A question to atheists

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So, in essence, evolution gave us this coping mechanism. Interesting.

I suppose you could look at it that way, but this isn't something I would claim.

-JC

Originally posted by Halitose
Careful. You're treading towards aflyingspaghettimonsterism!

Yes, but this would be because I'm committed to the exclusive claim of Christianity -- I would not be arguing from the absence of proof, but rather use the theistic "proofs" of Christianity to end up excluding the FSM by the law of non-contradiction.

I thought earlier you said only that it was "highly unlikely" there was no FSM?

You can of think of other examples (e.g. is there a live blue whale buried in your back garden?) where absence of proof IS the issue and which do not conflict with your world view. I guess in such cases you would be prepared to state a belief that something does not exist. An atheist could claim such cases are (very roughly) analogous. You see the point, at least.

If someone says: "I believe in God; I consider his existence to be extremely likely, but I accept it cannot be proven", are they too an agnostic?

Originally posted by dottewell
I thought earlier you said only that it was "highly unlikely" there was no FSM?

You can of think of other examples (e.g. is there a live blue whale buried in your back garden?) where absence of proof IS the issue and which do not conflict with your world view. I guess in such cases you would be prepared to state a belief that something does not e ...[text shortened]... istence to be extremely likely, but I accept it cannot be proven", are they too an agnostic?

I thought earlier you said only that it was "highly unlikely" there was no FSM?

Christian "proofs" are at best "highly likely" making the converse ---

You see the point, at least.

Sure.

If someone says: "I believe in God; I consider his existence to be extremely likely, but I accept it cannot be proven", are they too an agnostic?

In my opinion it would be leaning towards theistic-agnosticism.

Atheistic-agnosticism would be an acceptable position IMO.


agnosticism, n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]I thought earlier you said only that it was "highly unlikely" there was no FSM?

Christian "proofs" are at best "highly likely" making the converse ---

You see the point, at least.

Sure.

If someone says: "I believe in God; I consider his existence to be extremely likely, but I accept it cannot be proven", are they too an agnosti ...[text shortened]... belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.[/i]

[/b]Is anybody NOT an agnostic, by your definition?

Originally posted by dottewell
Is anybody NOT an agnostic, by your definition?[/b]

I submit that a verdict can be reached if the definition(s) of God are sufficiently qualified and a sufficient amount of evidence has been perused. Obviously it would not be a mathematical proof, but in which other field can one prove anything with 100% certainty.

My view is that purely the absence of evidence does not infer sufficient certainty.

Of course the easy way is to have a "spiritual experience", let your emotions override reason and pick a God by means of elimination. QED.

Originally posted by Churlant
I suppose you could look at it that way, but this isn't something I would claim.

-JC

Well, the first one-word sentence you offered was "Survival," was it not? What did you mean by that, if not what I have surmised?

I do not believe in an afterlife. The idea that when you die, your consciousness just ceases to exist seems far more parsimonious.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
I do not believe in an afterlife. The idea that when you die, your consciousness just ceases to exist seems far more parsimonious.

I'd rather spend the extra effort and have an afterlife, myself!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, the first one-word sentence you offered was "Survival," was it not? What did you mean by that, if not what I have surmised?

Fear of death is part of survival. Our invention of the after-life is not. I'm not one to categorize every aspect of human psychology as an evolved trait, though you could think of it that way without being entirely incorrect. I would place it more within the realm of cultural evolution, since not all societies believe(d) in life after death.

-JC

Originally posted by Conrau K
Do you reject the afterlife?

I suppose if you are a true sceptic you would. But if you just hate religion then there is no necessity to repudiate an afterlife.

When you're dead you're gone...pfft.


I'm not a sceptic nor do I hate religion.

Originally posted by Churlant
Fear of death is part of survival. Our invention of the after-life is not. I'm not one to categorize every aspect of human psychology as an evolved trait, though you could think of it that way without being entirely incorrect. I would place it more within the realm of cultural evolution, since not all societies believe(d) in life after death.

-JC

I'm not afraid of dying. Why should I be. Its a constant companion, part of the human condition

Originally posted by Churlant
Fear of death is part of survival. Our invention of the after-life is not. I'm not one to categorize every aspect of human psychology as an evolved trait, though you could think of it that way without being entirely incorrect. I would place it more within the realm of cultural evolution, since not all societies believe(d) in life after death.

-JC

I think the concept of the afterlife is useful for human survival, actually, or at least has been in the past. It gives people the courage to do things like help others or fight until death; things which make a society stronger.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think the concept of the afterlife is useful for human survival, actually, or at least has been in the past. It gives people the courage to do things like help others or fight until death; things which make a society stronger.

Depends on the person. I would suggest fighting for other people (family, village, etc) is more a motivation than having a lesser fear of death due to a belief in an afterlife.

Marines, as an example, will return to the battlefield because they maintain an intense loyalty for fellow soldiers, despite a fear of death.

-JC

Originally posted by Halitose
I submit that a verdict can be reached if the definition(s) of God are sufficiently qualified and a sufficient amount of evidence has been perused. Obviously it would not be a mathematical proof, but in which other field can one prove anything with 100% certainty.

My view is that purely the absence of evidence does not infer sufficient certainty.

O al experience", let your emotions override reason and pick a God by means of elimination. QED.

Hmm... I'm a bit confused. First you said "Christian" proofs were at best "highly likely" (to be sound, I guess?); I asked if someone who had concluded the existence of God was "extremely likely" would be an agnostic, and you said they would be a kind of theistic-agnostic(?)

How qualified does the definition of God need to be? Most of what you call "Christian" proofs are (I guess) not tied to a Christian conception of God. I'm also guessing some of them are traditional arguments which don't really lend themselves to a probabilistic interpretation; they are either valid or invalid. Their premises are either true or false.

Are they really "proofs" or are they better termed "arguments"?

As you correctly point out, demanding 100 per cent certainty in most fields is a completely bogus demand. But it seems you are trying to have your cake and eat it. Many atheists would claim only that, having perused the available evidence, they can be convinced enough to say they believe that God doesn't exist.

I accept that you think they are wrong on this point; but that is not the same as saying their belief is not reasonably held, at that time. It is of course open to you to persuade them they are wrong.

Originally posted by Churlant
Fear of death is part of survival. Our invention of the after-life is not. I'm not one to categorize every aspect of human psychology as an evolved trait, though you could think of it that way without being entirely incorrect. I would place it more within the realm of cultural evolution, since not all societies believe(d) in life after death.

-JC

Let's explore this a little further, shall we? While I don't disagree that fear is a primal force in resistance to the untimely (or maybe inconvenient) termination of physical existence, is it possible that there exists something even more basic than fear?

Also, while you may not categorize every aspect as an evolved trait, owing to the universality of certain traits, surely consistency demands that all such drives be necessarily agent-driven. That being said, why would evolution produce such an antithetical, counter-intuitive emotional outburst, especially in light of those groups which (supposedly) do not adhere to any afterlife scenarios?