Why I'm not an Atheist

[GwJ]

What's the difference in answers? My answer is valid regardless.

 

[john!]

the difference is that atheists add "...therefore i believe god doesn't exist" at the end, when nothing in that answer gives any evidence to support the claim.

 

[GwJ]

You didn't ask me to disprove god. You asked why there's something rather than nothing and I answered. Don't try and lead me into saying something you want me to say.

I wouldn't ask you, "Why do bananas have yellow peels and not blue?" then when you say something like "Well, that's just how it worked out", I wouldn't say "That wasn't a valid answer because you didn't say "...therefore god." at the end.

 

[john!]

You didn't ask me to disprove god. You asked why there's something rather than nothing and I answered. Don't try and lead me into saying something you want me to say.

i'm not leading you into anything. you proved my point perfectly.

when i ask an agnostic atheist (such as yourself) to prove their beliefs, they give me an agnostic answer (like you did) and completely ignore their atheist beliefs, because they know that they are unable to give evidence for them.

it's the same reason that i'm being an agnostic for the purposes of this discussion (and not an agnostic theist, which is my actual belief). the difference is that i'm open about that fact that i'm not able to prove my theism and that it's just a belief.

 

[GwJ]

when i ask an agnostic atheist (such as yourself) to prove their beliefs, they give me an agnostic answer (like you did) and completely ignore their atheist beliefs, because they know that they are unable to give evidence for them.

What beliefs? Atheism doesn't have a dogma. I only reject yours. I can't prove my belief because it's not a positive assertion.

 

[john!]

What beliefs? Atheism doesn't have a dogma. I only reject yours. I can't prove my belief because it's not a positive assertion.

"the universe was started by some means other than a deity"

"the universe was never started, its existence is simply necessary"

both positive assertions. both require proof. atheists must believe one of them. which one do you believe?

 

[GwJ]

Well it's obvious to scientists that everything in the universe was all in the same place at one point based on the motion of everything we can observe, so I do think there was a beginning based on that. That much is sound logic.

As for the details behind it, how the singularity expanded et cetera is mere speculation on my part. I don't know enough about cosmology and astrophysics to make a judgment about that. A better person to ask on the details is a scientist.

 

[Chuee]

why is there something instead of nothing?

Why is there God instead of nothing?
Putting in God doesn't solve that, because even if you take out the Universe God is still something.

Why must a god prove itself to a mortal?

I'm referring to personal gods.

"the universe was started by some means other than a deity"

"the universe was never started, its existence is simply necessary"

both positive assertions. both require proof. atheists must believe one of them. which one do you believe?

Atheism is not believing in a deity not believing there is no deity.
That and you can't honestly choose one of those, because neither have sufficient evidence yet.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Oh my God, this thread is still going after nearly 2 months?

How bumstung are you atheists?

 

[GwJ]

As bumstung as the theists.

 

[john!]

Why is there God instead of nothing?
Putting in God doesn't solve that, because even if you take out the Universe God is still something.

^ this is why i'm arguing from an agnostic point of view. posts like this.

"yeah well i might be an atheist but YOU'RE A THEIST so YOU'RE MORE WRONG THAN I AM"

i got real sick of these posts after a while.

 

[Oasis_S]

Shouldn't John be arguing with a physicist instead of an atheist.

How the universe began is a separate question from "do you believe in deities."

He almost makes it sound like science is the dogma of an atheist cult.

 

[GwJ]

You're still being intellectually dishonest if you're arguing from a different standpoint because your own is harder to defend.

I'm done arguing with you if you will continue this.

 

[john!]

You're still being intellectually dishonest if you're arguing from a different standpoint because your own is harder to defend.

I'm done arguing with you if you will continue this.

...really?

i think being able to debate from multiple points of view is the mark of someone who understands the topic and knows how to debate well

if i hadn't said that, would you be using it as a cop-out? nope.

Shouldn't John be arguing with a physicist instead of an atheist.
How the universe began is a separate question from "do you believe in deities."
He almost makes it sound like science is the dogma of an atheist cult.

maybe. atheism is the answer to a scientific question. so is theism.

