Jump to content
Science Forums

Atheism and Faith


questor

Recommended Posts

some people seem quite proud that they are atheists and are eager to look with derision at those who have faith in a deity. the assumption seems to be that they are more intelligent than the faithful and have discovered the REAL

TRUTH. i would like to know why an atheist is, or becomes atheist and why some intelligent people are believers. for the sake of discussion, would some of you declare your belief and explain the reasons why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

questor,

I am pretty sure I understand what you are driving at with your post, however, I feel you have inaccurately defined an atheist. If nothing else, perhaps you could edit to say "My experience with atheists implies to me that they exhibit traits like... If YOU exhibit traits like this, can you help me to bridge the gaps in my understanding of why you do this?"

 

Just a thought. Cheers. :eek_big:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe. I am an atheist. There is no reason.
Tormod is a pretty articulate guy, and I think he shortchanged us a bit here. It is important (for this discussion) to separate the notion of an atheist from an agnostic.

 

1) An atheist contends that God does not exist. This is a faith position, in that that the absence of God is no more provable than the presence of God

 

2) An agnostic contends that the existence of God cannot be known. If one were to suggest (for example) that any information that could not be demonstrated by the Scientific Method was (by definition) unknowable, then you would default to being an agnostic

 

3) A theist contends that God does exist. This is a faith position just as the position in #1 above.

 

Given my knowledge of Tormod, he usually falls much more closely into the agnostic category.

 

Tormod, please feel free to correct me. I don't think you would defend that God absolutely does not exist (even if you suspect it is true).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without splitting hairs, I'll ride the fence on this one.

Logic leads me away from it, but chaos brings me right back; so, like The Cat, I'll remain in two states untill this box is opened and resolved with a good look-see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without splitting hairs, I'll ride the fence on this one.

Logic leads me away from it, but chaos brings me right back; so, like The Cat, I'll remain in two states untill this box is opened and resolved with a good look-see.

Does this put you in the Schroedinger camp, or the agnostic camp? If we need a Schroedinger camp, you will have to provide a definition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given my knowledge of Tormod, he usually falls much more closely into the agnostic category.

 

Tormod, please feel free to correct me. I don't think you would defend that God absolutely does not exist (even if you suspect it is true).

 

He he. I knew someone would say this. :)

 

Using empirical knowledge I cannot disprove a God. I do, however, not accept that I am by logic required to *believe* that something *does not exist*.

 

Therefore I am an atheist - I have no God, and I do not have non-faith.

 

To claim otherwise is to say that I must believe that everything that does not exist, in fact might exist, and as such everything I believe is both right and wrong. The only way out of this conundrum is to prove that something *exists*, because a proof of non-existence will not be acceptable proof according to the three bullet points in Bio's post.

 

This is flawed logic. I accept the logic of the scientific method, which means that I can assume that what best describes the world is *currently* a reasonable thing to place my bets on. I don't need to "believe" that there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I *know* there is no planet there.

 

By reason I accept that the scientific theories we currently have for the birth and evolution of the universe overwhelm the beliefs of any religion, and therefore I accept those theories. I do not *believe* in them in the sense that I have *faith*.

 

I can thus safely state that no, there is no God just the way I can say that no, there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I am an atheist. There are no gods.

 

I cannot, however, claim that there will never *be* a god. But that is acceptable logic: I cannot determine what can happen tomorrow. Nor can I prove that noone will ever be able to create a universe and be god for the beings in that universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Using empirical knowledge I cannot disprove a God. I do, however, not accept that I am by logic required to *believe* that something *does not exist*....To claim otherwise is to say that I must believe that everything that does not exist, in fact might exist, and as such everything I believe is both right and wrong...I don't need to "believe" that there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I *know* there is no planet there....I can thus safely state that no, there is no God just the way I can say that no, there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I am an atheist. There are no gods...
Articulate response (as usual), Tormod.

 

Semantically, I would still put you in the agnostic camp, but I don't see a lot of value in that debate. I do think it is deceptive to suggest that the no-God evidence is as strong as the no-planet evidence. We actually can scan the heavens (at that range) with a known degree of statisticaly validity. Most of use would agree that a construct that is 99.999% unlikely to be true is "untrue" in the sense that we typically use the word. Such is not the case for existence of a God generally. To contend there is no God (as opposed to contending one can't prove it) is a more assertive position, and I suggest it requires a shred of belief. It might be a small enough shred that one might call it bias, but that is still belief.

 

Thanks for the response, Tormod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To contend there is no God (as opposed to contending one can't prove it) is a more assertive position, and I suggest it requires a shred of belief. It might be a small enough shred that one might call it bias, but that is still belief.

 

So let's simplify. I tell you that I have three marbles. I show you a red one, and I show you a yellow one, one in each hand.

 

Then I say: "In my pocket I have a third marble. What color is it?"

 

Do you believe that I have the marble there?

 

These are the options granted me in this thread:

 

1) Yes, the marble is there and I don't need to prove it

2) No, the marble isn't there, but I can't prove it

 

While I claim that there is a third option:

 

3) It doesn't matter

 

I would like to hear how option 3 above can be understood as "belief".

 

I maintain that the only reason to claim that 3) is belief is that alternatives 1) and 2) both require faith. 3) disregards faith because it refuses to accept the imperative of the question!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tormod, as administrator you have the power to move threads, but if you read what has already been written, you can readily see the difference in responses to these two different threads. this is asking for information as to why someone believes in a diety or not. this has nothing to do with creation of the universe, unless one is unable to separate these two issues. why don't you let this ride for awhile to see what responses are posted? we may have some interesting answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since most people grow up in a family with some type of religious background,

or are certainly aware that religion is a major presence in society, i'm trying to determine what thought process they go through to continue their belief in a diety, or what factors convince them there is no diety. this type of question could be answered in this way:

1. i believe in God because... or,

2. i don't believe in God because...

Tormod, you have already stated you don't believe, but have i missed the part where you explained why? were you raised in an atheistic family?

did you ever attend church? do your parents know or care about your atheism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would label myself an athiest although the discussion. I could be proven wrong and I can't say that it is impossible for god to exist, so perhaps agnostic would also suffice. However, I also don't believe that an invisible, undetectable pink elephant exists in my house. Can't be proven but I still don't believe it:)

 

As for why, the study of the bible, and the dictates of organized Christian religion and the reality of the world have taught me this. Add to that the behavior of many 'religious' people and it strengthens that lack of faith.

 

If it is also important for your queury, I started off in a conservative, religious family growing up (which is where the study of the bible came in:)).

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, you replied:

''As for why, the study of the bible, and the dictates of organized Christian religion and the reality of the world have taught me this. Add to that the behavior of many 'religious' people and it strengthens that lack of faith''.

would you agree that the activities of religious people is not directed by God and has nothing to do with the existence of God? would you be more specific about your thought processes that led you to your current beliefs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...