Strong Atheism and Faith

[DEXMachina]

History has shown that keeping religion and humans apart goes against human nature.

What I proposed is a much more realistic goal.

I am not entirely sure what goal you are referring to.

To clarify my argument, (e.g. If god does exist, we should follow his instructions (or our best interpretation of them) to the letter, and to ensure his will is carried out at absolutely any cost.

What you're suggesting here is assumptive. If a god did exist, it could be anything.

Let's cross that bridge if we come to it.

My main point is that one assumption will lead to one set of decisions/morals/policies, and the other assumption will lead to another set. Of course god existing could mean anything, what is important is that god not existing would mean something different. As I see it, the question of god's existance is so complex that an assumption on it would lead to a "package" of social decisions, hence its importance.

All that needs to happen is for children to be educated properly. People are still substituting guesses for things we already have answers to, and/or listening to people with agendas that conflict directly with what we know to be true. This ignorance, and these lies, is and are the problem.

Take god out of the classroom of LIFE, and mankind rights itself. I truly believe this. You don't have to take away god entirely, and that's fortunate, because you won't. Religious people, at their core, are after eternal existence. That is what god is, and that's why what you're suggesting will never work.

I fully agree that a proper education would solve the problem; removing the question of god's existance from the classroom would give it less meaning to people, reducing the impact of any assumption made of it. Unfortunately, the powers that be are aware of this, and have done a lot to maintain the religious dogma in schools (the case most fresh in my mind is the evolution/creationist debate going on in the US educational system) The very existance of religious schools presents a huge obstacle to secular education. Simply put, I like your idea of godless education, but the social force required to enact it amounts to a global (likely violent) revolution. I am not sure if I want to live through such an event. It is sad, but certain groups will always use schools as political artillery.

"Religious people, at their core, are after eternal existence. That is what god is, and that's why what you're suggesting will never work"
I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, can you clarify?

Again, I agree with you totally; my argument was applicable to the captians of the ships of state, not to scientists.

Well, your claim was that ""I don't know" is not an acceptable answer". I'm saying it has to be.

I also never claimed an assumption to be knowledge either

That's right, what you said was:

Quite simply, at best, it is fustrating to not know the answer, at worst, it can become an obsession (I will never be complete until I find the answer!)

And my response was to point out that you still wouldn't have an answer, making those considerations irrelevant.

From the pure "of truth" standpoint, "I don't know" is most definitely the only acceptable answer. However, the truth about society is that its fate is influenced by the actions of its people, which are in turn, heavily influenced by assumptions. Furthermore, average people are driven to find answers, and to settle on an answer, even if it turns out to be wrong. Curiousity affects us all.

One example would be the question of whether or not humans are alone in the universe. I have always pondered this question, and have been agitated by the fact that I have no real means to answer this question (It is hard enough for professional astronomers to just find exo-planets, let alone one capable of sustaining intelligent life). As a scientifically minded person, I can settle for simply not knowing the answer to this question. Luckily, this question has little real bearing on the running of our society (no matter which assumption is choosen, the way in which our society operates is unchanged, it will change if the assumption is proven or disproven), which explains why it is not debated heavily outside of the scientific community.

The question of god's existance, on the other hand, is extremely important to many people, and it carries a massive amount of ethical/moral baggage. This is what makes the frustration of not knowing very important; politicians will take advantage of this by declaring one assumption's accuracy over the other. Now, us scientists/free-thinkers are mostly immune to this kind of preaching, however, for the layman, it is easy to trust someone in a position of authority, if only just to escape the frustration of not knowing. In the end, even though noone has the answer, we not have a group of people, guided by a leader, who believe that they do have "the answer" This is where my statement not only becomes revelant, but dangerously so.

So leaders should act like there is no god, because that's for the best?

How do you know this is for the best?

No, leaders should act like they know how to lead, lest they lose their positions as politicians (self-preservation is a base instinct)

Theorically, I don't know if assuming no god is best. Practically, I have observed that secular governments that have taken charge of their own affairs are more developed, morally acceptable, and stable than religious governments that have depended on an ancient guidebook to make all of the decisions. Based on this, I have personally decided that assuming no god is the best option for humanity right now.

Bottom line, I agree with your position and ideas. I am simply explaining how society would react to their implentation.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Would you say that it is unreasonable to say that Bigfoot does not exist? This is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. Of course, this does not mean that I am not open to further evidence, but with the current state of things, this is the only stance that I can adopt on the issue without being intellectually dishonest.

It's not scientific to assume a position without proof or evidence to back up the claim.

I would argue that we do have evidence, that being the complete and utter lack of evidence supporting his existence.

The only valid answer with respect to god's existence is "I do not know."

Yes. This is my answer also. However, I consider it most likely that he does not exist. I believe that he does not exist, in the same way that I do not believe that Bigfoot exists, or Cthulhu exists, or Lucky the Leprechaun exists. I do not know that he does not exist.

With respect to bigfoot, that won't work. God and bigfoot are two different things. If you apply analogy in this situation, you're stretching the variance to it's limit.

