Page 21 | Atheists -what makes you so sure?

OMG12 · 2023-06-14T18:12:29+00:00

I often wonder what makes atheists so sure that there isn’t a god. I’m not talking a particular iteration of the Divine, eg it’s easy to say I can’t believe there is a God because of childhood cancer, but that is predicated on the concept of a God who is only good and considers childhood cancer as bad and further is capable and willing to stop all bad things. I’m talking gods not religions here which a very different things. Most cultures throughout time have have gods so it’s somewhat of an anomaly to not believe. I just wonder why people don’t believe. (And can we try and keep this a decent debate rather than any of the sky fairy shit those with an inability to debate a point beyond regurgitated social media soundbites seem limited to)

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 14:18

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 14:14

@OMG12

You said the following earlier.

I believe in divinity as source of everything, good and bad, I don’t believe in a god controlling everything. I believe in a god that created the laws that science now observes, I believe that science doesn’t have the answers to how and why at a deep enough level, eventually you will get to a lack of knowledge- you could follow Arthur C Clarke and assume that eventually science will provide the answer, but that’s based on a belief system the same as my understanding- but I might well be wrong in those beliefs, I have reasons that lead me to believe they’re right but would always be open to being wrong.

I don't understand how you think your belief framework is so different logistically than that which you seem unable to grasp or respect in other people.

"I believe X for 'reasons that lead me to believe X is right but would always be open to being wrong'" is what a number of those who don't believe in a higher power due to lack of evidence have said to you throughout the thread.

Their 'reasons' are different to yours and they have a different threshold when it comes to the evidence they personally require.

They believe X due to a lack of evidence for Y but if evidence for Y was provided, their belief could change. Exactly the same as you say your beliefs could change as you're open to being wrong.

Maybe that’s the point, they’re two sides of the same coin. Both require a belief ina philosophy. Atheism may be an absence of a belief in God but that is replaced by a belief in a totally different philosophy.

it’s interesting re respect. Where have I been disrespectful. Questioning is not disrespectful. We’re back to the unfortunate way society seems to operate these days

OP posts:

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 14:20

CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 14:09

@OMG12 "You see to me, when people aren’t willing to expand on their answers it makes me wonder why."

I am happy to expand on my answers. I just don't know what you want me to say.

i don’t have any preconceived ideas on what you would say, I’m not you.

OP posts:

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 14:23

it’s interesting re respect. Where have I been disrespectful. Questioning is not disrespectful. We’re back to the unfortunate way society seems to operate these days

I didn't say your words have been disrespectful.

You do not appear to 'respect' the validity of people's opinions if you disagree with them, or find them hard to understand. Perhaps I should have worded it that way.

I respect that you believe in a higher power. I do not believe in one but think that believing in one is a valid and personal decision for an individual to make.

In your approach and tone, it very much seems you do not respect the validity of people's personal beliefs on this matter which is why you push challenging them / get 'extremely disappointed' when they don't wish to continue discussing it when they have been very clear as to their position.

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 14:24

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 14:15

Yes, there are clearly more than 2 different colours that millions of people can unanimously agree to have physically seen with their eyes.

And regardless of whether you think giving antibiotics has had a negative impact long term or whether they always work or work perfectly, it is proven that they do aid the symptoms of infection.

At the risk of sounding like a flouncer, I have to agree that this is repetitive to the point it is not enjoyable to engage in the conversation. The above were clearly just flippant examples and it is tiresome trying to debate with somebody so extremely pedantic and determined not to accept the point behind what people are saying to them. I do not agree with you that no truth can ever be objectively true. I think that's absolute nonsense and the fact evidence of truths that are universal is all around us.

So what universal truths are there? You have two examples to illustrate your point, I pointed out they didn’t illustrate your point. I fail to see what’s pedantic about that. Was I just supposed to agree with something that is not correct?

OP posts:

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 14:27

So what universal truths are there? You have two examples to illustrate your point, I pointed out they didn’t illustrate your point. I fail to see what’s pedantic about that. Was I just supposed to agree with something that is not correct?

Ok, how about "humans have eyes"? How are you going to tell me that is not objectively true?

CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 14:29

@OMG12 "
"i don’t have any preconceived ideas on what you would say, I’m not you."
OK. I don't know what questions you want answers to.

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 14:33

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 14:27

So what universal truths are there? You have two examples to illustrate your point, I pointed out they didn’t illustrate your point. I fail to see what’s pedantic about that. Was I just supposed to agree with something that is not correct?

Ok, how about "humans have eyes"? How are you going to tell me that is not objectively true?

Just to jump in here as I know @OMG12 will say 'but not all humans do have eyes' what if the statement of universal truth was:

"Most humans have eyes"

Surely that's an unarguable fact?

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 14:51

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 14:33

Just to jump in here as I know @OMG12 will say 'but not all humans do have eyes' what if the statement of universal truth was:

"Most humans have eyes"

Surely that's an unarguable fact?

Show quote history

Actually that’s not what I’d say at all. Interesting you would “know” that though.

What I would say is how do we know humans (inc their eyes) exist at all. It’s an age old question. We can say on the balance of probabilities humans (and their eyes) exist but we can’t say this is an absolute truth.

OP posts:

CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 14:53

Well, of course it's balance of probabilities. You can't prove a negative.

monsteramunch · 02/10/2023 15:05

We can say on the balance of probabilities humans (and their eyes) exist but we can’t say this is an absolute truth.

We can say that though. You might not agree that it's an absolute truth but other people can absolutely say it is. You don't have to agree.

I think that the discussion has reached a bit of an impasse, as the crux of your argument is that nothing can ever be an absolute truth.

