Atheists and Dawkins Believe in God

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Actually you seem to have proven the point you oppose. I can believe (have faith) that Unicorns don't exist, I can not know it for a fact, unless I were to be the first person to invent the idea and created the myth myself, if it is a myth.

...

I suppose it is possible some person exists, somewhere, who has full knowledge of everything and the Universe. In that case the person could say, it is a fact God does not exist. Otherwise?

I actually agree with everything you said there! : )

I agree that nobody has full knowledge of everything and therefore nobody could say as a fact that god does not exist.

However, what I'm saying, and probably what many people will agree with, is that there is NO evidence to believe in any god's existence. No evidence whatsoever. If we disagree on that, then there's no point in debating because then we're clearly living on different planets.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


So changing the meaning of a word to fit the definition you wish is logical; while using a word that simply means I don't know, which is a fact, is bothersome to you?

Perhaps the end of this debate lies in finding a new word that means - I believe that no God exists, but I can't know it definitively because most of the makeup of the Universe and its history are unknown to me.

Perhaps an "Athnostic"?

reply to post by codeblast


I differ with you on this.

You can not possibly know if another person has had an experience that proved the existence of God to them or not. It is not possible for you to know that about everyone who believes.

If I were to say to you such an experience is possible, how could you know if it is or not? Would not in the back your mind you have to honestly say to yourself, it is possible?



[edit on 6/25/2010 by Blaine91555]

Blaine91555, I see where you're coming from. To me it seems like we DO have a terminology problem.

Yes, I think according to your definition, most "atheists" are probably really "agnostics" -- but that's why we need a common language and I personally like Dawkins's scale, google "dawkins belief scale" if you're interested.

Even Dawkins puts himself on 6 out 7 on the scale, i.e. "De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there." 7 would be 100% atheist - and I doubt there are many people like that. So yes, in that sense, everyone is either slightly "agnostic" or slightly "atheist" depending on which scale you're thinking of.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
If I were to say to you such an experience is possible, how could you know if it is or not? Would not in the back your mind you have to honestly say to yourself, it is possible?

Now we seem to have a difference on the meaning of "evidence" and "proof" : ) I like to think of those words in the scientific sense.

So, no - if you told me you had some experience that "proved" to you god's existence or anything similarly unlikely, I'd say "that's anecdotal evidence - my own father told me he's seen a ghost in our house and I think he's mistaken, for any number of possible psyschological reasons." I definitely don't think in the back of my mind "perhaps it's possible". Maybe I'm just not as easy to convince as most others?

'I saw' or 'I heard' or 'I know someone who' is not evidence of anything, if you can't prove it to me or any other objective judge. Sorry!

[edit on 25-6-2010 by codeblast]

The OP is making so many ridiculously wrong assumptions I don't know where to begin...

1) A disbelieve in God doesn't mean you have no soul or free will. On the contrary, atheists/agnostics are probably more free in their thoughts than religious people. Just look at how many religious people oppose basic PROVEN scientific facts because it contradicts their belief.

2) Dawkins says it's very UNLIKELY that there is a God...he never says there is no God. He doesn't say that because you CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE!! Fact is, we have ZERO (!!!) proof of God's existence...saying otherwise is called "blind faith". Not a logical/rational attribute, and definitely not something to be proud of.

3) Atheism or agnosticism ISN'T nihilism!! If you believe otherwise, you should go read up the definition of those words.

I think atheists are just as misguided as religious people, they claim to know something they CAN'T know. No one can prove the existence or non-existence of God, so atheists saying there is no god are just as uninformed as religious people who believe.

I don't get what's so hard about saying "I JUST DON'T KNOW!!"...because that's the ONLY right answer.

reply to post by sirnex


Not true. I do see your point. I just don't believe it. To me the evidence is obvious. We are the evidence. Life is the evidence.

I find the atheists here to be extremly hostile. Why is that? Are atheists not mature enough to accept and understand when and why a believer is fighting for his/hers believes? Don't you have patience when you're an atheists?

I also find this behavior with religious fundamentalist. They are fighting to give the best argument?

