Aries_Split:
If you mean Physics, then you are correct.

Not just physics, but also biological function, mathematics, causality, and any other form of naturally occurring order in the universe.

Why is there a REASON for anything? Why do causes have effects and vice versa?

What we perceive to be chaos is, in fact, order; effects determined by causes too complex or abstract to comprehend easily.

Believe me, I only appear to anthropomorphize "god" because that is the way most people understand the concept.

I make no claim that "god" bears any resemblance to any deity proposed by any religion, ever. Nor do I claim that "god" has any moral inclination whatsoever. There is no evidence of it.

I simply accept the possibility of the existence of a supernatural creationist force. I also accept the possibility of its non-existence.

guyy:

Alex_P:

mtk2a:
Therefore it becomes a matter of incomplete information. Mankind literally CANNOT determine whether god exists, or not.

That's because you've defined "God" in terms of a set of unfalsifiable claims.

What do humans do when presented with an unfalsifiable claim that doesn't have the weight of hundreds of years of shared culture behind it? Oh, right, we dismiss it as bullshit handwaving. Sophistry.

-- Alex

Well, saying there is absolutely no God is also an unfalsifiable claim. God is defined so vaguely and in so many different (often contradictory) ways that dismissing them all as completely impossible actually is about as silly as accepting one of the claims, especially considering all the God-esque things that might exist that we've never even thought of. And the idea of a God does have hundreds (actually thousands) of years of shared culture behind it, not that that proves anything.

mtk2a's point, I hope, isn't that God exists, or even that he's likely to exist, but that we need to keep in mind that we don't actually know. Carelessly dismissing the possibility of some intelligent entity that had something to do with creating our Universe, or Earth, or life, or something, is actually very unscientific.

guyy is correct. I am making no argument in one way or another. In fact I believe the usual players on both sides of this argument are probably wrong.

The concept of god is best explained in Hinduism. Not a person of being but an existence itself. the idea of god is so hard for our minds to comprehend that we attach a "face" to god so that we can better understand. It kind of fearing what you don't know till you name it.

TheNecroswanson:
I mean, the Big Bang Theory is called a theory for a reason. There's not way to prove it actually hapPened.

That's the opposite of a theory.

In the "hard" sciences, like physics, a theory is a model supported by empirical observation. The big test is falsifiability -- if something can't be examined based on evidence (at least potentially), then it's not qualified to be a "theory."

Well-established "theories" (like evolution or the Big Bang) have an ever-growing collection of evidence behind them, and get modified or discarded if contradictory evidence is introduced. For example, "Big Bang" theory predicted cosmic microwave background radiation before it was discovered in the 60s (that's pretty much the turning point for the Big Bang becoming the most well-regarded cosmological model).

-- Alex

I lose respect for people who choose to believe in religion. I can't help it.

I may be just refusing to understand the differences of people but I can't see any plausible reason to believe.

My definition of anti-theist is different than the OP's. From every time I've heard the word, it has meant the belief that not only is there no god, but religion is a bad thing the world would be better without.

So, under that definition, I am an atheist and an anti-theist. I'm smart enough to know not to act on my anti-theism because I won't live to see a world free from religion anyway and anti-theism makes you few friends.

LadyZephyr:
So, under that definition, I am an atheist and an anti-theist. I'm smart enough to know not to act on my anti-theism because I won't live to see a world free from religion anyway and anti-theism makes you few friends.

It's nice to know that I'm not alone in this.

Clairaudient:
I lose respect for people who choose to believe in religion. I can't help it.

I may be just refusing to understand the differences of people but I can't see any plausible reason to believe.

The point I have been trying to make here is that I have as little respect for people who state "I am sure god does not exist" as for people who state "I am sure that god exists."