 

[GwJ]

Of course I wouldn't be calling it a cop-out because I wouldn't know you were arguing from a different belief than you really have. But the point I'm making is that you are being deceptive and I have no interest in arguing with somebody who's coming from a point of view they don't even believe in. Argue from your actual belief or don't argue at all.

 

[Chuee]

^ this is why i'm arguing from an agnostic point of view. posts like this.

"yeah well i might be an atheist but YOU'RE A THEIST so YOU'RE MORE WRONG THAN I AM"

i got real sick of these posts after a while.

That's not even what I was saying.....
Maybe you should stop judging every post I make as me having some personal grudge against theism and going out of my way to make it sound stupid and silly and only for idiots because I'm one of those atheist guys and they're mad all the time.
No, the something instead of nothing is solved no better from theism than it is from atheism.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

^ this is why i'm arguing from an agnostic point of view. posts like this.

"yeah well i might be an atheist but YOU'RE A THEIST so YOU'RE MORE WRONG THAN I AM"

i got real sick of these posts after a while.

...That post didn't say that at all.

If someone gives an answer to your question, or has a different point of view, it doesn't equal that. At all.

Oh my God, this thread is still going after nearly 2 months?

How bumstung are you atheists?

I'm guessing you haven't read anything. o-o

...really?

i think being able to debate from multiple points of view is the mark of someone who understands the topic and knows how to debate well

if i hadn't said that, would you be using it as a cop-out? nope.

That still means you're intellectually dishonest. And in fact, being able to debate from different points of view isn't as positive as you think it is. Yes, raising questions and looking at it from all angles is impressive and logical, but not lying and also giving answers contrary to thinks that you really uphold isn't, and as a result you are pushing forward things you can provide arguments against, so there is no point in even doing it. Unless of course, your actually position is inferior to your fake one.

 

[Corigames]

Vocabulary time:
Theism regards belief. If you believe in a deity, you are a theist. If you do not, you are an atheist.
Gnosticism regards knowledge. If you know something certainly, then you are gnostic about it. If you are uncertain or hold no position, you are agnostic about it.
In other words, gnosticism describes the veracity of your beliefs. If you believe in a god and know he's real, you are a gnostic theist. If you believe in a god but don't know for sure, you are an agnostic theist. If you don't believe in a god and know he's nonexistent, you're a gnostic atheist. If you don't believe there's a god but aren't entirely sure, you're an agnostic atheist. In order to be open minded, you have to be somewhat agnostic. So, logically, almost everyone is an agnostic as long as they are leaving their-self open to the possibility of being wrong.
How gnostic or agnostic you are is something you use, in this context, to describe how strongly you believe that god does/doesn't exist. Saying that you are agnostic is nonsensical; it does not explain your position at all, we just know that you are not certain of it.

For example:
"...therefore i believe god doesn't exist"
Is not something an agnostic atheist would likely say. Saying "I believe X" is a positive suggestion that's more along the line of gnostic, it's saying, "This is what I believe." What an agnostic atheist would usually say is, "...therefore, I don't believe god exists." But that's the same thing! Wrong. This answer is more honest, as it shows a better defined atheist mentality: rejection. We aren't asserting that there is no god, we are dismissing the claims of other religions for certain reasons. Wording is key.

Continuing:
Sometimes when asking questions, you can accidentally be intellectually dishonest. Like when people say, "Well who created everything then?" That's begging the question by saying 'who' and 'created.' You are eliminating a host of possibilities by narrowing the answer down to a person and making the beginning a product of creation. A more honest question would be like, "How was everything started?"

So, when I read this:
"the universe was started by some means other than a deity"
I had to point something out. The way this is worded, it seems as if it's commonly accepted that a deity started the universe and any new claim would need to discredit that. Not only is this scientifically wrong, but many religions have many different ideas of how their mysticism explains the origin of everything. Even if you were to say A deity did it, that no more explains which one, or how they did it. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the claim that a deity is responsible, and the idea that one did do it provides no new scientific insight, hypothesis to test, etc. It is a dead end answer, which is no answer at all.
"the universe was started by some means other than a deity" could be rewritten as "the universe wasn't started by X deity."

