Religion

[Mao]

To not believe a religion is as much gamble as believing in a religion.

thats not true! you are ignoring the probabilities of the two scenarios, and they are very important. the chances are not 50%.

it is not evidence we are talking about here. the existence (or non existence) of god is disprovable by evidence, as you clearly know. but one cannot hypothesise an enormously complex being (god) as an explanation to improbability, as its existence would itself be even more unlikely, to pretty much infinity, to the point where his existence would require an even bigger explanation than the one we set out to find!

i'm done here. GNIGHT ALL

nono, still missing something: if God does exist, then God is the a priori, God does not require a cause. If the cause of God can be explained, then he will merely be a natural force.

at this point, we again stand on very different points - I think that the metaphysical God cannot be proven nor disproven by materialistic evidence.

[and I do not understand your first line... I never claimed it was 50-50]

Lol, at the topic. We've subconsciously diverted from the racist topic, which is a good thing. Mao, if you accept my definition of atheism, at least, you recognised that only the 'strongest' atheists are taking a leap of faith. The majority of them that believe that a deity is improbable (not impossible) are not taking a leap of faith, but judging based on logic. They are not doing so because other people do, or they are told to but because they have reasoned the unlikelihood of a god/s existing.

no, I do not accept your definition. I think most of what you think that is 'atheism' is in fact 'agnoticism'.

and I question the highlighted text, that such reasoning may be wrong. Evidence and reasoning may suggest that God(s) as religion(s) assert is highly improbable. but beyond that, there are no evidence that suggest either ways about the existence of a higher being. I cannot see how there are such logic, though I accept if there are higher beings, they are probably very different from the way religions describe them.

[sxcalexc]

But when most people are inducted into a religion they are not conscious of the implications this has. Most people are born into religion and inherit it. To become an atheist would be to detach oneself from their already sustained beliefs for a logical reason. I myself was born into a Christian (Greek-Ortho) family and went through my entire schooling life under catholic schools. I had to use reasoning to become an atheist. Yes, similarly, one can use reasoning to maintain such an upbringing, however, this requires a leap of faith as to subscribe to a religion actively supports the unproven idea of a higher power. The onus is on the religious to prove their belief-system not on the non-religious to prove that the religious are wrong.

[excal]

The onus is on the religious to prove their belief-system not on the non-religious to prove that the religious are wrong.

Says who?

[BrooklynZoo]

mao u are deeply confused by the term athiesm, and you continue to persue its corrupted defintion. 

[bturville]

[and I do not understand your first line... I never claimed it was 50-50]

...isn't that what you are saying here:

To not believe a religion is as much gamble as believing in a religion.

at this point, we again stand on very different points - I think that the metaphysical God cannot be proven nor disproven by materialistic evidence.

Actually we both agree on that point, god cannot be proved nor disproved by evidence. However if i propose that there is a 10 metre tall pedobear living on a planet 500 light years away (outside the reach of science), there is no way to prove that by evidence. Does this mean that we should take it seriously, and how would it be any less likely than any god?

if God does exist, then God is the a priori, God does not require a cause.

is that even a valid argument?

[sxcalexc]

The onus is on the religious to prove their belief-system not on the non-religious to prove that the religious are wrong.

Says who?

Well if I was to tell you that there was a flying tooth fairy in outer space would you ask me for some proof or would you just believe it? Sorry to be so crude, but it's an effective analogy. Oooh, I just read bturville's ten metre tall pedobear analogy  , you can take your pick.

[bturville]

The onus is on the religious to prove their belief-system not on the non-religious to prove that the religious are wrong.

Says who?

Surely the person putting forth the claim should be the one required to substantiate it. It should not need to be disproved if there is no evidence for it in the first place.

[sxcalexc]

The onus is on the religious to prove their belief-system not on the non-religious to prove that the religious are wrong.

Says who?

Surely the person putting forth the claim should be the one required to substantiate it. It should not need to be disproved if there is no evidence for it in the first place.

Bingo.

[excal]

The onus is on the religious to prove their belief-system not on the non-religious to prove that the religious are wrong.

Says who?

Surely the person putting forth the claim should be the one required to substantiate it. It should not need to be disproved if there is no evidence for it in the first place.

And the stance 'there is no higher deity' (cf. I'm not sure / have no opinion if there is or is not a higher deity - agnosticism) is not a claim in itself?

[bturville]

The onus is on the religious to prove their belief-system not on the non-religious to prove that the religious are wrong.

Says who?

Surely the person putting forth the claim should be the one required to substantiate it. It should not need to be disproved if there is no evidence for it in the first place.

And the stance 'there is no higher deity' (cf. I'm not sure / have no opinion if there is or is not a higher deity - agnosticism) is not a claim in itself?

But it is the norm for the affirmative side to justify it.

In the legal world also;
"ONUS PROBANDI, evidence. The burden of the proof.
     2. It is a general rule, that the party who alleges the affirmative of any proposition shall prove it."

Atheists did not initially assert that God doesn't exist, they simply reject the assertion that he does. The side who's position is the least open to disproof should carry the burden of proof, one would usually accept. "You can't disprove it so it must be true" is a weak logical defence, and it is not helpful to assume it, so why do it? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Religion)

[orsel]

While it is true that the hypotheses are evidenced by the presence, or lack whereof, of atheism as a 'belief' or 'leap of faith' by bturville & Mao et al, it must be considered that the possibility of 'higher deities' or beings rests on the contradistinction between "Muslims" vs "Sharpness".

