Why argue about the existence of a god at all?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

First off, no discussion about the existence of god should take place here, do it in the thread devoted for that purpose.

This is addressed at my fellow atheists.

We use this forum to discuss matters of philosophy, morals and religion. Mainly religion. Let's face it, the primary debate on this forum is about the existence of god. But why do we carry on doing it? While I am a rather militant atheist myself, I don't believe there's any point in discussing whether god exists or not with theists, due to a simple fact: all those who can be swayed by reason are either already atheist or very sokn to be regardless. Religion as such requires unconditional faith, not reason, and any argument made by theists is begging the question. Assuming the existence of god is impossible based just on empirical evidence, simple as that.

So no point in debating - a theist fights to defend his preset conviction, and twists logic to fit it no matter what. Those who observe the scientific method in determining their world views are already atheists.

[The Dude]

At the end of the day the discussion is less about God himself and more about the implications of his existence. If God was proven to exist and was completely withdrawn from our plane of existence there wouldn't be much to talk about. The God discussion is interesting precisely because those who believe he exists feel like this has certain practical repercussions. Nevermind that almost all of them are completely arbitrary and subject to interpretation. The fact of the matter is that if God exists then certain people feel justified in interfering with other people's lives and forcing them into certain behaviour. If God does not exist, then these people are exposed as what they truly are: a bunch of clowns who believe in arcane wizardry and can't muster the decency to keep their opinions to themselves. It's, in the end, a very, very mundane problem. It's about people vs people. It's not about God.

[Lazarus]

At the end of the day the discussion is less about God himself and more about the implications of his existence.

Pretty much this. Forever. A billion times. On a Tuesday though.

If God exists then there are a set of absolute morals that someone helpfully wrote in a book somewhere for us. No question about it. And one particular church would be able to get tax exempt status and the rest would all just be cults. If God exists then Cardinals and Imams haven't just wasted their lives.

The absolute worst implication for me though, is that if God exists people would stop asking "why" or "how" and our knowledge of the universe would cease to expand. We may never reach a type 1 civilization and we're going to face enough trouble getting there as it is.

GOD =/= Religion. Atheists seem to confuse that almost habitually.

While this is true, if we are to be aware of a God, he would have to be a religious God - to be aware of his presence we would need him to intervene in something (or to talk to someone). By influencing events for someone or even communicating with them, he will show favor to that person above everyone else. Which is really what religions are all based on. Being "Gods chosen".

[fkizz]

Those who observe the scientific method in determining their world views are already atheists.

You're wrong. The Scientist who created the Big Bang theory was a Priest, therefore a Theist, and I can easily say he understood far more of Scientific Method than you do. Get informed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Another example, the director of the Human Genome Project was an Evangelical Christian:

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

[Aeneas Veneratio]

^Good choice! Being without a religion and its rules provide you with the freedom to make your own path.

You're wrong. The Scientist who created the Big Bang theory was a Priest, therefore a Theist, and I can easily say he understood far more of Scientific Method than you do. Get informed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Another example, the director of the Human Genome Project was an Evangelical Christian:

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

Interesting...

In 1951, when Pope Pius XII tried to use his theory as a justification for Creationism, Lemaitre resented. While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion.[17]

Going through the wiki article, I don't see any indications that he credited his discoveries with religious value. He remained a believer, true, but he didn't use his discoveries to advocate for the truthfulness of theism.

Collins is not serious enough about Christianity to believe in Young Earth creationism and intelligent design though.

[fkizz]

Interesting...

Going through the wiki article, I don't see any indications that he credited his discoveries with religious value. He remained a believer, true, but he didn't use his discoveries to advocate for the truthfulness of theism.

We will never know if being religious helped him or not in scientific discovery (through motivation, sense of purpose, inspiration, etcetc). That's his personal (religion is suposed to be personal) issue as far as I know, not even suposed to be part of public speculation.

Point was, some of the best practioners of the Scientific Method can be Believers without any logical contradiction, contrary to what some militant atheists claim.

Collins is not serious enough about Christianity to believe in Young Earth creationism and intelligent design though.

Creationism =/= Theism

You don't need to be a Creationist in order to be a Theist.

[MaximiIian]

Going through the wiki article, I don't see any indications that he credited his discoveries with religious value. He remained a believer, true, but he didn't use his discoveries to advocate for the truthfulness of theism.

That's not what was being spoken of, here. You said that people who observe the scientific method and trust in scientific explanations for many natural phenomena would inevitably be atheists. That is a blatantly false claim, as many scientists are religious and/or theistic in some fashion.

