Unbelief, the world’s third-largest religion

[Arbitran]

Those who claim their unbelief is not a religion, they are kidding themselves because their unbelief is also built on the foundations of faith, ie they have faith in the belief that there is no god, because it cannot be proven definitively, their whole belief of unbelief is faith based just like a believers. Lol, the irony is sweet!

You've got to be kidding me... One needn't have any faith in the proposition that there isn't a god; more often than not, the position espoused is one of simple rejection of the claims made by theists. It isn't faith that a god doesn't exist; it's a complete lack of faith that there IS one. I should have thought that this was really, painfully obvious. It really only requires the least amount of thought...

[Order66]

You've got to be kidding me... One needn't have any faith in the proposition that there isn't a god; more often than not, the position espoused is one of simple rejection of the claims made by theists. It isn't faith that a god doesn't exist; it's a complete lack of faith that there IS one. I should have thought that this was really, painfully obvious. It really only requires the least amount of thought...

What is the proposition you are rejecting, and upon what basis do you reject it?

[Arbitran]

What is the proposition you are rejecting, and upon what basis do you reject it?

The proposition is the claim of the existence of god, and it can be rejected for the same reason that one rejects claims of the existence of leprechauns: there simply is no evidence, no reason to think that there is such a thing.

[Order66]

there simply is no evidence, no reason to think that there is such a thing.

Here are reasons:

http://www.existence...nce-of-god.html




Arguments for God's Existence



Arguments for the existence of God come in many different forms; some draw on history, some on science, some on personal experience, and some on philosophy. The primary focus of this site is the philosophical arguments—the ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument.
Each of these arguments, if successful, supports a certain conception of God: the ontological argument, for instance, is an argument for the existence of a perfect being; the first cause argument is an argument for the existence of an eternal Creator; the argument from design is an argument for the existence of Creator with a special interest in humanity; the moral argument is an argument for a moral authority.
Each of the arguments, if successful, then, so supports a specific religion to the extent that its conception of God matches that supported by the argument.


The Ontological Argument



The first purported proof of the existence of God is the ontological argument. The ontological argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the laws of logic alone. It dates back to St Anselm, an eleventh century philosopher-theologian and archbishop of Canterbury, but was also used by the French philosopher René Descartes. It argues that once we mentally grasp the concept of God we can see that God’s non-existence is impossible. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a perfect being that could not possibly fail to exist.


The First Cause Argument



The second purported proof of the existence of God is the first cause argument, also called “the cosmological argument”. The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end.


The Argument from Design



The third purported proof of the existence of God is the argument from design, also called “the teleological argument”. The argument from design seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe is ordered.
The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang.
The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, if it is successful, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator that takes an interest in humanity.


The Moral Argument



The fourth purported proof of the existence of God is the moral argument. The moral argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that there are moral laws.
Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally?
To answer this, we only need to look at the authoritative nature of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as is the one that commands them; a command of a ruler carries more authority than a command of a citizen. Moral commands, though, have ultimate authority; they are to be obeyed under all circumstances. Their authority transcends all human authority, and they must therefore have been commanded by a being whose authority transcends all human authority.
The existence of moral laws, the argument concludes, thus demonstrates the existence of a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation.


Summary



Together, then, these arguments claim to prove the existence of a perfect, necessary, transcendent being that created the universe, has authority over it, and takes an interest in humanity. This, if it could be accomplished, would be more than enough to show that the Christian conception of God, and those conceptions of God related to it, are close to the truth.
It’s time to examine the arguments. The first is the ontological argument.





Pick any one of these arguments and state your reason for rejecting it. I guarantee you will not be able to reject it without making some assertion ( purposely or not ) for which you have no evidence, but ... you are welcome to try.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Order66

[Arbitran]

1 ~ The ontological argument offers no evidence of any kind, and its logic is effectively obfuscation; deity existing as an idea does not necessitate its reality outside of the mind.

