Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Surely, being an agnostic is the only logical belief?
but doesn't mean you can prove God doesn't exist as much as someone can. So they're both flawed "rules" or lives.
probably the only person that does i reckon
Humanity is disappoint.
We should all make an effort to practise every established faith in equal amounts, including atheism.
It's pretty alright, actually
Christian's be pickin up all the poon these days
look at you all sexy. you love it in the wrong place. oh yeah.
Muslims seem to do OK as well
therefore it must exist.
by his noodly appendage.
Except the logic is God made the universe. Everything HAD to come from somewhere. I mean, that's a fact. So there is a logical argument for God. Not a spaghetti spider.
That someone wrote a story about the world starting, therefore it might be true?
Tell you what, I'll write something about how the world is formed from papier mache and sticky-back plastic.
We're basically talking two hypothesis:
Hypothesis A: The Universe as we know it had a creator.
Hypothesis B: The Universe came from nothing.
You can see why people believe Hypothesis A, given how mind blowingly mental both of them sound, and given our limited understanding of the universe A doesn't seem entirely implausible.
Thus the OP asks, why be atheist over being agnostic? Where is the sense in believing Hypothesis B when there is no evidence to support it over Hypothesis B? Why not sit on the fence and feel superior to everyone?
Just a creator.
This being can be completely beyond our comprehension. Our existence could be, for one example, the doing of an advanced but unimaginable intelligence that was able to create life. Surely in terms of infinity this isn't that unlikely - if you're willing to accept life 'came from nothing' at some point, then surely it could also 'come from something', from a 'creator'.
Obviously this only leads to the questions of what 'created' the 'creator' or 'God'. But it's really no more of a stretch of the imagination than the alternative.
We continue to test Hypothesis A, but in all likelihood, we won't confirm either in our lifetime. Don't sweat it, believe what you want.
The universe didn't come from nothing, it's infinite, so the idea of a 'beginning' in our current four dimensional sense is a fallacy - time didn't exist before the big bang. (or see M-Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_%28M-theory%29)
If God clearly hasn't done anything (accepting that all the Bible stories are just that - stories) since the big bang, then there really is no point having him in the scheme of things; Occam's razor says that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. Despite how complex the idea of an infinite non-starting neverending big-bang sounds, it's probably a lot simpler than a bearded guy who decided to start a universe but then not leave any evidence for his existence or correct the millions of talking primates that evolved a few billions of years later and wrote lots of silly, inaccurate things about him and blew each other up in his name. It's also a pretty convoluted way to make worshippers to cure your lonliness, and what about the omnipotence? Couldn't he just make a family of gods to keep him company? Oh yeah, the Hittites/Greeks/Romans etc figured that one out but now Christians/Muslims/Hindus etc mock them for being wrong...and we're going in a big circle. The whole thing is easier if you just write God out
Imagine we live inside a universe created by another intelligent being. Picture this as some sort of machine, a big metal tube containing our universe.
Suddenly, our universe is not actually infinite, but due to relative 'size' of our planet to that of the universe created within, we will never know this. We would foolishly assume infinity, due to our pathetic knowledge of the tube.
...I'm just going to stop writing this theory here. I can't be bothered.
The point is we can't write out a creator. What then lies beyond that and whatever kind of unimaginable context our creator inhabits is mind blowingly incomprehensible.
YES. I understand that this theory I've just come up with is almost infinitely unlikely to be the actual answer, but I think it helps demonstrate that it is intellectually naive to be an atheist, given that the consideration of a 'creator' or multiple possibilities doesn't cost you anything. Why just rule out Hypothesis A with no substantial evidence? Any hypothesis test requires a fine degree of certainty before discarding one of the possibilities.
As for the argument of religion vs. atheism (which is what most of your post deals with), a man with a beard, wars etc. etc. that isn't what's being debated here.
in that it would care about, or even be able to control, things like its own loneliness, creating life, etc.? For me, if there is a creator, it would have to be the Universe itself. It seems hard to believe it doesn't have some kind of will in organising itself in the way it has, or at least the initial burst of creativity.
I'm not arguing that there is a God, I'm arguing that atheism might be flawed.
I'm also not talking at all about religion or religious texts or figures in any way (other than the big man).
Among many other reasons obviously to do with control, community etc. etc.
But basically the 'God made everything' argument stems from a time when people were scared of how little they knew and were looking for an easy explanation, whereas now we'd rather, y'know, try and actually understand things.
God must have come from somewhere, what created God?
that a celestial spaghetti spider couldn't have created the universe?
Because as far as logic goes, it makes as much sense as that God version.
Spaghetti monster created the universe and his noodly existence has touched theoretical physics in the form of string (i.e. noodle) theory.
the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real??
what is this
Moreover, given the size of the universe, the infinity of space, and thus the potential for an infinite number of universes and combinations of lifeforms, we cannot and should not disprove the concept of the giant spaghetti monster, but at the same time should be wary of confirming it's existence.
a giant spaghetti monster.
THE INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE MOUNTS UP.
I'm merely having a pop at athiests. They're claiming God doesn't exist. I know the onus isn't on them to prove God does exist BUT it's illogical to be 100% atheist when you can't prove otherwise.
Also: Where did everything come from. You know, stuff. It's a pretty compelling argument.
"I ought to call myself an agnostic".