I don't think that anybody is really right or wrong here. In my opinion, it's all subjective!! I understand when atheists are tired of religious fundamentalist trying to convert them and tell them to shut the f up, but many then get the immature desire to tell the believer why they are wrong or rather why they THINK the believer is wrong in every statement.

Worst thing is, i'm not really an atheist or religious, but when some religious dude ring on my door bell, i can't fight the desire to tell him/her how wrong they are in their belief. There is no evidence, the bible is obvious fiction, etc. But i don't really know. When the person leaves, i realize how immature and ignorant i just behaved. Don't know if any of you do the same thing in real life. But i can obviously see that you do on internet forums.

I'm glad i don't live in America where this battle is worst. I believe in some sort of God/Creator and believe that the God of the bible reflects the true nature of God in some way, and every argument i hear from and atheists sounds incredible ignorant to me. Like there is something they don't get, like they can't wrap their heads around the subject, so they choose the easy way out and say there is no physical evidence, it's like they have blinded themself from the obvious vast amount of evidence there is. But then, when you look from the atheists point of view, i realize that's probably how they see the believers and that's why i believe it's all subjective. Why this battle is really pointless.

You can't change a person or what they have choosen to believe in and what not to believe in. So why even try? In most cases, people get upset, to have their faith challenged or angry at people they BELIEVE to be ignorant!! Do an atheists really have the authority to create negative emotions in another human being and make them doubt their faith, just because they don't follow same rule of thought as he/she do? Do a believer on the other hand, have any authority on what another human being should accept as evidence and what not to accept? And why do so many believers take authority on who and what God really is?

Atheist argue that terrible crimes have been committed in the name of religion and it's true. But atheism is just as dangerous. I live in a city where gang members keep shooting each other and more than often hits and kills innocent civilians because they believe they can get away with it, they don't think they ever will get punished, so they do horrible things. I have known some of these gang members personally and trust me, they do these things because they don't believe in any kind of God or spiritual world!!!

I'm not saying that atheism is wrong, just that the statement that religion kills people and atheism don't is a load of sh.. Power is and has always been the ultimate factor. But i agree, religious murdereres is far more dangerous than a man who don't believe in God but just like to kill people.

I have faith than none of the mythological Gods exist, i don't know with certainty but i don't believe they exist in other words, i have faith in that they don't exists. It's funny how atheists keep claiming that it's not some sort of faith when you don't believe God exists. I really can't see how it's not. In Danish, faith and believe is combined into one word "tror" is that a coincidence?

I'm just rambling here!!! Happy to live in one of the least religious countries though. Atheists and believers don't hate each other so much

edit: Please don't do the immature thing and point out my contradiction, i have seen, but i just don't care enough to fix it. Over and out!!!

[edit on 25-6-2010 by JokerzReality]

"This is what each of you keeps on saying to his friend or relative: 'What is the LORD's answer?' or 'What has the LORD spoken?'" Jeremiah 23:35

"I am the LORD your God"

[edit on 25-6-2010 by pez dispenser]

[edit on 25-6-2010 by pez dispenser]

reply to post by Blaine91555

So you think childish, schoolyard rhetoric is a way to have a debate? How does that speak to your credibility?

Interesting. Two childish remarks, but only the Atheist loses credibility.

Actually you seem to have proven the point you oppose. I can believe (have faith) that Unicorns don't exist, I can not know it for a fact, unless I were to be the first person to invent the idea and created the myth myself, if it is a myth.

Ouch. Here's a fun fact of the day for ya! Belief does not equal faith. I believe the sky to be blue. I do not need faith as the sky actually is blue! I do not believe the sky is florescent green as it is observably not so nor is there any evidence that it could physically take on that color.

In this case, there are two opposing beliefs as to the color of the sky, neither one requires a faith in that belief.

Same with God. I can believe there is no God, but I can not know there is no God, without lying to myself.

Yet, saying that there is a possibility for the Judaic-Christian God is lying to yourself as in order to claim plausibility we need to dismiss recorded and archeological history showing this newly formed deity is a man made mythology along with the rest. In either case, you would still be lying to yourself.

I suppose it is possible some person exists, somewhere, who has full knowledge of everything and the Universe. In that case the person could say, it is a fact God does not exist. Otherwise?

