Atheists, tell me, a Roman Catholic: why should I become an atheist?

[Jesster]

Hi Balaco! Even as a Christian, I can always respect a position of healthy skepticism.  Tell me, have you ever considered that maybe the evidence of whether God exist or not, is the same evidence? As in, whether you choose to believe in a God (or absence of God(s)), all of the evidence will support your position. 

So in essence, it all starts with you. What do you want to believe?

The first problem with this is that not believing in a god is not the same as believing in the absence of a god. You don't need evidence to not believe something because that just means you have not accepted the assertions.

The second problem is that no rational person should ever form a belief and then lead the evidence back to that belief. A rational person should follow the evidence and form a belief based on their findings. That way it has nothing to do with what you want to believe.

[robvalue]

Hi Balaco! Even as a Christian, I can always respect a position of healthy skepticism.  Tell me, have you ever considered that maybe the evidence of whether God exist or not, is the same evidence? As in, whether you choose to believe in a God (or absence of God(s)), all of the evidence will support your position. 

So in essence, it all starts with you. What do you want to believe?

Belief is not a choice. No one (unless they are crazy) can simply toggle their beliefs on and off. We base our beliefs, or lack of, or beliefs to the contrary, on evidence of some sort. What counts as evidence to each person, and how convincing it is, varies wildly. But each person has reasons for their beliefs. You can't make those reasons disappear because you want to believe something different. A change in belief requires new evidence, a re-assessment of the current evidence, or a revision of the methods used to assess evidence. (Screwing with your brain directly could of course alter your beliefs, for example with surgery or drugs.)

You can of course pretend to believe whatever you want.

And of course, as I always find myself saying, without a falsifiable definition for God, there can't even be any evidence. There are just rationalising arguments and baseless assumptions.

[pocaracas]

Hi Balaco! Even as a Christian, I can always respect a position of healthy skepticism.  Tell me, have you ever considered that maybe the evidence of whether God exist or not, is the same evidence? As in, whether you choose to believe in a God (or absence of God(s)), all of the evidence will support your position. 

So in essence, it all starts with you. What do you want to believe?

Belief is not a choice. No one (unless they are crazy) can simply toggle their beliefs on and off. We base our beliefs, or lack of, or beliefs to the contrary, on evidence of some sort. What counts as evidence to each person, and how convincing it is, varies wildly. But each person has reasons for their beliefs. You can't make those reasons disappear because you want to believe something different. A change in belief requires new evidence, a re-assessment of the current evidence, or a revision of the methods used to assess evidence. (Screwing with your brain directly could of course alter your beliefs, for example with surgery or drugs.)

You can of course pretend to believe whatever you want.

And of course, as I always find myself saying, without a falsifiable definition for God, there can't even be any evidence. There are just rationalising arguments and baseless assumptions.

I think we're sacks of bio-matter that works through some very definable chemical reactions.
As such, each of us is going to believe whatever their bio-makeup "decides". "We" don't evaluate evidence.... our brains do... our brains, in their pre-determined, but ever changing and adapting Neural Network, does it all without any awareness being required.
We then become aware of our beliefs... the decisions made in our brain.

And some of us are equally pre-determined to be spreading out those beliefs, some are pre-determined to be imposing them on children, some are pre-determined to not care, some are pre-determined to get other brains to understand how beliefs work.
All those provide information for other brains to work on and come to their own conclusions... knowing full well that any pre-conceived conclusion is far more difficult to correct than any newly formed one.

[Ignorant]

---

Belief is not a choice. No one (unless they are crazy) can simply toggle their beliefs on and off. We base our beliefs, or lack of, or beliefs to the contrary, on evidence of some sort. What counts as evidence to each person, and how convincing it is, varies wildly. But each person has reasons for their beliefs. You can't make those reasons disappear because you want to believe something different. A change in belief requires new evidence, a re-assessment of the current evidence, or a revision of the methods used to assess evidence. (Screwing with your brain directly could of course alter your beliefs, for example with surgery or drugs.)

You can of course pretend to believe whatever you want.

---

And of course, as I always find myself saying, without a falsifiable definition for God, there can't even be any evidence. There are just rationalising arguments and baseless assumptions.

I think God is falsifiable.

If nothing exists, then god is false (who is necessary being).

[Jesster]

I am the creator goddess, and that is also falsifiable.

