Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

God & Falsifiability (discussion moved from other thread)

123578

Comments

  • #122
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    nkay1985 wrote: »
    Given that you believe that the only person who can prove God to anyone is God himself. Believe, not accept.

    I accept that there are some atheists that look for physical proof and the bible doesn't cut it for them afaic.

    None of your arguments have won me over. But I still dont understand the attraction of atheism.I hope I am not dragging this off topic but sometimes the atheists are accused as using atheism as a compensatory belief system and with "memes" etc I can see why.So I reject God and I compensate for it with fundamental atheism as my belief system.

    Still anyone who reads the forum or threads may see different types of atheist some reject God as a supreme being - some concede a God as a creator and I assume these are 'deists ' and they might say well if there is a God he is passive and there is no evidence that He is hands on. AM I right so far. They are unified in believing there is no afterlife or soul or anything like that.

    That doesn't mean there is a rejection of ethics or morality - I dont see any Atheist Swingers Parties coming up. Believers believe that we owe our moral values etc to God whereas some atheists say its "memes". So you don't get a breakdown in society with an absence of a God belief.

    SO Im asking -where is the attraction of atheism and on the values etc how do you account for them and is atheism a compensatory belief system?


  • #123
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,380 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    CDfm wrote: »
    I accept that there are some atheists that look for physical proof and the bible doesn't cut it for them afaic.

    The bible doesn't cut it simply because the only thing the bible is physical proof of is that there is a book called the bible.


  • #124
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    The bible doesn't cut it simply because the only thing the bible is physical proof of is that there is a book called the bible.

    I accept that -no probs with me there- you are only reiterating what I pointed out. What about all the rest?


  • #125
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    CDfm wrote: »
    SO Im asking -where is the attraction of atheism and on the values etc how do you account for them and is atheism a compensatory belief system?
    There's no attraction to atheism, it's just nothing else makes any sense.

    Evolution isn't purely physical. Both human bodies and minds evolved. The whole package is what made our species survive. Those who cared for their peers and tended towards civil relations with one another survived over those who were hostile towards each other. Our minds, the way we think, was shaped by evolution, and that's ultimately where our values come from.

    There's nothing to compensate for and atheism isn't a belief system.


  • #126
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,380 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    CDfm wrote: »
    I accept that -no probs with me there- you are only reiterating what I pointed out. What about all the rest?

    I dont see atheism as a belief system,it's not rigid enough to be called that i think, I don't have any ideals beyond my own life.

    I dont fully understand memes, but i think i get the idea,it stands to reason, people and morals have been around a lot longer than any of the current religions,mainstream or otherwise, and i think it's obvious that we have morals because it makes no sense not to, life can't exist without a moral framework of some sort,it's just part of the natural order.

    I was atheist long before i had read about any of the scientific reasons why there's probably not a god,so all that stuff did was reinforce what i thought. When i look at the world, especially things in nature, it's beauty can completely stop me in my tracks, the way everything works in complete harmony,but also the chaos of it all, the harshness of nature too. I just don't see where a god could fit in,everything seems to be doing just fine, or in some cases not, on their own.

    I think religion came about because people dont like to think that they're not the most important thing in the universe, it's arrogance. I think the fact that we're so self aware and aware of everything around us gives causes us this unwarranted feeling of self importance,so we made up this notion that we're actually immortal and there's this great plan for us all. It just seems so silly when you think about it clearly.

    Apologies if i'm not making any sense, i find it hard to put these things into words sometimes. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    nkay1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,975 ✭✭✭nkay1985


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Apologies if i'm not making any sense, i find it hard to put these things into words sometimes. :)

    I think you've done quite well :)
    CDfm wrote: »
    SO Im asking -where is the attraction of atheism and on the values etc how do you account for them and is atheism a compensatory belief system?


    I don't think atheism can be defined as a belief system. Every atheist is unique. We each have our own set of morals and values that we have formed ourselves. Members of religions are united in their beliefs and morals.

