diana

Hi, moore. Welcome to II. For the record, I appreciate your tone. It appears that you think we're arrogant and missing something vital, but you've thus far been very polite in how you put it.

As braces_for_impact already pointed out, you might start by looking into what most of us mean when we call ourselves "atheists." It isn't a statement of faith. Quite the opposite.

It basically means that, as far as our puny minds are capable of understanding the universe, we see no compelling reason to believe there is a deity. Also as far as my puny mind is capable of reasoning (speaking only for myself), a god who would create me to think for myself, then punish me for using that mind to the greatest extent possible is not worthy of my worship.

You might consider delving into the Santa Clause analogy. We don't know Santa doesn't really exist any more than we don't know a god doesn't exist. But for some reason, no one has a problem when I state unequivocally that Santa doesn't exist. Why do they come from together when I make the exact same statement about God?

When faced with lack of evidence, not to mention contradictory "facts," it isn't a statement of faith to state that no god exists. It's merely a common sense default.

Do you really think any god would be pleased with your just-in-case "worship"? Is this real belief, even? Can you choose to believe something, then really believe it? My answer is no to all of these. (I just thought I'd toss in a few more of the rebuttals to Pascal's Wager, since everybody else jumped on the False Dichotomy problem.)

d

Normal

I think it's weird how people who study about the "phyical existence of the world" and try hard to understand the universe seem to automatically come to the conclusion that god does not exist (well, not in general, just on this board).

So far, there's two compelling arguments for the existence of god: the design argument, and the first cause argument. Aside from that, if a god does exist and wants you to worship him (or at least have faith), why would he only make his existence known to the top 5% scientists in the world? You can only know god if you have an IQ over 200? Over 130? Over 100? Does anyone really expect cosmologist, biologists, etc. to come up with conclusive evidence that a god does exist, thus validating everyone's faith in the world and pretty much forcing faith upon everyone?

That doesn't seem to make sense.

It's far more likely that the ant's on an ant hill analogy is true. Just as ants cannot come to know the complete works of William Shakespeare (though those works are knowABLE), humans cannot come to KNOW everything that is knowABLE.

diana

I suppose the first time you heard of Garth Brooks, you thought he'd "automatically" become a star, too. No dues to be paid, no work, no rejection, no learning from mistakes. Just...opens his mouth to sing and someone makes him a billionaire. Is that how it works?

My point, of course, is that it's mighty presumptuous of you, to say the least, to state that we (the members of this board), in an effort to understand the universe, "automatically" came to the conclusion that god does not exist. I assure you...my conclusion that gods don't exist was about as "automatic" as the construction of the Winchester mansion.

You seem to use the term "compelling" much looser than I do. Or perhaps you meant to imply that these arguments are compelling to people who would rather not bother thinking about it much.

These are both awwwwwwe arguments. The Design "Looky that tree!" Argument, and the First Cause "but God just is, dammit" Argument. They're compellingly pathetic. They work only if you can get your audience to watch the birdie and ignore the hand in your pocket.

True. But I have a better question for you: why is it that there is such a strong correlation between intelligence, education and non-belief, and an equally strong correlation between stupidity, ignorance and belief? The less education and intelligence people have, the more likely they are to believe in their society's deity. Why is that? Does God just have something against smart people?

Yeah. My ant colony was doing good to get through Antony and Cleopatra and just couldn't get into The Merry Wives of Windsor at all (then again, who can?), so I dig what you're saying.

But seriously. Argument from ignorance. So what if we can't come to know everything that's knowable? (And why are you capitalizing "ABLE" like that? Is that supposed to be some weird subliminal message?)

Or maybe we can come to know everything that's knowable. Upon what basis do you insist we can't? Just because a spiderant (<--a new hybrid creature I've created specially for this thread) can't know Shakespeare (you assume), but we can, how is this proof that there is therefore some being that knows stuff we can't? Don't we run into the problem of infinite regression here? If so, you might reexamine the First Cause Argument, as it claims this is not possible. If not, then what makes you think knowledge doesn't stop with us?

d

Normal

This is the only part of your message I'm going to reply to, and I'll give you an answer to why that "correlation" may or may not be true.

The fallacy of human pride.

If you haven't read it, I'd recommend reading Socrates' "Apology" (it was anything but), and try to get the message of what Socrates was saying about the "wisdom" of craftsmen, poets, and politicians.

Also: I didn't mean to stereotype EVERYONE on this board, it's just a tendancy I've noticed, which may or may not be true.

diana

Too bad. I thought this was the bit that was worthy of discussion:

Or maybe we can come to know everything that's knowable. Upon what basis do you insist we can't? Just because a spiderant (<--a new hybrid creature I've created specially for this thread) can't know Shakespeare (you assume), but we can, how is this proof that there is therefore some being that knows stuff we can't? Don't we run into the problem of infinite regression here? If so, you might reexamine the First Cause Argument, as it claims this is not possible. If not, then what makes you think knowledge doesn't stop with us?

Will this explain to me what the fallacy of human pride is?

My point was that you'd be hard pressed to prove than anyone automatically adopted a godless view upon attempting to understand the universe. I think what you've noticed here is many people who attempt to understand the universe and have at some point concluded (whether it is related to their attempt to understand the universe or not) that it isn't reasonable to hold a belief in a god. Simply because people are observed to do both in no way implies they are related.

The conclusions you drew from your observations are the result of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

d

Normal

On what basis do you believe human's can know everything that's knowable? Because the next most intelligent species we know of is an ape? Because it's so unbelievable that the universe was made with documents akin to what the works of William Shakespere would look like to ants? Because if human's couldn't know everything that is knowable, it would just be so frustrating to not know all the answers?

By the way, I'm not trying to "prove" anything, I'm just stating my opinion.

Yes, it's a good read too.

Actually, they are not the result of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (I can't believe you actually made me look that up), I was merely refering to the people who learn about the big bang, evolution, etc., and come to the conclusion that there's no room for god anymore, which some people obviously do.

Wyz_sub10

What documents are those? And how on earth would you know what Shakespeare looks like to ants?

Hawkingfan

It's not "automatic", but granted, alot of people who study physics lack a belief in god. But why is that weird?

Hawkingfan

Theists love to say the universe is complex, but that is not an established fact at all. The complexity of the universe is debatable. Your above analysis actually works against the theist argument. If you conclude the universe is complex, and therefore must have a creator who is more intelligent, then that intelligent creator must have a super-intelligent creator, who had a super-super-intelligent creator, who had...

Normal

I'm claiming they are unknowable to us, meaning I don't know. It was an analogy.

I don't, but I assume ants don't go back to the 'ole hill and cozy up to Hamlet to ponder human existence.