Atheism vs Theism

Well someone said to make a thread for it and they would put their two cents in because i didn't want to derail another thread.  I said that god was created by people looking for an easy answer to explain everything.  So the two that responded to me, go, say what you wanted to say.

More than likely, humans are predisposed to needing a leader or father figure to feel secure as in a pack leader or alpha male.  This predisposition would have been a great benefit for developing man's social structures.  Gods are simply an extension created to fulfill this need.  So rather than humans creating a god to explain everything, they created an uber-alpha male that leads them, protects them, watches over them, and decides things for them.  Humans didn't create a god to answer things, they created one as a byproduct of a need brought on by evolution. Ironic really, if you allow the colloquial definition of the word.

We're too predisposed as a species to seeing patterns and causal links when none exist which is how the rituals of religion get started, we make a flase link to offering a sacrifice and ending bad luck or whatever.

This is a genetic fallacy, though.

This is a genetic fallacy, though.

What is?

Well, a conclusion itself isn't to be invalidated by the way through which one came to that conclusion. It is impossible for people to have created God, since God either exists or he doesn't, and has had the same status of existing or not existing since before humans were around. If people naively came to the conclusion that he existed, it wouldn't guarantee that the only form in which he did exist was in their minds.

Now you're just dealing in semantics. When we say 'man created god' we obviously mean 'god created the idea of the character of god' we didn't literally call into being a new lifeform with supernatural powers.

What i find interesting is that mainly atheists have posted in this thread and the one who told me to make this thread along with the one who criticized me because i didn't want to derail a thread haven't posted in here. 

As for why man made up the idea of god, you have a great point pongo, but if you look at a lot of the early religions a lot of them seem to have been made as a means to explain why we are here, so maybe it's a combination of the two, or the whole alpha male thing came after, but that still seems to be present in early religions.

Well someone said to make a thread for it and they would put their two cents in because i didn't want to derail another thread.  I said that god was created by people looking for an easy answer to explain everything.  So the two that responded to me, go, say what you wanted to say.

Unfortunately, the god concept doesn't explain anything. It just complicates the equation. Using supernatural powers to will reality into existence doesn't constitute an explanation, but actually avoids it. It dodges the inquiry as to push it out of the mind by giving it a false answer. "God did it" is a far as religion goes to even attempt to provide a cause... So not only does it not contribute anything to understanding or the advancement of knowledge, but it makes large outrageous universal assumptions which corrupt many people's thoughts regarding what is known with what is believed.

Quote from: loki700 on September 17, 2009, 07:10:22 PM

Well someone said to make a thread for it and they would put their two cents in because i didn't want to derail another thread.  I said that god was created by people looking for an easy answer to explain everything.  So the two that responded to me, go, say what you wanted to say.

Unfortunately, the god concept doesn't explain anything. It just complicates the equation. Using supernatural powers to will reality into existence doesn't constitute an explanation, but actually avoids it. It dodges the inquiry as to push it out of the mind by giving it a false answer. "God did it" is a far as religion goes to even attempt to provide a cause... So not only does it not contribute anything to understanding or the advancement of knowledge, but it makes large outrageous universal assumptions which corrupt many people's thoughts regarding what is known with what is believed.

I agree completely, but it goes along with my whole people wanting an easy answer to explain something that was at the time, unexplainable. 

Well someone said to make a thread for it and they would put their two cents in because i didn't want to derail another thread.  I said that god was created by people looking for an easy answer to explain everything.  So the two that responded to me, go, say what you wanted to say.

In a nutshell, that's not a bad explanation for Gods. Although I would make one slight alteration and that would be the use of a singular god invented to explain everything. Early gods were multiple and there would have been one for each unexplained phenomenon. It's only much later that we see monotheistic religions appear. Basically as each god was picked off by growth in human knowledge and understanding all you are left with is a vacuous intangible nothingness that is now called "God".

I watched a video once that said the places people lived determined if they created a monotheistic or polytheistic society.  Desert people created a monotheistic and vengeful god while forest people (or people without the harshness of deserts) created polytheistic religions.

That' quite interesting. I suppose if I lived in a shitty desert I'd think there was some vengeful dickhead god up there somewhere too lol.

It's an hour long, but I found it interesting.

Quote from: loki700 on September 17, 2009, 07:10:22 PM

Well someone said to make a thread for it and they would put their two cents in because i didn't want to derail another thread.  I said that god was created by people looking for an easy answer to explain everything.  So the two that responded to me, go, say what you wanted to say.

