Mclean's - Do atheists care less?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't
Than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is a God.

Pascal called, he'd like his wager back.

Originally Posted by Flames0910

I did want to respond to this, however, and question why you conclude that the no-god option is the default?

Why do you conclude that the no-universe-creating-purple-unicorn is the default?

Originally Posted by Flames0910

It seems to me, that lacking conclusive evidence for or against, both would be acceptable conclusions.

Not really, in a situation where there is insufficient evidence or insufficient reason an acceptable position is "I don't know." Otherwise ANY conclusion is acceptable, natural processes vs. god is just a false dichotomy. A universe creating purple unicorn is just as an acceptable conclusion then. Or why one god? What about Vishnu, Odin, and Wotan?

Originally Posted by Flames0910

One last concluding thought...
Science may be rational but our world, in many ways, is not. It's complex, irregular, bizarre, fascinating, awe-inspiring, and beautiful, but oftentimes, irrational.

Not really, if something is completely irrational then it is beyond the realm of science or reason, by definition. No matter how strange and inscrutable something seems, if science can understand it then it is not irrational.

Unless you have an example.

Originally Posted by Flames0910

At the risk of sounding like a naive, preachy romantic - why do we always have to bicker that our belief is right? The same sentiments that go into a thread like this are what fuel all kinds of wars (both science and religion). Can't we look for the truth in the other person's argument instead of the negative? Heaven forbid we actually learn something.

That's what discussions are about; looking for truth in the other person's argument, at least that's why I engage in them personally. But I would like to see an example of where science fueled a war, last time I checked there wasn't a group of scientists promoting Einstein's General Relativity that waged war on the Newtonian scientists.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't
Than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is a God.

Here's the big question: Would you live your life differently if you knew there was a god vs if you knew there wasn't?

For me, it doesn't change how I live. If you can sum up Christianity in a few sentences, it's the quote below. Even if you knew god didn't exist, it seems like good advice to live your life by.

"And behold, one came up to Him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why do you ask Me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the Commandments." He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:16-19 RSV)

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Take the sentence and replace "god" with something completely ridiculous, like "flying spaghetti monster": there is no evidence for the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, therefore the default position is to assume that one does not exist.

Do you think it's a reasonable position for someone to believe that the FSM exists because there's no proof that it doesn't? That's a logical fallacy along the lines of Russell's Teapot.

No, the default position on the flying spaghetti monster is to not know whether or not it exists.

You are blatantly committing a well-known informal logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. Since you linked to wikipedia, I'll also consult it: The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

You cannot conclude from the lack of evidence for the truth of something, that it must be false. That is fallacious. And no, Bertrand Russell didn't commit this fallacy.

As is believing that the FSM exists because there's no proof that it doesn't exist. You're right on that, but why are you acting like you have to do one or the other? Both are fallacious (in fact, both are the same fallacy, both are arguments from ignorance!

[photon]

It's not saying it positively does not exist because there's no evidence, it's saying that there's no evidence it exists therefore I do not think it exists.

Again it's the difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe there is a god".

It's only a fallacy if one is making a positive statement that the FSM does not (absolutely can not) exist.

In practice is there's no evidence for a FSM then you can take the default position that it does not exist as long as that position is provisional subject to new evidence. Operating from that position isn't flawed reasoning.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by photon

In practice is there's no evidence for a FSM then you can take the default position that it does not exist as long as that position is provisional subject to new evidence. Operating from that position isn't flawed reasoning.

I agree with you. Sorry if anything I said indicated otherwise (and no, I'm not going back on anything I've said in this thread). Obviously I'm an atheist because I came to similar conclusions. I see no reason to believe in a god, therefore I do not believe in the existence of a god. However, since there is also no evidence for the non-existence of a god, believing in God or gods or whatever is hardly as stupid as a lot of people try to make it out to be. Yes, it's a more immodest position, believing in God, but that doesn't really tell us it's false. No, I'm not putting the onus on us atheists, I'm simply taking the position that one can be fact-minded and a scientist and a good one at that, and still believe in God.

I don't see the difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe there is a god." If you don't believe there is a god, you must belive there is no god, unless you mean that you don't believe there is a specific god, but other gods may exist. There would seem to me no logical difference, only difference in rhetorical power. Maybe I'm just being an idiot again.

[CaptainCrunch]

I've always believed that God was a teenager with a fireworks fetish which created the big bang, then he defined the rules of his playset or universe, played with it for a few weeks, got bored with it and tossed it under the bed. since then his cat has caused chaos by swatting the box around. some day god is going to return from college see that box under the bed and throw it in the trash without even opening it because he forgot about that.

In terms of the science proving or disproving god.

If god is so powerful as to create a universe and the rules that govern it, it wouldn't be hard for him to define the rules to conceal his existance, if he was doing this from a strict scientific point of view where the proof of his existance would ruin the social experiment

[photon]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

However, since there is also no evidence for the non-existence of a god, believing in God or gods or whatever is hardly as stupid as a lot of people try to make it out to be.