Both groups claim to know the ultimate answer to an ultimately unanswerable question.

guyy:
Well, saying there is absolutely no God is also an unfalsifiable claim. God is defined so vaguely and in so many different (often contradictory) ways that dismissing them all as completely impossible actually is about as silly as accepting one of the claims, especially considering all the God-esque things that might exist that we've never even thought of. And the idea of a God does have hundreds (actually thousands) of years of shared culture behind it, not that that proves anything.

mtk2a's point, I hope, isn't that God exists, or even that he's likely to exist, but that we need to keep in mind that we don't actually know. Carelessly dismissing the possibility of some intelligent entity that had something to do with creating our Universe, or Earth, or life, or something, is actually very unscientific.

As far as scientific inquiry is concerned, "there is no god" is a quick and dirty hypothesis that has been very, very successful. It's just as strong as the other cornerstones of modern science, albeit of much more limited utility.

The "absolute" assertion that there is no god is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. Any such claim can be turned to mush if you drill down into the minutiae of thought and language hard enough. "Obscurantisme terroriste" and all that jazz! Sure, one can't "really" "know" that there is no god any more precisely than one can "really" "know" anything about anything.

There's some value in making that observation, perhaps. What's the value in obsessing over the "we don't know" to the exclusion of all else? Why is there a good reason to uphold "we don't know" as the only sensible answer in this one particular situation but not all the time, everywhere?

-- Alex

Limos:

In science the teacher had us sort ourselves out by different characteristics. Eye color, hair color, birthdate, and finally. Religion. Knowing I was in a heavily religious group I walked off on my own to stand by myself. As I thought, I was the only Atheist in the class. A boy in the group nearest me, Catholics actually, looked over and asked me. "Why are you standing by yourself? What are you?" I replied, "I'm an Athiest." and to this he says "You worship the Devil!!!" I tried to explain to him that I was not a Satanist, but in fact did not believe in the Devil either. He apparently found this hard to accept and never spoke to me again.

The same kind of thing happened to me.
It was in maths (if I remember correctly, it's been three years since I was in school, and even longer ago for the incident in question). I made a joke comparing the chirstian anti-gay protestors (protesting the proposed law for Homosexual couples to have a marriage of sorts) to the hitler youth, blindly following because someone with a big voice told them something was wrong. (I was 16, forgive me)
My friend, who up until that point I had thought was a fellow athiest, was shocked at my words.
He too also made the assumption that not beleiving in God made you a Satanist. I pointed out that not only to Satanists beleive in God, but also that as a Christian Satan was much more a part of his beleif system than mine.

He might also have been a bit shocked at the idea that someone would want to stand up for Gay rights, he also assumed that I was gay. I pointed out that it was much more a case of basic equality than anything else, and a group of people to stepping all over another group's rights just because it is against what they collectively think is morally right, is morally wrong.

Threads like this make me want to start worshiping Astarte or Athena, just for cathartic release from it all.

EDIT: Just for the record: Descartes, Augustine, and Lewis got the same reaction!

Jazzyluv:
That simple, if you believe in god, you are somewhat stupid.... regardless of intelligence.

Yes. Yes they are

I am atheist to some groups, anti-theist to others. It boils down to this for me.

The two main deeply religeous people I have spent time with, were my auntie and my schools chaplain. Neither Tried to force anything on me, and infact our school chaplain was one of the most down to earth guys when it came to religeon, and despite the schools religeous sway, he lightheartedly told us he would not be offended if we did not want to pray ect, and he integrated nicely into society. These people have got it right, they use it as a source of inspiration, and in the hands of the moderately intellegent religeon can be used for good (fundraising to help the poor, victims of natural disaster ect). In this way I believe it is a good thing and stand only as an atheist.

On the other hand are the fanatics, evangalists, idiots. These are the people who take millenia old scripture as, for lack of a better word, gospel. Obviously what was written centuries ago applied to different times and situations, and a failure to use your own discresion with your faith is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Systems must evolve with the times or become redundant. This is where many faiths are now; Redundant because the men heading them are not exposed enough to the outside world to change. When these reluctant evolvers tell their followers that "the infidels must die" it is madness. These idiots do insane things for false promises of virgins in heaven, and going way back when, the crusades were waged by religeous drive killing thousands in the name of the church.