It is also possible that the universe was created from the droppings of a magical unicorn. We simply do not know. Does this lead sufficient reason to believe it to be true? No, not at all. If you think otherwise, then I propose we do as the creator of Scientology has done and form a new and wondrous religion around the POSSIBILITY that this MIGHT be true WITHOUT EVIDENCE that it is true.

I don't even know why it upsets people to discuss the meanings of the words they use and when they are wrongly interpreted.

So, you won't be upset if I show your erroneous usage of belief versus faith? I mean, if you won't be, then I will gladly show you where you went wrong.

Its not about whether a person knows if there is a God or not, its about a hatred of people who believe that is so strong that truth no longer is able to even be considered.

What? Hi, my name is Sirnex and I am an atheist, nor do I hate those who are religious. I don't hate people on a personal level for what they believe. I may dislike some religious people based on their behavior as from experience both outside of ATS and definitely on ATS. I can't stand people who pretend to follow so and so deity and refuse to even adhere to said deities basic teachings. Bunch of hypocrites.

People can not admit they don't know for a fact, because they let hatred or strong negative emotions get in the way of logic. It occurs on both sides. Both sides become irrational.

Can not admit they do not know what?

See, your problem here is that your assuming that there is no evidence against the Judaic-Christian God. Point of fact is, archeological and recorded history show us that this particular mythology is just as man made as any other mythology.

Now, if the argument is proposing a universe that requires a creator, well then... All I can answer to that is I agree, but counter that it is no less reasonable to assume the universe did not require a creator. Neither point of view brings us any closer to knowing what the universe is or where, if at all, it came from.

Oddly enough, I find people actually immersed in the world of science in their careers, to be the most reasonable and logical to have a discussion with about these things. They tend to see the what they don't know as being over a horizon they are approaching and that they may one day top a hill and know. Some are irrational, but then they are likely the ones holding science back.

So, an irrational scientist holding science back is one who holds no belief that the Judaic-Christian mythology is an accurate depiction of origins? Man, what an asinine ill thought out opinion.

So changing the meaning of a word to fit the definition you wish is logical; while using a word that simply means I don't know, which is a fact, is bothersome to you?

How is oversimplifying the view point of agnosticism helping your case?

Perhaps the end of this debate lies in finding a new word that means - I believe that no God exists, but I can't know it definitively because most of the makeup of the Universe and its history are unknown to me.

Perhaps an "Athnostic"?

I'm sure you would simply be amazed to know that most Atheists, myself included hold no belief in any man made mythologies whilst at the same time understanding that the question of origins is most certainly an unanswerable question. Be it some intelligent creator or some natural process. Yet, whatever is believed is believed not for the sake of belief but believed for what the evidence dictates one should believe.

You can not possibly know if another person has had an experience that proved the existence of God to them or not. It is not possible for you to know that about everyone who believes.

A personal experience say nothing about the existence of a deity as there are numerous deities and numerous adherents claiming personal evidence for those deities. None can be the one true deity as all deities denounce all other deities claiming each as the only true deity.

If I were to say to you such an experience is possible, how could you know if it is or not? Would not in the back your mind you have to honestly say to yourself, it is possible?

Atheists don't denounce the experience itself. We denounce what one get's out of an experience that they can't readily explain.

Subscribing an unexplained experience as belonging to whatever deity a person believes in does not make that deity any more real than the next deity.

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by sirnex

 

Not true. I do see your point. I just don't believe it. To me the evidence is obvious. We are the evidence. Life is the evidence.

What is not true?

You borrowed from the biblical mythology and placed your own attributes to this deity, making a new deity in the process that does not resemble the biblical mythology. You admitted to this.

So again, what is not true?

As for life is the evidence. Evidence of what?

reply to post by JokerzReality

edit: Please don't do the immature thing and point out my contradiction

Yet, how can one not point out the blatant contradiction. Either you don't know what your real opinion is or you are simply a hypocrite arguing for the sake of argument.

Faith... ouch...

That's a painful word for atheists, but they all have it in one way or another. For example, the whole idea of science (and I love science btw) is that we as humans can observe our reality, experiment on it, and surmise various things using our rationality.

I hate to break this to you, atheists, but to trust in your own (or other's) rationality, as well as your own (or other's) faculties of perception is the definition of faith.

