Crosswords1 min ago
Reason
142 Answers
If an atheist is asked why he has no belief in a supernatural God, he will usually offer a rational reason, but if a believer is asked why he believes in a supernatural god, he has no rational reason at all. How can anyone believe anything without reason?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// but if a believer is asked why he believes in a supernatural god, he has no rational reason at all. //
Which is why there are never many religious people in this section explaining the reasoning for their faith. There is no rational reason to put forward. All you can do is say 'It's what I believe'.
// Higgs bosom // :o)
Which is why there are never many religious people in this section explaining the reasoning for their faith. There is no rational reason to put forward. All you can do is say 'It's what I believe'.
// Higgs bosom // :o)
> Ellipses [sic], fundamentally, the concept of God is man-made, is it not?
I don't know. Depends what made man! But yes, I'll concede that the concept of a God is a man-made concept. Unfortunately though, there are many different man-made concepts for what a God is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God - personally, I find it easiest to think of a possible God as a "creator" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity rather than some ever-present omnipotent entity, but I concede that if God was an ever-present omnipotent entity, the chances of little ole me (or any human) being able to recognise that God are slim.
> In the absence of any evidence, rationally we have to assume that, do we not?
No! Two weeks ago we did not have evidence of the Higgs boson. It existed as a concept. Rationally, we had to assume it might exist or might not exist. I don't see a God as much different to that. OK, unlike the Higgs boson, there is no scientific reason to believe that a God does exist. But our science is still relatively primitive, and it's conceited to think we know better. Einstein theorised within the last 100 years or so. How much better will our understanding be in 100 years? A thousand years? Ten thousand years? Ten million years? All fractions of the age of the universe. I do not deign to believe that we are at the peak of our understanding of science OR god right now in our existence.
> Therefore, what precisely are we looking for? An idea?
naomi, my position is that we don't know what a supernatural God is, how we'd recognise one or even whether we're capable of it. I don't know what we're looking for! But I don't believe that you or anybody else know what we're looking for, either.
In using such loose terms in the question as "no belief" ("no" is 0%, no?), "a supernatural God" (not a god of any particular religion) and "a rational reason", you put yourself about as far from my central agnostic position as it's possible for an atheist to be ...
Now you've said "atheists do not say they are 100% sure that a supernatural god does not exist", you've moved to what I would consider a more reasonable position. I maintain that not believing in the existence of a supernatural God because you (a mere human) have seen no evidence of it is just as irrational and unreasonable to myself as a believer who insists that their God exists because their faith tells them so ...
I don't know. Depends what made man! But yes, I'll concede that the concept of a God is a man-made concept. Unfortunately though, there are many different man-made concepts for what a God is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God - personally, I find it easiest to think of a possible God as a "creator" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity rather than some ever-present omnipotent entity, but I concede that if God was an ever-present omnipotent entity, the chances of little ole me (or any human) being able to recognise that God are slim.
> In the absence of any evidence, rationally we have to assume that, do we not?
No! Two weeks ago we did not have evidence of the Higgs boson. It existed as a concept. Rationally, we had to assume it might exist or might not exist. I don't see a God as much different to that. OK, unlike the Higgs boson, there is no scientific reason to believe that a God does exist. But our science is still relatively primitive, and it's conceited to think we know better. Einstein theorised within the last 100 years or so. How much better will our understanding be in 100 years? A thousand years? Ten thousand years? Ten million years? All fractions of the age of the universe. I do not deign to believe that we are at the peak of our understanding of science OR god right now in our existence.
> Therefore, what precisely are we looking for? An idea?
naomi, my position is that we don't know what a supernatural God is, how we'd recognise one or even whether we're capable of it. I don't know what we're looking for! But I don't believe that you or anybody else know what we're looking for, either.
In using such loose terms in the question as "no belief" ("no" is 0%, no?), "a supernatural God" (not a god of any particular religion) and "a rational reason", you put yourself about as far from my central agnostic position as it's possible for an atheist to be ...
Now you've said "atheists do not say they are 100% sure that a supernatural god does not exist", you've moved to what I would consider a more reasonable position. I maintain that not believing in the existence of a supernatural God because you (a mere human) have seen no evidence of it is just as irrational and unreasonable to myself as a believer who insists that their God exists because their faith tells them so ...