If nothing exists, then I am false (since I am a necessary being).

Logic at its finest!

[robvalue]

---

Belief is not a choice. No one (unless they are crazy) can simply toggle their beliefs on and off. We base our beliefs, or lack of, or beliefs to the contrary, on evidence of some sort. What counts as evidence to each person, and how convincing it is, varies wildly. But each person has reasons for their beliefs. You can't make those reasons disappear because you want to believe something different. A change in belief requires new evidence, a re-assessment of the current evidence, or a revision of the methods used to assess evidence. (Screwing with your brain directly could of course alter your beliefs, for example with surgery or drugs.)

You can of course pretend to believe whatever you want.

---

And of course, as I always find myself saying, without a falsifiable definition for God, there can't even be any evidence. There are just rationalising arguments and baseless assumptions.

I think God is falsifiable.

If nothing exists, then god is false (who is necessary being).

So you've just married existence with God, by definition. So all you're really saying is that if something exists, something exists. If nothing exists, nothing exists. That's a tautology, and you've added nothing to it by assuming God to be necessary and interchangable with existence.

To be useful, it needs to be falsifiable in a way we can somehow test. I can't run a test to see if stuff exists. Obviously, it does, if I'm even here to run the test. So it can't be falsified.

---

Belief is not a choice. No one (unless they are crazy) can simply toggle their beliefs on and off. We base our beliefs, or lack of, or beliefs to the contrary, on evidence of some sort. What counts as evidence to each person, and how convincing it is, varies wildly. But each person has reasons for their beliefs. You can't make those reasons disappear because you want to believe something different. A change in belief requires new evidence, a re-assessment of the current evidence, or a revision of the methods used to assess evidence. (Screwing with your brain directly could of course alter your beliefs, for example with surgery or drugs.)

You can of course pretend to believe whatever you want.

And of course, as I always find myself saying, without a falsifiable definition for God, there can't even be any evidence. There are just rationalising arguments and baseless assumptions.

I think we're sacks of bio-matter that works through some very definable chemical reactions.
As such, each of us is going to believe whatever their bio-makeup "decides". "We" don't evaluate evidence.... our brains do... our brains, in their pre-determined, but ever changing and adapting Neural Network, does it all without any awareness being required.
We then become aware of our beliefs... the decisions made in our brain.

And some of us are equally pre-determined to be spreading out those beliefs, some are pre-determined to be imposing them on children, some are pre-determined to not care, some are pre-determined to get other brains to understand how beliefs work.
All those provide information for other brains to work on and come to their own conclusions... knowing full well that any pre-conceived conclusion is far more difficult to correct than any newly formed one.

Absolutely. I'm increasingly of the opinion that "consciousness" is just a series of stories "we" tell ourselves to rationalise what has already been decided and acted upon by the subconcious. It's theatre.

But even if we assume we have real conscious decisions to make, flipping between belief states is not one of them. That's way above our security clearance. Imagine how dangerous it could be if we could do that. "I believe cars can't hurt me!"

Maybe it's telling that some religious people talk about beliefs as if they are choices. This suggests that they're just professing to believe certain things. If they truly believe them, there is no choice involved.

[Ignorant]

So you've just married existence with God, by definition. [1] So all you're really saying is that if something exists, something exists. [2] If nothing exists, nothing exists. That's a tautology, and you've added nothing to it by assuming God to be necessary and interchangable with existence. [3]

To be useful, it needs to be falsifiable in a way we can somehow test. [4] I can't run a test to see if stuff exists.  Obviously, it does, if I'm even here to run the test. So it can't be falsified. [5]

1) Right. That is what we say. God is existence, itself. God is his own existence, etc.

2) No, I am saying that if something exists, then existence itself must exist. If nothing exists, then existence itself doesn't exist.

3) God's necessity isn't an assumption. The reality of "necessary being" is a conclusion drawn from the datum of existence. You can disagree with the conclusion, but that doesn't mean my conclusion is an assumption. The existence of being-itself is a conclusion drawn from the things we directly observe to exist. Being-itself, on the same logic that leads to that conclusion, is false only if nothing at all exists. It doesn't seem that controversial.

