The question mentioned in the OP has got to be the stupidest question asked in a poll, ever.
No one knows “The Truth”.
While this statement by Darkhold “By this criteria it is more rational to conclude God is not needed for a natural universe in fact including him would make the whole system far more complicated than what is observable” may be correct, it is a far cry from thinking that “God does not exist” is “The Truth”.
Hey, they’re moving very rapidly. Why just last week they decided it’s OK to be a married Anglican Roman Catholic priest.
A lot of religions sure have some wierd issues over sex and gender. I wish they would stop playing the moral authority and stop buggering children while they are at it.
The thing that really winds me up is when atheists say they believe in the dichotomy set out in the poll, and things like:
I don’t care if Christianity is the majority religion in the English-speaking world and that it’s the one everyone knows. It is not “non-religious atheists vs. believers in an active, benevolent god and heaven.” If you want to yell at those parts of Christianity, knock yourself out, but don’t pretend that it is the only form of religion or religious belief. It makes you look uninformed and petty.
I just think it’s awesome that almost all religious arguments nowadays have been whittled down to:
“you didn’t include 10 pages of qualifiers and clarification with that argument!”
It’s nice to be on the winning team once in a while.
Atheism isn’t necessarily true, that’s true. But it’s also true that atheism is the default stance to take on the subject of the existence of any god, demon, fairy or leprechaun. In that sense, I think there is some justification to claiming to ‘know the truth’ – at least as far as it is knowable at all. To write atheism off as just another belief is simply a category error – a belief in some supernatural being does not stand on the same footing as a lack of belief in that being. I don’t recall who said it, but we are, in fact, all atheists towards most gods mankind has ever believed in. Should every one of those disbeliefs be seen on equal footing with the corresponding belief? Am I just as likely to be right in saying that Tchernobog doesn’t exist as I am in saying that he does? Because if not, then going that one god further is in fact the thing to do – and if I can claim to know the truth as far as it is knowable regarding the existence of Tchernobog, Thor, Osiris etc., then I can claim to know the truth about gods in general, and that truth is, again, that disbelief is the default stance to take. It might be wrong, of course; so might almost any other item of what we commonly take to constitute knowledge.
The quote in my signature? Or another?
It’s not so much that there’s no god as it is I have no reason to think there IS. And either do believers. They have faith. Or they have some “experience” that is no more proof of god’s existence than “christ on a pancake” claims are. I have no reason to care about what they think one way or the other, until it seeps into my world as some sort of Capital “T” truth that must be respected. Or considered, without a single shred of evidence. That kind of pandering only serves to cripple man’s progress.
One might as well pitch a bitch about people who are sure that there is no such things as fairies and pixies. They do not “Know The Truth” because they haven’t proven that the wee folk can’t possibly exist, right?
We are behaving in a rationally optimal way. I suppose we could just accept the existence of some vague, generic god-figure, “just in case”, but what would that prove? If god exists and is some vague, generic god-figure, unconcerned with ritual and worship, he won’t care if we believed in him/her/it or not.
The god of Judaism/Christianity/Islam is angry and vengeful, especially if you worship the wrong god-figure. So are the Greek pantheon. So were the gods of the Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, and so on. Hell, Hindus pick two or three gods out of a choice of hundreds to worship*- what if it turns out they picked the ones who aren’t on the steering committee anymore? Some of the Hindu gods are angry and vengeful too.
Pascal’s Wager is a logical fallacy. It assumes that Christianity is the One True Religion, or nothing is. There’s no point in believing in god/gods just to make sure you don’t go to hell, because whichever one you pick, chances are you picked wrong. If you pick several, chances are the real one will be pissy about your shrines to the others.
*Hindus believe that all images of god are facets of one supreme being, so they’re not really polytheists, in a sense- but that one supreme being is kinda abstract and uncaring, so he doesn’t mind if you don’t worship him.
Not true - many atheists do fabricate an illogical, unsupported set of beliefs. Namely, the certitude that there is no supreme being of any kind. The existence or nonexistence of a supreme being is not falsifiable, and therefore, any decision as to its existence or nonexistence is unsupported and not achieved through logic.
The stripe of atheist that I tend to call ‘agnostics’, who seem more inclined to state simply that we cannot know about any such thing as a supreme being - they’re the smarter, rational ones because they haven’t drawn a conclusion.
The arrogant atheists who are certain of their conclusion that there isn’t any god aren’t any better than the arrogant Christians who are certain that there is.
