Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I was just wondering how you guys justify your belief in the non-existence of God.

You know holding a belief that God does not exist is just as unjustifiable as holding the belief that God does exist. The fact of the matter here is that we can honestly know nothing on the subject. God should he exist, is not a perceptible being, we can have no experience of him. This is not only a problem for believers but for non-believers as well. For most people this seems to only be an argument against God, "how can you believe in God if you never see him!?" however you are not meant to experience him. That you do not experience God is no argument against it, if he did exist you would not experience him anyway!

As Hume argued we cannot make any meaningful arguments without empirical experiences to guide us. To express anything meaningful we must have a clear and distinct idea of it. Such conceptions of God are impossible, you cannot say anything meaningful on this subject either in favour or against religion.

Hume's conclusion at the end of  An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

Quote

    When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion

I dislike atheism as it is just as dogmatic in its view that God certainly does not exist as religion is in blindly asserting the existence of God. The true scientific and philosophical opinion on this ought be agnosticism. The acceptance that we simply cannot know, a blind faith in the non-existence of God is in my opinion just as damaging a view as a blind faith in his existence.

So how do you justify yourselves non-believers  ;D

First - Atheism is not a belief it is a lack of belief.

I lack a belief in god(s) as there is no evidence to suggest there is one.

Atheism has no set of rules or beliefs, it is not dogmatic.

You are asserting in being an atheist that God does not exist.
Which implies that you believe that God does not exist.

Or are you telling me that you will claim that God does not exist in your claim that your an atheist, but that you do not believe it  ???

I'm not saying god doesn't exist, I am saying I don't believe in god(s). There is a difference.

I personally am an agnostic atheist, but i'm only agnostic towards god as I am to lepricons.

Nice save :D
So technically your agnostic like me, I am just very much on the fence whereas you think he is a leprachaun. However you ought not claim your an atheist unless you actively disbelieve in God.

I lack a belief in god(s), i'm just not stupid enough to claim that I am 100% sure.

Yep but some people do. Also many many people will claim to be atheist when as it turns out on reflection they are not, such as yourself.
I am just trying to highlight this, because I enjoy it.

A lot of people are far to willing to substitute one belief for another equally wrong one.

I am atheist, i'm an agnostic atheist. I've already had this debate you can be both.

Yea I know. Thats why I said "Nice save" like 2 posts ago. Due to that being the best get out clause to legitimately retain the atheist title, even if it is qualified by that of agnosticism.

Quote from: Seras on June 06, 2010, 08:25:36 AM
Yea I know.

Then why did you say that I was not?

Quote from: Seras on June 06, 2010, 08:19:59 AM
Also many many people will claim to be atheist when as it turns out on reflection they are not, such as yourself.

Because agnostic atheist =/= atheist.
Just as:
Strong atheism =/= Weak atheism.

You gotta be careful with such terms. Especially when the topic in question has been created by a soon to be philosophy graduate  :)
However perhaps I should also, maybe I should have specified my problem was with "stong atheism" but I thought that was implicit in my original post.

Agnostic atheists are atheists because they lack a belief in god (a- without, theist-god). They are agnostic because they believe we can't have absolute knowledge.

Indeed.
But I am challenging atheists proper, the strong view.

QuoteI was just wondering how you guys justify your belief in the non-existence of God.

See.

Where there is god there are people - without the people god doesn't seem to make much sense - if god only makes sense through people then presumably god is a result of how people can think.

I'm not an "atheist" per say, but someone who doesn't believe in the existence of an all powerful creator god in any way.

I find the question "how do you justify" to be a bit offensive actually. No one needs to "justify" their beliefs nor lack of beliefs. That's the beauty of the freedom of religion.
We are free to believe what we believe, no justification really needed.
So the better question is simply "why?"
"Why are you atheist?"

Since the question often really means "Why don't you believe in my god?" or "Why do you believe my god does not exist?" I'm interested in replying.

And then I bump into this problem.
"unjustifiable"
Well, there's a bit of a problem with this. Similar to the one before. I don't think you're using the "right" word.
What would probably be a better word is "unprovable".

Right, with those complaints out of the way.

I find the idea of a single creator god, responsible for all existence, to be a bit of a cop out.
See, when I was a child, I was raised in "Christianity light", you know what I mean. The bible existed in the house but wasn't read. God was presented as a benevolent protector and creator of mankind. Sunday-School never mentioned hell, and taught the many tales that were supposed to show how good and generous god was.
And I, as a child, found myself with questions.

I think the first thing that made me go "wait, what?" was a short song.
I don't know if it exists in English, but the lyric in Icelandic tells the story of two men. One was stupid and built his house on sand, the other was smart and built his house on a mountain. A flood came and wiped out the house on the sand but spared the house on the mountain.
They told us that the song was about how faith in god would keep us safe. That the mountain was faith.
And I remember semi-obsessing over this song.
I realized I didn't have "faith". I didn't walk around in this certainty that something other, greater than me, existed. I didn't even trust that something other, greater than me, existed.
I had been told that this powerful thing had personally created me and all things, and that he personally was watching over me and all things, and I had been told that I needed to have faith in this as truth to be safe from a metaphorical flood.

I found myself wondering. If yhvh made the stupid man stupid, and loved the stupid man as he loved all men, then why would he blame the man for being "stupid" and wipe his house off the sand?

This was my first serious question, and no man has ever provided any good answer to it. The only answer I've gotten is the equivalent to "God works in mysterious ways"...

See, here's why the "all powerful creator god" is a copout to me.
Everything that happens "god did it this way".
We find evidence that it happened in another way, then "god did it anyway".
God is good and loving and benevolent but bad things happen, then it's all a part of "god's plan". God's plan doesn't make sense, then "you can't understand god", "god works in mysterious ways", etc.

There's no rhyme nor reason provided.
Belief in an all powerful god seems to depend on the idea that you can't understand an all powerful god, so everything you know doesn't matter, cause god's "greater" than that.
And you know what,... I don't buy it.

It just doesn't have any logic behind it.

If there is an all powerful god who wants to be believed in, then why would he create doubt and disbelief?
If he doesn't want us to believe in him really, then why does it matter that I don't?
How can a person believe in an all powerful, all knowing god, and at the same time, believe in free will?

Anyway.

While my existence is an Operating Assumption* to me and little else, I still prefer, under that assumption, to refer to logic and reason.
I like evidence.
I like peer reviewed research.
I like things I can rely on.

I base my beliefs and opinions on as much logic and reason and Evidence as I can.
Evidence being the key word.

There's zero evidence that there's an all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent deity, so, I don't have any reason to believe one exists. Thus, I don't have belief in his existence.

I am not "agnostic" per say. I don't stand here going "I don't know whether there is a god", even though I don't know. I'm not on any proverbial fence.
I sit here and go "You know what, there's no evidence that this thing exists, talk to me when there is".

And yet, I'm not an atheist.
Why? Because I make the conscious choice not to be.
I make the conscious choice to work under the operating assumption that the gods I personally prefer have some sway over my life. I don't know if they exist, and I have no "faith". I have an operating assumption.


(*Operating Assumption; Operating as if the Assumption that X is correct.)

Quote from: Seras on June 06, 2010, 08:02:11 AM
You are asserting in being an atheist that God does not exist.
Which implies that you believe that God does not exist.

Or are you telling me that you will claim that God does not exist in your claim that your an atheist, but that you do not believe it  ???

Why is it on the backs of those who know there isn't a god to show proof? There isn't a tooth fairy either but I am not going to prove that to you.

Quote from: Dana Lane on June 06, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
Why is it on the backs of those who know there isn't a god to show proof? There isn't a tooth fairy either but I am not going to prove that to you.

Because an atheists main objection to god believers is, "you can't prove there's a god". In reality, most theists don't base their belief off any scientific proof, that would defeat the whole purpose of faith.

It is on the back of anyone who makes any claim to show it to be true.

As an atheist your making the claim "God does not exist".
There is the same onus here as claiming "God does exist".

Thanks for the interesting replies I will look them over later when I got some spare time :)

For some atheists, the notion of

Quote from: Dana Lane on June 06, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
Why is it on the backs of those who know there isn't a god to show proof? There isn't a tooth fairy either but I am not going to prove that to you.

Principally, because those people who make such an issue of atheism are propounding a belief. Someone mentioned Hume, who, as so often, makes a reasoned point.

Someone who thinks of any deity in the same way as most think of the tooth fairy spend practically no time at all. I've known atheists who have attended church services for funerals and such. They show absolute respect for the customs and traditions. They behave in a way that is appropriate to the situation. I once asked someone why and he replied because it is good manners. I only knew he held no beliefs when I asked him once. He certainly didn't make any sort of issue or try to justify himself. Any more than I would if asked if I believed in the tooth fairy.

I personally have attended Islamic weddings. I have also attended some Hindu celebrations. Like that man, I attempted to show respect.

That is a tad different from those who wander around waving their atheist flags as if their are occupying a corner of the intelligentsia.

If someone doesn't hold beliefs, then those beliefs are of no importance to them.

But, it seems, many atheists do hold very strong beliefs. Moreover, beliefs that are both Proselytizing and confrontational

Also, acknowledging that you do not believe something means that you hold a belief. Atheism is a belief even if it's simply stated. As what spacial explaine more in depth. Semantics can distort this fact.

Quote from: Seras on June 06, 2010, 10:17:47 AM
It is on the back of anyone who makes any claim to show it to be true.

