Voltaire and God

[Kafka]

Atheism: I believe and know

Hopefully that conjunction "and" there indicates the presence of two rather different strains of atheism rather than being a gross mischaracterization about atheists as if all atheist make a positive claim about knowledge.

Once more for effect: as an atheist I can only tell you what information has been made available to me to confirm the existence of "God" and so far that information has proven to be insufficient for me to believe in "God". This is 100% NOT the same as "knowing" there is no God. Simply failing to believe in God until sufficient information comes to overcome that position.

 

[Cypress]

How is it religious?

The concept that there is a collective universal intelligence permeating the cosmos, permeating quarks and leptons is a bridge too far for me. It sounds like something an Indian mystic would embrace.

 

[Cypress]

Hopefully that conjunction "and" there indicates the presence of two rather different strains of atheism rather than being a gross mischaracterization about atheists as if all atheist make a positive claim about knowledge.

Once more for effect: as an atheist I can only tell you what information has been made available to me to confirm the existence of "God" and so far that information has proven to be insufficient for me to believe in "God". This is 100% NOT the same as "knowing" there is no God. Simply failing to believe in God until sufficient information comes to overcome that position.

I don't understand the reluctance to fully embrace a strictly materialistic and reductionist view of life and all reality, if atheism is really being practiced.

What evidence are you waiting for? There isn't going to be any experimental evidence, we are not talking about science, this discussion is about metaphysics and ontology. There are just going to be questions for which there is no scientific experimental answer, and probably never will be.

 

[Mason 22]

Those with the Holy Spirit have no doubt that Jesus is Lord.

 

[Kafka]

What evidence are you waiting for?

That's a strange question. I'm waiting for any evidence that supports the millions of positive claims for God's existence.

There isn't going to be any experimental evidence,

What does "experimental evidence" mean for you? I don't know why you keep making a special classification of evidence. If God is real and has an interaction with reality it should be possible to find evidence for it. If He has zero interaction with reality then He doesn't matter.

we are not talking about science, this discussion is about metaphysics and ontology. There are just going to be questions for which there is no scientific experimental answer, and probably never will be.

I think the only thing which is likely to be truly "unknowable" might be the origin of the universe. And as I've said numerous times now that is one area that I think the application of "agnosticism" is merited.

 

[Kafka]

Those with the Holy Spirit have no doubt that Jesus is Lord.

No doubt.

 

[Cypress]

That's a strange question. I'm waiting for any evidence that supports the millions of positive claims for God's existence.



What does "experimental evidence" mean for you? I don't know why you keep making a special classification of evidence. If God is real and has an interaction with reality it should be possible to find evidence for it. If He has zero interaction with reality then He doesn't matter.



I think the only thing which is likely to be truly "unknowable" might be the origin of the universe. And as I've said numerous times now that is one area that I think the application of "agnosticism" is merited.

It's perfectly rational to believe that the creative act of the hot big bang, the organized mathematical scaffolding of the universe, and the existence of universal physical laws implies a rational author of the universe.

I don't know if that is true, but science doesn't answer those questions, and it's not bug-eyed crazy to believe it's true.

If you are waiting for gods to throw lighting bolts at you down from Mount Olympus, that's the kind of evidence you aren't going to get.

 

[Mason 22]

It's perfectly rational to believe that the creative act of the hot big bang, the organized mathematical scaffolding of the universe, and the existence of universal physical laws implies a rational author of the universe.

I don't know if that is true, but science doesn't answer those questions, and it's not bug-eyed crazy to believe it's true.

If you are waiting for gods to throw lighting bolts at you down from Mount Olympus, that's the kind of evidence you aren't going to get.

Melchizedek-Files.com

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hopefully that conjunction "and" there indicates the presence of two rather different strains of atheism rather than being a gross mischaracterization about atheists as if all atheist make a positive claim about knowledge.

Once more for effect: as an atheist I can only tell you what information has been made available to me to confirm the existence of "God" and so far that information has proven to be insufficient for me to believe in "God". This is 100% NOT the same as "knowing" there is no God. Simply failing to believe in God until sufficient information comes to overcome that position.

"Atheism" means so many different things to different people...it should never be used as a self-descriptor. Everyone who wants to explain their take on the REALITY of existence...should do so using words...particularly when it come to the question, "Do no gods exist or is there at least one god?"

Frankly, it is my opinion that the answer from EVERYONE should be, "I do not know."

And it should be left at that.

 

[Kafka]

It's perfectly rational to believe that the creative act of the hot big bang, the organized mathematical scaffolding of the universe, and the existence of universal physical laws implies a rational author of the universe.

This seems to be a point of difference for us. This is one of the arguments AGAINST 'intelligent design' in relation to how life evolved. It presupposes that there is a way to "assess" the presence or absence of "design". To my knowledge there really isn't a way unless you have access to a universe that we KNOW was designed and one we KNOW was not designed.

