Random thoughts regarding (a)theism

[SYZ]

...I'm convinced every theist should also admit to agnosticism as the majority of atheists do.  That is part of being honest.

   Firstly, g'day mate, and welcome to the forum.    

I have to disagree with your claim that the "majority" of atheists
accept the notion of agnosticism.  There is no evidence for this.
Atheism relates to "belief" (a lack of belief in any gods), while
agnosticism relates to "knowledge" (the belief that the existence
of gods is unknown or cannot be known).

The two terms are self-contradictory and therefore incompatible.

If one is a self-described atheist, then that in itself is a singularly defining
state of mind—with no qualifiers necessary or relevant.  Atheists do not in
any way countenance the real-world existence of supernatural entities or
paranormal phenomena—gods or miracles.

[brewerb]

I'm convinced every theist should also admit to agnosticism as the majority of atheists do.  That is part of being honest.

Welcome woof!

I interact with some agnostic theists who admit that their faith is belief without evidence. They want an afterlife and that it is not hell, fitting Pascal's Wager.

[Whateverist]

...I'm convinced every theist should also admit to agnosticism as the majority of atheists do.  That is part of being honest.

   Firstly, g'day mate, and welcome to the forum.    

I have to disagree with your claim that the "majority" of atheists
accept the notion of agnosticism.  There is no evidence for this.
Atheism relates to "belief" (a lack of belief in any gods), while
agnosticism relates to "knowledge" (the belief that the existence
of gods is unknown or cannot be known).

The two terms are self-contradictory and therefore incompatible.

If one is a self-described atheist, then that in itself is a singularly defining
state of mind—with no qualifiers necessary or relevant.  Atheists do not in
any way countenance the real-world existence of supernatural entities or
paranormal phenomena—gods or miracles.

First, thanks for the welcome.

In my experience the majority of atheists have a positive disbelief in God which would require more knowledge of what a god/God is than I possess and I've heard from many self professed atheists that they feel the same way.  Seems a little disingenuous to me to fall back on the weaker claim -that one merely lacks belief in God- when that someone is obviously convinced there are no gods.  While I agree with the  poster I quoted about quibbling over the meaning of words, I think it is fine for everyone to say what the words they use to describe  something as esoteric as their spiritual status mean to them.

[Whateverist]

I'm convinced every theist should also admit to agnosticism as the majority of atheists do.  That is part of being honest.

Welcome woof!

I interact with some agnostic theists who admit that their faith is belief without evidence. They want an afterlife and that it is not hell, fitting Pascal's Wager.

Thanks and I remember you Brewer and your avatar.  Is the pic one of a dog you used to have or is of a later generation?  I don't seem able to post an avatar yet probably owing to my newness.  But eventually I'll put my McNab girl Ember there.

Didn't you like that Swedish rock group Abba?

[Dexta]

Oh boy have we been in hysterics at work over the start of this (up to 1:50) and the rest of it kicks ass too:

[Dānu]

   Firstly, g'day mate, and welcome to the forum.    

I have to disagree with your claim that the "majority" of atheists
accept the notion of agnosticism.  There is no evidence for this.
Atheism relates to "belief" (a lack of belief in any gods), while
agnosticism relates to "knowledge" (the belief that the existence
of gods is unknown or cannot be known).

The two terms are self-contradictory and therefore incompatible.

If one is a self-described atheist, then that in itself is a singularly defining
state of mind—with no qualifiers necessary or relevant.  Atheists do not in
any way countenance the real-world existence of supernatural entities or
paranormal phenomena—gods or miracles.

First, thanks for the welcome.

In my experience the majority of atheists have a positive disbelief in God which would require more knowledge of what a god/God is than I possess and I've heard from many self professed atheists that they feel the same way.  Seems a little disingenuous to me to fall back on the weaker claim -that one merely lacks belief in God- when that someone is obviously convinced there are no gods.  While I agree with the  poster I quoted about quibbling over the meaning of words, I think it is fine for everyone to say what the words they use to describe  something as esoteric as their spiritual status mean to them.

