Atheism = arrogance

I'm assuming that there was a point to that remark, though I can't for the life of me deduce what it is. Since the philosophical proofs lay better odds on the existence of a deity rather than the non-existence thereof, I am forced to assume that that is more false bravado.

I'm assuming that there was a point to that remark, though I can't for the life of me deduce what it is.

The point is that it doesn't matter than 85% of the world thinks God initiates natural processes. God initiating natural processes is still an ad-hoc hypothesis because it is just an add on to validate the claim of divine intervention, and God actually doing anything still hasn't been proven.

Also saying "85% of anyone does this, so this gives it validity" is argument ad populum

I thought we'd been over this. Then again, forgive me forgetting that atheists tend to be willfully ignorant. The fundamental problem is that whatever DID initiate the process would by definition be divine. Now that does not prove the Abrahamic G-d. There are other proofs for that. But it does prove a divinity, or Force, if you prefer.

What does fear have to do w/ it, or is that just a stupid attempt to insult that fails & makes you look foolish? I'll assume that for now. Fear has nothing to do w/ it. Recognition that we are NOT all that & a bag of chips is much more relevant. The atheist is arrogant because he sets himself & the pitiful human race up as the master of all it surveys. In reality, w/o G-d, we are pretty sorry, & our lives are brutal, nasty, & short. The atheist's failure to see this is his arrogance. The agnostic is just a coward. His refusal to decide decides for him. Wuss.

So you don't understand the atheist position.  Got it.

I thought we'd been over this. Then again, forgive me forgetting that atheists tend to be willfully ignorant. The fundamental problem is that whatever DID initiate the process would by definition be divine.

The definition of divine is approximately "Of or relating to God".  If whatever created the universe was a consequence of natural laws, then it would not be divine by definition, since God is supernatural.

Now that does not prove the Abrahamic G-d. There are other proofs for that. But it does prove a divinity, or Force, if you prefer.

Yeah, lets use force, since there is not a very strong relation between divinity and force.

Really what you need to have in a physical theory that creates the universe and does not require a supernatural being is a space that exists without time, ergo it can be eternal in the past.  This space must have properties such that it can spontaneously give rise to a new dimension, time.  From there, it is fairly easy.

I thought we'd been over this. Then again, forgive me forgetting that atheists tend to be willfully ignorant. The fundamental problem is that whatever DID initiate the process would by definition be divine.

That's only if you define whatever causes the universe to be divine: you're well within your rights to do that, but you're left with a rather shoddy definition of God. After all, under this definition you can't even say your divinity is self-aware.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 21, 2015, 06:04:44 PM

What does fear have to do w/ it, or is that just a stupid attempt to insult that fails & makes you look foolish? I'll assume that for now. Fear has nothing to do w/ it. Recognition that we are NOT all that & a bag of chips is much more relevant. The atheist is arrogant because he sets himself & the pitiful human race up as the master of all it surveys. In reality, w/o G-d, we are pretty sorry, & our lives are brutal, nasty, & short. The atheist's failure to see this is his arrogance. The agnostic is just a coward. His refusal to decide decides for him. Wuss.

So you don't understand the atheist position.  Got it.

So you need to grow up and not make assumptions that do not fit the stated facts. Got it.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 21, 2015, 07:51:33 PM

I thought we'd been over this. Then again, forgive me forgetting that atheists tend to be willfully ignorant. The fundamental problem is that whatever DID initiate the process would by definition be divine.

The definition of divine is approximately "Of or relating to God".  If whatever created the universe was a consequence of natural laws, then it would not be divine by definition, since God is supernatural.

Of course, if natural laws were to enable something to occur in supernatural ways, (ie, something from nothing), they would by definition be allowing for the supernatural to happen. Ergo, they would be divine in that sense.

Quote

Now that does not prove the Abrahamic G-d. There are other proofs for that. But it does prove a divinity, or Force, if you prefer.

Yeah, lets use force, since there is not a very strong relation between divinity and force.

That depends on how you define "force".

Really what you need to have in a physical theory that creates the universe and does not require a supernatural being is a space that exists without time, ergo it can be eternal in the past.  This space must have properties such that it can spontaneously give rise to a new dimension, time.  From there, it is fairly easy.

