Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Frozenwolf150]

At this point, I would like to tell you the reason that I reject the Qur'an in its entirety. Every sura opens with a reference to Allah as gracious and merciful, yet the book is full of utterly ghastly threats about what Allah will do to people who do not believe. Over half the suras have such threats. Regardless of whether the book came from a god or from a mortal, it's obvious that the author is a vicious-minded bully unworthy of respect.

Someone else already said this, but I'll say it again. Calling Allah merciful in this sense is like shoving a bomb down someone's throat and declaring yourself merciful for not pushing the detonator.

Why is that? Because it is such a monster, your god, that it would torture people for all eternity for having the temerity to reject a monster that would do such a thing to intelligences that it created with the capacity to reason that such a thing as your idea of a creator god is nonexistent?

It creates me with the capacity to reason; then through reasoning and sharing the knowledge that the collective efforts of human intelligence have discovered about the way the universe works, I come to the conclusion that the rubbish you call a holy book is a worthless bit of politics cum mysticism from a primitive and ignorant source, and that no such thing as a creator god is required or even possible. Then this monster that set me up for this conclusion tortures me for all eternity.

And you have the gall to call this thing merciful and compassionate, and align yourself with uncompassionate fanatics who murder in the name of the monster god allah, and take the self-righteous position that you are a moral and worthy person, but I am not, even though I see no reason to believe you are even honest, and I have the integrity to reject your coercive creator even to his face, if he were to turn out to be real, because I would refuse to align myself with such a monster. I have integrity, but your god values a submissive mind over creative intelligence and integrity, so I am damned, and the mindless go to heaven.

Your god and your religion disgust me.

Nice response.

What the OP also fails to understand is that even if we assume God exists, the Quran is not the word of God any more than the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible. All of these works represent humankind's best attempts to understand God and each other, through conflict and struggle, trial and tribulation. As someone who has studied the Hebrew Bible, I can tell you one thing. It's not about God, it's about the human beings who wrote it. It's about the lives they lived, the personal prejudices they had, their emotional frailties, and their intellectual curiosity about the big scary universe in which they found themselves.

The OP repeatedly asserts that the Quran is without error, but this makes his claims all the more suspicious because it suggests he's practicing a form of idolatry in worshiping a book he believes infallible. A book is simply a material object. It is not a god or substitute for God. The Quran was recorded and transmitted through human writing. Not only can humans make mistakes, they also write about other humans, who are themselves fallible. Abraham was not perfect; he lied about the identity of Sarah when in Egypt. Jesus was not perfect; he misquoted scripture, lied to his followers, and contradicted his own moral teachings at times.

Despite what the major world religions may claim, there are still no definitive answers when it comes to God. God is the great mystery lying at the end of human knowledge, in an allegorical sense if you prefer, beckoning us onward. Everyone searches in his or her own way. This is why I reject mikeb768's attempts to constrict our understanding of the universe into the narrow peephole of organized religion. Humanity has barely begun to take its first steps on the long journey of discovery, therefore I doubt anyone has already found all the answers.

 

[Tassman]

I don't know, but I doubt reality is only what we can perceive with our evolutionary inherited capacities.

We have no other means of perceiving any alleged “reality behind reality”, nor is there reason to think there is. To assume that there must be is a argumentum ad ignorantiam), i.e. an appeal to ignorance.

What's ALWAYS been the case to date is that new knowledge has, without exception, been shown to be based on the laws and constants of the natural universe. There is no reason to attribute anything other than natural causes to reality, nor is there a methodology for doing so.

 

[Tassman]

What does science mean when it says as you claim that god does not exist?

Science, as a discipline cannot make claims that are not falsifiable. “God exists” is not falsifiable whereas “God does not exist” is. It can be falsified by substantiated evidence verifying God exists.

BYW: You make it very difficult to respond to your post. IN FUTURE PLEASE ANSWER MY POINTS IN DUE ORDER - NOT JUST AS SINGLE SLAB OF MATERIAL AS PER YOUR LAST RESPONSE TO ME. A point-by-point discussion is surely what message boards are all about. You've already been taken to task by asydhouse for messing around with the order of points being made. Please desist.

Why do you claim god does not have a brain? How do you know that the physical universe is not gods brain?

