Is God real post your thoughts!

[EdgedThesis]

I think he assigned such a low 'existence factor' on it because of what he was saying earlier,

 

everything that happens we can explain. Now, that doesn't rule out God lurking in between dimensions and influencing 'chance', but it's a very low possibility, thus the low percentage.

 

 

 

When you get to the entire 'how the universe was created' question, that percentage rises to 50% because that is one of the questions we can't answer.

 

 

 

But in everyday life, it's low.

[dusqi]

Judging by your opinions you showed me, I'd say it would take a lot to convince you. Your posts sound like they are of an atheist nature - not agnostic. I'm gonna ask a question. Why is the chance such a low percentage? Doesn't 50/50 sound more reasonable for an agnostic?

 

 

 

I am not agnostic. My question is, why does it apparently take so little to convince you?

 

1. There is no evidence for God

 

2. On the contrary, there is lots of evidence that Gods in the past and in the present have all been made up by humans

 

3. God doesn't solve any great mysteries that science cannot solve, and therefore has no effect on the world.

 

 

 

Why do you think that the chances of this are 50/50?

 

 

 

Again, I bring up the teapot orbiting the Earth. It's a small one, too small to detect, therefore there is no evidence for it (#1). There's a good chance that I just made it up (#2). It doesn't serve any useful purpose or have any effect on the world (#3). Please estimate for me the chance that it exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then why are you so compelled to that prove to us lowly theists? Atheism is still a theism. You want to be totally void of it all, just be nonreligious. Not atheist, not theist, just not caring period.

 

 

 

1. Because I think that God closes up peoples' eyes to the real world, and its real beauty and power. I would like to share this exhilarating feeling (much like theists like to spread the "good news"). My good news is that there is no God. There is no one watching you. You have free will over your life. The goodness in the world comes from people, not God. You have the opportunity to make the world even better. You are not born inherently evil. Curiosity is certainly not a sin, and is perhaps one of the best parts of being human.

 

2. Because I think that the concept of "faith" is destructive. It betrays a decision-making failure that is not limited to faith. As soon as someone thinks that it is OK to accept things based on faith, then poor decisions start getting made. For example, the two main leaders in the Iraq war, Bush and Blair, both talked about how faith affected their decision. Although the decision-making failure that is faith isn't just limited to politics. Astrology, psychics, "alternative medicine", are all faith-based decision-making failures, because there is no evidence but people believe them anyway.

 

3. Because religions have a fair amount of power, and I do not think that much of it is beneficial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, since there is no evidence for a God, and there is no reason for there to be a God, the atheists just say that it is extremely unlikely (0.0000001% chance)

 

Show me some evidence that there isn't.

 

 

 

See the orbiting teapot example above. There is no evidence that it doesn't exist (because it is so small that it is undetectable). Do you believe it? No. Because to make a claim like that, you'd expect to see some evidence first. You don't just go ahead and believe me first and then only change your mind once you have evidence against it.

[Zierro]

I am not agnostic. My question is, why does it apparently take so little to convince you?

 

 

 

So your definition of an agnostic is someone who is easily convinced and your definition for atheist is someone who is hard to convince?

 

 

 

1. There is no evidence for God

 

 

 

You can say that if you'd like, but others can say otherwise.

 

 

 

2. On the contrary, there is lots of evidence that Gods in the past and in the present have all been made up by humans

 

 

 

3. God doesn't solve any great mysteries that science cannot solve, and therefore has no effect on the world.

 

 

 

That does not follow. Who says that your teapot has to reach out it's hand in order to effect humanity? The idea of God gave people strength, whether he's real or not. The point is that it doesn't matter. Why it matters to you is beyond me. Reread Lenticular's post for me will ya?

 

 

 

It feels like you are luring me into a God Vs No God argument. Don't do that to agnostics.

 

 

 

Why do you think that the chances of this are 50/50?

 

 

 

You have no evidence that it can't be. No evidence. If you want to deny evidence of the existence of God, then I'm going to use the old two-way-street on you.

 

 

 

Again, I bring up the teapot orbiting the Earth. It's a small one, too small to detect, therefore there is no evidence for it (#1). There's a good chance that I just made it up (#2). It doesn't serve any useful purpose or have any effect on the world (#3). Please estimate for me the chance that it exists.