Which the best of our scientists know is not the case, because our universe started with the Big Bang. What was here before then? The best answer we can give is "nothing", since the cosmos as we know it did not exist.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 21, 2015, 07:51:33 PM

I thought we'd been over this. Then again, forgive me forgetting that atheists tend to be willfully ignorant. The fundamental problem is that whatever DID initiate the process would by definition be divine.

That's only if you define whatever causes the universe to be divine: you're well within your rights to do that, but you're left with a rather shoddy definition of God. After all, under this definition you can't even say your divinity is self-aware.

Moving onward from that, we did say that the following step would be to prove the Abrahamic G-d, but that comes a step later in the process.

Moving onward from that, we did say that the following step would be to prove the Abrahamic G-d, but that comes a step later in the process.

Sure, but the point is that all your statement ascertains is 'something caused the universe', with no reason to suppose the cause has any traits typically thought of as divine. You can't simply force your definition of divinity onto everyone else: for me, traits like sentience and personhood are required, more than just 'causing the universe', before something can be called a divinity.
I'd query even your referring to it as 'supernatural' because, by definition, if it's a natural law it is natural: just because it isn't fully understood doesn't mean it's supernatural.

our universe started with the Big Bang. What was here before then? The best answer we can give is "nothing", since the cosmos as we know it did not exist.

The best answer we can give is 'I don't know'. Honesty is better than guesswork.

Actually, the majority of the world DOES believe that things like earthquakes, snowflakes, & life were initiated by G-d using natural processes.

Yes, and that's ridiculous.

What's your point?

KMAN, the idea that it is ridiculous is merely your opinion, to which the proper response is, "so what?" JANE, "I don't know" is essentially the agnostic position. This is intellectually more honest than the atheistic one, but is still a bit of a copout. It lazily denies the need to investigate, & instead just gives up. In Philosophy, such a position is, & should be, viewed w/ contempt. @ present, I'm on my phone & must end. Must exit debate for a time as I'm very busy. Be back later this afternoon on my computer, I hope.

So you need to grow up and not make assumptions that do not fit the stated facts. Got it.

The real irony here being that you always assume I am an atheist without ever bothering to pay attention to the facts I have stated about my beliefs.  By the way, it is not a fact that there was nothing before the Big Bang.  Every scientist I have ever heard speak on the matter says that anything prior to the Big Bang is currently beyond the scope of what it is possible to know.

Of course, if natural laws were to enable something to occur in supernatural ways, (ie, something from nothing), they would by definition be allowing for the supernatural to happen. Ergo, they would be divine in that sense.

Natural laws cannot cause things to happen in a supernatural way for the really obvious reason.

That depends on how you define "force".

Pick anyone from here.  You will notice (I hope) that none of them say anything about divinity.

Which the best of our scientists know is not the case, because our universe started with the Big Bang.

Yes, but I am talking about a precursor to the Big Bang.

What was here before then? The best answer we can give is "nothing", since the cosmos as we know it did not exist.

The best answer we can give is (still) "I don't know".  You started off your post condemning atheists for allegedly ignoring stated facts, yet here you are making up the scientific position on the pre-Big Bang cosmology.

From Stephen Hawking, "Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."

From Paul Davies, "If the Big Bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the Big Bang, or what caused it - in the usual sense of physical causation - is simply meaningless."

As stated above, although "I don't know" is certainly more honest than atheism, its also lazy, & a copout. It basically says that since investigating these matters is difficult, we should be content not to. Scientists may find that acceptable. But in Philosophy (@ least the real kind that isn't a bunch of left-wing bullshit) it is treated, & rightfully so, w/ contempt.

JANE, "I don't know" is essentially the agnostic position. This is intellectually more honest than the atheistic one, but is still a bit of a copout. It lazily denies the need to investigate, & instead just gives up. In Philosophy, such a position is, & should be, viewed w/ contempt.

Saying "I don't know," doesn't preclude investigation, it just means you're not guessing. I'd also love to hear how you think philosophy alone could answer that question accurately.
The atheistic position still allows for 'I don't know', all it means is 'I don't know the exact cause, but I know (or, more realistically, see no reason to assume) that it is a deity." We've covered this before: you use definitions useless outside of a classroom setting, and that practically speaking few people adhere to.