In a nutshell, that's not a bad explanation for Gods. Although I would make one slight alteration and that would be the use of a singular god invented to explain everything. Early gods were multiple and there would have been one for each unexplained phenomenon. It's only much later that we see monotheistic religions appear. Basically as each god was picked off by growth in human knowledge and understanding all you are left with is a vacuous intangible nothingness that is now called "God".

Yeah, well i should have said gods, because the early ones weren't singular.  It's mainly that all of the things the individual gods did was taken and put into one god. 

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on September 18, 2009, 09:08:06 AM

Quote from: loki700 on September 17, 2009, 07:10:22 PM

Well someone said to make a thread for it and they would put their two cents in because i didn't want to derail another thread.  I said that god was created by people looking for an easy answer to explain everything.  So the two that responded to me, go, say what you wanted to say.

In a nutshell, that's not a bad explanation for Gods. Although I would make one slight alteration and that would be the use of a singular god invented to explain everything. Early gods were multiple and there would have been one for each unexplained phenomenon. It's only much later that we see monotheistic religions appear. Basically as each god was picked off by growth in human knowledge and understanding all you are left with is a vacuous intangible nothingness that is now called "God".

Yeah, well i should have said gods, because the early ones weren't singular.  It's mainly that all of the things the individual gods did was taken and put into one god. 

/hi5

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on September 18, 2009, 02:30:06 AM

When we say 'man created god' we obviously mean 'god created the idea of the character of god'.

Typo?

Bugger, obviously it should read 'man created the idea of...'

I think that theism and atheism both require equal amounts of faith. Sure, believing that things like Gods exist do require faith, but the idea that nothing exists beyond what we can perceive, with miscellaneous helpful devices and mathematical formulas, is a pretty long leap as well. Not to mention that it's sort of counter-intuitive. we're brought up learning, and soon discover that there is always something left to learn. Why shouldn't an unknown like God exist, one might ask. I am with Parsifal in that I believe that agnosticism is default. I am a firm agnostic.

I think that theism and atheism both require equal amounts of faith. Sure, believing that things like Gods exist do require faith, but the idea that nothing exists beyond what we can perceive, with miscellaneous helpful devices and mathematical formulas, is a pretty long leap as well. Not to mention that it's sort of counter-intuitive. we're brought up learning, and soon discover that there is always something left to learn. Why shouldn't an unknown like God exist, one might ask. I am with Parsifal in that I believe that agnosticism is default. I am a firm agnostic.

Can you define what you mean by atheism because you're way off in my opinion and I'm sure most atheist's opinions.

Wendy's referring to strong atheism, which does make a claim without evidence. Of course proving a universal negative is impossible, so I can't see any way to reconcile strong atheism. I'd say that you can be a weak atheist and agnostic at the same time.

I lack a belief in any god(s) (atheism) and I also say it is unknowable if there is any god(s) (agnostism).

Wendy's referring to strong atheism, which does make a claim without evidence. Of course proving a universal negative is impossible, so I can't see any way to reconcile strong atheism. I'd say that you can be a weak atheist and agnostic at the same time.

I lack a belief in any god(s) (atheism) and I also say it is unknowable if there is any god(s) (agnostism).

That's why I asked her what she meant. I might actually wait for her response if you don't mind.

A strong atheist who claims to believe that there is no God but then will not provide evidence, even when asked, could be accused of showing some kind of religious faith but I've never come across such a person. I have also never met anyone who claims to know there is know God. Certainly strong atheism does not imply a person knows there is no God.

I am also baffled by any assertion about something being "unknowable".

That's why I asked her what she meant. I might actually wait for her response if you don't mind.

I never mind, that was just my impression on it. Also, I think Wendy's a dude. 

Certainly strong atheism does not imply a person knows there is no God.

In reality people cannot know, but they may claim to know. By making the statement "god does not exist", I would classify a person as a strong atheist. They made a statement intended to represent fact and by that I'd take it to mean that they are trying to assert a truth, and not an opinion or belief.

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on September 18, 2009, 01:19:15 PM

That's why I asked her what she meant. I might actually wait for her response if you don't mind.

I never mind, that was just my impression on it. Also, I think Wendy's a dude. 

These internets are so confusing

Certainly strong atheism does not imply a person knows there is no God.

