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: 8776

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That is funny, that is the first defense every theist uses.

Whoa dude, I can't coherently defend my churches actions! I'm really just a deist!

Pussyfooting on the field 10yd penalty!
The first defense every theist uses - Meh. I know quite a few who won't readily admit that their holy book is imperfect enough to present an inaccurate definition of their god - if at all. Not that I couldn't live without them on the playing field - unless I'm the referee ;-)
Most people serious about their position will tend to re-frame the debate towards deism. If they don't the debate turns typically turns into straw men and appeals to authority. You get Hitler! No you do! I call Einstein! Crusades!

Plus, it is lot easier to defend a god that has no active role in the universe than to defend a personified god with human failings.
"You get Hitler! No you do! I call Einstein! Crusades!"

Daniel, is there a home version of this game show?
I don't recommend it but it's called "The God Delusion".

Just imagine Dawkins getting a fundamentalist talking point memo and deciding to argue every point on it, no matter how inane.
Even if the pope cured cancer, what would it prove about the existence of god? Nothing!

Harris does a great job of outlining the 3 arguments people make for religion (about 11.5m in):

1. Atheism is bad/wrong
2. Religion is moral/useful
3. Religion X is true

But this is a composition fallacy; the first two points can not prove or disprove the third point.

PS
I don't want to bury this lead, Bill what you doing doing with Catholics online? ;]
I refer all Catholics to Deliver us from Evil, a documentary about pedophilia and the church. If anyone can watch that and stay a Catholic they have no heart.
> they brush it off as it happens everywhere

Well I guess it is all right then!

If you don't think organized child rape is an issue because of your faith then you are in a CULT and if you support them [financially] then you are culpable.

Just keep showing them the Kool-aid or Flavor Aid as it were.
The scientific approach would indeed dictate that the answer can only be in the maginitude of 99.99999... %; after all, there's no hard-core evidence against the god hypothesis, only ridiculously extreme odds. But I'm afraid that if you say anything less than the full 100%, sooner or later you're going to receive a resounding thump of a Bible over your head, accompanied with the ever so predictable "see, even you cannot be entirely sure, that means that you DO believe deep down inside!"
The chance that a god exists is exactly one in infinity. The same odds that any made up BS exists. The chances that flubnard exists is also one in infinity. Same with the likelihood of gamnaps. This is effectively the same as being sure that a god does not exist. We are as sure as it is possible to be. One in infinity is the number we should be using. Although it is not really possible to have less of a chance than one in infinity, it is important to recognize that a belief in a god requires a huge string of ridiculous myths and false assumptions. It is not just one belief. One must believe that there is an invisible reality that exists within our universe, that a god can be created out of nothing (even though the universe cannot), that a god that floats in emptiness with no point of reference would be able to think about what the universe should be and then gather the materials to make it look the way it does, etc. That is just the deists. If you have a sect or denomination you must heap on hundreds of other unsubstantiated assumptions and legends which each have a one in infinity chance of being true. That usually would decrease your chances of being right but 1 in infinity is the worst possible odds. Each time you make up a new belief, infinity gets bigger (so to speak) instead of your chances getting smaller.
Love your honesty: "emotional as fuck".

None of us are purely rational. We wouldn't be human if we were. Still, that does not, or should not, prevent us from using our rationality as best we can. I mean, imagine making every decision based on things like our "gut feelings". I think it was Carl Sagan who said, "I try not to think with my gut". I second that.

Still, emotion or 'gut feeling' has its place and can be a useful guide in some circumstances. For example, it would be difficult to see how one could make a rational decision about when and with whom to fall in love. Love doesn't work like that. It knows nothing of rationality. And immediate emotional responses are useful in immediatley dangerous situations - the 'fight or flight' response, for example. However, it is the amygdala (that deep seated area that we inherited from reptiles) rather than the frontal cortex (that part of the brain that makes us human) that comes into play and predominates in such dangerous situations.

For other decisions of uniquely human concern such as "What is ethical?", "How ought we to live?", "What is the mass of the electron?", "Does god exist?", all these concerns rely on that frontal area that makes us what we are.

For those interested in the dichotomy between the rational brain and the emotional brain, between the right and left hemispheres and their interplay in decision making, I can recommend a recent book: "The Decisive Moment. How the Brain Makes up its Mind", Jonah Lehrer, The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne, 2009. A really good read!

Cheers

Rob
My two cents. I do not believe and here are some of my own personal reasons why:

If I imagine that the god's exist then they do, as an electro-chemical or biological process of my grey matter, which I can easily replace with the invention of a new concept(or by playing World of Warcraft). I do believe that the god's exist as an optional escape route to be taken during a flight or fight response to fear, but this is easily replaceable by me 'manning up' and becoming courageous. I believe that there are no Atheists in foxholes only cowards and very smelly people. I once believed that the god's existed as a Ideological Construct of Control with sole dominion over ignorance, but I replaced that idea by becoming edgumaucated. I believe that Mythology is the historical study of Blissful Ignorance.
As far as I have learned, the universe is a 'closed system' thus, all that existed in the beginning - should exist now; as either energy, matter or on the cartoon channel. I have learned that proof of the existence of George Carlin's, "Supernatural Stuff" should be verifiable by scientific inquiry. No proofs exist, only speculation, theories and conspiracies surrounding a huge hill of lost left socks.
I believe that Faith is an indescribable emotional response to the fear of being proven ignorant, no person wishes to be considered an idiot (without their consent). I also believe that Zealotry is the delusional response to the utter terror felt from the possibility of losing control over the meek and ignorant labor class. The guilt of Traditional Sin begets consumption (and welfare babies) which begets an ignorant labor class, which begets the pursuit of a hope, of getting on TV, that can never be achieved in this life time.
I think that if the majority believes in the god's then the minority is incorrect in its non-belief; I believe that this is a false statement. The majority claims unique dominion over a singular common theme, the Atheist is incapable of verifying this claim. In other words the existence of an entity should be factual and verifiable to all humans, at all times, and devoid of conflicting personal experience and multiple delusional disorders.
Unique experience is unverifiable by another person; only the memory of the experience can be communicated to another via (often unreliable and inaccurate) symbolic grammar, but no two individuals will share the exact same meaning or diction to define the experience. Just because it looks like a purple dinosaur does not mean it is a purple dinosaur, it could be a man in a purple dinosaur costume.

The god's did exist once as a self replicating meme designed to ease the process of cohabitation i.e. in the form of a directive to 'love thy neighbor.' Vacations to Tahiti are the replacement memetic.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service