Why I'm Atheist and not Agnostic

Universal Truths? LOL.

Universal need for fantasies, higher purposes, comfort in delusions and denial... yes yes.

 

Universal need for higher purposes (aka, meaning)...yes, yes.

 

to a certain extent, i agree. Plenty of atheists cling to this orthodox position that "there is no evidence, therefore i do not believe" which is all well and good and perfectly rational and logical as a position. But i feel that it is slightly disingenuous. If they were being honest with themselves, i think that they would probably admit that their lack of belief is based on more than simply a lack of empirical evidence.

For example, i cannot disprove god nor present any empirical evidence for his lack of existence. However I can point to what i would call "circumstantial evidence" for his lack of existence.

If someone asked me to disprove the existence of leprechauns I could first of all point out that there is no evidence to support their existence whatsoever (thus making the playing field even for their existence or non-existence) then i could research and present their folkloric origins, charting their development and place in mythology, why people believed in them, what they represented and how they changed over time in public perception. I could point out their similarities and development from other things which we accept as being fictional. This new evidence would not be enough to really disprove their existence, but it would stack the decks mildly in favour of that argument.

On an even playing field (where there is no empirical evidence to support either position) such circumstantial evidence (which could normally be discarded or relegated to a mere footnote) takes on a much greater significance.

Equally, if someone asked me to disprove the existence of God, i could provide no empirical evidence for the lack of a god (how does one possibly use scientific means to determine the attributes of a being who, by his very nature, transcends known scientific laws?)but i would point out that there is no evidence to support their existence whatsoever. then I could research and present information about the history of religious belief and psychology, the folkore and mythology that builds up to and informs current beliefs, the reasons that this has evolutionary significance/ might have been crucial to the development of early societal structures. I could prove that there would need to be no God for us to desire one and invent one, that religious experiences can be replicated in a laboratory without the intervention of a higher power (which they can). In short, I could offer no empirical evidence, but i could provide motive and precedent.

In much the same way that supplying motive in a court case would not be nearly enough to convict and nor would pointing out that he has comitted similar crimes in the past. It would simply be an addendum to the body of evidence which added to the jury's perception of the defendant's culpability.

On a level playing field in which there is no evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God, this circumstantial evidence takes on a new significance for me. There is no evidence for god, but plenty of sound reasons why we would invent one based on psychology and social development and plenty of evidence of us having done so in different ways in the past, creating belief systems and institutions which serve identical functions while being inherently very different from one another.

therefore, no empirical evidence to disprove, but a mild stacking of the decks against his existence, in my mind at least. Circumstantial evidence for the lack of God exists for me, so to make the general atheist claim that "there is no evidence, therefore i do not believe" and pretend that I am some paragon of rationality and enlightenment who will only ever accept scientifically proven empirical evidence as support for any of my views (vomit) would be intellectually dishonest.

I am an atheist and an agnostic and I feel it is quite unlikely that god exists.

 

Yeah but you have to understand that there is no way of proving or disproving the existence of a god.

 

I think relaxxx realizes you cannot disprove something that does not exist, which is why he defaults to non-existence in the range of reasonable probability.

 

Ah ok that makes sense.

 

It doesn't to me. There is no way of calculating a "reasonable probability" of the existence or non-existence of God, unless one wants to use Unwin's pseudo-Bayesian approach The Probability of God.(Unwin concludes that God is highly probable, but his conclusion is probably tongue in cheek). Without a mathematical basis, "probability" is just an expression giving and air of bogus precision to something that's basically a hunch.

 

thats a really good post.

i agree with you and would like to elaborate on this point:

this is actually an issue with the rules and logic of the argument itself. if the "god" you are trying to disprove transcends known scientific laws, then you cannot disprove gods existance with scientific laws. but this adds a whole new set of complications. why does god transcend scientific laws? where does god come from? is he limited by any phisical laws? etc. so now you are multiplying enteties without necessity and creating more problems. this is why god is never an "explenation". imagine if we used this logic to explain other important questions. it would be a disaster.

 

God is not an explanation but god is a definition.

 

definition of what, my good sir?

 

For one supreme reality or the universal creative force. On the individual scale it is that which we invoke.

 

That is a definition that cannot be an explanation????

 

An explanation for what?

 

Laws and constants of the universe, cosmological phenomena and life.

 

We have descriptions for those things. To say god is law and constants is not much of a description of law and constant. Cosmological phenomena have names like solar system and life has many descriptions.

 

If they all fall under "supreme reality" which you have suggested God is a definition of, than why does God fall short in explaining these things? Unless you think we don't live and observe "supreme reality." If that's the case, you may have to rethink what it is you actually invoke.

 

I agree in general with most things you say however I think it is fallacious to think that catering to a lack of evidence makes an "level playing field."

If one of the primary routes of acquiring knowledge about objective reality and the world for an individual is through evidence, having them completely negate that realm of understanding creates a handicap, not a level playing field.

 

There is no level playing field between reason and superstition.

It's damn near vertical.

 

obviously you can be whatever you want to be, and reality will be whatever it wants to be, and that neither are greatly likely to interfere with the other, except somewhat randomly.

i just don't believe we know, or are capable of knowing, the limits and extents, of what may or may not, be capable of existing.

we know some things happen more often then others and some things happen more often when other things happen first, and we are capable of knowing this to a great many decimal places. but that is all we know and all we are capable of knowing. oh yes, we can know something of the how and why, because that is part of the same thing.

but we can also know, that what we can experience, is not limited by nor to, what we are capable of knowing.

i do feel of course, that what we don't know, is equally unlikely, to conform to religious speculation. i will absolutely grant that, to anyone.

but i see no logic in the assumption, that what we don't know, is somehow made incapable of existing, by our lack of knowing it.

 

Only things we know can exist
Things we don't know are incapable of existing.
Therefore, things we lack knowledge of are incapable of existing.

BOOM>> Logic !

I'm not saying that's a sound argument, although it may work alright for a few philosophical positions but mainly just thought I would provide it for fun.