Shadowy Man

Well, the next time someone suggests legislation on the basis that there is(are) no god(s), we'll perk our separation ears up.

Godless Wonder

CD, (at the risk of feeding the troll :-)

Perhaps I am wrong, but you appear to simply repeat your question until someone gives you something close to the answer you already have decided upon.

What does "religious" mean to you?

You appear to think that to not believe in something when there is no evidence for that thing either way is somehow "religious." You also appear to refuse to accept that non-belief in god(s) is analogous to non-belief in the IPU. I surmise that you perceive a difference between the two: that the universe exists, and so possibly something created it, that is god(s), whereas there are not exactly IPU droppings everywhere leading one to think of IPUs. You (or some people, anyway) perceive the universe as being possibly an artifact of a supernatural creature who is not directly perceivably by us.

I think you are asking, is it a matter of faith to believe that the universe just happened, rather than being created?

Now, I may weigh the possibility of an IPU existing, and I can assign it a probability. That probability will be low. Hardly distinguishable from zero. So, I don't believe in the IPU. Nobody tries to accuse me of "having faith" that the IPU doesn't exist.

Now, am I permitted to weigh the possibility of an intelligent supernatural, invisible, imperceivable creature being responsible for the creation of the entire universe? Permitted or not, I do so, and the probability I assign comes out to be pretty much the same probability that I assign for the IPU. I look at the universe, and to me, it decidedly does not look designed. It looks to me, very much like it merely happened. Now, you may or may not agree with my assessment, but that is of no matter. The question is, does my assessment of this probability involve faith? I say that it does not, and who can know but me?

How close to zero am I allowed to assign the value of this probability before I am guilty of faith?

To paraphrase Feynman, The question is not "Is there a god", but "how sure is it that there is not a god." For me, the answer turns out to be that it is so very close to certain that for practical purposes, I am certain there is no god.

Well probably I didn't say anything others haven't said already.

reprise

A question for you Charles. The US Constitution most certainly reflects a belief system. Would you say that belief in and adherence to the principles of the US Constitution qualifies as a "religious" belief?

Bumble Bee Tuna

"I do not believe God exists" is NOT equal to "I believe God doesn't exist".

Try it yourself! Is "I do not believe God exists. I also do not believe God does not exist. I hold no beliefs whatsoever regarding God's existence". Look, no contradictions. A lack of believe in a positive is not a belief in a negative.

But, assuming you've realized your error on that point already, and you would like to narrow discussion to "strong atheists", you should know this-

Most strong atheists (myself included) aren't strong atheists towards all hypothetical deities. We are merely strong atheists towards the existence of defined Gods, such as Yahweh. The Bible is a treasure trove of evidence that allows us to safely claim, based on evidence, that Yahweh does not exist. Thus, we have strong atheist beliefs with regard to Yahweh. But the God you're talking about is an undefined "First Cause" kind of God. There is absolutely no information available about such a God, and therefore agnosticism is the only viable option. Thus, I am a strong atheist with regards to defined gods of religions, and am agnostic toward First Cause-type undefined Gods. I think you will find most strong atheists are the same.

So yes, wonderful argument, but I'm no sure you'll find anyone here in the belief category that it applies to. Basically what you need is someone who makes the claim that "I believe that the Big Bang was uncaused". I don't know if you'll find anyone who will make that claim, but maybe. Any infidels out there who make this positive belief claim?

-B

DMB

This is a non sequitur. I do not believe in A does not imply I do believe in B, regardless of what A and B are. I do not believe in A, means I lack belief in A. It does not imply that I have any positive beliefs at all. Of course, in practice we all believe certain things with varying degrees of certainty, but you cannot deduce what they are just from knowing what I do not believe.

You certainly seem keen on this idea, which I pulled from three separate places.

Once again, it looks as though you are insisting that lack of belief in A must entail a positive belief in B. It doesn't. When I wrote:
I was referring to this idea of yours. You replied:
Well, I was simply pointing out that it is possible to say, "I don't accept your explanation, even though I don't have another."

Saying that I don't find your explanation convincing, and so don't believe it, does not imply that I believe that there must exist some other explanation that would be better. I may simply be asserting that all the evidence we have so far fails to give us any explanation I find satisfactory .

