Atheism, the discussion

[fiksal]

EDIT: skip to the last page for most recent posts

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's been awhile for my random topics,
so here's one that may or may not turn to a discussion


It comes up in my conversations often enough, but people seldom want to talk about it. So I figure let's give it a go here.

so Atheism.
- are you one, do you know one?
- what is it to you, what it is not?
- if not, do you believe beyond your belief? for example: a religion may not include ghosts, spirits, souls of animals, or horoscopes.

- And what's your take on this:
One of the times it came up recently was a chat with a buddy of mine of what's more reasonable / factual even: agnosticism or atheism.

His claim: agnosticism, - because it's impossible to know the whole universe in which a god might exist. Plus you cant really prove a negative.

My claim: You can prove a statement of a negative, depending on what that statement is. And additionally, while the universe is nearly impossible to discover in its entirety, given our most common ideas of what we think when we say "god", an atheist can still say that such entity does not exist.

[Alan Phipps]

I believe in what I can influence or be influenced by, or could influence or be influenced by under an imaginable but entirely believable set of circumstances. I am overall a practical and pragmatic person. I have no idea how that might be tagged in 'religious' terms, and frankly have no great interest in categorising it as such because that would have no personal impact for me.

[RegisterMe]

Apologies in advance if my views offend.

Anyway, I am an atheist. To me the definition of faith is essentially "belief in something that cannot be tested, and for which there is no supporting evidence". To be anything other than an atheist requires one to have "faith" (in the context of this discussion in a god or equivalent). I am incapable of that ergo I am an atheist.

There is no god, no god is better than any other god, no religion is better than any other religion, there never has been a god and there never will be a god. We're meat bags full of water brought about by random chance. As much as I think it's unlikely we may be the only such examples in the observable universe. That is still no excuse for holding an anthropocentric view that we're so special we deserve some deus ex machina in our corner.

Whilst I can see that religions have, over the millennia, provided a great deal of comfort in terms of explaining away lightning strikes, floods, famines, volcanoes, death and the like, none of that is necessary any more. We should not fear the unknown, we have the tools and the capability to become less ignorant, and we need no supernatural being to explain the gaps in our understanding. We need no comfort blanket.

Similarly, religions have provided social structures and constructs that may have been useful for a time. That being said most (by which I essentially mean the Abrahamic religions) degenerated into patriarchal instruments of control, misogyny, abuse, the accumulation of wealth and the exertion of power. At its simplest one does not need to have religious beliefs to behave in a moral way. The same applies to any other characteristic you might choose to consider.

I do not think that religion has been wholly negative for humanity, but I do think that that it has been more negative than positive, and that it becomes more so as time passes.

One problem I have with my own position is that I find it impossible to respect religious views. I'm not comfortable with this, particularly when it bleeds (as it can do) into somebody's views on something else because they also hold religious views. My instinctive reaction to religion is one of intellectual outrage and moral offense. I am not sure that this is healthy (and it certainly doesn't help in debate with those who do hold religious views). I try, with varying degrees of success, to bear down on this .

Now for my one out . If the Holographic Principle holds true, and it's a big and largely un-testable if, then it is possible, and possibly even likely, that we live in a simulated universe. And if that's the case then yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with considering the architects of the simulation to be "god".

I'd still be outraged by their hubris though .

[ATTACK_HAMSTER]

Registerme summed things up pretty succinctly.

Personally i do not believe in god, and if i'm being honest, (i know i shouldn't) i really do think less of people who do have faith in the existence of a fictional character which has never revealed itself....

The only time i believe religion got it right, is when it helped develop the framework for societies to flourish - you can't really knock the civilised logic behind some of the 10 commandments can you?

[fiksal]

I believe in what I can influence or be influenced by, or could influence or be influenced by under an imaginable but entirely believable set of circumstances. I am overall a practical and pragmatic person. I have no idea how that might be tagged in 'religious' terms, and frankly have no great interest in categorising it as such because that would have no personal impact for me.

Makes sense

There is no god, no god is better than any other god, no religion is better than any other religion, there never has been a god and there never will be a god.