 

 

 

50/50 since it's the most "fair" if you ask me. Why would it be any other number, unless there are factors changing your opinion (keyword: opinion - meaning everyone's numbers will probably differ).

 

 

 

Think Matrix man. You put so much emphasis on what you can feel and touch that you are unable to look outside the box. You're just bringing up exactly what I my first post was aiming at.

 

 

 

One more thing. A god does not = a pointless teapot.

[venomai]

You want to be totally void of it all, just be nonreligious. Not atheist, not theist, just not caring period.

 

Nonreligion and atheism are very different concepts. You can be void of gods (ie. atheist) and still religious (take, for example, certain Buddhist sects).

 

 

 

Show me some evidence that there isn't.

 

The burden of proof lies on you.

 

 

 

Atheism is still a theism.

 

Actually, the Greek prefix "a" means "without." So the term literally means "without theism." It is not a form of theism; it is a removal of theism. ;)

 

 

 

Doesn't 50/50 sound more reasonable for an agnostic?

 

You are misunderstanding agnosticism. Agnosticism deals with the lack of knowledge of god; it is not a 50/50 fence sitting. Some agnostics will believe in god, while others will not. One who accepts their own ignorance and makes no claim to the knowledge of god's existence is agnostic.

 

 

 

psychics [is a] faith-based decision-making failure, because there is no evidence but people believe them anyway.

 

Sorry to digress, but there is today a substantial amount of evidence to support psychic ability. I do not mean to come off as if I am making a claim to its existence, but I do not deny that the evidence exists to support it.

[venomai]

You can say that if you'd like, but others can say otherwise.

 

How loosely are we using the term evidence?

 

 

 

If you want to deny evidence of the existence of God, then I'm going to use the old two-way-street on you.

 

This is a one-way street.

 

 

 

Say I make the claim that purple flying elephants with fuzzy tails existed on the planet before humans. Then, when asked what evidence I have to suggest/support such a claim, I respond with "There's no evidence that it can't be." Does my argument hold much weight?

 

 

 

This logical fallacy is known as appeal to ignorance, or "burden of proof."

[Zierro]

You are misunderstanding agnosticism. Agnosticism deals with the lack of knowledge of god; it is not a 50/50 fence sitting. Some agnostics will believe in god, while others will not. One who accepts their own ignorance and makes no claim to the knowledge of god's existence is agnostic.

 

 

 

Then what would you call the people who actually are 50/50?

 

 

 

How loosely are we using the term evidence?

 

 

 

Honestly, what would you even consider evidence in the first place? If a giant face came from the sky and said "I am God."? Is it them that are being too loose, or you that is being too strict?

 

 

 

What may be loose in your eyes is sufficient in others'. I don't know about you but if I went through life-threatening cancer, had a 0.00001% chance of survival, prayed for God to help me, and I beat all odds, then that sounds like a reasonable rationale for believing him.

 

 

 

Have you ever heard of the saying along the lines of "Talking about metaphysics is like trying to send a kiss through a messenger"? In other words, you can't just logically and verbally prove God's existence/nonexistence. You have to feel it for yourself in order for it to work. That's just the way it goes, which is why I never understood why people try to apply linear problem solving (almost mathematical) techniques when talking about this subject.

 

 

 

This is a one-way street.

 

 

 

Say I make the claim that purple flying elephants with fuzzy tails existed on the planet before humans. Then, when asked what evidence I have to suggest/support such a claim, I respond with "There's no evidence that it can't be." Does my argument hold much weight?

 

 

 

This logical fallacy is known as appeal to ignorance, or "burden of proof."

 

 

 

You're absolutely right but the point is, no one is forcing you to believe them or not. If they want to believe they are real, they are just as justified as you not wanting to believe they are real. Neither of you have evidence - so how can anything that either of you say hold any weight at all? The only thing we can do is judge based on what we know so far - and my entire point is that our knowledge about what we know may become more immense in the future, which can possibly allow more weight to be held to our reasonings. Right now it's like we're just fish in a pond wondering what the clouds are like.

[mmmcannibalism]

there is a difference between the teapot and god

 

 

 

with a good enough instrument you could detect the gravity from the teapot, sure it may take thousands of years for that type of instrument and who knows how long to find it but we could.

 

 

 

the best bet for scientific proof of god is the uncertainty principle. As long as noone can know everything the knowledge of everything itself is god.

[venomai]

Then what would you call the people who actually are 50/50?