Ellipsis - “... I maintain that not believing in the existence of a supernatural God because you (a mere human) have seen no evidence of it is just as irrational and unreasonable to myself as a believer who insists that their God exists because their faith tells them so...”
I disagree. There is nothing irrational or unreasonable about being an atheist since there is no evidence for the existence of God. In my opinion, LazyGun accurately summed up the position of atheists in the first point of his above post where he stated, “... Atheism is only irrational in precisely the same way that a lack of belief in mermaids, unicorns, fairies,hobbits, elves etc. is irrational...”.
There is anecdotal evidence for all of the above entities and yet no rational person believes in them. When talking about supernatural entities big or small, the only rational position to take is that of non-belief. Until such time that evidence is produced for their existence I shall continue to consider them to be so unlikely as to be false.
I disagree. There is nothing irrational or unreasonable about being an atheist since there is no evidence for the existence of God. In my opinion, LazyGun accurately summed up the position of atheists in the first point of his above post where he stated, “... Atheism is only irrational in precisely the same way that a lack of belief in mermaids, unicorns, fairies,hobbits, elves etc. is irrational...”.
There is anecdotal evidence for all of the above entities and yet no rational person believes in them. When talking about supernatural entities big or small, the only rational position to take is that of non-belief. Until such time that evidence is produced for their existence I shall continue to consider them to be so unlikely as to be false.
> Atheism is only irrational in precisely the same way that a lack of belief in mermaids, unicorns, fairies,hobbits, elves etc. is irrational...”.
Er, no, because they're physical creatures that were purported to inhabit our planet (with the exception of hobbits which were a figment of Tolkien's imagination). Therefore the lack of physical evidence of their existence, in the fossil record for example, is reasonable evidence that they do not exist - until such time as we do dig one up, anyway ...
A supernatural God is on another level. Not a physical entity, and not on this planet necessarily. How would we see evidence that such a thing existed or not?
Er, no, because they're physical creatures that were purported to inhabit our planet (with the exception of hobbits which were a figment of Tolkien's imagination). Therefore the lack of physical evidence of their existence, in the fossil record for example, is reasonable evidence that they do not exist - until such time as we do dig one up, anyway ...
A supernatural God is on another level. Not a physical entity, and not on this planet necessarily. How would we see evidence that such a thing existed or not?
Ellipsis - “... Er, no, because they're physical creatures that were purported to inhabit our planet...”
Well, not really. They're figments of people's imagination. Those entities aside then, how do you feel about the Flying Spaghetti Monster [FSM]? That's not a physical entity (it is supernatural) and it's existence can neither be proved nor disproved. Are we to accept the possible existence of this also or is it reasonable and rational to assume that the FSM does not exist?
While we're on the subject of unprovable nonsense, how do you feel about Xenu? He's a multi-billion year old super-villain alien according to the Church Of Scientology. Are we to believe in him too?
Well, not really. They're figments of people's imagination. Those entities aside then, how do you feel about the Flying Spaghetti Monster [FSM]? That's not a physical entity (it is supernatural) and it's existence can neither be proved nor disproved. Are we to accept the possible existence of this also or is it reasonable and rational to assume that the FSM does not exist?
While we're on the subject of unprovable nonsense, how do you feel about Xenu? He's a multi-billion year old super-villain alien according to the Church Of Scientology. Are we to believe in him too?
I have already said and I quote myself, “... Until such time that evidence is produced for their existence I shall continue to consider them to be so unlikely as to be false...”
Nothing can ever be proven to be 100% true or untrue. To state otherwise would be disingenuous to the principals of the scientific method. However, if something is deemed to be extremely unlikely, it is not unreasonable to claim that it is false. Hence, the existence of a God is false since the likelihood of it being true is so vanishingly small. As is the existence of Xenu and the FSM.
I'm not saying you're wrong by stating that you don't know whether or not God exists. By the same token, I am not wrong by stating that He (based on the balance of probabilities, evidence and logic) does not exist.
Nothing can ever be proven to be 100% true or untrue. To state otherwise would be disingenuous to the principals of the scientific method. However, if something is deemed to be extremely unlikely, it is not unreasonable to claim that it is false. Hence, the existence of a God is false since the likelihood of it being true is so vanishingly small. As is the existence of Xenu and the FSM.
I'm not saying you're wrong by stating that you don't know whether or not God exists. By the same token, I am not wrong by stating that He (based on the balance of probabilities, evidence and logic) does not exist.
What probabilities, evidence and logic have you (or anybody else) used, birdie?
