The fear of Atheism

[Michel07]

Rather, the claim of atheism (although not just atheism, theism quite commonly agrees on this as well) is that proof of God's existence is needed for us to be justified in believing in God's existence.

Hi.. If this is true I would say atheism has no authority to try to impose such a criteria on a thinking being whose own criteria for belief is different. Where does this authority come from and who is its judge? Many people look at the universe and say " Creation exists and based upon the preponderance of evidence and in light of a lack of evidence to the contrary it is fair to assume Creator exists." This is only one of millions of different reasons why so many people believe in God and who is to say their wrong?
Of course I realize that may not be enough "proof" for some people but here we enter the realm of intellectual freedom and the right to choose and that is irrevocable by another human. I don't care if someone chooses not to believe provided they understand their own place. The attempt to try to control the criteria for belief is definately human and we all know the potential dubiousness of that.

 

[Smoke]

I don't require "proof" to believe in god. The problem isn't that there's no proof of god, the problem is that there's no evidence at all, and god, at least god as revealed in the Abrahamic religions, doesn't even seem plausible.

 

[Escéptico]

I don't require "proof" to believe in god. The problem isn't that there's no proof of god, the problem is that there's no evidence at all, and god, at least god as revealed in the Abrahamic religions, doesn't even seem plausible.

I agree. The concept of a God or gods is so incoherent, and believers adapt the concept to mean whatever they want it to mean in such a facile way, that no conceivable 'evidence' could be said to support the concept in the first place.

 

[Michel07]

I agree. The concept of a God or gods is so incoherent, and believers adapt the concept to mean whatever they want it to mean in such a facile way, that no conceivable 'evidence' could be said to support the concept in the first place.

There are some pretty brilliant minds out there that disagree with you.

 

[BucephalusBB]

There are some pretty brilliant minds out there that disagree with you.

And there are also brilliant minds who will disagree with those brilliant minds. You know, I bet there are even brilliant minds who will disagree with both those other brilliant minds.

So what was the value of that post again?

 

[Manipulated]

The only people that fear atheism are those who don't have faith and should be atheists.

little beauty

 

[kdrier]

It's just that you imply that they believe in absolutely nothing which would include science and everything else. It would be clearer to say that they don't believe in any religion they know of, rather than nothing. I believe in things, just not of the religious sort.

Let me amend my statement by saying that I believe there is no higher intelligent power. There are forces of the universe including things like gravity and nuclear fusion and such, but I don't believe there is any such power that purposefully and knowingly creates things, as we humans do. Obvioulsy there was some force or forces at work to create the universe, but I don't think it or they were anything more than what science has found so far.

Well yes, of course they believe in science...and for the most part that is all they believe in. I'm not sure if believing in science (at least the concept) is even a choice, because it definitely exists. I was thinking about your question too technically. Yes they believe in science, math, and all the "facts" of life. What they don't believe in is anything is considered spiritual or religious, but maybe that is obvious.

I can see not believing in anything strongly or anything detailed for obvious reasons, but I personally at least believe there is something greater than us which science could never possibly explain, simply because science is part of our reality and our world, while I think whatever is responsible for things like science is "out of this world".

Obvioulsy there was some force or forces at work to create the universe, but I don't think it or they were anything more than what science has found so far

I agree with you as far as a force created the universe, but I definitely don't believe science at our intelligence level could ever determine what that force is, or what fuels it. We will just have to agree to disagree on the subject I suppose.

 

[kdrier]

I agree. The concept of a God or gods is so incoherent, and believers adapt the concept to mean whatever they want it to mean in such a facile way, that no conceivable 'evidence' could be said to support the concept in the first place.

Maybe there is not suppose to be any evidence on the force/intelligence that created us/enabled us to be. Maybe we are not suppose to know what it is. Do I believe in the bible and and such? na. but higher intelligence? for sure. Do I believe if I don't have faith in god I'm going to hell? na, I don't believe in "hell". I also believe it isn't a coincidence I'm alive and typing away on a computer right now.

