Theists vs Atheists/Agnostics

[medigeek]

Did I give any indication as to what I believe? No. I simply stated that I grew up in the Catholic tradition, and that everyone I've ever known who was or is Catholic believes in God, Jesus Christ, but also in evolution and science. You can believe in both.

 

I would probably best described as agnostic. I'm not so full of myself as to think I have all the answers, or that I can state definitively that there is no God, or greater spiritual power, or something else out there. I just don't know. But I was brought up Catholic, and again, everyone I know who is Catholic believes in evolution, in science, and also in God. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

I've also seen religion provide a great deal of help and comfort to some individuals. I've seen it make huge differences in people's lives, so I'm not about to discount it.

 

You absolutely cannot believe in a god if you're even somewhat scientific. A scientific person is someone who goes with evidence. Not someone who believes in things lik a little kid. And religion is all based on magical creation, where science is based on formation and evolution.

Science is logic, religion is 100% illogical. I find it as logical as unicorns or santa clause.

[Robin Hood]

You absolutely cannot believe in a god if you're even somewhat scientific. A scientific person is someone who goes with evidence. Not someone who believes in things lik a little kid. And religion is all based on magical creation, where science is based on formation and evolution.

Science is logic, religion is 100% illogical. I find it as logical as unicorns or santa clause.

 

Many great philosophers used to believe in God, they were obviously little kids.

And the fact that science was still not as advanced as now is irrevelent, they are not laypeople, they were the most skeptic of the people.

Yeah, some people used to worship the Sun, but they aren't among the great philosophers.

[medigeek]

Many great philosophers used to believe in God, they were obviously little kids.

And the fact that science was still not as advanced as now is irrevelent, they are not laypeople, they were the most skeptic of the people.

Yeah, some people used to worship the Sun, but they aren't among the great philosophers.

 

No it is not irrelevant. I would have believed in god as well back then. There was no way to explain anything at all. But you're forgetting that:

 

1) Belief in god =/= belief in religion neccessarily (religion is guaranteed false)

 

2) God is a MAN MADE concept. Like who told you about god? parents? Who told them? who told the first people about god? It was something that appeared out of no where with people having no clue why they were there. And this random and obviously false idea (unless you believe that the sun or moon is a god) evolved through the ages.

 

People have tried to come up with religions too recently... it doesn't work out too well. You seriously think any of the abrahamic religions would have had any success if they "came around" in the last 200 years?

[nosuperman]

You absolutely cannot believe in a god if you're even somewhat scientific. A scientific person is someone who goes with evidence. Not someone who believes in things lik a little kid. And religion is all based on magical creation, where science is based on formation and evolution.

Science is logic, religion is 100% illogical. I find it as logical as unicorns or santa clause.

 

A decent chunk of scientists throughout history were at least deists and many were theists. They practiced the majority of their science sufficiently well so as to be the giants upon whose shoulders we stand.

 

Keep in mind that in many contexts people segregate their brains into accepting different things at face value. In politics, national and international affairs, relationships, self-reflection, and theistic belief we all take liberties in focusing the flames of scrutiny on some subjects more intensely than others. Even within religion you can get most people to approach other religions reasonably and certainly they can approach science that doesn't conflict with their religion reasonably as well.

 

From a compassionate perspective, there is less incentive for people to shield Santa and unicorns from scrutiny. If you lose unicorns, you'll probably be OK. The thought of losing God is terrifying to some people. Thus there's a lot of incentive to justify the ends in that instance.

 

In the context of performing science, researchers have incentive to be reasonable and objective. Additionally, their cosmic identity is not wrapped up in the machine that does an ELISA so they don't have any incentive to shield that area. I think in areas of no conflict they can be scientists just fine.

[medigeek]

A decent chunk of scientists throughout history were at least deists and many were theists. They practiced the majority of their science sufficiently well so as to be the giants upon whose shoulders we stand.