If you are waiting for gods to throw lighting bolts at you down from Mount Olympus, that's the kind of evidence you aren't going to get.

Not what I need. But by the same token the mere ABSENCE of an explanation for the origin of the Universe does not ipso facto equal the presence of God.

 

[Kafka]

"Atheism" means so many different things to different people...it should never be used as a self-descriptor

Just because a lot of people loosely use a term does not mean the term has no value.

Frankly, it is my opinion that the answer from EVERYONE should be, "I do not know."

There is a tiny invisible demon in the freezer of your refrigerator in your kitchen. You have now been presented with the claim. Are you "agnostic" about the claim or do you simply fail to believe me?

And it should be left at that.

It's fine, insofar as it is clearly not applied consistently by people who claim to be agnostic. Mots people are "agnostic" about God but aren't agnostic about any other random claim someone else makes. The demon in your freezer for example.

 

[Hume]

The concept that there is a collective universal intelligence permeating the cosmos, permeating quarks and leptons is a bridge too far for me. It sounds like something an Indian mystic would embrace.

I guess. I don't know anything about Indian mysticism.

 

[Hume]

"Atheism" means so many different things to different people...it should never be used as a self-descriptor. Everyone who wants to explain their take on the REALITY of existence...should do so using words...particularly when it come to the question, "Do no gods exist or is there at least one god?"

Frankly, it is my opinion that the answer from EVERYONE should be, "I do not know."

And it should be left at that.

Thank goodness no one agrees with you. Or we'd be terrified everytime lightening strikes.

 

[Hume]

Those with the Holy Spirit have no doubt that Jesus is Lord.

So what?

 

[Litmus]

Throwing our hands up in futility, and proclaiming "well, it just is what it is" would bring a rapid end to scientific and metaphysical speculation.

but you being not sure if you exist is even stupider.

there is such a thing as overthinking dumb shit.

it's your forte, actually.

 

[Litmus]

Atheism: I believe and know there is no rational author or purposeful rational organizing principle underlying the universe.


Agnostic: I don't know whether or not there is a rational author that purposefully organized the universe.


Selectively rejecting the providential god of Abraham is not impartial atheism. It's just being anti-christian.

selectivly villainizing christians for believing their scripture is sacred is anti-christian.

 

[Kafka]

selectivly villainizing christians for believing their scripture is sacred is anti-christian.

Who is "villanizing" Christians on here?

And please don't say merely questioning the validity of Christian theology is "villanizing" them. That's absurd.

Almost everyone on here with maybe one exception are NOT on here slagging Christianity.

 

[Hume]

The purpose of religion is "to support group identities: They guide symbolic actions (for example, ritual behaviors) that signal group allegiance; and by professing “belief” in religious doctrines, people indicate and partly constitute their membership in a social group."

From a book review: Religion as Make-Believe: A Theory of Belief, Imagination, and Group Identity​

Religion as Make-Believe: A Theory of Belief, Imagination, and Group Identity

In Religion as Make-Believe, Neil Van Leeuwen argues that factual beliefs (for example, that there’s beer in the fridge) differ greatly from ...

ndpr.nd.edu

The practice of religion comes first. The concept of god comes second.

 

[Kafka]

The purpose of religion is "to support group identities:

This is a reasonable thing to hypothesize. But, again, it isn't how the religious see religion, nor is it how religion is presented to us.

Religion as a human construct (which it most assuredly appears to be) is a very efficient means to coordinate a group of people into a single cohesive unit. In many ways it short-circuits the need to get "agreement" in that it couches its tenants in terms of "universal truth" (which is why I said elsewhere what I did about claims to universal truths by religion).

I don't honestly think some cabal of earlier "leaders" ginned up religion with an eye toward "control" of the group, but it certainly does that quite well and probably arises spontaneously in any social group of creatures with the ability to think in the abstract.

My assumption is that religion ORIGINATED in the desire to explain what was, at that time, inexplicable. Only later, when it was realized that religion COULD be leveraged to make people act in ways either in their or against their best interests that it became a commodity to be used against people. But that isn't the origin, IMHO.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Just because a lot of people loosely use a term does not mean the term has no value.

Correct. But the term "atheist" has no value because it means so many things to different people.

There is a tiny invisible demon in the freezer of your refrigerator in your kitchen. You have now been presented with the claim. Are you "agnostic" about the claim or do you simply fail to believe me?

My position is:
I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Fit your question into that...and I will respond.

It's fine, insofar as it is clearly not applied consistently by people who claim to be agnostic. Mots people are "agnostic" about God but aren't agnostic about any other random claim someone else makes. The demon in your freezer for example.

See above.