As an atheist your making the claim "God does not exist".
There is the same onus here as claiming "God does exist"

Atheists do not accept anything but science as proof of the existence of god. So when a theist claims "God exists!" merely having faith is sufficient evidence and they do not need to defend themselves further, nor should they have to. The athiesm vs. god argument is invalid in my opinion because each side is basing their arguments on two seperate and different definitions from the start. (Their own)

IMO sometimes atheists and be just as bad as people of faith in pushing their views on others. I don't care what people believe or don't believe just as long as they have the tolerance to leave others to their views and keep their own to themselves and not try and convert someone else to their way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with discussion and debate but it becomes annoying when people on both sides of the argument begin to have an arrogance to their beliefs. I find it terribly bothersome when someone of faith tries to preach religion to me and what I ought to believe, I'm sure it works the same way from the other end.

Hi Seras. Just a reminder that this is the forum for atheists to discuss issues pertaining to their beliefs or lack thereof. Nobody of any belief (or lack thereof in this case) is called upon to justify their position here at Susans. Discussion and polite inquiries are fine, but please avoid the confrontational tone. Spirituality is a very personal thing and all forms are respected here. Thank you.

I don't believe there is a god of any sort. Usually, actions are justified but this is a lack of a belief/religion so it's a non-action. The only reason I'd be an oddity is if everyone was supposed to have a religion. Why? I was not born with a religion, I just don't have one. I don't go around trying to convince people there is no god (pointless and obnoxious.) I'm just respectful and not convinced.

Hi Seras,
.
I'm not particularly fond of dogmatic theists or athiests either...or dogmatic agnostics or dogmatic philosophers for that matter. :P
.
Personally, I'm agnostic...but I'll try my hand at arguing the athiestic viewpoint here:
.
- - - - - - -
The true scientific and philosophical opinion on this ought be agnosticism.
.
First:  Science and philosophy are two very different disciplines.
.
Philosophy: (definitions per Webster)
"all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical art"
"a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means."
.
Science:
"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"
Scientific method:
"principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"
.
Essentially, in the day-to-day life of individuals, science is about being practical.  This is what we know, and this is how we know it.
.
It is on the back of anyone who makes any claim to show it to be true.
.
I don't believe in the Jabberwocky. Though I'm sure Mr. Carroll doeth protest while he sits under the Tumtum tree with his vorpal blade.  Fairy godmothers?  We'll have to confer with the knowledgeable brothers Grimm about that one.  Zeus?  Let's ask the ancient Greeks.  Baal?  The Canaanites.  Chalmecatecuchtlz?  The Aztecs.  The christian god?  A priest.
.
The imagination is a wonderful thing.  It can come up with countless things that do not exist.  Your assertion is that we should implicitly trust philosophy for all knowledge.  This means believing nothing...nor ruling out anything ever.  As such, it is a state of no knowledge...nothing is ever certain.
.
Uncertainty does not lead to action.  It leads to sitting on a chair just coming up with more thoughts.  If Chalmecatecuchtlz exists...then we risk his wrath by not sacrificing people to him.  If he does not exist, then he can be safely ignored.  By not taking action, you are taking a side...that of believing there is no risk (or not enough risk).  You're hedging your bets on non-existence, even if you tell yourself that you can't know with 100% certainty.  It's far easier to dismiss the long forgotten god of a dead society than the current incarnation of our own society.  If all things are equal in your premise, to a philosopher such should not be so.  Though...what benefit is there to endless debate about the existence of hundreds of dead gods and goddesses?  It fills time...but to what end?
.
Further...if philosophy ran science, what would we have today?
Phrenology? Alchemists still attempting to turn lead to gold?  Barbers bleeding patients because some patients do get better after they rebalance their humours? Music of the spheres?  Earth as the center of the universe because it was thought that it said so in 'The Book'?  Nothing is certain...so everything is acceptable...unless you can prove 100% that it's not true...or never works.
.
Science is there to give us guideposts...a raft...in the murky sea of reality.  Sure...the true reality is that nothing can be known 100%.  Dogmatic athiests  don't trifle with the "well...Chalmecatecuchtlz could exist...he really could."  It wastes time.  There is not even so much as a grain of proof.  It wastes thought.  It's not worth contemplating.  The burden of evidence is upon the believers to provide...it's not the athiest's obligation to waste their time with every figment of the imagination that others come up with.  It's basic scientific method.  There's no definitive empirical evidence to even begin from.
.
As far as god is concerned...if the past is any indication of the future...one day our society will be no more, and their god will cease to serve as anything but Homeric literature for future generations.
.
- - - -
Ok...that's my best shot at the athiestic point of view.  You seem to be a philosophy major looking for a little philosophical scuffle...so I hope that's what you were looking for.  :P

Quote from: Seras on June 06, 2010, 10:17:47 AM
It is on the back of anyone who makes any claim to show it to be true.

As an atheist your making the claim "God does not exist".
There is the same onus here as claiming "God does exist".

Thanks for the interesting replies I will look them over later when I got some spare time :)

I would say you are working from a false precept - it takes a lot more to argue that something does exist than to argue that something does not exist - I would also say that most atheists don't think about 'does god exist' or 'does god not exist'. I think they would be saying that whether god exists or not is not a valid question

Quote from: uni on June 06, 2010, 10:59:29 AM
Atheists do not accept anything but science as proof of the existence of god. So when a theist claims "God exists!" merely having faith is sufficient evidence and they do not need to defend themselves further, nor should they have to. The athiesm vs. god argument is invalid in my opinion because each side is basing their arguments on two seperate and different definitions from the start. (Their own)

This is an excellent perspective. I wish I'd thought of it.

But I've just remembered something, that there are two types of athiests. Those that don't accept a god, in much the same way that few accept the tooth fairy. They don't think about it except when the matter comes to the fore. It's not relevant to their daily lives.

The second group actively seek to propound their belief. Strangely, this group actually need a god.  :D

Richard Dawkins belongs to this second group. But he seeks to justify it by claiming that religion is responsible for so much suffering, doing away with it would make the world a better place.

There are so many flaws in his reasoning.

QuoteAtheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God"

Quote from: Seras on June 06, 2010, 08:09:31 AM
Nice save :D
So technically your agnostic like me, I am just very much on the fence whereas you think he is a leprachaun. However you ought not claim your an atheist unless you actively disbelieve in God.

Basically, there are two types of atheists, strong atehists and weak atheists.  Strong atheists think it is possible to prove that there is no god.  Weak atheists think that it is not possible to prove that there is no god.  Then there are those who do not know whether it is possible to prove there is no god.  Any of these atheists who are not strong atheists are "agnostic atheists."   Agnostic atheists outnumber strong atheists about a zillion to one, and most of us view strong athiests as irrational.

The fact that you were confused about the meaning of "atheists" does not make it inaccurate for agnostic atheists to call themselves atheists.  They are different from those who simply call themselves "agnostics" typically in that they are not "searching" for god.  "Agnostics," in contrast, typically think there is probably a god, but they don't know which god is the the right one.  Agnostic atheists find the poposisition that there is a god rather laughable and irrational, but not disprovable.  So there's your difference.

In a lecture I went to way back when, atheist may believe there is a god but don't believe in god. Agnostics don't believe there is a god.

Quote"Agnostics," in contrast, typically think there is probably a god, but they don't know which god is the the right one.

That is not true. An agnostic does not believe . They seek nothing, they only want to be exposed to  factual evidence and not gods. They do not want probabilities they want only facts. They understand there are things we do not know. Different than an atheist who knows without facts that there is no God.

Quote from: glendagladwitch on June 06, 2010, 04:22:52 PM
Basically, there are two types of atheists, strong atehists and weak atheists.  Strong atheists think it is possible to prove that there is no god.  Weak atheists think that it is not possible to prove that there is no god.  Then there are those who do not know whether it is possible to prove there is no god.  Any of these atheists who are not strong atheists are "agnostic atheists."   Agnostic atheists outnumber strong atheists about a zillion to one, and most of us view strong athiests as irrational.

The fact that you were confused about the meaning of "atheists" does not make it inaccurate for agnostic atheists to call themselves atheists.  They are different from those who simply call themselves "agnostics" typically in that they are not "searching" for god.  "Agnostics," in contrast, typically think there is probably a god, but they don't know which god is the the right one.  Agnostic atheists find the poposisition that there is a god rather laughable and irrational, but not disprovable.  So there's your difference.

No, with respect, both of those hold a belief. That is no real distinction at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist)

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 06, 2010, 05:14:02 PM
I don't need to.
You see, the people who believe in Gods have made a claim that something exists.
Therefore the burden of proof is upon them to show that it exists.
Until they prove that it exists, I have no need to disprove its existence or justify my lack of belief in its existence.

For example, you could claim that there is an invisible 7 foot tall green chicken standing beside you.
It is then up to you to prove that the invisible 7 foot tall green chicken is actually standing beside you.
I did not make the assertion that something exists - you did.
The burden of proof is on you.

well put!

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 06, 2010, 05:14:02 PM
I don't need to.
You see, the people who believe in Gods have made a claim that something exists.
Therefore the burden of proof is upon them to show that it exists.
Until they prove that it exists, I have no need to disprove its existence or justify my lack of belief in its existence.

For example, you could claim that there is an invisible 7 foot tall green chicken standing beside you.
It is then up to you to prove that the invisible 7 foot tall green chicken is actually standing beside you.
I did not make the assertion that something exists - you did.
The burden of proof is on you.

Beat me to it...only I was going to use a purple swan of average proportions instead of a seven-foot-tall green chicken. Is there something inherently colorful and avian about this topic?

Purple swans are prettier? Green giant is larger?

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 06, 2010, 05:14:02 PM
For example, you could claim that there is an invisible 7 foot tall green chicken standing beside you.
It is then up to you to prove that the invisible 7 foot tall green chicken is actually standing beside you.
I did not make the assertion that something exists - you did.
The burden of proof is on you.

