Knowing There's No God Vs. Believing There's No God

On the contrary, it's religion and superstition that blind people.

And help them in the dark.

See my signature for another way to put it.

LOL

I am very learned and educated on the workings of the human mind.

You might even say it's my schtick.

Cheers.

 

Then you know what egotism and haughtiness is. Just remember no matter how smart you think you are, Gods thoughts are higher than yours. Your his creation. What product is better and smarter than its creator?

 

Many likely might say Einstein was better and smarter than his parents.

Also we've already built machines that can beat some of our best at games like Jeopardy and Chess, so it depends on what one means by "better and smarter".

 

It's difficult for me to verbalize this thought, but it seems to me that many people get religion and "God" confused. I take the simple approach that God is theoretically the creator of the cosmos. The cosmos was either created or it wasn't; there are no other possibilities that I can see. However, I have no way of deciding between these two options. Even if I did have information to convince me that the universe was created that would in no way point to the God of Christianity as the creator; the cosmos could just be the science project of some hyperdimensional high school student or something, although this is as improbable as any deity.

Religion, however, is something entirely different. Other than the number of adherents, it is essentially the same as any other superstitious or pseudo-scientific belief system. I have never for the life of me understood why anyone fools with it.

 

Also, you know we would want to know how the hyperdimensional entity came about.

You present us with the two options of the universe, either being created or not, as if they currently have roughly the same amount of evidence (or lack thereof) but then you go on to present the conditional of existence, so with that in mind, Is there any amount of information that would convince you for certain that it wasn't created?

 

Aliens from a other universe may have become Godlike and created and designed us and our universe. But who created these aliens. The question is reductio ad absurdum.

 

I'm not sure about the for certain part; all truths are tentative and based on the information we have at the time. But let's say, for example, that cosmologists finally deliver a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, and that this new theory predicted an infinitely old universe. In that case I would reasonably conclude the universe had no creator.

 

I don't know there's no god. And I don't believe there's no god. I believe there's probably no god.

 

It's a bit of a strange situation, because if God doesn't exist, we cannot prove it, so theists can constantly retreat into the unknown and they likely still stay informed by religion.

I think that perhaps it'd take a significant increase in life spans to sort of detach the ideas of God from religion in any significant sense. People might be more likely to explore other religions and ideas if that were the case.

 

If you can't prove it, why should it bother anybody that people choose to believe in it? In cosmology, as I understand it, the prevailing theory of the origin of the universe is the Big Bang, "universe from nothing" based on a supposed quantum vacuum fluctuation causing a small virtual particle to randomly "pop" into existence and immediately expand to provide our universe . And the prevailing theory accounting for the integrated complexity of the universe is the wave function of the universe and M-theory. These theories have in common the fact that they exist only on blackboards, and there seems to be not only a lack of empirical evidence for them but a lack of any prospect of falsifying them. "God' comes in many flavors, and I'll admit I'm skeptical about a Dude in the Sky who controls the weather and answers prayers. But a non-anthropomorphic "higher power" or symbol of transcedeence seems scarcely less plausible than the cosmological hypotheses I've mentioned, and the concept seems to serve many adherents as a source of meaning and morality, social bonding, a focus for organized altruism, and a support for recovery programs. So long as our religious ideas are not contrary to reason and science, or harmful to others, what's the problem? Writers as different as evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and religious writer Karen Armstrong have argued for a "two magesteria" approach in which science and religion co-exist in separate spheres. Armstrong distinguishes between logos and mythos--the former denoting the analytical, scientific approach that helps us function practically and effectively in physical reality, the latter referring to the systems of belief and value that provide meaning, morality and spirituality. Science does not seem to be very good at performing the latter function, because that isn't its job. I agree with Vikto Frankl that meaning is a basic human need, ergo the importance of religion.

 

You are not giving yourself enough credit saying God's thoughts are higher then yours. But I have noticed this a fundamental element of Christianity. You are broken and born with sin. Cursed because your ancestors did something wrong (eating an apple). Because of this your god is so angered that every person after must prove himself by worshiping his son. It's an inferior existence. Simply put you just don't have self esteem about yourself. There are supposed to be limits on you as a human. You dare not go into certain areas but it's OK god will handle it he knows better anyway. The idea that you are equal to god is evil because first god will punish you and second this is also what Satan did.

