Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You appear to be thinking that not knowing the answer, and rejecting a suggested possible answer, represent a contradiction.
You are correct in stating that none of us has the answer. Let us say that there has been a murder, the body was found in a room the door to which was bolt locked on the inside, and there were no windows or any other means of entry or exit. The mortal wounds are such that they could not have been self inflicted. None of the investigators knows who did it or how it was done.
Someone suggests that it has to be the work of malevolent spirits which materialized in the room, committed the murder, and vanished without a trace.
You are certainly free to view that offered explanation as preposterous and impossible, despite your still not knowing how the crime was possible.
That is how I view the question of a god, especially the suggestion of a hands on god which is deeply interested in human conduct. I have no explanation to offer for the existence of the cosmos, only wild guesses. I see no particular reason to place any special emphasis on the god wild guess. I don't believe it.
Does that help?
I don't reject suggest possible answers. I'm open to the possibility that it may be true.....but I just don't know if it is.
Your murdered person in the room scenario is something I agree with.
Let's say there's a box. Many people seem absolutely convinced that there is a cat inside the box, but they have never seen it. They'e just been told since childhood that there is. Just because nobody has actually seen the cat doesn't mean that there isn't one in there.
It's just seems strange to me for Atheism to even exist if in reality it seems that nobody really knows the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
But the way you're thinking in the bolded sentence above, why would this sentence not be just as logical: "It just seems strange to me for christianity to even exist if in reality it seems that nobody really knows the truth"?
Because I thought that in order to be Atheist, you had to tell yourself there isn't a God.
I was looking up the definition of Atheism online. Wikipedia states: "In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
So, I thought that Atheist's were actually telling themselves that there is no God. But from the response I'm getting in this thread, it seems that Atheist's are not much different than myself. It's not that they tell themselves there is no God, they just don't know one way or the other.
Because I thought that in order to be Atheist, you had to tell yourself there isn't a God.
I was looking up the definition of Atheism online. Wikipedia states: "In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
So, I thought that Atheist's were actually telling themselves that there is no God. But from the response I'm getting in this thread, it seems that Atheist's are not much different than myself. It's not that they tell themselves there is no God, they just don't know one way or the other.
It is a bit more nuanced than that.
I sincerely believe that there is no god. I admit that I could be wrong, and if presented with sufficient evidence I would certainly admit that. However, as I have seen zero evidence of a god, and plenty of problems with any god-concept that has been presented to me, it makes sense to live my life as if there is no god.
I do object to your wording this as “atheist’s (sic) were actually telling themselves that there is no God”. I am not telling myself anything. I am coming to a conclusion based upon claims and evidence.
Interesting that the OP hasn't been back. I guess he thought we'd have nothing intelligent to say.
Well, I am here. I think I started this thread yesterday, so it might be a little wrong to be talking about how I haven't come back. LOL. It's not like it's been a few days....
Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned prayer. I would like to comment on prayer.
I don't think prayer is a bad thing. Am I'm fairly convinced that prayer has actually done far more good for people in the world that not. Even if you are on the fence (Like me) about the existence of God, prayer still is not a bad thing for you to be doing. It's really just a form of meditation.
When you pray, you look inside yourself....deep inside yourself, to find the things that you want to say to God. It's at those moments when you truly realize which things in your life are most important to you.
The phenomena of prayer is unique to humans and I think that people should be praying or at least searching deep inside themselves to find what matters the most. If you need to pretend that there's a God to get there, so be it.
The problem with prayer, is that it leads many people to make assumptions about the things that occur in their lives after prayer. They tell themselves that God is answering their prayers. Because of this, they assume that a God must exist. This is how the word "Believe" has become distorted over the years.
To me, when you believe in something, you are in fact, by default, acknowledging that the thing you believe in may not be true.
For example, if I say that I believe the LA Dodges will win the World Series next year, it means that I only think will come true. In truth, I don't actually know who is going to win the World Series. I just strongly suspect one team in particular and that team may not win.
Religious people however, have taken this word to a completely different level.
For them, it means that the thing they believe in, is true and that's all there is to it. Therefore, if we were to use that definition, the only possible outcome in next years World Series is that the Dodgers will win and that all other outcomes are not possible.
To them, there IS a God and to think or speak otherwise is false. But if you think about it.....that's not what believing is.
When we don't know the truth about something, the only option is to believe. If you knew the truth, believing would no longer be necessary. You would KNOW. If you saw the Dodgers win the World Series, you would say, "I believe LA won the World Series." You would know that they did and would say that they did.
When someone asks me "Do you believe in God", I think they are actually asking me if I tell myself that God is real, when that's not what believing is. People have a false sense of what it means to believe in something.
A pastor once told me that religion is an act of faith. "We have faith in Jesus and that he was the son of God." So even that pastor knew that he was in a state of not knowing.
I sincerely believe that there is no god. I admit that I could be wrong, and if presented with sufficient evidence I would certainly admit that. However, as I have seen zero evidence of a god, and plenty of problems with any god-concept that has been presented to me, it makes sense to live my life as if there is no god.