 

If somebody is truly split down the middle and neither believes in a god nor disbelieves in a god, then (depending on the usage of atheism) we would either call them a "pure agnostic" or a "weak atheist." They simply have no belief in god.

 

 

 

What may be loose in your eyes is sufficient in others'. I don't know about you but if I went through life-threatening cancer, had a 0.00001% chance of survival, prayed for God to help me, and I beat all odds, then that sounds like a reasonable rationale for believing him.

 

And likewise, if you had prayed to the FSM, would it have been a reasonable rationale for believing it? What if you prayed to your underpants, and you survived? Would you then worship your underpants?

 

 

 

Some may consider this evidence of the existence of God/FSM/Holy Underpants, but others would not. When I ask how loosely we are using the term evidence, I am asking whether we are using it in a subjective sense or an objective sense. To some, closing your eyes is evidence of the world disappearing, but this is not the sort of evidence that is suitable to bring to a debate.

 

 

 

Of course, the chances are much higher than 0.00001% when we talk of cancer and prayer. And if the chances are that low, which is unheard of, almost every patient will die, regardless of whether or not they prayed and to whom.

 

 

 

You have to feel it for yourself in order for it to work.

 

Many have felt God in a moment of absolute bliss and clarity while under the influence of psychedelic drugs, meditation and/or while out-of-body (such as a near-death experience). This is a common experience for those who experiment with such states. The feelings experienced are often felt in the same manner across cultures -- it is the interpretations of those experiences that vary widely.

 

 

 

Atheists like myself can get the same strong feelings as you -- but we simply do not submiss to the brain's persuasion so easily.

[Lenticular_J]

Atheism is still a theism.

 

Actually, the Greek prefix "a" means "without." So the term literally means "without theism." It is not a form of theism; it is a removal of theism. ;)

 

That was more of a metaphor than using a definition. Atheists have to constantly think that there isn't a God - which is still thinking about a or He. Atheism could, technically, be considered a religion, that simply rejects the idea of a God.

 

 

 

The burden of proof lies on you.

 

Why is that? I'm not trying to prove to anyone there's a God. I'm trying to correct their very incorrect and baseless arguments. Can't bring logic into faith.

 

 

 

1. There is no evidence for God

 

FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAITH

 

 

 

2. On the contrary, there is lots of evidence that Gods in the past and in the present have all been made up by humans

 

Says who? Fonzy, Zeus, God, and Yahweh may all be watching you.

 

 

 

3. God doesn't solve any great mysteries that science cannot solve, and therefore has no effect on the world.

 

Then why have you brought up saying that religion has caused wars? I thought it had no effect on the world.

 

 

 

 

 

1. Because I think that God closes up peoples' eyes to the real world, and its real beauty and power. I would like to share this exhilarating feeling (much like theists like to spread the "good news"). My good news is that there is no God. There is no one watching you. You have free will over your life. The goodness in the world comes from people, not God. You have the opportunity to make the world even better. You are not born inherently evil. Curiosity is certainly not a sin, and is perhaps one of the best parts of being human.

 

You make yourself look like a hypocrite when you criticize something as powerful as faith, when it's very apparent you've never followed a religion. Atheism, by definition, as venomai pointed out, is "without theism", which means your eyes would be shut to it, and only open to science. Theists, on the other hand, are open to both science and God. Plus, I find the "beauty and power" of numbers to be far less compelling.

 

 

 

3. Because religions have a fair amount of power, and I do not think that much of it is beneficial.

 

Whatever happened to God having no effect on this world?

 

 

 

Would an orbiting teapot have any power? Hm, your teapot just spilled.

 

 

 

See the orbiting teapot example above. There is no evidence that it doesn't exist (because it is so small that it is undetectable). Do you believe it? No. Because to make a claim like that, you'd expect to see some evidence first. You don't just go ahead and believe me first and then only change your mind once you have evidence against it.

 

Atheists who've never truly had faith and lost it - by their own choice - can't understand. Evidence =/= faith.

 

 

 

Atheists like myself can get the same strong feelings as you -- but we simply do not submiss to the brain's persuasion so easily.

 

Oh, so you've personally tested many of the larger scientific theories of the world, instead of learning about other people doing them and accepting them as fact due to that?

