Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 7, 2014 at 6:31 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I don't think the question "is there a god?" can be answered, positively or negatively, with any honesty, and same goes for more specific gods. Granted, they're highly unlikely, and highly improbable- and believe me, I leave no room for them- but I'm not a fan of absolutes when I can't know absolutely.
Yeah, but there are a lot of things we can never prove absolutely, yet we treat as if they are not there with a certainty. Heck, some of them are beings that we may have been convinced exist at some point in our lives (Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Boogey Man, etc). The main difference, for me, turned out to be that no one ever took me aside and admitted that god was something they made up; I had to figure that one out on my own.
We rely on our senses and our ability to think and reason to get us by from day to day. In that day to day life, we constantly dismiss things and treat them as if they were impossible; we don't even pretend to entertain their existence. If someone was insistent enough, we would admit that we could not prove that a banjo-playing jackrabbit wasn't building a set of thrusters on the moon, which it planned to use to crash it into the Earth. But I am pretty sure we wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
I always state that "god doesn't exist". But it's kinda different statement from... "I'm absolutely certain that god doesn't exist".
Replace a "god" with a "flying reindeer" and you can also get an acurate statement
^I'll watch it after work. Randi is probably more responsible than anyone for me discarding religion. I respect the hell out of him. Can't wait to see what he has to say
I'm a bitch, I'm a lover
I'm a goddess, I'm a mother
I'm a sinner, I'm a saint
I do not feel ashamed
It all comes down to the nature of the claim. Theists purposefully make their claim completely unfalsifiable, and they will not make any claim that can possibly be tested. In my experience people make their claim more testable, the more confident their belief in it. This is why I think that deep down Theists have major doubts in their beliefs (though actually this is something that cannot itself be tested which is why I wouldn't say this with any degree of certainty).
I'm not sure you can 100% say there is no God, however I would happily bet my house on a God not existing.
As I've posted on another thread, for me a declaration of antitheism depends on the god-claim in question. Like others here, I'm as certain as it's possible to be that the Abrahamic god doesn't and can't exist because it's an obvious set of contradictions. I can argue it's non-existence by pointing out the errors in the attribute-definitions of the god thus meeting a 'burden of proof' for my antitheism. The same goes for the Hindu gods and every other 'interventionist' deity I've examined: mythology, the lot of them.
As for Deist/non-interventionist gods, there's no way to meet any burden of proof, for or against because there's no way to tell them apart from things which don't exist. I always find myself wondering why deists would even be interested in such an irrelevant & functionless god.
(May 7, 2014 at 6:00 pm)Confused Ape Wrote:
Quote:He is the incomprehensible, unapproachable radiant being whom the ordinary senses and ordinary intellect cannot fathom grasp or able to describe even with partial success. He is the mysterious Being totally out of the reach of all sensory activity, rationale effort and mere intellectual, decorative and pompous endeavor.
I wouldn't know where to start if I had to prove that this concept doesn't exist.
By pointing out that if there's no way to tell if it exists or not, it might as well not exist. The problem is that this definition means that Brahman can't interact with us however hindus all over the world have described visions of and messages from Brahman. This contradiction demonstrates that the definition cannot be met therefore this god doesn't exist.
Regarding your points on the implications of neurology, we've started dicussing that here so I won't duplicate that in this thread.
(May 8, 2014 at 4:38 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: By pointing out that if there's no way to tell if it exists or not, it might as well not exist. The problem is that this definition means that Brahman can't interact with us however hindus all over the world have described visions of and messages from Brahman. This contradiction demonstrates that the definition cannot be met therefore this god doesn't exist.
I didn't quote everything in that article.
Quote:Though impassioned and above the ordinary feelings of the mind, the masters of the Upanishads some times could not suppress the glory, the emotion, the passion and the poetry that accompanied the vast and utterly delightful , inner experience of His vast vision.
It seems that Brahman can be experienced but the experience is of supposed to be of something which is beyond the human intellect to grasp etc.
Hinduism is very complex and there are different versions of it. This particular concept of Brahman probably is contradicted by other concepts but it was this particular concept I was talking about. I wouldn't know where to start disproving something which my intellect isn't supposed to be up to grasping. I'd go for the cop out by saying that a subjective experience which is interpreted as God/Brahman doesn't prove that God/Brahman actually exists. It would then be up to the believer to prove otherwise.
(May 8, 2014 at 4:38 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Regarding your points on the implications of neurology, we've started dicussing that here so I won't duplicate that in this thread.
I've just seen your additions to that topic but it's nearly 11 pm here and I'm starting to fall asleep.
But isn't there a difference between what one is 100% certain of and what one thinks others should be 100% certain of? I have no problem saying I don't believe in any gods. I don't think any such thing makes any sense at all in a literal way. But aren't we all put off by the theist who assumes he knows better what is good for us than we do ourselves? I just don't want to be that guy.
"I see no reason to believe in gods" seems to me a far cry from the claim "there is no good reason for anyone to believe in gods." "I don't believe in gods" does not entail that "no one should believe in gods". Are there universally shared standards for what should be believed and on what basis? Trying to convince others what to believe in the absence of evidence is pretty pointless. If you see the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, as I do, you won't believe. But someone who has a story they like about why their clever god has decided to require faith will be unreachable. Seems pointless to try and I don't see the need.
