Do atheists need some faith?

[Selliedjoup]

Of course, atheists need faith that materialsim is an appropriate way to assess the existence or non-existence of a god.

What other method would we be able to assess whether a god exists or not, if not demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic?

Let me know what method you think works best and I will sincerely (if I haven't already) attempt to utilize it to assess the existence of a god.

Until then, the fact is, I have never been given a valid reason to justify belief that a god exists, so I continue to not have any beliefs that one does. As an atheist, I am not claiming that a god does not exist, only that I am not justified in believing one does exist.

I'm not proposing a method. To depend on evidence as a means to identify a cause for existence is in direct opposition to the unknown and the possiblity of the unknowable. Yet we don't have eivdence for existence.

I'm assuming we agree that existence requires some form of explanation and we have no verified proof for an explanation? Although there are plenty of theories (not in the scientific sense) all of which are conjecture. Under the same rationale you have applied to assert your lack belief in a god, you should also lack belief in a natural solution to account for existence, as there's no evidence for this either.

I agree that we make sense of the world by using science as this is the best method to do at present. However I see no reason to make a leap to consider that all required evidence can be obtained to answer the question of existence. Science provides us with observations which we can verify and lead to a better understanding, but there's no reason to assume more than which it's proven.

Sure the 'explaining of existence' goalposts have shifted throughout human history and I think they will continue to shift, but they're still there, and I believe they always will be.

I'm not proposing that it's justified to believe a god exists, I'm proposing that it's not justified to believe one doesn't exist. People can choose to believe what they like, I just don't see why atheists claim their position is logical, as their dependence on evidence defines and limits the position. It seems as that it's the best option we have to determine existence, it must answer the question? Why assume this to be the case?

---

Whether another method is available doesn't speak to whether evidence, argument and logic are qualified to determine whether a god exists.

I completely understand. But what else do I have to go on?

I am not claiming to know that I have all the tools needed to determine whether a god exists of not. My position is, that given what is currently available, I am unable to justify the belief that a god exists.

"Given what is currently available" is a key point to your position. If you agree a creator may exist (however unlikely you consider it to be) but it is unknowable you have rendered it impossible to believe in, as it will never be "currently available" . I think we will be in no better position to assess the situation in 100/1000 years time. This is my faith. I'm assuming you think man will obtain evidence to disprove a god one day or at least show why it's surplus to requirements? If not, your position makes no sense.

But I can't base my beliefs on something that we might or might not be intelligent enough to determine. I am a human, I only have the mental tools available to me as a human.

Why not? Until we have proven that we are capable, it's only our ego which allocates the capacity for us to determine it, despite the lack of proof to the contrary.

[Felasco]

I can't make sense of a class of objects which are by their very nature 'supernatural'. To my way of thinking, everything that exists is and must be natural. Our inability to detect it doesn't guarantee that it doesn't exist, but if it does exist it is natural. So one belief I have about gods is that if they exist, they are part of the universe - not the known universe obviously, but definitely part of the natural order.

This is interesting, thanks.

I saw a great show on PBS the other night about time. Did anybody catch it?

It was a review of modern scientific theory about time. To attempt to summarize, it claimed the movement time is an illusion brought on by a limited perspective, and that the past, present and future all exist together, and are equally real. There was much discussion of the relationship between space and time which I can not repeat.

Point being, the show presented a completely science based belief which totally contradicts our common sense notion of what is natural and logical etc. If theism had been the source of these assertions, we would have all been falling down laughing our asses off. However, it wasn't the Pope making this claim, but Einstein.

It's hard to imagine something outside of natural law, agreed. But then it's hard to imagine that time is an illusion too.

[Cyberman]

THEISM: People who know they have beliefs.

ATHEISM: People who don't know they have beliefs.

Point one: making up your own definitions to suit your arguments is dishonest. I could just as easily redefine those terms to mean "people who know they have feet" and "people who don't know they have feet" respectively and I've just defined those concepts into existence, at least as far as whatever point I'd be trying to support by doing so.

Point two: I am an atheist, yet I know that I believe in all sorts of things; many of them are probably in line with what others, including theists, believe. However, gods and similar inventions are not among them. If I have beliefs of which I am unaware, they clearly play no conscious part in my life and I cannot be held accountable for them.

Point three: when discussing systems of thought, -isms are not descriptions of people. The suffix you want is -ists.

[KichigaiNeko]

#78 nazra

---

I do NOT BELIEVE in anything. I strive to understand the world around me.... and that takes science to help.

[genkaus]

Whether another method is available doesn't speak to whether evidence, argument and logic are qualified to determine whether a god exists.

It certainly doesn't disqualify them and you haven't given any reason for the disqualification either.

