Atheism

Great Debates
41

No, it would be an honest God, who doesn’t hide himself. Besides, not only is the rational position disbelief in such a God - since by definition there is not and never will be for that version of God - but if God does exist, he appears to be some variety of puppetmaster or coward. Frankly, it’s all an elaborate explanation for something that doesn’t need explaining, since there’s no evidence for any miracles, either. You are using something for which there is no evidence, to explain something for which there is no evidence.

And people call atheism arrogant; the idea that this entire vast universe was created just for us shows the insane arrogance of the religious.

Now you are just contradicting yourself. If God set up the universe as an “elaborate billiards shot”, so that miracles are explained because he arranged them to just happen that way at the beginning - then there is no free will. You can’t have a predetermined universe with free will.

In fact, your posts are a collection of irrational assumptions with zero evidence. There is no evidence for miracles, God, free will, the necessity of the universe, that anything is “necessary”, or that the universe was made just for us.

42

No. But that’s not what the question was. The question was “Is atheism falsifiable?” And the answer is “Yes.”

If one takes a Popperian view of science, “There is no God” is, in fact, a scientific hypothesis. It explains existing observational data, it has predictive value, and it is subject to falsification.

The opposite phrase, “There is a God”, may or may not be a scientific hypothesis. depending on how you define God. Most contemporary religions choose to define God in such a way that He is not open to falsification.

Religion is not **necessarily ** beyond the realm of science. It only seems to be because most theists are more comfortable putting it there.

43

Actually, I’d say it’s because whenever religion has intruded on science’s domain, it’s gotten smacked down by science.

44

That’s probably a good reason for most theists being more comfortable putting religion outside science.

45

Why is it more reasonable to assume my keyboard isn’t about to turn into a fire-breathing dragon in 5 seconds? Should I start spraying it with a fire hose? Why is it more reasonable to assume gravity isn’t going to stop working tomorrow? Should I nail my shoes to the floor? Why is it more reasonable to assume I’m not actually Hitler in the 20th Century suffering from the delusion that I’m me in the 21st Century? Should I kill myself in order to save the world from war?

If you can answer these questions, you can answer the question you posed.

46

If I (an atheist) may go against both theists and atheists here, all this talk of evidence and falsification is a little further down the road than the OP’s question, which I think is more to do with Ockham’s Razor, and which version of it (if any) one ascribes to. The version to which I, and I believe most reasonable people, ascribe (if only in an unspoken manner) is this:

If a natural explanation exists, no supernatural explanation is necessary.

This is very close to Newton’s version, and remember how theistic he was. It is also a principle we use in everyday life, wherein we simply don’t jump for supernatural explanations for the world around us when natural explanations which have passed the most rigorous tests, devised by the finest minds, for centuries, are there for all to see.

Now, the claim “There is no god”, viewed in the light of OR, is really the claim “There are no longer any explanatory Gaps big enough for god to fit into”. And it is (and I might find quite some disagreement here) only an opinion. I cannot prove that even so natural a phenomenon as lightning is not simply Zeus’ anger. I can only demonstrate how the phenomenon correlates every time with some natural mechanism we understand pretty well. Anyone is free to either posit a Cosmic Joker of a god who lays false electrical trails, or point to those elements of lightning we don’t understand (and if there were no such elements, we could close science departments worldwide since there would be no more science to do!) and say “Those Gaps are where god fits”.

So, I believe that cosmology, abiogenesis and cognitive science today close all of the explanatory gaps so small that positing god there is like involving him in making lightning. But I will never “prove” this, since “proofs” require everyone to agree on initial premises, and what is “agreement” but a coincidence of opinion?

Having said all that, I simply don’t understand why gods are the historical default! I have just as many questions about how they come to exist, rather than not, as I do the universe. Ockham’s Razor thus shaves away such further steps in my mind, leaving me with questions about what I can see and test (perhaps indirectly) than what I can’t. And even god “showing itself” would not affect my considerations, since my senses could be being deceived by an alien holodeck or future simulation. Effectively, my atheism is itself unfalsifiable, because there’s nothing I can imagine to which I would attribute a supernatural explanation before a natural one.

47

Where’s Cthulhu when you really need him?

48

Actually I do not know if there are many second generation athests. My son is an atheist and I stayed out of his religion as much as I could. He went to Catholic Schools from K thru !2 then a Catholic College. . He eventually rejected the Sci Fi of religion. I do not now the statistics. My point is that everyone gets direct exposure to religion every day. To become an atheist requires the ability to overthrow the relentless propaganda.
I do not have stats on what % of atheists were Catholic ,but I think it would be substantial.

