The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[game & kirby]

Yeh, the original question was answered and reanswered a lot...as with most threads, and the real life discussions they reflect, we went off on a bit of a tangent and never got back on track... oh well :D

Anyway, a lot of people always say that there is no drive for atheists to attempt to disprove what religious people believe in. A lot of people say that we should just let religious people be, and stop flaming, bashing, accusing, insulting, or belittling them. The way I see it, we're not doing any of the above.

If there's one thing that unites atheists, its the appreciation of clarity.

Clear thoughts, unadulterated, and logically progressive, are important to an atheist, since in a world where the vast majority of people live under what atheist's opinions range from fanciful belief to raging delusion, it's natural that we hold to our clear view of what we know the world to be, through reason.

When an atheist attempts to explain the inexistance or the logical fallacies in a religious person's reasoning, he might be doing it just for fun, or out of boredom. However, I propose that many, indeed most do it out of a sense of respect for the truth, and that everyone has a right to be privy to it, regardless of wether they want to or not.

It is important to post script this by saying that everyone believes he knows the truth, so everyone to a certain extent believes this, but maybe atheists more than others, since they relied on empirical evidence and logic to formulate their knowledge of the world, rather than making it up, or having someone make it up for them (rather than through religious revelation, to be politically correct:D )

- game & kirby

 

[petrie911]

However, I propose that many, indeed most do it out of a sense of respect for the truth, and that everyone has a right to be privy to it, regardless of wether they want to or not.

You do realize that that statement, whether you intended it to or not, said that Atheists have the right to force Atheism on others. And how do you know that Atheism is what's true, anyway? You can't prove that God does not exist, just as I cannot prove that He does.


Also, do you consider Atheism to be a religion?

 

[snex]

atheism is not the belief that god does not exist, it is the disbelief in god.

very big difference.

 

[game & kirby]

yes, well as an atheist, and as I said in my post, of course I'll believe that what I think is the truth.

And I do not endorse the shoveling of atheism down everyone else's throats, just their exposure to it.

And as has been said, I'm not in the position of having to prove that God doesn't exist. Religious people are in the position of having to prove their god's existance, if you want to look at it from a rational point of view (as opposed to a religious one)

-game & kirby

 

[petrie911]

Religious people are in the position of having to prove their god's existance, if you want to look at it from a rational point of view (as opposed to a religious one)

Well, we don't have to prove His existance to believe in Him, just like you don't have to prove His nonexistance to not believe in Him. The only time one have to prove (or disprove) God's existance is when one's trying to prove someone else wrong.

Also, a religious point of view is not exclusive to a rational point of view. St. Thomas Aquinas made some very rational arguments for the existance of God. To see these arguments, go to this website.

http://people.uncw.edu/stanleym/bewitch/17.html

 

[snex]

you are missing the point petrie. the point is that we dont have to support our standings in any way whatsoever, since disbelief is a negative statement.

i.e. you dont have to produce a reason for your disbelief in unicorns. there is no reason to believe that they DO exist.

the same argument applies to god. there is no reason to believe he exists, so we dont need a reason to disbelieve in him.

you, however, think there is a reason to believe god exists, so you must give that reason and support it logically.

 

[expletivedeleted]

Also, a religious point of view is not exclusive to a rational point of view. St. Thomas Aquinas made some very rational arguments for the existance of God. To see these arguments, go to this website.

http://people.uncw.edu/stanleym/bewitch/17.html

This is similar to Rossl15's proof presented earlier, in that it is not a proof, but a conjecture.

As I said before on this forum, I think in this very thread, the biggest problem I have with these religious proofs--which extends to religion in general--is that religion can't accept unknowns. Responding to St. Thomas's proofs (I'll pick "The Proof from Efficient Cause as in example; it is also the most like Rossl15's), whereas the religious mind of St. Thomas might say "I don't know what could have started it, so God must have," an athiest mind could say "I just don't know."

One could call the desire to search for an answer and accept unknowns as rational, and the innability to do so and so filling unknowns with God irrational. It is one thing to do it in one instance as Rossl15 did, but St. Thomas is stretching it. By that logic, a religious point of view and a rational point of view are mutually exclusive (not to say that a religious mind must always be irrational), as a rational point of view must necessarily be supported logically, and God is necessarily illogical.

Some of his proofs seem a bit desperate, like "The Proof from Degrees of Perfection."