I disagree here, people often say absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but that's not necessarily true.. I would rephrase that as absence of evidence isn't evidence of absolute absence, but absence of evidence CAN be evidence of absence if what it is you are talking about indicates something should be found where an absence is actually found.

So again defining god becomes part of the question.. If you define god as some deistic type god, or Spinoza's god, some broad general definition of god then yeah trying to claim non-existence for that is difficult. But if you become more specific, more specific claims about whatever god it is are made and those can be evaluated and in those cases absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If someone believed in a god that would always fill their coffee cup with coffee every morning supernaturally, and it didn't happen, then that god (or the god with that specific attribute) doesn't exist.

And I agree, I don't think I would ever say people who believe in God are stupid, at the very least it isn't constructive, and I don't think it's correct either. Belief in God isn't a function of smart or stupid, it's primarily a function of what you are raised to think. The single most important factor in what an individual will believe with respect to religion and god is where they are born. That says a lot.

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

I don't see the difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I do not believe there is a god." If you don't believe there is a god, you must belive there is no god, unless you mean that you don't believe there is a specific god, but other gods may exist. There would seem to me no logical difference, only difference in rhetorical power. Maybe I'm just being an idiot again.

"I believe there is no god (or are no gods)" is a positive statement about the nature of reality, while "I do not believe there is a god (or are any gods)", is simply a statement of belief, not a positive statement about the nature of reality.

Another way to look at it is the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism (sometimes called negative and positive atheism). A strong atheist asserts that the statement that any deities exist is false, while a weak atheist asserts that they do not believe in any deity, but do not assert that the statement that no deities exist is true.

It's a fine distinction, but an important one.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Here's the big question: Would you live your life differently if you knew there was a god vs if you knew there wasn't?

For me, it doesn't change how I live. If you can sum up Christianity in a few sentences, it's the quote below. Even if you knew god didn't exist, it seems like good advice to live your life by.

"And behold, one came up to Him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why do you ask Me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the Commandments." He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:16-19 RSV)

Here's a question. Is religion ultimately for people who are afraid of death? Because really, religion tells us to be good while we're alive so that we can be rewarded after we die. The whole idea behind religion is that, if you're not good while you're alive, then you'll be punished when you die.

[photon]

I don't know if most Christians on this forum would agree with the assessment of be good or you'll be punished when you die; I would suspect that more would rather say salvation comes by grace through faith, having a correct belief is what brings salvation and not being good.

The idea that someone does the right thing because they're afraid of punishment after they die is frightening.

[evman150]

The people who do the right thing because it's in their nature to do so are good people.

The people who do the wrong thing because it's in their nature to do so are sick people.

The people who do the right thing out of fear of posthumous retribution are bad people.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its just like people who bitch that there is no proof of god. Well to be honest people who believe in god or who subscribe to religion merely have faith that god is there, and there's nothing wrong with having faith.

But people justify their intolerance by their faith. Members of this board in the past have said "I have no personal problem with homosexuality, but the bible mandates it's a sin".

That's a belief that harms others. Lots of other examples exist where faith ######s equality in our society - women can't be priests, sex education is wrong, atheists are immoral, etc.

If people believe intolerant things but excuse them under the guise of "faith" - and society at large lets it pass - then we have a serious disconnect.

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't know if most Christians on this forum would agree with the assessment of be good or you'll be punished when you die; I would suspect that more would rather say salvation comes by grace through faith, having a correct belief is what brings salvation and not being good.

The idea that someone does the right thing because they're afraid of punishment after they die is frightening.

I certainly wouldn't. sure when I became a Christian it was " well i don't want to go to hell" but then as I discovered what I actually believed and the truth behind it, it became about my relationship with God. letting the Holy Spirit have an influence on my life and have meaning in my life beyond making money or making babies. i don't really care that much about the afterlife, i am living right now so i should focus on that. God wants his kingdom on earth, not for us just to waste time til we get to heaven. i am saved by grace, which is great because I (and everybody else, whether they admit it) am not perfect. the important thing is that I am not just following rules to be rewarded, I am discovering what it means to be a Christian and what Gods plans are for me.
/rant

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Here's the big question: Would you live your life differently if you knew there was a god vs if you knew there wasn't?

For me, it doesn't change how I live. If you can sum up Christianity in a few sentences, it's the quote below. Even if you knew god didn't exist, it seems like good advice to live your life by.

"And behold, one came up to Him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why do you ask Me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the Commandments." He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:16-19 RSV)

And that's the point I was trying to get across in the first page with the Commandments. Regardless of your thoughts on the organizations themselves, Religion provides good advice to live your life by. Who cares if you believe in God(s), or don't believe in God(s) - it's how you live your life.

It seems to me that Religion vs Atheism discussions on the internet always come down to the "Does God exist argument". I don't think this is the question we should be asking. Instead I propose that we ask "Does Religion have any value to society?" (Which is also a little more on topic with the original thread...bonus!)


I think the South Park episode about Mormon's is a pretty smart episode. It makes fun of all the ridiculous things that Mormons believe, but then at the end of the episode the moral of the story is that it doesn't matter. Mormons promote good family values and values that benefit society.