[dusqi]

Again, I bring up the teapot orbiting the Earth. It's a small one, too small to detect, therefore there is no evidence for it (#1). There's a good chance that I just made it up (#2). It doesn't serve any useful purpose or have any effect on the world (#3). Please estimate for me the chance that it exists.

 

 

 

50/50 since it's the most "fair" if you ask me. Why would it be any other number, unless there are factors changing your opinion (keyword: opinion - meaning everyone's numbers will probably differ).

 

 

 

So that means that you see it as a 50% chance that the flying spaghetti monster exists. You see it as a 50% chance that I have the magical power to fly but have just never used it. You see it as a 50% chance that the world is run by tiny fuzzy hamsters running in hamster wheels that are too minute to detect. There is no evidence for or against any of these.

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, you can't just logically and verbally prove God's existence/nonexistence. You have to feel it for yourself in order for it to work. That's just the way it goes, which is why I never understood why people try to apply linear problem solving (almost mathematical) techniques when talking about this subject.

 

 

 

And now we come down to the reality, which is that God only "exists" through faith. In other words, He is only in our imaginations. Of course, the existence of mental institutions shows that just because you believe something with all your heart and soul, it doesn't make it true.

 

 

 

And this why I dislike the concept of God. Because I think that faith is insidious. Faith isn't a good thing. It just shows that you'll believe something with no evidence. We come back to homeopathic medicine, psychics (who, as Venomai has pointed out, actually seem to have a little evidence on their side - at least, more than God does), astrology, and various other rubbish that permeates society. I don't want anyone who has power over anyone but themselves making decisions on the basis of "faith".

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know about you but if I went through life-threatening cancer, had a 0.00001% chance of survival, prayed for God to help me, and I beat all odds, then that sounds like a reasonable rationale for believing him.

 

 

 

It's not a reasonable rationale. Because if you survived with a 0.000001% chance, it means that another 100 million people died who had the same odds as you. "God" doesn't intervene. Studies have been done between patients who had prayers for them, and patients who did not. There was no difference. So, you happened to be the one to survive, it means that you were simply the lucky one. Why thank God for your good fortune? Thank your family for their support, the doctors for their help. Perhaps life is more important to you than you realised and so you clung on - so thank your inner strength.

 

 

 

I was thinking about something similar while watching the Olympics. I bet that a large proportion of the athletes who won gold medals prayed to God before they won them. I bet that a large proportion of these athletes are now thanking God for His help. But of course, the other athletes who didn't win gold medals also prayed to God, it just didn't work out for them. So, there is no evidence that God actually intervened, but He still got the credit...

 

 

 

So, I find that sad. To me, the excellence of gold medal winning athletes shows the amazingness of humans whereby even when they think that they have given every last ounce of their strength, there is still more to give. God didn't do their amazing feats, they did, and they should give themselves the credit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

with a good enough instrument you could detect the gravity from the teapot, sure it may take thousands of years for that type of instrument and who knows how long to find it but we could.

 

 

 

 

But the teapot just keeps getting smaller. If we can detect an atom's gravity, I just say that the teapot is smaller than an atom.

 

 

 

This is what I think happens with God. God used to run the weather, but now meteorology does. God used to create man, but now evolution does. Like the teapot, God just gets smaller and smaller until He is irrelevant. I say: since we have no reason to think that science won't solve every great mystery, why not just accept that He is already irrelevant.

[Lenticular_J]

So that means that you see it as a 50% chance that the flying spaghetti monster exists. You see it as a 50% chance that I have the magical power to fly but have just never used it. You see it as a 50% chance that the world is run by tiny fuzzy hamsters running in hamster wheels that are too minute to detect. There is no evidence for or against any of these.

 

Hey, maybe the ol' Spirit in the Sky gets bored up there. And the hamsters, well, don't disrespect them from now on, aye? ;)

 

 

 

EDIT: Next post in this thread is 1337. :lol:

[venomai]

Atheists have to constantly think that there isn't a God - which is still thinking about a or He. Atheism could, technically, be considered a religion, that simply rejects the idea of a God.

 

Not at all. Atheists are not constantly thinking that there isn't a God, just like I'm not constantly thinking that there are not pink flying elephants. God's non-existence is not something that I need to constantly remind myself of.

 

 

 

There's no more need to label atheism as a religion as there is to label policital thought, TV show preferences, etc. as a religion.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to prove to anyone there's a God. I'm trying to correct their very incorrect and baseless arguments.