 

[Dodongo]

I disagree slightly, if someone is truely in touch with whatever their religion is, then they will have no need to prove it at all.

 

[expletivedeleted]

And I disagree slightly with that. If one is truly in touch with one's religion, then one will not have to prove it to oneself.

What St. Thomas is trying to do here is prove it to everybody, and to convince everybody of the undeniable logic in God, so he does need a valid proof.

 

[snex]

i disagree even with that.

if one is TRULY in touch with their religion, he will definately need proof.

people who are in touch with physics need proof. people who are in touch with math need proof.

in fact, you might say that proof is the only way to TRULY get in touch with something. not necessarily formal proof, but something that absolutely convinces a person that thats the way things are.

 

[petrie911]

you are missing the point petrie. the point is that we dont have to support our standings in any way whatsoever, since disbelief is a negative statement.

I'd just like to say that is not true. It is only true if I am trying to convince YOU to believe in God. But, I am not trying to do that. i was trying to assert the fact that until one side has good evidence in their favor, they can not claim to have the truth.

but, no matter, I just realized that I overlooked someting in Game&Kirby's post.

However, I propose that many, indeed most do it out of a sense of respect for the truth

I just realized that this says the Atheist does it because he believes he has the truth. However, most people that try to convert others have this reason anyway, so it's not really that much of a deal.

people who are in touch with physics need proof. people who are in touch with math need proof

well, only math needs proof. Physics (and the other sciences) do not need proof, but they do need convincing evidence. That's the reason why Math and Science are separate.

However, Religion is not a science. Religion is much more opinion based. It is my opinion that God exists, and it is your opinion that he doesn't. This allows for an interesting loophole: if neither of us says that our opinions are fact, then neither person can be wrong, because only statements of fact can be false.

 

[snex]

you are still missing the key difference between atheism and religion.

the atheist does NOT say "god does not exist." that is called strict atheism, and is usually practiced by angtsy teenagers that hate their christian parents.

real atheists instead say "i have no reason to believe in god"

we do not dismiss the possibility that god may exist, however since there is no evidence in favor of his existence, we do not believe in him.

 

[expletivedeleted]

real atheists instead say "i have no reason to believe in god"

Webster says:

Atheism:
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Agnosticism:
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Atheists have a disbelief in God. Agnostics say "I have no reason to believe in God."

if one is TRULY in touch with their religion, he will definately need proof.

people who are in touch with physics need proof. people who are in touch with math need proof.

in fact, you might say that proof is the only way to TRULY get in touch with something. not necessarily formal proof, but something that absolutely convinces a person that thats the way things are.

You can't compare religion with physics and math in this respect. Physics and math are based on the empirical--religion is not. Physics and math (math specifically) by definition requires a logical proof. Religion is exempt from logic, and thus is necessarily exempt from logical proof.

You say that a person needs something that "absolutely convinces a person that that's the way things are." Faith is that thing. A mathematical proof and the assurance that you are describing are not one and the same. A proof as such is an assurance, but not every assurance must be a logical proof.

Another example: I believe that my significant other (spouse, fiancee, boyfriend/girlfriend) truly loves me. There is no way to make a logical proof of this; however, I am unequivocally convinced that this is true. By your logic, I could not be convinced of such without a logical proof.

 

[snex]

Atheists have a disbelief in God. Agnostics say "I have no reason to believe in God."

wrong. those are both properties of atheism, and in fact the same exact property.

dictionaries are not a proper resource for philosophical discussions, as terms are not as simple as their denotations.

atheism literally means "without gods."
agnosticism literally means "without knowledge."

true atheists simply have no belief in god or gods, due to lack of evidence.

true agnostics not only admit that there is a lack of evidence, but that there will ALWAYS be such a lack of evidence, and humans will never know about the existence of gods.

in reference to the second part of your post, you believe that your spouse will be faithful because of evidence. she has been faithful to you in the past (or at least appeared to be so), and she has done things that suggest she would be faithful. you wouldnt just pick a random girl off the streets and marry her, would you? no, you spend time with a girl and get to know her, which is valid evidence for your belief in her faithfulness.

 

[expletivedeleted]

in reference to the second part of your post, you believe that your spouse will be faithful because of evidence.

"Evidence" is different from proof. People see many "evidences" (in this context, as in my example before, evidence is subjective) for religion. Saying that people who are in touch with math need proof and therefor people who are in touch with religion need proof is wrong. You can't equate religion with math, and you can't say that they require the same kind of proof.