In reality people cannot know, but they may claim to know. By making the statement "god does not exist", I would classify a person as a strong atheist. They made a statement intended to represent fact and by that I'd take it to mean that they are trying to assert a truth, and not an opinion or belief.
[/quote]

I agree but that's why I said I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim to know there is no God and the word atheism to me is a very simple stance of not accepting a claim about a god. Even strong atheism, which I would put myself under, still only implies that a person puts gods in the same category as Santa, the Easter Bunny and Faeries. I'm happy to say "I know there's no God" in that respect but in an absolute respect, does anyone ever really claim knowledge?

I agree but that's why I said I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim to know there is no God and the word atheism to me is a very simple stance of not accepting a claim about a god. Even strong atheism, which I would put myself under, still only implies that a person puts gods in the same category as Santa, the Easter Bunny and Faeries. I'm happy to say "I know there's no God" in that respect but in an absolute respect, does anyone ever really claim knowledge?

Ah, excellent. You realize that the collective of all human knowledge is probabilistic and open to revision when you make factual statements. Many people do not. For the vast majority of people I've met, they see many concepts regarding the nature of our universe as completely 100% true and mean such when they make a statement.

Wendy's referring to strong atheism, which does make a claim without evidence. Of course proving a universal negative is impossible, so I can't see any way to reconcile strong atheism. I'd say that you can be a weak atheist and agnostic at the same time.

I lack a belief in any god(s) (atheism) and I also say it is unknowable if there is any god(s) (agnostism).

You're right, I should have said what I meant. But I'm not really sure what to say when I mean what you call "strong" atheism. I think that there should be a definitive word for strong atheism as opposed to weak atheism.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 18, 2009, 01:10:59 PM

Wendy's referring to strong atheism, which does make a claim without evidence. Of course proving a universal negative is impossible, so I can't see any way to reconcile strong atheism. I'd say that you can be a weak atheist and agnostic at the same time.

I lack a belief in any god(s) (atheism) and I also say it is unknowable if there is any god(s) (agnostism).

You're right, I should have said what I meant. But I'm not really sure what to say when I mean what you call "strong" atheism. I think that there should be a definitive word for strong atheism as opposed to weak atheism.

It's a very common misconception that when someone says they are an atheist they are really saying "there are no gods". Nobody who has arrived at their atheism for good reasons would ever make such a claim. Atheism is a label that covers every other stance that's not theism. It's not the opposite of theism in the way you might think. I would say anti-theism is, but I'm not a fan of that because a person who says they are an anti-theist is setting themself up to be knocked right down.

It takes no faith at all to reject a claim if you think there is insufficient evidence or no rational or logical explanation can be given, so atheism requires no faith at all. And what is faith anyway? A word used to justify a belief for which no logical reason can be thought of or for which the believer has no evidence. The word atheist tells you no more about a person than they do not accept a claim. Everything else you want to know about them you would have to ask for.

I watched a video once that said the places people lived determined if they created a monotheistic or polytheistic society.  Desert people created a monotheistic and vengeful god while forest people (or people without the harshness of deserts) created polytheistic religions.

What about the Egyptian pantheon?

I can't respond to the OP because the topic itself is inadequate.  There are more than these two alternatives, and I don't find either one satisfactory.

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on September 18, 2009, 01:42:08 PM

I agree but that's why I said I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim to know there is no God and the word atheism to me is a very simple stance of not accepting a claim about a god. Even strong atheism, which I would put myself under, still only implies that a person puts gods in the same category as Santa, the Easter Bunny and Faeries. I'm happy to say "I know there's no God" in that respect but in an absolute respect, does anyone ever really claim knowledge?

Ah, excellent. You realize that the collective of all human knowledge is probabilistic and open to revision when you make factual statements. Many people do not. For the vast majority of people I've met, they see many concepts regarding the nature of our universe as completely 100% true and mean such when they make a statement.

Exactly, that's why i don't say that the earth is definitely round when i debate on here, i say that there is very strong evidence it is round.  I have not been to space myself to see so i can not say for certain that the earth is round.  Much the same way, i can't say that there is no god because i don't know, i can simply say i do not think there is a god.

Roundy:  Seeing as you're one of the people i made this thread for anything you have to say i would not deem as derailing my thread, i made this thread because i do want to hear what you have to say, i just didn't want to take the other thread off topic.  I also didn't know what to name the thread but since you said that an easy answer is better than no answer at all this title seemed appropriate.  So please, respond to this thread.

Roundy:  Seeing as you're one of the people i made this thread for anything you have to say i would not deem as derailing my thread, i made this thread because i do want to hear what you have to say, i just didn't want to take the other thread off topic.  I also didn't know what to name the thread but since you said that an easy answer is better than no answer at all this title seemed appropriate.  So please, respond to this thread.

