I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist.  I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.  

Views: 11649

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There is nothing like a relaxing day of DAN corruption ;-)

I really like the mythology thing. If we understand that all is meaningless, then choosing some kind of mythology to gain footing makes perfect sense. I'm not talking about mythology in the "giants and dragons" sense, but more as any "code to live by" developed by humans.

My own mythology includes my moral code, my role as a human male, my sense of propriety regarding family and children, my die hard dedication to riding my Harley, my parameters for discerning success and failure...
But if "all is meaningless" than what is the need of a mythology?

I like the things you list as part of "[your] own mythology" but why not just appreciate them for what they are rather than trying to put them on "a higher plane" of a personal mythology?

Many folks seem to want to find "meaning", I settle for figuring out the "sense" of things. When it makes sense, I'm a happy camper. If it doesn't make sense (yet), I don't see how looking for meaning will help.
Finding meaning and making sense are the same thing to me. You're familiar with the anthropic principle? -- the universe is the way it is because, if it weren't, we would not be here asking why the universe is the way it is. So everything is meaningless until someone asks, "What does it all mean?"
@Arnold [hit the nesting level so need to identify] -- Well, we obviously disagree about words/concepts as I see them as related but not the same (a Wittgensteinian family resemblance.) I am making sense of physics and astrophysics (slowly) but that does not imbue them with any meaning. Nor does the fact that they can be sensible give them any meaning.

I'm familiar with the anthropic principle -- not convinced yet that it is all that some people crack it up to be. But, regardless of that nit, I don't see how it has anything to do with meaning. Asking "what does it mean" doesn't cause the universe to have meaning.
I'm with Glenn on this one. There really is no meaning beyond what you make of things for yourself. The best we can do is make sense of the universe around us and choose what we want to do with that. I don't like the word "mythology", though, because that pretty much means "fictional" to me. What's wrong with the term "philosophy"?

And I'm more of an adherent of the Misanthropic Principle--people suck, but sometimes in a good way.
It can only have meaning to beings capable of asking, "What does it mean?" I don't think meaning is ever intrinsic to nature. But we seem to have a need to find patterns that help us catalog our experience. It undoubtedly has survival value on some level.
I know the term "mythology" carries some baggage, but it still works for me. It has the benefit of not allowing folks to take "what they consider meaningful" too seriously. Even the search for truth (good luck) is only meaningful as a personal mythology. By using the term "mythology," I think you are putting it on a lower plane. We are writing our own parts in a play. Lots of fun, but not particularly important. For me, mythology implies a creative process.

I'm with you on the figuring out the "sense" of things.
I don't know about that: being orally fixated on a consenting fellow-organism can be quite romantic.
LMAO!
I have no reason to believe there is a god as I understand the term. There is no point in trying to prove a negative, so I cannot make any meaningful statements about how much I do not have a reason to believe in one.
I recall, in reading that depository of all wisdom, that god referred to himself as WE. This was in Genesis of that depository of all wisdom, the wholly babble.I never did quite understand that use of the pluiral, since this was 6,000-8,000 years prior to his attaining fatherhood. Maybe we could have another council, like that one in 325CE, to iron out the wrinkles. :-)
Or it was a holdover from the polytheistic worldview that Judaism evolved from. I favor this interpretation, actually. I think the god in Genesis was actually meant as multiple gods. I suspect the royal we usage came out of that tradition, rather than the other way around. The word elohim is actually plural in Hebrew, though interpreted as singular in certain contexts, I think because the popular notion of god became singular, rather than because the word originally could be used that way. Of course that's a guess, but it makes more sense to me than that a plural would be used as a form of emphasis to show importance.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service