 

Our lack of evidence of the non-existence of unicorns, pink elephants, the FSM and God is not a point of support for the existence of these things.

 

 

 

If you make the claim that something exists, the burden of proof lies on you to support that claim.

 

 

 

Atheism, by definition, as venomai pointed out, is "without theism", which means your eyes would be shut to it, and only open to science.

 

I have spent time looking into god, and I am still open to the idea. I follow science because it is more honest, more rational and more based on reality, rather than personal fantasy. Unlike with most religious beliefs, following science does not mean I must accept it blindly.

 

 

 

Oh, so you've personally tested many of the larger scientific theories of the world, instead of learning about other people doing them and accepting them as fact due to that?

 

Fortunately for my sanity, I do not personally test the larger scientific theories in this world. My shotty labwork would lead to radically untrue results. I would much rather put my faith in an entire community of those experienced in seeking the truth in an honest, logical and testable manner. With that said, I do not blindly follow science -- I am eager to question and challenge many of its conclusions. Again unlike most religions, those who set the scientific laws and theories are open to having them questioned and even changed altogether.

[Zierro]

And likewise, if you had prayed to the FSM, would it have been a reasonable rationale for believing it? What if you prayed to your underpants, and you survived? Would you then worship your underpants?

 

 

 

Like I said, God is a bit different than a pointless teapot or magic undies. God is supposedly the conceiver of all - what is the teapot's role in the universe? To prove unlikely things don't exist?

 

 

 

Some may consider this evidence of the existence of God/FSM/Holy Underpants, but others would not. When I ask how loosely we are using the term evidence, I am asking whether we are using it in a subjective sense or an objective sense. To some, closing your eyes is evidence of the world disappearing, but this is not the sort of evidence that is suitable to bring to a debate.

 

 

 

Do you believe that a tree makes a sound if it falls and nobody hears?

 

 

 

Many have felt God in a moment of absolute bliss and clarity while under the influence of psychedelic drugs, meditation and/or while out-of-body (such as a near-death experience). This is a common experience for those who experiment with such states. The feelings experienced are often felt in the same manner across cultures -- it is the interpretations of those experiences that vary widely.

 

 

 

Well, personally I never "felt" God, but I believe that it's a feasible idea.

 

 

 

Atheists like myself can get the same strong feelings as you -- but we simply do not submiss to the brain's persuasion so easily.

 

 

 

Wait a second - you're only acting upon what you can feel and touch. Isn't that more submissive than not having a set belief at all? Have you ever seen the Matrix? You can never prove what reality is. Life could be a video simulation run by a teenager by the name of "God" for all we know. No, there's no evidence of that, but what makes you so sure that it's impossible? There's no evidence for that either. That's why I like 50/50.

 

 

 

So that means that you see it as a 50% chance that the flying spaghetti monster exists. You see it as a 50% chance that I have the magical power to fly but have just never used it. You see it as a 50% chance that the world is run by tiny fuzzy hamsters running in hamster wheels that are too minute to detect. There is no evidence for or against any of these.

 

 

 

Exactly. If there's no evidence for either side, why should I have one set belief? I'm simply indifferent - I don't worry about believing or not believing. It's all fair game. Why are you so set on not believing? Does it make a difference? After all, you said that they have no effect on us - and you are asking "Why believe?" so why can't I ask "Why not?". Like I said, your arguments are one-sided. You choose not to believe just because you can - and then claim that there is no reason to. Mind telling me what the reason for being so set on your own beliefs is? A Christian could say the opposite, and it would hold just as much weight.

 

 

 

And now we come down to the reality, which is that God only "exists" through faith. In other words, He is only in our imaginations. Of course, the existence of mental institutions shows that just because you believe something with all your heart and soul, it doesn't make it true.

 

 

 

Hmm... so the feeling kiss gives a couple "doesn't exist"?

 

 

 

And this why I dislike the concept of God. Because I think that faith is insidious. Faith isn't a good thing. It just shows that you'll believe something with no evidence. We come back to homeopathic medicine, psychics (who, as Venomai has pointed out, actually seem to have a little evidence on their side - at least, more than God does), astrology, and various other rubbish that permeates society. I don't want anyone who has power over anyone but themselves making decisions on the basis of "faith".

 

 

 

That's your personal opinion though. Some do want a being with higher power than them.

