Almost all atheists were raised in religion. Then they eventually discard the man in the sky arguments. No evidence and the requirement you should wear blinders and screw yourself into illogic to defend the belief wears people down. I don’t see arrogance. But most atheists are wondering when "believers’ will succumb to logic and the lack of evidence. I suspect most religious people have doubts. The lack of evidence and the need for programming to inculcate it into children is damning.
Disbelieving in “god” does not requires faith of any kind.
Did I miss the part where Thor became a stoner and turned Mjolnir into a bong?
Many religions encompass doubt, agnosticism and yes, even atheism into their frameworks. Religion isn’t a belief, it’s a tool for engaging with the world. I hope most children raised in religious households and cultures learn that asking questions is pretty much the point, although I am aware that this doesn’t always happen.
The truth in question in my OP was…
“There is no God”
Not
“The answer to why we exist is ________”
I don’t think ‘knowing’ that God doesn’t exist is arrogant.
Sorry, missed that earlier. Yes, I think that’s the quote that was floating around in my head; in any case, it captures very well the spirit of what I was trying to express.
But there are books that mention God, and no books about pixies and fairies.
Thisgirl certainly learned that it’s OK to question one’s parents religious beliefs.
Oh and another thing.
MY thread was directed at Atheists. So my ‘the truth’ is a shortened version of “What we atheists believe to be the truth”
NOT “What the truth happens to be”
I know that seems like a weak excuse, but it happens to be true. I’m not arrogantly declaring the non-existence of God to be the absolute truth. I am merely refering to what we Atheists think of as ‘The truth’. I.e. “We believe God doesn’t exist”
Actually, it isn’t falsifiable. If a “greater” being does reveal itself to us, then we’ll know that it exists, but we won’t be able to conclude whether or not it is a ‘supreme’ being. There’s no way to verify it as true or false.
I’m not sure what a tri-omni god is, but I assume you’re referring to the Christian-specific beliefs of the supreme being - the proof or disproof of which would be irrelevant to a generic supreme being. Likewise, the argument that a god is necessary for the universe to exist is nice philosophy, but it’s not science.
The default stance has to be ‘maybe. can you prove it one way or the other?’ To draw a conclusion with no evidence, just because of Occam’s Razor, is not scientifically rigorous.
And hey, if somebody wants to believe there are an infinite number of very precise faeries pushing objects in the universe together at precisely the gravitational constant - well, that’s certainly one way to look at it - but so long as the faeries continue to perform with consistency, and we can’t find the Higgs Boson, who cares?
Well, not 'zactly a bong, but…
Bith seems to start from the assumption that belief in a god is ‘obviously wrong’, which is circular logic. There’s no counterpoint that merits a response.
HMHW’s point is the same as the one I addressed just a moment ago.
Czarcasm’s post may be on point for the OP, but not for mine directly. The analogy of pixies and fairies is a poor one for this argument, but following that line of thinking - I don’t believe in fairies. (Sorry, Tink.) I won’t go so far as to say that I am sure that they do not exist, because there’s no usable evidence to give me that certainty. I’m fairy-agnostic. I don’t think that makes me inherently smarter than people who believe fairies exist. I’ve never seen one, I know of nothing that requires their existence, and yet there’s all kinds of strange folklore about them that suggests even if they did exist, we might not be aware of them.
So while I’m not going to leave my shoes out to be repaired, I’m not going to condescend to people who believe in them. (People who’ve claimed to /see/ them on the other hand…)
Incorrect. Religion is based on faith; atheism is based on knowledge. That makes it distinct and separate from “any other [belief].” That doesn’t make religion absolutely for sure 100% wrong, but it means that it cannot be logically assessed. Atheism is what happens when you’re a person who chooses to only acknowledge that which can be demonstrated.
Nonfalsifiable positions are, IMO, useless.
I laughed.
The existence of an invisible floating dragon who doesn’t require sustenance, excretes and eliminates nothing, and cannot be touched but lives in the garage of my apartment building is not falsifiable, and therefore, decision as to its existence or nonexistence is unsupported and not achieved through logic.
Stop thinking you’re better than me just because you refuse to believe in Mr. Smoky.
I have to draw a semantic distinction here. There are three stances one can take on the existence of god.
1.) Believing he/she/it exists.
2.) Believing he/she/it doesn’t exist.
3.) None of the above. In other words, believing only that you don’t know the answer to the question.
#3 is the rational proposition that best follows from the evidence. #1 and #2 are equally unsupported. Most atheists, in my experience, are #2.
Hey, I’m fine with Mr. Smoky. He and my pal Harvey can hang out.
Wow.
So if a post in GD or GQ contained something like “…and as we know there’s no such thing as fairies”, you consider this an arrogant and unreasonable statement?
Do you realize that literally any claim that can possibly be made has some microscopic chance of being wrong? Should we just erase the word “know” from the dictionary altogether?
There are three stances one can take on the existence of unicorns.
1.) Believing they exist.
2.) Believing they don’t exist.
3.) None of the above. In other words, believing only that you don’t know the answer to the question.
#3 is the rational proposition that best follows from the evidence. #1 and #2 are equally unsupported. Most people who deny unicorn existence, in my experience, are #2.
IMO that is the pedantic argument. I am a 2 on the basis that it is highly reasonable to assume un-pedantically that unicorns don’t exist.
Your argument is like saying “Believing my legs have not disappeared because I can’t see them under this desk - Is irrational. How can one ‘know’ that your legs are there unless you can see them”
ETA: The pedantic argument is nearly always the irritatingly arrogant one.
Somewhat arrogant, but not unreasonable. I don’t consider “God doesn’t exist!” to be an unreasonable statement, but if someone /preaches/ it at me, then that’s pretty damn arrogant of them.
Not at all. For most things, we can draw reasoned conclusions because we have evidence. Going back to gravity, we know how gravity behaves. We /know/ it. If I drop an apple, it’s going to fall in a mathematically predictable way. We don’t know the /why/ of gravity - we’ve got some theories. If they find the Higgs-Boson and it behaves as expected, we’ll know the why. If not, the Higgs Boson will remain a fluttering pixie, just out of the reach of our knowledge.
I’m sorry, Lobsang - are you taking issue with my original formulation that Dan is parodying with the off-kilter analogy, or his representation?