Why Atheism?

[Kamietsu]

Hence, it's a simple analogy. In the case of the analogy you're right - I would probably be a non believer too.

As to it being a random person, that is entirely wrong. Yes, it could be that homeless guy you saw on the street yesterday that asked you for money (God was giving you a chance to donate to the needy), or maybe it's your next-door neighbor inviting you to a musical at Church. God is working through all of them .

So God is a user and addicted to humans. He needs and intervention. You know, provided God actually exists and christians aren't just into self delusion.

[Boingo]

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief.

"The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true."

/Off topic:  there is no agreement about that "justification" clause. 

Knowledge = 3 conditions
1. Belief (A person must believe X to be said to know X.)
2. Truth (X must be true.)
3. Something something something.

Obviously this last part is important, it's just hard to nail down.  In your "justification" clause, you put a higher burden and a peculiar burden on knowing than you would on any other action or state of being such as seeing, hearing, tasting, etc.  "Justification" would mean that you have to "know that you know" in order to know something.  But you would never require someone to "see that they see" or "taste that they taste" in order to be said to see or taste.

As an example, I think I can safely say that I know that Julius Caesar was a man.  Do I have some sort of evidence for this?  Do I have to construct some chain of evidence from the time he lived to the time I first heard about him in order to safely say I "know" anything about him?  If I cannot, does that mean I don't know it?

/back to the regularly scheduled why atheism thread...

[Boingo]

IMO, every non-atheist human being has hi/her own God.

Sorry, couldn't help but think of this:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1480596

[Bloodshadow]

Okay, it's 10:30 PM at night, I should be doing my homework, and yet I am posting here...

I'm not going to read through all four pages, but I do have a few thoughts about life, consciousness, and existence.

How do you define life? How do you define consciousness? How do you define being alive?

To me, the human psyche is merely an unimaginably complex computer program running an infinite loop, until the hardware the program runs on (your body) fails, at which point the program is terminated, and you are dead. This program is able to take in input, such as the image of a tiger; then it gives output, telling you it's dangerous and run for your life. The human consciousness is simply an infinite loop of taking inputs, processing information, producing outputs, then repeat; it's nothing but a program. Death is simply the termination of the program due to hardware failure, so there is no logical place after death. Technically, "you" don't truly exist, because your thoughts are simply the program's inputs, calculations, and outputs. If there is one thing that defines your identity, it is the structure of how information is processed in your program; for each person the processes are different, because each person reacts differently in one situation (e.g. one person might panic when he sees a tiger, while another might stay perfectly calm). Thus, souls don't exist, because software cannot exist without hardware.

And I've often thought about the meaning of life, and the ultimate value behind the existence of consciousness and life forms. I tried, and I couldn't figure it out. So I decided to stop caring and live in ignorance... for now.

[Artois]

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief.

"The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true."

/Off topic:  there is no agreement about that "justification" clause. 

Knowledge = 3 conditions
1. Belief (A person must believe X to be said to know X.)
2. Truth (X must be true.)
3. Something something something.

Obviously this last part is important, it's just hard to nail down.  In your "justification" clause, you put a higher burden and a peculiar burden on knowing than you would on any other action or state of being such as seeing, hearing, tasting, etc.  "Justification" would mean that you have to "know that you know" in order to know something.  But you would never require someone to "see that they see" or "taste that they taste" in order to be said to see or taste.

As an example, I think I can safely say that I know that Julius Caesar was a man.  Do I have some sort of evidence for this?  Do I have to construct some chain of evidence from the time he lived to the time I first heard about him in order to safely say I "know" anything about him?  If I cannot, does that mean I don't know it?

/back to the regularly scheduled why atheism thread...

How do you know Julius Ceaser existed?

Is it the evidence left behind, and subsequently collated and studied that give you the impression that he existed?  It would seem there is enough evidence of his existence to make a justifiable statement that he once was upon this earth.

What is justifiable?  Any knowledge requires some evidence to show that it is true.  The evidence can be put up with the theory, disected, discussed, and sometiimes rejected.

A 'knowledge' that produces no eveidence, and is a belief that is still firmly held could be classed as a delusion... and religious belief does appear to meet that criteria.

[Scaredgirl]

Oh and again, it's called believing not knowing. I believe that my God is the right one and that the religion of the smelly shoe is the wrong one. My belief. Doesn't have to be yours.