I'm glad you didn't say an invisible 6 foot tall rabbit, Harvey would be quite upset.

Note:

I am not saying you must justify yourself to me. I am not intending this confrontational attitude that the word commonly concocts. However I assume that were all rational people here and in my opinion that means we must have reasoning behind our beliefs. My question should you choose to answer it was, what is the reasoning behind your belief that God/s do not exist? You do not have to answer, you do not have to posess justified beliefs, but if you do I am interested to hear them :)

This is what I mean, for any further clarification:

QuoteTo provide an acceptable explanation for; To be a good, acceptable reason for.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/justify

---

Vexing, but couldn't something exist and yet not have any evidence to show that it does? After all the universe is a large place, I am sure there are a great many things that exist yet we have no proof of them. If so then how is the belief that something does not exist because there is no proof, justified? I should imagine there are a great many things in this galaxy, let alone universe, that exist without any proof.

So I imagine you may see how the claim that something does not exist for such reasons, in this case God/s may not be so justified as you think. Then of course you have the idea of God being a metaphysical being which begs the question would we even be able to have proof even if s/he/it/they did exist.

Of course you could claim materialism and that only the physical exists, denying the metaphysical along with anything else. I dislike that however, it feels bleak. Also remember I am no believer, there is no burden on me to show anything, except perhaps that any type of claim about the existence or non-existence of anything should be shown to be rational. I would say the same thing to religious people too, however on this occasion I decided to pick on the atheists  :P

---

PS GlendaGladWitch, yep I mentioned the strong/weak divide earlier. I also commented how I consider "atheism proper" to be "strong atheism", referring to my original post and my request to justify your belief in the non-existence of God. That is, strong atheism. There is not much to prove concerning weak atheism, it definitely does not have the same implications.

Quote from: spacial on June 06, 2010, 04:48:24 PM
No, with respect, both of those hold a belief. That is no real distinction at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist)

So you don't think there is such a thing as a nihilist?  Someone who holds no belifes?  If there is such a thing as a nihilist, is that person an agnostic or an atheist?

Quote from: LordKAT on June 06, 2010, 05:45:16 PMPurple swans are prettier? Green giant is larger?

At the back of my mind was the black swan fallacy. I changed the bird to purple, and--Presto!--realized that Vexing was much quicker to post than I was.

---

Post Merge: June 06, 2010, 06:18:29 PM

---

Quote from: Seras on June 06, 2010, 06:02:01 PMVexing, but couldn't something exist and yet not have any evidence to show that it does?

If there is no evidence that something exists, then I have no basis for believing that it does exist.

Philosophical proofs differ from scientific evidence.

I'm not sure, but I also think you might be conflating "belief" with "faith." My own atheism springs from reasoned beliefs, not unsupported faith. Faith always "works," regardless of whether it's supported by evidence. Science doesn't work that way.

Me; I don't believe there is no god, I simply don't believe in gods.
A lack of belief. Nothing spiritual or religious about it.
The burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim.
Since I do not claim that there is no god, the one who claims there ís a god should deliver the proof if they want to convince me. The absence of something simply cannot be proven, since there's nothing to prove. The presence of something, however, can be proven. Since it's there. It's that simple.

Me; I don't care whether or not there is a god. Or more. I just don't believe in them. I'm not agnostic, because it's not like 'Meh; I don't know.. It could be that..' Instead, I'm an atheist: 'I don't believe in them. That is all.'

I love religions of all sorts to bits. They tell us so much about human psychology, symbolism, mysticism.. The ways of the mind. History, culture, social structuring.. Love it. I don't need to believe in a deity to love a religion, though. I don't need to follow a religion in order to admire it's many facets, either. As an atheist, I see myself as an observer instead of a participant, when it comes to religion. In some cases, when religion is (ab)used to cause harm or grant power, I will be judgemental. Of course. In the most common cases, I won't.

People who go all out against religion are not real atheists, in my book. Because as an atheist, you have nothing to prove. You don't need to prove anything. And that is not about who's wrong and who's right. It's just simply impossible to prove that something does not exist. After all; if it does exist, it can be proven to exist. If it does not exist, then there is simply no evidence whatsoever.
Atheists who try to prove deities don't exist are as bad as people who are one-hundred percent certain that deities do exist. Nobody can be one-hundred percent certain, anyway, since there are far more factors involved. Psychology, physics, plausibility and more.

The only moment I should have to justify myself as an atheist would be if a deity came at my door, and asked me: So; why don't you believe in me? And the answer I'd give would be: Because there was never a good reason to. Everything that has happened so far could have happened with or without a deity, and since 'without' is a simpler answer than 'with,' which only complicates things further, I went for 'without.'
There you have it. :P

My "Justification" is simple. I don't want to believe in god therefore I don't. While I think the logical aspects of atheism are good and all, I personally feel as if I am more of an emotional atheist.

The thought that some sort of intelligent god, created me flaws and all, and allows the suffering I have seen is rather repugnant to me. I don't want to believe in fate, or god or anything else that takes control or responsibility away from my life.

I don't want to knock those who are theists, and I understand that for many people religion serves them in various ways. I have seen several pastors who really did ease the pain and suffering from their community, so I certainly wouldn't proselytize to the theistic community. I think a 'live and let live' attitude is far less stressful...

Kay, I enjoyed your post, it is kind of late but I will reply anyway.  ;D
Also you are correct, I had my exams last month I get my results in 10 days and it was my final year. Strangely enough it suddenly gets a lot more interesting when you dont have to study it any more...

Science vs Philosophy. Scientific method states that you must test things empiricly to verify them. That you form hypotheses and test from empiricly observable and verifiable data. I ask you, what verifiable data do you have pertaining to God? I argue that the scientific method is not equipped to tackle such a question. It goes against its very nature. The philosophies of Hume that I quoted in my original post argue similarly.

Jabberwockies, of course I need to now try and solve this problem. If you have to justify disbelief in everything then how much brainpower will we waste debunking all these things we imagine. I have two ideas, firstly we know these things to be imagined. The Jabberwocky for example is from a poem called "Jabberwocky" (I think..). We know it does not exist because it came from the imagination. You can see this in reality, people do not question their beliefs regarding these things. Santa, imaginary, easter bunny, imaginary and so on. I am suggesting perhaps self evidence, we just know they are imaginary(in fact disbelief is often the default state concerning these things). However the idea of God/s, this is different.  People(some at least) instinctively treat it differently and put faith in the idea. They have done for thousands of years. Is this really analagous to your(short lived, non-pervasive) suggestions, have they ever been seriously considered as existing by rational human beings en masse? Secondly because of this prevalence of the idea of God/s I do not think it is comparable to the 3,000 improbable things Vexing mentioned. The idea of God/s is a fairly concrete one, it is well established and the question has been adressed throughout history. Unlike the existence of a 7 foot chicken or some odd variety of swan, it is in my opinion a question worth considering. A question I should imagine is necessary to adress in order to call oneself an atheist.

As for living by philosophy and the supposition that you would achieve nothing, though a common sterotype(and not one I can be accused of failing to live up to) I have to disagree. Without philosophy the scientific method would not exist. Science would not exist, it all stemmed from philosophy. Even today philosophy plays a role, for example I studied cognitive science last year. There are a lot of theories on brain function and we still do not know enough to escape philosophical speculation. Philosophy will always play a role in answering difficult questions and in establishing the criteria for knowledge. There is and always will be a new frontier however far we progress in knowledge and on that frontier speculation rules.

---
Fun  :D

I like those arguments though, they are definitely pulling the right strings. After all it would be ridiculous to question the existence of everything, including imaginary things. Also critisizing philosophy is a good way to go when the cold truth is that for most things the philosophical criteria for existence are far too stringent for everyday life. However when considering the problem philosophically(that is an attempt at establishing knowledge regarding the existence of a thing) which other method of thought are you to use?

---

PS Arch and Vexing, I have not said once that you ought have any basis for believing in God/s because of my arguments. I am argueing skepticism. You know, the method of the philosophical coward who refuses to get off the fence. So when you say that they do not provide a basis for belief or give you any reason to belive. You know what? I agree.

PPS I never once claimed to be new or profound. I am just here for fun, if you don't like it don't indulge me. Socrates is like my hero :P

Good night.

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 06, 2010, 05:14:02 PM
I don't need to.
You see, the people who believe in Gods have made a claim that something exists.
Therefore the burden of proof is upon them to show that it exists.
Until they prove that it exists, I have no need to disprove its existence or justify my lack of belief in its existence.

But the evidence is there, you just need to experience it.

I cannot prove to you or anyone that I love my wfe. I cannot prove that love even exists. It's a matter of experience.

There also is the question as to what you think is there. If you seek evidence of a man in the sky then, no, I can't demonstrate that and don't know anyone who can.

If you choose to cite the claims of some who make definitive pronouncements then I can't demonstrate these either. They don't make a lot of sense to me.

But what there is is more transendental than physical experience. My own feeling is that it is more complex than right or wrong.

Quote from: glendagladwitch on June 06, 2010, 06:02:47 PM
So you don't think there is such a thing as a nihilist?  Someone who holds no belifes?  If there is such a thing as a nihilist, is that person an agnostic or an atheist?

That isn't what I said at all.

But a nihilist is something different and altogether much more complicated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilist)

I cited these definations as a point of reference incidently. Some earlier posts seemed to ge getting off track a bit.

QuoteBut the evidence is there, you just need to experience it.

