Atheists

@ Kurtni

Kurtni:

So is someone who thinks unicorns are real just as sane as someone who thinks they're not? We don't have any evidence to prove they aren't real, along with Santa and the tooth fairy....

What people believe is really their problem, science has nothing to do with it. That's why science haven't said a word about unicorns, the tooth fairy and Santa.
Nobody has ever seen them, but if one day they show up science will deal with them. Science can't rule out facts or phenomenons, only incorrect explanations about them.

Then again, that's why science can't rule out God. It's a methodological problem.

Kurtni:

I think it's very unscientific to believe in something without evidence. There is no evidence for God, thus no reason to believe. This applies to all ideas in science.

Science doesn't work with beliefs anyway, I don't know why are you mixing both here.
And here you're saying both religion and philosophy are absolutely absurd.

Kurtni:

And I disagree that science doesn't disprove, or at the very least discredit, the possibility of God, at least the God of major religions. We know how the universe was created, how evolution began and progressed... and we know God had nothing to do with it. It's all explainable without a God.

Only because we have an hyphotesis saying god didn't do anything to create the Universe (and unfortunately we still don't have anything else than hypothesis in this area), it doesn't mean this is the right one or that it is 100% correct.

The Occam's razor is not irrefutable and doesn't dispense scientific evidence. It's a method normally used to help develop theoretical models and that's it. It doesn't really prove anything, much less the existence or non-existence of god.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. So, no, it does not necessarily need to be concrete fact or observation.

The evidence lies in the lack of evidence – it is for this reason that I also do not believe in unicorns, goblins, vampires and fairies. I don’t see how refusing to believe in something without empirical evidence would require any more justification. I am not asserting a different theory; I’m simply rejecting theistic theories.

@ dru brings sexy back
No, it's not proof.
Has every prayer you've ever made been answered? I highly doubt it.

@ tonic
I wasn't speaking for myself specifically.

Has every person who loves me always treated me with the utmost kindness and respect? No.

dru brings sexy back:

@ Kurtni
So feel the movement of the Holy Spirit? Having my prayers answered? Receiving joyful bounty in my life? These aren't proof?

If the stuff you stated is evidence, then all the shit I stated is evidence, too.

Frankly, I don't think either are proof.

Someone else can see kindness and emotional support besides me, it's not evidence only I can verify. You don't know God answered your prayers, just that something you hoped for happened. Atheists have joy in their lives too, it's not unique to the religious. Feeling the holy spirit would be feeling God, circular reasoning isn't evidence.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing.

@ tonic

tonic:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. So, no, it does not necessarily need to be concrete fact or observation.

then you're talking about philosophical evidence here, not scientific evidence.
And that's a significant difference because science and philosophy have different objects and different methods.
Science needs concrete facts and the observation of these facts. Philosophy doesn't.

tonic:

I am not asserting a different theory; I’m simply rejecting theistic theories.

Then you could also be an agnostic. But if you go ahead and define yourself as an atheist, then you're also saying that god doesn't exist, and that's a statement.

@ Kurtni
No, they aren't. I meant to go back and change my first 'proof'. The user's original post said 'evidence' so I had amended my original post, but missed that. I think both are evidence, but neither are proof is what I meant to say.

@ dru brings sexy back
But I can imagine an all-knowing, omnipotent being acting with a little more consistency?

@ Filth in the Beauty
I don't understand where your argument is going. I stated, "I can’t imagine believing in something without any demonstrable evidence".
This is the basis of my not believing in theism. I don't understand why I'm required to provide scientific evidence supporting my rejection?

I just want to talk about science and "God" for a moment (even though the discussion has moved past this part) because I find it interesting.

Filth in the Beauty:

This doesn't make your position any more scientific than the one of somebody who believes in god. Actually, it equals both since none of them has any evidence to prove their points.
That's why science doesn't take sides and doesn't rule out the possibility of god.