I don’t. Why would you suggest that the physical universe might be God’s brain?

The argument was that human will one day cease to exist because the sun will expand. I said that this is not known. It is fortune telling at best because it assumes things which cannot be known given the time period being worked with.

Besides that it also assumes that once the earth is incinerated, that is the end of all human ideas.

It is NOT "fortune telling". The evidence, based on observation and existing knowledge, strongly indicates that the earth will ultimately be incinerated by the expanding sun. Do you have evidence to counter this?

All human ideas will cease if there is no form of physical transmission of them.

I don't postulate anything. This universe is still a great mystery and we all know very little about it. That is my position. I know or I don't know, and leave others to their argue beliefs

You seem to be postulating that “ideas” exist independently of a material brain. It’s an ongoing refrain. Are you? If you are then you must provide evidence that they can.

I am not presenting a 'case' -

You are. You are arguing that it is “not unreasonable” to accept the idea of a god and that science isn't able to measure such concepts. So, WHY, when there is no substantiated evidence, if it “not unreasonable” to accept the idea of God? What about pixies or the flying teapot? Is it not unreasonable to accept the idea of them too?

Neutral is lack of bias.

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.

There is no credible evidence therefore it must be...

That’s not the argument.

however as you know, science is not a closed book and thus cant be used to make claims as you are making them.
As long as there are possibilities, the books remain open. That is my position and as it is not for or against, does not need to be justified. A neutral position for things which are not so provable scientifically is the best one to have.

Science is a work in progress, certainly, but this does not mean that any and every fanciful possibility of what might be real - from elves to gods to astrology - should be taken seriously by science. To assume any old position because it appeals to you is not neutrality, it’s nonsensical. Not all “possible” scenarios are equal; some can be reasonably dismissed out of hand.

Again, what evidence does science have when as you claim, it states that 'god does not exist'? What does it mean by 'god' and how has it tested this to come to this conclusion?

You have it back-to-front: Science can claim that god does not exist because there is no verified evidence that he does. If you provide verifiable, multiply-tested evidence that god does exist then you will have falsified the scientific claim and science will adjust to the new information. This is how science works.

You infer far too much into my position. Perhaps you are wondering if the whole world were to be like this, what kind of world it would be? I don't know but you obvious taking offence at my position says more about your own belief systems and your need to defend them.

You don't like that anyone can be in a position where they dont have to argue for or against peoples beliefs?

I like my position. It is a good place to be.

I am not taking “offense” at your position. I am saying it is untenable.

Giving credence to the mere possibility of concepts existing and equating them with established scientific knowledge, when they are not supported by any credible evidence, is irrational. But this appears to be your position.

 

[Brian-M]

Why do you claim god does not have a brain? How do you know that the physical universe is not gods brain?

I don’t. Why would you suggest that the physical universe might be God’s brain?

His point about the possibility of the universe being God's brain leaves me wondering how God is supposed to have created the universe if he didn't have a brain before he created it.

 

[Tassman]

His point about the possibility of the universe being God's brain leaves me wondering how God is supposed to have created the universe if he didn't have a brain before he created it.

Good point! Perhaps God is evolving too, just like the universe. But this is really pantheism - or panentheism - whereby God and the universe are one and the same. So, why bother with the God bit?

 

[Navigator]

I still think there's a flaw here, in that you claim a god can be defined by others, but not by you, and yet it is you who admit the possibility after having said that something that cannot be defined cannot exist. But then you almost immediately suggest the possibility of a god that defies definition. If you cannot define a god well enough to argue that it is even possible, then how can you recognize a real possibility? If you can recognize the possibility of an undefined god, then there's a problem in the way you've expressed it.

Your argument seems to come down to a contention that anything that anyone believes becomes possible, or that a wrong definition creates possibility as well as a right one.

Yes it is more about what we don't know than what we do. It is also about the many varieties of god definitions, what they have in common and what they don't.
For me I am not interested in 'what the right definition' is simply because it cannot be supported by evidence. I am interested in the definitions. Call it a hobby.

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

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

 

[Navigator]

Show you what?

Some kind of evidence which tells me god does/doesn't exist.

 

[Navigator]

His point about the possibility of the universe being God's brain leaves me wondering how God is supposed to have created the universe if he didn't have a brain before he created it.