I note that your explanation is that "God" created the universe. Is this the christian god, or some other one? There are, after all, a large number of religious creation myths that supply alternative explanations of the origins of the observed world.

Charles Darwin

For about the 4th time in this thread, what atheists care about is irrelevant. What we're talking about are the necessary implications of their belief that there is no God. Just because they haven't figured out all the implications of that belief doesn't mean those implications aren't there.

No, I'm not talking about faith, or trying to pigeon-hole atheists into a preconceived category. For instance, one atheist earlier in this thread said she believes the universe was created by other beings (not God, obviously). On the face of it, it sounds like there is no religious or metaphysical belief entailed. I suspect few atheists believe this, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm waiting on her reply as to why she believes this.

Well it is not as though there is some obvious explanation out there for existence. If, for example, there was a scientific theory which had a compelling explanation for how existence could arise; or how it must be something that has existed forever, etc., then atheism would appear to have more of an empirical basis. Or we could substitute consciousness in place of existence.

My point is that God is not a superfluous entity. It is not as though there are those "religious" folks out there who are opting for an unneccesary explanation while you are more parsimonious. The situation, it seems to me, does not contain this sort of asymmertry.

There are profound questions out there, and believing there is no God doesn't resolve them, or make them disappear. Whether you like it or not, your solution path must traverse the metaphysical swamp too -- just at a different location. Instead of an unmoved mover, you will have some other unprovable mechanism. Make sense?

Enlighten Me

My humble observation about this thread is that Charles Darwin is unable to tolerate ambiguity while atheists are.....

Philosoft

Okay, then let's do this. You appear to be talking about logical necessity. Show us your syllogism(s) to that end, and we'll debate the validity and soundness of said. Deal?

Quote:

Well it is not as though there is some obvious explanation out there for existence. If, for example, there was a scientific theory which had a compelling explanation for how existence could arise; or how it must be something that has existed forever, etc., then atheism would appear to have more of an empirical basis.

I'm sorry, atheism needs an "empirical basis" for what, exactly? To demonstrate the non-existence of something?

Quote:

My point is that God is not a superfluous entity. It is not as though there are those "religious" folks out there who are opting for an unneccesary explanation while you are more parsimonious. The situation, it seems to me, does not contain this sort of asymmertry.

Feh. The God-hypothesis also suffers from every ontological objection you can throw at the universe. Invoking Anselm or Kalaam is mere handwaving. Postulating God is adding unknowability on top of unknown.

Perhaps some of those questions are not so profound as you would like them to be.
No. Atheism does not require that a solution be accepted in place of the one rejected. If you think it does, show us your proof. That's the only way you're going to acheive logical necessity. Period.

Charles Darwin

I answered this earlier with this:


Good point. I'm not sure I can provide a hard and fast definition in an email post, but in rough and simple terms, it seems to me that fundamental beliefs about world are religious. Of course theism is an example, but isn't materialism also an example? Materialism says that matter and energy is all there is.

Can science explore, discover and analyze all phenomena? Are love, hate and consciousness just as amenable to scientific analysis as are bridges and rocks? Some people believe the answer is yes; that there is no spiritual realm. It seems to me that this is every bit as much a religious belief as the converse.

The point I'm trying to explore in this thread is that atheism (or perhaps strong atheism) -- the belief that there is no god -- carries with it, it seems to me, serious metaphysical implications. You cannot simply say you don't believe in God and that, oh by the way, you are free of religious beliefs. If you believe there is no God, then are you not very much committing yourself to some other fundamental beliefs about the world? I understand there may be folks who say, "Gee, I just don't know." I am not referring to those folks. I'm referring to folks who say they believe there is no God.

Good points, however, may I ask where you found out how God ought to design the universe?

Secondly, I am not saying "that to not believe in something when there is no evidence for that thing either way is somehow religious." Rather, I'm suspecting is religious is the belief that there is no God. You are very much believing in something (ie, there is no God), and that belief carries implications.

Charles Darwin

Yes, though it might be safer to say religious beliefs rather than a single religious belief. How about this: The US Constitution incorporates certain religious beliefs.