I do object to your wording this as “atheist’s (sic) were actually telling themselves that there is no God”. I am not telling myself anything. I am coming to a conclusion based upon claims and evidence.
You have the same position as myself then.
It seems highly probable that all that's been said about God is actually just stuff that's been made up by men. That is probably the case. I admit that I could be wrong, but it seems doubtful that I am.
What I don't like is how religious people view me when i talk about this stuff. They say it's against the Bible or the Devil talking and you could burn in hell. They say they will pray for me. There's a lot of weak minded people out there who don't bother to try and think for themselves or are afraid to. It's just easier if they let the church do the thinking for them.
Because I thought that in order to be Atheist, you had to tell yourself there isn't a God.
I was looking up the definition of Atheism online. Wikipedia states: "In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
So, I thought that Atheist's were actually telling themselves that there is no God. But from the response I'm getting in this thread, it seems that Atheist's are not much different than myself. It's not that they tell themselves there is no God, they just don't know one way or the other.
Let's say there's a box. Many people seem absolutely convinced that there is a cat inside the box, but they have never seen it. They'e just been told since childhood that there is. Just because nobody has actually seen the cat doesn't mean that there isn't one in there.
Look at it logically. If people have been searching for the cat for thousands of years and yet not one single person has seen the cat then the logical conclusion is that the cat isn't there.
"A person is justified in believing that ‘A’ is false if:
(1) All the available evidence used to support the view that ‘A’ is true is shown to be inadequate.
(2) ‘A’ is the sort of claim such that if ‘A’ were true, there should be available evidence that would be adequate to support the view that ‘A’ is true.
(3) The area where evidence would appear if there were any, has been comprehensively examined".
(Scriven, 1966)
I don't reject suggest possible answers. I'm open to the possibility that it may be true.....but I just don't know if it is.
Your murdered person in the room scenario is something I agree with.
Let's say there's a box. Many people seem absolutely convinced that there is a cat inside the box, but they have never seen it. They'e just been told since childhood that there is. Just because nobody has actually seen the cat doesn't mean that there isn't one in there.
He's back Yes the 'we do not accept the god -claim' position is logically solid. believing there is no god is logically a bit trickier and (thinking) atheists know this, though, for a whole raft of reasons which we can give, many of us take that position. "There is, so far as we can tell, no God". The lack of persuasive evidence for a god intervening in human affairs and the evidence of several extinctions before we even got here, indicating that our evolution wasn't planned, is more than a lack of good evidence that a god exists - it it pretty persuasive evidence that it doesn't.
This leaves the possible existence of a creator that doesn't intervene. We are a bit less sure about that, but even then there are arguments against, and it is a much more academic discussion anyway.
Take the cat in the box. sure, we don't know there isn't a cat in the box, but the indirect evidence (weight of the box, no yowling if we shake it) puts the smart money on "No cat".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Army
You have the same position as myself then.
It seems highly probable that all that's been said about God is actually just stuff that's been made up by men. That is probably the case. I admit that I could be wrong, but it seems doubtful that I am.
What I don't like is how religious people view me when i talk about this stuff. They say it's against the Bible or the Devil talking and you could burn in hell. They say they will pray for me. There's a lot of weak minded people out there who don't bother to try and think for themselves or are afraid to. It's just easier if they let the church do the thinking for them.
Very good. as is your remark about prayer. The point that concerns atheism as an agenda or campaign is not so much God, but organised religion and its' influence on society.
We have heard of the value of prayer and of the good that religion does. We have our doubts. But in principle, a populace given over to believing something on poor evidence is not a good thing, and when society is made to jump to the religious tune, it is very bad.
Because I thought that in order to be Atheist, you had to tell yourself there isn't a God.
I was looking up the definition of Atheism online. Wikipedia states: "In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
So, I thought that Atheist's were actually telling themselves that there is no God. But from the response I'm getting in this thread, it seems that Atheist's are not much different than myself. It's not that they tell themselves there is no God, they just don't know one way or the other.
You have it backwards. In order to be a believer you have to tell yourself there is is a God. Very much like believing in Santa Claus requires one to have become convinced that there is a Santa. Because that's what they have been conditioned to believe. Those of us who do not believe in Santa do not "tell ourselves there is no Santa." It's not really an open question.
Believing in invisible beings requires that one first be told, and convinced, of the existence of the invisible being. NOT believing in invisible beings is very much like not believing in flying pink dragons. It's not really an open question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes the 'we do not accept the god -claim' position is logically solid. believing there is no god is logically a bit trickier and (thinking) atheists know this, though, for a whole raft of reasons which we can give, many of us take that position. "There is, so far as we can tell, no God". The lack of persuasive evidence for a god intervening in human affairs and the evidence of several extinctions before we even got here, indicating that our evolution wasn't planned, is more than a lack of good evidence that a god exists - it it pretty persuasive evidence that it doesn't. 
