Strong Atheism

[Tonus]

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.

[tommynba]

[ThePinsir]

^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

[FreeTony]

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.

[Ben Davis]

[Confused Ape]

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.

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.

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.

[Whateverist]

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.

[Ben Davis]

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.

...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.

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.

Yup.

[Confused Ape]

[Coffee Jesus]