- Observational Evidence
- Hypothesis
- Theory
- Testing
- Proof
I ordered a #1 a couple of thousands years ago, waiter. Where is it?
Okay, so all of you that are saying essentially that we don’t know if there are any gods yet because we don’t know everything there is to know - can you admit that every religion man has created is almost certainly false? That is … you are arguing for a vague, nondescription, anything goes god that we can’t disprove. Fine. There is a HUGE GAP between that and saying “you can’t prove there isn’t some vague god out there, therefore my specific idea of god, along with this holy text and this whole belief system, is reasonable and you can’t argue against it”
Who cares about combating gods? What does that even mean? Are people who see no reason to think a unicorn left that pile of shit on their lawn “combating unicorns?” The suggestion that peple who see no reasn to believe in gods are “combating” them, for some unexplained reason is more typically a religionistnallegation than an agnostic one.
I’m just stating the circumstances which are required to render the possibility of sky gods even worth considering.
“Reality of existence” is a redundant and meaningless phrase.
It has also been stated several times that no one disagree that gods, or unicorns or wood nymphs might exist in some heretofore unobserved place in the universe. No one is arguing with that. It’s just that it’s an observation with no intellectual or informative value. The fact remains that there is no REASON to believe they exist, and no reason to waste any time discussing them.
Why do you think the disc hypothesis was more probable? What testable evidence made it more probable than a sphere?
This is gibberish. Is there a reality which doesnt exist? Is there existence which is not real?
Just say “Existence,” ok. “Reality of existence” sounds sophomoric.
In a way which affects the universe or does not affect the universe. That’s the question.
I don’t spend any time at all talking about gods which might hypothetically exist but have no physical interaction with the universe. For all practical purposes, that’s the same as non-existence.
That is the thing about it. Religious people sound ridiculous declaring that atheism is a religion that DOESN’T believe in god, because the religious people can’t define god. I mean, they can define their particular one (well, not really) but they can’t define *all of the millions of potential ‘gods’ *that we are supposed to be religiously, actively NOT believing in. It’s nuts.
Every time I hear a religious person say, “You guys are ALSO a religion!” I always cringe for them. It just smacks of self loathing.
Just wanted to comment on this, even though I haven’t read much of the thread yet and someone else might have already mentioned this.
One can not invent atheism. It is a natural state that all humans (and all other creatures*) possess at birth. Humans continue to possess this natural state throughout life, although some people end up forming their own concept of a particular god or gods (almost always borrowing from the beliefs of others, e.g. parents) while still disbelieving in all others. At that point, they are only perhaps 99.9% atheist.
*Though no one can say for sure that other creatures have no belief in gods, I think the theory is pretty sound–unless someone could show that animals have a realization of their own mortality, and even that would probably not be enough for that creature to invent a god-theory.
I always operate as if there are no gods…and any gods that may exist who have an “or else” for me…can kiss my ass.
But the fact that there is no evidence for gods is not truly evidence there are no gods. The fact that there is no evidence that “x” is true, is not evidence that “x” is false!
That has been my point throughout.
It isn’t for me.
Since it is for you…why do you spend so much time on it?
It doesn’t sound sophomoric to me…and if it is okay with this forum, I’ll use the phraseology I prefer rather than what you want me to use.
But since it does “sound sophomoric” to you…why do you spend so much time on it?
Well, you had me fooled. I’ve read you talking about them several times…as you are right here.
But it is evidence! It’s not enough evidence to conclusively say that there is no god and there never will be, but it’s one piece on the pile. Being able to logically or probabilistically show that god is not likely is another. Being able to show how gods are formed by humans and not the other way around is another.
One of the conditions that occurs when there is no god is that there is no evidence of god. Since we can show that there is no evidence of god, that there is no god becomes at least possible. No evidence of god is evidence there is no god, it’s just proof there is no god.
Well I, for one, have no belief that aliens exist but do not not believe in them (Double negative necessary, alas.) People can believe or disbelieve stuff for all sorts of reasons, but if we can find justification for a position like mine (expected lack of evidence) then I think it is a position that at least some would hold.
Do they hold this position for fuzzy thinking, that is confusing belief and knowledge, or through a reasoned argument. Are they considering knowledge that some flavor of God doesn’t exist (which is reasonable for some types of human Gods) the same thing as knowledge that no gods exist? I agree that such an assertion is a matter of faith.
On the other hand, many who claim they know God exists are basing their claim on some internal experiences. There are several such people here, many of them quite smart about other things. 
I’d contend that though they are wrong, their position is more reasonable than someone claiming to know that no gods exist. We can prove all sorts of existential positives far more easily than we can prove existential negatives.
It is true that we don’t know if some god is hiding under a rock on Altair IV. But all parts of the universe we see obey basic laws and don’t seem to reflect a supernatural entity.
