Atheists: does God exist?

[Kfox]

you've got to do better than that, before you get a reply.

You need to do better than that if you expect to be taken seriously.

 

[PureX]

I think consciousness, emotions and intelligence and just part of human evolution.

And I think any thought beyond that is just hope.....hope that there's something more.

And yet your thought is based on skepticism (negativity) while the alternative thought is based on hope (positivity). Your thought results in the loss of hope, while the alternative thought results in the gift of hope. So which is the wiser choice, do you think?

 

[Mock Turtle]

And yet your thought is based on skepticism (negativity) while the alternative thought is based on hope (positivity). Your thought results in the loss of hope, while the alternative thought results in the gift of hope. So which is the wiser choice, do you think?

That which reflects the truth?

 

[PureX]

That which reflects the truth?

But we can't know the truth of God. So what are you calling a "reflection"? Because it certainly sounds like it's just an unknowing bias.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But we can't know the truth of God. So what are you calling a "reflection"? Because it certainly sounds like it's just an unknowing bias.

Well your supposition as to loss of hope is another.

 

[PureX]

Well your supposition as to loss of hope is another.

We can be skeptical, or we can be hopeful in the face of our unknowing. This isn't supposition. It's an actual choice.

I can see the positive reasoning for being hopeful. But I don't see much positive reasoning for being skeptical. So I have to ask myself why one would choose skepticism in the face of the unknown. And all I see is preconceived bias. But feel free to enlighten me.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Of course it is - we are created in His image - how can one hide that fact?
Is there any other creature on this planet that has a spiritual dimension, like man does?

How do you support these claims with good evidence?

Do you think that your body, and the life and spirit within it, was manufactured by chance and circumstance - no design or deliberation???

I thinks somewhere in between, chance and natural processes created us seem the most likely from the available evidence.

The evidence and proof is apparent to all who are sincere in their search - only the defiant try to rationalize their way out of the obvious, leading them into absurdity - ape-man theories

I was a christian for 18 years, when I sincerely searched towards the end of my faith I did not find what I wanted to find and that is good evidence god exists. Losing my faith was painful and I lost a lot, I sincerely wanted god to exist. So I was not defiant or rationalize anything. I simply wanted good evidence that a good god should provide. I have not seen any evidence at all from you at all but you have made a lot of claims. Saying something is apparent or obvious is not good evidence.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

We can be skeptical, or we can be hopeful in the face of our unknowing. This isn't supposition. It's an actual choice.

I can see the positive reasoning for being hopeful. But I don't see much positive reasoning for being skeptical. So I have to ask myself why one would choose skepticism in the face of the unknown. And all I see is preconceived bias. But feel free to enlighten me.

Because believing things without good evidence can lead to bad consequences. Hoping a bus won't hit me when I cross the street is not a good strategy. Hoping god exists is ok but acting on that hope as if god does exist is a dishonest way to live in my opinion. Do you hope things are true in other aspects of your life or just the god question?

 

[F1fan]

I'm suggesting that often atheists don't seem to realize what the position of being atheist actually entails.

Being an atheist is as demanding as not believing in Santa Claus.

I don't think so, one can certainly take up a particular position concerning a particular subject but taking any particular position on a subject entails having some sort of belief concerning the subject. For instance if one would ask me about the, oft used to prove a point, unicorns existence I would either be in a position to present my beliefs and reasonings on the matter of their existence or non-existence or If I did not know what you meant by "unicorn" I would have to remain in a position of non participation until I were educated on what was meant by "unicorn" after which I would be able to state my position. Once I have a position though - be it "Yes.", "No.", or "I don't know." one of necessity has to have beliefs concerning the subject....Yes, because I have had personal experience, or No, because people can be deluded, or I don't know because I haven't evidence which leans me towards either yes or no. If there is no "because" behind your answer then it is without foundation and meaningless. Because = Belief. True belief or false belief but we fool ourselves if we believe we can "think" about a subject without consideration of a foundation of pre-existent beliefs.
One cannot take up an engaged position on anything without fundamentally referring to ones current beliefs.