Collins is not serious enough about Christianity to believe in Young Earth creationism and intelligent design though.

Implying that a "serious" religious person is creationist or int-designist. And that a religious person that isn't a hardline fundamentalist isn't "serious enough".
What a silly viewpoint.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

That's not what was being spoken of, here. You said that people who observe the scientific method and trust in scientific explanations for many natural phenomena would inevitably be atheists. That is a blatantly false claim, as many scientists are religious and/or theistic in some fashion.


Implying that a "serious" religious person is creationist or int-designist. And that a religious person that isn't a hardline fundamentalist isn't "serious enough".
What a silly viewpoint.

I didn't claim that, Blatta Optima Maxima did.

Christianity's concept of our creation is the Genesis (God creating Earth, animals and mankind = creationism/ID). He doesn't buy it to that, meaning he isn't completely convinced of one of the main stories in Christianity.

And what logic is that? Could it be the one that says nothing can actually make something all by itself? Explain the logic in that? This is how John Metcalfe sees your logic,

Leading back to the question of, who created your creator?

Which John Metcalfe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Metcalfe - None of them have a convincing enough background (for this matter) to sway my mind.
I also can't find out, which one it is by google searching the name and part of the "quote".

[MaximiIian]

Christianity's concept of our creation is the Genesis (God creating Earth, animals and mankind = creationism/ID). He doesn't buy it to that, meaning he isn't completely convinced of one of the main stories in Christianity.

Which isn't entirely true. It's a central myth in the tapestry of Christian mythology. But it is not necessary for one to take them all literally for one to be a Christian. That's been an acceptable position in that religion since St. Augustine.

[I WUB PUGS]

This is a not so clever way of rehashing the already pounded-to-dust arguments of the existence or non-existence of GOD.

You speak of theists preconceived notions whilst applying your own to them. I am a theist, but I am also without religion.

I observe the scientific method in my determination of a supreme-being. Quite simply we can trace the origins of the universe back to a mass that exploded apart. Science has yet to answer where the mass came from. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then where did it come from?

Answering: "It was simply there" is not enough for me.

I am left with a leap of faith, free of religious dogma.

GOD =/= Religion. Atheists seem to confuse that almost habitually.

[Matthias]

Answering: "It was simply there" is not enough for me.

I am left with a leap of faith, free of religious dogma.

Then you aren't using the scientific method. Otherwise, your answer would sensibly be "I don't know". You certainly wouldn't bring faith into it.

[I WUB PUGS]

Then you aren't using the scientific method. Otherwise, your answer would sensibly be "I don't know". You certainly wouldn't bring faith into it.

Do you have faith in anything? Do you know that the drivers around you today aren't intoxicated or perhaps in some other state of mind that could cause them to hit you?

No, we have faith in humanity enough everyday to put our lives in the hands of perfect strangers.

I'm putting faith in something I feel exists, the same way I feel enough people out there are doing the right things not to kill me.

If atheists can use the scientific method to unequivocally say that GOD doesn't exist, then I can use it to say that he does. Both sides can only argue the specific Big Bang Theory down to the same point. Either side has to take a leap of faith to one side or the other.

While this is true, if we are to be aware of a God, he would have to be a religious God - to be aware of his presence we would need him to intervene in something (or to talk to someone). By influencing events for someone or even communicating with them, he will show favor to that person above everyone else. Which is really what religions are all based on. Being "Gods chosen".

I argue that Religion is a perversion of GOD for the purpose of controlling man. So no, GOD need not be religion-specific.

Himster, I don't know what driving moccassins are!

[Matthias]

Do you have faith in anything? Do you know that the drivers around you today aren't intoxicated or perhaps in some other state of mind that could cause them to hit you?

Faith means belief that is not based on any proof. No, I don't have faith of that sort in anything. I don't know that the drivers around me aren't intoxicated, that doesn't mean I believe they don't. I could die any moment, this is an accepted reality for me. I simply hope that all the various things meant to keep drunk drivers off the road work or that I'm not at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing about faith there.

No, we have faith in humanity enough everyday to put our lives in the hands of perfect strangers.

You are talking about a different definition of faith, namely one that means "trust". That you put your trust in others. Well, yeah, everyone does to a degree, but that's not the same as religious faith.

If atheists can use the scientific method to unequivocally say that GOD doesn't exist, then I can use it to say that he does. Both sides can only argue the specific Big Bang Theory down to the same point. Either side has to take a leap of faith to one side or the other.