So, he probably agrees with my reasoning.
The teapot cunt.
unless you're equating 'god' with everything that's unexplained. However, 'god' has a defined presence and form common to all religions that means your argument isn't a compelling one for Agnosticism.
and is stupid. But really, shit had to come from somewhere. It's back to Littlebirds post:
Hypothesis A: The Universe as we know it had a creator.
Hypothesis B: The Universe came from nothing.
We don't know either so being agnostic is probably "the most logical".
That's all I'm saying.
Atheism is the rejection of belief in god because there is no evidence
Say you don't know one way or the other. Or care.
until then there is no need to have to prove that something does not exist if there is absolutely no evidence for it. If you replaced 'God' with something else that had absolutely no evidence and demanded everyone accepted it to be true you would be branded delusional or a lunatic
Ctl + F Russell's teapot
Imagine how cool it would be to have a Pokemon!
OR IS IT?
That amazing and unexpected thing MIGHT be God but at that point God would have been proved to exist.
Being an atheist means you have no faith in something existing without proof.
with theism and athiesm on either side, which gives a completely false sense of balance to the argument.
In actual fact there are multiple shades of agnosticism, and the most extreme one, ie being all but certain there is no god, is the most likely one.
Sorry, I should say the documentary Dogma.
she mighta asked if i had a moment to talk about how god can prevent the eternal damnation of humankind actually
and thats why the god squad are always bothering me
you're being a little bit daft.
okay, i accept that believing something came from nothing is just as bonkers as believing a god-being created existence.
a lot of scientists don't necessarily believe something came out of nothing. they have so many theories about what was here before the present universe it boggles the mind.
notice i used the term "theories." "theory", in science, is a term used to describe a hypothesis one can test using all available scientific knowledge to either prove or disprove its truth. for example, the so-called 'god particle' was one such "theory" or "proposition", if you will, that the scientific community were finally able to find evidence for fifty years after it was initially conceived. at present, scientists can test their current "theory" of the origin of the universe (big bang) by estimating the rate of cosmic drift (the way planetary bodies are drifting away from each other), examining samples of matter and using physics and quantum mechanics to work out how old the universe is. it's perfectly possible there was a first cause, perhaps even a celestial or supernatural (to us) being who acted as a first cause.
but hypothesis b (see above) states nothing more than "something cannot come out of nothing". it does not ask what created the creator, why the creator created creation, or how a "theory" mankind has had for most of its history is still no closer to being proven after almost 250,000 years of speculation, ritual, superstition, incantation and temple building.
also, atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural based upon the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of the paranormal. but no serious atheist, being people of science, would ever say they were 100% sure there was no god or whatever, because it would be an unscientific statement.
What's the difference between that and any other hypothesis? We should look into all of them. An agnostic wouldn't mind that. An atheist would. That's my logic. It's a bit screwed up I know. I should think about how I argue it more.
Atheism isn't a "lack of belief" it's saying "there is no God". An agnostic is like "yeah maybe there is, maybe there isn't, cool beans bitches".
I know there is evidence for a big bang, a big d-brane splay, multiple universes and M theory but they're all trying to find out where evetything came from. Surely you agree that there is even a tiny chance it came from God, if only because science and logic dictate that something can come from nothing. If you think there's even the tiniest reason to accept that logic, even a remote drifting and begrudging acceptance, then that's being agnostic. Accepting that chance.
Atheism says there is no chance thus flawed.
you are fundamentally misunderstanding both the concept of a theory, and the concept of faith.
agnosticism = not knowing
atheism = not believing
so yeah. Not mutually exclusive. I'M NOT DEFENDING "NEW ATHEISM" (had to make that clear)
Cool band name
if you agree that the idea of a religious god is silly.
there might as well be no god. it makes literally no difference.
therefore i'm an atheist
hopefully i've killed the thread
because of this, I dont have to prove anything.
or do I?
1) Humans can be shown to be very LIKELY to anthropomorphise that which gave 'birth' to matter, energy, stars, planets, rocks, plants and animals (witness 'poker playing dogs' picture, witness 'lady luck' 'jack frost' WWII bombers etc)
2) it is not possible to show that there is a god.
3) of course if you substitute the word 'god' for 'forces for creation', then a lot more people would be onside
But she believes in me.
The answer to this thread is: yes, atheists cannot be 100% sure, even Richard Militant-Atheist Dawkins admits that. Basically it's because science is never 100% sure...if a theory fits the available evidence then that is accepted, but if a better theory comes along that fits the evidence, well, better, then that theory is accepted and the old theory is thrown out. If God appeared at Danny Boyle's Olympic opener on Friday then atheists would say "fair enough, the evidence is overwhelming, God exists".
On the other hand, check out religion, they have ancient books to uphold and to fit the facts to...WHICH IS THE WRONG WAY ROUND
By the sounds of it if God appeared at Danny Boyle's Olympic opener it might just save a somewhat shit sounding Olympic opener
LAGER LAGER LAGER
think you can atleast prove that things didnt go down the way described in religious texts in terms of creation etc. which throws into doubt anything else they say, so while you cant prove a god doesnt exists to me that doesnt support anyone making that argument because you can know for sure that key parts of their religion didnt happen and infer from that their god doesnt exist atleast
as calling bullshit!
that's what my money's on