    There are no values of atheism so there is nothing to account for. The only thing that atheism is is a belief that there is no deity. We all reached that conclusion in different ways. The only thing that ties us under a label is the fact that we don't believe in a deity! So are you asking what is the attraction of not believing in a god?


  • #128
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    nkay1985 wrote: »

    Every atheist is unique.

    This gives the impression that atheism isnt organised -but thats not the case - a quick google search threw up this as the first link.

    http://www.galha.org/dir/humanist/uk.html

    Londons Atheist Bus -ahem - Im not criticising it but it whiffs of organised athism to me.


  • #129
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    I accept that there are some atheists that look for physical proof and the bible doesn't cut it for them afaic.

    None of your arguments have won me over. But I still dont understand the attraction of atheism.I hope I am not dragging this off topic but sometimes the atheists are accused as using atheism as a compensatory belief system and with "memes" etc I can see why.So I reject God and I compensate for it with fundamental atheism as my belief system.

    Still anyone who reads the forum or threads may see different types of atheist some reject God as a supreme being - some concede a God as a creator and I assume these are 'deists ' and they might say well if there is a God he is passive and there is no evidence that He is hands on. AM I right so far. They are unified in believing there is no afterlife or soul or anything like that.

    That doesn't mean there is a rejection of ethics or morality - I dont see any Atheist Swingers Parties coming up. Believers believe that we owe our moral values etc to God whereas some atheists say its "memes". So you don't get a breakdown in society with an absence of a God belief.

    SO Im asking -where is the attraction of atheism and on the values etc how do you account for them and is atheism a compensatory belief system?

    Well, the simple answer is that atheism is not a belief system. It is simply the rejection of another belief system. Just like a-pixieism, a-fairyism, a-satanism, etc, etc are not belief systems.


  • #130
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    This gives the impression that atheism isnt organised -but thats not the case - a quick google search threw up this as the first link.

    http://www.galha.org/dir/humanist/uk.html

    Londons Atheist Bus -ahem - Im not criticising it but it whiffs of organised athism to me.

    Atheists have only one common theme. They reject the belief in god/s. Is that to say that all atheists are the same? That we all follow the same system and are organised as such? Well, that would be akin to saying that Muslims, Christians, Hindu's etc are all the same. So Islam and Judaism are organised together?

    Some people are indeed calling for the organisation of atheists, simply to signal the group as a significant proportion of the population, and to perhaps stand up for their rights, where necessary. For example, it is illegal in certain US states to sit on a jury, or hold local public office, if you are an atheist. Atheists are so de-centralised that no single one could hope to oppose this, but an organised group could, much like a trade union.


  • #131
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Atheists have only one common theme. They reject the belief in god/s. Is that to say that all atheists are the same? That we all follow the same system and are organised as such? Well, that would be akin to saying that Muslims, Christians, Hindu's etc are all the same. So Islam and Judaism are organised together?

    Some people are indeed calling for the organisation of atheists, simply to signal the group as a significant proportion of the population, and to perhaps stand up for their rights, where necessary. For example, it is illegal in certain US states to sit on a jury, or hold local public office, if you are an atheist. Atheists are so de-centralised that no single one could hope to oppose this, but an organised group could, much like a trade union.

    http://www.atheist.ie/ is an Irish Group.

    The activities have promotion of a belief system like it or not.Public meetings and the like. Its not like Atheist Civil Rights - in Ireland atheists have Civil Rights. The leader of the Labour Party is an atheist and promotes himself as one -so yer not politically disenfranchised either.

    Am I right in saying the secular issues are completely different and I read somewhere that atheism is the Albanian State Religion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    http://www.atheist.ie/ is an Irish Group.

    The activities have promotion of a belief system like it or not.Public meetings and the like. Its not like Atheist Civil Rights - in Ireland atheists have Civil Rights. The leader of the Labour Party is an atheist and promotes himself as one -so yer not politically disenfranchised either.

    You know, any time I discuss anything with you, its almost as if you are answering someone else.

    Anyway, could you define what you think a belief system is, for a start. Cause you have a pretty generalised definition, from my position. Under your criteria, anything could be a belief system. Are Star Trek groups a belief system?