 

[snex]

"Evidence" is different from proof. People see many "evidences" (in this context, as in my example before, evidence is subjective) for religion.

youre right, thats exactly why people arent truly in touch with things. they dont have proof, only evidence. somebody that had proof would be truly in touch.

You can't equate religion with math, and you can't say that they require the same kind of proof.

sure i can. i just did. if you want to prove that wrong youll need a little more than "omgwtf you cant say that!"

 

[game & kirby]

heh heh snex, well you can't really equate religion with math. Prospectively, and ideally, you should, but the fact remains that religion is based on faith, which is a belief or trust in an entity or state regardless of proof for or against it. By nature, religion defies, and indeed belittles, the concept of logic. A religious person is expected, by himself or the religious institution to which he subscribes, to have faith in a God, in their version of God, with no rational proof whatsoever.

Because of this, religious people often don't need to prove religion to themselves, simply because such a thing is impossible.

Oh yes, and when I said a respect for truth, I didn't mean a belief in truth. Truth is the status of a statement, either true or untrue. I don't believe in it. That's like believing that sometimes the sun shines. I have respect for truth acquired through logical proof, which for an atheist is the only proof available.

A side note on the niggling pedantry over agnosticism and atheism. An agnostic believes he can never know wether God exists or not, and therefore lives in a state of uncertainty. An atheist takes the next step and equates this problem, of God's existance, with any other problem in the world, and states that if there is no proof of God's existance, God does not exist. An atheist is certain of God's inexistance until proof comes along, at which point he is certain of God's existance. There is no grey area, except during the verification of the proof.

Finding proof of God's inexistance, as has been said, is a fallacious endeavour.

-game & kirby

 

[Pete577]

Its odd when some people try and prove things wrong from the Bible even though the Bible explains it thoroughly. When people do that, it shows that they didnt do any background studies on their 'proof'.

Im just saying this to some of the people in this topic...

 

[snex]

Because of this, religious people often don't need to prove religion to themselves, simply because such a thing is impossible.

that is why nobody is truly in touch with their faith.

An atheist takes the next step and equates this problem, of God's existance, with any other problem in the world, and states that if there is no proof of God's existance, God does not exist.

almost. instead of saying "God does not exist," we say "god may as well not exist." think about it in scientific terms. string theory is not 100% verified, but do we as scientists say "string theory is wrong?" no, we suspend judgement until proof or disproof is discovered. the same applies to god. we cannot make a statement regarding god's existence until we have further evidence. IMO, atheism in that manner is the best choice to make, because he is being true to the scientific method. an agnostic is still making a positive statement without proof, i.e. "proof does not exist."

 

[expletivedeleted]

Its odd when some people try and prove things wrong from the Bible even though the Bible explains it thoroughly.

The pure logic here is astounding. I'm--really--I'm blown away by this. Why are we all arguing, when the Bible tells us everything we need to know?

So, Pete577, where have you been for all these religion debates?

that is why nobody is truly in touch with their faith.

So are you saying that it's impossible to be truly in touch with your faith? Faith isn't based on fact or logical proof because it's faith. So how can someone ever be truly in touch with something that can't be proven logically when to be in touch with it means to prove it? You can define "truly in touch with" any way you want, but I don't see what point you're trying to make. You'll find people who are a religious as others are scientific. How is it different how much they're "truly in touch" with their respective fields?

string theory is not 100% verified, but do we as scientists say "string theory is wrong?" no, we suspend judgement until proof or disproof is discovered.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that string theory was unprovable (although I'm not sure if this is in theory or just with current methods), making it a kind of faith in itself.

 

[Pete577]

I wasnt really trying to get into this debate, i was just stating something. Please, I've had enough with these religious debates, just keep me outta them.

 

[expletivedeleted]

Please, I've had enough with these religious debates, just keep me outta them.

I'm sorry. I'll stop forcing you to participate.

 

[Pete577]

Thank you.

 

[petrie911]

almost. instead of saying "God does not exist," we say "god may as well not exist." think about it in scientific terms. string theory is not 100% verified, but do we as scientists say "string theory is wrong?" no, we suspend judgement until proof or disproof is discovered. the same applies to god. we cannot make a statement regarding god's existence until we have further evidence. IMO, atheism in that manner is the best choice to make, because he is being true to the scientific method.

