Does a God of ANY KIND exist?

[Harlequin]

And that is a satisfactory answer. Thank you, and have a nice day. I agree with Harlequin, though, theists are the ones that should explain their reason for believing, due to atheism being supported by scientific belief.

Atheism doesn't need to be supported - it's the default position. Theism is the position that needs support, and it finds itself lacking in anything of the sort. Science falls against theism in every single way that it possibly can. Theism turns to "faith," which isn't much of anything, really.

 

[Dannichu]

Atheism doesn't need to be supported - it's the default position.

No. The default position is that of an agnostic; for someone to neither believe nor disbelieve.
An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in god; they are someone who believes there is no god, and for that to happen, the concept of a god must first exist.

A baby is born as an agnostic (literally "without knowledge"); ideas of both theism and atheism involve ideas and concepts of god/gods that one must first accept, or at least have an awareness of, before becoming a theist or atheist.

 

[Caller]

agnostic
–noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

I'm pretty sure to be undecided in the matter, you would have to have adequate knowledge of both atheism and theism, a new born baby has none.
Every belief must be proven, the burden of proof is upon you all :0

 

[Butterfree]

No. The default position is that of an agnostic; for someone to neither believe nor disbelieve.
An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in god; they are someone who believes there is no god, and for that to happen, the concept of a god must first exist.

A baby is born as an agnostic (literally "without knowledge"); ideas of both theism and atheism involve ideas and concepts of god/gods that one must first accept, or at least have an awareness of, before becoming a theist or atheist.

Incorrect. By your definition, nobody here is an atheist, and very few people in the world; the very idea of actively believing that God does not exist is contradictory to the reasons that most people are atheists, in fact. Richard Dawkins isn't even an atheist by your definition. Nobody sensible is.

An atheist, as most atheists themselves understand it, is a person who does not believe that there is a god, generally because there is no good reason to think that there is and thus the default is to assume that there is not until further evidence arises. Meanwhile, agnosticism is the belief that the question of whether or not there is a god is something we can't make any assumptions about because we don't (or can't) know. The atheist position is that, well, yeah, there theoretically could be a god, but only in the sense that there theoretically could be unicorns; generally one would be perfectly ready to live on the assumption that unicorns do not exist until there is evidence to say they do, and similarly an atheist will live his or her life on the assumption that God does not exist until there is evidence to say he does.

Technically, you could argue that it would be more appropriate to call what we are calling atheism just a brand of agnosticism. Then great; we're agnostics, and the argument that our belief is the default state still holds. Nobody cares what words are used.

 

[Dannichu]

Mmkay, I stand corrected.

Still, if we accept this:

the very idea of actively believing that God does not exist is contradictory to the reasons that most people are atheists, in fact. Richard Dawkins isn't even an atheist by your definition. Nobody sensible is.

Can people stop doing this?

god isn't real, get over it please

It's doing my head in.

 

[opaltiger]

Technically, you could argue that it would be more appropriate to call what we are calling atheism just a brand of agnosticism.

Not really. As long as you have no belief in a deity, you are atheist; everything else doesn't matter. If you say "well, there could be a God, but there is not enough evidence to make me believe there is", that doesn't change anything. Of course we should acknowledge the possibility that a deity does exist - not doing so would be silly - but doing so does not make you an agnostic.

And to sum things up: atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Thus, someone who has never encountered the concept of a deity is, in fact, an atheist. Thus, everyone is atheist by default since the concept of a deity is not something you are born with. At this point we get to passive versus active atheism, but it is still atheism.

 

[Harlequin]

The concept of there even being a God in the first place is the theory - atheism is the default position because anybody not taught about God lacks a belief in Him. Okay, so we get into debates about passive and active atheism like opal said, but beyond all reasonable doubt there is no supernatural force that can be called "God."

I am an atheist and have always been an atheist. It was strange for me when I learnt that people believed in "God" because I'd never heard of it before. Thus I was an atheist - I lacked belief in God or other supernatural things that could be called God.

I accept that God could exist but only - in much the same way as Butterfree said - insofar as unicorns or undetectable celestial teapots could. That is what I mean when I said "There is no God, get over it" (or any variation upon that theme).

It is extremely unlikely that the God of any one religion on Earth is real, and even if you say "well there could be a force out there..." that, too, is also extremely unlikely. Beyond all reasonable doubt there is no God.

 

[Music Dragon]

That's what you assume. Those in power seem to be the only ones benefitting from these morals. We can't defend ourselves from people who attack us anymore, all due to the distorion of the obsessiveness over morality.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if there was no such thing as morality, we would be attacked a lot more.