  • #133
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    You know, any time I discuss anything with you, its almost as if you are answering someone else.

    Anyway, could you define what you think a belief system is, for a start. Cause you have a pretty generalised one, from my position. Under your criteria, anything could be a belief system. Are Star Trek groups a belief system?

    Sorry FD - I thought a good thread had lost it.

    Well I suppose a belief system would have a central tenet - be organised in some shape or form, having some type of promotion is optional in acquiring new members.

    Star Trek groups are a hobby or entertainment.

    Humanist and atheist groups would have some of these and there is the policy of promotion and attraction of some groups.



    Can you think of anything Ive missed.


  • #134
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    Sorry FD - I thought a good thread had lost it.

    Well I suppose a belief system would have a central tenet - be organised in some shape or form, having some type of promotion is optional in acquiring new members.

    Star Trek groups are a hobby or entertainment.

    Humanist and atheist groups would have some of these and there is the policy of promotion and attraction of some groups.



    Can you think of anything Ive missed.

    I don't think you have fleshed it out enough. How about this? Try defining why these three groups are/are not belief systems:

    1) Christianity

    2) Atheists

    3) Trekists


  • #135
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Humanism is a bad example since both atheists and theists belong to it.


  • #136
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    CDfm wrote: »
    http://www.atheist.ie/ is an Irish Group.
    Atheist Ireland has been discussed here several times (do a search!) and the general feeling around here was that people didn't really see the purpose of it. Certainly, Humanists have a "belief system", but just because people create a society with a common 'belief'- a system doesn't automatically follow. Hence the skepticism you'll see here about AI.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Well I suppose a belief system would have a central tenet - be organised in some shape or form, having some type of promotion is optional in acquiring new members.
    Again, simply gathering people with a shared belief in one single idea does not a belief system make. No more than the taxi driver demonstration in Dublin yesterday.

    Vegetarians have more of a belief system than atheists.


  • #137
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    Humanism is a bad example since both atheists and theists belong to it.

    I post on A+A.

    But I agree with FD there needs to be definitions.

    So it should be Christians and Atheists.Thats very sensible because arguments about Islamic Fundamentalists will just drag us off topic and trekkie and teapot stuff will exclude Christians who might post.


    I dont know enough about Humanism but does it have atheism as its core "belief". I think we should leave it in. Especially on the attraction,philosophy and ethics side. But I will leave it to you.


  • #138
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dades wrote: »
    Atheist Ireland has been discussed here several times (do a search!) and the general feeling around here was that people didn't really see the purpose of it. Certainly, Humanists have a "belief system", but just because people create a society with a common 'belief'- a system doesn't automatically follow. Hence the skepticism you'll see here about AI.

    Again, simply gathering people with a shared belief in one single idea does not a belief system make. No more than the taxi driver demonstration in Dublin yesterday.

    Vegetarians have more of a belief system than atheists.

    I think we should just do a quick consensus - I would leave it to you guys - but I would enjoy a fairly sensible discussion and want to learn a bit.


  • #139
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I'm sorry... you've lost me.


  • #140
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    This gives the impression that atheism isnt organised -but thats not the case

    Atheist can organise themselves together under shared ideas, but that isn't really the same thing.

    For example there is nothing about being an atheist that says someone should think it is a good idea to stick a poster on the side of a bus saying God probably doesn't exist.

    A group of atheists, who all thought that was a good idea, can get together and do it, but there is nothing about atheism that says you should think it is a good idea. A die hard atheist next door could think the whole idea was utterly stupid and that doesn't make him any less or more atheist.


  • #141
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    nkay1985 wrote: »
    I don't think atheism can be defined as a belief system. Every atheist is unique. We each have our own set of morals and values that we have formed ourselves. Members of religions are united in their beliefs and morals.

    The fact there are 30,000 (and counting) divisions in the body Christianity (for example) would indicate otherwise. And within those fractions there are differing beliefs and morals.
    There are no values of atheism so there is nothing to account for. The only thing that atheism is is a belief that there is no deity. We all reached that conclusion in different ways. The only thing that ties us under a label is the fact that we don't believe in a deity! So are you asking what is the attraction of not believing in a god?

