How do you view atheism?

[Malachi151]

I think religion is political, and this is where the fundamentlaists "are right".

The separation of Church and State was good thing for obvious reasons, but, the truth is that religion is, and always has been, a political tool. It is in reality impossible to separate religious views from politcs if you are seriously true to your beliefs, and because of that I understand where the Muslims and Christian fundies are coming from.

Religoius beliefs, or lack there of, in truth define your reality. These beliefs determine the most fundamental way that people view and relate to the world. To say that religous beliefs, or lack-there-of are simply "personal preference" is to deny the importance of these beliefs and their role in society.

If your religion tells you that there is one true God and that this God is the most important thing in the universe, and that society must be based on the values determined by this God and that how you act (which also means how other people act) and what you value will determine your fate for the rest of eternity then this belief HAS to be a part of your politics. Politics is the way in which we shape our society, to claim that you can truely believe in a god that tells you how to shape society and that you can then take poitcal position that oppose what you believe god tells you to do makes no sense.

Furthermore, the fact is that "god is a lie", and it is the biggest lie in the world, and its a lie that shapes people most basic views of life and humanity. IMO permitting the belief in gods is the greatest injustice in the world. It is just an excepted form of brain washing and social manipulation, and its only excepted because its pervasive.

I'm not someone who would "let my children choose for themselves", no I will tell my children that "good is a lie". Probably not like that, but still. I would no sooner allow my children to be infected with religious beliefs then the good ol' boy down the street would allow his children to attend a Communist school.

Religion is the number one most destructive force on the planet, bar none. The "liberation of humanity" is defined IMO by the abolition of religious belief. I'm not saying that thats something that needs to be done by force, only that mankind will never even have the possibility of "being free", until all religoius beliefs are vanquished.

You can't have a conciousness of humanity and have religious beliefs at the same time, its impossible. Its impossible to understand what life is about, or not about, and believe god, its that simple.

So yes, religion is political, and the fundamentalists know that it is. Religious fundamentalists understand religion, just from the wrong side of the coin.

 

[Kodiak]

Atheism - the belief that no gods exist - is just as unfounded as any flavour of theism. There is no evidence pointing to the existence of a god, but there is no credible evidence the other way either; therefore, it is rational to suspend judgement. I think what is commonly referred to as atheism, or perhaps "weak atheism", is really a form of agnosticism; that is, the position of a "lack of belief" in the existence of a god.

I consider the embracing of agnosticism one of the long-term goals for our species.

All of which can be summed up in my own position:

Agnostic in Principle; Atheist in Practice

 

[Kodiak]

Cecil,

Do you think the Loch Ness Monster may exist?

It's possible, though I personally find the case presented by the "Nessie" believers (or "Champie" believers, for that matter...) to be utterly unconvincing. Though there is NO evidence other than dubious eyewitness testimony and film footage, and unexplainable sonar readings, the lack of any evidence is itself not evidence of its nonexistence.

Jon,
Do you think the Loch Ness Monster cannot exist?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Jon,
Do you think the Loch Ness Monster cannot exist?

Put simply, thats exactly what i think.

 

[Kodiak]

Put simply, thats exactly what i think.

That's a very definitive statement.

What led you to that conclusion?

 

[Malachi151]

It's possible, though I personally find the case presented by the "Nessie" believers (or "Champie" believers, for that matter...) to be utterly unconvincing. Though there is NO evidence other than dubious eyewitness testimony and film footage, and unexplainable sonar readings, the lack of any evidence is itself not evidence of its nonexistence.

Jon,
Do you think the Loch Ness Monster cannot exist?

You have already presented more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster then has ever been presented for any "god".

 

[Kodiak]

You have already presented more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster then has ever been presented for any "god".

For arguments sake:

What about the "eyewitness testimony" of Moses, Abraham, David, Peter, Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Thomas and others?

The shroud of Turim?

Hell, many if not most xians claim the universe itself as evidence!

(Not that I myself am buying any of it though...)

 

[Malachi151]

For arguments sake:

What about the "eyewitness testimony" of Moses, Abraham, David, Peter, Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Thomas and others?

The shroud of Turim?

Hell, many if not most xians claim the universe itself as evidence!

(Not that I myself am buying any of it though...)

Okay I stand corrected, they both have equally lame supporting evidence.

Manufactured evidence, lies, and delusions are about that any of them have to go on.

 

[Tmy]

That's not the same thing. Dragons as we have defined them are limited to living on the Earth. Since we have explored the vast majority of the surface and seen no dragons, it is rational to conclude that dragons do not exist. "God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe. Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god.

.

Wheres Noahs ARC? Physical proof that the earth was covered by a giant flood. How can God create the earth in 7 days when science tells us its a few days older than that. Were are the remains of giants (like Goliath) who roamed the Earth around Davids time. Why arent dinosours ever mentioned. What about all the people in the bible who lived hundreds of years, howd that happen.

Youll all be sorry when Zues and the other Gods retun to Earth and punish you for calling them 'myths".

 

[Jon_in_london]

That's a very definitive statement.

What led you to that conclusion?

Do you really expect me to go through all that?

 

[Peach Jr.]

I voted for "I'm an atheist, but it's only a personal preference".