Other people believe that some things can be an absolute truth.

I'm not really sure what benefit or learning there is to not simply agreeing to disagree about that fundamental premise?

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 15:17

CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 14:53

Well, of course it's balance of probabilities. You can't prove a negative.

Which brings us back full circle. No one can be sure about whether a “God” exists or not. It’s all probabilities which requires a weighing up. This weighing up can only ever be subjective in deciding what matters to include and exclude and what value each of these points have.

OP posts:

CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 15:23

No. It's not subjective. There is no "evidence" for the existence of God that can pass proper scientific scrutiny. So, as current knowledge stands, there is no god. Or leprechauns. Or unicorns. More evidence for any of these things couls emerge tomorrow that would pass scientific scrutiny. But there is none at the moment.

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 15:34

If your argument is genuinely "how can anybody say they are sure god exists when obviously nothing is provable either way, even down to the fact that humans exist, so why isn't everyone in a constant state of existential mystery", and you genuinely can't comprehend why the vast majority of people do believe their own existence to be fact, then I don't think anybody can help you. It should really be obvious why most people would believe it to be unquestionably true that humans do exist, whatever conclusions you draw about the nature of existence.

CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 15:43

Just be careful next time you come down stairs- the steps might not exist!

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 15:44

CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 15:23

No. It's not subjective. There is no "evidence" for the existence of God that can pass proper scientific scrutiny. So, as current knowledge stands, there is no god. Or leprechauns. Or unicorns. More evidence for any of these things couls emerge tomorrow that would pass scientific scrutiny. But there is none at the moment.

But it is subjective, even the philosophy you choose to analyse what is true or not is subjective. Why can something only be true if it passes scientific scrutiny?

OP posts:

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 15:47

CurlewKate · 02/10/2023 15:43

Just be careful next time you come down stairs- the steps might not exist!

Potentially😂But if I don’t exist it doesn’t really matter. Even if both are true and I die that might be a better state. In fact the Gnostics would have certainly understood that as true.

OP posts:

Spodey · 02/10/2023 15:48

Why can something only be true if it passes scientific scrutiny?
Because that’s how reality works, much as you may dislike it.

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 15:49

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 15:34

If your argument is genuinely "how can anybody say they are sure god exists when obviously nothing is provable either way, even down to the fact that humans exist, so why isn't everyone in a constant state of existential mystery", and you genuinely can't comprehend why the vast majority of people do believe their own existence to be fact, then I don't think anybody can help you. It should really be obvious why most people would believe it to be unquestionably true that humans do exist, whatever conclusions you draw about the nature of existence.

Interesting choice of words “I don’t think anyone can help you”. What help don’t you think anyone can offer?

oh I do understand why most people think their existence is fact - my question is , is this belief subjective?

OP posts:

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 15:55

Interesting choice of words “I don’t think anyone can help you”. What help don’t you think anyone can offer?

Help you to answer your question, obviously.

oh I do understand why most people think their existence is fact - my question is , is this belief subjective?

No, your question was "why are you so sure", not "should you be so sure".

BigBoysDontCry · 02/10/2023 16:38

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 11:03

Ah, well that solves this age old question- thanks.

Show quote history

You are welcome. It really is that simple. I note you've not answered my question though.

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 17:00

BigBoysDontCry · 02/10/2023 16:38

You are welcome. It really is that simple. I note you've not answered my question though.

Show quote history

Sorry thought I’d answered this on other posts (and apparently I’m not supposed to repeat myself) but it’s a different mind set.

I obviously can’t answer for anyone else but for me there’s no need for evidence, at least the scientific evidence that most people appear to think of. My philosophy is that science is all well and good in the areas it was designed for, but existence, for me is spirit too. It’s like saying you can’t pick up smells using X-ray.

My belief is that one’s own experience is the closet thing to evidence. Can I be 100% sure, no, can I believe in something outside the physical world - yes.

So asking me for evidence is pointless, it’s a different framework based on inner life and experience.

OP posts:

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 17:04

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 15:55

Interesting choice of words “I don’t think anyone can help you”. What help don’t you think anyone can offer?

Help you to answer your question, obviously.

oh I do understand why most people think their existence is fact - my question is , is this belief subjective?

No, your question was "why are you so sure", not "should you be so sure".

Im not sure why you believe no one can answer the question about their own understanding beyond the superficial.

Surely as part of answering the question why are you so sure? , it includes the question should you be?

OP posts:

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 17:11

Surely as part of answering the question why are you so sure? , it includes the question should you be?

How can you be so sure it includes that? Surely that can never be objective?

Original poster

OMG12 · 02/10/2023 17:20

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 17:11

Surely as part of answering the question why are you so sure? , it includes the question should you be?

How can you be so sure it includes that? Surely that can never be objective?

Well it depends on your philosophy really. In my world no nothing ever can be completely objective. So, I can’t be sure.

But as everyone is adamant that methodology can be objective then yes in that framework it would be true that the two questions are interlinked. I was operating within that philosophy, as that seems to be the one people want.

So from your answer do you want to walk round in my world😀

OP posts:

aSofaNearYou · 02/10/2023 18:21

But as everyone is adamant that methodology can be objective then yes in that framework it would be true that the two questions are interlinked. I was operating within that philosophy, as that seems to be the one people want.

No, they are separate questions. You wanted to know how atheists are so sure, not if they can prove to you they are wrong to be.

It just seems like the things you believe, can be stated as perfectly objective/easy to understand why somebody would believe. Whereas the things others believe are impossible to understand because nothing is objective enough for them to have formed any conclusion at all.

Out of interest, how open are you to the idea that there is nothing spiritual in the world at all?