Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Navigator]

You cannot claim to be neutral when ALL the verified evidence supports one side and no verified evidence supports the possibilities of the ideas you are raising? That’s not neutrality, that’s bias.

What verified evidence are you referring to? Any verified evidence is physical and ideas about god are not altogether physical. This is why I say that science is not for the purpose of verifying 'god does not exist' and does not go to the trouble of providing evidence to support any such claim.

 

[Tassman]

Possibility is just that. I can't say for a fact that any of the variety of god definitions are impossible

Correct! Nobody can say “that any of the variety of god definitions is impossible”. You can’t say that Russell’s Celestial Teapot is impossible either. So!!!

What you need to do is falsify the claim that god doesn't exist by presenting credible evidence that he does. If you can’t do this then you are merely making empty assertions.

just as I cannot say for sure that continuation of consciousness doesn't occur after the death of the body. I cannot say for sure about a great many things. I am not particularly interested in arguing with peoples beliefs but I am interested in their ideas, experiences etc and how they relate these to their physical reality.

Nor can you say for sure that unicorns don’t exist. But, until credible evidence can be produced for either assertion then you haven’t said very much.

Anyone can define a god.

Indeed! And so many have. There are approximately 10,000 different creator gods. Every tribe, in every culture, in every country has a creator god story.

Even claiming 'god does not exist' is a definition of sorts, although as I have explained, it is not a very good definition.

It's the only possible definition as far as science is concerned. All you have to is falsify it. If you are able.

I don't define god because, as I said, if some kind of god created this universe, it really is beyond my ability to define it other than superficially and metaphorically.

More to the point, you can’t define god because there is no substantiated evidence that a god exists.

 

[Navigator]

Saying that the universe is God's brain is just idle anthropomorphizing. Additionally, since it is not a very popular opinion amongst theists, it is also something that you have to beat (other) theists over the head with first and foremost before pestering atheists.

I am an atheist and I don't get pestered about such things. Perhaps if you feel pestered it is not your atheism on the receiving end?

 

[AdMan]

Turtles all the way down, in other words.

That has already been solved in this thread. I cannot logically be 'turtles all the way down'.

Of course it's not logical. But that's in essence what punshhh was saying:

In this scenario god, would have just created our local bit of universe, from an older bit and so on ad infinitum.

 

[Navigator]

Not in any meaningful sense. Whatever possibly might remain of your consciousness after you've stripped away the physical brain and things like memories isn't much. Too little to get on with.

You miss the point. We assume consciousness is the result of the brain because we have no other way of verifying that it isn't.

And we assume that when the brain/body dies, the consciousness which experienced that life also dies, because again, we have no way to verify that it doesn't.

Now I am fine with the assumption because it is quite natural under the circumstance, but nonetheless it is still assumption and I personally don't gel with assumption morphing into belief. Belief is illogical.

Thus, while I understand the assumption, I do not understand the belief evolving from the assumption.

 

[Navigator]

What you need to do is falsify the claim that god doesn't exist by presenting credible evidence that he does.

You have made the assertion that god is a 'he'.

I have said that I don't know if god does or does not exist and that I don't know any particular way to describe what god is other than superficially and metaphorically at best and that is the extent of any assertion re 'god'.

Because I see it might be possible (are you asserting that it is not possible?) this is not an assertion. I could as easily agree that it might not be possible.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You miss the point. We assume consciousness is the result of the brain because we have no other way of verifying that it isn't.

And we assume that when the brain/body dies, the consciousness which experienced that life also dies, because again, we have no way to verify that it doesn't.

Now I am fine with the assumption because it is quite natural under the circumstance, but nonetheless it is still assumption and I personally don't gel with assumption morphing into belief. Belief is illogical.

Thus, while I understand the assumption, I do not understand the belief evolving from the assumption.

And you have missed my point. Which was that there is too little that even potentially remains to go any further.

 

[Navigator]

Of course it's not logical. But that's in essence what punshhh was saying:

Oh I see. Yes I agree, ad infinitum is not logical.

 

[Navigator]

And you have missed my point. Which was that there is too little that even potentially remains to go any further.

I don't think you made any point, you just made an assertion. I would like you to elaborate on this idea you present and why you think this is true.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I am an atheist and I don't get pestered about such things. Perhaps if you feel pestered it is not your atheism on the receiving end?

