Is There a God?

[Zottistan]

this is false. There's this thing called burden of proof which basically means that the person attempting to claim something exists has to prove it. It's why we don't go around assuming that there is a magical invisible unicorn with wish granting powers around each corner. You can't prove it's not there but you're also not going to believe

Except your not saying that my concept of a deity doesn't exist. Or that any single given deity exists. You are rejecting the existence - and the potential existence - of any deity or deities. And that is an independent belief. If I say "God exists", and you say "No", then you are simply contradicting me; if I say "I believe that there are deities", and you say "I believe that the concept of deities is wrong and unscientific", then that is an independent belief. Atheism is an independent belief. It is not simply a counter-point to Christianity.

Both are possible. Someone's law (I can't remember who's and I'm too lazy to look it up) states that the simpler something is, the more likely it is to happen. Therefore, it's more likely that there isn't a god simply because it's simpler. Therefore, atheism isn't a belief, it's siding with what is most probable.

[Mavorpen]

Except your not saying that my concept of a deity doesn't exist. Or that any single given deity exists. You are rejecting the existence - and the potential existence - of any deity or deities. And that is an independent belief. If I say "God exists", and you say "No", then you are simply contradicting me; if I say "I believe that there are deities", and you say "I believe that the concept of deities is wrong and unscientific", then that is an independent belief. Atheism is an independent belief. It is not simply a counter-point to Christianity.

Both are possible. Someone's law (I can't remember who's and I'm too lazy to look it up) states that the simpler something is, the more likely it is to happen. Therefore, it's more likely that there isn't a god simply because it's simpler. Therefore, atheism isn't a belief, it's siding with what is most probable.

Occam's Razor?

[Zottistan]

Both are possible. Someone's law (I can't remember who's and I'm too lazy to look it up) states that the simpler something is, the more likely it is to happen. Therefore, it's more likely that there isn't a god simply because it's simpler. Therefore, atheism isn't a belief, it's siding with what is most probable.

Occam's Razor?

That's the one.

[North Suran]

Atheism means without God. In other words, lack of belief. It is not inherently a belief.

It is inherently a belief. A belief, of course, being "an opinion or conviction". Just because that opinion runs contrary to another opinion does not mean that the former is dependent on the latter. If everyone stopped believing in theism, would atheism instantly vanish? If no one is a theist, do atheists stop existing? Atheism may be a rejection of a belief in deities, but if an atheist is someone who believes that deities do not exist, then he or she still holds a belief.

[Mavorpen]

It isn't. That is my point. Thank you for explaining why I am right.

Well, no. You actually argued the complete opposite point: that religious people who commit crimes do so because they are religious, whereas non-religious people who commit crimes do not do so because they are non-religious. That was at least my reading.

What? No. I said non religious reasons are as motivating as religious reasons. Atheism is not a reason though. There is nothing in the disbelief of a deity that states that you must do certain things. More specifically Stalin's reason were non religious but they were not because of atheism.

[Zottistan]

Atheism means without God. In other words, lack of belief. It is not inherently a belief.

It is inherently a belief. A belief, of course, being "an opinion or conviction". Just because that opinion runs contrary to another opinion does not mean that the former is dependent on the latter. If everyone stopped believing in theism, would atheism instantly vanish? If no one is a theist, do atheists stop existing? Atheism may be a rejection of a belief in deities, but if an atheist is someone who believes that deities do not exist, then he or she still holds a belief.

Except your not saying that my concept of a deity doesn't exist. Or that any single given deity exists. You are rejecting the existence - and the potential existence - of any deity or deities. And that is an independent belief. If I say "God exists", and you say "No", then you are simply contradicting me; if I say "I believe that there are deities", and you say "I believe that the concept of deities is wrong and unscientific", then that is an independent belief. Atheism is an independent belief. It is not simply a counter-point to Christianity.

Both are possible. Someone's law (I can't remember who's and I'm too lazy to look it up) states that the simpler something is, the more likely it is to happen. Therefore, it's more likely that there isn't a god simply because it's simpler. Therefore, atheism isn't a belief, it's siding with what is most probable.

[Leepaidamba]

Occam's Razor?

That's the one.

Given the necessarily equal evidence for both sides, that's a good tool here.

[North Suran]

Both are possible. Someone's law (I can't remember who's and I'm too lazy to look it up) states that the simpler something is, the more likely it is to happen. Therefore, it's more likely that there isn't a god simply because it's simpler. Therefore, atheism isn't a belief, it's siding with what is most probable.

Occam's Razor actually holds that it is not the simpler assertion that is superior, but the assertion that requires the least assumptions. That does not make it more probable: only more convincing. In a cosmological context, there as many assumptions required by theism as required by atheism.