If there is a god somewhere, he doesnt want slaughter in his name, or hatred and discrimination-these are things scarce few men who lead their faith belive in, and no one mans word should be held above what is obviously moral. I think religeon from the mouths of the dangerous few and in the ears of the ignorant many is the single most dangerous thing on the planet today. Nothing else can cause such reckless disregard for ones own life, and those of others, for a cause and such gullability to achieve said misguided cause. I wonder sometimes If people have nothing better going on in their lvies that they have to turn to any cause they can to feel worthwhile. I've digressed to middle eastern religeon now I see.

Back to religeon in general; Fiction, or perhaps part fiction, written years ago as a guide to moral living is what religeon should have been or remained, and this is how smart people take it-with a grain of salt, acknowledging that perhaps such a being does not exist but the morals promoted do exist and they are what should be believed in. I also don't think anyone should live in fear of god, unwilling to experience things in life out of expectation of punishment in the afterlife. It is so sad seeing peoples beliefs being barriers to their lives fulfillment, because as far as science tells us, there is no afterlife.

So, if people want to use religeon as a means of comfort or healing-hooray for them, I think thats another decent person in the world. If you take fiction as law... Well you arent much better than people in asylum-that's plain mad.

I apologize for stepping on any toes here, but I think it's foolish to accept that there is a God on the word of a priest, preacher, deacon, parent or long winded book. I think it's just as foolish to rule out the possibility of a God because there is no firm evidence of God's existence. Given that there is no concrete evidence one way or another, I tend to think agnosticism is the way to go.
If tomorrow I leave my home and bush bursts into flame and divine voice tells me that there is a God, then okay, I'm well on my way to belief. Till then though I think the most educated position to take on the matter is to admit you don't know and won't know till your dead and maybe not even then.

jthm:
If tomorrow I leave my home and bush bursts into flame and divine voice tells me that there is a God, then okay, I'm well on my way to belief. Till then though I think the most educated position to take on the matter is to admit you don't know and won't know till your dead and maybe not even then.

You're welcome to enjoy your agnosticism but I think the idea that it's "the most educated position" is quite dubious.

There's a bunch of stuff we don't or can't know. In a broad sense, we can't "know" anything with absolute certainty. Understanding that is an important part of developing a sensible personal understanding of cognition and language. When you focus on that pervasive uncertainty to the exclusion of all else, however, you lose the ability to actually create meaningful ideas.

If I "I don't/can't know whether god exists" represents a level of uncertainty equivalent to "I don't/can't know whether anything I perceive truly exists," then there's no reason to trot out that kind of statement as something special.

Uncertainty pervades everything in our world. Sometimes it's helpful to acknowledge that explicitly and talk about it and try to understand it. Oftentimes, however, effective human thought and communication requir e willfully disregarding that, because we know that adding "... but we can never really know anything" to every idea is just noise, not information (and that it's possible to do so forever if you so choose).

I know that I don't "really know" that the world I perceive has any kind of existence independent of me. I know that I don't "really know" that there is no god. (And I know that I don't "really know" that I know either of those things, technically -- whee, turtles all the way down.) I would say I am about equally sure of the statements "the world I perceive has some kind of existence independent of me" and "there is no god," though.

Given how long and ramblesome that little preamble was, I hope you can see why I prefer to just say "there is no god" and leave the metaphysical existential uncertainty about every facet of human existence as subtext rather than text.

Now, how is your position any more "educated" (not just as educated but more educated) than mine?

-- Alex

Anti-theist here, and if you think religious tolerance is the answer you eat babies.
But seriously, preventing the extinction of the species is my only concern, and religion is on the hit list.

++

I'm not the typical guy to browse forums unless I'm looking for some kind of solution to a problem I'm having, but this one was on the front page, and I just had to read it, and after reading, just had to register and post.