Stan's anger doesn't much upset anyone in the Mormon family other than Gary, who confronts Stan and the other boys the next day, pointing out that he believes his religion does not need to be factually true, because it still supports good family values and helping the poor.

"All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls."


Here's an excerpt from Matt and Trey's comments on the episode.

The healthy ones [religious people] are the ones that realize these are stories that help tell me how to run my life and these are stories that help mould a society.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by evman150

The people who do the right thing because it's in their nature to do so are good people.

The people who do the wrong thing because it's in their nature to do so are sick people.

The people who do the right thing out of fear of posthumous retribution are bad people.

How about people who do the "right thing" to improve their public image?

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by photon

It does, but evolution isn't random.

semantics i guess, it is random in that there isn't a guided purpose, but that in evolution things over time changed and old things died out, but there wasn't a plan or something to create a being. i guess i struggle with how evolution explains something like an eyeball, how do all the parts slowly appear over time without having the others (what advantage would it be for a being to have just one of those parts without the others)

Originally Posted by photon

The question might not even make sense, if time is an aspect of the universe, and cause and effect is related to time, does it make sense to ask a question of where the big bang came from if time didn't even exist? It's like asking what's north of the north pole; the question isn't meaningful.


The Big Bang is about the history of the universe from very early in time to now, and that is extremely well supported by the evidence. However at time = 0 everything becomes a singularity, which doesn't mean that's actually what happened, it means that the equations are undefined; that our current level is not adequate to describe the state of the universe beyond a specific point in time.

i guess, its something we just can't answer, but its not like big bang theorists have a leg up, they can't explain why the bang happened, people believing in God can't explain how he came to be. trying to understand time is beyond what we can understand, so i agree it isnt meaningful in itself, but just in relation to neither side having factual evidence. its belief in a religion/God or in experiments. people used to believe in a flat earth (unfortunately some still do) and it was commonly accepted 'fact'.

Originally Posted by photon

So if the big bang came from anywhere, the current answer to the question from science's point of view is "I don't know". It's an active area of research with many different people putting forth many different hypothesis, but it might be 50 years before there's a good answer to that question.

fair enough

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't know if most Christians on this forum would agree with the assessment of be good or you'll be punished when you die; I would suspect that more would rather say salvation comes by grace through faith, having a correct belief is what brings salvation and not being good.

The idea that someone does the right thing because they're afraid of punishment after they die is frightening.

You should read this guy.

http://www.amazon.ca/Discourse-Metap...3516821&sr=8-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebniz

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'd be pretty disappointed if the Supreme Diety of the Universe had to stoop to reveal its presence to a bunch of humans. Kind of pointless, eh?

Then wouldn't a "supreme diety's" need for a bunch of humans to praise and love him be pretty disapponting too?

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

But people justify their intolerance by their faith. Members of this board in the past have said "I have no personal problem with homosexuality, but the bible mandates it's a sin".

That's a belief that harms others. Lots of other examples exist where faith ######s equality in our society - women can't be priests, sex education is wrong, atheists are immoral, etc.

If people believe intolerant things but excuse them under the guise of "faith" - and society at large lets it pass - then we have a serious disconnect.

Everyone is intolerant to some degree about something, doesn't matter if your religious or not. In regards to homosexuality the fact that it is such a hot topic just screams to me that we all need to learn more. It's even an issue in the church as some organizations feel homosexuality isn't an issue. In science is it really not fair to say that humans and most other species exist in this world for the purpose of reproducing? Seems like a cold statement.

For your examples there are women who are church leaders, sex education consists of teaching abstinence until marriage versus make sure you wrap it before you ram it. And immorality exists on a broad spectrum, it really depends on how you define immoral.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't
Than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is a God.

I think that knowing that this is your ONLY chance at existance and freeing you to live a more full and complete life would be a better.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by photon

"I believe there is no god (or are no gods)" is a positive statement about the nature of reality, while "I do not believe there is a god (or are any gods)", is simply a statement of belief, not a positive statement about the nature of reality.

Another way to look at it is the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism (sometimes called negative and positive atheism). A strong atheist asserts that the statement that any deities exist is false, while a weak atheist asserts that they do not believe in any deity, but do not assert that the statement that no deities exist is true.

It's a fine distinction, but an important one.

I've gotta disagree on this, but agree on everything you articulated so well before the latter half of your post, quoted above.

"I believe there is no god" is not a positive statement on the nature of reality, "I am certain that there is no god" is. "I believe there is no god" cannot mean anything other than "I do not believe there is a god."

I fully understand, now that you've explained yourself, what you're talking about, but I don't think you expressed yourself very well. Anything with the words 'I believe...' is a belief statement. The former statement takes on a different rhetorical purpose, but that purpose is entirely rhetorical, there is no real logical difference between the two. There is a logical difference between "there is no god" (which many of my fellow atheists will say, though obviously many, possibly even most will qualify that with a 'probably,' saying "there probably is no god," a much more acceptable statement) and "I do not believe there is a god," that we can agree on. We can also agree that one may be an atheist who says they do not know if God exists or not, as I pointed out in an earlier post, and I'm that sort of atheist, a 'weak atheist,' if you will.