First of all, I have more in common with atheists than religious people, so my intention isn't to come here and attack, I just want to hear your opinions. Maybe I'm wrong, I'd like to hear from you if I am. I'm just expressing here my perception of the movement and not actually what I consider to be facts.
My issue with atheism is that I think it establishes the lack of a God or gods as the truth. I do agree that the concept of a God is hard to believe logically, specially with all the incoherent arguments that religions have had in the past. But saying that there's no god with certainty is something I'm just not comfortable with. Science has taught us that being wrong is part of the process of progress. We're constantly learning things we didn't know about, confirming theories that seemed insane in their time. I feel like being open to the possibilities is a healthier mindset, as we barely understand reality.
In general, atheism feels too close minded, too attached to the current facts, which will probably be obsolete in a few centuries. I do agree with logical and rational thinking, but part of that is accepting how little we really know about reality, how what we considered truth in the past was wrong or more complex than we expected
I usually don't believe there is a god when the argument comes from religious people, because they have no evidence, but they could be right by chance.
Welcome. Happy to talk with people rather than have to counter rhetorical attacks.
Personally, I'm partial to the definition of Atheism as 'Lack of belief in any gods' rather than 'Belief that there are no gods.' I fit both definitions but I think the first is more accurate and better represents most Atheist's relationship with the truth value of the claim. Even for those of us who believe there are no gods I believe it's a grand commonality between a super-majority of atheists that there's some quantity of sufficient evidence that would change our minds... though quite likely the specific amount will vary from one to another.
The way I see it most of the time scientific advancement doesn't say our previous understanding was wrong, rather that it was incomplete. One of the better examples being Newtonian Physics and Relativity, Newton wasn't wrong so much as his work didn't account for special behavior under extreme circumstances. We do occasionally have counter examples such as miasma being replaced with the Germ Theory of Disease but this tends to be when a historical unscientific position is unraveled by a scientific explanation.
As-is I don't see how any such gods that have been commonly claimed could exist as stated without them violating various scientific, and in some cases logical, laws. So, I feel quite secure in my position that these things that contradict our best evidenced understanding of the universe are not real.
Sure, it's worthwhile to look at the evidence against our own positions. But evidence is the key word here. The theistic position has yet to forward any noteworthy body of anything that would fit the definition of the word. They're welcome to keep trying in perpetuity if they so wish but I'm not going to lend credence to the claim until such time as they are not only successful in finding something that is evidence but a sufficient body of it to outweigh what the claim is mutually exclusive with which already has evidence or they can by some means discredit the whole body of evidence against their claim and forward evidence for it.
That being said so long as there is measurable harm to come from theistic belief and the benefits of it are ephemeral I will be opposed to inflicting it on others.
I don't believe that that's the case. To be no amount of assertion creates a chance that anything could be the case. What makes a chance is that an assessment of possibilities puts a known or estimable probability on it being the case.
If most atheists identify with "lack of belief" and not "believe God doesn't exist" then I don't have much else to say because I think that pretty much describes myself. I just don't have a belief, I don't support or reject.
I feel that even if evidence is not given, we can't rule something as false. Let's assume the idea of God wasn't impossible to deny or prove. Do you think lack of evidence provided by humans, little animals who live in a dust spec for a relative short amount of time, gives you enough confidence to say "there is no creator"?
That is exactly my issue with atheism, that they think their human reason gives them enough capacity to take a position to something as complex as the origin of reality. It feels to me like an ant taking a position on quantum mechanics. It's just outside of our reach. Anything we choose to believe, even if rooted in reason, is a wild guess.
The most rational thing to do is just to stop guessing. I feel if people accepted their ignorance more frequently instead of taking sides without actual knowledge, the world would be a better place.
For some generalized creator figure? I can't disprove that, however I think Russel's Teapot comes into play at this point. We couldn't detect a porcelain teapot the size of a common teapot in stellar orbit between the Earth and Mars. So, currently, it would be impossible to disprove that claim, however there is also no reason to accept it. The burden of proof is on those who make these claims to support them, not on those who don't accept them to disprove every claim they could posit.
For any of the creator figures I'm aware of non-deist theists claiming exist? At least of all those that I am familiar with they have self-contradictory stated natures, operate in logical contradictions, and perform impossibilities. In short: They don't exist because for that not to be the case then the few things we can demonstrate to be true must be false.
