How I Feel About Atheists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there is a possibility that God exists, and it is beyond our human knowledge,that still doesn't nullify the possibility that God may exist.

It nullifies the possibility that any god you are talking about exists.

Perhaps God created us to rely on faith to believe in him rather than knowledge. It's a possibility.

"Possibility" here in the same sense that the idea "our world is home to a thriving gnome civilization, but they're shy and very good at hiding" is a possibility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also, how do you possibly know what everyone is referring to when they are talking about "God?"

It's not a matter of the definition of "God;" it's a matter of how language works: when a human being used a term (e.g. "God" or "toaster"), it either refers to a concept in a human mind or it refers to nothing at all.

If it refers to something in a human mind - even if that "something" is different when different people use the same term - then it's expressing an idea that's within the sphere of human knowledge.

If it refers to nothing, then it's not expressing an idea at all. It's just a sound, not a meaningful word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many people of all walks of life, including the most famous and brilliant scientists believe that the possibility of a Creator/God as well as the scientific origins of life are beyond our human understanding and knowledge, but they are not Theists as you referred to. They are just intelligent enough to concede of the possibility of realities beyond are limited human knowledge capacity.

I think you're playing fast and loose with the word "possible." Normally, most people take "possible" to means something more than just "not entirely ruled out."

When we're talking about the question of whether something we dream up exists "beyond human knowledge," the answer is always "we can't completely exclude the possibility, but we have no reason to believe that it exists... or even that it necessarily could exist."

(Unless the "something" is internally contradictory; in that case, we can say "no, that thing doesn't exist... not even off somewhere beyond our knowledge.")

And that answer is the same for anything we can dream up. You have no reason to give greater consideration to a god we know nothing about than to any other thing that you can't absolutely rule out as impossible.

All the stuff that could inform any suggestion of a god - religious scriptures, miracle claims, inference of god(s) from "nature", etc. - isn't available to inform your decision to elevate this god you know nothing about above all the other stuff you know nothing about, since by arguing that God is "beyond human knowledge," you're implying that everything within the scope of human knowledge edit: that purports to be knowledge of a god - including those religious sources - is entirely fabricated and is therefore absolutely useless to inform us about the god you're suggesting.

... so your "god beyond human knowledge" has nothing more going for it as something worth our consideration than anything else we can claim is "beyond human knowledge" and can't be excluded as false... including Russell's Teapot, Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage, and a planet on the far side of the galaxy that's ruled by a civilization of intelligent ice cream treats.

So what reason do you have to suggest that your creator-god deserves more of our attention and regard than the Klondike Bar Planet? None... because you've declared that nothing we could use to justify giving your god greater regard is available to us.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know that a God/Creator/Intelligent Designer does not exist in reality ? How can you possibly say that with 100% certainty ?

I don't say *anything* with 100% certainty. But there certainly isn't sufficient reason to make the claim of existence. And, in the absence of any reason to believe, a lack of belief is quite reasonable.

Do you only believe in what you can see right now with our limited view of the universe and limited knowledge of all that there is ? What if there is an infinity of universes with infinite gods ? What if there is only this universe and there is a Creator who created this universe without us being able to see him physically at this time , because he is the Creator who makes up the rules ? Is the world still flat because that was the belief at one time ? So can you admit or conceive that the "idea" of a God may be a reality ? Or do you honestly believe that you have absolute knowledge of all of existence ? You have to admit in the possibility of a God/Creator/Intelligent Designer. The most brilliant minds, as well as the the most common, surely believe and admit that there is that possibility.

No, I certainly do NOT make a claim to know everything. But that isn't required. I don't have to have absolute knowledge of all existence to be able to state that unicorns and gnomes do not exist. And the exact same process is quite sufficient to say that no deity exists.

Now, it is quite *possible* that unicorns and gnomes exist on some distant planet. But that, again, is NOT what most people mean when they ask if unicorns or gnomes exist.

A creator that hides himself from any detection is equivalent to one that simply does not exist. I see no reason to even entertain that any more than I would to entertain a unicorn that exists but is undetectable.

People have all sorts of ideas about Gods, so clearly *ideas* about Gods exist. But that in no way means that an actual God exists. And, again, you don't have to have knowledge of the whole universe to be able to say that the evidence isn't sufficient to even entertain the idea of an existence deity. A 'possibility' isn't even close to a reason to believe. There is a 'possibility' that all we see is an illusion, but I see no reason tot take that possibility seriously.