After all, you don't really know either. Did it all appear in an instant, did it gradually fade into being, did it pop up piece by piece, did it come about via a created process/expansion, was it some mix of those... 'God' is not a complete answer: it still leaves many "I don't know,"s. "I don't know," is nothing bad, it's just honesty, and a refusal to believe in things without some reason to.

As stated above, although "I don't know" is certainly more honest than atheism, its also lazy, & a copout. It basically says that since investigating these matters is difficult, we should be content not to. Scientists may find that acceptable. But in Philosophy (@ least the real kind that isn't a bunch of left-wing bullshit) it is treated, & rightfully so, w/ contempt.

Yaakov, it is clear you do not understand the atheistic point of view and reasons for it. You attribute attitudes and motivations based on your bias and beliefs.

You are certainly entitled, and there are surely some atheists that fit your view, but most that I have met do not.

Do you KNOW that god exists? I don't think you do.

You may believe in God. You may see what you consider evidence that points you to that conclusion being likely.

But I do not believe you KNOW it.  And can your really believe something you don't know?

Philosophically, If you are agnostic, aren't you an atheist? Can you believe in a god you don't know exists? What is the value of that belief?

I try to form my beliefs around evidence. Tests that can be observed and measured repeatedly and consistently. No compelling evidence for any god has ever been presented to me.

If it was I would reconsider.

From my perspective saying "God did it" in place of "I don't know" is a cop-out.

There are lots of things I do not know. I don't know if the Tooth Fairy is real. But I don't consider myself agnostic to it's existence. I do not believe until proven otherwise.

Atheism is not arrogant since it is the default position of a human being. Even a person that was previously religious that rejects a religious claim is not arrogant. Since most theistic claims have no evidence to support them, it is perfectly justified to dismiss them without evidence.

Irrelevant. Atheism assumes that nothing supernatural exists, including Gods. One human cannot claim ultimate knowledge, so ultimately no one really knows if God exists. So claiming absolutely that you know that God does not exist is arrogant, unless you have access to some hidden well of knowledge that no one else has found. God could easily exist in a different plane of reality, or a separate universe, and you wouldn't be able to tell. We do not know everything about the universe at this point, and it's arrogant to makes assumptions based on incomplete data. Of course, this makes atheism just as arrogant as Christianity or any other religion that claims to know something that cannot be proven.

I believe that it's ultimately fruitless to debate about the existence of God, so I won't get into that. I believe it is completely unknowable, and will probably remain that way for the rest of humanity's existence.

And just for the record, I don't believe that atheism is the default position for human beings. I think the default position is agnosticism, as it is simply "I don't know", which is the truest statement you will find in this thread. I also consider myself an agnostic. Life is confusion, not certainty.

As stated above, although "I don't know" is certainly more honest than atheism, its also lazy, & a copout. It basically says that since investigating these matters is difficult, we should be content not to. Scientists may find that acceptable. But in Philosophy (@ least the real kind that isn't a bunch of left-wing bullshit) it is treated, & rightfully so, w/ contempt.

In addition to what BiJane aptly said, how does the theistic position encourage exploration?  You claim to already have the answers and nothing would change your mind. This is a far more close-minded and apathetic position.

And just for the record, I don't believe that atheism is the default position for human beings. I think the default position is agnosticism, as it is simply "I don't know", which is the truest statement you will find in this thread. I also consider myself an agnostic. Life is confusion, not certainty.

Despite what has been said above, if "i don't know" is your answer, you are an atheist. You may not be an anti-theist.

But how can you believe in a god you don't know exists?

Is it any less of a cop-out to say i believe in something but I don't know what? I would argue it is.  How do you validate a belief in "something" other than how it feels.

I consider myself an atheist. I do not KNOW that god does not exist. Therefore I cannot believe in it. I am willing to change that belief if otherwise convinced.

I do not KNOW that I don't have the ability to fly either. There is no evidence I can, and if I have the ability, I certainly do not know how to use it. I can't be 100% sure I can't actually fly. But I do not consider myself agnostic to that claim. I accept that I cannot fly until there is evidence to the contrary.

What we know is Billions of people "believe" strongly that their religion is correct. And while that adds no merit to the validity of each individual religion , it does mean that the vast majority of the world, theists and atheists alike are wrong and many(possibly all)  are praying to gods that do not exist.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 22, 2015, 10:44:00 AM

And just for the record, I don't believe that atheism is the default position for human beings. I think the default position is agnosticism, as it is simply "I don't know", which is the truest statement you will find in this thread. I also consider myself an agnostic. Life is confusion, not certainty.