I was brought up kind of strangely. My parent's are not religious, if anything my father is one of these "Anti-Theists". I spent allot of time with my uncle though, who was paraplegic. He was very relgious, but also very insane. I learned allot from him regarding christianity and the lack of belief.

I consider myself an "agnostic-Theist", or an agnostic who leans more toward the existence of a higher power, rather than the non-existence of one. Religion is a GREAT topic, that I love to discuss with EVERYONE because I love hearing everyones take on it. I always approach it with the attitude to change people's viewpoint's to not be so hard-lined. You can do this with both the very religious, to those who want to spit venom all over religion. You have to understand a few things....

If you are a hardcore christian who wants to convert everyone, you need to seriously look at the flaws of your religion. Aren't you taught that humans are inherently sinful? That we sin all day, every day without even a thought about it? And isn't that also the reason that your Savior Jesus died on the cross? So that you, and ALL of mankind could be washed of their sins?

And then their are the hardcore atheists that will spout scientific data disproving the existence of god, and all of that will always all boil down to, "You can't prove that god exists!", and I always tell them, prove to me he doesn't. You cannot. The same way you cannot prove to me that you are standing there right in front of me. This could all be a dream I'm having.

I like to look at the teachings of the bible and documents of other faiths, simply as being guidelines. Like, these are the guidelines to living. The golden rule if you will. If you are a hardline Atheist who hates religion, what exactly is it that you hate? If you try to disprove the existence of a god, if your so sure that God doesn't exist, why are you trying so hard to disprove it? What are you scared of? Why do you need concrete evidence?

If you think people coming together every Sunday inside of a church to praise something they truely believe in, and doing it in a peaceful way that is doing nothing more then bringing people together for a common cause, is that so wrong? What exactly is wrong with that? What's wrong with people caring a, moral fiber, that makes it so that they live their lives the best that they can, doing the best they can for other people?

As I said, I love to have conversations with people about religion, just in an attempt to get them to view it in a different light. I don't feel that my little post here really managed to expand on all of my thoughts and concepts, but I'll close it with this. Nothing really irks me more than people just straight up dismissing the possibility of a higher power, or intelligent creation.

I like him, can we keep him? :)

The_root_of_all_evil:
I like him, can we keep him? :)

I saw him first.

Excellent first post, a breath of reason in a shitstorm i had written off as unsalvageable.

I am a bit of an anti-theist, I hate religion. I turn nasty when they say "I believe in god and my saviour... blah blah blah", then I have to tell them my 'Mistranslation in the Bible' argument.

They still don't listen...

SecretTacoNinja:
I am a bit of an anti-theist, I hate religion. I turn nasty when they say "I believe in god and my saviour... blah blah blah", then I have to tell them my 'Mistranslation in the Bible' argument.

They still don't listen...

I don't think it's the argument they ignore such as the person espousing it.

Not to offend, but if your first move is on the offensive its very easy to be written off as someone not to listen too.

Painted death, while I agree with most of your post, there's one paragraph which I just can't agree with.

And then their are the hardcore atheists that will spout scientific data disproving the existence of god, and all of that will always all boil down to, "You can't prove that god exists!", and I always tell them, prove to me he doesn't. You cannot. The same way you cannot prove to me that you are standing there right in front of me. This could all be a dream I'm having.

Yes, we can't prove that he doesn't exist. However, that doesn't mean we should act as though it does. Allow me to conduct a simple thought experiment.

If I told you that a invisible, tuxedo-wearing rhinoceros in a invisible pink mini cooper was heading right for you, would you jump out of way? I mean, that would be the logical thing to do if you knew it was there. However, we can't prove it's existence, and I'm fairly certain you wouldn't jump out of the way.

And yes, while this thought experiment is a bit flawed, you should be able the understand the point I'm trying to make.

Alleged_Alec:

Yes, we can't prove that he doesn't exist. However, that doesn't mean we should act as though it does. Allow me to conduct a simple thought experiment.

