RE: Why are atheist...atheist?
July 12, 2011 at 9:44 am
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2011 at 9:49 am by The Grand Nudger.)
This is going to get long winded.
@Frodo, re tinkerer gods and ID being falsifiable claims. When a claim is made that a certain agent is the cause for an event, it is falsifiable. We have better explanations for speciation than "goddidit". Abiogenesis is a different area of study. It is active, we don't have all of the details, but we have no reason to assume that we will not have a better answer than "goddidit". If you would like to place god in this gap, be my guest. I don't have all the answers Frodo, and neither do you. That doesn't mean that there aren't any.
@Frodo, re celestial graffiti. You're absolutely right here. It doesn't have to have gods name on it, and maybe I shouldn't have used that turn of phrase. Lets say a book very much like the bible, admittedly written by men but claiming divine inspiration was found to have within its covers knowledge of the world which was so beyond the authors that it left us scratching our heads. That would be a very good case. God in that example may not be the only explanation, but it would certainly be one which demanded consideration. The bible does not fit this bill, as it does not contain knowledge that the authors wouldn't have had available to them. To take only one example of why the bible doesn't fit the bill, it's cosmology is flawed in the same way that all other cosmologies from that area and time are flawed. God would have had better data at his disposal, as an eyewitness to creation.
@Frodo, observations do count, even yours. There comes a point however where we have to take all of these observations and weigh them. We have to decide which conclusions, which model, best fits observed reality. Some observations fall under the umbrella of confirmation bias, not just religious observations, scientific observations as well. It is the duty of those who seek knowledge to sort these out and present us with a clear picture of observed reality. To tie this in with a statement you made, you claim that all of human history and indeed existence itself is proof of god, this is confirmation bias. No other explanation would be sufficient to you, you are attempting to make the observations fit the model. On the one hand, you maintain that god is self evident, and on the other, that no evidence could prove or disprove god. This is either an example of cognitive dissonance, or a position you have assumed merely for the sake of argument. Your observation doesn't even fit your own model.
@Al, re unlikely. If the entirety of your argument for the existence of god, however you define it, is the "unlikely" nature of our universe, this is an argument from ignorance/incredulity. That you cannot explain it, that you cannot believe it, has absolutely no effect on whether or not it happened. "I don't know ergo god" is a fairly weak position. I don't know how a telephone works, ergo telephone god.
@Al, re unicorns. What exactly about god is not fully understood? In what way do myths about god differ from myths about unicorns?
@Al, intelligent design. What is so intelligent about this design? The earth is a killing machine, even more so with regard to human beings, who occupy only a very small portion of the available area. The earth itself is surrounded by an area absolutely inhospitable to life..and this area stretches as far as we can observe. Everything that exists, is heading for non-existence in the short term (death) and annihilation in the long term (solar death, converging paths of solar systems/galaxies). I fail to see the intelligence in this design. Maybe you're arguing that the creator of the universe "did his best"?
@Al, re no evidence. I don't even know where to begin. You assert that there is no evidence that gods do not exist. Which god, and I'll point you to the evidence. If by god, you mean a god with no descriptions, no attributes, you are claiming nothing. If you claim nothing, I need not point to any evidence.
@Al re strong atheism is ignorant. Only if by "ignorant" you are describing a level of disagreement with your opinions.
@Al re my reference to gardens. I was merely illustrating to you that natural selection does indeed have an effect on one type of god, creator gods. That it doesn't have an effect on all gods is obvious. Not all gods are described as creator gods.
@Al re definitions of god. The definition of god is not vague. Your definition of god is vague. Others have very well defined gods, and these are the gods that we as atheists take issue with.
@Al re existence came from nothing, irregardless of god. No, existence does not have to come from nothing. It comes from "we don't know". The events of the "big bang" were so violent, so immense, that whatever may have existed before does not seem to have left any traces. Perhaps one day we may be able to peer beyond that veil, today is not that day. Nonetheless, existence does not have to come from "nothing", unless you subscribe to certain verses along the lines of "In the beginning, there was nothing".
@Al re burden of proof. People absolutely do have the burden of proof when they make claims such as this or that exists. This burden becomes even more important when certain obligations and rules are attached to this things existence, especially when they also come with punishments bundled as a package deal.
@Al re atheist who would deny god's existence. Your entire argument is a god of the gaps, removing any objectionable description of god. What exactly is there to deny?
Since I know you love Epicuras...
"That which can be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
I can't hammer this point enough. The current crop of apologists would like to remove all descriptions of god from the discussion. Without these descriptions, the concept of god is meaningless.
