h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thank you for agreeing, ADG, but I think that either I've been expressing myself poorly, or you didn't understand me well.

For me the question is not if we can prove god's existence. The only problem that I can see is: there is absolutely no proof of his existence. And the only possible evidence that we *do* find, seems to show that he does NOT exist.

I simply know for sure that he can't exist! I just was uncertain what that made me. Now, thanks to a set of clear definitions as given by bluDragon in the thread 'Definitions', I can clearly say that I'm an atheist.

I could never have said it like that. PERFECT!

I haven't checked out blu's comments yet... I'm on my way there now. I always clarify things by saying "I'm an atheist according to the Western idea of the term", meaning that I don't believe in an all-seeing, all-knowing God who cares, but I DO believe there are powers in the Universe that I don't understand.

Mr. Cynic, you said something quite lovely about me respecting all beliefs. That is, unfortunately, not entirely true, but it is much more true now than it was even a few years ago. I'm nearly 30, I started questioning my Catholic background when I was 6. I've had a good long time to move past my anger, fear, annoyance, etc, and learn to just live how I feel I should. But we're all different in this respect. I'm blessed with having parents who, while strongly Catholic, never forced anything on me (or anyone else for that matter.) Therefore I've had the good fortune of seeing close-up two adults who have faith, yet also respect the beliefs of others. It's made a big difference.

Daft Geordie - I did take a logical view. There is not just one logical way to take. I basically DO state that it is very unlikely that God exists. Like many things we face, the theory of God is one that cannot be solved. It is impossible to disprove God - that's the problem. Therefore there are three stands one can take:
1) Believe in God and take it from there. If he doesn't exist then he doesn't exist. God exists.
2) Not deny the idea of God as you cannot disprove or prove God's existance. God may exist.
3) God was a fictional character made up in order to control the masses. God never existed. There is no way to prove this. God does not exist.

The general idea in this forum is that the existance of God cannot be proved or disproved. I totally agree. But until that time that we will cease to be, we will never know if God exists. Now, for some unknown reason I have these things called curiosity and ambition. I yearn for knowledge. I do not believe in atheism with 'faith'. Through my knowledge of the bible, how people think and how people thought, it made sense to me (after lots of thinking) that God was just made up to scare people into belief. Fear is a very powerful emotion. I cannot prove that it is the case that God is just a way to get obedience. But I am convinced it is so. And I do not say that "it is impossible" that God exists but that I am convinced that he doesn't exist.
You say that my beliefs seem to be reactionary - but reactionary to what? Being forced to believe in God? - nope. Being told fictional stories about Heaven? - nope. I admit to be cynical and slightly bitter (and very intelligent ) but I am not atheist because of betrayal or an "empty promise". I am atheist because I think it is the truth. I am convinced there is no God. And I do not deny the existence of God. How can I deny his existence if I don't think he exists? .
Now take your little conclusion and replace God with Easter Bunny:
'To sum up this little heap of thoughts, the leap of faith required to believe in the Easter Bunny, from insufficient evidence, is no different to the leap in faith required to believe in no Easter Bunny.'
So what if there is no evidence to disprove the Easter Bunny? Does this mean you will not dismiss its existance? If so then your agnosticism is rightful .

Now, 26199 - I totally agree. However, I would be satisfied with what I percieve as logic - evidence isn't absolutely necessary but it would help .

I'm sorry.

I read this from your post:

"After going through a stage of agnosticism, I decided 'there is no God. I do not believe a God exists'.

I saw this as a firm belief that god does not exist, a conviction. Something that can't be proved, rather than dismissing the existence of god.

I'm guilty of scanning through this lot too quickly, and not looking at everything that was written. I've shown up my daftness.

Many of the people I know who have clearly defined beliefs (as in one based on either with or without logic) are either strict christians, or determined atheists. In my experience these atheists have based their belief not on pure logic, but purely as a reaction to the failure of god to sort everything out for them, so they turn against god by turning against him/it/her. When I want to discuss beliefs with them, it's pretty difficult since neither groups base their beliefs on logic, but are stubborn, so I don't really get a good chance to air my views.

With this on my mind, I rushed in with that post.

I have to complement everyone on some very clear, balanced philosophising. It is a pleasure to read.

Hey a daft geordie,

You're having a good point there. Sometimes it's hard to make out what kind of atheist you're dealing with. Some atheists are just as illogical (or maybe non-logical) as any believer.

I'm confused. Was that a serious apology or were you mocking me?
If it was a serious apology then it isn't necessary. I find it very hard to express what I belief/know/think/am convinced of/have faith in when to do with religion as the choice of words can give the wrong idea. You may like to see the Definitions? forum. Because by saying "belief" I may be giving the wrong idea I am left with no word to use safely. When I said "I do not believe a God exists" I did not mean that I made a decision just because I was fed up. It means after many long postings and many debates I decided that instead of stating that I am unsure of the existance of God, I will state that there is no God. God does not exist. It is up to you if you classify that as a belief or as a faith or religion or whatever you want to call it. But I am convinced it is the truth yet am open to argument against it.