I think the key metric is not whether you hold a firm belief but how willing you are to change the belief, how tentative it is. There are certainly gnostic atheists, but I think the majority would acknowledge that evidence could change their belief, it simply hasn't as of yet. The mirror image is different. Gnosticism is the default for many believers.

I would also note that it is human nature to form 'worldviews' and so an atheist's worldview may lack God, that doesn't indicate the firmness or inflexibility of that worldview simply because it has that as a feature.

[Whateverist]

I would also note that it is human nature to form 'worldviews' and so an atheist's worldview may lack God, that doesn't indicate the firmness or inflexibility of that worldview simply because it has that as a feature.

I think that is an important point. It actually is structurally key to what we are and how we operate. If we are wise we pay attention to gestalts as well as close observation because both are important and neither can replace the other.

[Unsapien]

First, thanks for the welcome.

In my experience the majority of atheists have a positive disbelief in God which would require more knowledge of what a god/God is than I possess and I've heard from many self professed atheists that they feel the same way.  Seems a little disingenuous to me to fall back on the weaker claim -that one merely lacks belief in God- when that someone is obviously convinced there are no gods.  While I agree with the  poster I quoted about quibbling over the meaning of words, I think it is fine for everyone to say what the words they use to describe  something as esoteric as their spiritual status mean to them.

Well as an atheist I can only disbelieve in the gods that people describe to me, so my disbelief maybe not be fully informed about their god, but it doesn't take much to knowledge of a god to discount it, they just have to tell one thing about their god that's not possible.

That's where I am right now, I'm convinced that the gods that have so far been described to me not only do not exist, but in fact they cannot exist as described. 

The minute you tell me they have supernatural qualities, I'll say give me the evidence that their supernatural powers can even exist. I'm not wasting any more time arguing IF there's a god if you can't even prove they're possible.

[Unsapien]

...I'm convinced every theist should also admit to agnosticism as the majority of atheists do.  That is part of being honest.

   Firstly, g'day mate, and welcome to the forum.    

I have to disagree with your claim that the "majority" of atheists
accept the notion of agnosticism.  There is no evidence for this.
Atheism relates to "belief" (a lack of belief in any gods), while
agnosticism relates to "knowledge" (the belief that the existence
of gods is unknown or cannot be known).

The two terms are self-contradictory and therefore incompatible.

If one is a self-described atheist, then that in itself is a singularly defining
state of mind—with no qualifiers necessary or relevant.  Atheists do not in
any way countenance the real-world existence of supernatural entities or
paranormal phenomena—gods or miracles.

Being atheist doesn't necessarily mean you don't believe in the supernatural, I've met atheists that believe in ghosts & haunted houses, and holistic medicine.

[Dānu]

First, thanks for the welcome.

In my experience the majority of atheists have a positive disbelief in God which would require more knowledge of what a god/God is than I possess and I've heard from many self professed atheists that they feel the same way.  Seems a little disingenuous to me to fall back on the weaker claim -that one merely lacks belief in God- when that someone is obviously convinced there are no gods.  While I agree with the  poster I quoted about quibbling over the meaning of words, I think it is fine for everyone to say what the words they use to describe  something as esoteric as their spiritual status mean to them.

Well as an atheist I can only disbelieve in the gods that people describe to me, so my disbelief maybe not be fully informed about their god, but it doesn't take much to knowledge of a god to discount it, they just have to tell one thing about their god that's not possible.

That's where I am right now, I'm convinced that the gods that have so far been described to me not only do not exist, but in fact they cannot exist as described. 

The minute you tell me they have supernatural qualities, I'll say give me the evidence that their supernatural powers can even exist. I'm not wasting any more time arguing IF there's a god if you can't even prove they're possible.

I think the principle of charity in argument suggests that we not attack god-belief at its weakest point, but rather steelman the position by allowing for some vagueness and ambiguity about the claim without simply using the fuzziness of belief as a way to achieve a quick conclusion against the belief. Charity demands that we attack not the weakest position for believing in God, but that which is strongest. If nothing else, it immunizes us from having to make embarrassing concessions when the unfairness of our representation of the opposing position is drawn out and demonstrated.