The "evidence" of the existence of a supreme being could be right under your nose. That doesn't mean you, or any human, would be capable of seeing it as such. Our feeble brains might not comprehend it.
On the other hand, the "evidence" could perfectly obvious to us, and found liberally throughout the universe, but doesn't happen to be in our region and we'd have to develop interstellar travel to find it. Or you may indeed be right, and there may be no god. Who knows? I don't ...
The "evidence" of the existence of a supreme being could be right under your nose. That doesn't mean you, or any human, would be capable of seeing it as such. Our feeble brains might not comprehend it.
On the other hand, the "evidence" could perfectly obvious to us, and found liberally throughout the universe, but doesn't happen to be in our region and we'd have to develop interstellar travel to find it. Or you may indeed be right, and there may be no god. Who knows? I don't ...
//How can anyone believe anything without reason?//
Reason is not a prerequisite for believing, any more than believing is a substitute for knowing or the means by which we determine what is possible and what is real . . . that requires reason.
Believing, apart from the knowledge that justifies and validates belief, brings the process of reason to a screeching halt leaving in its wake nothing better than a fore-drawn conclusion.
Reason is not a prerequisite for believing, any more than believing is a substitute for knowing or the means by which we determine what is possible and what is real . . . that requires reason.
Believing, apart from the knowledge that justifies and validates belief, brings the process of reason to a screeching halt leaving in its wake nothing better than a fore-drawn conclusion.
Ellipsis, //Two weeks ago we did not have evidence of the Higgs boson. It existed as a concept. Rationally, we had to assume it might exist or might not exist. I don't see a God as much different to that.//
Really? How so? One is natural, the other supernatural – and I don’t think the concept of the Higgs boson was ever considered to be a supernatural one, so I really don’t see a comparison there at all.
//I don't believe in FSM, or Xenu, or any God put forth by any human to date.//
All gods, to date, have been ‘put forth’ by humans so what are you arguing about? If evidence of something with the appropriate credentials ever emerges, atheists will accept that it exists, but at the moment it is merely an idea involving not science and the natural world, but an imaginary supernatural world, and therefore, rationally, there is no reason to believe it.
Ludwig, // Higgs bosom // :o)
Haaa! Shuddup! :o)
Really? How so? One is natural, the other supernatural – and I don’t think the concept of the Higgs boson was ever considered to be a supernatural one, so I really don’t see a comparison there at all.
//I don't believe in FSM, or Xenu, or any God put forth by any human to date.//
All gods, to date, have been ‘put forth’ by humans so what are you arguing about? If evidence of something with the appropriate credentials ever emerges, atheists will accept that it exists, but at the moment it is merely an idea involving not science and the natural world, but an imaginary supernatural world, and therefore, rationally, there is no reason to believe it.
Ludwig, // Higgs bosom // :o)
Haaa! Shuddup! :o)
Naomi, exactly, god being a man made concept is what I was alluding to earlier. God is just as much man made as Ming the Merciless and just as preposterous. If god had been invented as recently as Ming then people would realise how silly the idea is. Unfortunately the idea of god has been around for a long time and people grow up with the idea planted in their minds as children.
@Ellipsis
You have already conceded that god, at least as he is portrayed in many religions, is a man made construct.Now you argue for a god as creator only, and still insist that the best position to take is one of agnosticism.Why? Why is a creator god, logically speaking, any more likely to exist than a god of the type you have already conceded is a man-made construct?
In other posts, you have said that -
"The "evidence" of the existence of a supreme being could be right under your nose. That doesn't mean you, or any human, would be capable of seeing it as such. Our feeble brains might not comprehend it."
"I maintain that not believing in the existence of a supernatural God because you (a mere human) have seen no evidence "
Mere human? feeble brains? By what measure are you measuring Mans capacity to reason, solve problems,apply intelligence and logic? What yardstick are you judging us against? You seem to have a low opinion of Mankinds abilities - I think somewhere else you have suggested that the evidence for a supernatural creator god could be lying right under our noses, but we would be too intellectually feeble to recognise it. Nonsense.
Were there an omnipotent supernatural god, one interested in and capable of interacting with humanity, we would have seen, over thousands of years, substantial, indisputable evidence of their existence. There is none.Otherwise, we would have seen amputees miraculously regaining their missing limbs, paraplegics miraculously able to walk again.