One is a god, the other is a mythical creature. The former is defined in a manner that is too broad, inconcise, and indeterminate. The latter, on the other hand, is more particular, concrete

Given the definition of "God" as "an omnipotent being which created the universe and occasionally interacts with it", I think we have enough of a definition to go on to say that the analogy is not incorrect at all.

and has some form of minute evidence supporting that it does exist.

Debatable, but I'm not going to go into it here.

Don't rely on analogies to much.

I'm not relying on any analogy. I was merely trying to explain my position more thoroughly.

 

[Commander Eagle]

I feel that I need to clarify my position.

I believe that God does not exist. It is a gut feeling. I know that this is not a strictly rational position, as one cannot disprove God. However, I have the feeling anyway. The lack of evidence supporting his existence makes it seem more likely than any other option to me.

It is not entirely rational. But it is what I believe. I would like to be able to say that I am an entirely rational person, but I am not. No matter what I want to be, the fact remains that I have an irrational belief that God does not exist. I cannot discard this belief any more than I can discard my gut feeling that Earth has not been visited by aliens. Strictly speaking, that is not a rational belief either, but I feel it all the same, and I can't do anything to change that.

It is a byproduct of my skepticism. There has to come a point when we can say this is not true, where we can look at the evidence and say this has not happened or this does not exist. Until more evidence is presented, the only conclusion that I can draw is that Bigfoot is not real, aliens have never visited Earth, and God is imaginary.

 

[lrkun]

I feel that I need to clarify my position.

I believe that God does not exist. It is a gut feeling. I know that this is not a strictly rational position, as one cannot disprove God. However, I have the feeling anyway. The lack of evidence supporting his existence makes it seem more likely than any other option to me.

It is not entirely rational. But it is what I believe. I would like to be able to say that I am an entirely rational person, but I am not. No matter what I want to be, the fact remains that I have an irrational belief that God does not exist. I cannot discard this belief any more than I can discard my gut feeling that Earth has not been visited by aliens. Strictly speaking, that is not a rational belief either, but I feel it all the same, and I can't do anything to change that.

It is a byproduct of my skepticism. There has to come a point when we can say this is not true, where we can look at the evidence and say this has not happened or this does not exist. Until more evidence is presented, the only conclusion that I can draw is that Bigfoot is not real, aliens have never visited Earth, and God is imaginary.

With respect to the highlighted portion. That's what I'm trying to point out.

 

[Yfelsung]

Humans are incapable of pure reason because we're chemically hardwired to be emotionally bias.

I think the GOAL of a person should be pure logic and reason, but it's an unattainable goal that is supposed to simply create a journey. A journey that will take you from life to death without ever concluding, but it is this journey that forges you into a better person.

An unattainable goal is sometimes better than a realistic goal, as you'll always be reaching for it until the day you die, and that act of reaching and striving is what will define you.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Humans are incapable of pure reason because we're chemically hardwired to be emotionally bias.

I think the GOAL of a person should be pure logic and reason, but it's an unattainable goal that is supposed to simply create a journey. A journey that will take you from life to death without ever concluding, but it is this journey that forges you into a better person.

An unattainable goal is sometimes better than a realistic goal, as you'll always be reaching for it until the day you die, and that act of reaching and striving is what will define you.

Quotable. That said people probably are capable of pure reason in rare instances of total indifference.

 

[Nautyskin]

History has shown that keeping religion and humans apart goes against human nature.

What I proposed is a much more realistic goal.

I am not entirely sure what goal you are referring to.

Re your goal I'm referring to this:

As I see it, human society must choose one answer over the other as an assumption until it is proven true/untrue, and allow that assumption to guide society's decisions.

This is not a 'must', especially as I've provided the outline of a much more realistic alternative as I go into further below.

You're never going to get 'human society' to choose to assume there is no god.

What you're suggesting here is assumptive. If a god did exist, it could be anything.

Let's cross that bridge if we come to it.

My main point is that one assumption will lead to one set of decisions/morals/policies, and the other assumption will lead to another set. Of course god existing could mean anything, what is important is that god not existing would mean something different. As I see it, the question of god's existance is so complex that an assumption on it would lead to a "package" of social decisions, hence its importance.

And I'm telling you I don't see this as a realistic goal.

I fully agree that a proper education would solve the problem; removing the question of god's existance from the classroom would give it less meaning to people, reducing the impact of any assumption made of it. Unfortunately, the powers that be are aware of this, and have done a lot to maintain the religious dogma in schools (the case most fresh in my mind is the evolution/creationist debate going on in the US educational system) The very existance of religious schools presents a huge obstacle to secular education.

All true, but by no means insurmountable.

Simply put, I like your idea of godless education, but the social force required to enact it amounts to a global (likely violent) revolution.

You're assuming an immediate change. This is not what I have proposed.

certain groups will always use schools as political artillery.

My whole proposal is that education will eventually deny religious groups from having the power to even do this.

Religious people, at their core, are after eternal existence. That is what god is, and that's why what you're suggesting will never work

I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, can you clarify?