[Whateverist]

The minute you tell me they have supernatural qualities, I'll say give me the evidence that their supernatural powers can even exist. I'm not wasting any more time arguing IF there's a god if you can't even prove they're possible.

My reaction to the "supernatural" is different.  I always wonder why they underestimate the "natural" world so easily.  I find the natural world to be full of surprises and wonders.  For example the ability of life to cheat the second law of thermodynamics for so long.  Of course no organism exists in isolation and so is not a closed system at all.  Still that is one remarkable chemical reaction.

[airportkid]

... the weakest position for believing in God, but that which is strongest ...

That's an excellent point but haven't seen any arguments for a god that are actually strong.  What would the strongest argument for a god be?  Are there any arguments for a god stronger than what rebuts them?  What argument is the least weak? - as far as I can tell they're all weak.

Meanwhile in my view there are several arguments disproving a god that are quite strong.  Throughout the entirety of human inquiry, a lot of it explicitly attempting to prove a god, no inquiry has ever found "must be a god doing it" as its final conclusion.  Only two outcomes have ever emerged:  "So that's how it works" or "There's more to find out".  And for that portion of a god's makeup that it fulfills prayers, well, if prayer worked, science wouldn't.  Both of those are far more compelling that any of the arguments I've ever seen to prove a god.

[Whateverist]

Meanwhile in my view there are several arguments disproving a god that are quite strong.  

Are there any that don't depend on accepting as a premise a particular notion of gods/God?  If not then all are hanging on by a thin. thread.

[Dānu]

... the weakest position for believing in God, but that which is strongest ...

That's an excellent point but haven't seen any arguments for a god that are actually strong.  What would the strongest argument for a god be?  Are there any arguments for a god stronger than what rebuts them?  What argument is the least weak? - as far as I can tell they're all weak.

Meanwhile in my view there are several arguments disproving a god that are quite strong.  Throughout the entirety of human inquiry, a lot of it explicitly attempting to prove a god, no inquiry has ever found "must be a god doing it" as its final conclusion.  Only two outcomes have ever emerged:  "So that's how it works" or "There's more to find out".  And for that portion of a god's makeup that it fulfills prayers, well, if prayer worked, science wouldn't.  Both of those are far more compelling that any of the arguments I've ever seen to prove a god.

I was specifically addressing the question of whether one wrong detail should disqualify a god or not. I don't think definitions are that precise and thus it would be a double standard to hold the god question to precise definitions when we don't hold definitions of other things (e.g. a chair) to the same standard. I confess to being the product of an ideological silo in that I've spent infinitely more time thinking about arguments against the existence of a god than I have those in favor. So I don't know many good arguments for a god. I think if we consider the god of the philosophers, it's a lot easier to be sympathetic to theism than if one attempts to bind faith to a particular, concrete god that possesses a stable of very specific particulars. This is the direction I lean with my Hinduism, wherein to me, Krishna is not a god per se, but rather an avatar that refers to higher principles rather than a flesh and blood being.

[Rizen]

You don't really need to nitpick every point about God or not, the simplest, most reliable argument against God existing is the complete lack of proof. Thousands of years have passed and no one has conclusively proven anything. Sure you could say that you can't disprove God either, but to that I respond can you disprove that the universe wasn't made by a flying spaghetti monster?

[Szuchow]

Meanwhile in my view there are several arguments disproving a god that are quite strong.  

Are there any that don't depend on accepting as a premise a particular notion of gods/God?  If not then all are hanging on by a thin. thread.

God is like a Piglet - the more scientists looked inside the more god wasn't there. 