 

[Escéptico]

I also believe it isn't a coincidence I'm alive and typing away on a computer right now.

You don't? You mean out of all the innumerable possibilities, the vast number of contingent occurrences over the eons, things couldn't conceivably have been any different than they are now? The evidence of the design and creation of the universe, then, is the mere fact that you're here?

 

[kdrier]

You don't? You mean out of all the innumerable possibilities, the vast number of contingent occurrences over the eons, things couldn't conceivably have been any different than they are now? The evidence of the design and creation of the universe, then, is the mere fact that you're here?

Sure things could be different, but they aren't. As I've said there is no hands on evidence of any creator. I don't believe it is a fluke I'm alive. Based on what I know about life and physics, there is no way we just appeared out of thin air.

 

[Escéptico]

Based on what I know about life and physics, there is no way we just appeared out of thin air.

Who claims we just appeared out of thin air?

 

[Magic Man]

Hiya mball,

You said:
It's not your existence that is in question here. Point in fact, I'm quite willing to accept that "you" do exist with a capacity of engaged interaction within a community bulletin board. It's not much...but it's enough.

Possible, but unlikely. Besides, I have a developed imagination that may conjure far more interesting dialogues than any we have yet exchanged.

True.

But let's get a little more real here.

I can demonstrate that our Sun exists...and therefore why it's not unreasonable to expect and conclude that our own star will "rise" again in the 'morrow (after all, it's daylight somewhere on Earth at any given moment). Sure, our sun could go super-nova unexpectedly---but there's compelling evidential scientific theories/conclusions that suggest more immediate possibilities/probabilities are much more deserving of our worries and concerns than good ole' Sol exploding in our sleep. It's not "faith" that validates my confidence that "the sun will rise tomorrow"...it's an evidence-borne conclusion supported by evidences, likelihoods, and reasoned doubts. Employing your rationale, I utilize "faith" that I won't awaken with two heads on my shoulders, or a school bus in my bed. Sure...I guess you can merrily argue "it's possible"...but I ain't gonna loose any quality sleep over such unlikely "possibilities".

I didn't "decide" to exist, and neither did you. You had no say in the matter whatsoever. You are a biological product of two other people gettin' their groove on. That's all. It's that simple, that ordinary, that common. It's been happening for thousands of generations of procreating homo sapiens. No big deal.

Thing is...I don't have the time or patience or inclination to wonder if existence is all but some metaphysical construct of my singular mind. I've had enough physical interactions with both fine ladies and nature to satisfy any remaining sophist's inanities of pointless inquiry.

Bunk.

I acknowledge that your assumption is faith-based, and that's fine with me. But projecting your perspective as valid in application for all...is dumb.

Par example, when Escéptico asked you: "Why is 'reality exists' a faith-based claim" Is there any reason to believe it doesn't exist?"

You said: "Yes, the fact that it could all be a dream."

"The fact...?"

Suppositions and "maybes" are not facts, but they often do rely upon faith-based conclusions. There's enough "reality" out there to examine and experience to last a thousand human life-spans, and then some. And that is not a "faith-based claim".

;-)

Right, you're willing to accept my existence, but that's just another way of saying you believe that I exist. You have admitted that it's possible that I am just a figment of your imagination. It then follows that you would admit that God might or might not exist. There is the possibility the some god exists. That's all it takes to make the assumption one way or the other a belief, or "faith-based" claim.

I didn't say that we decided to exist, but we do decide to construct the world in our own subjective framework.

Exactly, projecting my perspective as valid in application for all is dumb, but, then again, you're doing the same thing. All I'm doing is saying that I might be wrong, and that it's impossible for anyone to know anything absolutely for sure. I shouldn't have used the word fact, you're right, but, on the other hand, no one should then use that word, because everything is subjective and not completely knowable, which goes directly against the definition of fact. I use it as I use anything, to mean what we accept it to mean, because that's the way we humans constructed it, and that's how I in my subjective mind understand it.

