Atheism and Faith

[InfiniteNow]

It's silly to say that "God" doesn't exist, as it is at the very least a concept being discussed here. To me, in some sense, it's like discussing the concept of nothing, but without nothingness' inherent paradox (as soon as you describe it, it becomes something).

 

As for the idea of some organizing force or some creator or whatever, I cannot say for sure either way, but it does exist, at the very least, as a topic of discussion and an idea which can be considered.

[infamous]

I just have to laugh at this conversation. I often hear critisizm of religion because there are so many of them. So many different flavors of religion all claiming to be the true path. And many an atheist looks at that as proof that religion must be wrong, because they cannot all be right. But I am finding out now that there are just as many ways to NOT believe in God as there are ways to believe. I'm a reformed atheist, I'm a conditional atheist, I'm an atheist based upon science, I'm an atheist based upon being pissed off, I'm an atheist who believes there could be a God, I'm an atheist because life is unfair, I'm an atheist becasue the illuminati tell me to, I'm an atheist because the aliens who abducted me proved that there is no God. Who is the real atheist? LMAO! :)

 

Bill

Excellent post BigDog, and I would reiterate; Will the real Atheist please stand up?......................Infy

[ughaibu]

Several posters seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of atheism. Atheism is not a form of anti-religion, it is simply a position that doesn't involve god. For example, in India one is advised to choose long distance buses with turbaned drivers, the theory being that as sikhs dont believe in karma, they drive more carefully and are involved in fewer accidents. Of course sikhs are as religious as hindus, but sikhs drive atheistically, hindus do not.

[TheBigDog]

Several posters seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of atheism. Atheism is not a form of anti-religion, it is simply a position that doesn't involve god. For example, in India one is advised to choose long distance buses with turbaned drivers, the theory being that as sikhs dont believe in karma, they drive more carefully and are involved in fewer accidents. Of course sikhs are as religious as hindus, but sikhs drive atheistically, hindus do not.

I disagree. The diversity of atheists certainly includes those with a militant anti-religion dogma. It is their form of atheism. I'm sure it even includes staunchly religious, even orthodoxed followers of religion. Once people choose to make up their own definitions to words as they see fit then everything just falls into place. I am no longer confused. :hihi: :lol:

 

Bill (I am guessing I am one of "Several posters"? :) )

[ughaibu]

Yes, includes those, so what? Not everything yellow is a banana.

[TheBigDog]

Yes, includes those, so what? Not everything yellow is a banana.

While I was being general in my statements, the definition of an atheist is pretty explicit. If you don't like the definition find another word.

 

A man who only has a hammer sees all the world as a nail.

 

Bill

[ughaibu]

It is important to point out that atheism does not depend on a religious context. I have no religious feelings, neither for nor against, technically I'm an atheist but I am not anti-religion. The presentation of all atheists as anti-religious presupposes the existence of a god or similar religious principle, to disbelieve in. Such a definition is lop-sided, it is a religiously biased definition.

[TheBigDog]

It is important to point out that atheism does not depend on a religious context. I have no religious feelings, neither for nor against, technically I'm an atheist but I am not anti-religion. The presentation of all atheists as anti-religious presupposes the existence of a god or similar religious principle, to disbelieve in. Such a definition is lop-sided, it is a religiously biased definition.

Where exactly is the statement that all atheists are anti-religion? Can you frame the quote for me so I am not confused?

 

Bill

[ughaibu]

I haven't said I'm quoting, notice the lack of quotation marks. Is your latest post a way of saying that you get my point? If not, consider a person brought up somewhere like the Phoenix islands, somewhere with no television or newspapers and very few people. Such a person might never have encountered any religious ideas or any concepts of god or other supernatural being. Such a person would (probably) not believe in god, such a person would be an atheist. There is no religious component implied or required by the term atheist, any religious connotations are contextual.

[Boerseun]

I'm an atheist simply because my understanding of the universe doesn't call for any gods to make it possible. I don't think I have to justify myself in terms of the believer's perspective, i.e. "I don't believe in God because of 1, 2 or 3."

To be sure, we can't prove anything regarding the existence or non-existence of God, but in my understanding, God existing is the least likely scenario. It's a bit far-fetched, really. Sorta like a Flat Earth. Intuitive, but wrong.

As much as a Flat Earth scenario doesn't exist in my world, neither does God or the whole religion bit. And that includes all possible religions.

[Biochemist]

...Gods, independent of human imagination, have never been observed, catalogued, researched, their very nature is a matter of dispute according to the dictates of imagination. Neither have any actions or effects of gods been observed, and as this leaves us with no evidence, either direct or indirect, for the nature or even the existence of god, we are unable to know which phenomena, if any, point to the presence of independent gods....