Mr. Cynic, it sounds to me like the apology was sincere.

As for atheists:

First, I don't entirely believe that God was "made up." I think that people, desperate for answers to questions they couldn't answer, and phenomenon which they could not explain, "came up" with the idea of God as an explanation. It was an answer to the need of people to know "why" things happened. Later, religion came to be manipulated by rulers as a way to control the masses, true. But I don't feel that the original purpose was deception.

Think of it this way. Have you ever used an analogy to try to explain something to someone? I think of religions as a sort of grand analogy to explain, well, life, the universe, and everything.

As for atheists being bitter and cynical, I DID go through a brief period when I was both. Not only did God not live up to the promises made of him, but no one (such as my priest) could answer basic questions about some obvious contradictions in the basic tenets of my faith. But I was angry and cynical in much the way a child is when they learn there is no Santa Claus; in terms of my development, the anger and cynicism was brief indeed, and has long since been forgotten (until someone just brought it up.)

As an atheist, I am actually slightly offended by the statement that atheist's do not belive in God. While this is true, it is not the whole story. The word 'God' has far too strong links with the world in which we live. 'God' refers to the 'Heavenly Father'. An atheist not only doesn't believe in God, he/she doesn't believe in any higher being or religion.

What I mean by this is simple. Budhists do not believe in God. This does not make them atheists. They have a faith, and a religion.

I also dislike people refering to spirituality as a distinct subject, separate from religion. The word Spirituality come from the word spirit, which as we all know means the idea that a human cannot simply be defined by physical processes. This is not an atheist view, and therefore spirituality as a concept is a religious one.

What many call spirituality, for example meditation, deep relaxation and even beauty, are considered by an atheist to be non-spiritual, simply a reaction of the human brain to different stimuli.

Hmm. I respect your ideas, but I beg to differ. A Buddhist would not call himself (or herself) an "atheist" because he is not immersed in a culture which believes in one God, creator of all that is seen and unseen. By definition, an atheist is "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods." No mention is made of lack of spirituality. And, in fact, one can believe that living things possess souls, without believing there is a divine purpose involved. I, for one, believe that the energies of the universe cannot currently be explained by modern science (though that is not to say they may not one day). Yet I am, technically, an atheist.

One could quite easily be a practicing Taoist and still be an atheist. BluDragon is a Wiccan, and she considers herself an atheist. Someone could conceivable believe in reincarnation, seances, witchcraft, foretelling the future, and a host of other things without believing a sentient being is behind it all. All of these things could easily be part of the natural world, simply energies which we haven't fully come to understand at this time.

The word spiritual means "of the human spirit or soul, not physical or worldy." Energy is not physical. It can be, but does not have to be, worldly (if one defines "world" as "Earth.") Connecting to the body's energy patterns through meditation is a spiritual act. That does not make it divine. There is a difference, I think.

I must say that I agree with billypilgrim. The concept of 'spirituality' does not require a belief in a conscious creative and directing force to the universe.

It is entirely possible to conjecture about a different form of existence after the death of the physical body, or awareness of forces outside of our physical universe. This does not mean that these forces were created by some conscious power, any more that it means that the physical world was created by a conscious power.

In one of these threads [I have totally lost track of who said what in which one] I commented on belief in afterlife/reincarnation not being tied to a conscious power, either.

'there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy' [or somethin' like that]

}:=8

PS now dont get on my case cause I quoted something with the word 'heaven' in it. there is no deep psychological meaning here. I just thought the quote reflected what I was getting at. Good ole Shakespeare.

Like our Majestic dragon-lady, I do agree with billypilgrim. And for much the same reasons too. I know which thread blu is getting at, regarding the afterlife issue, as I've been there too.

I'm convinced that none of this is ever created by a conscious force, and neither is there a specific purpose behind our existence except what we set upon doing and achieving ourselves. Still, though I'm not really convinced that an afterlife exists, I *do* accept the idea that it's possible and even *hope* for it.

This has been one of the most intellegent forums I have yet read, but it does strike me as odd. All the posts have been purely aimed at defining how each indiidual does not believe (or otherwise) in a "god", unless I missed it no-one has ever come from the "other-side" ie a believer.

This I find strange, and also concerning.

Sorry if this point is raised on threads, but you are all falling into the trap that has caused religion to have a bad name. Namely classification of people into pigeon holes. Athiest, agnostic spiritualist etc, how defferent is this from hethan, unbeliever, Catholic, protestant, Jew (and all the derogatory names) etc. these distinctions, as has been pointed out cause untold suffering and grief in the world. As long as the indiviual knows where they stand are labels required?

