emotional

No, it wouldn't change the way I live (I'd advocate the humanistic life either way), but philosophically speaking, it would change the way I viewed the cosmos. If a Mind began it, then it must have some sort of (yet unknown) purpose. If no Mind began it, then there is no purpose. It would be nice to know if this whole damn thing has a purpose or not, if only to satisfy philosophical curiosity...



That's a logical fallacy called Appeal to Consequences.

Normal

Well you wouldn't be the first one to want this curiosity satisfied.

Actually both reasons are appeals to consequences. Here's another example:

Reason 3: I believe in god because I fear death.

That's an appeal to fear, also a fallacy. Also:

Reason 4: I believe in god because otherwise the universe would be purposeless.

Is also an appeal to consequences.

But these reasons can still distinush between theists and atheists, despite the obvious fallacies.

Wyz_sub10

The above quotes are very different in meaning from your original comments.

But to address each reason as presented here:

Reason 1: No, this would reflect the thinking of a theist who doesn't like what god does. Once you've accepted that god "does" something, you have accepted his existence.

It sounds like such a person would be saying, rather, that they did not want to believe in such a god, but they do and therefore reject him. That is a theistic position, IMO, as it implies the rejection of a god you don't agree with.

Reason 2: This is stating a rejection of a certain god - one who controls functions. This position comes from a somewhat "testable observation," but I'm not sure this position has anything to do with atheism. I'm sure many theists reject this kind of god, as well.

Neither reasons reveal atheism. Reason 1 is a theistic position. Reason 2 is simply a rejection of a narrowly-defined god that could be promulgated by anyone - theist or atheist.

Theli

Why is that?
If this purpose (future plans) that you have predicted based on the idea of god did unfold then the dilemma you are facing today will be solved, however if has not, you would do best in assuming that the universe has no purpose as you cannot identify it's creator (plan-maker).
I think there are two main errors in your line of thinking, the first is that you invent a possible conclution before examining the evidence. As without the evidence you cannot identify this existence (in this case god) or even that there is something to identify.
The other is that you are using a very agnostic interpretation of truth and knowledge, where you reject any claim based on the remote possibillity that it is wrong.
You mentioned the flat earth example. Before any evidence were gathered that questioned the "flatness" of the earth or argued for a round earth then people had no reason to assume that the earth was anything other than flat. We cannot base our knowledge on evidence we don't have.
Strong atheism doesn't assume any specific state of affairs, it just denies states of affairs where gods exists. That doesn't rule out any possibilites though regardless of what some hairy agnostics likes to think.

Goober

Emotional, I have a question for you.

How do you rule out the existence of invisible pink unicorns that live in remote locations around the globe? How do you decide that there is not a small blue teapot orbiting jupiter? How do you rule out the possibility that atoms are really held together by monkeys that are so tiny they cannot be detected by any instruments, if the monkeys act exactly like the forces we observe?

I know how I do, but if you do not think we should apply Occam's razor to all these theories, then on what logical basis do you rule them out?

Jamie_L

That's not necessarily true. There could have been a purpose for the act of creation, but no real purpose for the events in this universe, or even the continued existence of this universe. Think of all the things we do that have no significant purpose, or produce byproducts with no purpose unto themselves. Especially considering the "hands off" attitude of a deist-type God, it seems that believing in such God still offers no significant information about why the universe is here.

So, in a way, the deist God really doesn't have a lot of explanatory power from a philosophical standpoint. It may provide a good First Cause, but that seems to me to be about it.

Jamie

Normal

A person born into Christianity will be told that god sends people to hell. By rejecting the idea of hell, they in turn reject the idea of god, therefore, the reasoning is valid.

This person is forever condemned to be a theist?

So the theistic position is rejection of god(s)? The conclusion does not substitute in another god, it rejects the existence of god outright.

Calvinists believe that god controls your destiny. By rejecting this idea, a person also rejects the existence of god (in their opinion anyway).

Calvinists believe that god preordains every action.

It seems rather disingenuous that you have labeled both people as theists; both reasons end with the conclusion of "I don't believe in god". What is a sufficient reason for atheism in your opinion?

Consider the following examples:

Reason 3: If god exists he doesn't give evidence of his existence. I don't like the idea of a god that doesn't give evidence of his existence. Therefore, I don't believe in god.

One of the most common atheistic positions is, by the same logic, basically a theistic position? This person is rejecting god based on something god does (or doesn't) do. Consider:

Reason 4: If god exists, he doesn't send me cookies. I don't like the idea of a god that doesn't send me cookies. Therefore, I don't believe in god.

Again, rejecting god based on something he does (or doesn't) do. Although more ridiculous, it is the same pattern of logic as before.

emotional

I don't rule them out. It's just that invisible pink unicorns isn't an interesting question, so I don't delve into it much. IPUs, orbiting teapots and tiny monkeys aren't pertinent to questions of purpose and afterlife, whereas God is.

The belief of God is of a different class altogether than beliefs of IPUs and orbiting teapots. It's a meaningful belief. It has relevance. It has occupied people for thousands of years. I don't care whether the earth moves by being pushed by angels or not. I do care about the questions of purpose and afterlife.

emotional

Even so, thinking that there is a purpose for the act of creation sets one's mind worlds apart from thinking there is none.

On the contrary, if evolution is the will of God, then there must be a message in it for us as human beings. There's a whole branch of metaphysics called evolution theology, which is especially expressed in spiritualist and theosophical writings. If theistic evolution is true, then there must be a good philosophical reason for it. Remember that such a religion as Christianity rests solely upon the theological message of special creation (as in YEC, not as in the various OEC compromises). A change of the method by which God created necessitates a change of theology, so that Christianity is no longer tenable (haha ... so much for the apologists of compatibility between Christianity and evolution).

If evolution is not the will of God, if it is atheistic, then the message for mankind is that we should go and bask in the sun as much as we can, since there is really nothing else to it.

Jamie_L

Granted. I'm reminded of a quote in "How We Believe" by Michael Shermer. Don't remember who it's by, but to paraphrase:

Sometimes I think there is a God.
Sometimes I think we are alone.
Either way the thought is staggering.

Quite possible. My point was that a deistic God may not really have willed evolution. Since a deistic God is inherintly unknowable, perhaps he created the universe to watch the exciting interaction of sub-atomic particles. All this macro-stuff could be just a by-product. It seems that having any knowledge of what God willed requires a God that isn't as far removed as a deistic God.

Well, again, if you want to posit a supernatural entity, then we really don't know. Maybe evolution wasn't his intent, but maybe he took an interest in it. Maybe he plans to bring us all back after the "big crunch" and have a party. But if there is no God what-so-ever, then, yea. There isn't much else to it.

Jamie