 

Keep in mind that in many contexts people segregate their brains into accepting different things at face value. In politics, national and international affairs, relationships, self-reflection, and theistic belief we all take liberties in focusing the flames of scrutiny on some subjects more intensely than others. Even within religion you can get most people to approach other religions reasonably and certainly they can approach science that doesn't conflict with their religion reasonably as well.

 

From a compassionate perspective, there is less incentive for people to shield Santa and unicorns from scrutiny. If you lose unicorns, you'll probably be OK. The thought of losing God is terrifying to some people. Thus there's a lot of incentive to justify the ends in that instance.

 

In the context of performing science, researchers have incentive to be reasonable and objective. Additionally, their cosmic identity is not wrapped up in the machine that does an ELISA so they don't have any incentive to shield that area. I think in areas of no conflict they can be scientists just fine.

 

So we should make up a story cause we're scared? I believe that's called ignorance.

[nosuperman]

So we should make up a story cause we're scared? I believe that's called ignorance.

 

Not what I'm saying. You're speaking prescriptively (ought/should) and I'm speaking descriptively (can). Just saying that if you make up a story for whatever reason doesn't inherently mean you can't be scientific in other areas. Most people make up stories.

 

The narrative that the past and future are real is a story that leads to fear and anxiety in many but we subscribe to it because of our discomfort with the present moment. The things we do that are bad for our health - research shows we make up narratives to mitigate the effects these behaviours have on our cognition. When we're right we have a higher tendency to internalize, when we're wrong we externalize. It doesn't make it right nor does it justify the behaviour (the ought/should side) but it certainly happens (the can side).

[duck_season]

So we should make up a story cause we're scared? I believe that's called ignorance.

 

It's not so much as making up a story as trying to answer the "Why?" of life. Why are we here? What is our purpose? Many believe such advanced life can only exist if there is a Creator.

Then there is the comfort aspect of it. Many patients who are chronically ill/dying find comfort in prayer and hope that they will find peace someday. That's why many healthcare institutions have chaplains and other religious services to help patients cope with their harsh reality.

So if you look at it from a practical perspective, religion plays an important role in end-of-life healthcare.

[medigeek]

It's not so much as making up a story as trying to answer the "Why?" of life. Why are we here? What is our purpose? Many believe such advanced life can only exist if there is a Creator.

Then there is the comfort aspect of it. Many patients who are chronically ill/dying find comfort in prayer and hope that they will find peace someday. That's why many healthcare institutions have chaplains and other religious services to help patients cope with their harsh reality.

So if you look at it from a practical perspective, religion plays an important role in end-of-life healthcare.

 

Humans die like any other animal does. Or any other living thing. What's this whole entitlement thing?

Be happy you were born at all and got to live as long as you did.

[duck_season]

Humans die like any other animal does. Or any other living thing. What's this whole entitlement thing?

Be happy you were born at all and got to live as long as you did.

 

Certainly true, everyone dies. I've met many patients who had a very positive outlook on death, and some were atheists. However, there were many religious patients among them as well. Regardless of their beliefs, most patients believed (from my limited experience anyways) that their life had been full and rewarding and now it was time for them to move on.

Moving on to what? That's where they differed.

[NutritionRunner]

You absolutely cannot believe in a god if you're even somewhat scientific. A scientific person is someone who goes with evidence. Not someone who believes in things lik a little kid. And religion is all based on magical creation, where science is based on formation and evolution.

Science is logic, religion is 100% illogical. I find it as logical as unicorns or santa clause.

 

There are many, many scientists who believe in God. The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't know why you think they are. Whether or not one believes in God has nothing to do with the ability to be scientific or to conduct science.

 

Many people find that science and religion complement each other. Here's one author that finds that they do so: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/ilj_preface.pdf

 

To you religion may be 100% illogical, but to many people it is logical. Also, there are plenty of branches of science that are not "logical." I deal with that all the time in food science and nutrition. Any scientific endeavour that involves human beings is not purely logical. Human beings are not logical! People behave in contradictory ways all the time!