If you can give actual evidence that distinguishes between a universe that has a God and one that simply has laws of nature, then I am quite willing to change my mind.

 

[Polymath257]

Many people of all walks of life, including the most famous and brilliant scientists believe that the possibility of a Creator/God as well as the scientific origins of life are beyond our human understanding and knowledge, but they are not Theists as you referred to. They are just intelligent enough to concede of the possibility of realities beyond are limited human knowledge capacity.

Yes, it is *possible* that a race of multi-dimensional beings exist that assign universe creation as art projects for their high school students. And it is *possible* that is how our universe came into being: as a project that got a 'C' and was then forgotten.

Now, why should we entertain that possibility?

 

[Polymath257]

If there is a possibility that God exists, and it is beyond our human knowledge,that still doesn't nullify the possibility that God may exist. Perhaps God created us to rely on faith to believe in him rather than knowledge. It's a possibility.

And I consider faith to be an evil. It is a dereliction of our duty to think for ourselves. it is believing something without sufficient reason to believe it and then refusing to acknowledge any contrary evidence. And that is simply self-deception.

 

[Polymath257]

Also, how do you possibly know what everyone is referring to when they are talking about "God?"

Well, it is quite clear different people refer to different things. Which makes me wonder why *any* of the opinions should be taken seriously.

 

[Polymath257]

With all of our knowledge you would think that the world would be a much better place but that is not the case. Knowledge isn't the ultimate solution to all that is. There are other factors at play, also. Humans often use knowledge in destructive manners and even though they possess the knowledge to make things better in the world we don't. So knowledge doesn't answer all of life's perplexities nor does it solve all of our problems. We can have all the knowledge in the world but we aren't intelligent enough to use that knowledge properly in many cases. I just think knowledge can contain a certain amount of subjectivity. I think what people feel in their innate sense of being is just as powerful and insightful to our human experience as what we call " knowing."

I agree. Knowledge alone isn't enough. You also have to have compassion and wisdom. But intuition is clearly *not* even close to being enough. It is required as a source of ideas to then test, but intuition is wrong much more often than it is correct.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A creator that hides himself from any detection is equivalent to one that simply does not exist. I see no reason to even entertain that any more than I would to entertain a unicorn that exists but is undetectable.

Indeed. Also, another way to say "a god that's beyond human knowledge" is "a god that, as far as we can detect, is utterly irrelevant to absolutely everything we can perceive." I don't know many theists who believe in a god that's this useless.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have a problem with those that claim that there can't possibly be a Creator

Agree. Perhaps you say my comment to Willamina regarding strong atheism.

and that those who believe in a Creator are flawed in their thinking

If they are agnostic in their belief, then there is no flaw. If they assert that gods exist as if it were an established fact, then their thinking is flawed inasmuch as it is self-evident that they cannot know as much as they are claiming to know.

No one can claim that another individual's belief or world view is not true or is true

Disagree. Some worldviews involve logical inconsistencies and are therefore at least partially incorrect. If you believe in a god with mutually exclusive qualities, you have erred.

It is true for that individual.

You are using a different definition of truth than I do.

There is a possibility that we came into existence from nothing, mere chance...and there is the possibility that a God/Intelligent Designer/Creator created all of this. Both are unknowable ...

Agree.

... and every view on this matter becomes one of faith only.

Not your view. It is correct. We either had a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic source of existence. That's tautological - analytically true. And nobody knows which is the case is true as well notwithstanding the claims of others to knowledge that we both agree that they could not possibly possess.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

It nullifies the possibility that any god you are talking about exists.


"Possibility" here in the same sense that the idea "our world is home to a thriving gnome civilization, but they're shy and very good at hiding" is a possibility.

I completely disagree. We just view it differently. Such is the nature of human thinking and reasoning, If there is a God, and we don't know his nature, that doesn't mean that God may not exist.There is no right or wrong.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Agree. Perhaps you say my comment to Willhelmina regarding strong atheism.



If they are agnostic in their belief, then there is no flaw. If they assert that gods exist as if it were an established fact, then their thinking is flawed inasmuch as it is self-evident that they cannot know as much as they are claiming to know.



Disagree. Some worldviews involve logical inconsistencies and are therefore at least partially incorrect. If you believe in a god with mutually exclusive qualities, you have erred.



You are using a different definition of truth than I do.



Agree.