You're thowing a lot of spaghetti at the wall here, and blurring definitions. Sure any given person might have some belief about unicorns, but that only means they have been exposed to numerous ideas about unicorns and made judgments. If you are a young girl no doubt you have pink unicorn posters or stuffed animals and have personal experiences with unicorns. If you are an adult man I doubt you have any unicorn things. This illustrates how social experience will drive what we believe and what we experience, even if the experiences are created in our minds.

I believe the "position" you speak of here is a condition. Atheists have to be in a condition of knowing what is meant by the terms being used. In Atheists case it is "god" - its in the definition of Atheist so atheists must have knowledge of the subject. They are then in the condition of having knowledge of the term but this does not equate to knowledge of reality. By reality here I mean the reality of what belief is being debated.

Yet these discussions show us you are wrong.

For that Atheists need to be in a position of belief based on their condition of knowledge. To have no belief on a subject is to be in a condition of ignorance of that subject who's position on that subject will reflect that condition. (If I have no belief, I have nothing to say, no thought to apply to the subject).

Yet atheists do know quite a bit about concepts of Gods that believers present, and make assessments without bias that culture instills in most people. Atheists don't accept the claims made by believers that God X or God Y exists, yet have plenty to say. So your beliefs here are incorrect.

I think we all know though that Atheists have plenty to say and they do.

It certainly upsets some believers. How dare atheists have anything to say about ideas they can't believe are true.

I also think that its absurd to believe that Atheists who have plenty to say do not say it from a position of personal belief.
Otherwise I'd have to believe all atheists are passionless robots.

Could it be that your religious beliefs are so dominant over your perspective that you can't understand how non-belief works?

Just apply Santa Claus to your own life. How much personal belief is involved with not believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

So I've heard time and time again from atheists. Its ridiculous on both sides to think that anyone can prove anything. No one can definitively prove anything. Science has shown this for quite some time.

Believers have a position that they have to show is true. Atheists don't. But your post thus far is an effort to impose beliefs onto atheists that we don't have. What is your motive to do this? Even if atheists did have beliefs in regard to god concepts we still have the advantage given the ack of evidence for any of the thousands of gods in human lore. Non-belief is the intellectually ethical position for any god concept. Anyone who believes in some sort of god does not do it due to evidence, but rather the cultural and social influence that they did not recognize and/or resist.

By saying this your hypocritically trying to solidify your own position by pressing onto the opposition what you know very well is an impossibility to begin with. Atheists tell theists to prove God exists and theists tell atheists to prove it doesn't. Both these requests are absurd and a waste of time.

It's not at all hypocritical to point out that theists often try to impose beliefs on atheoists they don't hold.

In logic the burden of proof falls on the claimant, and that tends to be theists asserting some sort of god exists. Atheists don't have to prove the non-existence of gods not known to exist. You don't have to prove unicorns don't exist.

I will say that theists one up atheists in at least acknowledging what they believe to be true while atheists seem to be mostly busy with convincing themselves and others that they believe nothing.

And kids who believe in Santa Claus are one up on parents who the know the presents are coming from them.

Nice self-serving assertion here. The 9-11 hijackers acted because they believed their God demanded it. Creationists spread disinformation aboit science because they believe their religious ideas are true. So you see just because believers think they are "one up" on those who acknowledge the lack of evidence for religious claims is irrational.

After all one doesn't have to expend energy defending a belief one doesn't even have. Which makes me wonder what it is the atheists on here are expending their time and energy on? Having no belief? At least theists attempt to give evidence for their beliefs. Atheists however make a claim which cannot realistically hold water which is that they can think about a subject and offer counter evidence all without having any belief whatsoever concerning the subject matter.

It's entertainment. Atheists have nothing to lose, it's not our beliefs that are being criticized. Theists believe in ideas that lack evidence, and they are often made aware of this, and do get upset. What's the point in playing chess with a better player if you lose most of the time? Your posts make the assumption of some superiority, and I'm wondering how you must be feeling insecure about what you believe to be making broad, unwarranted attacks on critical thinkers who use a forum.

I see some Atheists as trying to say they have no beliefs as a tactic to avoid engaging theists on an equal footing. They wish to imply that theists are in a valley of ignorance while they are basking in the glorious sunshine on a mountain top.

Most atheists don't. I'll bet you don't have beliefs about Santa Claus either. I go about my day busy with other things, and god concepts come to mind when I dabble on the forum.