 

People do things all the time that they know are wrong or bad for them, yet they still do them. If that's not illogical, I don't know what is. There are people who need to change their lifestyle in order to live healthy lives, yet who refuse to do so. That is illogical. There are physicians who are overweight and obese, and physicians who smoke. That is illogical too!

 

Science and religion are not incompatible. One can believe in God and be a scientist. They are not mutually exclusive.

[medigeek]

There are many, many scientists who believe in God. The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't know why you think they are. Whether or not one believes in God has nothing to do with the ability to be scientific or to conduct science.

 

Many people find that science and religion complement each other. Here's one author that finds that they do so: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/ilj_preface.pdf

 

To you religion may be 100% illogical, but to many people it is logical. Also, there are plenty of branches of science that are not "logical." I deal with that all the time in food science and nutrition. Any scientific endeavour that involves human beings is not purely logical. Human beings are not logical! People behave in contradictory ways all the time!

 

People do things all the time that they know are wrong or bad for them, yet they still do them. If that's not illogical, I don't know what is. There are people who need to change their lifestyle in order to live healthy lives, yet who refuse to do so. That is illogical. There are physicians who are overweight and obese, and physicians who smoke. That is illogical too!

 

Science and religion are not incompatible. One can believe in God and be a scientist. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

No it's because there is zero evidence for religion.

[monty]

No it's because there is zero evidence for religion.

 

This statement seems odd. What evidence exactly have you been looking for? What would this evidence look like if you were to search for it. Religion is a history of certain people groups trying to find/understand/please god and the rules/ceremonies/beliefs surrounding that.

 

Do you mean zero evidence for God? Again if you are implying zero scientific evidence for God, I believe you are talking about not finding the god described by major religions in the physical world after we have been studying it with objective reasoning for the last few hundred years.

 

However, we have not exactly been conducting scientific research on god because at the present time we have no idea what that would look like. So, to claim that there is no scientific evidence for god when we have not been using science to try to find that being does not seem like much of a claim at all...I'm not arguing for god's existence because as I mentioned in a previous post I have experience based reasons for believing and that suits me just fine. I am just saying that making such strong statements about "zero" evidence might require more thought and are not as simple as you are stating them?

[Silverwolf1277]

You're taking a stance on the proposition "God exists" -- you're saying "God does not exist" . . . how is that not a belief?

If you've never entertained the thought of God existing or not existing, i.e. a non-position on the proposition "God exists", then yes you would not require evidence. But atheists say "God does not exist", therefore you need just as much evidence as a theist. Without proof, your belief is just as irrational.

 

Being an atheist means answering "no" to the question "do you believe in god?" Being an agnostic means answering "I don't know" to the question "does god exist?"

 

These are different questions. Like I said, I don't believe in god the same way I don't believe in unicorns. Richard Dawkins puts it beautifully, putting it on a Likert-type scale. If a 1 is "I know there is a god" and a seven is "I know there is no god", I'd say I'm a six. I'm also a six about the existence of the tooth fairy, unicorns, and dragons.

 

According to your line of reasoning, we should have evidence that unicorns and Santa Claus don't exist. This is clearly not possible. How do you prove non-existence of something?

 

I wouldn't say that god doesn't exist, but that it is highly unlikely that god exists, just like it is highly unlikely that tooth fairies exist. That being said, if I ever see evidence to the contrary I'll admit I was wrong. That's the beauty of evidence, it's true whether or not you believe in.

[Let'sGo1990]

Being an atheist means answering "no" to the question "do you believe in god?" Being an agnostic means answering "I don't know" to the question "does god exist?"

 

These are different questions. Like I said, I don't believe in god the same way I don't believe in unicorns. Richard Dawkins puts it beautifully, putting it on a Likert-type scale. If a 1 is "I know there is a god" and a seven is "I know there is no god", I'd say I'm a six. I'm also a six about the existence of the tooth fairy, unicorns, and dragons.

 

According to your line of reasoning, we should have evidence that unicorns and Santa Claus don't exist. This is clearly not possible. How do you prove non-existence of something?