49

You just answered yourself, I think. Gods are useful to fill the gaps of science. Earlier in our history, there were tons of large gaps and all cultures readily filled them with Gods fashioned by what they knew (themselves). As cultures started to become more sophisticated, so did their new gods. Fire and lightning have been explained and dominated so we now make tachyonic gods which manipulate subatomic particles to make miracles that can be explained by science (and I hope this addresses DT’s concerns)

God must remain unfalsifiable in order to be God. If we can explain god, then it becomes just another phenomenom. Luckily for the theistically inclined, there will always be gaps to science and there will always be room for God. Even if we managed to close all the gaps in knowledge, we are bookended by the Big Bang and ultimate end of the universe (whichever flavour you happen to believe in) and God can always sit outside those.

So what point is there in considering an eternally unfalsifiable God? none, of course. The [non-]existence of God should be no factor in how science is conducted. People can personally choose to take their version of God as a consideration to their moral decisions but not their practical ones. Morality is in itself, an out-of-science way of making decisions between inconmeasurable goods, so there really is no overlap between Science and God.

You can make God silly, useless, important, all-encompassing. Your choice. Personal choice. Can’t be rationalized.

50

Believing or disbelieving in God (or any god) is not a choice.

51

How so? If you have proof of either, then it is not belief, it is knowledge. And without proof, it is a matter of faith, which I presume is a personal choice if there is such thing as free will.

52

I suppose the simplest way of showing it is to ask you to stop believing in God. Can you?

The problem here is that there are two levels of “proof”. General proof is the kind of thing that I can show to you or gonzomax or anyone, and is open for anyone to look at. There is no proof of God. However, a theist knows that there is a god. They feel it. It’s not something they can share with anyone else, but it’s something they know. So they can’t choose to not believe in God unless some new evidence presents itself. Religious people’s faith is faith that despite the evidence that there might not be a god, theirs in fact actually exists.

Likewise, an athiest does not feel or see any gods. So we don’t believe in them. I can’t choose to believe in a god anymore than I can choose to believe there’s a dinosaur behind me. I can say “I believe in the dinosaur”, but I don’t. And I can’t force myself to do so. So no, being a theist or an athiest isn’t a choice.

53

What we can do is to continually reexamine why we believe what we do, and how we allow that belief guide our actions.

Please see my post here: (#41) Resolved for Debate: Some things exist which do not exhibit empirical signs - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board

If the source of that belief is unchanged by that reexamination, why would we “choose” to stop believing?

54

Well, one can certainly choose (or not) to examine one’s beliefs. Such an examination often leads to either questioning of or reinforcement of those beliefs. Instead putting one’s fingers in one’s ears and reciting “NANANANANANA I CAN’T HEAR YOU, YOU ARE SPEAKING THE WORDS OF SATAN, EVOLUTION IS A SIN, NANANANANA…” reflects a choice to not put one’s beliefs at risk of such an examination.

55

I haven’t been clear, it seems. :smack:

Certainly you can reexamine your beliefs. Introduce new evidence, experience new things, and so on. I’m not saying that once you’ve decided, that’s it, you’re that for life. I’m merely saying that the evidence dictates belief, not one’s personal choice. I don’t disbelieve in gods because I want to disbelieve in gods, I disbelieve because there’s no evidence (in my experience, of course). If new evidence presented itself, certainly my mind would be changed. But it wouldn’t be my choice.

56

RT, what is it then, if not choice (or shudders biology or something predetermined). It may not be a mundane choice such as choosing between a hot dog or a pretzel for lunch but, in the absence of evidence for either case and no compulsion for either, then what is it if it is not a personal choice?

57

Programming.

A combination of biological hardwiring (yes, “predermination”) and environmental/cultural inputs. “Belief” is a dependant variable. It happens when the inputs are right – i.e. when one is persuaded by availalable data. If one is not persuaded, no amount of volition will cause a change in belief.

Can you make yourself believe in the Easter Bunny? I mean really, sincerely believe? What if your life depended on it?

“Free Will” is a logical impossibility, by the way, but that’s a different debate.

58

Because most people have an inborn tendency towards religiousity, due to thousands of years of the religious killing and raping the unbelievers. Combine that with relentless, pervasive pro-religious propaganda, and religion is the default.

Waiting for the stars to be right, of course !

59

Diogenes covered it pretty well. Why “the absence of evidence for either”? There’s never no evidence for or against something.

The level of evidence required to believe something is different in everyone, but once you go past it, you believe. And if you later find new evidence against (or find the old stuff was flawed) you don’t. There’s no choice involved; try not believing in God or believing in Zeus yourself.

60

If you believe because you have sufficient evidence (to your personal standards) is not a faith-based belief at all. That is just a conviction and, as such, is subject to conscious re-examination. Faith is believing in what you cannot prove or show any evidence for (IMO).

(and speaking of convictions, I am perceiving that you seem convinced that I believe in God. You may be assuming too much :wink: )