To be honest, I don't think there is evidence, as of yet, but that also depends on your definition of a god. If your definition is: 'A personified symbol of the universe', then there's simply no way around that. If it is, however, 'a cognitive all-powerful being,' then evidence does come into play, and experience becomes worthless in a debate. After all; there are plenty of people who experience faeries, for a multitude of reasons. If the your-average monotheist does not believe in faeries, regardless of 'evidence' in experience from other people, then the same would apply to other people not believing in deities.

Quote from: Dryad on June 07, 2010, 05:29:29 AM
. If it is, however, 'a cognitive all-powerful being,' then evidence does come into play, and experience becomes worthless in a debate.

Please explain.

Quote from: Seras on June 06, 2010, 06:02:01 PM
couldn't something exist and yet not have any evidence to show that it does? After all the universe is a large place, I am sure there are a great many things that exist yet we have no proof of them. If so then how is the belief that something does not exist because there is no proof, justified? I should imagine there are a great many things in this galaxy, let alone universe, that exist without any proof.

So I imagine you may see how the claim that something does not exist for such reasons, in this case God/s may not be so justified as you think. Then of course you have the idea of God being a metaphysical being which begs the question would we even be able to have proof even if s/he/it/they did exist.

Of course you could claim materialism and that only the physical exists, denying the metaphysical along with anything else. I dislike that however, it feels bleak. Also remember I am no believer, there is no burden on me to show anything, except perhaps that any type of claim about the existence or non-existence of anything should be shown to be rational. I would say the same thing to religious people too, however on this occasion I decided to pick on the atheists  :P

The thing about the almighty creator god is that belief in it comes with the presupposition that the almighty creator god affects reality.
Even if we would be unable to observe or measure the almighty creator god, we should be able, under this presupposition, to observe and measure the changes inflicted on reality by the almighty creator god.

If something exists, but it and neither anything it does is in any way observable nor measurable, then it's existence is not only entirely unprovable, but it's value is also negligible.

So, even if there is a god, unless there's evidence of there being a god, god is "meaningless".

Quote from: spacial on June 07, 2010, 05:03:19 AMBut the evidence is there, you just need to experience it.

The thing is, that isn't evidence.

Quote from: spacial on June 07, 2010, 05:03:19 AM
But the evidence is there, you just need to experience it.

I cannot prove to you or anyone that I love my wfe. I cannot prove that love even exists. It's a matter of experience.

There also is the question as to what you think is there. If you seek evidence of a man in the sky then, no, I can't demonstrate that and don't know anyone who can.

If you choose to cite the claims of some who make definitive pronouncements then I can't demonstrate these either. They don't make a lot of sense to me.

But what there is is more transendental than physical experience. My own feeling is that it is more complex than right or wrong.





That isn't what I said at all.

But a nihilist is something different and altogether much more complicated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilist)

I cited these definations as a point of reference incidently. Some earlier posts seemed to ge getting off track a bit.

This is the definition that describes me. 

4.Philosophy.
a.an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of ... the possibility of an objective basis for truth.

But I call myself an atheist, even though I don't know whether or not there is a god or whether or not it is provable one way or another.  I just find it highly credible that belief in god is the product of wishful thinking, and especially the basic need to deny the finality of death and explain our own perceived existences with an assumption of causation that somehow ignores the fact that if everything needs a creator to exist, then who created god, or god's creator, etc.?  And that is why I need more evidence than your personal observation of what is going on in your head that makes you think there is a god.  Do you have anything else?

Quote from: Miniar on June 07, 2010, 07:59:54 AM
The thing about the almighty creator god is that belief in it comes with the presupposition that the almighty creator god affects reality.
Even if we would be unable to observe or measure the almighty creator god, we should be able, under this presupposition, to observe and measure the changes inflicted on reality by the almighty creator god.

If something exists, but it and neither anything it does is in any way observable nor measurable, then it's existence is not only entirely unprovable, but it's value is also negligible.

So, even if there is a god, unless there's evidence of there being a god, god is "meaningless".

The thing is, that isn't evidence.

No. Your first assertion is incorrect.

Your second is perspective.

Quote from: spacial on June 07, 2010, 05:51:27 AM
Please explain.

Simple, really. If your definition of a deity is that the deity is able to think, and all-powerful, then the evidence for its existence should not only be adamant, it should also be measurable and obvious.

As for Miniar's statement: Actually; he is correct. His view on the existence of a god being meaningless without the support of evidence is also correct, in that if there is no evidence whatsoever, then the deity does not, in fact, impact upon reality, and therefore, does not impact on our lives. To us as observers, God becomes meaningless in the grander scheme of things under these circumstances. Shrödinger's God, and we can't open the box. We just have to assume that there is a God in the box. And that is called 'faith,' of 'belief.'

I'm sorry Dryad, but your logic seems to fail.

Love exists and has been experienced by many. Yet it is unmeasurable and only obvious to those that know of its existance.

Most of the members here have experienced an absolute need relating to their genders. This cannot be expalined, nor measured, nor demonstrated by anything other than personal experience.

Beauty, goodness, kindness, uglyness, meaness, cruelty.

You are falling into the trap of confusing subjectivity and objectivity.

Like awareness of God, these are subjective notions.

Many people have come to this understanding based on the fact that they have never had a vision, or a visitation, or an unusual occurrence in the desert or any of that.  They don't believe because they have no reason to believe.

QuoteLike awareness of God, these are subjective notions.

Exactly. Religion is subjective. Perception of deities is personal. I never claimed the existence of a deity must be proven. All I'm saying is: If, for any reason, anything the like múst be proven, it is not the ones without a claim.

As for love: Sorry; it has been proven to exist on a chemical level.

Quote from: Dryad on June 07, 2010, 01:27:06 PM
As for love: Sorry; it has been proven to exist on a chemical level.

Surely to describe love as 'chemicals' is not to describe love at all. The subjective experience of love is an integral part of love .

Quote from: Dryad on June 07, 2010, 01:27:06 PM
Exactly. Religion is subjective. Perception of deities is personal. I never claimed the existence of a deity must be proven. All I'm saying is: If, for any reason, anything the like múst be proven, it is not the ones without a claim.

As for love: Sorry; it has been proven to exist on a chemical level.

So, for the first part we are in agreement. That's nice.   :)

As for your second point, no. There are metabolic changes associated with many emotions. There is a whole body of diseases associated with emotions. These are called the psychosomatic disorders. They include most disorders of the skin, the gastrointestinal tract and many cancers.

But the emotions are subjective.

I'd say love is a very important biological function, and in my view, that does nothing to diminish its value or miraculousness. (Emotions themselves consist of chemicals and electrical signals.)
It's been observed by many behavioural biologists, and in many social species. Love is what keeps us sheltered and alive.
But that is a different discussion altogether.

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 07, 2010, 03:33:44 PM
False. Evidence is not 'experienced', evidence is tested and observed.

No, that is not true at all.

Evidence is information and experience that leads to conclusions.

Quote from: spacial on June 07, 2010, 12:09:26 PM
Love exists and has been experienced by many. Yet it is unmeasurable and only obvious to those that know of its existance.

Love is all in your head.  So is god.

Science, for all its bluster and pride, cannot deal with subjective issues.

Quote from: spacial on June 07, 2010, 06:32:14 PM
Science, for all its bluster and pride, cannot deal with subjective issues.

Though it was never meant to

Quote from: spacial on June 07, 2010, 06:32:14 PM
Science, for all its bluster and pride, cannot deal with subjective issues.

By its very nature, science deals only with that which is objectively observable.  That's what makes it credible.  The rest is psychology.

Quote from: spacial on June 07, 2010, 12:09:26 PMLove exists and has been experienced by many. Yet it is unmeasurable and only obvious to those that know of its existence.

The experience of feeling love is not measurable, however we can observe and measure the effects of love.
We can observe and measure changes in behaviour.
We can observe and measure changes in the chemical balance of the brain.
We can observe and measure changes in heart-rate and breathing.
Etc, etc, etc,..
Meaning that even if we can't observe and measure "love" we can observe and measure it's effect.

This means that we can gather evidence that Love, the emotion, exists.

This is the "more important" part of the equation I set up before.
Even if god itself is not an observable nor measurable entity, it's changes on physical reality should be observable and measurable.
If we can not observe nor measure any changes made by that entity, then it's unlikely that entity has made any changes.
If that entity has not made any changes, then it's existence is moot. It holds no relevance. It doesn't matter whether there's a god or not.

And the experiences of individuals who have faith are not evidence of god, they are evidence of faith. They give us the ability to observe and measure the effect of belief in a deity. They don't give us any evidence on the deity itself.

Quote from: spacial on June 07, 2010, 04:43:15 PMEvidence is information and experience that leads to conclusions.

Experiences can be held as evidence, if they are documented in some way.
The problem is, they rarely are.
Experiences are relevant to one person only, the person who experiences it. To everyone else, they are anecdotal.
Anecdotes are not evidence.

The main problem with relying on experience as evidence is the bias involved.
I see this a lot in otherkin circles.

It works like this.
A person believes they are a reincarnated dragon (no specific person, this is a generic example to explain what I mean by bias). This person watches a movie in which there is a dragon. The person is moved by the movie and feels kinship with the dragon in the movie. This emotional experience is taken as evidence that their belief that they are a reincarnated dragon is correct.
The same person then has a dream, after watching the movie, in which they dream that they are a dragon. This dream is taken as further evidence that they are a reincarnated dragon.

Now, in reality, their belief may have caused them to feel the kinship. The movie may have been very moving regardless of belief, and the dream might just be the mind working out the thoughts caused by the movie. None of the experiences involved have to have anything to do with the person's beliefs.
But, because the person has faith, that faith causes a bias, causing experiences to be taken as evidence without seeking alternative explanations first.