[Mavorpen]

Atheism means without God. In other words, lack of belief. It is not inherently a belief.

It is inherently a belief. A belief, of course, being "an opinion or conviction". Just because that opinion runs contrary to another opinion does not mean that the former is dependent on the latter. If everyone stopped believing in theism, would atheism instantly vanish? If no one is a theist, do atheists stop existing? Atheism may be a rejection of a belief in deities, but if an atheist is someone who believes that deities do not exist, then he or she still holds a belief.

belief Pronunciation: /bɪˈliːf/


Translate belief into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of belief


noun

1an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: his belief in extraterrestrial life [with clause]: a belief that climate can be modified beneficially


something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion: we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs [mass noun]: contrary to popular belief existing safety regulations were adequate


a religious conviction: Christian beliefs [mass noun]: the medieval system of fervent religious belief


2 (belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something): a belief in democratic politics

[Zottistan]

Both are possible. Someone's law (I can't remember who's and I'm too lazy to look it up) states that the simpler something is, the more likely it is to happen. Therefore, it's more likely that there isn't a god simply because it's simpler. Therefore, atheism isn't a belief, it's siding with what is most probable.

Occam's Razor actually holds that it is not the simpler assertion that is superior, but the assertion that requires the least assumptions. That does not make it more probable: only more convincing. In a cosmological context, there as many assumptions required by theism as required by atheism.

No. There aren't. There are no assumptions involved in atheism. Atheism holds that everything happens in complyance to scientific laws, which can be proven to exist. Theism makes the one enormous assumption that there is a god of some sort.

[North Suran]

What? No. I said non religious reasons are as motivating as religious reasons. Atheism is not a reason though. There is nothing in the disbelief of a deity that states that you must do certain things. More specifically Stalin's reason were non religious but they were not because of atheism.

If you are an atheist, and you believe that religion in toto is dangerous and destructive, and so therefore you resolve to blow up a church, is your crime not motivated by your atheism? There is nothing in religion that commands you to commit crimes against others, since religion is simply a belief in a deity and membership of a community. Theism has no doctrine; therefore, it cannot dispose itself to violence.

[Leepaidamba]

Both are possible. Someone's law (I can't remember who's and I'm too lazy to look it up) states that the simpler something is, the more likely it is to happen. Therefore, it's more likely that there isn't a god simply because it's simpler. Therefore, atheism isn't a belief, it's siding with what is most probable.

Occam's Razor actually holds that it is not the simpler assertion that is superior, but the assertion that requires the least assumptions. That does not make it more probable: only more convincing. In a cosmological context, there as many assumptions required by theism as required by atheism.

Name me one assumption I must make to remain an atheist that a theist does not need to make.

[Fortarius]

Just to add my thoughts into this mess of a discussion, I don't believe that there is a God, god, gods, goddess, five-headed evil dragon goddess, or anything else that could be called divine. I do not mean this as an insult to those who do believe, but I think that it is silly to pick one particular faith and call that one the 'one true faith' when there are so many faiths that all claim that title. There were faiths that once had many followers, but they lost them all and were declared to be nothing more than myth. There will be faiths that arise in the future that gain many followers, replacing popular faiths that people follow right now. Why then do people claim that their faith, which is but one of many that millions believe, is the one that we must all follow? In my opinion, it is simply not logical to just pick a faith that feels right or seems correct to you and call that the one true faith. If you do believe in a god or have some faith, that's fine by me, but I can't see how that's logical or something that I should also believe.

Again, I don't have an issue with people who believe in a faith of some kind. Actually, while I myself am an atheist and believe in ideas based on that view, I can freely admit that I can't disprove faith or prove the absence of the divine. I can't say that the belief in a god is wrong or foolish, only that I don't believe it to be logical. I cannot answer the question that is the possible existence of such a being. That being said, no person of faith has ever been able to prove that their faith is absolutely true. I've never seen anything that makes me doubt my belief in no divine being, so I will continue to not believe in such things. I will continue to believe that we humans are a creation of evolution and science, and that this universe came about due to natural events caused by forces that science can't yet fully explain. I may debate things with people who believe in a divine being, and I may say that I disagree with them on core issues, but I will never claim that they have to be wrong because I don't believe what they believe. Only when such a person uses their faith to deny what we know to be fact will I call them wrong.