My impression, in simplistic terms, is that you want everyone to go "Hey, let's all just assume and act like god doesn't exist until shown otherwise"

Problems:

1. A huge portion of believers already think they've been shown otherwise.
2. Even if they haven't, people are still going to hold onto their god-beliefs because if they're right, and they kiss god's ass enough in this life, they'll be rewarded with eternity in heaven (or whatever their particular religion promises) or be punished for not believing (which is silly because belief in most cases - and especially in this threatened dilemma - is merely pretending to believe, and surely a 'god' would see through that, but that's another topic altogether.. ) You simply do not just override this because someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about one day tells you to.

Luckily, this question has little real bearing on the running of our society (no matter which assumption is choosen, the way in which our society operates is unchanged, it will change if the assumption is proven or disproven), which explains why it is not debated heavily outside of the scientific community.

The question of god's existance, on the other hand, is extremely important to many people, and it carries a massive amount of ethical/moral baggage.

And here you make my point for me.

That's exactly why trying to get everyone to 'assume' that there is no god is pointless. They have too much at stake, too much to gain/lose if there really is a god of the shape they believe in, and as your plan has zero in the way of evidence, and mine is 100% evidence-based (educating people properly on the things we've discovered about how 'everything' works) your idea really doesn't stack up as a plausible one. More a "Hey wouldn't it be cool if .. ?"

This is what makes the frustration of not knowing very important; politicians will take advantage of this by declaring one assumption's accuracy over the other. Now, us scientists/free-thinkers are mostly immune to this kind of preaching, however, for the layman, it is easy to trust someone in a position of authority, if only just to escape the frustration of not knowing. In the end, even though noone has the answer, we not have a group of people, guided by a leader, who believe that they do have "the answer"

No. People will follow someone who stands for, or does things, that makes them feel nice, offers them things and agrees with their own natural biases. Yes, this can be manipulated, but only to a point. Theists don't just see someone on a podium with a nice face or particularly commanding voice and think 'Hey I think I'll just stop believing in god now because that guy said so'. It doesn't work like that.

So leaders should act like there is no god, because that's for the best?

How do you know this is for the best?

Theorically, I don't know if assuming no god is best. Practically, I have observed that secular governments that have taken charge of their own affairs are more developed, morally acceptable, and stable than religious governments that have depended on an ancient guidebook to make all of the decisions.

And I'm saying you have it backwards, and that the leaders are chosen because they reflect the things the majority of people want to see in a leader (at least in democratic nations) The leader will never gain the position if this is not the case (or will quickly be de-throned)

Based on this, I have personally decided that assuming no god is the best option for humanity right now.

Obviously I agree with this, but it's completely in the realms of fantasy as far as I'm concerned.

Bottom line, I agree with your position and ideas. I am simply explaining how society would react to their implentation.

And it's ironic because you are attributing to my ideas some kind of instant global upheaval (which is not what I have suggested at all) but it's you who are suggesting the unrealistic instant global upheaval, overturning billions of people's deepest-held desires (for eternal life) yourself.


People just don't work like that. To reduce a god-belief influence over mankind, people need to be educated to a level where they can actually understand where god ISN'T. That's how you take it out of the picture, not by commanding people to act like they know things that they don't.

You can use almost any example you like. Pick something that people attribute to a god. It can be anything. How do you get that person, or that person's children, or their children's children to understand that god isn't involved? People reject what they don't understand and go for what they know, or what they've been taught.

To get people to actually understand something that is not what they've always been taught culturally, it generally has to be in a form where the person will likely benefit from the process of going through that education. You cannot make it a specific, direct attack on their cultural beliefs. You have to take advantage of people's desire for their children to prosper and do well in the world. How does that happen? A good education. That's what most parents want for their kids, and they'll, usually, do what they can to see it happens.

Teach enough people how stuff works, and whole communities take the steps themselves to places where they can see that god's influence there was just a trick of the light. You make that trek a reward, not a threat. Not a risk. Not giving up that which they've always known, but gaining something of benefit to themselves and their families.


Imagine yourself a theist. Which would you choose?

 

[Andiferous]

Just to throw something out there...

If you believe that God is a human invention, do you really believe that disposing of the idea of God is going to fix humanity?

That said, I accept that I do actually accept (everything I accept) on faith, because I don't believe that I can know anything. That is, if knowledge hinges on truth, and in my mind, it does. Anything and everything in my experience and learning can change suddenly, and as long as that possiblity is there, there can be no truth, no knowledge, and unfortunately, only probability and faith.

 

[Millennium]

The thing is, it is more logical to believe in the side opposing a theory without proof, or solid evidence. Honestly, while there is no proof going either way, that is proof by itself, going against the unfounded hypothesis. When a hypothesis or idea has little to no evidence supporting it, it is discarded as myth until evidence is given. Since the hypothesis says that it is to complex for there to be evidence supporting it, we can safely assume that that hypothesis will not have any proof supporting it. So then, unless the people supplying the hypothesis can hold their burden of proof with evidence, the hypothesis is wrong. It's that simple. There is no faith required to take the opposing side of faith.