So, perhaps atheists shouldn't make faith out to be the bane of their existence. If i were an atheist, I'd just stick to the whole, "there's no empirical evidence" argument.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by ChickenPie]

reply to post by ChickenPie


No atheist or theist uses that definition of faith in the discussion of God's existence. Though certainly if you wanted to you could say we trust in science but then that trust is based on the evidence that is backing up the conclusion.

In the context of whether or not a deity exists this is the definition of faith:

Belief that is not based on evidence or proof.

When there is enough scientific evidence to back something up you don't need faith to hold the belief. Faith is a support mechanism for a belief that has no evidence, when you get the evidence you can use it to hold up the belief - no more faith required.

Science deals in the objective, observations and data that are the same regardless of variance in human perception and subjective experience. They are the same for everyone and verifiable by everyone.

Other than subjective spiritual experience what is there to go on to believe in God?



[edit on 25-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

No atheist or theist uses that definition of faith in the discussion of God's existence.

I just did.

I think it'd do everyone some good if they looked up the word faith, before claiming that theism is all about faith and science is all about evidence. That couldn't be further from the truth.

When there is enough scientific evidence to back something up you don't need faith to hold the belief.

No. In regards to science, you need to place trust in your rationality, perception, and technology. In other words, you need faith. There's no getting around that fact. I'm also not going to repeat myself again... If you don't want to learn anything, then that's fine by me.

Faith is a support mechanism for a belief that has no evidence, when you get the evidence you can use it to hold up the belief - no more faith required.

I don't know where you got the idea that there is absolutely no evidence that there is a God. I think you're lumping empirical evidence together with evidence.

I believe there is a God because the idea of singularity arbitrarily coming out of nothing, which expanded into a universe, which formed suns, planets, which then formed life... is all too much of a coincidence to be chalked up to mere chance. Of course it takes more faith to believe that an intelligent source is behind it all (there is no empirical evidence for a God after all), but I'm willing to make the leap because of how absurd the contrary conclusion is. As you can see, I'm using rationality (whether you think it poor or not) to conclude that there is a God.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

Other than subjective spiritual experience what is there to go on to believe in God?

Well, to start off, do you know of any examples of something as complex as the universe coming out of nothing without outside help?

reply to post by ChickenPie

I hate to break this to you, atheists, but to trust in your own (or other's) rationality, as well as your own (or other's) faculties of perception is the definition of faith.

Then I guess the computers that I, you, and others are using are based on faith? I trust that this computer is working properly and that it is connected to the internet in order for me to talk to you? Ok, then I guess I have faith in that.

If i were an atheist, I'd just stick to the whole, "there's no empirical evidence" argument.

That's precisely their position! Do you or do you not believe in Zeus? Why or why not?

reply to post by ChickenPie

Well, to start off, do you know of any examples of something as complex as the universe coming out of nothing without outside help?

We do not know and neither do you!

How good are you with math?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

That's precisely their position! Do you or do you not believe in Zeus? Why or why not?

If by "Zeus" you mean one all-knowing and all-powerful God who created everything, then yes. I thought that was obvious.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by ChickenPie

 

We do not know and neither do you!

I know...

But, unsurprisingly, you missed my point. Considering what you know now (experience, rationality, etc.), what is more logical: a universe, with laws (such as gravity), planets, suns, and life that developed over time from a point of singularity, which came from nothing... arbitrarily, or a universe, with laws (such as gravity), planets, suns, and life that developed over time from a point of singularity, which also came from nothing, but with the help of an intelligent source?

Let me put it this way, (and this isn't an argument against evolution, I accept the theory of evolution) pretend you were actually a neanderthal for a moment, and you were walking around doing whatever it is that neanderthals did... when all of a sudden, you come across a piece of technology, a computer! Would you guess that it arbitrarily came from nothingness without the help of an intelligent source? I'd hope not. The universe is much more complicated than any computer, but for some strange reason it's considered logical to conclude that our universe did indeed arbitrarily come from nothing without the help of any outside intelligence. That's why I asked if any of you atheists have any examples of this actually occurring... Perhaps in nature?


[edit on 26-6-2010 by ChickenPie]