Not your view. It is correct. We either had a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic source of existence. That's tautological - analytically true. And nobody knows which is the case is true as well notwithstanding the claims of others to knowledge that we both agree that they could not possibly possess.

I think truth is very subjective and particular to each individual. Some share common truths and some do not. And by truth I don't mean empirical facts, rather truth about "God" or about human reasoning for acting in particular manners. For an extreme example, I have disdain and disagree with the world view of ISIS and terrorist groups. They are not true to me. But their world view is true for them. As sickening as I find it, to them, what they believe and their ideologies are absolutely truth.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

I don't say *anything* with 100% certainty. But there certainly isn't sufficient reason to make the claim of existence. And, in the absence of any reason to believe, a lack of belief is quite reasonable.



No, I certainly do NOT make a claim to know everything. But that isn't required. I don't have to have absolute knowledge of all existence to be able to state that unicorns and gnomes do not exist. And the exact same process is quite sufficient to say that no deity exists.

Now, it is quite *possible* that unicorns and gnomes exist on some distant planet. But that, again, is NOT what most people mean when they ask if unicorns or gnomes exist.

A creator that hides himself from any detection is equivalent to one that simply does not exist. I see no reason to even entertain that any more than I would to entertain a unicorn that exists but is undetectable.

People have all sorts of ideas about Gods, so clearly *ideas* about Gods exist. But that in no way means that an actual God exists. And, again, you don't have to have knowledge of the whole universe to be able to say that the evidence isn't sufficient to even entertain the idea of an existence deity. A 'possibility' isn't even close to a reason to believe. There is a 'possibility' that all we see is an illusion, but I see no reason tot take that possibility seriously.

If you can give actual evidence that distinguishes between a universe that has a God and one that simply has laws of nature, then I am quite willing to change my mind.

I never have any intention of changing anyone's mind. I am just stating my view that if there is a God/Creator of this universe, or an infinity of other universes that may exist, his existence may not require the evidence that you require. I agree with you that unicorns and gnomes probably don't physically exist on our planet, although there is a possibility. One doesn't have to take that idea seriously. But I personally don't ever try to negate another individual's belief that they do. They might find real wonder and happiness believing in that, and you never know, it may be true, but that is inconsequential to me. Imagine a world without all of our imaginations. It would be a world of only living and experiencing life in a robotic limited manner. Robots have no imagination, and I wouldn't want to live in a world of robotic humans. Imagination is one thing that makes life so unique and beautiful. It doesn't matter if there is actual evidence in our physical world for what we imagine. Imagination is a whole separate world that coexists with that. Evidence for the existence of a God may not be as important to some as their mere belief that there is one. If it enriches their life and makes it worthwhile and makes sense to them and makes them happy, which it does for many people, then that's all that matters. I don't see why anyone would not accept that. You may not agree or find meaning in that, but aren't you glad that someone else does ? Why would that affect or bother someone ? Some adults seriously believe that Santa Claus exists. I don't care if he does or doesn't. I think it is wonderful if that person believes that and it makes them happy. I only draw a line when anyone's beliefs leads them to harm another human. I don't believe we are responsible for our existence and have no right to take someone else's existence from them.....and really what is so different in what exists in "reality" or what exists in the mind ? Ultimately everything exists in our minds.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

:Albert Einstein quote. "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."

I use this quote to try and express my view. Sometimes a quote from a mind such as Einstein can make more sense to others than my postings. reato
And he was one of the most brilliant scientific minds. Yet he admits the possibility that a Creator is probably behind our existence. Ironically, his scientific studies and findings led ho to this conclusion, as it does with many scientists. One of the founders of the DNA molecule was an atheist and his discovery of the complexity of DNA also led him to the conclusion that there must be a Creator/Intelligent Designer behind everything, The more we discover scientifically about life,the more prevalent the idea of an Intelligent Designer is becoming in the scientific community. I only add this for those who actually deny this possibility and only rely on empirical evidence and scientific facts when making there decision. It's still all just a possibility....there is no right or wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

:Albert Einstein quote. "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."