More to the actual question, 'Why is there something instead of nothing?" The most honest answer is 'I don't know." We don't know what caused the great expansion, we don't know what it was like before the universe, we don't know the conditions that allowed for things to unfold as they did. We lack the critical data required to make a coherent theory about the true origin of the universe. That said, that doesn't mean we can't disprove answers that are incorrect. We don't know who the murderer, but that doesn't mean we can't eliminate possible suspects. When a religion tries to answer the questions that we don't currently have answers to, those claims have to be justified. If they don't meet reasonable standards, the claim won't be accepted. No religion has any real evidence to support its superstitious claims; this is why "I don't know" is a far better answer, far more honest answer, and a much more inviting answer than what any theist will almost always bring to the table.

 

[crawlshots]

like dre, i would rather not detail every aspect of my beliefs about the god question because it would take too long and lead to a whole separate discussion, derailing the thread

I feel like someone was just doing that very thing..... oh that was me.

It's not so bad bro, it helps you further process the things you believe and practice humility.

 

[GwJ]

What he's doing isn't what I would call humility.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

when i ask an agnostic atheist (such as yourself) to prove their beliefs, they give me an agnostic answer (like you did) and completely ignore their atheist beliefs, because they know that they are unable to give evidence for them.

What beliefs? Atheism is defined primarily through a lack of belief. That is, we lack belief in god. Atheists do not have belief by courtesy of being atheists. The "atheist belief" is not something that 99.9% of all atheists hold!

"the universe was started by some means other than a deity"

"the universe was never started, its existence is simply necessary"

both positive assertions. both require proof. atheists must believe one of them. which one do you believe?

Why do we have to believe either? How do you know that there is no third way? You're setting up a false dichotomy. For all we know, there could be far more answers that do not invoke a god at all beyond "it never started/always existed" and "it had to be started by something". And in any case, we're not presuming to know. We're reserving judgement. We're being skeptical and rational, and not making massive leaps of faith where none are required.

 

[john!]

And in any case, we're not presuming to know. We're reserving judgement. We're being skeptical and rational, and not making massive leaps of faith where none are required.

saying "god doesn't exist" isn't making a judgment?

 

[GwJ]

Who asserted that god does not exist?

 

[john!]

every atheist ever.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

every atheist ever.

Dr. Cox has something to say to you.

 

[john!]

the debate has been reduced to scrubs videos. maybe i'm wasting my time

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well you're just wrong. I'm sorry, there's no nice way of saying that, but atheists are not claiming that. Maybe a few of us, but the vast majority of us are simply not claiming that god does not exist.

 

[GwJ]

every atheist ever.

Do your research then come back when you're ready.

 

[john!]

Well you're just wrong. I'm sorry, there's no nice way of saying that, but atheists are not claiming that. Maybe a few of us, but the vast majority of us are simply not claiming that god does not exist.

so are you gonna answer my question or not?

saying "i'm an atheist" is making a judgment about the god question. why do you think it's not?

responding with neo-atheist dogma won't help either. you're going to have to use Critical Thinking (which might be stupid of me to expect of you because you're an atheist and not a pure agnostic)

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Why is everyone ignoring the actually thought out posts from the metroid?

 

[GwJ]

so are you gonna answer my question or not?

saying "i'm an atheist" is making a judgment about the god question. why do you think it's not?

responding with neo-atheist dogma won't help either. you're going to have to use Critical Thinking (which might be stupid of me to expect of you because you're an atheist and not a pure agnostic)

I have in this box Buckbeak from the Harry Potter books. If you don't believe me, you're making the positive assertion that Buckbeak does not exist. Fortunately for me, Buckbeak is actually intangible. You now cannot justify your assertion, therefore what I'm saying is still valid.

Am I getting this right?

 

[john!]

I have in this box Buckbeak from the Harry Potter books. If you don't believe me, you're making the positive assertion that Buckbeak does not exist. Fortunately for me, Buckbeak is actually intangible. You now cannot justify your assertion, therefore what I'm saying is still valid.

Am I getting this right?

yes, up until "cannot justify your assertion"

buckbeak is a fictional character from the mind of j.k. rowling. i could ask her personally and she would agree that buckbeak is her own creation and doesn't actually exist. there's my justification against buckbeak.