Because you are from god you are god. A lot of Christians interpret that statement in a Satanic way but that's not the case at all. It's all a manipulation that began with the Catholic Church in the centuries following the death of Jesus. True a man by that name probably did exist who was of influence but his original teachings were perverted by the church. A lot of evidence points to it being a more Buddhist style teaching. The idea that you as man could through discipline reach higher levels of consciousness. A "heaven" or Nirvana if you will. But ultimately the power to do that is within you only and can never be given by something else. Even Buddha himself said he was not a god, he is a man. So we should not worship him but instead question his words and ask if they still make sense. Because we too are men and therefore just as capable of deciding that. We too have the capability to achieve what he did. This means for example we can listen to new scientific evidence and not be limited by what Buddha or Jesus who lived thousands of years of before this knowledge could have known thought. The forbidden fruit of Christianity is knowledge but you don't have to think of that in a evil way. God does not dislike man learning and adapting.

The problem with Atheism Vs. Christianity is neither one is willing to admit the other one is a right in a way.

It's likely Jesus never said many of the things now taken as fact in Christianity. For example the entire resurrection aspect of his story did not exist until the Middle Ages. Until then he just died. There are several stories written by various people that for some reason, are not in the bible. Entire years of this man's life do no exist in the offical Bible but they do in other texts. At some point someone who was himself a mortal man decided what to include. The Catholic Church has a long history of seeking political control especially in the Middle Ages and people had many prejudices and unscientific information in that time period.

Isn't it possible you are reading what someone wanted "god" to be when skewed by their own biases of the day?This is why it's interesting to me that Christians take the Bible as fact.

The church told you need them so that you give them money and power. They speak on behalf of god whom is a force you can speak with on your own. They tell you it will be angry if you don't go to this certain place on a certain day every week yet this thing is everywhere and always watching according to your own logic. The concept of Hell also did not exist in the Middle Ages. Christians predating that still believed in a higher existence after death but the concept of being punished was not the same. It's all lies by man. "Hell" is simply the lack of that higher existence after death. It's possible to do it but you have to really want it or be truly evil. God is really very forgiving and understanding if you want to have true growth and education from your life experiences. It's not going to be mad you don't spend all your time worrying about it and worshiping it. It's simply there and being a good person is enough.

So the moral Atheist as many will claim to be will one day see they were wrong in a way but also right. Because god is not the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish idea of god. A lot of them can exist in that higher place if they wish to after death even with their life spent saying there is nothing.

 

If you've ever questioned beliefs that
you hold you're not alone
But you oughtta realize that every myth
is a metaphor in the case of Christianity
and Judaism there exist the belief that
spiritual matters are enslaved to history
The Buddhists believe that the functional aspects
override the myth
while other religions use the literal
core to build foundations with See
half the world sees the myth as fact
while it's seen as a lie by the other
half and the simple truth is that it's
none of that and somehow no matter
what the world keeps turning Somehow we
get by without ever learning
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive
In fact for better
understanding we take the facts of science and
apply them And if both
factors keep evolving then we continue
getting information but closing off
possibilities makes it hard to see the bigger
picture Consider the case of
the women whose faith helped her make it through
when she was raped and cut
up left for dead in a trunk her beliefs held true
It doesn't matter if it's
real or not cause some things are better left
without a doubt and if it
works then it gets the job done
Somehow, no matter what, the world keeps turning

- Science of Myth Screeching Weasel Pretty much sums up how I feel.

 

The supernatural is an integral part of the vast majority of religions and the supernatural is a concept inherently contrary to reason and science. I'm sure someone with the philosophical acumen on idealism could make a compelling argument as to why someone's experience who thinks they saw Bigfoot is just as "real" as anyone else's experiences. In a vacuum, I wouldn't have any issues with this but when it comes to influencing public laws and such, as the evidence accumulates as to what is objective mounts against the Bigfoot observer's notions, I don't think the ideas should be held on the same level.

