but is always threatened by the plunge into the void, so now we can discern the entangled nature of human destinies and say that the nonbeliever does not lead a sealed-off, self-sufficient life, either. However vigorously he may assert that he is a pure positivist, who has long left behind him supernatural temptations and weaknesses and now accepts only what is immediately certain, he will never be free of the secret uncertainty about whether positivism really has the last word. Just as the believer is choked by the salt water of doubt constantly washed into his mouth by the ocean of uncertainty, so the nonbeliever is troubled by doubts about his unbelief, about the real totality of the world he has made up his mind to explain as a self-contained whole. He can never be absolutely certain of the autonomy of what he has seen and interpreted as a whole; he remains threatened by the question of whether belief is not after all the reality it claims to be. Just as the believer knows himself to be constantly threatened by unbelief, which he must experience as a continual temptation, so for the unbeliever faith remains a temptation and a threat to his apparently permanently closed world. In short, there is no escape from the dilemma of being a man. Anyone who makes up his mind to evade the uncertainty of belief will have to experience the uncertainty of unbelief, which can never finally eliminate for certain the possibility that belief may after all be the truth. It is not until belief is rejected that its unrejectability becomes evident.

The idea is that the scientific umbrella doesn't really cover "the real totality of the world".

 

[Conciliator]

Question for non-believers:

Is the choice to believe that no god exists born out of fear of damnation/judgement? a desire to not follow the "rules"? Seems like saying "bleh there is no God" and looking for lack of evidence in science is the easy way out to feeling guilty or affraid of consequences to your actions.

I want to believe in God, and then he is just and that the universe is just. I wish I could go back so much. I've said before on this forum, and elsewhere, that I hope I'll be lucky enough to be able to renig on my atheism when I'm on my death bed. It's going to be a shitty time otherwise. I'm not optimistic though.

A godless universe is much, much more unpleasant that an inherently just universe, that provides infinite bliss and longevity. If you do not see the indifferent universe, let me tell you - it is ugly as sin(so to speak). Avoid it as long as you can.

EDIT: Also, you don't 'look for' lack of evidence. If an idea has a lack of evidence, then there's no reason to believe it unless that changes. Also, if you fear judgement/damnation, isn't lack of belief in god that last thing you should be messing with.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Wouldn't this compel us to reach the opposite conclusion? If I was afraid of being damned for not believing in God, I'd have strong motivation to believe in God. If I want to be judged well by God, I'd devote myself to him. What advantage is there to being an atheist, on a purely emotional level?

Being afraid of damnation, you'd have two choices: 1) believe in God and follow the "rules" 2) Question the existence of God so that you don't have to follow any rules and not worry about it. Seems like #2 is an easy way out.

A lack of God does not remove consequence from action. There are still morals even without a God.

But aside from the law, who is there to judge you besides yourself? A bad person doesn't always feel remorse. Your own set of morals can be different from someone else.

 

[JGS]

Yes, this is the old "absence of knowledge" argument. You're right that things that we don't know or understand can exist. However because we don't have evidence about them yet its irrational to argue for their plausible existence.

I don't mean it to be that. You're stretching it to be that when all I'm doing is re-iterating what you said. You can't say that science knows all and then say that it's limited and not expect it to be "fair game" as you mention.

There are lots of things that we can conceive of without evidence, should we give them all high plausibility? Is there another criteria besides evidence and predicative power for deciding which claims about reality are plausible and which are not?

One of those things we conceive of is a creator. Obviously, we can't assign plausibility to everything, but to something as universal as belief in a creator (not necessarily Jehovah/Allah/Buddha, just the concept), it would certainly be fair to include that as an option when science lacks any valid observable option to the contrary.

 

[Salacious Crumb]

Being afraid of damnation, you'd have two choices: 1) believe in God and follow the "rules" 2) Question the existence of God so that you don't have to follow any rules and not worry about it. Seems like #2 is an easy way out.



But aside from the law, who is there to judge you besides yourself? A bad person doesn't always feel remorse. Your own set of morals can be different from someone else.

Bad people are bad people with or without religion. Did the fear of being judged by god stop these people:

http://i.imgur.com/mpQA0.jpg

That shit doesn't seem very moral to me.

 

[Opiate]

Being afraid of damnation, you'd have two choices: 1) believe in God and follow the "rules" 2) Question the existence of God so that you don't have to follow any rules and not worry about it. Seems like #2 is an easy way out.

It isn't. If I'm still afraid of damnation, then it is absolutely horrifying to engage in behaviors which I suspect could damn me to hell for eternity. I'm not following your logic.

But aside from the law, who is there to judge you besides yourself? A bad person doesn't always feel remorse. Your own set of morals can be different from someone else.

Reason. Most modern morals are in fact products of reason. For example, we did not move away from slavery because ancient religious texts told us to -- many religious texts implicitly or explicitly endorse slavery -- but because it became clear that it was unreasonable, for several major reasons. First, because it is inefficient for society; our society is in aggregate more productive with a fully utilized workforce, rather than one where a large portion of the work force is reduced to brutal manual labor even if they are capable of much more. Second, because science has found no real evidence that black people are, in reality, significantly different than white people, other than the color of skin. Therefore, it is not reasonable to treat them differently.

Other examples of morals we have reached through reasonable discourse: the ethical treatment of animals and equal treatment of women. These are not morals derived from religious texts; if anything, again, most religious texts subjugate women and view animals as wholly beneath humanity. Instead, these rather modern values (modern meaning arrived at within the last 100 years or so) are derived from rational discussion and reason.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Agnostic atheism is the position of the unprovable concept. Gnostic atheism, the claim that there is no God, is just as incredible and unstable as the claim that there is.

All claims without evidence are considered to have a low plausibility until evidence is presented that makes them more plausible. We treat pretty much everything else in life this way, I see no reason for God to be exempt.

OffTopic: Many atheists must have an identity crises because most of the people i see claim to be Agnostic atheists yet they firmly believe their is no God. As someone already mentioned: there is no middle ground. As much as people will like to think they are neutral, they are not.

 

[usea]

Plausibility is how accurate we suspect a claim is. How accurate a claim is is a function of how well its predictions match up to observations. Things that we don't have evidence for reside on the bottom rung of plausibility, since we don't have any indications of how accurate they are.

This assumes that the only way to gauge the accuracy of a claim is direct evidence. If we have no evidence of life on other planets, just as we have no evidence of unicorns, are they equally plausible?

 

[Salacious Crumb]

OffTopic: Many atheists must have an identity crises because most of the people i see claim to be Agnostic atheists yet they firmly believe their is no God.

They can firmly believe it, while also knowing that "god" is a completely unprovable/undisprovable concept.

I firmly believe that there isn't a 4 slice toaster in the core of Jupiter, but I can't prove there isn't one

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

They can firmly believe it, while also knowing that "god" is a completely unprovable concept nor can it be disproved.

I firmly believe there isn't a 4 slice toaster in the core of Jupiter, but I can't prove there isn't one

Alright lets put it this way, They CLAIM there is no god yet they identify themselves as agnostics. Which all ties in to the reply i made of people claiming to be agnostics yet firmly claiming there is no God. A person who claims and believes there is no God is not an agnostic

 

[Salacious Crumb]

Alright lets put it this way, They CLAIM there is no god yet they identify themselves as agnostics. Which all ties in to the reply i made of people claiming to be agnostics yet firmly claiming there is no God. A person who claims and believes there is no God is not an agnostic

You see, comfused.

Here is a primer on the terms you are incorrectly using.

.