For me, atheism is the lack of belief. I don't believe in anything that cannot be proven to my satisfaction. For you smartypants out there, the jury's still out on quantum physics/mechanics for me as well. The existense of any and all gods (no, I don't capitalize dragons or unicorns either, except at the beginning of a sentence) cannot be proven. "You just have to believe". No, I don't. However, I don't have the right to enforce my opinions on others. Except for my babies.

Malachi151, you do have a good point there about religion being a political tool. It certainly has become one in the States - during these past few years in particular.

 

[Luke T.]

I am a deist. Before that, an atheist. Before that, an agnostic. Before that, a Catholic.

Sors immanis et inanis, rota tu volubilis...

Anyway. I think the only thing atheism has in common with religion is that both camps have their fanatics who detest the other side with vigor. And then there are those who believe in live and let live.

I am of the "live and let live" group.

When I was an atheist, I was of the "detest with vigor" group. So I guess I'm better off, happier, now.

 

[Luke T.]

Maybe this should be in the religion forum?

Yep.

 

[Valiant Dancer]

I believe that all religions and atheism are a form of philosophy. While I do not subscribe to the atheistic philosophy (which merely does not contain a God belief), I recognize it as a valid spiritual path.

Religion is for people who have a need for mysticism and ceremony in their lives. Atheists do not have this need and therefore, do not need the theological construct of a deity.

I have this need for mysticism and ceremony. I find benefit in it. Since I don't hurt anyone with it nor give it any credence in scientific observations, who cares?

As it is logically impossible to prove a negative, one cannot disprove the existance of a supreme being. One can only prove that the chance of existance is astronomically small. It is also logically impossible to prove the existance of something that has no observable phenomenon.

It is possible to be a critical thinker and theistic.

As for the dragon experiment, it does not limit the existance of dragons to the Earth. Therefore, while extremely unlikely, dragons might exist on a life bearing planet we have not observed. One could craft a philosophy which includes the existance of dragons. (perhaps on a fictional planet of Pern, but I've read that book.)

(edited because I screw up the spelling of simple words)

 

[Lord Emsworth]

There is a paradox called the "Lottery Paradox". Suppose you are running a lottery with an infinite number of tickets. Each ticket has only an infinitesimal chance of winning, but if you believe of each ticket that it will not win, then you must conclude that the lottery will not be won by any ticket, a patently false conclusion. Therefore, of each ticket it is not rational to believe that it will win, nor is it rational to believe that it will lose; you may think it very unlikely to win, but you should not believe it to be a loser.

The same goes for the propositions:
(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.
...
for an infinite number of gods.

With that kind of logic you can prove basically everything!

You can prove that there indeed has to be a teapot orbitting the sun, since there is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a red iron teapot to do aforesaid. There is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a blue tin teapot to do aforesaid. There is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a green teapot with n red dots to do aforesaid.

But is there really a teapot?

The problem why your analogy doesn't work is that you know for sure that at least one ticket in the lottery has to win.

 

[wollery]

Cecil,

You state that ""God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe." and "Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god."

Were this the case then good could neither infulence us or be relevent to anything in the universe. Not only that but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the existence of anything outside the universe, quite on the contrary, since the universe is defined as being the place where everything extant exists.

So god does not exist.

Your assertion about the lack of anything outside the Universe is spurious. Lack of evidencedoes not prove lack of existence. The physical Universe that we live in is all that we can experience, but it is just one of possibly an infinite number of universes. We cannot experience any of them because they exist outside our space-time continuum. That does not mean that they don't exist, merely that their existence is physically irrelavent to us.

My research involves measuring the movements of stars and the numbers of different types of stars in nearby space. From my point of view quantum mechanics is utterly irrelavent, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that it has absolutely no impact on what I do and can be utterly disregarded. And yes Peach, the jury is still out on QM, Relativity and in fact all of physics. That's the point of science!

I guess what I'm saying is that although we cannot proove that god exists we similarly cannot prove that it doesn't. The thing is, it doesn't matter - if it doesn't exist then, well, it doesn't exist, but if it does exist then it is too far beyond our comprehension to be worth contemplating.

 

[Kodiak]

Do you really expect me to go through all that?

I expect nothing, which is why I asked politely.

Definitive claims require definitive evidence.

By your statement I assumed that you could put the issue of "Nessie" to bed for good.

Perhaps I was wrong...

Can you make the same concession?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The reason why I went with the first option is that I basically see Atheism more or less as a reation to a God claim. Without that God claim there simply would be a void. And I can't see anything that would make sense for society. At least that is my stance, my preference.

Sure critical thinking and suchlike are good concepts that can lead to a lack of believe conclusion, but then I think it should be rather the critical thinking that would make a concept for society than the conclusion (in this case Atheism) that I have drawn under special circumstances (confrontation with a God claim) from it.

 

[Kodiak]

The problem why your analogy doesn't work is that you know for sure that at least one ticket in the lottery has to win.

Not true. Winning numbers which no one forsaw, and therefore , for which no ticket exists, occur all the time...

 

[Graham]

Not true. Winning numbers which no one forsaw, and therefore , for which no ticket exists, occur all the time...

Smart answer but at least one number (or set of numbers) in the lottery has to win.

Not so in the god scenario.

Graham