Unlike the Bigfoot seekers, Alien Abductees and such, religions do tend to have more of a say in influencing public legislation and what not.

There are some aspects of what you say, in which I agree, it does seem rather grim in terms of getting any kind of definitive theory of everything validated, however I note a distinction between these theories and the supernatural and that is that these theories are being preceded by many tested theories such as those regarding Relativity and interactions of the Fundamental Forces. The only reason as far I can tell these theories are being proposed is because those others which there is substantial evidence for have been proven with such consistency.

 

It's odd you make a post with such conviction coming on the heels of the terrorist attack killing and injuring many young children at the Grande concert. I'm not sure what you'd point to as God's forgiveness and understanding on display for those affected?

 

I think of 'supernatural" as simply something that seems to operate outside our currently known laws of physics. I suppose that whatever is responsible for the laws of physics could be called "supernatural", if it is not itself governed by those laws. As I understand it, many scientists accept the possibility that if there are other universes the laws governing them are probably completely different from the laws governing ours, in which case I'd think that those laws would best be called not supernatural but "alternatively natural".

There are certain beliefs people hold that, while not contrary to reason, intuitively strike me as unlikely--ghosts, Bigfoot, alien abductees, etc. I'd put in the same category with the professor at Oxford, Nick Bostrom, who thinks our reality is a Matrix-style computer program. A perfectly rational person would have to say that they could be right, just as Trump supporters could be right, Sara Palin could be a genius, etc. And yes, I'd have to admit that my intuition could be faulty, socially conditioned, etc. If those beliefs seem harmless, my tendency is to let them be, and to acknowledge I could be wrong. Some of those, however, like Sara and the Trump supporters, are not, in my opinion, harmless. More to the point, what they believe, while not exactly contrary to reason, is unsupported by substantial evidence. I also generally go by Carl Sagan's maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So when people tell me that somebody was born of a virgin, or that said virgin remained such during several decades of marriage and was taken bodily to heaven, etc,, I tend to disbelieve it When people start using the Bible as a geology or history textbook, I find it hard not to jump in and say they're wrong, because what they're saying is contrary to science, and I think science is the best we can do in acquiring reliable knowledge. When people say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I find that hard to believe, in light of the many inconsistencies found there. Yet on matters where science is silent and logic fails, which tend to be the most important 'why" questions of existence, I have no problem betting my life (tentatively) on the basis of the available evidence to me, including life experiences, intuition, etc. I don't see science as equipped or even interested in answering these questions. I tend to agree with Viktor Frankl that meaning is an important human need. I notice how many atheists proudly state that atheism is simply an assertion of the non-existence of God, but it offers nothing positive to believe in. I have and atheist friend who, after declaring his atheism on his website, goes on to say: "now that I've told you what I don't believe, here is what I do believe--and goes on to describe humanism. I consider myself a Christian humanist.

As for religions having "more of a say in influencing public legislation and what not", it tends to be certain kinds of religions that get mixed up in politics--in the U.S., especially evangelicals and Catholics. I think it's important to hold firm on separation of church and state and to resist efforts of politicians to co-opt the churches, or vice versa. Christianity went majorly off the rails when the bishops climbed into bed with Constantine.

 

''The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.'' - Socrates

 

I always thought atheists were indifferent.

That they didn't believe one way or the other. They put so little stock in the concept, that they didn't waste their time thinking about it at all.

 

Atheism is not a philosophy unless it may study non-existence . But what about nothing can be observed ?

 

Since Atheists do not have direct demonstrable Knowledge that there is no God, and yet have a firm conviction that there probably isn't a God, or as they like to say, "99.9 percent sure", this equates to a Belief. A Belief is a firm conviction without actual direct Knowledge and Proof, is it not?

 

It's not really comparable to religious belief in the supernatural. Atheist's "belief" is similar to belief in the sense that you might "believe" you are not going to wake up on Saturn tomorrow or that the noodles you put in the pot on the stove, won't turn into live crickets.

Generally speaking, I think atheists rely on observations of the natural world, which is why many tend to gravitate towards science.