A god could be regarded as a kind of supernatural, universe creating entity, planting the seeds of universes, then moving on, but the gap within which such miraculous events can occur is getting progessively smaller as our knowledge of the universe and the early conditions advances.Such a god would hardly be worthy of worship - would you worship a plant because it creates seeds and scatters them?
The idea of a god is a man-made one, invented by successive tribes and communities of man, fearful that the sun might not rise, or the crops might not grow. No reason to be agnostic of such a god - no reason for such a god to exist at all, and no evidence - Just faith. Thats not enough to warrant an agnostic viewpoint.
You have already conceded that god, at least as he is portrayed in many religions, is a man made construct.Now you argue for a god as creator only, and still insist that the best position to take is one of agnosticism.Why? Why is a creator god, logically speaking, any more likely to exist than a god of the type you have already conceded is a man-made construct?
In other posts, you have said that -
"The "evidence" of the existence of a supreme being could be right under your nose. That doesn't mean you, or any human, would be capable of seeing it as such. Our feeble brains might not comprehend it."
"I maintain that not believing in the existence of a supernatural God because you (a mere human) have seen no evidence "
Mere human? feeble brains? By what measure are you measuring Mans capacity to reason, solve problems,apply intelligence and logic? What yardstick are you judging us against? You seem to have a low opinion of Mankinds abilities - I think somewhere else you have suggested that the evidence for a supernatural creator god could be lying right under our noses, but we would be too intellectually feeble to recognise it. Nonsense.
Were there an omnipotent supernatural god, one interested in and capable of interacting with humanity, we would have seen, over thousands of years, substantial, indisputable evidence of their existence. There is none.Otherwise, we would have seen amputees miraculously regaining their missing limbs, paraplegics miraculously able to walk again.
A god could be regarded as a kind of supernatural, universe creating entity, planting the seeds of universes, then moving on, but the gap within which such miraculous events can occur is getting progessively smaller as our knowledge of the universe and the early conditions advances.Such a god would hardly be worthy of worship - would you worship a plant because it creates seeds and scatters them?
The idea of a god is a man-made one, invented by successive tribes and communities of man, fearful that the sun might not rise, or the crops might not grow. No reason to be agnostic of such a god - no reason for such a god to exist at all, and no evidence - Just faith. Thats not enough to warrant an agnostic viewpoint.
Wrong,Because God knows all the facts involved and we do not, we should be modest when considering God’s actions. To illustrate: Imagine that a judge with an outstanding record of making fair-minded decisions has handed down a sentence in a court case.
What would you think about someone who without knowing all the facts or really understanding the laws involved criticized the judge’s decision? It would be foolish for someone to pass judgment on a matter without being fully informed about it. How much more foolish it would be for mere humans to criticize “the Judge of all the earth”!—Genesis 18:25
What would you think about someone who without knowing all the facts or really understanding the laws involved criticized the judge’s decision? It would be foolish for someone to pass judgment on a matter without being fully informed about it. How much more foolish it would be for mere humans to criticize “the Judge of all the earth”!—Genesis 18:25
goodlife // Imagine that a judge with an outstanding record of making fair-minded decisions has handed down a sentence in a court case. //
What has that got to do the God of the Bible? Fair minded? My @rse.
Eternal punishment to all women for Eve's transgression. Three and four generations of decedents punished for one person's actions. Thousand of people brutally slaughtered. Children torn to pieces by bears for making a joke about a priest's baldness. The first born son of every Egyptian killed for the policies of their king. Women raped as a reward for the conquerors. And ultimately a plan to kill billions. The list is a long as the Bible.
Your God is a certifiable psychopath.
What has that got to do the God of the Bible? Fair minded? My @rse.
Eternal punishment to all women for Eve's transgression. Three and four generations of decedents punished for one person's actions. Thousand of people brutally slaughtered. Children torn to pieces by bears for making a joke about a priest's baldness. The first born son of every Egyptian killed for the policies of their king. Women raped as a reward for the conquerors. And ultimately a plan to kill billions. The list is a long as the Bible.
Your God is a certifiable psychopath.
Beso@ Wrong, Is you who do not Reason,It is similar with God’s laws. Does not simply tell you what the Bible says is right and what is wrong; It.Reason with you on how obedience to God’s laws will benefit you . to see the consequences of disregarding those requirements and Bible itself does this.(John 17:3)
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Food & Drink7 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Body & Soul22 mins ago