The same happens with people who believe very firmly that their house is haunted.
They don't seek to explain why there are noises, bumps in the night or cold spots, cause they "know" that the house is haunted and these things "prove" that.
You can even logically explain away every bump in the night, every noise, every cold spot, but that won't stop them from re-telling the stories of the haunting, including bumps in the night, noises and cold spots as if you'd never explained them. Their anecdotal "evidence" being false, but submitted just the same.

Belief skews.
Experiences "can" be evidence, but only to the person who experiences it, and, in my opinion, should only be accepted as evidence, even then, after ruling out every other logical explanation first.

But, people with faith, rarely try to disprove the experience at all..

Science vs Philosophy. I argue that the scientific method is not equipped to tackle such a question. It goes against its very nature.
.
I would have to agree.  I think much of this argument is about how or in what ways one values science and philosophy, and where people see the place of each as belonging.  To a hard-line athiest, philosophy is never an end unto itself....alone it is merely the beginning of an inquiry.  It is hypothesis...often without the means to follow up and make any sort of definitive conclusion.  Viewed as one step of the scientific method, it is seen as worthless in and of itself outside of the whole of science.
.
I have two ideas, firstly we know these things to be imagined.
.
The Jabberwocky?  Yes, absolutely.  Santa & Easter Bunny?  There are actually thousands of people who believe in them, who know them to exist...most of them, of course, are under the age of 10. ;)  They keep believing until they are told otherwise, or notice things that do not fit.   The question then becomes..."how do we 'know these things to be imagined'?"   Either someone we trust tells us, or we find out by some vague usage of the scientific method (a.k.a. 'self evidence').
.
However the idea of God/s, this is different.  People(some at least) instinctively treat it differently and put faith in the idea.
.
"Instinctive" anything is generally a hard sell to any hard-line athiest.  It's generally seen as a poor shield for ignorance..."we can't explain it, so it must be instinctive," or "we know, we're certain...we just don't know how we know"  which introduces too much uncertainty without any means to understand or know why/how.  Again, it flies in the face of science.  Or...perhaps from a different viewpoint...it frustrates one much like a child with a Rubik's cube (or me even today :P )....until you decide to put in down and forget about it because you're never going to make sense of it given what you know.  You just can't figure it out, so it's not worth the frustration.  And anyone who does say they've figured it out must have peeled the stickers off and put them back in order.  ;)
.
The idea of God/s is a fairly concrete one, it is well established and the question has been adressed throughout history.
.
I think vexing covered the "argumentum ad populum" pretty well, so I'll skip it.
Actually, I've found the idea of god to be a fairly abstract one.  It means so many different things to so many different people.  An athiest would say that yes, the question has been asked throughout history...but it has never been answered.  And the asking of a question does not indicate a measure of existence...it indicates a measure of interest.  In this case...a means of explaining the unknown.
.
Unlike the existence of a 7 foot chicken or some odd variety of swan, it is in my opinion a question worth considering. A question I should imagine is necessary to adress in order to call oneself an atheist.
.
Because god/religion is so prevalent in our society, I would have to agree that it is necessary to address this.  The difference then becomes, how do you justify giving the christian god any more concern than an ancient Greek, Aztec, etc god?  Thrown into the same pot, one potato starts to look much like another.
.
As for living by philosophy and the supposition that you would achieve nothing, though a common sterotype(and not one I can be accused of failing to live up to) I have to disagree.
.
I'll go back to agreeing with you here.  Philosophy is very important, in many different ways.  Historically and in the present day.  Like artists, most philosophers aren't appreciated much in their lifetime...only well after they are gone do people see the true value of their work.
.
However when considering the problem philosophically(that is an attempt at establishing knowledge regarding the existence of a thing) which other method of thought are you to use?
.
Very true.  I think the main issue here is frustration, much like that old rubicks cube.  God just isn't something we can figure out in the regular fashion that we're used to.
.
As a thought experiment, let's use radiation.  We can't see, touch, taste, hear or feel it.  We can observe it's effects though.  What if Marie Curie discovered an element named "Irregularium", where the radiation emitted was never consistent or predictable...sometimes the radiation was there...and other times mysteriously absent.  No rhyme or reason to it that our science could discern.
.
We wouldn't deny that the radiation existed, because we could see its effects.  Though, because of the irregularity, we might question whether an effect was the radiation...or something else outside of the element itself as the cause.  The only difference between Irregularium and god...is that we can definitively see, touch, taste, hear, and feel Irregularium.  Now...if irregularium was sub-atomic and only mixed in a gaseous state...we might question its existence even more...depending on the level of our scientific knowledge.  Make it small enough....irregular enough...beyond our science enough...and it comes down to blind faith as to whether it exists at all.
.
With god, you have that level of unproveability...added to the random and unpredictable sentient choice for a god to influence...or not to influence events.
.
Is it possible that god exists?  Yes.  Is it likely?  Your opinion on that will depend on what you've experienced, and how you view those experiences through the way you value philosophy and science.

God him/herself doesn't spend this much time on this crap.

Atheism is not something one needs to justify. Belief is justified, not the absence of which.

There is no such thing as a god, based on fact and logic. One can reach this conclusion easily when not weighed down by the of the fear of individual death, or of the unknown.

Those who believe in god simply have not been given the proper chance to experience the vastness of mathematics, science, and the universe. It is cruel to commit and restrict yourself to a tiny existence bound by the concept of a capricious mythological being thought up by men who lived two millennia before you. Our grasp on the cosmos has changed insurmountably since that time, and we can let go of that past.

My unbelief in a god has nothing to say about my immutable belief in the power and truth of human emotion, of love, and the capacity to wonder and discover. Those feelings aren't bound up with the concept of a god. They were what conceived of gods in the first place, and what propelled our own evolution.

Quote from: tekla on June 08, 2010, 01:12:13 AM
God him/herself doesn't spend this much time on this crap.

No, and I think I've spent to much already.

Semantics is a bit of a dead end really.

Quote from: tekla on June 08, 2010, 01:12:13 AM
God him/herself doesn't spend this much time on this crap.

Now now, this debate has been civil so far and people have been addressing points and counterpoints....
Something of an incredible rarity in debates involving religion!

It's Fun!

QuotePS Arch and Vexing, I have not said once that you ought have any basis for believing in God/s because of my arguments. I am argueing skepticism. You know, the method of the philosophical coward who refuses to get off the fence. So when you say that they do not provide a basis for belief or give you any reason to belive. You know what? I agree.

And yet your OP clearly states that I must "know" that belief and non-belief are equally unjustifiable positions. No, I don't "know" that. And, yes, I'm a bit puzzled here. I come at this from the scientific standpoint. Therefore, I have a much stronger basis for not believing than I would for believing. Hence, my position is eminently justifiable, whereas the opposite position is not. I would say "not at all," but there's always room for inquiry; science is, after all, self-correcting. We ought to leave a back door open somewhere, even if it's just a doggie door.

Now, if you want to approach this from a religious perspective, then I'm out of my depth. Faith, to me, is a strange and mysterious phenomenon. It requires no justification whatsoever. In fact, some have argued that the pursuit of justification, through argument and evidence, erodes or completely destroys faith.

I guess I'm probably with Stephen Jay Gould when it comes to science and religion: non-overlapping magisteria. With a doggie door thrown in.

---

Post Merge: June 08, 2010, 01:58:03 PM

---

Quote from: DaddySplicer on June 08, 2010, 02:40:11 AMThose who believe in god simply have not been given the proper chance to experience the vastness of mathematics, science, and the universe.

I used to think this, but I have since revised my opinion. Quite a few well-educated and successful scientists are able to balance their professional lives with their spiritual lives and a very real belief in a fairly traditional Christian god. I don't know how most of them do it. I remember seeing a short interview with one guy who essentially compartmentalized his life so that religion was not part of his science career and his science career did not make inroads on his spiritual life.

At the time, I wondered how a person could do that so completely and hold what were apparently two contradictory views. At the time, I didn't realize that I was doing the same thing in my life when I managed to balance conflicting forces in the areas of gender, sexuality, and other personal issues. And then I crossed the streams...and all life as I knew it came to a halt and every molecule in my body exploded...well, something like that.

Quote from: Arch on June 08, 2010, 01:49:21 PM
and all life as I knew it came to a halt and every molecule in my body exploded...well, something like that.

That sounds extremely painful.

And, I'll rephrase.

People who believe in God have never seriously studied astronomy. Personal field of study self-bump.

Quote from: DaddySplicer on June 08, 2010, 10:35:09 PMThat sounds extremely painful.

Very...but it was nothing compared to nearly drowning in exploded marshmallow. :P

Quote from: DaddySplicer on June 08, 2010, 10:35:09 PMPeople who believe in God have never seriously studied astronomy.

That's quite possible, but I'll bet there are a few exceptions out there! Human beings are a stubborn lot.

BTW, I'm not trying to jack you up or anything. But a number of years ago, I was rather surprised to find out how many theistic scientists are out there.

Also, religion in itself does not exclude science. Again; it's to do with the personal perception of 'God(s)' and what it means. A deity could be a symbol, an alternate non-reality, the personification of an ideal, and many, many other things that do not clash with science. The same goes for religious scripture.
I'm very sure there have been many religious people who successfully studied, to stay in that field, astronomy. For instance: The Mayans. While I have to admit that their technology and other sciences were rather silly, not to say laughable, their astronomy, and the mathematics they have based on that rather than the more conventional forces we use today, were quite the gem. Highly developed. Perhaps not for modern standards, but still.
Another example is Alchemy. While in essence a philosophy with a religious basis, we owe Alchemists for creating the foundation of modern philosophy and, arguably, chemistry. Even though their chemistry was rather laughable, ideas like relativity and even quantum physics would most probably not have existed today without Alchemy.