I use this quote to try and express my view. Sometimes a quote from a mind such as Einstein can make more sense to others than my postings. reato
And he was one of the most brilliant scientific minds. Yet he admits the possibility that a Creator is probably behind our existence. Ironically, his scientific studies and findings led ho to this conclusion, as it does with many scientists. One of the founders of the DNA molecule was an atheist and his discovery of the complexity of DNA also led him to the conclusion that there must be a Creator/Intelligent Designer behind everything, The more we discover scientifically about life,the more prevalent the idea of an Intelligent Designer is becoming in the scientific community. I only add this for those who actually deny this possibility and only rely on empirical evidence and scientific facts when making there decision. It's still all just a possibility....there is no right or wrong.

You misrepresent Einstein's views. He didn't believe in a personal deity, but rather in more of a pantheist viewpoint where the 'Old man' was, in essence, the laws of nature. Be careful of reading into the beliefs of other that which you believe yourself.

One thing I find bothersome is your claim that there is no right or wrong. Either the question is strictly meaningless, or there *is* a right or wrong. We may not know it and it might not be easy to find, but if the issue is meaningful, there is a right answer.

So, for example, those adults who believe in Santa Claus are actually wrong. yes, they may get pleasure from their self-delusion, but it is, in fact, a delusion. Is it wrong to take away a delusion? Well, that is a moral question.

if truth has no value to you, then you can believe anything you want. But truth *does* have a value for me. And I would rather not believe in falsehoods. To prevent that, I require evidence before belief. And, I think it quite reasonable to withhold belief in a deity because of lack of evidence specifically pointing to a deity existing outside of our imaginations.

 

[Polymath257]

I think truth is very subjective and particular to each individual. Some share common truths and some do not. And by truth I don't mean empirical facts, rather truth about "God" or about human reasoning for acting in particular manners. For an extreme example, I have disdain and disagree with the world view of ISIS and terrorist groups. They are not true to me. But their world view is true for them. As sickening as I find it, to them, what they believe and their ideologies are absolutely truth.

You are using the word 'truth' in a way that is very, very different than the way I have seen it commonly used. The very definition of truth is that it is objective, not just subjective. And yes, there *are* truths, empirical truths, that are objective. You may discount them as irrelevant, but they do exist.

Now, I am not at all sure of the existence of objective *moral* truths. There are some that seem quite common for human societies, and some that would state ways we can increase our well-being, but whether those qualify as 'truths' is not clear to me.

That is what distinguishes 'truth' from 'opinion': truth doesn't depend on the person, opinion does. By definition, truth is objective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I completely disagree. We just view it differently. Such is the nature of human thinking and reasoning, If there is a God, and we don't know his nature, that doesn't mean that God may not exist.There is no right or wrong.

What are you basing any of this on?

 

[Willamena]

The same way that saying "you don't need to live in New York to be an American" means "no American would want to live in New York."

... IOW, not at all.

No. A person is an atheist without necessarily being an atheist the same way a person is a New Yorker without necessarily being a New Yorker.

Make that make sense.

 

[gnomon]

(Not that anyone has asked ...)

I think atheism is the unnecessary and unsupported negation of a possibility that could otherwise provide the atheist with some positive benefits in life. I also think a lot of atheists are dishonest with themselves and others about their theological position when they try to insist that atheism as an "unbelief", as opposed to it being the belief that no gods exist. And I find that a lot of atheists are philosophical materialists that believe that the sole criteria for existence, is physics, and thus they routinely ignore and dismiss there own metaphysical reality: the reality of the mind: of perception, cognition, and conceptualization; of values, and of purpose.

I feel that most atheists are intelligent and reasonably well informed, but they have a strong tendency to be "spirit-blind". Meaning that they are oblivious to the exercise of and the value of intuition, imagination, and artifice. They think philosophy, art, and religion are the frivolous dalliances of over-active imaginations. And to be honest, I find that a bit anti-human, and therefor worrisome.

I think you should learn more.

Or more seriously......don't state an unasked opinion of things you don't know about.

Seriously.....how long have you been on this forum? And now you offer this?

edit: I'm being serious. You are stating that that you believe most atheists are "spirit blind" to the arts, to philosophy and imagination. And you find that anti-human? Have you actually been reading this forum?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think truth is very subjective and particular to each individual. Some share common truths and some do not. And by truth I don't mean empirical facts, rather truth about "God" or about human reasoning for acting in particular manners. For an extreme example, I have disdain and disagree with the world view of ISIS and terrorist groups. They are not true to me. But their world view is true for them. As sickening as I find it, to them, what they believe and their ideologies are absolutely truth.

You don't mean the same thing that I do when you refer to truth. You imply that whatever others claim is true actually is true based only on the claim.