 

 

 

It's not a reasonable rationale. Because if you survived with a 0.000001% chance, it means that another 100 million people died who had the same odds as you. "God" doesn't intervene. Studies have been done between patients who had prayers for them, and patients who did not. There was no difference. So, you happened to be the one to survive, it means that you were simply the lucky one. Why thank God for your good fortune? Thank your family for their support, the doctors for their help. Perhaps life is more important to you than you realised and so you clung on - so thank your inner strength.

 

 

 

You're rubbing on the surface of what I'd view God as, if he did exist. I'd think he is a little piece of all of us. I think we're in a sort of dream - all 6 billion of us are just God looking through 6 billion eyes. Our 'inner strength'. Here's a URL if you're interested.

 

http://users.aristotle.net/~diogenes/meaning2.htm

 

 

 

Maybe when we speak of God, we just simply have different definitions. You're going by the Wiki definition, but when I think of God - I think more along the lines of "Mother Nature".

[venomai]

Like I said, God is a bit different than a pointless teapot or magic undies. God is supposedly the conceiver of all - what is the teapot's role in the universe? To prove unlikely things don't exist?

 

Russell's teapot is something we have imagined, and likewise so is the concept of the God. We can give it any attributes we so choose: conceiver of all, omniscience, etc.

 

 

 

Of course, Russell's teapot is an analogy with a specific role. It is not meant to prove that unlikely things don't exist, but rather, to show that the burden of proof lies on those who create the claim of existence. It need not be used in the context of gods.

 

 

 

Do you believe that a tree makes a sound if it falls and nobody hears?

 

Of course it will; this is my point. It's unsuitable to bring forward such subjective "evidence" in a debate.

 

 

 

Wait a second - you're only acting upon what you can feel and touch.

 

Perhaps you misread? I specifically said that I try not submiss to these subjective feelings.

 

 

 

No, there's no evidence of that, but what makes you so sure that it's impossible? There's no evidence for that either. That's why I like 50/50.

 

I am not stating god is an impossibility. I am stating that it is highly unlikely, and that I have a very high degree of confidence that god does not exist.

 

 

 

If there's no evidence for either side, why should I have one set belief?

 

You are very welcome to be a pure agnostic, and never believe or disbelieve anything in your life for fear of being wrong. But I choose not to live like that -- I choose to take a stance rather than take none at all.

 

 

 

However, as soon as you bring chance into the discussion, you are going to need to follow the rules of logic. To say that there is a 50% chance that pink flying elephants exist would be irrational and unacceptable without any evidence to support such a number.

 

 

 

Mind telling me what the reason for being so set on your own beliefs is?

 

I disbelieve in gods for the same reason I disbelieve in the FSM, flying pink elephants and the Holy Undies. Disbelief does not require 100% denial of something, it's simply a stance I sit that explicitly says "I believe that god does not exist."

 

 

 

My switch from weak atheism to strong atheism has been benefitial to my psyche. It makes me more confident in my beliefs, and more able to think about them in a clear, specific way.

[Zierro]

Russell's teapot is something we have imagined, and likewise so is the concept of the Judeo-Christian God. We can give it any attributes we so choose: conceiver of all, omniscience, etc.

 

 

 

Of course, Russell's teapot is an analogy with a specific role. It is not meant to prove that unlikely things don't exist, but rather, to show that the burden of proof lies on those who create the claim of existence. It need not be used in the context of gods.

 

 

 

It sounds like a straw man though. We're not talking about crazy stuff like teapots and pink elephants. You're trying to equate them to make it seem like God is just "another crazy theory".

 

 

 

Of course it will; this is my point. It's unsuitable to bring forward such subjective "evidence" in a debate.

 

 

 

This is where we disagree. I invite you to look into quantum mechanics and do some research on the Double-Slit Experiment.

 

 

 

I am not stating god is an impossibility. I am stating that it is highly unlikely, and that I have a very high degree of confidence that god does not exist.

 

 

 

But I'm curious about what makes you think that. You're leaning on one side. Is the fact that we don't have evidence the only evidence that you have to argue against his existence? There has to be a reason that you're leaning on that side. I'm not saying that your reason doesn't exist, I just want to know what it is.

 

 

 

You are very welcome to be a pure agnostic, and never believe or disbelieve anything in your life for fear of being wrong. But I choose not to live like that -- I choose to take a stance rather than take none at all.