I was talking about anyone who seriously advances idea such as the universe being God's brain or gastric tract or whatever. Not necessarily you personally.
(IOW, you may swap out the "you"s in the post you responded to with "one"s)

 

[Tassman]

I am not accepting the idea of 'a god' as I know of many ideas about 'what god is' and accept none of them as belief.
Nonetheless the idea of a god which created this universe I accept as possible. I have said too that such an idea of a god I could not more than superficially define or metaphorically speculate about.

I accept that it is possible that a species of super-intelligent cyborgs created the universe - it makes more sense than a supernatural deity - but until some evidence emerges that this is the case I tend to dismiss the notion. Just as I dismiss the notion of a creator god!

More to the point is the concept of an eternal universe. The layman's misnomer 'Big Bang' is simply considered the beginning of the universe as we know it, and not the beginning of the matter and energy that the universe consists of.

What is a pixie?

Pixies are supernatural beings in folklore, typically portrayed as small and human-like in form, with pointed ears. In short they're imagined fanciful entities like gods.

Essentially every teapot is flying in a way...

I was referring to Lord Russell’s ‘Celestial Teapot’ orbiting between the sun and the earth. It's his analogy to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove the claims of religions. By using an intentionally absurd analogy, Russell's Teapot draws attention to the formal logic behind the burden of proof and how it works.

 

[Navigator]

Nor can you say for sure that unicorns don’t exist. But, until credible evidence can be produced for either assertion then you haven’t said very much.

There isn't any need really to say very much. "I know or I don;t know' seems to be the smallest way to say it.

Anything I don't know is simply that. What I do know is significantly infinitesimal to what I dont know.

You need to desist with saying I am asserting though. The only thing I am asserting is "I know or I don't know"

In relation to unicorns and 'god' one is quite well defined and the other is not, and neither of them am I asserting exist.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I don't think you made any point, you just made an assertion. I would like you to elaborate on this idea you present and why you think this is true.

I don't think the ball is in my court. Sorry.

 

[Navigator]

I accept that it is possible that a species of super-intelligent cyborgs created the universe - it makes more sense than a supernatural deity - but until some evidence emerges that this is the case I tend to dismiss the notion. Just as I dismiss the notion of a creator god!

Well now you are defining god as supernatural?
Fair enough. The idea of super-intelligent cyborgs creating the universe is interesting and could therefore be just another definition of what god is.

More to the point is the concept of an eternal universe. The layman's misnomer 'Big Bang' is simply considered the beginning of the universe as we know it, and not the beginning of the matter and energy that the universe consists of.

Something like a looped program which creates fractal like patterns?
I am a layman but the matter I understand as being products of the Big Bang and the energy is what the big bang was and what the reaction to the big bang is.

Pixies are supernatural beings in folklore, typically portrayed as small and human-like in form, with pointed ears. In short they're imagined fanciful entities like gods.

Well your definition of god is an assertion. I can understand that some god ideas are most certainly inventions of human fancy but you seem to be asserting that they all are.

I don't know for certain that this is the case, but you are welcome to your beliefs.

 

[punshhh]

Turtles all the way down, in other words.

Yes, but I only used ad infinitum as an easy way of describing eternity. Eternity is a word which does not sit well on this forum.

 

[Navigator]

I don't think the ball is in my court....

It is. Right there at your feet.

 

[Navigator]

Yes, but only used ad infinitum as an easy way of describing eternity. Eternity is a word which does not sit well on this forum.

So you were not prescribing it to 'god' creates 'god' creates 'god' ad infinitum?

 

[Brian-M]

How come you are talking about God (the one with the capital 'g' - apparently the title of the bibles god.)

Because it's common practice to use capitalization to indicate that you're referring to a monotheistic type deity rather than a polytheistic type deity.

But I suppose that the deity of the Abrahamic religion is the monotheistic deity that gets talked about almost to the exclusion to all others, so it'd be understandable if for many people the convention of capitalization became associated with that specific deity.

 

[AdMan]

Yes, but only used ad infinitum as an easy way of describing eternity. Eternity is a word which does not sit well on this forum.

Because it doesn't help explain much of anything.

 

[punshhh]

Because it doesn't help explain much of anything.

Yes, it doesn't explain much, but that's not what it's used for. It is not necessarily illogical though.