Finally, a good point was raised a long way back that even when proof is given people stick to their beliefs. An example of this I found on another researchers home page and is in the form of a logic question, I cannot remember the researcher but it went like this:

A game show, the last contestant is given a choice of three doors, behind one is the prize. He choses a door. The host the opens one of the unchosen doors. No prize there. He gives contestant a choice, he can swap doors, or stick with the one he has chosen. What should he do?

The answer is (post home page if you cannot work it out) that he can double his chances of winning by swapping doors.

Even when I show the proof to people who say it doesn't matter, some refuse to believe it. If you cannot change peoples belief in simple thing like statistic, what hope have you of changing their beleifs in the existance, or otherwise, of god.

Chris Hawke

I don't think 'belief' in statistics is anything to do with belief in an all-knowing sentient deity. People normally don't 'believe' in statistics because they don't understand what they are being told. They can't grasp the statistical perception and stick to blunt common-sense logic. Now, with beliefs it may be a matter of not understanding, but it is often refusal to accept. I do agree, however, that people DO stick to their beliefs VERY strongly. This is something I have learnt after many conversations with the faithful - especially those at h2g2Christians. However (again ), I strive not to be stuck in my belief. I doubt it. I try to disprove it. I listen to other views and ideas and see if they are more relavent than mine. I do NOT take my believes as an absolute truth. I do not think that people I misguided as they don't believe as I do. But when someone has absolute faith in their views and beliefs I am angered. I cannot stand absolute confidence in things that are not proven.

Now, to your observation that most of this forum is about what we do not believe - well yes. If somebody states their beliefs (in general), a good starting point is pointing out that you do not believe in their beliefs. But there has been talk of other universal forces and the like. However, it is not likely for an atheist to state what they believe as it is normally the basic that everybody takes forgranted - the physical. The atheist believes in the material. Of course many believe in more but if not; if you only believe in the material and Nature, there is no point in stating it. Why point out what you do when you can sit back and criticise .

No one has taken the point of view of the believer because none here ARE believers.

The type of debate which you seem to be looking for has been brought up in other forums; this one arose from DNA's reply to GargleBlaster's article on atheism. I have posted in other forums, such as H2G2 Christians, which DID also look at things from the side of the believer. This forum happens to be about the definition of atheism.

Most of us (I think) don't label ourselves in everyday life. However, in this particular forum, the meaning of "atheism" is being examined in great detail. In addition, this forum is part of the larger forum of the FFFF (Freedom From Faith Foundation). Check out that site's main page if you want more info....


bp

It seems that my definition of an atheist differs from many of yours. I personally see an atheist as not only a person who doesn't believe in a God, but also believes that the universe and everything in it can be explained by physical processes. This is where the difference lies in my point of spirituality.

Hi Chris,

I must point out that giving labels to people as we do here, does NOT necessarily mean that we discriminate in any way. We only use the labels to define the difference between ourselves and others, WITHOUT judging anyone and without prejudice. We do not judge believers, but merely SOME of the religions as an institution. That's a big difference.

None of the non-believers here says that they want to convert or destroy the believers. That's where believers of several religions go wrong, and that, for some of us, is exactly the reason (or one of the reasons) not to follow those religions.

We respect that others may wish to believe whatever they choose. From believers you can't often expect the same attitude towards us. THAT's what should concern us more.

In a way I HAVE come from the other side, being raised a Roman Catholic, but having abandoned it, because I believe their Bible is flawed in many aspects. But maybe I read that statement wrong...

Surely we should not lump all believers together as a group of maniacal bible bashers who will not be satisfied until all the atheist scum on this earth are either coverted to the light, or condemned to the darkness rightly they derserve?
Although quite a lot of them are...
The point is that I have encountered as much bigotry amongst atheists as amongst Christians, Bhuddists, Jews etc. Seems to me that we should all be a bit more tolerant.
I also think this discussion would benefit from a few non-athiests. After all, the more sides there are to an argument, to more fun it is.

C.Hawke, it's completely off the subject, but your answer to that riddle question is wrong. There was a big debate between Marilyn Vos Savant and Cecil Adams (both highly intelligent newspaper columnists), and Cecil prooved that there is no difference in whether or not you change doors. You have a 50% chance when your choice is between two selections. The first round of three selections is completely irrelevant on the second round. Stistics always reset themselves when the amnount of selections change. If you don't believe me, check out [URL removed by moderator]

I guess this is a good example of "proof" being fallable! Heh.

Well, who ever said that we should lump all believers together etc...?
Nobody here would ever suggest that. Many of us may feel little respect for certain religions, but we do *not* extend such feelings towards the *followers* of such religions, only to the institutions!

And believe me, there *are* atheists here. Maybe they just feel they don't have much to say, yet