That is still Agnostic, snex. An Atheist, by definition, does not believe in God. An Agnostic, however, believes that there may be a God, but we don't have any proof either way.

Also, nothing in science can be 100% verified. That is restricted to Math alone.

However, I can think of a reson to believe in God, even though there is no proof: if I believe in God and I'm wrong, oh well, there is no downside. However, if I don't believe in God and I'm wrong, then I'm screwed for all eternity.

There. A logical reason to believe in God. Now give me a logical one not to.

 

[snex]

An Atheist, by definition, does not believe in God.

yes thats what i said. an atheis does NOT, however, state that god does not exist. they are very different statements.

However, if I don't believe in God and I'm wrong, then I'm screwed for all eternity.

wow you just made the point ive been trying to make all along. the only reason to believe in god is fear. thanks for proving me right. i, however, do not fear what cannot be proven to exist (i.e. the afterlife and what may happen to me during it).

 

[petrie911]

i worded my post wrong. Both Atheists and Agnostics can say that they don't believe in God. however, Atheists believe that God does not exist. Agnostics don't.

Also, on an interesting side note,

Truth is the status of a statement, either true or untrue.

is an untrue statement. there is a 3rd kind, called an undecidable statement. An undecidable statement cannot be proved True or False.

Examples of undecidable statements:
This statement is a lie (undecidable because it contradicts itself)
There exists a set of numbers larger than the set of real numbers but smaller than the set of integers.(undecidable because you can assume it true or false without contradictions)
There exists an axiomatic system without contradictions. (undecidable because you must check an infinite amount of things, and there is no quick proof)

 

[Mike da King]

The null hypothesis in this situation is that no God(s) exist. Without evidence for the existence of God(s), the logical conclusion is the null hypothesis. Thus, unless you've found some valid evidence or are illogical, you're an atheist. Some definitions of agnosticsm (usually involving "doubt") make it a supercategory of atheism, so all atheists would be agnostics as well. It would be more precise to describe myself as an atheist than as an agnostic; some people prefer the term "agnostic" even if they believe that the probability of God's existence is zero, since it seems to imply more open-mindedness and less antireligiousness. Bah. wusses.

 

[snex]

Atheists believe that God does not exist. Agnostics don't.

no, youre wrong. only strict (ignorant) atheists believe that god does not exist.

also, just to nitpick...

There exists a set of numbers larger than the set of real numbers but smaller than the set of integers.(undecidable because you can assume it true or false without contradictions)

is not undecidable. there are methods for the countability of infinite sets. im not exactly sure about this, but i believe c(R) = c(Z) where c is the cardinality, R is the set of real numbers, and Z is the set of integers. if im right about that, then your statement would be false. however, if i am wrong, then c(R) > c(Z), and your statement is still false.

 

[snex]

mike da king, refer to one of my earlier posts. true agnosticism means believing that one can never know god (which is not a null hypothesis). so in reality, its agnostics that take the leap past the null hypothesis.

true atheists make no assumptions about the abillity to prove or disprove gods existence. true atheists make no assumptions at all in reference to the supernatural.

 

[Mike da King]

Yes, but the null hypothesis (God does not exist) implies that one can never know God.

On another note, the set of integers is contained in the set of reals, so there exists no set of numbers with fewer members than Z but more members than R.

ermm.. actually that other note may be wrong...just my intuition. We didnt learn that stuff yet in Calc.

 

[game & kirby]

just for petrie, the examples you cited of undecided statements are not so. They are merely logical fallacies. Anything which is paradoxical is simply something which establishes a given, but whose conclusion flouts it. I could say 'it is neither raining nor not raining' your statement of 'this statement is a lie' much like a person's belief in god, is illogical, and lacking rationale.

Maybe I should rephrase.

Logical, or rational statements, are either true, or untrue (take the definition of a logical statement to be one whose conclusion depends, and follows logically from, it's givens, regardless of the veracity of said givens.) Refer to Ross 115's argument for an example of stellar logic, but poor veracity in terms of his givens.

-game & kirby

 

[snex]

mike thats the first thing one thinks, but the countability of infinite sets is a strange thing. im sure we could get a confirmation on it through a simple google search though.

in any case, youll never find a set that has a smaller degree of infinity than the integers than it does of the reals. thats like asking for a number greater than 5 but less than 2 (assuming c(R) > c(Z), the only other option is that they are equal).