 

 

 

It's not really fear, but more of indifference. Oh and by the way, I respect your opinions as much as my own. My arguments aren't to prove God - but to prove the possibility.

 

 

 

However, as soon as you bring chance into the discussion, you are going to need to follow the rules of logic. To say that there is a 50% chance that pink flying elephants exist would be irrational and unacceptable without any evidence to support such a number.

 

 

 

I think this comes down to opinion. God sounds much more likely than pink elephants, but who knows? As long as there is something that sounds completely bizarre that you can think up of, and you try to equate it to God, then you have an argument there that barely has room to be disagreed with. I'm sure some would think that the idea of giant reptilian monsters roaming the earth was just a myth - but here we have their bones in museums which serves as evidence.

 

 

 

I'll ask this question again. What would make you believe there was a God? Because God sounds way harder to prove than a teapot floating around.

 

 

 

My switch from weak atheism to strong atheism has been benefitial to my psyche. It makes me more confident in my beliefs, and more able to think about them in a clear, specific way.

 

 

 

That's good to hear, but for now I guess I'll stay weak atheist. I'm still young (17) so I don't want to have a strong set of beliefs when I still have so much to experience and discover.

[venomai]

It sounds like a straw man though. We're not talking about crazy stuff like teapots and pink elephants. You're trying to equate them to make it seem like God is just "another crazy theory".

 

To you it may not be such a crazy theory, but to me and many others it really is. Although these concepts are not of equal importance, others see them all as equally imaginative and equally unrealistic beliefs.

 

 

 

This is where we disagree. I invite you to look into quantum mechanics and do some research on the Double-Slit Experiment.

 

What does the objective changes on a quantum level in the double-slit experiment have to do with subjective ignorance on a tree falling in a distant forest?

 

 

 

But I'm curious about what makes you think that.

 

The lack of evidence and the lack of understanding strongly suggests that no god exists, just like the lack of our discovering flying pink elephants (which to me is no more unrealistic than the idea of god) is a strong suggestion that flying pink elephants do not exist. I choose not to take a neutral 'non-belief' position because, in all honesty, I firmly believe in god's non-existence.

 

 

 

A more specific reason I disbelieve in god is because of my current understanding of spirituality, if such a thing indeed exists at all. The non-physical dimension, as my idealistic imagination tells me, is not run by a single dictator or king. I see it more as a shared wealth of knowledge and experience. Perhaps a single force or global consciousness is what keeps the wheels moving, but I dare not label it "god" for the fear of misrepresenting it as an intelligent bearded male who listens to our selfish prayers of health and good fortune.

 

 

 

Those are my reasons for disbelieving in god.

 

 

 

My arguments aren't to prove God - but to prove the possibility.

 

I have always been well aware of the possibility of god -- as well as the possibility of flying elephants. However, that possibility should not be placed at a 50% chance.

 

 

 

but here we have their bones in museums which serves as evidence.

 

... Yet the only shred of evidence that can support the concept of god is a global mismash of subjective opinions.

[Zierro]

To you it may not be such a crazy theory, but to me and many others it really is. Although these concepts are not of equal importance, others see them all as equally imaginative and equally unrealistic beliefs.

 

 

 

Yeah, it boils down to opinion.

 

 

 

What does the objective changes on a quantum level in the double-slit experiment have to do with subjective ignorance on a tree falling in a distant forest?

 

 

 

We'd have to have a full thread to discuss this one. Well, in a nutshell, what you can see for yourself is all that you can label as "real". You have no proof that the tree made a sound so how can you claim that it did? Because it does every other time? Well, the electrons act differently when being observed in that experiment. Every other time that they weren't being observed, they acted differently.

 

 

 

Perhaps a single force or global consciousness is what keeps the wheels moving, but I dare not label it "god" for the fear of misrepresenting it as an intelligent bearded male who listens to our selfish prayers of health and good fortune.

 

 

 

I see. We have different definitions then. What should that mysterious force be called though? Mother Nature? When I think of God, I don't think of that guy in robes. I think of God as an idea - much like love. Love exists, but you can't see it or prove it.

 

 

 

... Yet the only shred of evidence that can support the concept of god is a global mismash of subjective opinions.

 

 

 

Yes, but there was a point in time where we didn't know about those bones. So one day I think it's possible for us to have more evidence if there is any.