Neither is the atheist. There’s no evidence to examine.
Spoken like a true fundie!
I took your advice last night. I got Pascal’s Munchies.
Any theists want to try adressing the counterarguments instead of just rephrasing the OP?
Counterarguments to what?
Did anybody make any counterarguments that amounted to more than “Nu-unh, we’re smart!”?
Let’s scroll back - maybe you yourself posted something substantive that I overlooked in my sinus-overload-induced haze…
Ah, no, just more drive-by snark. Fun, but not really requiring address.
That’s not right – the nonexistence of a supreme being is easily falsifiable, by discovering the existence of a supreme being. However, even if that weren’t the case, your conclusion would not follow, since it might still be the case that one can come to a logical decision regarding the matter – one might be able to show that the notion of a tri-omni god is incoherent, or one might craft an argument that god is necessary for the universe to exist; both certainly unlikely, but not impossible, and certainly not excluded through the alleged non-falsifiability of god’s (non-) existence.
And again, the equivalence between the positions of belief and disbelief is simply not given – disbelief has to be the default stance, as is readily apparent to everybody when discussing the great green arkleseizure, but somehow tends to slip people’s minds when the subject is called god. If it weren’t, all explanatory hypotheses stood on equal footing, and there would be no way to decide, for instance, between the theory of universal gravitation and invisible fairies pushing things down; in short, it would be impossible to accept any explanation of anything.
The OP seems to be thinking that all beliefs are equally valid, that people choose their beliefs by tossing a coin, or simply regurgitating what they’ve been taught by others. If that’s what the OP thinks, I’ll assume that’s how he chose his own beliefs. But he doesn’t speak for me.
Here’s a few:
Disclosure: I am an atheist.
I do believe that theists are welcome to go on believing if that’s what gets them through the day. I think that religion has some nice crispy edges that talk about how to basically live well and do right by your fellow man. Granted, it threatens those who don’t with eternal damnation as incentive to stay on the straight and narrow, but taken at its core as a set of guidelines on how to be a decent fellow, it’s got its heart in the right place, so if people want to take it more or less at face value because it gives them direction and hope, then so be it.
Having said that, I can’t place in a supreme being in a place that is equivocal to not believing in a supreme being. They are not both beliefs like any other. Atheism is about what your senses and the scientific method tell you is real. Can it be detected? Is its effect measurable in any useful way? What, exactly, does it do? How does it interact with everything else? And so on. The answers to these questions, provided they have factual answers, form the basis of what we know, not what we believe. Anything that doesn’t have clear answers forms a theory based either on circumstantial evidence or educated guesses – but even those have grounding in reality that is extrapolated from existing known facts. Dark matter is a theory because we can’t really see it or prove its existence, but its existence can be inferred from the grouping and placement of stars and galaxies, and gravitational anomalies that couldn’t be there without something pushing all this other stuff out of its way. We don’t know what it is, but we know it’s something because what we do know about the universe just doesn’t make sense without it.
But you can’t do that with religion. Nothing can be proven by the scientific method because there’s nothing to test, nor is there any evidence we can point to in order to even infer any theoretical models about it. All we have are words in books – old books with translated words. Anecdotal evidence at best, which even itself is subject to interpretation and debates on which is the correct translation based on context.
So what religion boils down to for an atheist is, “You’ll just have to trust me on this one.” It becomes a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum; billions of people can’t be wrong. For anyone who relies on logic and critical thinking to define their world, this is a non-answer, and furthermore runs contrary to the that very model. Something that cannot be proven, or even theorized by inference, cannot be accepted as any form of truth, and anyone who believes otherwise is being illogical.
Humans on the whole have a tendency to be illogical though, so it is something I accept, even as I disagree with it.
Most world religions don’t, actually.
You can’t prove the nonexistence of a thing.
You CAN prove the existence of a thing.
I refuse to believe in rabid and violent cans of pickled lima beans.
I refuse to believe in gods that insists we believe in them and refuse to show themselves. Especially when their existence is advanced by dodgy organizations, supposedly “in the know” with God’s plan and yet who do the exact opposite in order to fleece the flock.
What DO I believe in? I believe I’d like to have a number of large beers with Lobsang (assuming he still drinks) because I believe he’s a good guy.
I think it’s time we start feeding openly religious people to lions again. Or at least stuff them full of lithium until they quit forcing their psychotic delusions on the rest of us. Nah, lions.