Victor Stenger in his book God. The Failed Hypothesis shows exactly why god is nothing more than mankind childhood fantasy. I quote relevant part below:

:Gods Who Disagree with the Data
1. A God who is responsible for the complex structure of the
world, especially living things, fails to agree with empirical
fact that this structure can be understood to arise from
simple natural processes and shows none of the expected
signs of design. Indeed, the universe looks as it should
look in the absence of design.
2. A God who has given humans immortal souls fails to
agree with the empirical facts that human memories and
personalities are determined by physical processes, that no
nonphysical or extraphysical powers of the mind can be
found, and that no evidence exists for an afterlife.
3. A God whose interactions with humans, including mirac-
ulous interventions, have been reported in scriptures is
contradicted by the lack of independent evidence that
these miraculous events took place and the fact that phys-
ical evidence now convincingly demonstrates that some of
the most important biblical narratives, such as the Exodus,
never took place.
4. A God who miraculously and supernaturally created the
universe fails to agree with the empirical fact that no viola-
tions of physical law were required to produce the universe,
its laws, or its existence rather than nonexistence. It also
fails to agree with established theories, based on empirical
facts, which indicate that the universe began with max-
imum entropy and so bears no imprint of a creator.
5. A God who fine-tuned the laws and constants of physics
for life, in particular human life, fails to agree with the fact
that the universe is not congenial to human life, being
tremendously wasteful of time, space, and matter from the
human perspective. It also fails to agree with the fact that
the universe is mostly composed of particles in random
motion, with complex structures such as galaxies forming
less than 4 percent of the mass and less than one particle
out of a billion.
6. A God who communicates directly with humans by means
of revelation fails to agree with the fact that no claimed
revelation has ever been confirmed empirically, while
many have been falsified. No claimed revelation contains
information that could not have been already in the head
of the person making the claim.
7. A God who is the source of morality and human values
does not exist since the evidence shows that humans
define morals and values for themselves. This is not "rela-
tive morality." Believers and nonbelievers alike agree on a
common set of morals and values. Even the most devout
decide for themselves what is good and what is bad. Non-
believers behave no less morally than believers.
8. The existence of evil, in particular, gratuitous suffering, is
logically inconsistent with an omniscient, omnibenevo-
lent, omnipotent God (standard problem of evil).

[Victor Stenger, God. The Failed Hypothesis, p.229-231]

[brewerb]

Welcome woof!

I interact with some agnostic theists who admit that their faith is belief without evidence. They want an afterlife and that it is not hell, fitting Pascal's Wager.

Thanks and I remember you Brewer and your avatar.  Is the pic one of a dog you used to have or is of a later generation?  I don't seem able to post an avatar yet probably owing to my newness.  But eventually I'll put my McNab girl Ember there.

Didn't you like that Swedish rock group Abba?

Glad I'm remember worthy. The avatar is from when Lexy was a youngster, she's now 12 and very slow and grey. I did use her father (Nico) as my avatar but dropped it when he passed a few years back. 

ABBA was not me (ick), that is/was Brian37. I think he might still be active at AF.

Glad you're back around, wasn't sure this was the same Whateverist until now. Is Smokey still with you?

[Whateverist]

You don't really need to nitpick every point about God or not, the simplest, most reliable argument against God existing is the complete lack of proof. Thousands of years have passed and no one has conclusively proven anything. Sure you could say that you can't disprove God either, but to that I respond can you disprove that the universe wasn't made by a flying spaghetti monster?

Assuming by 'proof' you mean evidence, I think there is a simple reason for that.  God is not a name for a particular thing for which evidence is available.  I think careful observation as with science or carefully reasoning as with logic cannot encompass what God/gods is really about.  Rather the situation is more akin knowing a person or place, something you can't know in total but can come to know more and more about through extended relationship.  Know as in familiarity with vs know as in acquired knowledge.  You can never be complete familiar with anyone let alone God; does anyone ever finally completely know themselves?

I have my hunch about what it is which has given rise to all the various religious traditions of the world but for my money, Taoism comes close.  It at least comes right out at the start to declare that the Tao that can be named or known is not the real Tao.  As with quantum fields and the Tao, if your think you know God, it isn't God that you know.  Christianity moves in the opposite direction, declaring that only they have the truth about what is highest as if it were something that could be trademarked or easily handed out.