 

I wouldn't say that god doesn't exist, but that it is highly unlikely that god exists, just like it is highly unlikely that tooth fairies exist. That being said, if I ever see evidence to the contrary I'll admit I was wrong. That's the beauty of evidence, it's true whether or not you believe in.

 

Yep. Agnosticism is the idea that we don't know, we can't know. The problem with that is that is that it can be applied to everything - unicorns and seamonsters. But if you were to ask someone whether they believed in unicorns/seamonsters, they'd say no. The reason being that there's nothing known to us supporting the existence of those things.

 

So why is it not the same in terms of God? I think we'd all agree that it's ridiculous to prove that unicorns don't exist. But it's suddenly not so illogical when we're asked to prove that God doesn't exist.

[Let'sGo1990]

I am a fan of his and I did! It was pretty good, WLC completely took him over, but I felt as though Hitchens actually had more/better to articulate than he actually did in the debate, but for some reason he was not pulling it together, which was too bad b/c it would have made for good discussion ... did you watch the full thing?

 

It's interesting how people can watch the same thing and leave with two entirely different impressions. I felt as if Hitchens handedly took the debate.

 

Many great philosophers used to believe in God, they were obviously little kids.

And the fact that science was still not as advanced as now is irrevelent, they are not laypeople, they were the most skeptic of the people.

Yeah, some people used to worship the Sun, but they aren't among the great philosophers.

 

Genuinely curious why this would be irrelevant. Having more knowledge would make for an opinion that is better founded and better informed.

[futurepediatric]

It's interesting how people can watch the same thing and leave with two entirely different impressions. I felt as if Hitchens handedly took the debate.

 

 

 

Genuinely curious why this would be irrelevant. Having more knowledge would make for an opinion that is better founded and better informed.

 

I agree people can leave with different impressions but we may not be talking about the same debate- which one are u referring to? The one im talking about (one on one Hitchens and WLC) WLC won a mile in terms of votes and in my opinion won in terms have having better argument as well

[Fresh fry]

I agree people can leave with different impressions but we may not be talking about the same debate- which one are u referring to? The one im talking about (one on one Hitchens and WLC) WLC won a mile in terms of votes and in my opinion won in terms have having better argument as well

 

The event was hosted at a christian university and you think that vote count means anything? Craig got his but handed to him

[Let'sGo1990]

I agree people can leave with different impressions but we may not be talking about the same debate- which one are u referring to? The one im talking about (one on one Hitchens and WLC) WLC won a mile in terms of votes and in my opinion won in terms have having better argument as well

 

this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

 

Biola is an Evangelical Christian university, so the votes were prone to bias (not that votes are a good indicator anyways).

[Silverwolf1277]

Yep. Agnosticism is the idea that we don't know' date=' we can't know. The problem with that is that is that it can be applied to everything - unicorns and seamonsters. But if you were to ask someone whether they believed in unicorns/seamonsters, they'd say no. The reason being that there's nothing known to us supporting the existence of those things.

 

So why is it not the same in terms of God? I think we'd all agree that it's ridiculous to prove that unicorns don't exist. But it's suddenly not so illogical when we're asked to prove that God doesn't exist.[/quote']

 

Exactly. And let's not forget that it's only the god that that person believes in who gets this exception applied to them. The same people who want you to prove their God doesn't exist don't seem to care if you can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist, or Ahura Mazda, or Thor.

[futurepediatric]

this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

 

Biola is an Evangelical Christian university' date=' so the votes were prone to bias (not that votes are a good indicator anyways).[/quote']

 

Yeah thats true, fair enough. I thought it was widely agreed by both Atheists Theists that WLC won by a mile .... Thats actually how i found out aboutthe debTe - on an Atheist forum admitting that Hitchens did not do so well

 

Im not sure whether in this debate or not, but there are also stats about how many people who were initially Atheist and after the debate not as clear anymore on their stance and vice versa, which is pretty interesting

[Fresh fry]

Yeah thats true, fair enough. I thought it was widely agreed by both Atheists Theists that WLC won by a mile .... Thats actually how i found out aboutthe debTe - on an Atheist forum admitting that Hitchens did not do so well

 

Im not sure whether in this debate or not, but there are also stats about how many people who were initially Atheist and after the debate not as clear anymore on their stance and vice versa, which is pretty interesting

 

It wasn't his best debate, he wasn't on top of his game but he still handidly destroyed craig. If you believe that any atheist changed their mind after that debate then I have a story about Darwin's deathbed you may also believe.

