Thread: Atheists

Originally Posted by Vengeful Scars

When what you believe in only relies on Faith, then trying to prove what you believe in ignores the concept of 'Faith'.

You have to prove that it relies on faith, and that the faith is foolish. Science relies on faith in induction, but this faith isn't a bad thing at all.

Consider, for example, Gödel's ontological argument. You can attack any of the axioms, and a religious person can try to defend it. Such a discussion would be perfectly rational without any talk of faith.

Originally Posted by gwahir

did, uh, did you read the rest?

No, sorry, I skimmed it.

Originally Posted by gwahir

the only remaining possibility is that he created us and doesn't give a shit about our suffering. i refuse to believe that.

Is your favour for omnibenevolence purely for personal reasons? Imagine God as a scientist-like entity who creates the world as an experiment and merely observes. Is this scenario inconceivable or abhorrent to you? Also sorry if you explained this earlier.

Originally Posted by gwahir

it's that inconsistency -- that inability to fit with what i KNOW is decent, just, moral and good -- is why i am completely confident there is no god.

This is a really strong statement. To back it up, you'd have to establish a coherent moral theory. As far as I can tell, believing in morality requires some serious faith—much less faith than belief in the existence of God, and much more faith than belief in induction. I'm not saying this to be a pedantic prick (nor am I to you, VS) with a position like "you're just as bad as them." What I mean is there's say a hierarchy of faiths that looks something like this:

1. Belief in the existence of yourself / your consciousness
2. Belief in the existence of the physical world
3. Belief in the existence of other consciousnesses
4. Belief in induction
5. ???
6. Belief in the existence of true moral propositions
7. ???
8. Belief in the existence of god(s)
9. ???
10. Belief in the existence of heaven / hell / invisible unicorns

So you can draw the line somewhere between morality and god and say only faith in things listed above it is worthwhile. This approach may appear relativist, but it's super hard to argue that any of them except #1 requires absolutely no leap of faith whatsoever.

Originally Posted by gwahir

when we claim to know something scientifically, we know it. we may learn in the future that it's more complicated than we think, or we have some details wrong, but we know it.

Your conception of knowledge is sort of loose, even if it's common sense. Is Newtonian physics knowledge? My answer is no, not really. Do you have any knowledge of morality? I believe not.

Originally Posted by mutton

Is your favour for omnibenevolence purely for personal reasons? Imagine God as a scientist-like entity who creates the world as an experiment and merely observes. Is this scenario inconceivable or abhorrent to you? Also sorry if you explained this earlier.

I didn't explain it earlier, no. I just sort of let it hang.

Basically, yes. I feel guilty enough knowing how many live in absolute misery around the world, and not devoting literally every speck of energy I have to improving things. Imagine how guilty I'd feel if I were omnipotent. We're taught by pretty much all religions (as discussed earlier) that we are to be kind to others and treat them as we would ourselves, but we have a terrible role model in our holy father.

The idea that god is sitting back and viewing us as lab rats in an experiment -- or watching us try to work our own way through a brutish natural life -- is abhorrent to me. As you say, this is abhorrent to me. I can conceive it, it's just a combination of abhorrent and unconvicing.

Originally Posted by mutton

This is a really strong statement. To back it up, you'd have to establish a coherent moral theory. As far as I can tell, believing in morality requires some serious faith—much less faith than belief in the existence of God, and much more faith than belief in induction. I'm not saying this to be a pedantic prick (nor am I to you, VS) with a position like "you're just as bad as them." What I mean is there's say a hierarchy of faiths that looks something like this:

...

So you can draw the line somewhere between morality and god and say only faith in things listed above it is worthwhile. This approach may appear relativist, but it's super hard to argue that any of them except #1 requires absolutely no leap of faith whatsoever.

You're totally right. And I've wrestled with this for a while. My only answer is that, logical or not, we need morality to survive as a species and improve the world. The same cannot be said for religious faith.

Originally Posted by mutton

Your conception of knowledge is sort of loose, even if it's common sense. Is Newtonian physics knowledge? My answer is no, not really. Do you have any knowledge of morality? I believe not.

Mmm, I was more or less using the "common sense" understanding of science. I'm not using it in any philosophically precise way. All I mean is, when modern scientists claim to know something, there are far more rigorous scientific standards in place before you can call it knowledge than there were a hundred years ago.

Originally Posted by mutton

Is your favour for omnibenevolence purely for personal reasons? Imagine God as a scientist-like entity who creates the world as an experiment and merely observes. Is this scenario inconceivable or abhorrent to you? Also sorry if you explained this earlier.

I know this was directed at gwahir, but this possibility seems not inconceivable but rather inconsequential. Why would we treat such a god differently we treat, say, Da Vinci or Einstein? As in, respected, perhaps revered, but not worshiped. To the extent that a God does not expect anything of believers and punish non-believers, I'm not sure there is a difference between God and no-God other than simple curiosity and the quest for knowledge about the nature of reality.

To put it simply: if God is just there, a being floating around, maybe the spiritual energy in the universe, maybe occupying another dimension we can't conceive of (however one defines god, and however god could possibly exist), I would be interested to know that such a God existed, I would find it fascinating, but ultimately it would be like finding out that there was another type of galaxy we didn't know about. Obviously proving the existence of a God would be significantly more profound than that, but it would not change my life at all. I would imagine most atheists are significantly more non-religious than they are atheistic. I can't speak for everybody, it's just the nature of atheism that you are open to and interested in scientific possibilities (if I am generalizing too much about atheism here let me know, I can really only speak for myself and the few atheists have had real conversations with about the subject). That being the case, my life would remain the same in the presence of a God that is not attached to any religion.

Of course, if it were PROVEN to me without a shadow of a doubt that one of the religions actually has it right (let's call that extremely unlikely), then I would willingly follow that religion as closely as I could. But to be blunt, I don't see that happening, so it's not something I have to worry about.