The only times I've seen an atheist back their atheism just with human reason is when explaining logical contradictions about the asserted god. Most arguments I'm aware of use more than just logical contradictions in the opposing claim. More often than not I see them engaging with the proposed evidence for the claim and providing contrary evidence against it.
We use the terms 'rooted in reason' and 'wild guess' to mean different things. To me a wild guess is made in the absence of reason or without regard to it while something that is 'rooted in reason' is about as opposed to that as is possible, a belief that stems only from what it well supported by evidence, reasoning, or most preferably both.
I'm not sure I take your meaning for 'just outside our reach'. Are you stating that we're close to it but not there yet or that it is categorically beyond our ability to reach such that we will never reach it?
I'm sorry but this comes off as somewhat disingenuous directed toward atheists. We're not accepting the other side's guess and generally also provide reasoning for that decision when prompted. Contrast with the theistic position of the assertion of some grand causer or creator and subsequent assertions that anything not yet explained rationally is somehow the work of this unsupported asserted entity.
Something rooted in reason can be a wild guess when the reasoning isn't mature enough to handle the subject. This is a subject that is out of our reach.
As you already pointed out, not all atheists think "God doesn't exist". My last paragraph was aimed towards religious people and atheists that have a solid opinion. I don't think accepting ignorance is something bad, I advice to do it whenever possible.
Saying "I don't know" or "you don't know" is much better IMO. In reality we don't know and can't know.
Example, please. I would say when you start wildly guessing, it ceases to be reason. Speculation based on available evidence might involve reason, but a wild guess is, as far as I can tell, as lacking reason as possible.
This topic is the example. Just because you're using your rational thought doesn't mean you're getting anywhere near an actual answer or having a better chance of answering "is there a creator"?
You can use all the reason you want, you just don't understand reality with such depth that you can start scratching that question.
Schrodinger was using reason when he proposed his paradox... But he was wrong because he lacked knowledge. Without actual knowledge, logical thought can make sense but still be wrong. Reality is more complex than the conceptual abstractions our minds use.
I don't have to make any wild guesses to say that I don't believe there are any gods due to a lack of empirical evidence.
But then you're still, and I think intentionally now, trying to claim that knowledge and belief are the same thing. They are not, and atheism is still about belief and not knowledge.
I realize you don't like that, but that's still what atheism means. A lack of belief. Guesses aren't needed to lack belief in something. I don't have to guess to not believe in werpreopwerwqop because there is no reason for me to believe it exists.
I don't know why you keep saying I'm saying belief and knowledge are the same. They are not the same. My point is that belief without knowledge is pointless. See? Not the same.
Belief based on knowledge = good.
Belief without knowledge = not good.
Do I have knowledge about the creation of the universe? Do I understand reality? Do I know anything about a creator? No. Thus, I choose not to believe anything about it. Anything I choose to believe without actual understanding is just a guess.
Because you keep saying that. You said "I don't know" is a step between belief and non-belief. No it isn't. Because it's a lack of knowledge, which is not belief.
You also think lacking belief in gods is about knowledge. It isn't. Therefore, atheism isn't. So stop talking about knowledge as it relates to atheism because it does not.
Yes, because I don't know then I don't have a belief.
As I said, even Schrodinger's paradox seemed logical and rational, he based his belief on it. Turns out he was wrong because he lacked knowledge, so his belief was just a guess. In his case, his belief was a good guess considering how close he was to the subject.
How close are we to understanding reality and it's origin? Not close at all. Even if we used our rational thought, our belief would be a pretty wild guess, because we have basically no knowledge.
So can you believe without knowledge? Sure. If you believe with knowledge, that's even better. Schdoringer believed based on a ton of knowledge and logical thought, and he was still wrong. Why? He lacked more knowledge. Now imagine me, believing with no understanding of the origin of reality... How close can I be to the actual answer. Not close. So, what's the point of believing?
Can you believe without knowledge. Sure. But why? Lack of belief and accepting ignorance is the humble path.
The more you know about a subject, the more you should allow yourself to believe things on that subject.
If you don't have a belief, you lack belief. Because belief and non-belief are a binary and there is no third option no matter how many times you claim knowing something is belief.
You can keep talking about understanding things, but understanding things is also not belief. You also keep talking about rational thought, but rationality is not belief.
So, again-
Knowledge is not belief.
