Increasing Number of Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

It puts god under the same category as elves, unicorns and honest politicians. We do not need those things to explain the world, and thus Ocam's razor tells us that it is best to ignore those theories.

There's no evidence that god doesn't exist. But we default towards asking evidence for positive claims rather than negative claims. Else you would have to fire proof your house just in case Dragons invade your city.

Well actually I think there's a good chance elves and unicorns exist. I mean isn't it just as likely they exist or used to exist as it is we made them up? Agreed on the honest politicians though.

Anything that exists affects its environment in some way. If elves and unicorns exist, then there would be evidence for their existence. Without evidence, there can only be reasonable doubt as to there existence. Fortunately, the doubt in this case is so reasonable that it is safe to say that elves and unicorns do not exist.

That's a fallacy, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Alright, you got me there!*

Still, one of the pillars of my personal philosophy goes something like: "Lack of evidence is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt." While this does not translate into "There ain't proof, so it ain't true", it does indicate that any claim for the existence of elves and unicorns must be based on more than mere belief to be taken seriously.

It also indicates that I am more likely to acquit an accused murderer if the prosecution's case is based solely on bungled forensics analysis and media-induced prejudice, such as happened with the recent Casey Anthony case.



(*How many philosophers and religionists have you seen admit that they were wrong? Not many, I'd wager!)

I can agree with that; I mean, since anyone can imagine something and say it's real, it makes sense it's reasonable to doubt it unless they can manifest it.

Still though, I wouldn't say it's more likely there is no creator than there being one. Atheists scoff at the 'watchmaker argument' but I actually think it's a pretty good argument. The Universe is well designed and does not appear to be the result of randomness. Though of course, it's a wild leap to say that intelligent design equals Christianity or Judaism or Islam, the Creator of the Universe is likely NOTHING like any of our mono-gods.

True, but absence of evidence is a reasonable basis for not believing something. I don't believe in unicorns and garden fairies and I would not in the absence of evidence. On the other hand I cannot say I have proved these things do not exist just because I have no proof that they do.

ruveyn

Overzaelous debunking.

Macaques are a type of monkey, chimps are a type of ape, and humans are actually another type of ape- but lets indulge our vanity and say we are in a seperate class from apes for the moment.

Its correct to say that humans are not descended from chimps, nor from macaques, and that
We and chimps have a common ancestor, and both share a common ancestor with macaques.

Humans are a species- chimps are a specie, and macaques are a species- so you're comparing like things.

Humans are a species-but "monkeys" are large order that includes dozens of extant and extinct species.
So your opposing one species to a large group of species.

So you're talking peaches and (not pears) but peaches and all kind of say- citrus fruits- which are unlike categories.

If the fossil record reveals that our ape ancestors were themselves descneded from something that would today be classified as an Old World Monkey than it would be correct to say that we are "descended from Old World Monkeys".

back to the magical tea pot?

Maybe not PROOF of absence, but it certainly is evidence of absence.

For many years people did not believe sea life could exist miles under the ocean, until we gained the technology to be able to remotely travel to those depths of the ocean to observe the wonderous creatures that look as alien as anything we could imagine in a science fiction movie. Of course, we had no evidence or way of obtaining evidence, but that didn't stop people from believing that it wasn't possible, because of the harsh environmental factors at those depths. Our understanding of science was the limiting factor that created that doubt, imagination left the avenue open.

Doubt is a human construct, that reality doesn't listen to. It's a necessary component of human nature, but it can limit one's horizons if taken to the extreme. As science can, when used strictly as a limiting tool rather than as an exploratory one.

Mythology as most of what we experience in life is our own embellishment created as personal reality.

The mythology of elves was created in part to explain disability in children, because it could not be accepted as a normal part of reality. It has been suggested that Unicorns were described as a horse with a horn, when what was actually seen was a rhinoceros that didn't fit the paradigm of reality, so they were described as whatever was the closest thing to reality that could be imagined at the time.

Thank goodness we have science to help us understand objective reality, the changeling myth certainly created suffering for many disabled children. Santa's elves are a much kinder gentler version than the changeling version.

On the other hand, though, the other beliefs that people have that can be embellished often have root in reality as well, as I think techstepgeneration alluded to; it's a matter of sifting through the mythology for each individual to determine what is reality. Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tools to measure all of what is human experience, so it's not likely we will ever fully understand the rest of reality. It was hard enough to discover the creatures that lived miles beneath the ocean.

Atheism would probably be much more popular in the world, if reality was as predictable as most of the population would like it to be. But, some live closer to the ideal of the ivory tower than others. Scientific facts and figures, mean little to people that don't live in the ivory tower of modern civilization; for some of them the realities associated with religion are factors that help create a social network necessary for survival.

Disagreed, unless you could search any corner of the Universe, every dimension, and find no evidence of God (or anything given).

an interesting thought is that even if god exists he is not neccesarily a "god" he might as well just be another consciousness,
if a multiverse exists there would be an infinite number of universes, each with their "own" or maybe a shared god (with multiple gods being a nice explanation for the crazy contradictions)
it would however defeat the notion that god is omnipotent.

all just as likely as there being a singular "classic god"

yeah, that's kind of what I meant, that it's clear there is some relation between us.

I think non-theistic satanists, atheism and anti-theism is great

Non-theistic satanism sounds like being a self-proclaimed Jon Frum (lampooning), atheism is what it is, anti-theism I worry about - not that their necessarily incorrect about the bottom line reality of things but being that brash and foolish it seems like they have some pretty big blind-spots to culture and how it works.

I have my doubts that the world would be significantly better if religion was stamped out. For instance for fundies I'd rather deal with them protecting and believing in the sanctity of life rather than dealing with a group of human exterminists who are that fiery, passionate, and driven about ending human suffering by ending existence for all.