2 ~ The first cause argument is, in a nutshell, a simple argument from ignorance. It also makes the assumption that there must be a 'first cause', which, if you ask any physicist, when it comes to the early universe, quantum mechanics, etc., is far from axiomatic. Also, it makes the absurdist, argument from ignorance-style assumption that any 'first cause' which exists cannot have had any cause which caused it, effectively resulting in the self-destruction of the argument; in other words, if a 'god' is posited as a 'first cause', one is presumed not to ask what caused that 'god' to be there. There are two solutions: an infinite regress of gods creating gods creating gods, which ultimately defeats the argument; the realization that the 'first cause' could be literally anything (a magic catfish, a quantum fluctuation, Dr. Manhattan... take your pick), and thus that it is entirely possible that it could have been a natural cause, rather than a supernatural one. Given nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated to exist, the default probability indicates that a natural explanation is almost certainly the correct explanation.

3 ~ As an evolutionary biologist by vocation, the argument from design is one of my pet peeves, for certain... I am unaware of any single example of this allegation which is not explained infinitely better by natural principles than by supernatural propositions. Natural selection can produce organisms which appear designed, for sure, but the evidence overwhelmingly supports an entirely mechanistic, evolutionary process as the explanation for these alleged 'designs'.

4 ~ The moral argument, like the design argument, is blissfully ignorant of very basic natural principles; in both cases, evolutionary science is one of the primary fields called. The moral argument presumes that morality is something which must have originated with a mind, when, in fact, it is much more elegantly explained by emotion, and by basic social dynamics (i.e., tribes that don't murder their own members tend to last longer; people don't like having their possessions stolen, therefore it would be hypocritical of them to steal from others). There is no universally-accepted ethical principle which is not present and acted by non-human species, and which can very easily have arisen sheerly out of the process of natural selection.

Really, it's the fact that you seem to consider those to be the best arguments for the existence of god that makes people like me realize that there is no convincing evidence or reasoning behind the claims of theism.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Arbitran

[Order66]

1 ~ The ontological argument offers no evidence of any kind, and its logic is effectively obfuscation; deity existing as an idea does not necessitate its reality outside of the mind.

How do you know that the ideas in your mind do not represent the outside world?

Edited January 5, 2013 by Order66

[Arbitran]

How do you know that the ideas in your mind do not represent the outside world?

What evidence do you have that they do?

[Order66]

What evidence do you have that they do?

I don't offer evidence, I simply have faith in the proposition. If you don't offer evidence to support your claim to contrary, then your conclusion is based on faith also.

[Arbitran]

I don't offer evidence, I simply have faith in the proposition. If you don't offer evidence to support your claim to contrary, then your conclusion is based on faith also.

You appear to have only a very tenuous understanding of logic. You have faith; which is meaningless. I have made no 'claim', and I have based nothing on 'faith': I have simply rejected the faulty logic in the claim you made.

[Order66]

You appear to have only a very tenuous understanding of logic. You have faith; which is meaningless. I have made no 'claim', and I have based nothing on 'faith': I have simply rejected the faulty logic in the claim you made.

I didn't offer any logic to reject. You are using tools of the physical world to argue a spiritual claim. It is an exercise in futility. It's not really a matter of accepting or rejecting my claim, but rather a question of engaging in the discussion or not, to consider my spiritual claim something which can be scientifically debated. You're not obliged to engage the discussion of course. But if you do, you cannot expect the limited tools of your physical world to protect you when you wander so willingly into God's midst.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Order66

[Arbitran]

I didn't offer any logic to reject. You are using tools of the physical world to argue a spiritual claim. It is an exercise in futility. It's not really a matter of accepting or rejecting my claim, but rather a question of engaging in the discussion or not, to consider my spiritual claim something which can be scientifically debated. You're not obliged to engage the discussion of course. But if you do, you cannot expect the limited tools of your physical world to protect you when you wander so willingly into God's midst.