 

 

 

PS: One more thing. You said you made a switch from weak to strong atheist. Does that mean you were once like I am now? If so, may I ask what made you change your mind?

[dusqi]

To you it may not be such a crazy theory, but to me and many others it really is. Although these concepts are not of equal importance, others see them all as equally imaginative and equally unrealistic beliefs.

 

 

 

Yeah, it boils down to opinion.

 

 

 

I disagree with this - it is based on opinion, but people have reasons for their opinions. So I think that there are a few reasons that people think that God is more likely than flying pink elephants:

 

 

 

1) because to them, He answers the "great mysteries" (already talked about)

 

2) because they've been brought up with it, and it has a 2,000+ year history

 

3) because nature is sometimes beautiful, so they think that someone must have done it.

 

4) because to them the alternative (that there is no God) is scary. They are afraid of reality. They are afraid that there are things that they cannot change. They are afraid because things happen that seem random and unfair.

 

 

 

 

 

I think that these are bad reasons. Specifically #4, although there are things that we cannot change, we have the freedom and ability to try. Things do happen that seem random and unfair, but we have the freedom and ability to try to understand them and try to make them fair. Reality is confusing, complicated and scary, but it is also exhilarating, like leaving home for the first time. And who knows where you could end up?

 

 

 

Do not ask or expect God to do good things. Do not be subservient in prayer. Make the good things happen yourself. Accept control of your life and have belief in your self and in the people around you.

[jackattack]

^^ It could be that they just aren't as enlightened as you.

[Zierro]

So in other words, it's not an opinion at all. I never thought the day would come that I ran into an atheist preacher.

[Lenticular_J]

Do not ask or expect God to do good things. Do not be subservient in prayer. Make the good things happen yourself. Accept control of your life and have belief in your self and in the people around you.

 

Do you think theists sit on their knees all day, praying while we get cancer or something, and refuse to go to hospitals because we think it's heresy?

[Zierro]

Do you think theists sit on their knees all day, praying while we get cancer or something, and refuse to go to hospitals because we think it's heresy?

 

 

 

Good point. It's a common misconception to generalize all believers as people who deny their own responsibilities. No. They go to the hospital and take action just like atheists. The only difference is that when they are in that moment of darkness, they pray for God. I don't see what harm that causes.

[dusqi]

^^ It could be that they just aren't as enlightened as you.

 

 

 

I love life, and I make no apologies for it. Religions tell you that you are born evil, that the good things in the world are done by God, that only by doing what God tells you to do will you be saved, that you should be subservient to His will, that you need to pray to Him to give you His strength, that He has already decided what is good and bad and all you need to do is act it out. I have an altogether more optimistic view of human-kind.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think theists sit on their knees all day, praying while we get cancer or something, and refuse to go to hospitals because we think it's heresy?

 

 

 

There are different degrees of theist. Some refuse to send their children to state schools, because they afraid of the influence that teaching reality might have. Some refuse to take blood, for example I vaguely remember a recent case where someone was dying but their religion said that they should not have transfused blood. Some theists do end up praying all day - monks give up their whole life to austerity in the name of God. Some people kill themselves in the name of religion. I remember a Dawkins program where he mentioned someone he knew that was a promising biologist, but gave it up because his religion said that evolution must be wrong. These are the extreme examples, but there less extreme examples in normal life. Lots of people do give up hours of their week to prayer. I suspect that more would be achieved in life if lots of people weren't only planning for the after-life.

[Zierro]

I love life, and I make no apologies for it. Religions tell you that you are born evil, that the good things in the world are done by God, that only by doing what God tells you to do will you be saved, that you should be subservient to His will, that you need to pray to Him to give you His strength, that He has already decided what is good and bad and all you need to do is act it out. I have an altogether more optimistic view of human-kind.

 

 

 

Not all religion says that. Nothing is stopping you from believing in God but not what the bible says about him either. You make it seem like you can't have one without the other.

[jackattack]

I remember a Dawkins program where he mentioned someone he knew that was a promising biologist, but gave it up because his religion said that evolution must be wrong. These are the extreme examples, but there less extreme examples in normal life. Lots of people do give up hours of their week to prayer. I suspect that more would be achieved in life if lots of people weren't only planning for the after-life.

 

 

 

Aw yes. Dawkins, the infallible pope of atheism. And more would be achieved. More tv watching.