May 9, 2014 at 6:55 pm (This post was last modified: May 9, 2014 at 6:55 pm by Ben Davis.)
(May 8, 2014 at 5:58 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: It seems that Brahman can be experienced but the experience is of supposed to be of something which is beyond the human intellect to grasp etc. Hinduism is very complex and there are different versions of it. This particular concept of Brahman probably is contradicted by other concepts...
Yes, vaguaries are a common retreat of gods in the face of skeptical enquiry.
Quote:...but it was this particular concept I was talking about. I wouldn't know where to start disproving something which my intellect isn't supposed to be up to grasping.
If a god is 'beyond understanding' then it's right to question how the believer has any knowledge about it. Also if the idea that a god can't be understood comes as a response to a challenge, it's most likely a shifting of the goalposts, a defence mechanism in order to avoid criticism. Besides, who is the believer to assess what you can & can't understand. It may be that they're satisfied with their ignorance but it's condescending and insulting to assume the same of others. When faced by such defences, I often do well by remembering that I don't necessarily have to tackle each definition individually if a meta-analysis would bypass obfuscation.
Quote: I'd go for the cop out by saying that a subjective experience which is interpreted as God/Brahman doesn't prove that God/Brahman actually exists. It would then be up to the believer to prove otherwise.
May 10, 2014 at 11:54 am (This post was last modified: May 10, 2014 at 12:07 pm by Confused Ape.)
(May 9, 2014 at 6:55 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: If a god is 'beyond understanding' then it's right to question how the believer has any knowledge about it.
Which puts the burden of proof on the believer.
(May 9, 2014 at 6:55 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Also if the idea that a god can't be understood comes as a response to a challenge, it's most likely a shifting of the goalposts, a defence mechanism in order to avoid criticism.
A defence mechanism to shift the goalposts isn't the same thing as discussing this particular concept of God if it's the subject of a topic.
(May 9, 2014 at 6:55 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: When faced by such defences, I often do well by remembering that I don't necessarily have to tackle each definition individually if a meta-analysis would bypass obfuscation.
I take the attitude that every definition of God has to be disproved before we can be 100% certain that no definition is right.
There's a topic called "Is There A Real You?" in the philosophy forum. This is the last post I've made in it so far -
I'm talking about what is called the Observer Self but in the context of psychology. Trying to describe what the Observer Self actually is comes out a bit like that description of Brahman but anyone can test the idea of an Observer Self out if they want to. My personal opinion is that the concept of a God who can't be understood is the result of misinterpreting an ordinary brain function. It would then be up to the believer to prove otherwise.
I'm now going to be evil and suggest that God is a symbol of the universe which is becoming conscious of itself. The Observer Self is a property of this universe.
May 10, 2014 at 6:28 pm (This post was last modified: May 10, 2014 at 6:33 pm by Coffee Jesus.)
(May 7, 2014 at 4:38 pm)ThePinsir Wrote:
I think most of us here are “agnostic atheists”, or a 6/7 on the Dawkins scale. We don’t believe in any gods, but we don’t make the positive claim “there are no gods”, but rather we reject the positive claim “gods exist”. The burden of proof lies with the theists here, not us.
I understand that position, and I currently identify with it. It’s logically sound and difficult to counter. But lately I've been thinking we should go farther. Why not make the positive claim “gods do not exist” and take on a burden of proof? We’re tough and smart; we can handle it! The position in the first paragraph, while strong, is starting to look more and more like a cop out to me. We’re atheists, god damnit! We’re supposed to have balls! So, I say we abandon the 6/7 “weak atheist” approach and put forth arguments for the non-existence of deities.
It’s often said that you can’t disprove a negative statement, or you can’t prove that something doesn't exist. I’m starting to think that is also incorrect. You can disprove things that are logically inconstant. For example, I can assert that “there is no such thing as a triangle with four sides”. Such a thing, by definition, cannot exist. So why can’t I assert that “there is no such thing as a loving deity that would willingly have people burned forever”? Of course that argument would only apply to Christianity or Islam or whatever, but there are other arguments for non-existence. Occam’s Razor is the best one that comes to mind right now. Maybe you guys can help here
Can’t we also label ourselves as a 7/7 on the Dawkins scale for things like leprechauns? I would be reluctant to say I’m a 6/7 as far as the Flying Pink Invisible Unicorn is concerned or a 6/7 for the existence of Spider Man. I think we can all say we’re 7/7’s for Spider Man, so why not for gods?
Lastly, I think that claiming to be a 7/7 doesn't imply that we can't change our minds based on new evidence. I'd say I'm a 1/7 for evolution or plate tectonics or gravity [that is, certain that they exist], but I'd still change my opinion based on new or better evidence. So saying you're a 7/7 doesn't mean you're an un-compromising hard-head. It just means your'e sure...for now.
TL;DR:
Changing my avatar to 7/7.
The law of excluded middle states that a proposition is either true or false, but I only accept this when the proposition is unambiguous. The question "Do one or more of those exist?" is essentially the question "Is there anything that can be considered one of those?", and in this case, set membership is ambiguous. It's like asking...
Is A an empty set?
A = { x | x is existent and very powerful, grandiose, awe inspiring, and extraordinary}