You have offered no convincing reason to think that anything "spiritual" has ever existed in the first place. It is you who are exercising a futile position, when you attempt to offer evidence, you are refuted, and then simply take all that back and say that 'evidence is futile'. You believe in fairy tales because you want to, because you have faith in them, because you want to; you may wish to sort our your reasoning skills, and your criteria for believing in things. I could believe in leprechauns if I wanted to, but it would be intellectually dishonest of me to try and convince someone else to believe in them, sheerly on the basis that I would have to conclude, in that scenario, that wanting to believe in something is just as good as believing in something because there's good reason to. You have nothing to contribute here; I suggest you think things out before you and your imaginary friend so willingly walk into the midst of human beings literate in science and reason.

[Order66]

You have offered no convincing reason to think that anything "spiritual" has ever existed in the first place. It is you who are exercising a futile position, when you attempt to offer evidence, you are refuted, and then simply take all that back and say that 'evidence is futile'. You believe in fairy tales because you want to, because you have faith in them, because you want to; you may wish to sort our your reasoning skills, and your criteria for believing in things. I could believe in leprechauns if I wanted to, but it would be intellectually dishonest of me to try and convince someone else to believe in them, sheerly on the basis that I would have to conclude, in that scenario, that wanting to believe in something is just as good as believing in something because there's good reason to. You have nothing to contribute here; I suggest you think things out before you and your imaginary friend so willingly walk into the midst of human beings literate in science and reason.

If you really believed all of that, you wouldn't even be engaging in this debate, don't you think? Why would it even be worth your time to address such a foolish question? It would be like debating whether or not the sky is blue. So what is it that draws you into the debate? What is it about the question of God that compels you to argue so fervently something which should be self-evident? Maybe deep down it is not me you are arguing with ...

[Lava_Lady]

If god is at the centre if religious people lives then logically it follows that unbelief replaces him with one self, it's not gonna be another deity is it? It's yourself who is god and becomes central in the universe. Ie individualism, atomism abd atheism!

RT _]

Most of the atheists I know do not replace "god" with anything. The general idea of religion is an explanation of our existence, ie the creator, the father, the universe.

Atheists don't believe that, they believe in logic, science, hard cold fact.

To put oneself in the center of existence or being ones own god is not a new thought, it's very metaphysical, earth oriented faith.

Religion is an organization of faith, grouped by specific beliefs that requires followers to accept something without evidence.

[Arbitran]

If you really believed all of that, you wouldn't even be engaging in this debate, don't you think? Why would it even be worth your time to address such a foolish question? It would be like debating whether or not the sky is blue. So what is it that draws you into the debate? What is it about the question of God that compels you to argue so fervently something which should be self-evident? Maybe deep down it is not me you are arguing with ...

First off, I'll thank you for the laugh you've just given me. Indeed, it is a foolish question; absurd. And it really is self-evident. But I am not so cold that I would deny one who asks an answer. You are, quite literally, having me go through the same procedure I went through with my grandson. The only difference? You speak of God, he spoke of Superman.

[The Silver Thong]

If you really believed all of that, you wouldn't even be engaging in this debate, don't you think? Why would it even be worth your time to address such a foolish question? It would be like debating whether or not the sky is blue. So what is it that draws you into the debate? What is it about the question of God that compels you to argue so fervently something which should be self-evident? Maybe deep down it is not me you are arguing with ...

, Because religion let alone a god has be proven wrong let alone a dog trainer in humanity and it`s morals. Deep down people don`t trust themselves so they can blaim others for there so called actions, Hence god. Won`t find an atheist blaiming god for killing will you. Do you not see the difference an atheist to kill does not need a god to tell him to do it or claime it. A killer atheists is just that a killer however done in

the name of any god it becomes what a lesser crime. The atheist was a killer and the the religious was doing gods will at least to those that kill. In the name of something like god verse there own private convictions.

Edited January 5, 2013 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

I`m an atheist and if I kill you i do it for a reason not a belief. Simple as that. Killing for a belief is like stamping your feet because Santa didn`t bring you the right gift. Religion what a gift god gave us, not.