It's not that hard to propose that the abilities of a single species on a single planet, in one of billions of galaxies, would most likely not be qualified to answer such a huge question such as "what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality?"

"Most likely"? You are arguing probability here? Given the fact that those very abilities of a single species on a single planet on one of the billions of galaxies have helped us to amass a wealth of knowledge about reality far beyond anyone's possible imagination, I'd say that its your proposal that's hard to swallow.

We might recall that we were only recently living in caves, we spend billions maintaining enough weaponry to extinguish our entire civilization in about an hour, and we are rather busy knowingly destroying the environment we depend upon for our survival. The evidence seems to indicate that aren't exactly a genius species.

We might also recall that we are no longer living in caves, our capacity for mass destruction is on par with that biblical despot, our dependence on environment has been on constant decline and our power to change it to suit our needs is growing. The evidence suggests that there is no species that is smarter.

[Selliedjoup]

[quote='Felasco' pid='312338' dateline='1342716791']
Whether another method is available doesn't speak to whether evidence, argument and logic are qualified to determine whether a god exists.

It certainly doesn't disqualify them and you haven't given any reason for the disqualification either.

This perspective mirrors a theist's perspective on why a god must exist.

It's not that hard to propose that the abilities of a single species on a single planet, in one of billions of galaxies, would most likely not be qualified to answer such a huge question such as "what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality?"

"Most likely"? You are arguing probability here? Given the fact that those very abilities of a single species on a single planet on one of the billions of galaxies have helped us to amass a wealth of knowledge about reality far beyond anyone's possible imagination, I'd say that its your proposal that's hard to swallow.

You've bypassed the point by stating our reality is reality (in an absolute sense) and then compared to our collective imaginations.

We might recall that we were only recently living in caves, we spend billions maintaining enough weaponry to extinguish our entire civilization in about an hour, and we are rather busy knowingly destroying the environment we depend upon for our survival. The evidence seems to indicate that aren't exactly a genius species.

We might also recall that we are no longer living in caves, our capacity for mass destruction is on par with that biblical despot, our dependence on environment has been on constant decline and our power to change it to suit our needs is growing. The evidence suggests that there is no species that is smarter.

So earth's smartest species is capable of assessing absolute trurh?

[genkaus]

This perspective mirrors a theist's perspective on why a god must exist.

And since the perspective is regarding an unseen, unknown entity rather than a time-tested methodology, it is irrational.

You've bypassed the point by stating our reality is reality (in an absolute sense) and then compared to our collective imaginations.

And you have ignored it by questioning the tautology of reality being reality.

So earth's smartest species is capable of assessing absolute trurh?

If there is such a thing as "absolute truth" then yes.

[Felasco]

The evidence suggests that there is no species that is smarter.

Agreed. But being smarter than donkeys does not automatically equal being qualified to know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality, an arena we can't even define.

How big is reality? Nobody has a clue.

So when we come to conclusions about all of reality based on that part which we know about, what is our sample size? Nobody has a clue.

Is it reason to come to sweeping conclusions based on a sample of unknown size? No, it's not. That's just ideology.

[genkaus]

Agreed. But being smarter than donkeys does not automatically equal being qualified to know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality, an arena we can't even define.

No, being capable of understanding reality and using it for our own purposes makes us qualified for that.

How big is reality? Nobody has a clue.

So when we come to conclusions about all of reality based on that part which we know about, what is our sample size? Nobody has a clue.

Is it reason to come to sweeping conclusions based on a sample of unknown size? No, it's not. That's just ideology.

Size of reality? Did you just make a sweeping conclusion that reality can be measured in dimensions without having any clue or reason for it? So, according to you, humans are not qualified to make any deductions about it, but somehow you are qualified to make that deduction.

[Felasco]

No, being capable of understanding reality and using it for our own purposes makes us qualified for that.

How do you know we're capable of understanding reality, when we don't even know how big reality is? You're making a sweeping claim about an arena we can't define in even the most basic way.

Size of reality? Did you just make a sweeping conclusion that reality can be measured in dimensions without having any clue or reason for it? So, according to you, humans are not qualified to make any deductions about it, but somehow you are qualified to make that deduction.

We don't know if we are qualified to analyze all of reality or not, given that we don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to.

"All of reality" could be just a bit more of what we already know about.

Or....

"All of reality" could be 4,987 billion trillion times bigger than what we already know about, and most of what we don't know about could be fundamentally different than what we do know about. It could be that too. We have no idea, none at all.

But, despite not having a clue about what the phrase "all of reality" actually refers to, many of us, theist and atheist alike, are perfectly content to make sweeping claims about this arena which we can't define in even the most basic way.

And this is the species that is supposedly qualified to know what does or doesn't exist in all of reality.