I assume you also extend it to all supernatural and superstitions, correct? Ghosts, horoscopes, etc.

One problem I have with my own position is that I find it impossible to respect religious views. I'm not comfortable with this, particularly when it bleeds (as it can do) into somebody's views on something else because they also hold religious views. My instinctive reaction to religion is one of intellectual outrage and moral offense. I am not sure that this is healthy (and it certainly doesn't help in debate with those who do hold religious views). I try, with varying degrees of success, to bear down on this .

I dont ever tell a religious person to stop believing. But if one asks me whether I do, I'd tell them frankly. Especially if the question is - if there's a god, I'll tell them with no uncertainty either.

Along these lines, this causes some minor friction among my family, that almost yearly rediscovered that I've been an atheists for a good number of years. The conversation also comes up when my family thinks with near certainty that I'll baptize my kid. I will not.

Now for my one out . If the Holographic Principle holds true, and it's a big and largely un-testable if, then it is possible, and possibly even likely, that we live in a simulated universe. And if that's the case then yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with considering the architects of the simulation to be "god".

I'd still be outraged by their hubris though .

This is beyond my paygrade. However, there's another (unwritten?) principal in physics that I hold close to me. If something exists without having an impact and can not be tested, then it doesnt matter if it exists, and even more so, it does not exist then.

Personally i do not believe in god, and if i'm being honest, (i know i shouldn't) i really do think less of people who do have faith in the existence of a fictional character which has never revealed itself....

People believe in so many strange things though. But I understand. To me that's crazy to think not everyone studied calculus.

The only time i believe religion got it right, is when it helped develop the framework for societies to flourish - you can't really knock the civilised logic behind some of the 10 commandments can you?

Hard to say. Things happened the way they did.

Not sure what's the best way to rule uneducated masses, but a fear is a good choice.

[pjknibbs]

I'm agnostic. If somebody comes up with definitive proof that there is nothing beyond the material (and thus that God, angels, ghosts and what-have-you don't exist) then I'll take that on board. Until then, I'll sit up here on this nice comfy fence.

[RegisterMe]

There is no god, no god is better than any other god, no religion is better than any other religion, there never has been a god and there never will be a god.

I assume you also extend it to all supernatural and superstitions, correct? Ghosts, horoscopes, etc.

Absolutely, when people start banging on about ghosts, astrology etc etc etc etc etc I at best glaze over and at worst start to get cranky.

Magic and psionics belong in books, games, superhero films and the like. And yes, Arthur C Clarke (I think it was) said something along the lines of "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", but one of the themes there is that it is technology.

To be clear, there's plenty of stuff we don't understand, and some stuff we may never understand. I just don't fill those gaps with a supernatural being.

[fiksal]

@RegisterMe, agreed

So what's your take on my buddy's question in the first post?

I'm agnostic. If somebody comes up with definitive proof that there is nothing beyond the material (and thus that God, angels, ghosts and what-have-you don't exist) then I'll take that on board. Until then, I'll sit up here on this nice comfy fence.

Well that depends on what proof you consider definitive, and / or it depends on your specific definition of any given supernatural.

We can have a go at it if you like. For starters, we could list 1 must have quality of the God and see if it's testable.
(I've done this test in my mind long ago, for myself)

[Alan Phipps]

OK, I'll play.

Assumption/Faith: God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-pervasive and took part in our creation.

Deduction: God would know about all the really bad things, disbelief and thoughts going on and could do something (new) about them if so desired.

Deduced options from the first deduction:

• 1. God doesn't really know or care. At an individual level, this makes God's existence irrelevant.
• 2. God does know and care but only does things about it in subtle ways that we don't notice. (No attributable overt miracles, just things generally turning out sort of OK in the end.) This means that we collectively do not control our own fate whilst the very reasons for our self-belief and chosen way of life are devalued by the ultimate lack of total freedom of choice.
• 3. Life as we know it is just God's hands-off laboratory experiment or some sort of a test to determine what happens to us afterwards. Since we don't really know about that, it's something to worry about when are allowed to know or maybe when we collectively graduate. (A bit like worrying now about the sun dying.)
• 4. Any other option(s) you care to deduce and analyse.