[+Sherapy]

God is like those objects. Religion is how we relate to them. I know many adolescents for whom ther mobile phone is a religious item, to be venrated worshipped etc. Others make a cult of their computer via games, online pornography, or relationships; or even, dare i say it, forums like this one.

How and what we believe about each of those objects, and how we chose to relate to them, establishes the nature of the connection we have with them. I am an atheist when it comes to the use of mobile phones. I dont believe in using them, and I so I don't own or use one. To own one is often to become the slave or servant of one. I even turn my home phone off when i dont want to be bothered by callers.

Hmm an interesting way look at Atheism in relationship to mobile phones,e.g. something you do not believe in using. What is your reason for not believing in the use of mobile phones.

[+Sherapy]

Those who are interested in this aspect of the report may also be interested in the exisitng thread on the report as a whole,

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=239529

which also includes direct links to the report, and value-added query features hosted by Pew.

I had a look and read the link you provided and I have to say your point is well taken, that perhaps taking these studies with a grain of salt is a good thing to keep in mind.

I cannot tell you how many times I used to put Catholic on certain forms that asked, not because I was practicing/believer-- but because of perceived/conditioned societal/familial pressures. I have a Mormon friend who would hands down identify herself as Mormon on any public form, yet personally-- she is questioning how it is gonna fit-- to what degree it will identify her and her life.

Your question is a good one, how can we really know that the box that is marked is pure and unadulterated?

Edited January 6, 2013 by Sherapy

[Hawken]

Truth to the Bone.

[Order66]

I`m an atheist and if I kill you i do it for a reason not a belief. Simple as that. Killing for a belief is like stamping your feet because Santa didn`t bring you the right gift. Religion what a gift god gave us, not.

It's just semantics. It's all the same. It's cause and effect, your desire is manifest in your behavior. You've simply decided that your motivation is more valid or legitimate than that of another because you are more enlightened and wise and more awesome. Fair enough, duly noted. I'm afraid that as an uncanadian, my thoughts are shaped differently than yours( unCanada, third largest province in Canada )

Edited January 6, 2013 by Order66

[eight bits]

Hi, Sheri

I think something like this can only be seen as an estimate. Pew has credibility as being honest and neutral, and I think that they do the best they can.

But the best anybody can do on something like this is still pretty crude, as your examples illustrate.

[Carl203]

Well, not believing in something that is not there is um... Normal? So those without 'belief' are ok in my book. Also, how can the multitudes believe in something only purported to be true from their predecesors (parents, teachers, clerics) when there is no real fact of the existance of a 'god' creator. Writtings are man-made, edited by another man, and published and taught by yet more men. Why the undying faith in what is not there? Yet, with all the artifacts, ruins, unheard of constructions around the world that no man could possiblly create or manufacture gives only a 'theorist' catagory? Somewhere things are backwards in what should be the understandings of what is, and what is not. How long will we go before we as humans really look to our origins, rather than just go with status quo of a magician creator god?

Edited January 6, 2013 by Carl203

[Mr Walker]

So God has commonality with these things, but what separates God from my computer? When you refer to God, what unique feature are you referring to which distinguishes God from a computer? If the answer is nothing, then everyone has beliefs, in which case you aren't really arguing against anybody except yourself.

The point I was getting at is that saying 'my belief is defined by the fact that it's not a belief' is like saying that 'my humanity is defined by the fact that I'm not human'. It doesn't make sense. People will say 'my belief is not a belief' so that they can argue in the arena of religion, but escape the trappings of it when its convenient. It's a way to say my belief has some special status which makes it immune to the arguments you would stupid religious people would throw against each other.

All beliefs (ie those things not known) are of equal validity as beliefs. Belief in god /belief that god does not exist are beliefs formed in the same way, and based on the same lack of evidence (because if evidence existed beliefs could not logically be held.

So your phone has a factual existence and no one can argue that it exists or does not exist. But how people believe in the phone eg how significant /essential it is, or how it should be used, or how much can reasonably be spent on it, will differ.