[futurepediatric]

The event was hosted at a christian university and you think that vote count means anything? Craig got his but handed to him

 

No not at all ... In my opinion i didnt hear one good agunent from Hitchens, and his incoherence made things worse

 

And a lot of Atheists admitted to WLC peforming nuch better as well http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230

[futurepediatric]

It wasn't his best debate, he wasn't on top of his game but he still handidly destroyed craig. If you believe that any atheist changed their mind after that debate then I have a story about Darwin's deathbed you may also believe.

 

Many people have converted from Atheism to Christianity bc of WLCs influence. If YOU dont believe thAt then you are just in unrational denial

[Fresh fry]

Many people have converted from Atheism to Christianity bc of WLCs influence. If YOU dont believe thAt then you are just in unrational denial

 

Be careful not to worship false idols because when the day comes that he gets busted with someones **** in his mouth there is going to be a lot of egg.

[axialpac]

Being an atheist means answering "no" to the question "do you believe in god?" Being an agnostic means answering "I don't know" to the question "does god exist?"

 

These are different questions. Like I said, I don't believe in god the same way I don't believe in unicorns. Richard Dawkins puts it beautifully, putting it on a Likert-type scale. If a 1 is "I know there is a god" and a seven is "I know there is no god", I'd say I'm a six. I'm also a six about the existence of the tooth fairy, unicorns, and dragons.

 

According to your line of reasoning, we should have evidence that unicorns and Santa Claus don't exist. This is clearly not possible. How do you prove non-existence of something?

 

I wouldn't say that god doesn't exist, but that it is highly unlikely that god exists, just like it is highly unlikely that tooth fairies exist. That being said, if I ever see evidence to the contrary I'll admit I was wrong. That's the beauty of evidence, it's true whether or not you believe in.

No, the two questions are the exact same, just worded differently. If you were to ask an atheist “do you believe in God?”, they will say no. Likewise they will also answer no if you asked them “does God exist?.”

Moreover, an agnostic would answer, “I can’t know, and I’ll never know” to both questions. And finally, a theist would answer yes to both questions.

 

Your second paragraph doesn’t make sense, because as an atheist you’re saying that it is definite that God does not exist. Without faltering. How can you take such a black and white approach to the question “does God exist” and then do a 180 degrees and say “from a scale of 1-7, I’m around a 6 with regards to God not existing”? That’s like saying, “I’m 90% sure God doesn’t exist.” Okay… so you’re 10% sure God exists?

 

Highly unlikely based on what? And how did you come to that conclusion? That’s my point, you don’t have any evidence. You say you’re someone that will believe in something only if there is evidence . . . you’re believing in non-existence based on zero evidence.

 

My final point, is that yes you can prove a negative claim. A negative claim being defined as “X does not exist” in response to “does X exist?.” A positive claim would be “X exists”. That aside, there’s nothing special or unique about not being able to prove non-existence, because there are cases where you can’t prove existence either (in general). There are also cases where you can prove a negative claim (non-existence), just as can with a positive claim. If you don’t believe me that it is possible to prove non-existence, then go read up on some propositional logic or just google “evidence of absence”. Can you see how it’s such a weak argument against theism by saying “you can’t prove non-existence” when there are cases when you can?

 

Now with regards to God, neither atheists nor theists can prove his nonexistence (negative claim) or existence (positive claim), respectively. Simple conclusion? Both sides have a doxastic attitude with regards to the existence of a God, without evidence. From an evidentialist perspective, both beliefs are equally irrational.