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

To offer some kind of answer your observation re the possibility of the universe being 'gods brain' if the universe is gods brain then it evolved.

Perhaps the big bang was like the first thought...or maybe not even a thought.

Anyway, as a metaphor I quite like the idea.

 

[Navigator]

Science, as a discipline cannot make claims that are not falsifiable. “God exists” is not falsifiable whereas “God does not exist” is. It can be falsified by substantiated evidence verifying God exists.

If there is no evidence that god does exist then science says that god does not exist?

Science deals with physical evidence. How does science define 'god'? Science doesn't.

What interest does science have in defining god? None.

What statements does science make about god? None.

If science makes no statements about god, how can 'god does not exist' be a statement of science?

 

[punshhh]

His point about the possibility of the universe being God's brain leaves me wondering how God is supposed to have created the universe if he didn't have a brain before he created it.

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

 

[Navigator]

It is NOT "fortune telling". The evidence, based on observation and existing knowledge, strongly indicates that the earth will ultimately be incinerated by the expanding sun. Do you have evidence to counter this?

All human ideas will cease if there is no form of physical transmission of them.

It is fortune telling because you are assuming human beings will not have figured out a way to survive this event in the time allotted.
You are also assuming that we couldn't put the data of our existence into a number of container ships and that the data won't one day be discovered by another intelligent specie.
Those things are quite possible, so by ignoring them and making your statement you are predicting only one future possibility in a manner which is very reminiscent of fortune telling

 

[AdMan]

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

Turtles all the way down, in other words.

 

[Pixel42]

If there is no evidence that god does exist then science says that god does not exist?

The null hypothesis is always that X does not exist. The null hypothesis stands until it is disproved, ie until evidence for X is produced.

 

[Navigator]

You seem to be postulating that “ideas” exist independently of a material brain. It’s an ongoing refrain. Are you? If you are then you must provide evidence that they can.

No I am not postulating that ideas exist independently of a material brain.

I am saying that the idea that consciousness came before the brain and uses the brain for the experience of being human and when the body dies the consciousness continues, might possibly be the case.

You seem to be saying that I am saying this is a matter of fact, which is not what I am saying at all.

I don't know if it is factual or not, but it could be.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

 

[punshhh]

We have no other means of perceiving any alleged “reality behind reality”, nor is there reason to think there is. To assume that there must be is a argumentum ad ignorantiam), i.e. an appeal to ignorance.

We just found ourselves here in this world, why do you think we should be able to understand how it works after such a short time here, and with such a limited mental capacity.

What's ALWAYS been the case to date is that new knowledge has, without exception, been shown to be based on the laws and constants of the natural universe. There is no reason to attribute anything other than natural causes to reality, nor is there a methodology for doing so.

Now at the outset we should tackle the word "natural". Nature is what existence has provided in its entirety, not just the bit of physical material described by science at this point in time. As such nature includes things not yet described by science and the secrets of existence, as well as, perhaps, a nearly infinite number of other things beyond our understanding. So when you think of the natural universe realise that you are actually only thinking about the bit we have managed so far to figure out.

Again the use of the phrase "natural causes" suffers from the same problem. It's only the few natural causes we have managed to figure as yet. This set of natural causes is incomplete and the extent of this incompleteness is unknown.

Are you sure you want to continue, you are on my turf now and it may be a rocky ride.

And there is a methodology for doing so.

 

[Navigator]

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'.

 

[Navigator]

The null hypothesis is always that X does not exist. The null hypothesis stands until it is disproved, ie until evidence for X is produced.

An hypothesis is not a 'statement' is it? Besides, 'X' is not defined.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

No I am not postulating that ideas exist independently of a material brain.

I am saying that the idea that consciousness came before the brain and uses the brain for the experience of being human and when the body dies the consciousness continues, might possibly be the case.

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.

 

[Navigator]

You are. You are arguing that it is “not unreasonable” to accept the idea of a god and that science isn't able to measure such concepts. So, WHY, when there is no substantiated evidence, if it “not unreasonable” to accept the idea of God? What about pixies or the flying teapot? Is it not unreasonable to accept the idea of them too?

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.

What is a pixie?

Essentially every teapot is flying in a way...