Understanding is not belief.
Rationality is not belief.
I think I already said this before. If by "not believing" you mean "lack of belief", we're on the same page. I think lack of belief is the right approach to unknown subjects.
Give yourself the luxury of believing things only when you actually know about the subject. That means chances your belief is right are decent. Otherwise, don't shape your life based on a guess.
I do not mean that.
That is what atheism means.
Please give an example of an atheist who shapes their life on atheism. I have never met one. I certainly don't.
Pretty sure there are plenty of atheists that are constantly on the lookout to attack people who they don't agree with. Anyways, shaping your life is not just about what you do but also about the way you think. Someone who believes God doesn't exist because there's no evidence, probably has other beliefs about things they don't really understand. Letting go of those ideas that seem logical but have no basis helps lower the ego. Letting go and accepting ignorance feels much better than forming opinions without knowledge.
If you're pretty sure, you can give an example. Otherwise, you're just making one of those wild guesses you don't like.
I have experienced them, pretty sure you have too. It's something common and it isn't the type of guess I refer to. We have knowledge and experience about people behaving that way towards others. It's based on knowledge.
Have you experienced them or is this just your idea of what these people value most in their lives and consider the primary part of their identity based on internet discussions with complete strangers?
Alright. Was thinking about this prior to seeing your reply and meant to apologize as on thinking about it your statement could be meant that way and now with the clarification doubt has further been removed. Sorry.
I agree that it's not bad to accept legitimate ignorance however I don't think it's best practice to accept ignorance just because it's one of the possibilities. Rather, I feel that ignorance should be the fallback position, over baseless speculation, when hard facts on a subject are insufficient in number and/or scope to paint a reasonably clear picture.
Where sufficient facts on a matter exist to show a clear picture exist I don't believe it proper to accept an assertion of ignorance. Firstly because it's false, we know at least some things on the topic, and secondly because it can be harmful, shysters leveraging 'we don't know' to insert a baseless speculation paired with hawking a product or marketing themselves as a problem solver.
Yeah I totally agree. Accepting ignorance about things we actually understand would be impractical. Even if philosophically we can't truly know if we actually know anything, practically we need to establish truths that work as tools to build more complex systems.
What I'm trying to say is that we don't really understand much about the origin of the universe, so saying "I don't believe there is a god because of lack of evidence" seems too harsh. Like, ok, we don't really understand much about this topic, we don't have evidence, how can lack of evidence help you make up your mind then? The humble thing would be to say "I don't really know much about this because we don't really understand this subject, so I can't form opinions".
I guess it's just a matter of linguistics, I'm just realizing that "I don't believe" means something different for different people. Personally I thought it meant "I think chances are there is no creator". But for some people it means "I don't believe in the religious ideas, even if I don't believe the opposite". For others it is "I have no belief one way or the other".
So yeah, this is the problem with language. Sometimes ideas are more complex than words.
I don't think many Atheists come to the conclusion based off of arguments about the origin of the universe. It appears to be more common that logical or ethical contradictions within theistic doctrine lead to its rejection.
For me personally it began with the divine hiddenness problem. Being raised in a faith that states its god wants a relationship with me and yet is wholly imperceivable to me. From there building with additional arguments such as the abhorrent ethics of their mythical figures when viewed from a frame of reference other than 'they're the good guys because their god said so'.
Yeah, I also have that in common with them. I was very religious as a child and then started changing because of the nonsense of religions. I'm trying to go a bit deeper here though, I think we can assume religions are just human ideas with no basis, so these are already discarded for me. I'm talking about an actual creator, not about our interpretation of it. I don't think we have the tools, knowledge or experience to actually tell. The only thing we have is ignorance.
I think you are assuming more than is warranted. Why is it beyond our reach?
It is outside of our current reach. Maybe in the future we'll have actual knowledge and have a solid opinion based on evidence. For now, believing anything, one way or the other is just pointless.
Again, my understanding was that most atheists believed "the is no god". Most people are telling me that this isn't the case. So my main assumption was wrong.
If saying "I have no belief one way or the other" is something an atheist could say, then I might be an atheist. I just didn't agree with the "there is no god" type of argument. "There is no god because there's no evidence so far" or "There is no god because religions contradict themselves". I think the origin of the universe and the concept of a creator are much deeper than the religions people built. Also deeper than our current scientific understanding of reality.