[Len5]

Why are so many atheists afraid to offend anyone when it comes to talking about gods and religions? Religions are so present in daily life and theists don't ever seem to be afraid to offend anyone by saying god(s) exist(s).
As an atheist I feel very offended by religions.


Alan Phipps, if you haven't already, watch George Carlin on religion.

[exogenesis]

Speaking as at least a half-way 'comfortable' & self-assured northern-european:

I find that it's really very strange that religion of any sort has survived into the 'technological modern age',
at least in first world societies.

My take is that it's just a long-slow-dying-out of primitive superstitions,
or maybe it's just the continuation of power held over willing communities by 'religious leaders'.

I can see the need for the 'morale comfort' given by religion in stricken regions,
& even when some sort of hope is needed in circustantial personal/societal grief in an otherwise stable & civilised region.
But I feel there are/should be better ways to salve these situations.

How come is it that humans even need to depend on this bizzare idea of a god, or gods,
somehow it seems almost built in (leftover from dark cave, dangerous wild animal days ?).
So why is it even a question now?

Might as well ask 'who does Jesus pray to':
https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?d ... 1966#comic

By the way, I'm a lapsed-catholic aetheist, if you hadn't guessed,
but with no axe to grind about other peoples' ideas, no matter how odd,
as long as they keep it to themselves.

[RegisterMe]

So what's your take on my buddy's question in the first post?

This the one?

His claim: agnosticism, - because it's impossible to know the whole universe in which a god might exist. Plus you cant really prove a negative.

If he / she had said "it's impossible to know the whole universe" AND "it's impossible know whether (a) god exists" AND "it's impossible to know whether the two coincide" I'd have agreed, and pointed back to my original problems with "faith". And probably followed up with "plus you can't really prove a negative".

[RegisterMe]

Why are so many atheists afraid to offend anyone when it comes to talking about gods and religions? Religions are so present in daily life and theists don't ever seem to be afraid to offend anyone by saying god(s) exist(s).
As an atheist I feel very offended by religions.

I completely agree. You only have to look at medical definitions of "delusion" to see how... uncomfortable... we all are with the subject. The tldr version of which is that if you're the Archbishop of Canterbury you're not delusional, because ~750m other people believe similarly to you, but if you're David Ike you're a nutjob, because only you believe in you.

The squirrely language that the medical profession use to "allow" for religious beliefs has never sat comfortably with me. And one of my best friends is a consultant psychiatrist, and we've discussed it at length........

[Len5]

How come is it that humans even need to depend on this bizzare idea of a god, or gods,
somehow it seems almost built in (leftover from dark cave, dangerous wild animal days ?).
So why is it even a question now?

Well, I believe that most people are afraid of death and religion gives them the comfort of an afterlife in paradise. Religion also gives the comfort of a greater purpose in life than just proceate.
For some people religion takes a lot of responsibility out of their hands. You know, it's not their fault, it's all in God's plan.
And for some life is bad and they hope they'll somehow be rewarded for their suffering in the end or something like that.

By the way, I'm a lapsed-catholic aetheist, if you hadn't guessed,
but with no axe to grind about other peoples' ideas, no matter how odd,
as long as they keep it to themselves.

Then you don't understand the principle of most religions. There is no keeping it to yourself. Everybody has to conform, because we're all 'God's children'.
It's all made up by leaders to control the people. Either you're in or you're not at all.

[Len5]

You only have to look at medical definitions of "delusion" to see how... uncomfortable... we all are with the subject. The tldr version of which is that if you're the Archbishop of Canterbury you're not delusional, because ~750m other people believe similarly to you, but if you're David Ike you're a nutjob, because only you believe in you.

The squirrely language that the medical profession use to "allow" for religious beliefs has never sat comfortably with me. And one of my best friends is a consultant psychiatrist, and we've discussed it at length........