Yes, but aren't you worried that you picked the wrong religion? Actually in this case (like in most cases) I'm guessing you didn't even choose Christianity yourself. It is the chosen religion of your parents, and their parents, and their parents.. etc. Having a specific religion is generally not your choosing, you were born into it, which means that if you were born in some other part of the world, you would most likely believe in some other God.

With so many religions, having the correct one is almost like winning in the lottery. I don't think that there will be any kind of "final judgement" after I die, but if there is, I'd much rather face the "Turtle God" (yeah, it was the Turtle God) as an atheist then as a member of an opposing religion, who will most likely have a special place in Turtle God's Hell.

[Artois]

Scared Girl has made a valid point.  If 'belief' is a free choice, why is it that over 90% of believers follow the belief they were bought up with ie. the same as their parents?

Is it belief, or is it indoctrination...

[Boingo]

How do you know Julius Ceaser existed?

Is it the evidence left behind, and subsequently collated and studied that give you the impression that he existed?  It would seem there is enough evidence of his existence to make a justifiable statement that he once was upon this earth.

In a nutshell, what you've argued here is that I have a good chance of being right that Julius Caesar existed (and was a man) because a lot of other people have previously claimed he existed through their writings, study and teachings.  That is, I can know Julius Caesar was a man because for centuries people have passed this belief along.  And people would never lie or mislead or make mistakes about that kind of thing.  Unless you're making an argument for solipsism, you need to grant that the state of knowing is not the same as being aware of the knowledge or the ability to prove it is true.

What is justifiable?  Any knowledge requires some evidence to show that it is true. 

I think you are confusing knowing something and knowing that you know it.  You have to separate a) the state of knowledge from b) the ability to prove that the belief is true and has its truth has some special relationship with the belief.

[Jangoo]

Why Atheism?

Humans like to be right. They like to be in charge. They like to have their puny little world in order.

Two responses to those demands are:

 Religion + Atheism

Both provide a belief system upon which the human can found his identity. Defending/ Promoting this belief-system against outsiders provides an excellent opportunity to be right.
Both provide or imply a variety of "commandments" that empower the human to be in charge.
Both describe a world-order in which the human can position himself and thus doesn't have to fear insecurity.

Also, both represent an irrational choice because neither the existence nor the non-existence of a divine being can be proven.
Is rationality important here? I don't think so, unless of course the respective human simply wishes to come back on his fundamental needs to be right, in charge and orderly.
For the true religious/atheist believer, simply living ones faith outside of a domain of reason should be the only way to go, since faith does indeed require no proof.*

If people from both camps were to take their "reasonable" stance more seriously, for most of them the question would arise:

Why not agnosticism?



* "no reason" does not imply that consequent actions shouldn't be within reasonable judicious range.

[Artois]

Lol, jangoo... agnoticism is a very profound, and deeply soothing choice.

Agnosticism - there is no god as far as I can see, however I like to keep an open mind and accept that the realms of scientific endevour are not far enough established to prove or disprove the existence of a divine being.  Sounds appealing?

Then again, a rational mind would wonder further, where did God come from?  Why am I debating the existance of God?  What exactly IS God?  Uh-oh... the can is open, I can't make the leap of faith, I'm a non-believer, I have doubts... I've tasted from the tree of knowledge and been thrown out of the garden of eden.

Why would God exist?

[CB!]

What? Contradicting much? How can someone be perfect yet created from sin? Regardless of the things that happened next, you said right there, Lucifer was perfect. Then he became not perfect. Perfect things aren't supposed to be able to be corrupted, hence why they are perfect.

Just because something is perfect, doesn't mean it cannot fall from perfection.  Perfection (in God's eyes) is the absence of sin.  The temptation for Lucifer to be like God was not the sin, and had he resisted the temptation he would still be perfect.  Same thing with Adam and Eve, according to the Bible.  They were perfect until they gave in to temptation and sinned.

[Artois]

What? Contradicting much? How can someone be perfect yet created from sin? Regardless of the things that happened next, you said right there, Lucifer was perfect. Then he became not perfect. Perfect things aren't supposed to be able to be corrupted, hence why they are perfect.

Just because something is perfect, doesn't mean it cannot fall from perfection.  Perfection (in God's eyes) is the absence of sin.  The temptation for Lucifer to be like God was not the sin, and had he resisted the temptation he would still be perfect.  Same thing with Adam and Eve, according to the Bible.  They were perfect until they gave in to temptation and sinned.

Is God perfect?  the Egyptians, Caananites, and all the poor innocent babies drowned in the flood might think he is a bit harsh & maybe just a tiny bit unfair, don't you think?