I've said this already in that an organization would create and or utilize right and wrong to create deterrents and order to reach a personal goal.

[I'll cover this later; several of your arguments revolve around the same thing.]

It's only not entirely off the mark due to morality being the alleged mark in the first place. To judge morality's purpose by morality is idiocy. As for it doing you more of a favour than someone else, you can't really tell - not unless you can redo the past so you can explore both consequences.

Morality is not the "alleged mark". In the example I provided - where morality tells you not to beat people up for fun - I'm not "judging morality's purpose by morality". Fact is, if you harm a person and they harm you back, it's not good for either of you, regardless of whether we bring morals into the equation or not. My point still stands: morality is there to help you make a good decision.

Would have helped if you'd reposted the post we both used, the quoting system is rather awkward in that it posts only one quote to prevent quote chains. I'll reply when I reread it.

Yes, well, it wasn't that important anyway. Answer if you want to.

Will reply when I figure out what I said xD;

You don't have to bother; we've got enough on our hands as it is!

I wouldn't know. Allegory of the cave and all. I've been born and raised in philadelphia an imperfect society and that is all I've known. I cannot even begin to comprehend a perfect society unless it was in my personal opinion, which, to be fair, would vary greatly from the point I'm trying to make.

That's naturally correct; it's not easy to imagine a society in which the most fundamental rules are removed... Still, I imagine we wouldn't be able to function properly without the ability to trust others and show altruism. (As much as altruism exists, anyway; pure selflessness is non-existent, as I'm sure you would agree, but altruism in the social evolution sense...)

I was trying to say that if morality was perfect, so would prosecution and justice. You've already said it was faulty so this is basically saying that because of it's faults, it creates more of them.

Morality is imperfect, so a system based on morality has to be imperfect as well... but I'm pretty sure that if we had no system of justice at all, society as we know it would deteriorate pretty quickly. No thing's perfect, but that doesn't make it worthless - the systems we have today may be flawed, but you certainly wouldn't want to live in a world without them.

Self restraint isn't a perfectly foolproof ideal, I'm well aware of the difficulty of keeping an iron will. However, I can say that morals are simply another flip of the coin. I'm not saying that NOBODY would kill in anarchy, but looking at society at the moment and through time, I can say that same thing about moral societies.

Naturally. The question is, of course, which would be worse - a society where intellectual self-restraint keeps us from killing, or a society in which intellectual self-restraint and morality keeps us from killing...

Of course morality exists to supposedly protect us (or, as I believe, keep power. Whichever.), but animals do not use morality in their mating. Most females have a maternal instinct. If they had a child, they would look after it. It's not such a big thing to assume that because of our 'domestication', we've lost the ability to have large amounts of offspring.
I can't use a comeback for your other points as, obviously, you haven't stated them :P

I still think you should be careful when comparing us to the rest of the world's animals - keep in mind that we have been far more successful than them...!

It could be said that this is true, however animals probably care for each other purely for their own survival. A lone animal is not as powerful as a pack, is it not? Humans are quite possibly the exact same, we just don't like to admit it.

I have absolutely nothing against admitting this. Morality is selfish. Everything is selfish. Humans are incapable of acting in a manner which is not selfish. But this is not relevant to the discussion; I never said that morality is unselfish.

In fact, I rather think you've made a point that supports me! "A lone animal is not as powerful as a pack" - and morality is the reason why we humans are the strongest "pack" on this planet. You shouldn't be so critical of it!

Corruption is a common occurence in empowered leaders. Every society has someone to lead them, lest the group become confused. Totalitarians come into the fray because they're suited to rule, if people become elected or are an heir to great power they tend to become slightly obsessed. Roman Emperors, though this is going back a fair bit, lived for the good of their people, yet they still would not give up their dictatorship, it's the foundation for building a society built entirely on your own views.
You see where I'm going with this? A society must have a leader, a leader must want / have power, power leads to recklessness or greed. It's not difficult to say morals began with our leaders to keep their societies under their rule.

[I'm going to cover this, too, later.]

Entirely possible. However, I think the megalomaniacal part is unneeded. A leader does not need to be megalomaniacal to recieve power, but that is the destiny of all leaders.

Perhaps.

I now realize I've used it wrongly /fail

No worries; I think I know what you were trying to say, anyway. (Words are just tools, after all...! I'm not going to pick on you for making an irrelevant linguistic error.)

Alright - now, to cover those things that need covering...

Having had this long and fruitful discussion with you, I think I'm beginning to understand what you're trying to get at.