Despite what has been said above, if "i don't know" is your answer, you are an atheist. You may not be an anti-theist.

But how can you believe in a god you don't know exists?

Is it any less of a cop-out to say i believe in something but I don't know what? I would argue it is.  How do you validate a belief in "something" other than how it feels.

I consider myself an atheist. I do not KNOW that god does not exist. Therefore I cannot believe in it. I am willing to change that belief if otherwise convinced.

I do not KNOW that I don't have the ability to fly either. There is no evidence I can, and if I have the ability, I certainly do not know how to use it. I can't be 100% sure I can't actually fly. But I do not consider myself agnostic to that claim. I accept that I cannot fly until there is evidence to the contrary.

What we know is Billions of people "believe" strongly that their religion is correct. And while that adds no merit to the validity of each individual religion , it does mean that the vast majority of the world, theists and atheists alike are wrong and many(possibly all)  are praying to gods that do not exist.

Sorry, buddy. But "I don't know" equals agnosticism. Not atheism. This has been discussed at length, so I don't really want to get into it. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, which can go hand in hand with "I don't know", but not always. My claim is that: "I don't know, it's possible". Which should be the default position of anyone with half a brain, because how could you possibly know for sure? You don't. Claiming that "I don't know, therefore there is no God" is stupid, period. If you don't know, then don't claim to know that there is no God. It's much more logical to leave the possibility open.

Even the 4 horseman of atheism are admittedly agnostic. Hitchens was the most extreme taking the position that if God exists he would still reject him since he finds his ethics and morality to be abhorrent. Dawkins is a strong agnostic in that he says there is almost certainly no God, but he cannot say for sure.

Quote from: mikewolf13 on May 22, 2015, 01:50:45 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 22, 2015, 10:44:00 AM

And just for the record, I don't believe that atheism is the default position for human beings. I think the default position is agnosticism, as it is simply "I don't know", which is the truest statement you will find in this thread. I also consider myself an agnostic. Life is confusion, not certainty.

Despite what has been said above, if "i don't know" is your answer, you are an atheist. You may not be an anti-theist.

But how can you believe in a god you don't know exists?

Is it any less of a cop-out to say i believe in something but I don't know what? I would argue it is.  How do you validate a belief in "something" other than how it feels.

I consider myself an atheist. I do not KNOW that god does not exist. Therefore I cannot believe in it. I am willing to change that belief if otherwise convinced.

I do not KNOW that I don't have the ability to fly either. There is no evidence I can, and if I have the ability, I certainly do not know how to use it. I can't be 100% sure I can't actually fly. But I do not consider myself agnostic to that claim. I accept that I cannot fly until there is evidence to the contrary.

What we know is Billions of people "believe" strongly that their religion is correct. And while that adds no merit to the validity of each individual religion , it does mean that the vast majority of the world, theists and atheists alike are wrong and many(possibly all)  are praying to gods that do not exist.

Sorry, buddy. But "I don't know" equals agnosticism. Not atheism. This has been discussed at length, so I don't really want to get into it. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, which can go hand in hand with "I don't know", but not always. My claim is that: "I don't know, it's possible". Which should be the default position of anyone with half a brain, because how could you possibly know for sure? You don't. Claiming that "I don't know, therefore there is no God" is stupid, period. If you don't know, then don't claim to know that there is no God. It's much more logical to leave the possibility open.

You don't have to be certain to not believe that something exists. If someone asked you if leprechauns existed, you would most likely say "No", even though you have no evidence of them not existing. God is the same way, as there is no evidence to prove his existence.

You don't have to be certain to not believe that something exists. If someone asked you if leprechauns existed, you would most likely say "No", even though you have no evidence of them not existing. God is the same way, as there is no evidence to prove his existence.

"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"

"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"

Except when evidece is to be expected.

Plus you get onto the whole issue of tooth fairy agnostics: those who hold God to be similarly likely to the tooth fairy. With no evidence of absence, you can't disbelieve in either, according to you. So, strictly speaking, you're saying we're all agnostics when it comes to the tooth fairy, and to unicorns, and anything like that.
That's just a useless definition.