In what way is an unknowable god different from no god at all?
@Frodo, re tinkerer gods and ID being falsifiable claims. When a claim is made that a certain agent is the cause for an event, it is falsifiable. We have better explanations for speciation than "goddidit". Abiogenesis is a different area of study. It is active, we don't have all of the details, but we have no reason to assume that we will not have a better answer than "goddidit". If you would like to place god in this gap, be my guest. I don't have all the answers Frodo, and neither do you. That doesn't mean that there aren't any.
@Frodo, re celestial graffiti. You're absolutely right here. It doesn't have to have gods name on it, and maybe I shouldn't have used that turn of phrase. Lets say a book very much like the bible, admittedly written by men but claiming divine inspiration was found to have within its covers knowledge of the world which was so beyond the authors that it left us scratching our heads. That would be a very good case. God in that example may not be the only explanation, but it would certainly be one which demanded consideration. The bible does not fit this bill, as it does not contain knowledge that the authors wouldn't have had available to them. To take only one example of why the bible doesn't fit the bill, it's cosmology is flawed in the same way that all other cosmologies from that area and time are flawed. God would have had better data at his disposal, as an eyewitness to creation.
@Frodo, observations do count, even yours. There comes a point however where we have to take all of these observations and weigh them. We have to decide which conclusions, which model, best fits observed reality. Some observations fall under the umbrella of confirmation bias, not just religious observations, scientific observations as well. It is the duty of those who seek knowledge to sort these out and present us with a clear picture of observed reality. To tie this in with a statement you made, you claim that all of human history and indeed existence itself is proof of god, this is confirmation bias. No other explanation would be sufficient to you, you are attempting to make the observations fit the model. On the one hand, you maintain that god is self evident, and on the other, that no evidence could prove or disprove god. This is either an example of cognitive dissonance, or a position you have assumed merely for the sake of argument. Your observation doesn't even fit your own model.
@Al, re unlikely. If the entirety of your argument for the existence of god, however you define it, is the "unlikely" nature of our universe, this is an argument from ignorance/incredulity. That you cannot explain it, that you cannot believe it, has absolutely no effect on whether or not it happened. "I don't know ergo god" is a fairly weak position. I don't know how a telephone works, ergo telephone god.
@Al, re unicorns. What exactly about god is not fully understood? In what way do myths about god differ from myths about unicorns?
@Al, intelligent design. What is so intelligent about this design? The earth is a killing machine, even more so with regard to human beings, who occupy only a very small portion of the available area. The earth itself is surrounded by an area absolutely inhospitable to life..and this area stretches as far as we can observe. Everything that exists, is heading for non-existence in the short term (death) and annihilation in the long term (solar death, converging paths of solar systems/galaxies). I fail to see the intelligence in this design. Maybe you're arguing that the creator of the universe "did his best"?
@Al, re no evidence. I don't even know where to begin. You assert that there is no evidence that gods do not exist. Which god, and I'll point you to the evidence. If by god, you mean a god with no descriptions, no attributes, you are claiming nothing. If you claim nothing, I need not point to any evidence.
@Al re strong atheism is ignorant. Only if by "ignorant" you are describing a level of disagreement with your opinions.
@Al re my reference to gardens. I was merely illustrating to you that natural selection does indeed have an effect on one type of god, creator gods. That it doesn't have an effect on all gods is obvious. Not all gods are described as creator gods.
@Al re definitions of god. The definition of god is not vague. Your definition of god is vague. Others have very well defined gods, and these are the gods that we as atheists take issue with.
@Al re existence came from nothing, irregardless of god. No, existence does not have to come from nothing. It comes from "we don't know". The events of the "big bang" were so violent, so immense, that whatever may have existed before does not seem to have left any traces. Perhaps one day we may be able to peer beyond that veil, today is not that day. Nonetheless, existence does not have to come from "nothing", unless you subscribe to certain verses along the lines of "In the beginning, there was nothing".
@Al re burden of proof. People absolutely do have the burden of proof when they make claims such as this or that exists. This burden becomes even more important when certain obligations and rules are attached to this things existence, especially when they also come with punishments bundled as a package deal.
@Al re atheist who would deny god's existence. Your entire argument is a god of the gaps, removing any objectionable description of god. What exactly is there to deny?
Since I know you love Epicuras...
"That which can be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
I can't hammer this point enough. The current crop of apologists would like to remove all descriptions of god from the discussion. Without these descriptions, the concept of god is meaningless.
In what way is an unknowable god different from no god at all?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