I certainly do have beliefs about the Easter Bunny but of course that is contingent upon what you mean by Easter Bunny. An idea? A living creature with certain physiological traits? A particular creature of particular purpose? My beliefs would naturally include to where or if we can trace its origins and what that origin has to say about itself in comparison to my experiences and pre-existent beliefs about known reality, etc.

See how you confuse belief with knowledge? If you research the history of the Easter Bunny you will attain knowledge. If you are still confused about whther it's real or not, well you have work to do. The matter is settled for me and most thinkers.

But I cannot formulate a belief on whether or not the Easter Bunny exists or doesn't exist as someone describes the Easter Bunny to be unless I first "entertain" the idea as potentially plausible. For or against its existence the natural inclination is to take up a position based upon our evolved foundational and propositional beliefs.
If I don't formulate a belief about such things then I cannot engage in productive thought about such things. We all engage in debate with axiomatic beliefs which are themselves molded and or modified based upon our pre-existent beliefs in a feedback loop.

You make this harder than it has to be.

Not at all in consideration of how I am using the terms. However, perhaps you are using the terms differently.
Knowledge is being aware of the data that you possess. (Definitions, quantized information, statements, etc.) Strip away the self awareness of that knowledge and you are little more than a computer which holds a certain amount of data.
...
That is, the OP's original question was asked of Atheists who for all intents and purposes shouldn't be able to make any statements concerning such a question if we are to believe atheists claims to have no beliefs concerning such matters.

You spent a lot of time writing all this without saying much at all. You either enjoy the exercise of thinking, and doing so to help avoid or bolster your religious beliefs. You do a lot of this without directly defending your religious beliefs. Oddly you're trying to attack the infrastructure of critical thought, but don't seem to realize you are sabotaging the basis for your own argument. I've seen believers do this before as a passive aggresive way to sabotage discourse that they are losing. It's like trying to sink the lifeboat because the believer would rather see both drown than an atheist survive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can see the positive reasoning for being hopeful. But I don't see much positive reasoning for being skeptical. So I have to ask myself why one would choose skepticism in the face of the unknown.

The main reason: because we value truth. A person who wants to hold as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible, and to have confidence in what they believe, will necessarily take a skeptical position.

Also, false or misplaced hope ends up being not so positive in the long run. For instance, if you act on "hope" that you're able to afford things but don't ever bother to check your bank balance, you'll be quite happy... until you're suddenly quite miserable.

And all I see is preconceived bias.

Yes, that is what you see. Try removing the beam from your own eye.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We can be skeptical, or we can be hopeful in the face of our unknowing. This isn't supposition. It's an actual choice.

I can see the positive reasoning for being hopeful. But I don't see much positive reasoning for being skeptical. So I have to ask myself why one would choose skepticism in the face of the unknown. And all I see is preconceived bias. But feel free to enlighten me.

Well I can, if the issue might be as to such being our own (free and determined) future rather than having half a dozen religions holding us back - and still squabbling as much as they always have done.

 

[PureX]

Because believing things without good evidence can lead to bad consequences.

But hope does not require that we believe anything. It only requires the willingness to 'act as if' so as to see what results.

Hoping god exists is ok but acting on that hope as if god does exist is a dishonest way to live in my opinion.

Why is it any more "dishonest" to act on the hope that God exists then it is to reject the very real possibility that God exists?

Do you hope things are true in other aspects of your life or just the god question?

Yes. Often.

 

[PureX]

The main reason: because we value truth. A person who wants to hold as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible, and to have confidence in what they believe, will necessarily take a skeptical position.

Also, false or misplaced hope ends up being not so positive in the long run. For instance, if you act on "hope" that you're able to afford things but don't ever bother to check your bank balance, you'll be quite happy... until you're suddenly quite miserable.

Both of those comments look to be far more fear based than truth based. As in the fear of being 'wrong'.

If you want to avoid "false beliefs" stop believing in things. It's not that difficult, and it's more honest, since we humans can't honestly be certain of anything we believe to be true, anyway.