Actually, ontological arguments exist that scientifically support both sides so it's technically wrong to say science doesn't take sides and try to prove/disprove either. Scientists have worked out proofs that logistically prove or disprove "God." And I put God in quotes because there's no ontological proof that definitively says, "This is proof of Christianity's God." Just they're proofs that an omnipotent higher power has scientific ability to exist or not exist. People have been trying to apply scientific logic that does not concern itself with personal specific religious belief to this for centuries.

Kurtni:

And I disagree that science doesn't disprove, or at the very least discredit, the possibility of God, at least the God of major religions. We know how the universe was created, how evolution began and progressed... and we know God had nothing to do with it. It's all explainable without a God.

Science doesn't really try to prove that any of what's written in holy scriptures is actually how it occurred so citing things like the Big Bang Theory, which is still a theory, as is gravity and the like, doesn't go about disproving the idea of God. You're right in saying that they're not proving the God of major religions, but Gödel's ontological proof for example proves the possibility for the existence of a being of God-like qualities. Pretty much all proofs like this go on to logically support the argument that a omnipotent being that is wholly good exists, so with that, people could then argue all they want on whether that being then did what we say it has and you can no longer logically support either side because citing the Bible's creation story isn't fact, but saying the Big Bang happened isn't proof that nothing in the Bible actually occurred. That's where belief or disbelief has to come in.

---

That's the difference with these arguments. No scientist is trying to say, "Yes, God really impregnated Mary and Jesus was born in a manger." or "Krishna really appeared to Arjuna on the battlefield and imparted the principles of dharma and yoga on him." They are arguing that could a being with abilities we attribute to deities exist either in our world or in others world. Is the physical possibility for "God" there? A lot of proofs say yes, but they don't say that the stories in our scriptures about gods are true. I think people should stop looking for scientific evidence that Christianity's God exist for example. You can use the proofs to argue the being is there and has the potential to do everything that is written in the Bible, but then you can't go on to prove that the being did do all of that. There's your dilemma and why religion has to always, in part, be based on belief instead of evidence. Saying, "I won't believe because there's no hard evidence." goes against belief in the first place. We all have beliefs so it's absurd to say you won't believe anything without concrete evidence you can physically touch.

Besides, I've always thought religion, in theory anyway, was more supposed to be about the teachings then the argument, "Did any of this 100% undoubtedly factually happen?"

@ les bleus.

les bleus.:

Actually, ontological arguments exist that scientifically support both sides so it's technically wrong to say science doesn't take sides and try to prove/disprove either. Scientists have worked out proofs that logistically prove or disprove "God." And I put God in quotes because there's no ontological proof that definitively says, "This is proof of Christianity's God." Just they're proofs that an omnipotent higher power has scientific ability to exist or not exist. People have been trying to apply scientific logic that does not concern itself with personal specific religious belief to this for centuries.

When we're talking about "ontological arguments" we are in the field of philosophy. And we all know philosophy doesn't prove anything, it's only discourse.
Scientists don't work towards proving or disproving god, or producing arguments pro or against its existance because this is not their jobs as scientists. They may do that as a hobby, for their own pleasure, because they find it intellectually stimulating or whatever, but then they're not producing science, they're producing arguments and therefore, philosophy. Science doesn't work with arguments and discourse.

@ tonic
You're not required to provide scientific evidence supporting your rejection. Your rejection is your belief and you are free to believe whatever you want, including Atheism.
Atheism is a belief because there's no scientific evidence to back it up, the same way you can't prove theism is false.
In other words, I didn't say you are wrong, just that your belief system is exactly this: a belief system, not a truth recognized by science.

@ Filth in the Beauty
It's a bit dismissive to say there's absolutely no science involved and that it can't be considered a scientific approach because theology isn't a science. They're not trying to prove meaning here, as philosophy often does concern itself with, and, "Does God physically exist?" isn't a strictly philosophical question. "Do I physically exist?" isn't solely philosophical because you would argue that yes, you can prove the existence of human beings, but is any of this real so can you actually? In philosophical terms do we exist? So it depends on your approach I guess.