Basically, live and let live when it comes to this issue. None of us can actually know, at least for the time being, which of us is right and which of us is wrong. Perhaps I will go to Hell for my lack of belief, or perhaps we will all vanish forever upon death, but none of us can actually say that we know for certain what will happen. Perhaps we will all go before the Divine Clown of Masterful Pranks and Wisdom when we die, and all but a few of us will go to Pie-Throwing Hell for our disturbing lack of humor. None of us can truly know until we die, and even then, we can't share that knowledge with anyone else. Let us all keep that in mind as this topic is discussed, shall we? Belief is fine. Defending that belief is fine, just as a lack of belief is fine. Let no one claim that they truly know these core truths of our existence, for there isn't a one of us that knows.

Religion is bad, alright? It puts a wrench in the machinery of progress and serves as a purpose for war and violence and strife. However, no one sensible wishes to kill all religious people or ban religion, as to do so would also be banned. I myself, however, am against the idea of religion and oppose religion vehemently. Again, no violence, no banning, no revolution, just gradual evolution of thought.

I can't agree with the beginning of your response, but I can agree with the end of it. Religion is much like any other human institution, in that it can be used for all sorts of purposes. Good and evil alike can be worked through religion, just as with government, corporations, or any other organization made up of human beings. Yes, many evil acts have been committed under the banner of religion, but that doesn't mean that the institution is evil. Religious groups do good work all around the world, giving food and aid to the needy as but one example of this. You can say that religion had held up progress, but that can be said of many different groups. Religion isn't needed to have a desire to hold the people back and to keep them ignorant. Just look at North Korea if you want to see all of this in action, and there is no faith in the divine driving that oppression. The truth of the matter is that religion can function as an excuse for people to be evil, but it is not the cause of that behavior.

I can agree that we need an evolution of thought, and that religion will probably be eventually weeded out by that process with time. The thing is, religion isn't the root cause of that war, violence, and strife. That would be human nature, and that is what truly needs to evolve. We need to evolve past those primitive desires. Removing religion wouldn't suddenly make the world a better place, not at all. Some other institution would simply replace it in the minds of those who wish to abuse and control others, and things wouldn't actually change at all. Perhaps religion will be phased out as our race grows and changes, but that isn't the real way to measure our evolution. Can we coexist without needing to murder, oppress, and dehumanize one another? When we can reach that point, we can actually get rid of what you speak of. We could have religion without it being misused by evil people. Idealistic, sure. No more idealistic than hoping that religion goes away, and a lot more helpful overall, I think.

[The Chickenpede]

Nope.
I'm afraid I've seen no evidence of a gods existence.

[North Suran]

-snip-

If we're going to duel with dictionaries:

1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true
2. opinion; conviction
3. religious faith
4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc

[Mavorpen]

What? No. I said non religious reasons are as motivating as religious reasons. Atheism is not a reason though. There is nothing in the disbelief of a deity that states that you must do certain things. More specifically Stalin's reason were non religious but they were not because of atheism.

If you are an atheist, and you believe that religion in toto is dangerous and destructive, and so therefore you resolve to blow up a church, is your crime not motivated by your atheism? There is nothing in religion that commands you to commit crimes against others, since religion is simply a belief in a deity and membership of a community. Theism has no doctrine; therefore, it cannot dispose itself to violence.

That is antitheism. And no, religion is also the worship of that god, which becomes outlined by their religious texts, and their beliefs lead them to personalize their god and make claims as to what their god tells them to do.

[Leepaidamba]

What? No. I said non religious reasons are as motivating as religious reasons. Atheism is not a reason though. There is nothing in the disbelief of a deity that states that you must do certain things. More specifically Stalin's reason were non religious but they were not because of atheism.

If you are an atheist, and you believe that religion in toto is dangerous and destructive, and so therefore you resolve to blow up a church, is your crime not motivated by your atheism? There is nothing in religion that commands you to commit crimes against others, since religion is simply a belief in a deity and membership of a community. Theism has no doctrine; therefore, it cannot dispose itself to violence.

The bolded is the cause, not atheism.

[Mavorpen]

-snip-

If we're going to duel with dictionaries:

1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true
2. opinion; conviction
3. religious faith
4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc

Mine was Oxford, I think I win.

But regardless, atheism is neither an opinion nor a conviction.

[North Suran]

No. There aren't. There are no assumptions involved in atheism. Atheism holds that everything happens in complyance to scientific laws, which can be proven to exist. Theism makes the one enormous assumption that there is a god of some sort.

There is the assumption that there are no deities, for one, but that's just me being facile. Natural laws exist, but they are not an infallible constant from which everything can be derived and explained. Natural laws vary between galaxies. Science is simply man's concept of proving the existence of natural laws. It is a means to verifying a theory, not a solution in of itself. Atheism does not rest solely on the assumption that science is correct.

Take the origins of the universe, for instance. How do natural laws provide for the creation of the universe as attested in the Big Bang theory, when natural laws did not exist until after the universe was created?

