Can you truly be atheist?

[Halcyon]

100% atheist - i.e. there is no chance that god exists. Is that belief possible?

Not being an atheist i'm gonna do my best to explain what i mean. I'm not mocking anyones beliefs or anything, i was lying awake last night and this popped into my head.

If you don't believe god created the universe (bible-style), that's fair enough we have the big bang theory and evidence for it i.e. background radition and the continuing expansion.

If you don't believe god set the charge (so to speak) of the big bang, that's fair enough, we have the hyperspatial membrane collision theory, and mathematical equations suggesting its possibilty, although no evidence for it... yet.

But what created the membranes? How can we ever know? If we go back past the big bang our laws of physics no longer apply, is it not possible that if you go further back in time the laws of reality itself may not apply?

If you accept the uncertainty principle in its broadest sense i.e. that technically anything is possible just some things are far more likely to occur than others, then is it not possible that something we cannot comprehend maybe even a conscious entity forged the membranes of reality? Is there not even 0.1% chance of that occuring?
I respect you're right to believe that there is 0% chance, but is that not a form of blind faith?

So, if you do accept that there is a very slim chance of conscious creation, are you still an atheist? Are you not really agnostic i.e. you cannot be certain that god did not create the universe?

I hope i explained myself adequately, i'm not really known for expressing myself well .

What do you think?

 

[Rex]

Seems like your basing this on the first cause theory. But the fallacy with that is you go back to a "first" cause, God.

Who made it/him/she?

 

[Halcyon]

Good point Rex! If i could frubal you i would, but haven't posted enough yet.

I guess i can't imagine no beginning since everything we know of, even the universe had a beginning.

But even so, since we cannot know if there was a beginning or not, how can anyone say for certain that a god did not begin it?

 

[michel]

According to my son, yes. He is insistant on this.

 

[Rex]

Good point Rex! If i could frubal you i would, but haven't posted enough yet.

I guess i can't imagine no beginning since everything we know of, even the universe had a beginning.

But even so, since we cannot know if there was a beginning or not, how can anyone say for certain that a god did not begin it?

Well you just answered your question while contradicting yourself:

I guess i can't imagine no beginning since everything we know of, even the universe had a beginning

So wouldn't God have a beginning? and that would keep going and going.

 

[Halcyon]

Well you just answered your question while contradicting yourself:

Hmm, i don't think i did, but maybe i didn't word it right.

What i mean is, if the three possibilities are;
1. God created the multiverse.
2. The multiverse came into being as a result of the uncertainty principle (i.e. no god) p.s. i think this is right but i'm not an expert on cosmology!
3. The multiverse has always existed.

How can there be 0% chance of No1 being the correct version, i.e. 100% atheist viewpoint? Surely there must be a chance?

So wouldn't God have a beginning? and that would keep going and going.

I don't know, but atheism relies on science surely, theism is about faith.

 

[Ceridwen018]

How can there be 0% chance of No1 being the correct version, i.e. 100% atheist viewpoint? Surely there must be a chance?

Hey there, Halcyon. As an atheist, I will try to explain my thoughts on this.

In science, nothing is ever 100% certain, because we do not know 100% of the possible knowledge of the world. Even something such as gravity is not 100%, (technically), because it is always possible, (although probably unlikely), that some new discovery will change part of that theory, etc. That said, not I, nor anyone else, can be 100% certain of anything.

However, there is a fundamental difference between claiming that we possibly do not know all there is to know about gravity, and claiming that it is possible for god to exist. In the former instance, we are taking something (Gravity) for which we have evidence, and leaving it open to be possibly affected by new evidence in the future. In the latter instance, we are taking a simple idea (X) for which we have no evidence, and leaving it open to the possibility that evidence might one day be found to fill the gap.

The point here, is that until evidence is found, anything can stand for (X). God, leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, you name it.

In closing, I agree with you that because science does not have a definite answer, (let alone a workable one), for everything, it is possible that god exists. In my mind, however, it is just as possible for a god to exist as it would be for leprechauns or unicorns or fuglyploofs to exist. Don't know what fuglyploofs are? Me either--but it's possible that they exist, so I don't want to take any chances by not naming them, lest they be wrathful.

One other quick thought concerning the existence of god:

It is possible that god exists, however given the historical record of new scientific findings consistently taking the place of old religious myths, I would have to conclude that it is not probable that god exists....or leprechauns or unicorns or fuglyploofs.

 

[Rex]

Cerid would you think it would be fair to call Atheists, Inductive Argument Thinkers.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

100% atheist - i.e. there is no chance that god exists. Is that belief possible? ... What do you think?

I think that your "i.e." is broken. You simply do not understand the scope of the term.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Halcyon-- Ceridwen said it best. Good post!

That said, not I, nor anyone else, can be 100% certain of anything.

I would go so far as to say that even the above statement is approximate and tentative. That's right...I'm even skeptical of skepticism.

On a sidenote, I think there may be a case for being 100% certain of direct experience. So for example, I may not know if experience A was real or a hallucination, but I might be able to know that I experienced experience A, regardless (or, to be even more precise, I may know wth 100% certainty that I think I experienced A).

Okay, I'm getting really sidetracked now....but actually, scratch the above paragraph. I'm not sure we can even know what we think with absolute certainty, because our brains do not represent one single eternal "self" but a collection of nuerons, certain regions of which can, in fact, think differently than others.