I know you will try to refute all of my statements, but you have already agreed with me when you said that my statements were possible. I know at this point you won't admit it, but that's exactly the basis of my argument, anything is possible.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure things could be different, but they aren't. As I've said there is no hands on evidence of any creator. I don't believe it is a fluke I'm alive. Based on what I know about life and physics, there is no way we just appeared out of thin air.

I painted a picture as a kid. It was a landscape with an ominous-looking purplish sky. It was on a canvas board, and somehow in moving it after it was finished, the board bent just a little. It was enough to make a crease right down the middle of it, though. It turns out that the crease ended up looking exactly like lightning as if I had painted it in there. So, in fact, it was ruined, but only enhanced. It's highly unlikely that I would bend the picture just so, to achieve that end, but it happened. Things like that happen on a small and large scale.

 

[Michel07]

I painted a picture as a kid. It was a landscape with an ominous-looking purplish sky. It was on a canvas board, and somehow in moving it after it was finished, the board bent just a little. It was enough to make a crease right down the middle of it, though. It turns out that the crease ended up looking exactly like lightning as if I had painted it in there. So, in fact, it was ruined, but only enhanced. It's highly unlikely that I would bend the picture just so, to achieve that end, but it happened. Things like that happen on a small and large scale.

You created the picture.

 

[Magic Man]

You created the picture.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Smoke]

There are some pretty brilliant minds out there that disagree with you.

Maybe, but I've never encountered one. People who produce "evidence" for god are usually remarkably dull. Their evidence is usually either irrelevant (The Universe exists!), or completely subjective (I can feel god in my heart; I know it's god; I just know it), or absurd (The Bible [or the Qur'an] is too wonderful to have been produced by mere humans. Look, the Virgin Mary appeared on the side of that building. Listen to this: a lion saying "Allah"!).

There are, to be sure, brilliant people who believe in God, but I haven't heard them claim they have any real evidence.

 

[Michel07]

Maybe, but I've never encountered one. People who produce "evidence" for god are usually remarkably dull. Their evidence is usually either irrelevant (The Universe exists!), or completely subjective (I can feel god in my heart; I know it's god; I just know it), or absurd (The Bible [or the Qur'an] is too wonderful to have been produced by mere humans. Look, the Virgin Mary appeared on the side of that building. Listen to this: a lion saying "Allah"!).

There are, to be sure, brilliant people who believe in God, but I haven't heard them claim they have any real evidence.

Sounds like your really fascinated by your own opinions. It isn't up to the individual to define what constitutes proof for another person and that proof or burden thereof does not need to be translated to someone else. It's a little like saying I have proof I just don't have any for you. Atheism is only an unsubstatiated philosophy that at the end of the day has no scientific support. While religions can at least make the claim to divine revelation atheism we know is strictly from the human mind and we all know how dubious human ideas can be.

Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame-- Albert Einstein

 

[Magic Man]

Sounds like your really fascinated by your own opinions. At least its amusing.

Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame-- Albert Einstein

Are you not fascinated with your opinions? That quote by Einstein is also an opinion, which means that you're also fascinated by his opinions. What difference does that make?

Also, what was the point of saying that I painted the picture?

 

[Michel07]

What is that supposed to mean?

Hi, what I mean is while the crease was a fluke it came only after you created the picture which was no fluke.

" God did not shoot dice with the universe." guess who?
P.S. No I'm not fascinated with my opinions. They just are what they are.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi, what I mean is while the crease was a fluke it came only after you created the picture which was no fluke.

" God did not shoot dice with the universe." guess who?
P.S. No I'm not fascinated with my opinions. They just are what they are.

Everyone's fascinated with their opinions, or else they'd dispose of them, and get new ones.

It doesn't matter that I created the picture. The point is that accidents and coincidences happen. It's not likely that we would become what we have, meaning humans, just like it's not likely that I'd crease the picture in just that way, but both things happened. The point is that just because something unlikely happened doesn't mean that it couldn't be an accident or coincidence. That, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily lead to intelligent design.