 

[GwJ]

So if I replace that with a river fairy, would my analogy then work? If I were to make up something that is original, does that suddenly make my belief justified?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh for ****'s sake, this is just getting pathetic.

 

[Djent]

I reject the assertion that pure agnosticism is inherently more justifiable than atheism/theism. We may not be certain as to whether or not god exists, but it might well be pragmatic to hold a belief one way or the other. I may not be certain as to whether or not I will live for another year, but given the average life expectancy of the American male I can certainly say it is probable that I will. Does it really make sense to hold a strictly agnostic stance on this matter and go "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" ? No thanks, I'm going to live my life in accordance with the most statistically probable outcome, as opposed to treating both cases as if they are equally likely to occur.

And this is where I take issue with pure agnosticism (and John!'s assertion that it is the most rationally defensible position). I agree with the idea that we don't know with 100% certainty whether or not there is a deity, but that doesn't mean it isn't inherently logical to take an educated guess. For if someone can show that the preponderance of evidence lies with either atheism or theism, why would it be less defensible to adapt that position? Sure you don't know with absolute certainty, but to take a strictly agnostic stance is to ignore probability, something which in and of itself is not rational.

 

[DeadLastClown]

WWWWWOOOOOOWWWWW! Smashboards is honestly the last place anyone would ever discuss faith. Lets not make this site like youtube where you can't even say for "God's Sake" without people talking crap.

 

[john!]

I reject the assertion that pure agnosticism is inherently more justifiable than atheism/theism. We may not be certain as to whether or not god exists, but it might well be pragmatic to hold a belief one way or the other. I may not be certain as to whether or not I will live for another year, but given the average life expectancy of the American male I can certainly say it is probable that I will. Does it really make sense to hold a strictly agnostic stance on this matter and go "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" ? No thanks, I'm going to live my life in accordance with the most statistically probable outcome, as opposed to treating both cases as if they are equally likely to occur.

And this is where I take issue with pure agnosticism (and John!'s assertion that it is the most rationally defensible position). I agree with the idea that we don't know with 100% certainty whether or not there is a deity, but that doesn't mean it is inherently logical to take an educated guess. For if someone can show that the preponderance of evidence lies with either atheism or theism, why would it be less defensible to adapt that position? Sure you don't know with absolute certainty, but to take a strictly agnostic stance is to ignore probability, something which in and of itself is not rational.

this is a great post. i suppose it would be kind of douchey of me to discard ALL evidence for or against god and say that agnosticism is the "most rational position". what i actually said was that agnosticism is the easiest position to defend... because it's very easy to throw out all evidence that isn't "conclusive proof".

i think you also hit on the reason why i am an agnostic theist. when examining evidence given for theism and atheism, i see a great number of attempted arguments in favor of god from the theist side, and nothing at all from the atheist side (other than attempts to discredit the theist arguments). that's a good enough justification for being an agnostic theist IMO.

 

[Chuee]

every atheist ever.

Now you're just being an idiot.
If you ask any reasonable Atheist if God for sure doesn't exist most of them will tell you not for sure but that God is unlikely to exist.

 

[Djent]

this is a great post. i suppose it would be kind of douchey of me to discard ALL evidence for or against god and say that agnosticism is the "most rational position". what i actually said was that agnosticism is the easiest position to defend... because it's very easy to throw out all evidence that isn't "conclusive proof".

i think you also hit on the reason why i am an agnostic theist. when examining evidence given for theism and atheism, i see a great number of attempted arguments in favor of god from the theist side, and nothing at all from the atheist side (other than attempts to discredit the theist arguments). that's a good enough justification for being an agnostic theist IMO.

Yeah, you did say "easiest to defend," sorry about that. And it's cool that you're thinking in terms of the most probable outcome. I guess that's why I feel so detached from this argument while everyone else is getting emotional, lol. I'm basically agnostic for the reason that I haven't made up my mind, not because I believe it's impossible to come to a logical conclusion about God. If people would only treat this discussion as trying to establish the "best guess" instead of finding the 100% conclusive proof, then maybe we could all get along better.

 

[john!]

Now you're just being an idiot.
If you ask any reasonable Atheist if God for sure doesn't exist most of them will tell you not for sure but that God is unlikely to exist.

you can assert something without being 100% sure. people do this all the time.