Atheism isn't about whether you believe in the teachings, which fall under philosophy, of a religion or not, just if you believe in the physical incarnation of a deity. This is simply focusing on the potential for the existence of a higher being, which you have to use proofs for if you want to answer that logically. It's a hybrid study really. Why do proofs no longer become mathematical processes simply because it's applied to this question? It's not trying to prove the meaning of life or if Christian God created the world, it's trying to prove or disprove a physical being with the same kind of mathematics you'd use to prove gravity.

I don't understand why you're immediately scoffing at it being a legitimate thing people have worked on because "It doesn't prove anything." Plenty of scientific proofs don't "prove" anything either and it's all hypotheticals that depend on possible scenarios that we have neither proven nor disproven yet, they just provide a mathematical approach to that says, "This is physically possible." or "This is not physically possible." and are awaiting enough backing to become theories. Even then if you "prove" a theory, it's not always 100% physically proven, just that so far there has been more in favour of it than against it. Considering that a lot of the science we cite to "disprove" God is relatively recent and developed in the last century, I think it's a bit narrow-minded to say ontological proofs are useless because they haven't gained enough evidence to become a widely accepted theory yet. It doesn't mean they never will and should be ignored and never developed.

I'm also confused as to why you believe that a scientist isn't out to disprove or prove things, as that's not their job, when in reality it is in some fields. Not everything we take as scientific fact today was always considered that way and it required people providing theories and evidence for them. I'm not sure what you classify as science though. You may think theoretical sciences don't count as science at all though and are rather a humanities area of study than a scientific one (as a fair number of people do), in which case then I see where you have formed your argument.

@ les bleus.

les bleus.:

"Does God physically exist?" isn't a strictly philosophical question.

Yes it is. You may draw empirical or scientific evidences to try to prove or disprove arguments, but the question remains essentially philosophical. Or theological/metaphysical.

les bleus.:

"Do I physically exist?" isn't solely philosophical because you would argue that yes, you can prove the existence of human beings, but is any of this real so can you actually? In philosophical terms do we exist? So it depends on your approach I guess.

"Do I physically exist?" is not even a question, is a fact. I don't even need to think about it.
But if we say, "oh, wait, we don't really exist, we just seem to have a physical existence, but this is not reality", than we go straight to philosophy -or some sort of mythical thought-, and science is a pile of rubbish then.
There isn't a third option.

But if we are to insist on it, then yes, maybe it depends on the approach, but personally I'll go with the first option because the second one doesn't take anyone very far.

les bleus.:

It's a hybrid study really. Why do proofs no longer become mathematical processes simply because it's applied to this question? It's not trying to prove the meaning of life or if Christian God created the world, it's trying to prove or disprove a physical being with the same kind of mathematics you'd use to prove gravity.

Okay, I agree with the first part, but if we're trying to prove something, how it is a hybrid study? Proof come from scientific method, not from philosophy/theology/metaphysics or whatever.
And this is really a question, and not a rhetorical one: have you ever seen philosophy proving something? Philosophy provides elements for scientific theory, but it is science that tests and proves/disproves theories.

les bleus.:

I think it's a bit narrow-minded to say ontological proofs are useless because they haven't gained enough evidence to become a widely accepted theory yet. It doesn't mean they never will and should be ignored and never developed.

I'm not being dismissive about it. I value philosophy as much as science, but there are things I can't solve with philosophy or theory. I didn't say ontological arguments are useless, only that they don't belong in the scientific field. They have their place in philosophical thought.
And that's what I'm saying since my first post. At the moment we can't prove theism and we can't disprove it, therefore we can't say Atheism is a scientific truth, the same way we can't say any theism is science. Not yet. Maybe one day we'll find a way to prove one of them. Maybe we never will.
Personally, I think we never will, but that's me.

les bleus.:

I'm also confused as to why you believe that a scientist isn't out to disprove or prove things, as that's not their job, when in reality it is in some fields.