Atheists can't use the scientific method to prove something unproveable, or to falsify something that's not falsifiable. No one can.

The thing is, you don't "have to" take a leap of faith and lie to yourself, you can just be honest and say you don't know, because you don't, and no one else does either. People who say they do "know" are pretty annoying. Kinda defeats the definition of "knowledge".

[I WUB PUGS]

The thing is, you don't "have to" take a leap of faith and lie to yourself, you can just be honest and say you don't know, because you don't, and no one else does either. People who say they do "know" are pretty annoying. Kinda defeats the definition of "knowledge".

Saying God does exist, doesn't exist or undecided. Are three are different. An atheist jumps to one side with a leap of faith that is the opposite of the theist. An agnostic stays still.

If you are agnostic, then so be it, I don't bother convincing anyone of the existence of God, that's not up to me.

I merely apply the same standard to theists and atheists.

I never defined my faith as religious and trust and faith no matter how you cut them are the basically same, that's why they have joint definition. I'm not arguing some faith that God is out there protecting me or he has a set of laws handed down through the ages. I'm arguing that a "leap of faith" must be taken by the theist and atheist. This sort of leap is the same you and I do under the guise of trust everyday with our fellow man.

Now again, if you are agnostic, I'm not talking about you. If you just sit there in the middle and say "I don't know" then fine, I'm not here to convince you. I just want the same rules to apply to theists and atheists alike.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

This is a not so clever way of rehashing the already pounded-to-dust arguments of the existence or non-existence of GOD.

You speak of theists preconceived notions whilst applying your own to them. I am a theist, but I am also without religion.

I observe the scientific method in my determination of a supreme-being. Quite simply we can trace the origins of the universe back to a mass that exploded apart. Science has yet to answer where the mass came from. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then where did it come from?

Answering: "It was simply there" is not enough for me.

I am left with a leap of faith, free of religious dogma.

GOD =/= Religion. Atheists seem to confuse that almost habitually.

Well, the big bang isn't even the ultimate question. For all we know our universe could be a single atom in the thigh bone of a goat on planet Arth in a universe very much like, or perhaps not at all like, our own. That is one of an infinite number of possibilities.

I mean, what we do know compared to what we know we don't know is still basically 0. Never mind what we don't know we don't know, or things we are not capable of knowing.

I don't assume I know which possibility is correct. Theists arbitrarily pick one.

[Himster]

But why do we carry on doing it?

Because it's the ultimate mystery of the universe. Theists claim to have an answer, we would have to be insane to not want an answer too

[I WUB PUGS]

Because it's the ultimate mystery of the universe. Theists claim to have an answer, we would have to be insane to not want an answer too

Or just not bothered by it and concerned with more pressing matters. The mystery of the universe is a First World Problem.

[Himster]

The mystery of the universe is a First World Problem.

Ah, don't get me started. My maid had her son's wedding today so she rushed the tidying of the house and now I can't find my driving moccasins: How am I supposed to drive around whistling at attractive Latvian and Estonian immigrants without my driving moccasins?
These first world problems can be rather trying at times. I bet I could find my driving moccasins if I lived in Mexico: they have all the luck.

[Irishman]

I have no problem with belief in a God as an addition to science. The science+ view of God is innocuous if not exactly rational.

The reason to argue against God is if the conception of God goes against scientific or ethical progress.

[Valden]

The reason to argue against God is if the conception of God goes against scientific or ethical progress.

I think the way you distinguish between science and ethics is slightly problematic. It raises a pretty loaded question: Is it morally permissible for morally impermissible acts to be performed in the furtherance of science?

As it stands scientists operate within an ethical framework not defined by the scientific method, so either science is based on a lie or not all truths have to be empirically validated. Either way, we only permit our scientists to perform experiments that are morally permissible, and what is or is not morally permissible is very much the territory of religions.

That aside, by ethical progress you can only mean ethical change if God does not exist, since without God there is no objective standard with which to have a concept of ethical improvement. So us religious folk have to stand aside and let this ethical 'change' happen, because change is always good?

Ah, don't get me started. My maid had her son's wedding today so she rushed the tidying of the house and now I can't find my driving moccasins: How am I supposed to drive around whistling at attractive Latvian and Estonian immigrants without my driving moccasins?
These first world problems can be rather trying at times. I bet I could find my driving moccasins if I lived in Mexico: they have all the luck.

You only have one maid? I would hardly call you a member of the first world