    Would you agree that all atheists believe that the universe and everything in it came about naturalistically? Couldn't one suppose that the reason an atheist doesn't believe in this that or the other god is because he has this other overarching belief occupying the ground?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The fact there are 30,000 (and counting) divisions in the body Christianity (for example) would indicate otherwise. And within those fractions there are differing beliefs and morals.

    Your point being? His point still stands in that he was talking about individual religions Protestants all the way to Catholics. There are no such divisions in Atheism due to the fact that there is no unification.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Would you agree that all atheists believe that the universe and everything in it came about naturalistically? Couldn't one suppose that the reason an atheist doesn't believe in this that or the other god is because he has this other overarching belief occupying the ground?

    Change believe with observe. So far all my observations (bound by the limits of my intellect and senses) lead to not needing a supernatural reason. Why is that difficult for you to grasp?


  • #143
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Your point being? His point still stands in that he was talking about individual religions Protestants all the way to Catholics. There are no such divisions in Atheism due to the fact that there is no unification.

    We have an example of an area of unification below - have we not?

    Change believe with observe. So far all my observations (bound by the limits of my intellect and senses) lead to not needing a supernatural reason. Why is that difficult for you to grasp?

    In the face of an unknown (regarding how the universe and everything in it came about) how so "observe". It hasn't been observed yet.

    Can we say that atheists are unified in their belief that what is not yet known regarding the universe and where it stems from will turn out (in fact or in principle) to be naturalistic.


  • #144
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Can we say that atheists are unified in their belief that what is not yet known regarding the universe and where it stems from will turn out (in fact or in principle) to be naturalistic.

    I differ. I say if it is not naturalistic we will never know. For everything that we can't observe we can't know and everything that we can observe is naturalistic.


  • #145
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Would you agree that all atheists believe that the universe and everything in it came about naturalistically? Couldn't one suppose that the reason an atheist doesn't believe in this that or the other god is because he has this other overarching belief occupying the ground?

    There seems to be a common misconception that atheism & theism are two halves of the same thing. That they are both based in a belief.

    There is one enormous difference. I am an atheist by default, not by choice. I do not choose not to believe in God, in lieu of any evidence to the contrary I have nothing to base a belief on. If I look at all the physical evidence we do have - the theories that have at least a toe-hold in fact & calculable probability then it seems like the most logical answer to the big questions that we have to date. That doesn't mean I "believe" it to be completely true, just that until there is evidence to suggest otherwise, it seems the most likely.

    This is not the same as someone choosing to believe in that which they cannot prove, of which there is no physical evidence nor test available with which to argue even probability - just blind faith. Then deciding which branch of that particular faith most closely resembles their own ideas of what answers the big questions.

    Is this not similar to the atheism as a religion/non-stamp collecting arguments?


  • #146
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    sink wrote: »
    I differ. I say if it is not naturalistic we will never know. For everything that we can't observe we can't know and everything that we can observe is naturalistic.

    By naturalistically I mean arising in accordance with the laws of nature. God writing "I did it supernaturally" in the clouds wouldn't be naturalistic yet would be observable.

    You believe that whatever is not yet known (but will become known) will turn out to be naturalistic. Don't you?


  • #147
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    There seems to be a common misconception that atheism & theism are two halves of the same thing. That they are both based in a belief.

    I'm arguing that atheists have a unifying belief. A belief that all arose naturalistically
    I am an atheist by default, not by choice. I do not choose not to believe in God, in lieu of any evidence to the contrary I have nothing to base a belief on.

    I didn't choose to believe in God. God turned up and because he did I believed. In lieu of evidence to the contrary I believe the only thing I can believe in - just like you can only believe the only thing you can believe in: naturalistic means.

    If I look at all the physical evidence we do have - the theories that have at least a toe-hold in fact & calculable probability then it seems like the most logical answer to the big questions that we have to date. That doesn't mean I "believe" it to be completely true, just that until there is evidence to suggest otherwise, it seems the most likely.