If we are to take the probability distribution of 'Muslim' vs 'Sharpness' on the x-y plane, there is a strong supposition that, tending to infinity, 'Sharpness' and 'Muslim' never coincide. With respect to Fischh's Law, this makes perfect sense with relation to the debate in this thread.

However, it must be kept in mind that the posit of atheism as paradigm is not univariate. To take the example of the 'leap of faith'; how far is this 'leap'? Is it a small hop or is it a running jump? To confirm the hypothesis of atheism as religion, it must be ascertained whether or not such a 'leap' is sufficient to reach the aforementioned "10 metre tall pedobear" on its planet. Whether 500 light years is too far for the reach of science is irrelevant in this case, as the 'leap' is both metaphorical and physiological.

To find a universally accepted conclusion to this debate, the above questions must first be answered.

[bturville]

While it is true that the hypotheses are evidenced by the presence, or lack whereof, of atheism as a 'belief' or 'leap of faith' by bturville & Mao et al, it must be considered that the possibility of 'higher deities' or beings rests on the contradistinction between "Muslims" vs "Sharpness".

If we are to take the probability distribution of 'Muslim' vs 'Sharpness' on the x-y plane, there is a strong supposition that, tending to infinity, 'Sharpness' and 'Muslim' never coincide. With respect to Fischh's Law, this makes perfect sense with relation to the debate in this thread.

However, it must be kept in mind that the posit of atheism as paradigm is not univariate. To take the example of the 'leap of faith'; how far is this 'leap'? Is it a small hop or is it a running jump? To confirm the hypothesis of atheism as religion, it must be ascertained whether or not such a 'leap' is sufficient to reach the aforementioned "10 metre tall pedobear" on its planet. Whether 500 light years is too far for the reach of science is irrelevant in this case, as the 'leap' is both metaphorical and physiological.

To find a universally accepted conclusion to this debate, the above questions must first be answered.

touché sir.

[excal]

The way I see it, I see atheism to be the negative against the religious (of any faith) affirmative in an (eternal) debate. Note that I did not say that atheism is a religion - far from it. Both sides believe / contend that their point of view is the correct one.

But it is the norm for the affirmative side to justify it.

It's also the norm for the negative to refute the affirmative, as you say, but also put forward their contention and evidence to support it rather than statements that do not have any (easily found, to be honest) support. 

You'll find that both sides of an argument will ask each other to back up their statements with proof, regardless of stance.

Atheists did not initially assert that God doesn't exist, they simply reject the assertion that he does.

Irrelevant. This is like the chicken or the egg.

The side who's position is the least open to disproof should carry the burden of proof, one would usually accept.

And what happens when there's no agreement on what's accepted (bolded for effect)?



For the record, I'm am in agreement with sxcalexc et al's contentions. I'm just poking at the approach of the argument itself.

[bturville]

It's also the norm for the negative to refute the affirmative, as you say, but also put forward their contention and evidence to support it rather than statements that do not have any (easily found, to be honest) support. 

You'll find that both sides of an argument will ask each other to back up their statements with proof, regardless of stance.

Like Mao said, the arguments in this thread are generally a priori, so there is no 'evidence' per se for the arguments set out here to prove or disprove them. It is reasoning and theoretical deduction that the arguments are made. The contentions and support are not evidence based for the examples here as they are primarily theoretical, but they can be for many other 'god' based arguments.

Because of getting caught up with the 'evidence' side, I think it is being assumed that evidence is the only factor in forming an opinion.

For the record, I'm am in agreement with sxcalexc et al's contentions. I'm just poking at the approach of the argument itself.

No worries, the underlying faith contentions don't really matter....we are all just poking at arguments

[ATyler]

the judgment is not whether a god exists or does not, but whether their is any good reason to believe in a god or disbelieve. The initial notion of a god, a 'creator', was a notion formed in the childhood of our species, when individuals had no better explanation for the events around them, as our species world view has progressed, through scientific method, we have come to understand these phenomenon without the need to assert 'a supernatural god'. Sure, there are many things we do not understand, and most likely never will, but simply asserting a 'supernatural god' as explanation, not only explains precisely nothing, but is without ANY supporting evidence. Everyone, nowadays, is an atheist in relation to Zeus, Baal, Ra, Fairies, etc...however we do not require a word to describe this view, it is simply absurd, and the abrahamic religions are no different; perhaps a little more effective in their continuation of dogmas, however they will to soon vanish.

The way I see it, I see atheism to be the negative against the religious (of any faith) affirmative in an (eternal) debate. Note that I did not say that atheism is a religion - far from it. Both sides believe / contend that their point of view is the correct one.

But it is the norm for the affirmative side to justify it.

It's also the norm for the negative to refute the affirmative, as you say, but also put forward their contention and evidence to support it rather than statements that do not have any (easily found, to be honest) support. 

You'll find that both sides of an argument will ask each other to back up their statements with proof, regardless of stance.

Atheists did not initially assert that God doesn't exist, they simply reject the assertion that he does.

Irrelevant. This is like the chicken or the egg.

Sorry you are wrong. If i assert that Elvis is alive, and someone asked "why do you think that'?" would it be okay for me to say "oh, You asserted Elvis does not exist, u know its a chiken and egg thing, it doesnt matter, believe that Elvis does not exist is just as superstitous, blah, blah" ? No it wouldn't be, however if we change place this in a religous context, your rational critique is bypassed by your indoctrinated bias; all those nights when daddy belted you with that bible.

I feel deeply embarrassed and sorry for those who hold a belief in supernatural daddies, mabye if you lived before the 18th century i could empathize, however its the 21st century...and its simply shameful.