But each belief is equally valid because each is based on personal values and world views.

God is physical like a computer, or a phone, or like you. But how people deal with you, or a computer, or a phone or god; what they believe about each of those things, and how important they are to an individual, is a belief-based opinion which varies from person to person.

[Mr Walker]

Hmm an interesting way look at Atheism in relationship to mobile phones,e.g. something you do not believe in using. What is your reason for not believing in the use of mobile phones.

There are many.

First a mobile phone, even more than a land line, tends to psycholgically dominate its owner. We never answer our home land line, but allow an answering machine to do so, then if the caller is worth responding to, we pick up.

But it also means we do not have to rush in from hanging up the washing, jump out of the shower or up from the tea table, etc just to answer a pavlovian ringtone.

Mobile phones are one worse. People can track you and call you at any time If you own a phone they seem to think they can call you any time and you will have to reply. Then there are the social implications for teenagers. We had two teenagers in hysterics at our house last night because of comments posted on facebook via mobile phones and comments overheard made from one daughter to a parent about the other daughter.

Of course it is the people who are the problem, not the technology, but the technology facilitates/exacerbates the problems.

I dont need a phone My wife has one, about 8 years old, which I take to town switched off. Before i come home, I check to see if she has left any messages, eg to add to the shopping list, visit someone, or bring someone home from the city to our place. But I lived all my life without a mobile phone. I make about 1 call a week on our land line to my mother to see how she is going.

Then there are the other add ons. A mobile phone has a camera which is generally misused or poorly used There are all sorts of electronic games and apps which reduce conversation and waste a person's time.

Since teenage girls got hold of mobile phones their reading has fallen away considerably and is now dropping down to the lower average abilty of boys, because they simply dont spend time reading anymore.

And finally they are basically anti social. When you are with someone you should give your time and energy to the person you are with, not spend hours talking to or texting, or face booking, on a mobile phone.

We get the girls to put theirs on the kitchen tabel when they go to bed so they wont stay awake all night using them and get tired and cranky but they would still spend an average of 10 hours a day or more on their phone during holiday periods and nearly as much during school time And that is about average for modern younger teenage girls . They cause huge problems and conflicts at school and in my opinon no student should be allowed to take a phone to school, or else have to keep it securely locked away and only use it in an emergency, under supervision.

Lastly, every phone sold in Australia must be purchased by an adult who must provide two forms of current ID. That annoys me as well. I dont posses a single phone, but nominally I own about 8 because I have signed up for ones for my great neices, who lose them, or drop them in a cup of coffee every month or two.

This week i signed up for 2 more. One for a 14 year old niece and one for a 12 year old. Both already had mobile phones but wanted to buy better ones with their christmas monies Being under 16 they cant legally buy one, so i had to do the paper work for both, providing IDs etc.

In 2009, this survey collected data on children's mobile phone ownership for the first time. It is estimated that 31% (841,400) of children had a mobile phone at the time of interview. A higher proportion of girls had a mobile phone (33%) compared with boys (29%). Older children were most likely to have a mobile phone (76% for 12 to 14 year olds), while amongst the youngest group (5 to 8 year olds) only 2% of children had a mobile phone. (Table 19)

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/4901.0~Apr+2009~Main+Features~Internet+use+and+mobile+phones?OpenDocument

This was 3 years ago. I suspect the percentages are even higher now.

Ps, in the UK ,75 % of children aged ten own a mobile phone, and their most commonly used site is facebook, despite people under 13 not legally being able to have a facebook account.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

There are many.

First a mobile phone, even more than a land line, tends to psycholgically dominate its owner. We never answer our home land line, but allow an answering machine to do so, then if the caller is worth responding to, we pick up.

But it also means we do not have to rush in from hanging up the washing, jump out of the shower or up from the tea table, etc just to answer a pavlovian ringtone.