And for that matter, plenty of people identify as 'agnostic atheists': 'agnostic' answered the quetsion "What do you know?" and 'atheist' answers "What do you believe?" No inherent contradiction.

But, you know, it's a waste of time explaining anything to you because you'll just keep on insisting that you can force your impractical and narrowed down definition onto everyone else for no good reason, it's what you do.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 22, 2015, 02:34:57 PM

"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"

Except when evidece is to be expected.

Plus you get onto the whole issue of tooth fairy agnostics: those who hold God to be similarly likely to the tooth fairy. With no evidence of absence, you can't disbelieve in either, according to you. So, strictly speaking, you're saying we're all agnostics when it comes to the tooth fairy, and to unicorns, and anything like that.
That's just a useless definition.

And for that matter, plenty of people identify as 'agnostic atheists': 'agnostic' answered the quetsion "What do you know?" and 'atheist' answers "What do you believe?" No inherent contradiction.

But, you know, it's a waste of time explaining anything to you because you'll just keep on insisting that you can force your impractical and narrowed down definition onto everyone else for no good reason, it's what you do.

No.

Please exercise your superiority on someone who cares.

This is totally stupid at this point. Until it can be proved that nothing created something, the default would be that an Uncaused Cause created it. Of course you will argue. But even if something did start itself, that something would be divine, even by JANE'S definition of basic divinity. From that, we would have to move on to prove the Abrahamic G-d, but that is another matter.

This is totally stupid at this point. Until it can be proved that nothing created something, the default would be that an Uncaused Cause created it. Of course you will argue. But even if something did start itself, that something would be divine, even by JANE'S definition of basic divinity. From that, we would have to move on to prove the Abrahamic G-d, but that is another matter.

I am glad to hear you won't be participating anymore.

This is totally stupid at this point. Until it can be proved that nothing created something, the default would be that an Uncaused Cause created it. Of course you will argue. But even if something did start itself, that something would be divine, even by JANE'S definition of basic divinity.

There's no contradiction with an uncaused cause and atheism. To quote myself:

You can't simply force your definition of divinity onto everyone else: for me, traits like sentience and personhood are required, more than just 'causing the universe', before something can be called a divinity.

So, if your uncaused cause necessarily adheres to my definition, as you directly stated, please explain why it must have sentience and personhood. I mean, I've seen attempted explanations for this before (eg: Craig's "It is either a number or a mind," with no justification for that dilemma whatsoever), they never even try to answer why.

Well, @ that point you get into proving the Abrahamic G-d- and that's a whole different ball of wax. We can go there, now that you've accepted the Uncaused Cause.

Well, @ that point you get into proving the Abrahamic G-d- and that's a whole different ball of wax. We can go there, now that you've accepted the Uncaused Cause.

It's when you get into proving any kind of God. I don't see why an uncaused cause must necessarily have any trait associated with 'God'.

Sorry, buddy. But "I don't know" equals agnosticism. Not atheism. This has been discussed at length, so I don't really want to get into it. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, which can go hand in hand with "I don't know", but not always.

If you take any unknown.  Does X exist. Prior to examination of any evidence what would your default position be? That it does or does not exist?

At this point would you "believe" it does or does not exist?

In no way do I exclude the possibility that a God may exist.  But I am not agnostic. I cant disprove that unicorns do or did not at some point exist. I am not agnostic to the existence of unicorns.

I certainly do not believe they exist. And it would be a terrible hedge to say "maybe, its kinda impossible to tell so i 'll have to say maybe unicorns do exist"

I feel comfortable saying unicorns do not exist. But provided evidence otherwise I would revise that belief.

Can you believe in something you don't know exists? That is not a simple question. Can you believe something that is mutually exclusive to another held belief?

It is an interesting philosophical argument that you are using semantics to pretend  is settled.

When people talk about God and related things, it is like the mind playing games with it's own substance, creating things like "uncaused cause". Such terms are creations of our mind, nothing else.

Still they couldmean - but not quite describe - something real.

To quote myself:

Couldn't help but laugh a bit.

So, if your uncaused cause necessarily adheres to my definition, as you directly stated, please explain why it must have sentience and personhood.

Oh so you can make a semantic argument now and it's ok? But when I do something similar that's not ok?