That's a good one. Or a 'prophet' centuries ago claimed to have spoken to an angel sent by God and many believed it then and even more still believe it today, but I would claim the same thing and say all other religions are wrong and I hold the truth, the real word of God, pretty much no one will believe me and I might even end up in a mental hospital or worse... dead.

[fiksal]

So what's your take on my buddy's question in the first post?

This the one?

His claim: agnosticism, - because it's impossible to know the whole universe in which a god might exist. Plus you cant really prove a negative.

If he / she had said "it's impossible to know the whole universe" AND "it's impossible know whether (a) god exists" AND "it's impossible to know whether the two coincide" I'd have agreed, and pointed back to my original problems with "faith". And probably followed up with "plus you can't really prove a negative".

Yep, that's the one.

Do you think agnosticism requires faith?

Speaking as at least a half-way 'comfortable' & self-assured northern-european:

I find that it's really very strange that religion of any sort has survived into the 'technological modern age',
at least in first world societies.

Different people come to religion different ways.

I can speak of one - it's in the family. When several generations of your family believe into the same thing and go worship in the same church, it becomes more than expected - it becomes the norm.
Change happens then when something in that environment changes. People move away, live around different people, or another good one, - you move away where your type of belief is largely missing.


Still atheists have been in much greater numbers now, than even a century before.

Might as well ask 'who does Jesus pray to':
https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?d ... 1966#comic

I see a problem there

OK, I'll play.

Assumption/Faith: God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-pervasive and took part in our creation.

Deduction: God would know about all the really bad things, disbelief and thoughts going on and could do something (new) about them if so desired.

I was thinking of something even more concrete. For example, I'd ask what does it mean to be "all powerful", precisely.

All knowning in itself is not very testable either - the same question applies - what does that mean, precisely? Does the god know the position in time of every electron, every wave? Because that in itself, is a problem. What about other smaller particles?


Only when we define something precisely that we can rule one way or another.


And speaking of "care". There's a lot of terrible things happen around the world to pretty much everybody. The "care" part doesnt fit. Even more so, from philosophy - all knowing, all powerful and all loving are conflicting concepts.

[Masterbagger]

I know some deeply religious people who are extremely high quality individuals you could trust with anything in the world. I can point at a lot of worth that comes from religion. But then there is Afghanistan. One religion that will kill you if don't practice it. Female slavery and child rape. Everywhere. Religion did that too. It isn't something I have a ready answer for. Religion seems to me to be both a good and bad force depending on your perspective. I would just suggest that anyone has a right to not practice a religion except where they do not. Being offended by the prevalence of religion seems like such a small thing to me now. I am more aggravated by more serious concerns like preventing athletes foot or trying to find maple syrup for my pancakes that came from a tree and not a vat of high fructose corn syrup.

[pjknibbs]

[*]3. Life as we know it is just God's hands-off laboratory experiment or some sort of a test to determine what happens to us afterwards. Since we don't really know about that, it's something to worry about when are allowed to know or maybe when we collectively graduate. (A bit like worrying now about the sun dying.)

[*]4. Any other option(s) you care to deduce and analyse.[/list]

Isn't it explicitly a part of Christian dogma (can't speak for other religions) that God created man with free will? That's why Adam and Eve were able to go against his wishes by eating the apple in the Garden of Eden. So, given that, it's entirely possible to argue that God does care, but he chooses not to interfere because that would be depriving us of the free will he granted us.

[euclid]

Religions, the existence of a higher being, is just a consquence of our limitation to gain knowledge, which is only possible within a system of logical function. Any such logical based system is limited as it contains
statements which cannot be proved (true or not true) by any means the system provides.
Don't get me wrong here: I do know (or believe if you prefer) that there is some "flow of nature" that penalizes (bad luck) if you move astray too far and rewards (good luck) if you manage to stay near the core.

Cheers Euclid

[Antilogic]

- are you one?

Yes.

His claim: agnosticism, - because it's impossible to know the whole universe in which a god might exist. Plus you cant really prove a negative.

You're going to have to prove the flying unicorns exist too. Otherwise, I will continue to be doubtful.

There is no proof of god, or even the slightest hint. It's a complete human invention and it's time the insanity ended.