Mobile phones are one worse. People can track you and call you at any time If you own a phone they seem to think they can call you any time and you will have to reply. Then there are the social implications for teenagers. We had two teenagers in hysterics at our house last night because of comments posted on facebook via mobile phones and comments overheard made from one daughter to a parent about the other daughter.

Of course it is the people who are the problem, not the technology, but the technology facilitates/exacerbates the problems.

I dont need a phone My wife has one, about 8 years old, which I take to town switched off. Before i come home, I check to see if she has left any messages, eg to add to the shopping list, visit someone, or bring someone home from the city to our place. But I lived all my life without a mobile phone. I make about 1 call a week on our land line to my mother to see how she is going.

Then there are the other add ons. A mobile phone has a camera which is generally misused or poorly used There are all sorts of electronic games and apps which reduce conversation and waste a person's time.

Since teenage girls got hold of mobile phones their reading has fallen away considerably and is now dropping down to the lower average abilty of boys, because they simply dont spend time reading anymore.

And finally they are basically anti social. When you are with someone you should give your time and energy to the person you are with, not spend hours talking to or texting, or face booking, on a mobile phone.

We get the girls to put theirs on the kitchen tabel when they go to bed so they wont stay awake all night using them and get tired and cranky but they would still spend an average of 10 hours a day or more on their phone during holiday periods and nearly as much during school time And that is about average for modern younger teenage girls . They cause huge problems and conflicts at school and in my opinon no student should be allowed to take a phone to school, or else have to keep it securely locked away and only use it in an emergency, under supervision.

Lastly, every phone sold in Australia must be purchased by an adult who must provide two forms of current ID. That annoys me as well. I dont posses a single phone, but nominally I own about 8 because I have signed up for ones for my great neices, who lose them, or drop them in a cup of coffee every month or two.

This week i signed up for 2 more. One for a 14 year old niece and one for a 12 year old. Both already had mobile phones but wanted to buy better ones with their christmas monies Being under 16 they cant legally buy one, so i had to do the paper work for both, providing IDs etc.

In 2009, this survey collected data on children's mobile phone ownership for the first time. It is estimated that 31% (841,400) of children had a mobile phone at the time of interview. A higher proportion of girls had a mobile phone (33%) compared with boys (29%). Older children were most likely to have a mobile phone (76% for 12 to 14 year olds), while amongst the youngest group (5 to 8 year olds) only 2% of children had a mobile phone. (Table 19)

http://www.abs.gov.a...es?OpenDocument

This was 3 years ago. I suspect the percentages are even higher now.

Ps, in the UK ,75 % of children aged ten own a mobile phone, and their most commonly used site is facebook, despite people under 13 not legally being able to have a facebook account.

Great post MW,

I am nine toes in on your concerns with cell/mobile phones; especially with kids involved one definitely would have to come up with rules for cell phones for the reasons you have outlined.

I share in your view that a cell phone is not a substitute for socialization, it serves only as an "in addition too" in my home, with very specific guidelines and a deep understanding of what socialization involves. (in truth I have not had any issues-- I am a stickler for putting a lot of thought into things ahead of time and discussing all the concerns with my kids.)

I did not shy away from cell phones or computers though because I think one can find value in most anything, cell phones and the computer have served as a educational tool for me to teach a lot of things, and to reinforce some things e.g. (correct spelling, how to disagree without ad homing, it nurtures curiosity and inquiry, the rule here is look it up. How to know and use credible sources etc.It also helps cultivate patience for a teen, they are learning self control, texting gives them time to think before reacting/acting, it also offers a way to practice small talk a necessary component of socialization.I think conflict resolution is a great skill and let me tell you teens can get a lot of practice working things out via text. Teens brains are just maturing and they go through an awkward phase when they are forming identity (see Erickson's Psychosocial Theory of Development.) and I do think social media if used positively can help in some aspects of this transition.For me, as a parent it is fun to come up with ways to help kids my mature/explore using the tools that define our culture. Lastly, I appreciate and value technology so I take the time to pass this on to my brood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson%27s_stages_of_psychosocial_development

Edited January 7, 2013 by Sherapy