[Whateverist]

Thanks and I remember you Brewer and your avatar.  Is the pic one of a dog you used to have or is of a later generation?  I don't seem able to post an avatar yet probably owing to my newness.  But eventually I'll put my McNab girl Ember there.

Didn't you like that Swedish rock group Abba?

Glad I'm remember worthy. The avatar is from when Lexy was a youngster, she's now 12 and very slow and grey. I did use her father (Nico) as my avatar but dropped it when he passed a few years back. 

ABBA was not me (ick), that is/was Brian37. I think he might still be active at AF.

Glad you're back around, wasn't sure this was the same Whateverist until now. Is Smokey still with you?

My apologies.  ABBA are kind of yuck for me too.  No slander intended.  Just what's left of an old and over taxed memory.

[airportkid]

Are there any that don't depend on accepting as a premise a particular notion of gods/God?

Now you're being silly.  Every god propounded IS a particular notion; there are no gods devoid of any characteristics; it is their characteristics that comprise their existence.

Such definitions are inadequate, ambiguous, amorphous, indistinct and contradictory, but they ARE characteristics.

To claim some god exists without characteristics is meaningless.  All gods are invented to fulfill some purpose; fulfillment of purpose IS a characteristic.

[Whateverist]

God is like a Piglet - the more scientists looked inside the more god wasn't there. 

Of course the experience of top scientists varies as this article makes clear.  Not surprisingly it appears on the blog of a noted UK apologist so you can check out now if you prefer.  It certainly put my skeptical filter up but I found it interesting.  He goes on to outline the experience of eleven top scientists who did acknowledge a belief in God (albeit rarely a personal God).  Here is one screen capture from the first of eleven case studies involving the father of Quantum Mechanics, Werner Heisenberg.



The others are less stellar or note worthy in my opinion including Antony Flew, a long time atheist who famously changed his mind toward the end of his life.  I also recorded this part of that account:



I think this fits for many of us reformed atheists who come to think there is an important use for the term "God/gods" which is unrecognizable in Christian theology and probably likewise distorted by other traditions.  I think that is because religion evolves to serve a cultural purpose and so is not a reliable guide to how best to understand what is highest.  And no, I cannot demonstrate the necessity for imputing anything which is "highest" but I entirely reject that it is a being in its own right or any kind of 'thing' at all.  I came to that conclusion after reading Iain McGilchrist's The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World.  Took me most of two years to read its 2000 pages.  So if your main interest is to fortify your pre existing position, I'd advise against it.  

[Whateverist]

Are there any that don't depend on accepting as a premise a particular notion of gods/God?

Now you're being silly.  Every god propounded IS a particular notion; there are no gods devoid of any characteristics; it is their characteristics that comprise their existence.

Such definitions are inadequate, ambiguous, amorphous, indistinct and contradictory, but they ARE characteristics.

To claim some god exists without characteristics is meaningless.  All gods are invented to fulfill some purpose; fulfillment of purpose IS a characteristic.

That isn't the idea.  No one -at least not me- is arguing that any god-thingies exist.  Rather, I've become convinced that there is something which is real, dynamic and important which has given rise to all those instantiations which had to serve not just understanding but also cultural needs.  Those don't interest me.

[pattylt]

The only argument I can’t rebut is when a Christian (or other religious) claim a personal experience they had that assured them god was real. I can only point out that I have not…and not for want of trying…experienced anything like that. I can’t base my beliefs on your personal experience. I need my own. I will sometimes ask how they knew it was god, though. They just always know.

[Dānu]

Christianity is built for the anti-intellectualism of the modern right.

[Whateverist]

The only argument I can’t rebut is when a Christian (or other religious) claim a personal experience they had that assured them god was real.  I can only point out that I have not…and not for want of trying…experienced anything like that.  I can’t base my beliefs on your personal experience.  I need my own.  I will sometimes ask how they knew it was god, though.  They just always know.

Agreed, not convincing.   Those kinds of experiences are only of value to those to whom they occur .. if at all.