why I'm an atheist...

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
The existence of unknowns does not increase the likelihood of the existence of that for which there is zero evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong. The very existence of unknowns is the reason for us to measure things probabilistically in the first place.
The more we know about something, the more we can say certain things about it are less likely to be true. And vice-versa.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
if you are truly atheist, than you are gone. no hope. if you can completely accept atheism and all its implications, than i hope you [censored] rot. most of you have no clue. i am not bright, but smarter than what i read. so i will not give up on you all. love

[/ QUOTE ]

lol I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] siegfriedandroy

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
if you are truly theist, than you are gone. no hope. if you can completely accept theism and all its implications, most of you have no clue. i am not bright, but smarter than what i read. so i will not give up on you all. love

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[MidGe]

Why am I a "strong" atheist?

First, let me define what my disbelief is in. I strongly disbelieve in an O3 type god (omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent god). If you are viewing a god with some limitation (ie cannot void logic, need evil to allow free will etc..) then I strongly disbelieve it as a god worthy of worship.


The first case, the O3 god is absolutely incompatible with what I see and experience in the world, specifically the suffering that seems to afflict all living animals. One of the omni has to give, either the god is not conscious of all, not capable of all, or not benevolent. If that is the case then the god falls in the second category and is definitely not worthy of worship. Now, he may be omni-potent and I may regret it for eternity, but I am not going to side with a monster regardless of his power. I guess during the nazi era there would have been people that would have submitted to pressure from Hitler's hordes and give away information about other people lifes to save their own or themselves from torture. I hope I would not have done so. If god exists as omnipotent and omniscient yet not benevolent, then I see it as mine, and every thinking human being, mission, to try to redeem him. And showing our disrespect or lack of worship is the only way I can conceive to do so, as well as acting "contra naturam" [ie against nature or natural inclinations].

Now some people regard the god question as merely what caused the big bang, or whatever the most remote time we can envisage, they need a first cause. To me, it is simple, either the big bang was an echo of another previous big bang (ad infinitum), or it was caused by a huge suck-in that went wrong, following the collapse of a previous big bang, or an infinite number of other possibilities. Again if it was a god, or a being that had been in existence forever, then I would have to say, maybe, but I would not attribute it intelligence, or at least not sufficient intelligence, to be an O3.

PS It is probably worth another thread, but I also think that a belief in a revealed religion is no guarantee of morality. The only certain morality must rest on an atheist position.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
The only certain morality must rest on an atheist position.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Is certain morality dependent on atheist belief? Even atheists feel bias against religions issues and their garbled posturing about morality.

Some atheists allow no room for middle ground and allowing that a theist view is necessary for many people to subdue the fears and uncertainities of life.

[ QUOTE ]
And showing our disrespect or lack of worship is the only way I can conceive to do so, as well as acting "contra naturam"...

[/ QUOTE ]

And for blind theists who are not open to intellectual discourse, which isn't always the case around here, this is a waste of time and effort.

I doubt the existence of an Omega civilization, which is the same thing as the concept of a God, but within the Universe, not without. But I will allow for a non-zero probability that this exists. Why?

Hope. Because if such a civilization exists, then our life is a maturing process in which we weigh the decisions of morality and mortality. Being unable to know either way is truly a difficult issue to ponder.

The O3 god? When such redundant power is held in one entity's hands, do consequences and decisions over a century really matter all that much in the greater picture if you can hold the view that he may exist?

That isn't to mean you should feel free to make immoral and evil decisions. The fact is, either way, you have the leeway to make those decisions.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Rather, I mean to explain why we believe in religon in the first place. Our belief in religon ties in beautifully to the survival and propogation of the species. ie, - religon can be explained away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that this is true, but if so, it doesn't appear to be inconsistent with my metaphysics. If a particular religion were correct, one would expect that it would "tie in to the survival of the species" (whatever that means).

[ QUOTE ]
However, the odds are practically zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

To bring things full circle:

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." — Voltaire

[ QUOTE ]
However, any movement off of zero has more to do with an undetected flaw in my logic than it has to do with unknown information.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true in the most obvious sense, that is, your handicapping can't take into account that which is unknown to you.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]

PS It is probably worth another thread, but I also think that a belief in a revealed religion is no guarantee of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. In my opinion a person's belief in a revealed religion has zero to do with their morality as a person.

There are truly horrible people who are the most ardent believers in their particular faith. There are also horrible athiests. Likewise there are good believers and good athiests. Statistically, I suspect both groups have an equal number of good people, and an equal number of dispicable bastards.

Morality does not get delivered to humans by some invisible man in the clouds. If I assume homosexuality, or women not covering their faces in public, is immoral because my god says so... then how moral am I, really? Aren't I really just unquestioningly following orders, like a Nazi soldier?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
This is only true in the most obvious sense, that is, your handicapping can't take into account that which is unknown to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to trot out a tired old analogy - but how sure can we be that invisible pink elephants don't exist? I guess I can't say with absolute certainty they don't, since it might just be something unknown to me. But the chances are close enough to zero to disregard the possibility, unless some new evidence presents itself.

I don't think there's any point in factoring in all the possibilites with zero evidence to support them into our handicapping. Then absolutely nothing could ever be ruled out. It's easier to just say the chances are close enough to zero that, for all intents and purposes, they can be ignored.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Not my thing, but I would have to think extropic processes have the potential, at least, to overtake the widespread effects of entropy.

[/ QUOTE ]I had never heard the term before so I did some research. It appears this is apples and oranges. To counter entropy I would think extrophy would need to be defined in terms of thermodynamics and not reside in the philosophical realm only (if my understanding of the term is correct). Interesting concept though. I want to do some more reading on it.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to trot out a tired old analogy - but how sure can we be that invisible pink elephants don't exist? I guess I can't say with absolute certainty they don't, since it might just be something unknown to me. But the chances are close enough to zero to disregard the possibility, unless some new evidence presents itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. But now you are talking about burden of proof, which is a more fundamental issue. All I was saying was that IF one decides to argue against the existence of invisible elephants, then "I can't see them" isn't going to pass muster as a valid disproof.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's any point in factoring in all the possibilites with zero evidence to support them into our handicapping. Then absolutely nothing could ever be ruled out. It's easier to just say the chances are close enough to zero that, for all intents and purposes, they can be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with this except as it applies to this specific issue, which I contend is too unwieldy to make such cocksure statements about "The Evidence."