Consider this: would a theist, from first principles, think god created the universe more or less as it is or create it using the Big Bang? Hundreds of creation myths say that the former method is the way, but we now know they were wrong. Many theists now give good reasons why god would act in the way the universe is, but I’d be a lot more convinced if they gave us those reasons ahead of time.
There is almost certainly no god involved with earth - we have plenty of evidence around that. If there is a god somewhere else, he clearly doesn’t give a crap about us (which is probably lucky) and so I wonder what everyone gets all worked up about.
Like the bark of the dog in the night time, the lack of evidence is only evidence of a lack if the evidence was expected. And gods claimed by human religions supposedly contacted someone to tell of their existence - the lack of evidence for this, which is claimed, is evidence against. Any god worthy of the name is universal, and should be involved with us somehow. There is lack of evidence for this. The deist god who started everything and has been off playing with his navel ever since does not involve the evidence of interaction, but the universe with him is identical to the universe without, and so it makes sense to believe he does not exist.
Got any other cases?
I’m trying to make sure I understand your iiosyncratic language so I can respond to you more precisely.
That
's fine, but you aren’t communicating with yourself, you’re communicating with others, so you should try to be mindful of how it sounds.
I’m trying to understand you that’s all. “gods who are involved with the reality of existence” is such a muddled and vague on such multiple levels that it coan’t be intelligently responded to without clarifying definitions.
No, actually, you haven’t heard me talking about them at all.
This is a technically true statement with absolutely no intellectual or informational value. It’s not even philosophically provocative. It’s just a hollow truism.
What can I tell ya.
Voyager thinks it is not true at all…so it certainly is worth discussing.
And it did give you an opportunity to take yet one more jab at my intellectual abilities…which seems to please you so much.
I’m always willing to help make a fellow human being’s life more enjoyable…or tolerable, as the case may be.
It is not necessarily a true statement at all. As I mentioned, the lack of a dog’s bark is not evidence, unless you know that the dog barks at all people he does not know. Then the dog not barking when an intruder enters is evidence indeed.
Certainly the lack of evidence that anyone outside the Middle East noticed that they got drowned 5,000 years ago is significant evidence against the flood, is it not?
You sir, need to go home and reread your Sherlock Holmes.
And what is god-belief but a placebo? The more bitter, the better. We’ve evidence of this right here in this thread where several theists have related that their religions wouldn’t work very well, or be worthwhile or “real” if they proscribed sitting around on the couch all day, drinking beer and receiving oral sex.
That’s ok, I guess. The placebo effect has been shown to be genuine, even if the placebo itself isn’t. If theists prefer its weak, illusory, and temporary relief over the proven effectiveness of the real remedy, that’s their choice. I suppose I understand, in part, why they choose this way. Because while the real “medicine” cures what ails you far better then the placebo does, it’s a far more bitter pill to swallow then even the very bitterest of placebos.
Where can you get this unpalatable, but wondrous thing? What’s it called?
One finds it all about oneself, and it’s called Reality.
Reality, to you or anyone else, is framed by your life here on earth. It is your only life–just an eye-blink between birth and death–and then it’s over forever. No matter how fervently you wish and you pray that there is more, it’s all you get.
Live it well–don’t waste precious time cowing to terrifying myths that you or your ilk invented. God-believers have designed, manufactured, marketed, and then bought and swallowed their own foul-tasting sugar-pills; all because they didn’t have the stomach for the “bitterest” pill of all.
But it’s a funny thing, this “bitter pill” called Reality. Once you accept it, the bitterness is only temporary. It’s the exact opposite of some candy-coated cod-liver pill. It’s bitter on the outside, but once you take the plunge, you discover what a sweet curative it Truly is.
It is a grand thing that you do not insult Diogenes by telling him to read his Sherlock Holmes. But neither you nor Diogenes have the purely rathional, purely logical mind of Holmes. Emotions did not hold sway with him – not even in his feelings for Adler. The God that I glimpse (only on the edges in some cosmic sense) incorporates the mystical, the emotional, the intuitive. And although I believe that someday all of it will make perfect scientific and mathmatical sense, there will be more that just that.
Skeptics keep open minds.
Skeptics are always ready to accept evidence as it comes forth, and do not prejudge situations until a suitable amount of said evidence is available.
Well…
It sure sounds like wish fullfillment.
While I don’t think that all religion is wish fulfillment (the “religious exerience” is well documented and universal, and accounts for a lot of the kind of feelings expressed by Zoe), but I do think that some aspects of wishful thinking tend to get into religion. Afterlife beliefs, for instance, I think are rooted in the desire to come to terms with mortality and grief. I think a desire for perfect justice – something which is often appears to be absent from the universe – also results in beliefs about otherworldly justice.
Reigion isn’t just one thing, or one belief, so it can’t be collectively categorized as being caused by any single thing, but it is certainly influenced and permeated by desires for immortality and justice, escape, reward, etc.