Fuhgoonnessake.

 

You certainly should get some push back on this. You might have meant that God has not been observeed recently, but the essence of Christianity is that God showed up in person. The New Testament authors certainly beleived they had seen the real thing. They put a lot on the line for it.

 

We have also had threads dedicated to the plausibility of the resurrection. Feel free to search.

 

For me, the intriguing component of the discussion is really that, for most folks, proof does not matter at all. There are tens of thousands of people who do not believe that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, in spite of being witnessed by tens of millions on live television.

 

If God showed up in person in Manhattan today, walked around for a week, did miracles (healings, raised folks from the dead, fed millions) and then disappeared, I suggest it would probably not change anyone's mind about the existence of God.

 

Anyone disagree?

[Buffy]

If God showed up in person in Manhattan today, walked around for a week, did miracles (healings, raised folks from the dead, fed millions) and then disappeared, I suggest it would probably not change anyone's mind about the existence of God.

Are you saying that David Blaine is the Sonogod?

Anyone disagree?

Seriously, there are miracles and then there are Miracles. The piddling little "proofs" that the Catholic Church has peddled for the last millenia attached to justifications for sainthood are just miracles. Heck, just this week I saw an article claiming that Jesus walking on water might have been floating blocks of ice! There hasn't really been a decent Miracle since the parting of the Red Sea! I agree with you, but if I were God's VP of Marketing, I'd have to say, "If ya wanna get people's attention, ya really gotta start pulling out the big guns. You know, drop the subtle bush that grows in the shape of 'Bend, Oregon', how's about a lightning bolt everytime Dubya tells a lie?" Or part the Pacific Ocean. C'mon, let's violate some *really big* laws of physics here!" :confused:

 

Over 6 Billion Suckers served,

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

If God showed up in person in Manhattan today, walked around for a week, did miracles (healings, raised folks from the dead, fed millions) and then disappeared, I suggest it would probably not change anyone's mind about the existence of God.

 

Anyone disagree?

I just had deja vu... again. POWERFULLY... sorry. Figure if I type it, I might understand it better. Sounds odd, Je le sais.

 

I disagree though. Mainly in that, if there really is this thing called God, it's so much more than a humanoid presence. It's ... the universe, and infinity and all those things.

 

As for the act you describe changing anyone's mind... maybe a few, but you are correct overall that it would be a drop in the bucket.

[Rebiu]

I am an atheist.

My beliefs are:

there is not god

there will never be a god

god existence is impossible

the concept of god is self contradictory

 

I do not have any doubt in these beliefs.

 

The true atheist has stood.

[Biochemist]

..."If ya wanna get people's attention, ya really gotta start pulling out the big guns. You know, drop the subtle bush that grows in the shape of 'Bend, Oregon', how's about a lightning bolt everytime Dubya tells a lie?" Or part the Pacific Ocean. C'mon, let's violate some *really big* laws of physics here!" ...

There are two categories of miracles:

 

1) Those that happen only once, and hence are not reproducible. They generally are not regarded as "real" miracles, since they can't be reproduced.

2) Those that happen reproducibly (gravity, birth, the "dual slit" experiment in particle physics) and hence are not "real" miracles because they are reproducible.

 

You might recall in the thread about the plausibility of the resurrection, that one poster ruled out the possibility because it is "impossible." That is, she suggested that a video recording of Jesus' emergence from the tomb after a witnessed EKG flatline would not convince her.

 

I think the fact that we can have this sort of discussion is a miracle.

[Biochemist]

...the concept of god is self contradictory..

Like contradiction is intuitive?

 

You no doubt recall that there are 3-space shapes that have infinite surface area and finite volume (such as the 3-space hyperbola for the domain where x>1). This means that you could fill these shapes with paint, and not cover the inside surface. The fact that this is counterintuitive (and apparently overtly contradictory) does not make it false. This is a fact. Pure math. Deal with it.

[Boerseun]

There are two categories of miracles:

 

1) Those that happen only once, and hence are not reproducible. They generally are not regarded as "real" miracles, since they can't be reproduced.

2) Those that happen reproducibly (gravity, birth, the "dual slit" experiment in particle physics) and hence are not "real" miracles because they are reproducible.

1) All of those kinda miracles are known only by word of mouth.

2) These are called the obeyance of Natural Laws - nothing miraculous.

 

1) is pretty dodgy, though, seeing as they are all known to us via fallible storytelling. Is is well known, though, that nothing can violate 2). So anything that claims to do so with flaky evidence, would naturally be suspect.