    There is no way to calculate probablilities. You can generate illusions of probability by inserted starting assumptions here and there - but these assumptions inevitably find their root in philosophies which cannot demonstrate themselves to have any concrete moorings.

    It's turtles all the way down.


    This is not the same as someone choosing to believe in that which they cannot prove, of which there is no physical evidence nor test available with which to argue even probability - just blind faith. Then deciding which branch of that particular faith most closely resembles their own ideas of what answers the big questions.

    I gather there are plenty of Christians who hold to ToE and an old Earth. What have you got that they haven't got? Like, when you have to reach down into the darkest recesses of your hat to pull out a quantum fluctuation or the like then both you and we begin to sound increasingly alike.


  • #148
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    We have an example of an area of unification below - have we not?

    In the sense that we're just normal human beings acting reasonably yes. Why do you feel like you need to persist with this idea that atheism is a belief system when we consistently tell you its not?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    In the face of an unknown (regarding how the universe and everything in it came about) how so "observe". It hasn't been observed yet.

    Can we say that atheists are unified in their belief that what is not yet known regarding the universe and where it stems from will turn out (in fact or in principle) to be naturalistic.

    No I don't believe anything with respect to what is yet unknown about the universe and I don't expect I will ever know that unknown I'm fine with that. I'm happy to observe and know as much as I can. My experience has been that everything I know has a natural reason.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You believe that whatever is not yet known (but will become known) will turn out to be naturalistic. Don't you?

    Personally I don't no (but its trending that way). Everything up to the limit of my knowledge has a natural reason I don't need to go further than that, you do each to his own.


  • #149
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm arguing that atheists have a unifying belief. A belief that all arose naturalistically
    This is not a tenant of atheism. You can be an atheist and not know or claim to know what happened in the beginning.


  • #150
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm arguing that atheists have a unifying belief. A belief that all arose naturalistically.

    Indeed. And all a-fairyists, like you and I, share a unfiying belief. And all a-pixieists (you and I), and a-pinkelephantists (you and I), and a-cosmicspidermonkeyists (you and I). In fact, I feel we have an awful lot in common, we could share an almost infinite number of unifying beliefs. Why do we disagree so, brother?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm arguing that atheists have a unifying belief. A belief that all arose naturalistically

    No, they have a common disbelief in a God.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I didn't choose to believe in God. God turned up and because he did I believed. In lieu of evidence to the contrary I believe the only thing I can believe in - just like you can only believe the only thing you can believe in: naturalistic means.

    God turned up - what does that mean? You are choosing to believe in something that you cannot show me. That you cannot give me any proof of. As there is no evidence to support a belief that an omnipotent being produced life as I know it, I have no alternative than to suppose it came about another way. It's not that I think Christianity have it wrong, Buddhism is incorrect or Islam have the wrong end of the stick - if any of those belief systems could prove to me that they had the right answer, I'd go with that.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There is no way to calculate probablilities. You can generate illusions of probability by inserted starting assumptions here and there - but these assumptions inevitably find their root in philosophies which cannot demonstrate themselves to have any concrete moorings.

    It's turtles all the way down.

    I can touch my house, it's there, it's palpable. I can touch the ground. If I drop a cup it hits the floor, if my heart stops beating I die & so on. There are definite assumptions I can make that are based on what I can see, feel & hear – in fact, not just what I can see, hear & feel but what anyone else around me can as well. It's not just a private audience with science.

    Tutles? :confused:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I gather there are plenty of Christians who hold to ToE and an old Earth. What have you got that they haven't got? Like, when you have to reach down into the darkest recesses of your hat to pull out a quantum fluctuation or the like then both you and we begin to sound increasingly alike.


    I think a lot of religious people have had to accept the world is slightly older than they were led to believe & so on, I’m not sure that bolsters your point any tbh. I don’t have to reach into my hat, I don’t spend every day arguing or fighting to maintain my belief in the unknown or try to convince others that despite there being no evidence, I'm still right. I sleep more than happily with the knowledge that I just don’t know but equally happy that I haven’t just made something up to plug the gap. :)


Advertisement