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 08, 2010, 11:14:46 PMYou'll find that many of them are of the 'God of the Gaps' school.

Mind the gap.

speaking as a rational empiricist,

current scientific understanding and capability is unequal to the task of thoroughly and empirically assessing whether or not there is a conscious element to existence. therefore..the question of whether or not god exists is moot until that time when experimental capability is up to the task of addressing the question.

and thus is that which defines my association with atheism.

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 09, 2010, 03:13:09 AM
Actually, it is not moot. All of the Gods described in the major religions are well defined enough to debunk.

I speak not of any particular God/Goddess/Deity.

My reference was to any type of all encompassing consciousness...of any sort. the possibility of a higher being.

There's no way for us to detect, record, or otherwise interact with anything of that sort..whether it be aliens in a higher dimension conducting experiments on us a la the mice of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or An axe Swinging Goat God of Cheese or whatever else.

until there is a possibility of an empirically pure answer to the question of "Are we alone?"...its moot.

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 09, 2010, 04:22:54 AM
So a form of deism then? The God who started the Universe then sat and watched?
Occam's razor slashes that one; there's no need for such a God.

no. Im simply saying until someone provides physical evidence for or against...the question is largely irrelevant to me. Logical and philosophical arguments are insufficient to addressing the question because logic and philosophy are subjective and interpretive.  physical proof one way or the other is required for any kind of definitive statement. until there is physical proof, refusal to consider the question at all for any purpose other than sheer entertainment's sake seems to be a rational and prudent position.  In this person's worldview anyway.

Im an empiricist. i need physical proof one way or the other.

Quote from: DaddySplicer on June 08, 2010, 10:35:09 PM
That sounds extremely painful.

And, I'll rephrase.

People who believe in God have never seriously studied astronomy. Personal field of study self-bump.

Sorry, utter rubbish.

QuoteAnd anyone who does say they've figured it out must have peeled the stickers off and put them back in order.

First time I saw the cube I put it in order in 5 minutes. I put it on a table and got the same colors mixed first on 4 sides then put them in order. Everything has a system frustration means you have to sleep on it and know when to rest. I figure that we are missing a piece of the universal puzzle.

@ spacial,

do you acknowledge the possibility that god does not exist and it's all in your head?  If not, how do you justify that point of view?

I don't seek to justify anything.

I was attempting to have a discussion on a different perspective relating to the notion of a vengful angry god of the OT.

I have abandoned this because I was beeing bombarded with people offering sematic arguments.

I have spent a lot of my life studying the nature of God along with a number of other subjects. The traditional view of a man in the sky, judging us and sending people to hell is, I believe, too simplistic.

I fully accept and understand that many people, who have been brought up on the notion of a god who grants favour to those he apparently approves of, feel agrieved at what they think they have and choose to take it out on their perception using what they have been told is the strongest weapon, denial of existance.

Again, it isn't my place to argue with this, or to try to change anyone's mind.

I was just looking for an intellectual discussion on some text.

I have had intellectual discussions with others on various points of Islam, Hinduism, annimism, various Pagan approaches and a number of others. But clearly, for some here, their pain is too great to become immersed in metaphysical notions of subjectivity.

That's fine. Most of us here have quite a lot of pain. I am surprised at how much I've discovered insde myself in the last 6 months. (And actually, very grateful).

But theology isn't the point of Susans. I have no wish to divert anyone away from what is.

This is probably simplistic but. By just being an athiest means that no justification is needed or necessary. There is no god

Quote from: spacial on June 10, 2010, 01:14:45 PM
I don't seek to justify anything.

I have a follow up question.  Do you acknowledge the possibility that god does not exist and it's all in your head?

Spacial: I believe the problem is: You can't really discuss the subjectivity of religion with atheists. Atheism is the direct opposite of religion, and yes, atheism is extremely simplistic. 'There is no divine being.' Done.

While many religions and other spiritual paths have a lot of subjective views on themselves and others, atheism has very little, if only because it isn't one. It simply doesn't fit in the 'spirituality' section. It isn't about pain; it is about simply not believing. And with that, not understanding what believers are on about in the first place.

Atheism and spiritual paths are simply not compatible in a discussion. They don't have the same goals, same mind-sets, same experiences, same understandings.. In short: They don't share enough to be able to make concessions, or debate.

Quite frankly: Atheism is a name for something that characterizes itself by not existing. It has nothing to exist of. That's the very essence of it.
Spiritual paths require a belief in something. A higher state of being, whatever that may be. That is something. Atheism requires a lack of belief; a nothing.

Very good analogy, Dryad. However atheists can be spiritual. The quest of self and understanding is a constant for me. It is not a quest to find a god or a belief system but to go into one's mind to see what is there and how that mind can be focused to allow a greater understanding of the world. Meditation is one way to approach this venture. Although I am a hard core atheist I still consider myself a spiritual person as do others.
I meet with a group on Tuesday afternoons called "The Caribbean Cosmic Community. We are all religions, no religion, male, female and other, young, old and in between. We do a group meditation, sometimes directed and sometimes not. I can feel a power in that room. I feel a unity. For lack of a better explanation the feeling I get is spiritual or transcendental. Whatever it is it is definitely real.

When I was a teenager, I was (not surprisingly) pretty miserable. I saw how happy a lot of active Christians were, so I gave it a try. I kept telling myself that I believed. I tried so hard, but I just didn't believe. I wondered why it came so easily for other people but simply didn't happen for me.

I was an agnostic then; I figured I didn't know enough yet to be a true atheist. So I started reading and thinking. I figured that I would just go where the evidence took me. And here I am.

I get very angry when people tell me that "all" I have to do is believe, have faith, and their god will do the rest. I found out that I can't just believe--not without evidence and some rational basis for my belief. I remember being a skeptic at five, and I think I'm naturally that way. Conversion might work on people who want to have something to have faith in. It doesn't work on me. Maybe my brain is just different from most people's. I would really like to know.

I don't think I'm spiritual, either, although I have to be honest and say that I'm not always sure I know what "spiritual" means. Maybe I'll ask that question on a new thread.

I'm feeling philosophical today...

I can so identify with what you're saying Arch.

Quote from: spacial on June 11, 2010, 04:22:57 PMI can so identify with what you're saying Arch.

Heh. I wonder if anyone else does. Thanks for telling me.

I remember describing my teenage experience to someone, and her response was, "You can't TRY to believe, you have to just BELIEVE." I was stymied. If I couldn't believe even when I was trying, what made her think that I could believe without trying?

Guess I was "doing it wrong."

Quote from: Dryad on June 11, 2010, 08:47:00 AM
Spacial: I believe the problem is: You can't really discuss the subjectivity of religion with atheists. Atheism is the direct opposite of religion, and yes, atheism is extremely simplistic. 'There is no divine being.' Done.

I don't think that's quite accurate.  It's more like, "All belief in god is unjustified.  It's pure speculation, and religion enshrines many harmful taboos and we'd be better off without it."  Done.

Quote from: Arch on June 11, 2010, 01:08:58 PM
I remember being a skeptic at five, and I think I'm naturally that way. Conversion might work on people who want to have something to have faith in. It doesn't work on me. Maybe my brain is just different from most people's. I would really like to know.

I remember hearing about a study on identical twins separated at birth, and chances were if one was religious, so was the other. So there seems to be a genetic component to religiousness (something about an area of the brain responding a certain way? It was a long time ago), though I'm sure that environment plays a part too (as with most things).
Atheism is what it is. It is a lack of belief. But as with any spiritual viewpoint, there are different forms of it, ranging from wanting to believe but not being able to quite 'feel' God there (though followng the protocol of the religion) to out-and-out all-religion-is-evil thinking. I assume the OP was attacking the 'extremist' end of this, as I can't think of why anyone would have a problem otherwise.  :P

Quote from: Fenrir on June 11, 2010, 08:58:56 PM
I remember hearing about a study on identical twins separated at birth, and chances were if one was religious, so was the other. So there seems to be a genetic component to religiousness (something about an area of the brain responding a certain way? It was a long time ago), though I'm sure that environment plays a part too (as with most things).
Atheism is what it is. It is a lack of belief. But as with any spiritual viewpoint, there are different forms of it, ranging from wanting to believe but not being able to quite 'feel' God there (though followng the protocol of the religion) to out-and-out all-religion-is-evil thinking. I assume the OP was attacking the 'extremist' end of this, as I can't think of why anyone would have a problem otherwise.  :P

NO!

just kidding

Quote from: glendagladwitch on June 11, 2010, 08:17:33 PM
I don't think that's quite accurate.  It's more like, "All belief in god is unjustified.  It's pure speculation, and religion enshrines many harmful taboos and we'd be better off without it."  Done.

No.. That would be anti-theism, not atheism. Atheism is, of itself, not against religion. It simply doesn't support it. To claim the world would be better off without it is anti-theism. Anti-theists aren't always atheists, either, though. Though they usually are.

Quote from: Dryad on June 12, 2010, 09:12:42 PM
No.. That would be anti-theism, not atheism. Atheism is, of itself, not against religion. It simply doesn't support it. To claim the world would be better off without it is anti-theism. Anti-theists aren't always atheists, either, though. Though they usually are.

I don't know any atheists who think religion is just swell.  Maybe you can divide atheism from this "anti-theism" on a conceptual basis, but as the natural products of rational thought, I doubt you will ever find atheism separate from a distrust of religion.