4) I dunno. The mere logical consistency seems to be enough. If I say that all cars have doors, that proposition is falsifiable in principle simply by the concept of a car that doesn't have doors. In principle, if you observed a car that did not have doors, you will have succeeded in demonstrating the proposition false. There is a difference in falsifiability (the principle abstract concept upon which a proposition is proved false) and the demonstration of falsity (the concrete evidence of the principle abstract concept which contradicts the proposition). 

5) It could be falsified in principle if nothing existed. It can't be falsified (in fact) because of the obvious fact that some things evidently exist. It is the easiest possible experiment.

---

I am the creator goddess, and that is also falsifiable. [1]

If nothing exists, then I am false (since I am a necessary being). [2]

Logic at its finest!

1) How so? How is the proposition: "I am the creator goddess" falsifiable? Even if some thing exist, that has nothing to do with your claim to BE the creator goddess.

2) IF you are in fact the creator goddess, then that is true.

[Jesster]

I am the creator goddess, and that is also falsifiable. [1]

If nothing exists, then I am false (since I am a necessary being). [2]

Logic at its finest!

1) How so? How is the proposition: "I am the creator goddess" falsifiable? Even if some thing exist, that has nothing to do with your claim to BE the creator goddess.

2) IF you are in fact the creator goddess, then that is true.

1) It's equally as falsifiable as your own proposition from before. Suddenly you have a problem with your own logic now, though. I thought as much.

2) Exactly why we shouldn't be defining things away like this.

[pocaracas]

3) God's necessity isn't an assumption. The reality of "necessary being" is a conclusion drawn from the datum of existence. You can disagree with the conclusion, but that doesn't mean my conclusion is an assumption. The existence of being-itself is a conclusion drawn from the things we directly observe to exist. Being-itself, on the same logic that leads to that conclusion, is false only if nothing at all exists. It doesn't seem that controversial.

The thing being an assumption is twofold, here:
1. The being - why must the necessary creator/starter/initiator/spark/mover/etc be a being? Automatically, you are assuming consciousness, awareness, intent.
2. Name it a god. God, as a word, carries a huge baggage. Since time immemorial, mankind has worshiped gods. They, the gods, have been many things, but typically, they are rulers, creators, fathers, mothers, generators of natural forces. And mankind still, to this day, retains the feeling that such god(s) need(s) us to kneel to them, as if they're petty human rulers; or grovel for their love as if they are petty human parents; or praise them as if they're petty human heroes. If there is an ultimate creator entity, it should care little for our groveling, our love, our worship, our praise. Much as you care little for an ant's groveling, love, worship or praise... you don't even see them as fit to carry out these complex tasks.
Why should an ultimate creator care for you? Oh... he created you out of the mud, you may say?... just adding more baggage, I say.

[Ignorant]

1) It's equally as falsifiable as your own proposition from before. Suddenly you have a problem with your own logic now, though. I thought as much. [1]

2) Exactly why we shouldn't be defining things away like this. [2]

1) Claiming that "being-itself exists / god exists" is significantly different than claiming that "I am being-itself / I am god" (which was your claim). The former is falsifiable, I am not so sure about the latter.

2) Right. We shouldn't be defining ourselves as the creator goddess. Cheers!

---

The thing being an assumption is twofold, here:
1. The being - why must the necessary creator/starter/initiator/spark/mover/etc be a being? Automatically, you are assuming consciousness, awareness, intent. [1]
2. Name it a god. God, as a word, carries a huge baggage. Since time immemorial, mankind has worshiped gods. They, the gods, have been many things, but typically, they are rulers, creators, fathers, mothers, generators of natural forces. And mankind still, to this day, retains the feeling that such god(s) need(s) us to kneel to them, as if they're petty human rulers; or grovel for their love as if they are petty human parents; or praise them as if they're petty human heroes. If there is an ultimate creator entity, it should care little for our groveling, our love, our worship, our praise. Much as you care little for an ant's groveling, love, worship or praise... you don't even see them as fit to carry out these complex tasks.
Why should an ultimate creator care for you? Oh... he created you out of the mud, you may say?... just adding more baggage, I say. [2]

1) I don't say that the necessary creator, etc. must be a being. I say that being-itself exists, and is the source of being for everything else that exists. I haven't spoken about intelligence or consciousness or intent at all in this context.

2) That is a big leap from being-itself to worship and caring for other things. Seems a bit premature given what I've said so far.