In your post, you commented "entirely possible" on the two scenarios I described. And you're right - they're both entirely possible. Maybe we humans evolved a sense of right and wrong in order to aid us in social interactions, or maybe they were invented by a particularly creative and manipulative leader who needed a way to control his underlings.

Here's the thing, though: one of these possibilities is more likely.

Ask any expert on the topic of social evolution, and they'll tell you that morality is something that we humans evolved because it helps us live and develop in groups. They probably won't tell you that morality is the product of an unusually clever scheme to gain power.

I'm not going to claim to be the aforementioned expert, but I'm pretty sure that most would agree that the first scenario is the more likely.

And one last thing that I'd like to say:

Without morals, I don't think there could even have been any groups of people living together, or any manipulative leaders, in the first place.

 

[reecemysocksoff]

To be honest It's hard to imagine some Omnisient being looking down on us like trapped ants.

There could well be some sort of god, given the complexity of the planet, but for now I think the whole idea of a god is pretty odd.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

There could well be some sort of god, given the complexity of the planet, but for now I think the whole idea of a god is pretty odd.

Complexity does not entail a deity.
Read the thread.

 

[Music Dragon]

Complexity does not entail a deity.
Read the thread.

No, but it certainly doesn't eliminate the possibility!

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

No, but it certainly doesn't eliminate the possibility!

Nor would the simplicity of anything.

 

[Music Dragon]

Neither would the simplicity of anything.

Mm, I wouldn't be so sure...

 

[Caller]

Mm, I wouldn't be so sure...

I don't see why not. Complications are only as existent as humans can view them.

Also I'll get round to answering our other round during the weekend - I barely go here as it is, and I'd rather not have it get in the way of school work. Either way I answer.

 

[Ether's Bane]

I personally believe there is a God, because I feel that there are some things in this world which cannot be explained otherwise.

 

[Zuu]

...

Like what?

 

[Ether's Bane]

Well, I personally believe in evolution and the Big Bang, but then I wonder, who or what caused the Big Bang? I have no other way to explain it but God, personally.

 

[GameFreakerZero]

Well, I personally believe in evolution and the Big Bang, but then I wonder, who or what caused the Big Bang? I have no other way to explain it but God, personally.

How lazy. Instead of, say, going and finding out who or what caused the Big Bang, and expanding your knowledge of the universe, you'd rather slap God on the tin and leave it be?

The God of Gaps makes me sad at the state of humanity.

 

[opaltiger]

Just like the Ancient Greeks had no other way to explain lightning and assumed it was Zeus throwing lightning bolts in displeasure?

 

[Eevee]

No. The default position is that of an agnostic; for someone to neither believe nor disbelieve.
An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in god; they are someone who believes there is no god, and for that to happen, the concept of a god must first exist.

Incorrect. By your definition, nobody here is an atheist, and very few people in the world; the very idea of actively believing that God does not exist is contradictory to the reasons that most people are atheists, in fact. Richard Dawkins isn't even an atheist by your definition. Nobody sensible is.

Both wrong. Dawkins absolutely believes (or, okay, is very very close to absolutely believing) that there is no god.

Burden of proof does not imply ambivalence on absolutely every issue. That would mean that every conceivable crackpot notion is equally valid. The whole point is to disbelieve new ideas until they are demonstrated reasonably true. There are no Russell's teapot agnostics. Nobody (well, nobody important) is shrugging and admitting that well we can't possibly know whether vampires are real or not because they hide really well because that's utterly absurd.

Werewolves do not exist and I will treat this as true until reasonably demonstrated otherwise.
The sun will rise tomorrow and I will treat this as true until reasonably demonstrated otherwise.
Gods do not exist and I will treat this as true until reasonably demonstrated otherwise.


The bit a lot of people (read: theists) don't seem to grasp is "until reasonably demonstrated otherwise". In contrast to the religious sense of truth, nothing I believe to be true is unquestionable*. If you have new information to suggest that the sun will not in fact rise tomorrow, and it is more convincing than everything leading me to believe that it will rise, then please let me know.

I like to think this reflects the viewpoint the scientific method takes.


I'm tempted to ramble on here about how a lot of people simply do not grok hypotheticals and how it is entirely possible to assume something true without actually believing it and the varying levels of truth that theists tend to incorrectly collapse into merely "this is so", but that's getting away from the point a bit. 8) I suppose truth is any assumption we can always use when making conjectures about the real world.


* For convenience and a stable starting point, I make exceptions for "I exist", "the universe exists", and "my senses are somewhat trustworthy".