I already did.  Neither alternative you present in the thread's title is satisfactory from a logical point of view.

Atheism is wrong-headed because it leans towards non-belief based on lack of evidence.

Theism, rather than philosophically trying to settle the question of God's existence, attributes features to God that we have no reason to think exist, unless we believe the holy book describing them, and such holy books are uniformly contradictory and illogical.  Theism demands that one choose a specific deity and take its existence and attributes on faith.  This leads to many fallacies, including those used by atheists to prove that God must not exist based on the assumption of a particular individual or group of religions, for example the notion that the existence of evil does not make sense if God is omnipotent and benevolent (from a non-theistic standpoint, who's to say he's either, or that evil even has any ultimate meaning?).  This leads to many irritating strawmen in discussions about the existence of God, from both sides.  In fact, many atheists seem to base their tendency to lean toward the nonexistence of God at least partly on a distaste for organized religion, and while I'm no fan of organized religion myself I don't think that's a logical stance to take.

In a fight between atheism and theism, atheism wins hands down.  It's not even a contest.  But a fight between atheism and deism?  That's not nearly so clear-cut.  There is in fact plenty of evidence for the existence of a supernatural progenitor.  The problem is that it's all circumstantial.  That's okay, though, because the evidence that supposedly goes against the existence of God is entirely circumstantial too.

Without solid proof, neither side really wins.  So it's just as logical to lean towards God's existing as it is to lean towards God's not existing.  The most rational stance to take is that of the pure agnostic.  And however they might rationalize their opinions those who designate themselves "weak atheists" are not pure agnostics, because when the discussion comes up, they are always pointing out reasons to not believe in God, rather than reasons to believe in God, which from their point of view aren't viable.  So even though they claim open-mindedness, they close their minds to the possibility that there is reason to believe in God, and are therefore every bit as biased towards non-belief as theists are biased towards belief.  You'll see this bias pop up all the time from supposed "weak atheists" on these forums.  Whenever rational reasons to believe in God are brought up, they often fall back on "But God contradicts the laws of physics!" when in fact the very existence of the universe contradicts the laws of the physics, and when atheists are forced to recognize that, you know what they do?  They either ignore it because they don't understand it, or they start citing fanciful hypotheticals about how the universe can exist without breaking the laws of physics.  Hilarity ensues.

Atheism is wrong-headed because it leans towards non-belief based on lack of evidence.

Skepticism doesn't make a claim, nor does it need its own evidence.

But a fight between atheism and deism? That's not nearly so clear-cut.

Atheism beliefs make no assumptions. An atheist can be willing to accept the notion that a god or gods exist, but currently has no reason to. Deism however, is a specific form of monotheism in which the god is currently inactive.

There is in fact plenty of evidence for the existence of a supernatural progenitor.  The problem is that it's all circumstantial.

And however they might rationalize their opinions those who designate themselves "weak atheists" are not pure agnostics, because when the discussion comes up, they are always pointing out reasons to not believe in God, rather than reasons to believe in God, which from their point of view aren't viable.

Skepticism can only work on claims. You can't advocate an idea by being skeptical. A weak atheist is also skeptical of strong atheists' claims.

So even though they claim open-mindedness, they close their minds to the possibility that there is reason to believe in God, and are therefore every bit as biased towards non-belief as theists are biased towards belief.

Like I mentioned above, if I had any self standing evidence of god, I would gladly accept it. I simply have not come across such evidence. I don't see where you got the idea that we're close-minded unless you have a specific member in mind that I'm not aware of.

You'll see this bias pop up all the time from supposed "weak atheists" on these forums.  Whenever rational reasons to believe in God are brought up, they often fall back on "But God contradicts the laws of physics!" when in fact the very existence of the universe contradicts the laws of the physics, and when atheists are forced to recognize that, you know what they do?  They either ignore it because they don't understand it, or they start citing fanciful hypotheticals about how the universe can exist without breaking the laws of physics.  Hilarity ensues.

First, what rational reasons are there to believe in god? I'm genuinely curious.
Second, where has an atheist claimed god violates laws of physics? I thought it was a consensus among atheists and theists/deists here that god is outside of reality and physics.
Third, how does the universe violate the laws of physics? There's a lot we don't know about
Lastly, this is paragraph a discussion of "the beginning" and not actually god himself. Theists, deists, and atheists can all believe in stuff like the big bang.

The only difference I can see highlighted by your post between agnosticism and agnostic atheism is that the atheists are skeptical.