If I told you that a invisible, tuxedo-wearing rhinoceros in a invisible pink mini cooper was heading right for you, would you jump out of way? I mean, that would be the logical thing to do if you knew it was there. However, we can't prove it's existence, and I'm fairly certain you wouldn't jump out of the way.

And yes, while this thought experiment is a bit flawed, you should be able the understand the point I'm trying to make.

Reductio Ad Absurdum. Bad argument.

Reductio Ad Absurdum. Bad argument.

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd"), also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.

It might be that there might be a kink in my train of thought, but I don't see a reductio ab absurdum in it.

However, I tried to say that it's a bad counterargument to say we can't prove it doesn't exist. The appropriate response would be to hit the person on the head with the nearest blunt object, because frankly, it's not much of an argument.

I'd have to say that I'm an anti-theist.
However I strongly disagree that I should not be referred to as an atheist, I'm simply both of them.

I have a strong belief in that if you have a religion, you should be able to defend it in an argument.
If you can not defend your religion, you are ignorant and not worthy of your religion.

I believe it is right of me to do this, much like how a religious person may question my beliefs (or rather the lack of them).

i'm sorry but i just can't call someone stupid because they beleive in something different to what i do, yes i am an atehist and i do so much so luv getting into arguments with my friends to pass the time, but it is unfair to call them "unintelligent" because they have a different beleif to what u do

Alreka:
i'm sorry but i just can't call someone stupid because they beleive in something different to what i do, yes i am an atehist and i do so much so luv getting into arguments with my friends to pass the time, but it is unfair to call them "unintelligent" because they have a different beleif to what u do

I can defend my beliefs.
If they can't, they and their beliefs are stupid :/

There is no such thing as 'anti-theists'. There are atheists, and there are atheists who are jerks. Being intolerant of other's beliefs isn't a philosophical choice, it's a personality trait. Christians who are intolerant of Atheists aren't anti-atheists, they're still Christians who just happen to be jerks. Simple.

Also, for all the Atheists acting like intellectually superior beings taking the 'scientific' choice - you're just as unscientific as the Christians. Scientifically, we can theorise that no God took part in the creation of life on Earth, but as to what created the universe itself and defined the universal constants that make life here possible, we have no idea. That isn't any indication that a God exists, but it isn't proof that one doesn't either.

In such a situation, the scientific response would be observe the events preceding and following the big bang and come up with a theory which postulates why such events occured and thus why the universe started. Since we can not observe the events leading up to the big bang, and the events following it were in no were affected by the prior state of the universe (in theory), it is currently impossible to say what or who created the universe.

No, it is not 'more likely' that no God took part in creating the universe, that isn't scientific. At all. Occum's razor is only a scientifically acceptable means of determining cause when you have several theories that fit the evidence, and we don't have any evidence (and thus no theories).

Agnosticism would be the 'intelligent' choice, for now.

Gentlemen, when we conduct the big-boy arguements can we please use the correct terminology and definitions?

Atheists do not subscribe to any standardised religious format. That is all it means. Agnostics do not believe in anything other than the natural world, although Theistic Agnostics subscribe to a religion morally without accepting or believing the central spiritual premises (such as God, reincarnation etc). Atheists believe many varied things but are joined by this one commonality.

That said, anti-theism (a non-existent term) could fall into either camp, though traditionally, the tendency is to refer to agnostics using you definition. So what you meant was Atheists vs. Agnostic, thought really the discussion is more to do with religious entitlement, in which case as Westerners we are fundamentally entitled to our religious beliefs, and the concept of the poster above who believes we have to justify our beliefs is talking nonsense.

Faith extends beyond the bounds of intellectual debate, at it's root it is a state of mind where we accept things which we cannot prove, and the differences grow from here. As a practising buddhist I resent the idea that I don't deserve to practice my religion because I cannot prove to someone that when i die I will be reincarnated in another form...

EDIT: For the gentleman above, it's Ockam's Razor...