It's not their job to prove or disprove god. If god shows up in front of them or something, they will say "hey, look, that's god, now we can say it exists". But they don't go actively searching after it, the same way they aren't searching for fairies or the big foot.

les bleus.:

You may think theoretical sciences don't count as science at all though and are rather a humanities area of study than a scientific one (as a fair number of people do), in which case then I see where you have formed your argument.

I do count theoretical sciences as science too, I just don't see how it can contribute to our discussion.
All this discussion started when I told @tonic that I thought Atheism isn't a scientific truth, but a belief. The distinction between a belief and a scientific truth is made through the application of scientific method, not theory. That's why I didn't went there.

@ Filth in the Beauty
Unfortunately, as a board mod, I have to say this conversation is spiralling off topic so we can't continue this here because we're now debating science and philosophy in relation to the question of God's existence and not really discussing atheism/the thread questions.

If you'd like to continue discussing this, we could via PM, or we can move over to Religion and Science. Or just drop it if you're not interested.

I want to also say to anyone who wants to debate God's existence, you can do so in Is God Real?. This is really just for conversations on why you're an atheist, your opinion on atheism, and encounters with atheism/atheists.

---

So to be on topic, I'll say I don't label myself as an atheist really because I never thought people believed there was a literal higher being in any religion. I entirely missed the point of religion as a child. I really did think when I was young gods and religious figures were just vehicles for establishing morality (except obviously I didn't know how to phrase this so I just thought they were stories to tell me what's right and what's wrong). You know, helping your fellow man is good, stealing is bad. I thought that was their purpose. I didn't think Jesus was actually real. I don't know what I thought the purpose of church was though. I think I thought it was just where you went to learn these stories meant to guide you, not that you were there because you believed God was an actual being and you were appeasing him by turning up to church so he doesn't cause a plague or something. I so missed the boat somewhere in my childhood development and totally didn't understand I was meant to take it all as fact.

@ Filth in the Beauty
It's a very controversial topic, whether atheism is a belief system or not. The minimum requirement to classify oneself as an atheist is to simply reject theistic claims, regardless of what said atheist's reasons for doing so are. I do not consider this to be a system of beliefs.

The term, "Belief system" also holds religious connotations, which is obviously an unfit term due to the paradox it creates.

@ les bleus
I guess I'll get going then because I'm agnostic and I'm obviously in the wrong thread
I'll read through those threads and if I find them interesting I might bring one back to life.

Btw, I think the same way. To me, gods are symbols that help people to pass on moral principles and a certain view of the world they feel are important to their religion and culture. I really can't get the concept of actually believing in gods.

@ tonic
not necessarily, you also can have philosophical or metaphysical beliefs. Beliefs only don't match with science.
And I'll stop here before @ les bleus get mad at me .
But you can PM me or something if you still want to talk about it.

@ tonic
I don't think every prayer should be granted. You know how sometime you look back at decisions your parents made for you that you didn't like at the time but ending up being good for you in the long run? That's the reason I don't think all prayers are/should be granted. I also don't think it works like that. I don't think you put in a prayer and pull out a candy bar. I was being Devil's Advocate in that post, very highly.

God is conscious energy that flows in all of us. Prayers come true because energy is shifted correctly in the universe and the universe consciously wants to grant the prayer. When they don't, it isn't. That simple.

(I'm a weeeeeeird Christian.)

dru brings sexy back:

@ tonic
I don't think every prayer should be granted. You know how sometime you look back at decisions your parents made for you that you didn't like at the time but ending up being good for you in the long run? That's the reason I don't think all prayers are/should be granted. I also don't think it works like that. I don't think you put in a prayer and pull out a candy bar. I was being Devil's Advocate in that post, very highly.

I replied to this in the Christianity thread.

@ Kurtni
Are you sure?

dru brings sexy back:

@ Kurtni
Are you sure?

NO, SPEEDY GONZALES!

Now I did.