I'm an atheist, and I feel that religion is just swell. Of course; as long as they don't take their scripture literally, but as symbolic. (Well; and as long as they don't take part in any religion-based fascism.)
I like most religions, to be honest.

Easy, Comrade Stalin said it is right! 30 million dead people prove it!

The problem with atheism, as I see it is that it tends towards being 100% right, with no room for doubt. If there are no absolute values, just what the law says is right, then totalitarian rule is an easy step.

With a religious viewpoint there is at least a moral position to fall back on in any dispute with the Establishment.  It may not be easy, but it does at least exist.  I am assuming we are talking Ethical Monotheism here, not Aztec or Viking human sacrifice.

Bonhoffer no doubt wrestled at least a bit with the question of killing Nazis, but I doubt that Eichmann had any such moral debates with his conscience.


In many ways the problem is this type of discussion is in two  languages that are the exactly same but are completely different.

(Any Irish here will have no problem understanding  that perfectly!)

Quote from: justmeinoz on June 14, 2010, 06:23:50 AM

The problem with atheism, as I see it is that it tends towards being 100% right, with no room for doubt. If there are no absolute values, just what the law says is right, then totalitarian rule is an easy step.

it seems to me that many atheists fall prey to a common misconception about science.

that science is based in and founded upon a need to question.  to doubt.  there is an unspoken understanding amongst scientists that no theory is an absolute and nothing is final scientifically. there is always the possibility that someone will come along and prove you wrong. science is founded upon an idea of trying something and then going with it if it works. Newton was hailed as the end all and be all of physical science until people like Gottfried Leibniz came along, challenged his theories and proved him wrong on a couple of counts. Even now string theorists like Ed Witten are challenging the work of Einstein.

to take a position TRULY founded in science one must doubt. one must be skeptical, question, experiment and always leave a margin for error.

which is a position that would be quite workable on a moral, ethical and social level that would allow for growth and change and adaptability to new problems and situations.

Quote from: justmeinoz on June 14, 2010, 06:23:50 AM

In many ways the problem is this type of discussion is in two  languages that are the exactly same but are completely different.

Yep. That is the nub.

Quote from: justmeinoz on June 14, 2010, 06:23:50 AM
Easy, Comrade Stalin said it is right! 30 million dead people prove it!

The problem with atheism, as I see it is that it tends towards being 100% right, with no room for doubt. If there are no absolute values, just what the law says is right, then totalitarian rule is an easy step.

With a religious viewpoint there is at least a moral position to fall back on in any dispute with the Establishment.  It may not be easy, but it does at least exist.  I am assuming we are talking Ethical Monotheism here, not Aztec or Viking human sacrifice.

Bonhoffer no doubt wrestled at least a bit with the question of killing Nazis, but I doubt that Eichmann had any such moral debates with his conscience.


In many ways the problem is this type of discussion is in two  languages that are the exactly same but are completely different.

(Any Irish here will have no problem understanding  that perfectly!)

From many Atheist points of view, it is religious law and moral that are oppressive, fascist, sexist, destructive, war-mongering and blood-thirsty, and that the only way to breach that is to do away with religion altogether, so that morality and good are finally restored.

We can argue all day and night about this, but the conclusion is: Neither belief nor disbelief in a deity makes a person moral and just. I would say that the weak-willed might need a personification like Satan in order to frighten them out of doing bad things, but God never comes into it at all.

Pointing fingers and going: I'm so much more moral than you are! Well; it never helped anyone, and can prove only the contrary. 

A little side-note, here: While I agree that many religions practised human sacrifice, the ones who didn't were not necessarily better. You might find passages in your bible that clearly state that homicide is rightful and just, and that God wants you to go out and kill entire groups of people. That God even revels in this killing. Which basically equates religious war to human sacrifice, only on a far grander scale.

The Viking religions aren't a very good point to go after, because yes; there were extremist cults that practised human sacrifice, but to be honest: some Christian extremist cults today stíll practise human sacrifice. Also, the vikings contributed a lot more to our modern social standards and moral practices than, say, the Romans did (not really an accomplishment, but still). They did have a lot of ethical morals and charities. And they did have a lot of idiots, as well, as does every single group of humans at any given point in time.

The Aztecs, while often hailed as barbarians, and truth be told, in many ways they were, did also have their own beautiful things. Not just items, artefacts and art, but also philosophy, mythology, moral codes and laws.

'Ethical Monotheism' is a direct insult to any religion that isn't monotheistic in nature, and a direct attack aimed at anyone who doesn't agree with your own religion, as the statement basically tells us: This is the only right way, and everyone else is unethical and wrong.

Sorry, but I do feel offended by that.

Quote from: justmeinoz on June 14, 2010, 06:23:50 AMThe problem with atheism, as I see it is that it tends towards being 100% right, with no room for doubt. If there are no absolute values, just what the law says is right, then totalitarian rule is an easy step.

Wait, what?
I have yet to meet any atheist that is fully and completely without doubt.
Most, if not all, atheists that I know tend to lean towards science, and science exists on doubt and probability, not 100% certainty.

Quote from: justmeinozWith a religious viewpoint there is at least a moral position to fall back on in any dispute with the Establishment.  It may not be easy, but it does at least exist.  I am assuming we are talking Ethical Monotheism here, not Aztec or Viking human sacrifice.

Morals exist without religion.
But since you brought it up, Viking human sacrifice?
There's little documentation of human sacrifice done by the vikings and extremely little evidence to back it up.
The Ethical teachings of the Norse/Teutonic-heathen beliefs are found primarily in a collection of poems referred to as Háfamál (words of the high, considered to be the teachings of Odin). I prefer these as a "manual for life" over the so-called "ethical monotheism" because in Háfamál the lessons are about taking responsibility for your actions, being a reasonable human being, not drinking too much or indulging in any kind of excess, to seek knowledge and know better than to talk about something that you know nothing about, to treat your fellow man/woman with the respect that he/she deserves, being polite to others, etc, etc, etc...
The viking beliefs don't have a "kill people who believe different stuff than you do" clause, something that's found in all the religious texts of the monotheistic systems.

Just so you know.

Quote from: Miniar on June 14, 2010, 10:31:35 AM
Wait, what?
I have yet to meet any atheist that is fully and completely without doubt.
Most, if not all, atheists that I know tend to lean towards science, and science exists on doubt and probability, not 100% certainty. 

:icon_rockon:  ^^this. absolutely and totally this.

Judging by the amount of unanswered prayers on the part of our members I can also state that science religion exists on doubt and probability, not 100% certainty.

FIFY

Hey hey, to whoever said it, just because I don't believe in any gods doesn't mean I don't have any morals. Rather than go by what the book says, I come to my own conclusions about what's right and what's wrong. I don't need a god to tell me what's supposed to bother me. If it does, it does.

Quote from: tekla on June 14, 2010, 10:52:48 AM
Judging by the amount of unanswered prayers on the part of our members I can also state that science religion exists on doubt and probability, not 100% certainty.

FIFY

That would only apply if there were some sort of guarantee about prayer.

Quite often, the answer is no.  :D

Quote from: SilverFang on June 15, 2010, 01:19:45 AM
Hey hey, to whoever said it, just because I don't believe in any gods doesn't mean I don't have any morals. Rather than go by what the book says, I come to my own conclusions about what's right and what's wrong. I don't need a god to tell me what's supposed to bother me. If it does, it does.

You are the supreme arbiter of right and wrong deciding what is right and wrong based on your own experience and cognitive abilities.

Am I also the same?

If I am and you are, who is right?  We cannot both be.

Or do we take a relativistic viewpoint where we are both right in our respective spheres.  But what happens when those spheres converge, how then do we decide who is right?  Is there a supreme arbiter of morality greater than both of ours?

* * *

If I take the belief of a deity out of morals I prefer Kant's Categorical Imperative, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

The only problem with that is, are we really sure what maxims can be made universal law with such a limited human perspective?  Even if the collective human mind were able to work out a moral code accepted by humanity, aren't we still lacking in that we only exist at one time and one place?  Wouldn't it imply that we need to know EVERYTHING before being able to decide what is an appropriate action and what is not?

In the end we act on the best information we have available to us, but one person may call those morals while another immorality.

Justify Atheism... meaning we are supposed to make Atheism a worth believe in your eyes, something that has some sort of merit?

Well, I'll tell you my personal beliefs. I think that since the beginning of time, God has stood in for things we didn't understand. As science has progressed, and our knowledge has grown, God has been banished to the most mysterious event of all, the origin of the universe. However, I find it ludicrous to believe that an all powerful being just got there and created the universe, as Carl Sagan said, why not just save a step then and say the universe just got there? Surely, that explanation is much more simple then an all-powerful being. I also find it ludicrous to believe that God has created the universe, set it into motion, and done nothing. A being like that sounds much more like a force then a sentient being who gets involved in the universe. I am a fairly strong believer in Occam's Razor, and find that the idea of God, while slightly plausible, is much more ridiculous then other explanations for the origin of the universe. :)

The only way I could see a God existing is if he was totally counter-intuitive, like quantum mechanics, but MORE so.

Quote from: interalia on June 15, 2010, 01:43:26 PM
The only problem with that is, are we really sure what maxims can be made universal law with such a limited human perspective?  Even if the collective human mind were able to work out a moral code accepted by humanity, aren't we still lacking in that we only exist at one time and one place?  Wouldn't it imply that we need to know EVERYTHING before being able to decide what is an appropriate action and what is not?

In the end we act on the best information we have available to us, but one person may call those morals while another immorality.

The thing is, there are no moral absolutes.
Morals are a subjective thing that change with the times to fit the society within which the morals are held.
Even amongst the religious.

