FOR THE ATHEISTS:

Rather biased of you to accuse those who don't feel like discussing their beliefs of "ducking the issue". Who says (apart from you) that theyhave to address the issue?

I don't believe in God. I don't believe in an orbiting teapot. Why do I have to explain or justify that?

Yeah it is biased. I have opinions...opinions are by their nature "biased."

Aren't yours?

You are not ducking the issue...but many of the atheist here would much rather duck it than actually face up to the obvious...that their atheism is based on "belief" just as much as theism is based on it.






Thank you for sharing that.

What does it have to do with the issue of whether or not science, reason, or logic lead to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one?"


Thank you for sharing that also.



No one has to explain or justify it. And I have not suggested anyone has to. But it is an issue that can be discussed...or ducked.

Glad you are not ducking it...although so far, you have not actually discussed it.

You agree that science, reason, and logic do not lead to "there are no gods" right?

I don't agree that not discussing the issue is "ducking" it. I don't agree with capital punishment. I don't think Great Britain should leave the European Union. I don't think women should be forced to wear veils. There are lots of things I do or don't agree with or believe. I have what seem to me to be fairly good reasons for holding these views, but I do not accept that I am obliged to discuss, explain or debate them with anyone in order to be entitled to hold them. As for not believing in God, it's not so much that I have definitely decided that "God does not exist", more that I am unable to believe in him. I am also unable to believe in fairies, astrology, numerology, Scientology, the Hollow Earth theory, the Illuminati, angels, the Devil, demons, ghosts, witchcraft, and a number of superstitions e.g. that the number 13 is unlucky. I picked these at random as examples of things I don't (or can't) believe in. I do not hold these views in any militant way, like e.g. Richard Dawkins, and it doesn't really bother me if other people hold different beliefs. In fact I was brought up a Christian, in the Anglican (Episcopalian) tradition, and was converted at a Billy Graham rally when I was 14, although I later found I no longer believed ("found", note, not "decided"). I am very interested by some aspects of progressive Christianity, particularly the writings of Don Cupitt, and the Sea Of Faith movement, and I definitely, like them, believe in God as a human creation.

Well, thank you for sharing all that.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinion on my opinion that science, reason, and logic do not lead to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are."

Timur post transfered from Farmerman's thread:



I am not a liar...and I was right here posting regularly each and every day. You were the one who was almost completely absent.

You started this thing again...and I will finish it...just as soon as I am done playing with you.

Timur post transferred from FM thread:



You are the toy...and I will play with you where and when I want. If you don't have the spine to continue the pissing contest you started here...no problem. All you will do is to save yourself some bloodying.

My opinion is that the above is self-evident. The existence of a god or gods can neither be proved not disproved by science, reason and logic. On a personal note, I do not feel a need to do either.

On a personal note, Tes, I agree completely that I also do not feel a need to do either. We are five by five on that. Like you, I do not "believe in" any gods...but I describe myself as an agnostic, because I do not "believe" there are no gods...or that it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one. I do not know...and I do not have the evidence to make a reasonable guess in either direction.

However, some...by no means all...atheist assert that it was science, logic and reason that lead them to atheism.

I feel all of those things could lead to "I do not know"...which is closer to the agnostic position, but none can lead to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one." The reason for my comment had to do with the people who feel a need to justify their atheism by claiming they came to it as a result of science, reason, or logic.

Another Timur post in FM's thread transferred here:



I am not a liar.

You started this nonsense...and are continuing it with insults...and at some point I will finish it, as I have finished each of these silly things you start.

Ok, let's take it step by step. You may agree with part of what I will say, but this can be addressed to anyone... And do know before hand that I agree that science, logic or reason should not "lead" to atheism. But here is why:
We come to life with no belief. When we grow up, we are told about a god. We believe that or we don't, it is not a choice. If it was a choice, we'd simply believe or stop believing at will whenever we need it. Now, when you don't believe, you are called "atheist". But it doesn't really matter for the one who doesn't believe to be called anything really. We may as well give a name to people who don't believe in every specific thing (ghosts, aliens, Santa, whatever). So the word "atheist" was given to unbelievers by believers. I don't believe in any god, but I don't have to call myself anything because of that... If someone wants to call me atheist, fine, I don't care, it's their choice. That's just to say, I don't need to justify anything. I didn't believe your story, that's all. If you wanna know why, find out how the brain works, that's all I can say. Now, I don't agree that atheism is based on belief just like theism. Like I said, we were just given a name because we didn't belong in their group, that's all. Do we have a belief system to justify everything we don't believe? I don't think that your non belief in Santa is based on any kind of belief system, is it? It just doesn't make sense to you, final.
For the "anyone without a belief in a god is an atheist" stuff, it's pretty irrelevant to the subject I think. Still, from what I know, an atheist doesn't necessarily say "there is no God". For example, I don't believe in God, I honestly don't think there is one, but I will never pretend to know there is no god. I even go further saying that it is possible that there is a god, simply because I have no proof for either side. But, I do consider myself an atheist as I do not accept the existence of a god. Would you say I am not an atheist? Before you answer, please, don't tell me I'm an agnostic. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, not gods. Saying you're agnostic simply means "I don't have the knowledge of..." So you can actually believe in a god but still say you do not "know" that he exists. In my case, I am an atheist because I don't believe in a god, and I'm agnostic as well because I don't know the answer.
So all this is why science, logic and reason don't matter. You'd still be an atheist or a believer without them. But what I think happens is that, when they are already atheists, then science, logic and reason only go against beliefs. Like, when you hear someone say the Earth is 6000 years old, you tend to reject that person's beliefs because he/she goes against a basic scientific fact. Science, even though it is not 100% reliable, still makes way more sense than beliefs. So when I use science or reason or logic to think, it just systematically goes against beliefs and this may "look" like a reason to be an atheist, but it's really not. You are or you are not an atheist, the rest only goes for or against beliefs.
I hope I'm being clear and not off subject.

Interesting. So who was that 'first believer' that started it all?

And so if belief is not a choice, then what determines whether we have belief or not?

"I suggest, with all the respect in the world, that no atheist should come to his/her atheism because of science, logic, or reason…because none of those three actually lead to “there are no gods” or “it is more likely there are no gods than that there are.”"

If you actually did have respect for the different viewpoints of others, this isn't something you'd have said.

Science can't disprove a negative, and not having proof of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means that it doesn't exist within the sliver of reality science has, so far, been able to measure with some level of thoroughness.

Where you go wrong is in your should argument - when you take an agnostic look through history, and see the thousands of gods that people have promoted as truth, and seen that there is no proof that any of them exist - no evidence that can't be seen in a number of different ways other than evidence for god(s), then that is indeed a reason to not believe.

It, however, is not logically a reason to DISbelieve, although many do so, and the term atheist applies to both DISbelievers and NONbelievers.

DISbelief is a form of belief, while NONbelief is not. *Some* atheists do believe that there is no god, while others - myself included - do not. I merely do not believe, given the lack of evidence - which involves no belief at all.