And learning what not to hope for is still learning an important lesson. So is learning how, why, and when not to "act as if". Every step forward that we take in life involves some risk. And we will fail, often. But we gotta keep hoping, to keep moving. What choice do we have?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But hope does not require that we believe anything. It only requires the willingness to 'act as if' so as to see what results.

Acting as if something is true without good reason to conclude that it's true is as foolish as believing that it's true.

Why is it any more "dishonest" to act on the hope that God exists then it is to reject the very real possibility that God exists?

"Acting on the hope that God exists" implies two things:

- acting as if God exists, and
- acting as if God's existence would affect real things in your life.

There's no practical difference in how we would behave if God didn't exist at all or if God existed but was irrelevant to us.

IOW, acting as if God doesn't exist is still consistent with how we would behave in a range of situations where God did exist, but acting as if God does exist means taking two unjustified leaps.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But hope does not require that we believe anything. It only requires the willingness to 'act as if' so as to see what results.

Yeah, and if I act "as if" a bus is not coming and cross the street then...

Why is it any more "dishonest" to act on the hope that God exists then it is to reject the very real possibility that God exists?

When I say dishonest I am not meaning any purposeful deception on your part. I just mean acting as if something is true without having good evidence is not living according to your best information or what you can justify as true information.

Yes. Often.

Like what?

 

[PureX]

Well I can, if the issue might be as to such being our own (free and determined) future rather than having half a dozen religions holding us back - and still squabbling as much as they always have done.

Do you fear that if you were to dare to hope in a God that you would become one of these religious people that you think are bad? I'm not getting the point, here.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you fear that if you were to dare to hope in a God that you would become one of these religious people that you think are bad? I'm not getting the point, here.

What I'm getting at is why would the truth be so negative - if God or such didn't actually exist - when the option then would be as to actually making our own future, devoid of religious differences and such, and perhaps making progress as to sustaining life, all life, on this beautiful planet. Given that we don't seem capable of doing this currently, and religions (aided by God of course) play a large role in this - as in the current Middle East crisis. And mostly this all stems from the belief in God or similar.

Why would I act falsely on what I don't believe - as in becoming religious?

 

[Unfettered]

Just waiting for believers to see this thread and post their beliefs about how they "know" God exists. That "knowledge" will last until atheists start asking quesions about this "knowledge".

No, the knowledge persists through the questioning. If a nonbeliever gets nothing substantive from his believer counterpart it is likely because the nonbeliever prejudices every question with his own religious beliefs, which are presented and protected as the standard of truth. While not always the case, discussing God with a nonbeliever is tantamount to asking someone to gaslight you for an hour. What sane person wants to do that? So the discussions are necessarily brief.

That said, I've had discussions about God with nonbelievers where everyone was treated with respect, and where discernible effort was made on all sides to suspend prejudices for the sake of understanding. Discussions of this kind are just uncommon.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, and if I act "as if" a bus is not coming and cross the street then...

Why are you assuming that acting on hope means ignoring all the pertinent information?

When I say dishonest I am not meaning any purposeful deception on your part. I just mean acting as if something is true without having good evidence is not living according to your best information or what you can justify as true information.

Again, you are assuming that to act on hope means to ignore any pertinent information. Why are you assuming this?

Like what?

Like I am an old man that still needs to go to work every day. So I am hoping my body will continue allowing me to do that.

 

[PureX]

What I'm getting at is why would the truth be so negative - if God or such didn't actually exist - when the option then would be as to actually making our own future,...

Aren't we making our own future regardless? To the degree that it is possible for us to do so?

... devoid of religious differences and such, and perhaps making progress as to sustaining life, all life, on this beautiful planet.

Humans will turn anything into a weapon when they are looking for conquest. Science, history, philosophy, politics, art, religion, food, money, ... anything that can be used to hurt people will be used to to hurt them when one is out to conquer the world. I don't know why you're so focused on the abuse of religion, as opposed to the abuse of anything and everything else. Or why you think being skeptical about God will help humanity overcome this abuse.

Given that we don't seem capable of doing this currently, and religions (aided by God of course) play a large role in this - as in the current Middle East crisis. And mostly this all stems from the belief in God or similar.
Why would I act falsely on what I don't believe - as in becoming religious?

None of this conversation was ever about becoming religious. Hoping on the possibility of God does not make someone religious unless they choose to be.