Trippy, huh? Like, oh....oh wow, man....

Okay, sorry for getting off topic.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Science is magic until proven to be science, at one time, gods caused thunder and lightning, demons caused sickness, and mental illness was sometimes the devil himself inhabiting someones body, we can look back on it now and laugh but today it's not much different. If I do have any "faith" at all, it is that science will eventually kill all gods once and for all (not in my lifetime though) but I also think there will always be people that will have a need to believe in them, dead or "alive".

 

[linwood]

All I have to do to be an atheist is fail to believe in God.
I don`t need to rely on science for evidence.
I don`t need to deny Gods existence.

I just need to "NOT" believe in a deity.
I can even support this belief or dis-belief on blind faith if I wish.

This is not usually the case but it can be done.

I don`t really buy into the entirety of the uncertainty principle nor paradox.

That cat is either alive or dead, he can`t be both.

 

[Halcyon]

All I have to do to be an atheist is fail to believe in God.
I don`t need to rely on science for evidence.
I don`t need to deny Gods existence.

I just need to "NOT" believe in a deity.
I can even support this belief or dis-belief on blind faith if I wish.

Oh ok, i see now. Thanks linwood!
Atheism is actually a belief that god doesn't exist, and you don't need proof of the non-existance of god to believe it? I guess you can be 100% atheist then .

In that case;
Is it fair to criticise a theist for believing in god without proof of its existance? Is it not hypocritical?

p.s. awesome post Ceridwen! It annoys me that i can't yet frubal .

 

[Pah]

Oh ok, i see now. Thanks linwood!
Atheism is actually a belief that god doesn't exist, and you don't need proof of the non-existance of god to believe it? I guess you can be 100% atheist then .

In that case;
Is it fair to criticise a theist for believing in god without proof of its existance? Is it not hypocritical?

p.s. awesome post Ceridwen! It annoys me that i can't yet frubal .

Your "in that case" belongs in another forum entirely. The Atheism Forum is not the place to discuss/debate a thiest question.

 

[linwood]

In that case;
Is it fair to criticise a theist for believing in god without proof of its existance? Is it not hypocritical?

.

IF ones atheism is based on blind faith then yes it is hypocritical.

 

[Halcyon]

Your "in that case" belongs in another forum entirely. The Atheism Forum is not the place to discuss/debate a thiest question.

Hmmm... it wasn't my intention to start a theist/atheist debate, just a question i wanted answering;

IF ones atheism is based on blind faith then yes it is hypocritical.

That answers my question. I'm happy with that, my viewpoint on atheism has become more accurate.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Halcyon-- I do not technically know with 100% certainty that the Earth is round. However, the absence of absolute certainty does not mean that all claims about Earth are equal. The claim "the Earth is round" is better supported than "the Earth is flat", and the claim "the Earth sits atop a giant turtle" is not supported at all.

 

[Halcyon]

Halcyon-- I do not technically know with 100% certainty that the Earth is round.

Actually, i think its slightly egg shaped

However, the absence of absolute certainty does not mean that all claims about Earth are equal. The claim "the Earth is round" is better supported than "the Earth is flat", and the claim "the Earth sits atop a giant turtle" is not supported at all.

I'm not saying that any one theory is better than any other, its a matter of personal belief, i've had my original question answered, i better understand the atheist viewpoint now.
But in this case none of the theories of the creation of the multiverse have any evidence for or against them, you can't even say that one is more likely (or better supported) than another because past the point of the singularity what we class as likely no longer applies.

Also, we've seen the Earth from space, it looked pretty round to me.:sarcastic

 

[Faust]

I've no proof that Santa doesn't exist, however I think I'm safe in saying that I'm 100% sure that he doesn't.

Faust.

 

[macarion]

100% atheist - i.e. there is no chance that god exists. Is that belief possible?

Not being an atheist i'm gonna do my best to explain what i mean. I'm not mocking anyones beliefs or anything, i was lying awake last night and this popped into my head.

If you don't believe god created the universe (bible-style), that's fair enough we have the big bang theory and evidence for it i.e. background radition and the continuing expansion.

If you don't believe god set the charge (so to speak) of the big bang, that's fair enough, we have the hyperspatial membrane collision theory, and mathematical equations suggesting its possibilty, although no evidence for it... yet.

But what created the membranes? How can we ever know? If we go back past the big bang our laws of physics no longer apply, is it not possible that if you go further back in time the laws of reality itself may not apply?

If you accept the uncertainty principle in its broadest sense i.e. that technically anything is possible just some things are far more likely to occur than others, then is it not possible that something we cannot comprehend maybe even a conscious entity forged the membranes of reality? Is there not even 0.1% chance of that occuring?
I respect you're right to believe that there is 0% chance, but is that not a form of blind faith?

So, if you do accept that there is a very slim chance of conscious creation, are you still an atheist? Are you not really agnostic i.e. you cannot be certain that god did not create the universe?

I hope i explained myself adequately, i'm not really known for expressing myself well .

What do you think?

Anything is possible, nobody knows for sure. But if you use <that, then there is no reason to say anything. So an atheist is a person who thinks there is no GVod.

No its not a form of blind faith, I really dont understand what you mean by that.