[North Suran]

That is antitheism.

So if I call myself an anti-communist, and set fire to a communist book shop, then it is actually communism that is responsible for my actions?

And no, religion is also the worship of that god, which becomes outlined by their religious texts, and their beliefs lead them to personalize their god and make claims as to what their god tells them to do.

Religion is simply theism with a social aspect. That does not require religious texts or personal interpretation. It merely requires communal worship. And communal worship does not mandate violence. Any group aligned by a belief is capable of being intolerant against those outside that group. Groups, then, are the source of inter-communal violence, not religion or any other ideology.

But regardless, atheism is neither an opinion nor a conviction.

By any description, it is both.

[Mavorpen]

There is the assumption that there are no deities, for one, but that's just me being facile.

That's not an assumption.

Natural laws exist, but they are not an infallible constant from which everything can be derived and explained. Natural laws vary between galaxies.

No, they don't. Natural laws may vary between universes, however they hold true for all galaxies.

Science is simply man's concept of proving the existence of natural laws. It is a means to verifying a theory, not a solution in of itself. Atheism does not rest solely on the assumption that science is correct.

It rests on no assumptions at all. It rests on observed facts.

[Mavorpen]

So if I call myself an anti-communist, and set fire to a communist book shop, then it is actually communism that is responsible for my actions?

Are you reading my posts at all?

Religion is simply theism with a social aspect. That does not require religious texts or personal interpretation. It merely requires communal worship. And communal worship does not mandate violence. Any group aligned by a belief is capable of being intolerant against those outside that group. Groups, then, are the source of inter-communal violence, not religion or any other ideology.

Which definition are you going by? If you go by the traditional definition you're wrong:

EmailCite
religion Pronunciation: /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
Translate religion into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of religion
noun
[mass noun]
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:
the world’s great religions
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:
consumerism is the new religion

If you go with the more general dentition you're still wrong.:

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1]

By any description, it is both.

No, it isn't..

[Leepaidamba]

No. There aren't. There are no assumptions involved in atheism. Atheism holds that everything happens in complyance to scientific laws, which can be proven to exist. Theism makes the one enormous assumption that there is a god of some sort.

There is the assumption that there are no deities, for one, but that's just me being facile.

You realise that it's irrelevant, so no argument is made here.

Natural laws exist, but they are not an infallible constant from which everything can be derived and explained.

You say so, but so far that is an assumption, while the opposite is well supported by all evidence.

Natural laws vary between galaxies.

Really? I'm pretty sure F=ma in Andromeda just as much as here.

Science is simply man's concept of proving the existence of natural laws.

No. It's a systematic method of trying to gain an increasingly better understanding of everything.

It is a means to verifying a theory, not a solution in of itself.

You're right, but your implication is wrong.

Atheism does not rest solely on the assumption that science is correct.

True, but then neither does theism.

Take the origins of the universe, for instance. How do natural laws provide for the creation of the universe as attested in the Big Bang theory, when natural laws did not exist until after the universe was created?

Natural laws are descriptions of the interactions of fundamental particles. If fundamental particles were formed first during the Big Bang, then that's the reason why there were no natural laws before.
I think the argument has been made many times in this thread, especially by theists that something cannot come from nothing. In scientific terms this is true insofar as the conservation of energy is real. Given that energy is conserved, it should in principle be possible for E=0 to become E=x and E=-x, as they cancel out. This is only one of the ways in which it's possible to account for the origins of the universe from nothing and by nothing.

[Leepaidamba]

That is antitheism.

So if I call myself an anti-communist, and set fire to a communist book shop, then it is actually communism that is responsible for my actions?

No, it's still your anti-communism, partially at least. It's however not your non-communism.

But regardless, atheism is neither an opinion nor a conviction.

By any description, it is both.

Atheism is not having a positive belief in any god. It might be accompanied by a negative belief, but it's not a belief by itself.

[North Suran]

It rests on no assumptions at all. It rests on observed facts.

There seems to be an effort here to interweave science and atheism. Atheism is not science, and science is not atheistic. Atheism might use scientific methods to assert its belief, but atheism cannot simply be substantiated by "because science". How, for instance, is it an 'observed fact' that deities do no exist? One can hardly disprove a concept. Moreover, how is it observed fact that the universe can account for its own existence, when this is an assumption? How is the existence of multiple universes an observed fact, when it is in fact an assumption? How it is an observed fact that natural laws are constant, when this is an assumption? How can you say that the laws of physics hold true for all galaxies, when this is an assumption that is currently being challenged?

To quote that article: "The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We're here to test physics, not to assume it."