Quote from: Miniar on June 15, 2010, 02:36:28 PM
The thing is, there are no moral absolutes.
Morals are a subjective thing that change with the times to fit the society within which the morals are held.
Even amongst the religious.

yes. i used this example in a recent discussion of good and evil.


the muslim: eating pork is BAD NO EVIL WRONG SIN SIN SIN.

me the atheist: YAY BACON!

-----

the puritanical Christian Fundamentalist: homosexual behavior is EVIL BAD WRONG SIN SIN SIN

the Inclusion Christians down the block from me: Love transcends bodies

-----

The State of Texas: thumbs up Capitol Punishment

Me and several hundreds of others: well...you're killing someone...dont right see how that's any different than MURDER.

------

i could pull ten thousand similar examples ranging in severity from how you think to what you eat to how you live your life to when is it ok to kill...examples that fall under both secular and religious concerns.

the idea of a universal morality is a pipedream given the highly variable nature of the human condition. The best way i personally can see is to go with a model of low impact vs high impact on a positive and negative spectrum. like..if i have a low impact in a negative way and a high impact in a positive way in the long run...im probably well suited to the definition of "good person". and vice versa. i dont need a higher power for that. i dont even need to be aware of it really. id just like an A for effort.

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 15, 2010, 04:05:14 PM
Or put more simply:

17th Century Christian: Slavery is fine! The Bible says so!
20th Century Christian: Slavery is wrong! The Bible says so!

good example.  mind if i steal it for my next war with my ma?

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 15, 2010, 04:08:44 PM
Not at all. But be kind to your ma  :D

only when she doesnt try her bible thumping hellfire and damnation Southern Baptist scare tactics on me...which by the way(for the sake of the discussion)..i consider to be PURE EVIL.

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 15, 2010, 04:16:21 PM
Has anyone ever told you that you remind them of Sheldon from BBT?  :D

i had to google that. :p  in a lot of ways...it suits...so ill take it as a compliment.  ;D

Quote from: interalia on June 15, 2010, 01:43:26 PM
Or do we take a relativistic viewpoint where we are both right in our respective spheres.  But what happens when those spheres converge, how then do we decide who is right?  Is there a supreme arbiter of morality greater than both of ours?

We would have to agree on the moral arbiter, which takes us right back to the issue of our respective spheres being incompatible.

We have to decide by consensus the social contract we live under.  It's not a perfect system, but this is where laws come from.  If my morals strongly conflict with the collective morality of the particular society I live in, I'm the one that will have to give, not everybody else.  If I don't, I have to be prepared to live with the consequences.  Like others have said, morality is a subjective thing that we all have to work out together.  That's why there is so much argument in this world.

On the topic of morality, wouldn't you feel better about morality coming from within yourself than your adherence to a code out of either fear or hope of a reward of some kind?  Wouldn't you say that a person that is simply naturally moral has to be a more moral being than one that only holds back their inherent immorality because of some carrot or switch?

Well, I'd reply to that reply to me, but it seems like everyone else already has it covered :P

Quote from: Miniar on June 15, 2010, 02:36:28 PM
The thing is, there are no moral absolutes.
Morals are a subjective thing that change with the times to fit the society within which the morals are held.
Even amongst the religious.

So throw out moral absolutes, my original statements/questions still stand.  In a world where I am my own moral authority and you are too, when our morality cross paths, who is right?  This is something I've always struggled with and I appreciate Immanuel Kant's attempt to explain it without using deity, but it still falls aggravatingly short.

Quote from: interalia on June 15, 2010, 11:16:35 PM
So throw out moral absolutes, my original statements/questions still stand.  In a world where I am my own moral authority and you are too, when our morality cross paths, who is right?  This is something I've always struggled with and I appreciate Immanuel Kant's attempt to explain it without using deity, but it still falls aggravatingly short.

no it doesnt. its not an automatic "a is right, b is wrong."

its a process of discourse, finding commonality. a process of cutting out the fat...the things that dont really have a negative impact on the whole.

ill use an example from real life

finding moral common ground with my best friend in the world was very difficult when i came out of the closet and told her i often dated women due to her very strictly religious nature. but in the end the dispute was solved because who i date doesnt have much of a bearing, if any on her life in a negative way. its a matter of using simple deductive logic to determine what's best for all parties. it takes time but i see even that as a benefit because its a process of learning each other...stripping away the centrism and finding common ground...learning to adapt..which is how all organisms survive, by being adaptable.

Quote from: Hauser on June 15, 2010, 11:27:30 PM
no it doesnt. its not an automatic "a is right, b is wrong."

its a process of discourse, finding commonality. a process of cutting out the fat...the things that dont really have a negative impact on the whole.

ill use an example from real life

finding moral common ground with my best friend in the world was very difficult when i came out of the closet and told her i often dated women due to her very strictly religious nature. but in the end the dispute was solved because who i date doesnt have much of a bearing, if any on her life in a negative way. its a matter of using simple deductive logic to determine what's best for all parties. it takes time but i see even that as a benefit because its a process of learning each other...stripping away the centrism and finding common ground...learning to adapt..which is how all organisms survive, by being adaptable.

You use a rather benign example, but one doesn't have to look far to see others whose sense of morality directly impacts another.  Take the radical members of ELF who have killed other humans in an attempt to save animal lives.  They have a code of morality that says saving animal life is so important, it is worth the cost of human lives.  I imagine there are some humans who disagree with this and certainly do not wish to be killed in another's attempt to save an animal life.

Without the existence of a moral absolute, who is truly morally correct in a situation?  There is no right answer.  Well maybe there is and Vexing said it best:

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 15, 2010, 11:35:52 PM
The person with the sharpest sword.

Quote from: interalia on June 15, 2010, 11:42:01 PM
You use a rather benign example, but one doesn't have to look far to see others whose sense of morality directly impacts another.  Take the radical members of ELF who have killed other humans in an attempt to save animal lives.  They have a code of morality that says saving animal life is so important, it is worth the cost of human lives.  I imagine there are some humans who disagree with this and certainly do not wish to be killed in another's attempt to save an animal life.

ALF? yeah. there's all kinds of conflict. depends on your patience and commitment as to whether or not it can be solved in a rational manner. and sometimes you gotta lay the smack down. So what?


that's just life.

I think, in the end, morality is born out of altruism. (Behavioural biology; not the kind of pink hippy altruism.)
Basically: Anything that effects the chances of the species as a whole in a negative way is bad. Strong competition within the same pack is a bad thing, for example, while strong competition with members of another pack is a good thing.
Taking care of old members of a pack is a good thing; that way, you can make sure that old people are respected, which means a lot of good for the old people of all times, and everyone who survives for a long time will be an old person, right? Besides; it's very rewarding after a long life of hard toil to be respected and taken care of. This is a very common structure in social predatory mammals.

But it's a bit vague.. So people tend to make 'morals,' which are basically concessions of allowing other people to do what you don't want them to do, and vice versa. They're unwritten rules, and as such, are much clearer than the vague thing called altruism. At least with morals, you can pin them down. But morals are little more than altruism given a spin of personal preference and favour, so it's still a good thing to question them. While morally right for a certain society, it may not always be 'good,' even for that society's standards.
the moral code itself may have been born out of immoral behaviour. A very good example of this is monotheistic morals. Read Leviticus, if you don't believe me. It's so full of hell, hatred and spite that all you can see is 'fear' written in stone-age Neon letters. Countless of people have tried to change it, but so far, the closed-minded hate-mongering has survived. These codes are, however, beneficial to the group. Either you join them, or you're condemned to hell. Either you repent, or you're doomed. It also keeps all the scary people out.

Quote from: interalia on June 15, 2010, 11:42:01 PMWithout the existence of a moral absolute, who is truly morally correct in a situation?  There is no right answer.

You answered your own question.
Morality is malleable, changing with time, subjective, thus, there's no one who is "truly" morally correct in any situation.
There is the "commonly agreed upon morally acceptable choice of the time for the place and situation". Later on, when the times have changed, people can (and often do) look back at that situation and consider the choice morally offensive in some way or another.

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on June 15, 2010, 11:35:52 PMThe person with the sharpest sword.

All things being equal (well, not really), I think I prefer a blaster in my kilt. >:-)

Quote from: Dana Lane on June 06, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
Why is it on the backs of those who know there isn't a god to show proof? There isn't a tooth fairy either but I am not going to prove that to you.

this is a good point because there is no system to prove god(s) are real or not. so why ask for proof. an active atheist you mean a protester with the self given title of being an atheist.

---

Post Merge: June 26, 2010, 01:09:41 PM

---

Quote from: uni on June 06, 2010, 09:46:50 AM
Because an atheists main objection to god believers is, "you can't prove there's a god". In reality, most theists don't base their belief off any scientific proof, that would defeat the whole purpose of faith.

it has no system. it is not a belief

---

Post Merge: June 26, 2010, 02:15:55 PM

---

Quote from: Seras on June 06, 2010, 10:17:47 AM
It is on the back of anyone who makes any claim to show it to be true.

As an atheist your making the claim "God does not exist".
There is the same onus here as claiming "God does exist".

Thanks for the interesting replies I will look them over later when I got some spare time :)

the only thing that has been proven to me about the god of  Christianity is that no one agrees on who god is or what he does. An atheist has a better chance of understanding God than does a christian because there minds are fresh.

Lol, this thread again.

Just to be a d-bag rather than take my earlier more scholarly approach:

I died at sixteen momentarily from coke overdose and there was nothing. No god. Or white light. Except from the lamp in my face when I was jolted back a moment later.

My personal atheism: Justified. 

Also, don't do coke.