Why I am an athiest

Hume's Problem of Induction is pretty convincing. On the other hand, in all the amassed data collected by scientists over the centuries, there is yet nothing whatsoever, to my knowledge, that suggests such a being either exists or is necessary to explain observed phenomena.

A life without beliefs would not make a robot of you. I don't think anyone views me as robotic, and I've done a lot of self-scrutiny to rid myself of beliefs. Lack of beliefs does not entail lack of emotions, lack of humor, lack of creativity, lack of curiosity, etc.

At the very least you operate under the same basic assumptions than the rest of us: I exist as a "conscience" able to learn and cabable of introspection; there is world out there; my senses tell me something usefull and pertinent and more or less precise about this world, most of the times; my reason works, i.e. logic is useful and effective, by and large; there is such a thing as time; etc. The basic axioms without which mental life as we know it can't be sustained.

that knowledge, consciousness, and logic are "in the gift of God".

I am an atheist, but anyone with an interest in the nature of "consciousness" could drive a coach and horses through this paragraph

The fallacy here is the implication that "theistic belief" is somehow based "inadequate logic" and that exposure of such inadequacies is supportive of atheism.

But this simplistically promotes "traditional logic" to the status of an objective arbiter of "thought processes" when it is merely a mode of thinking limited to particular functional paradigms.

Indeed, such an approach has absolutely no answer to the catch-all claim by believers that knowledge, consciousness, and logic are "in the gift of God".

I re-iterate therefore that a reason for "atheism" if one is required must be based on dysfunctionality not illogicality.

You wrote,

Quote:

that knowledge, consciousness, and logic are "in the gift of God".

ROFLMAO

Logic? No way, jose. Illogical is more like it! You can't go around making statements that are ridiculous on the surface such as you quoted above.

First of all, you need to prove there's a god. You can't; that's a FACT of logic.

Didn't you see what he wrote about "logic....gift of god?"

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:

If that is your definition of my belief, You will have to live with it.

Based on what you've shown me of your view, how else would I define it? Are you implying that your concept of God is not supernatural?

As far as I can perceive, Jehovah operates according to what we call natural law.

If you want to believe in magic that's fine. And if you want to use magic to explain things that's fine too. But don't think for a moment that those viewpoints are in any way supported by Occam's Razor because they are not. The presence of a supreme being is in no way a less complex solution than a purely natural sequence of events, even if the originating events and conditions are unknown.

Popper's solution of the induction works for me, by and large: science is based on doubt. People who understand and value science as a pursuit of truth should understand that its claims to truth are inherently premissed on the possibility of their own falsification. Every believer once in a while doubt the existence of God. Non-believer with a scientific outlook should not be less inclined to doubt than believers, now should they? They too should doubt once in a while.

Popper accepted Hume's conclusion that inductive inference is not rationally justifiable. He takes the problem of induction to have no adequate solution. But he rejects the further conclusion that science therefore yields no knowledge of the nature of the world. With Hume, Popper holds that no number of cases offered as confirmation of a scientific hypothesis yields knowledge of the truth of that hypothesis. But just one observation that disagrees with a hypothesis can refute that hypothesis. So while empirical inquiry cannot provide knowledge of the truth of hypotheses through induction, it can provide knowledge of the falsity of hypotheses through deduction.

In place of induction, Popper offers the method of conjecture and refutation.

Besides, science discovered many marvelous things, pleasing to the eye and soul, and is only starting to find convincing explanations for most of them. We've come up with no definitive answer about how the universe and life work that I'm aware of. There are many things we don't know, and there probably always will... Many scientists believe in God. There's no real contradiction here.

Asked about their beliefs in God, 34% chose “I don’t believe in God,” while 30% chose, “I do not know if there is a God, and there is no way to find out.” That’s 64% who are atheist or agnostic, as compared to just 6% of the general public.

An additional 8% opted for, “I believe in a higher power, but it is not God.” That makes 72% of scientists who are explicitly non-theistic in their religious views (compared to 16% of the public generally.) Pretty stark.

From the other side, it is just 9% of scientists (compared to 63% of the public), who chose, “I have no doubts about God’s existence.” An additional 14% of scientists chose, “I have some doubts, but I believe in God.” Thus, it is just 25% of scientists who will confidently assert their belief in God (80% of the general public.)

At the very least you operate under the same basic assumptions than the rest of us: I exist as a "conscience" able to learn and cabable of introspection; there is world out there; my senses tell me something usefull and pertinent and more or less precise about this world, most of the times; my reason works, i.e. logic is useful and effective, by and large; there is such a thing as time; etc. The basic axioms without which mental life as we know it can't be sustained.

Offering an alternative is not the same as solving the original problem.

From the other side, it is just 9% of scientists (compared to 63% of the public), who chose, “I have no doubts about God’s existence.” An additional 14% of scientists chose, “I have some doubts, but I believe in God.” Thus, it is just 25% of scientists who will confidently assert their belief in God (80% of the general public.)

That's interesting. You've made a list of many of the beliefs that I have specifically examined and jettisoned over the past few years. I don't believe any of those things. Identify "self," for example. Put your finger on one. Bring a sample to the lab for analysis. Same for consciousness, time, etc.

Space and time do not exist to you? You jettisoned any sense of self? You mean you don't actually exist as an individual? That's indeed very interesting... Whom I am talking to, may I ask?

This question will go away the day a team of scientists will be able to engineer a self-conscious mind.

True, I did not add to my claim that I believed this originating event had a personality. Why should that make a difference?