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

I know there's alot of atheists and agnostics here at h2g2 and I'm wondering what is it that justifies that position? Also, if you are an atheist and not an agnostic, what positive evidence do you have of the non-existence of God? I mean it seems to me that since science cannot prove the non-existence of something hitherto undetected, agnosticism would be the way to go for many intellectuals. (I, of course, am a theist)

Also, what is the relationship between atheism and materialism? Is it possible to be a non-materialistic atheist?

Good luck with this question. Nobody round here ever talks about religion really. Still, maybe one or two will find their way here

yeah, I kinda figured it might not be real popular

I'll have a quick go at this before the more militant atheists (and the theists who love them) turn up:

"I know there's alot of atheists and agnostics here at h2g2 and I'm wondering what is it that justifies that position?"

Because I have no faith, no belief and no need for either. All the talk of "feeling close to God" and "religious experiences" that theists have, none of that makes sense to me. I've never seen or felt anything that makes me think otherwise. To quote another great atheist, "I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen *anything* to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. 'Cause no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense."

If I have any faith, it's in people. The human condition is wonderful and troubling enough without adding spirituality into the mix.

"Also, if you are an atheist and not an agnostic, what positive evidence do you have of the non-existence of God?"

That's going to be what people take issue with. Why should the burden of proof lie with the atheists? We're into pink invisible unicorn territory with this question.

, your guide to exorcisms is pretty funny A19298820

One of the reasons this place is a magnet for those views is Douglas Adams descriptions of the subject. They're very amusing, but I don't think he was issuing a rallying call for atheism.

(s at SWL)

Anything to prove SWL wrong

I'm an atheist. I haven't seen anything in life that requires a God to exist in order to explain it. But I'm ready to listen to reasoned arguments.

I'm curious as to the second part of your question which is an interesting one - is there a connection between materialism and atheism? I'd have thought there are many mebers of the Green Party, say, who don't believe in God, but also are anti-consumerism.

Are there no materialistic beleivers?

"Are there no materialistic beleivers?"

*cough*TheentiretyoftheRomanCatholicpriesthood*cough*

"Because I have no faith, no belief and no need for either."

What do you mean, you have "no faith" and "no belief"? It is not logical to say you have no belief in anything and then to continue speaking, since you cannot honestly believe in what you are saying - such a person cannot be telling the truth.

I do not understand why such a position leads to atheism rather than agnosticism.

"All the talk of "feeling close to God" and "religious experiences" that theists have, none of that makes sense to me. I've never seen or felt anything that makes me think otherwise."

So, having a religious experience like that would make you change your mind?

"That's going to be what people take issue with. Why should the burden of proof lie with the atheists? We're into pink invisible unicorn territory with this question."

Because atheism says "There is no such thing". Agnosticism says "We just don't know". The burden of proof lies on anyone who claims to know - both the theists and the atheists. The agnostics are off the hook.

I read a book about the existentialist similarities in quantum science and Buddhism recently. It was written in the form of a dialogue between it's two authors. The scientist believed there was likely some kind of guiding force/creator/God outside the Universe. The Buddhist monk argued this was not really true, nor necessary.

My stance is that I don't think there is a God figure. But I'm not going to press that too much because how can I have any idea of what things are like beyond the Universe? My personal objection is to organised religion. It can be positive, it can be negative. But for me, it can only be seen as false.

So yes, I think agnosticism (where the God that *could* exist isn't the God of any particularly religion) is a good decision. That said, I 'feel' (so we're actually moving quite close to the idea of faith here) that there is no God.

I'd just like to add that I don't particularly care whether people are theists or not. I don't want to spread my atheism, although I am curious as to how people can believe in an organised religion.

"What do you mean, you have "no faith" and "no belief"? It is not logical to say you have no belief in anything and then to continue speaking, since you cannot honestly believe in what you are saying - such a person cannot be telling the truth."

Now you know I was using belief in a religious context. You're well aware of that, aren't you? Course you are.

"So, having a religious experience like that would make you change your mind?"

If a choir of angels appeared to me and I could see, feel, touch, examine them as tangible beings and said "hey, here's God on the phone with irrefutable proof of his existence" then yes, I'd reconsider. That's what a rational person would do, no?

"Because atheism says "There is no such thing". Agnosticism says "We just don't know". The burden of proof lies on anyone who claims to know - both the theists and the atheists. The agnostics are off the hook."

There's no evidence for the existence of God. A complete absence of proof. That, to me, is as good as proof of God's non-existence.

"I'm an atheist. I haven't seen anything in life that requires a God to exist in order to explain it. But I'm ready to listen to reasoned arguments."

I might suggest Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" as a starting point. His book is BY NO MEANS an objective look at both sides of the arguments, since he merely interviews hand-picked experts he already knows agree with him but they do present generally good reasoned arguments which you can go on to investigate for yourself. I just finished reading the book yesterday, in fact.

Here is a Google Books link to it ... I'm not sure whether this will work on your end or not but I thought I'd give it a try.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wg66gWttf-cC&dq=the+case+for+a+creator&pg=PP1&ots=kce6YlkWGj&sig=f9u4XwRwCkomTtApbQBYY2ef-gY&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=the+case+for+a+creator&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

"I'm curious as to the second part of your question which is an interesting one - is there a connection between materialism and atheism? I'd have thought there are many mebers of the Green Party, say, who don't believe in God, but also are anti-consumerism.

Are there no materialistic beleivers?"

I think we're dealing with differing definitions of materialism here. I'm not talking about consumerism - I'm talking about the philosophical belief that there is nothing in the cosmos but matter in motion. That there is no such thing as the spiritual or that spiritual experiences are, if they do exist, merely a function of the material universe.

As far as I know, pantheists are materialists if I understand their basic position correctly ... so there's one group of believers in a god that are materialists.

I know that there are many atheists who are materialists in this sense, but I am ignorant as to whether this is an implicitly fundamental tenet of atheism or if I'm just observing a casual correlation.

" I'm not talking about consumerism - I'm talking about the philosophical belief that there is nothing in the cosmos but matter in motion. That there is no such thing as the spiritual or that spiritual experiences are, if they do exist, merely a function of the material universe."

To put it coarsely I'd call that a belief in 'magic'. So that would make me materialistic, because, though I acknowledge some strange stuff goes on, I think it's a function of the material universe.

"Now you know I was using belief in a religious context. You're well aware of that, aren't you? Course you are."
No, honestly I didn't know that. The distinction is, I take it, that you meant to say "I have no faith or belief in religion" not "I have no faith or belief". What do you think is reasonable faith or belief?

"If a choir of angels appeared to me and I could see, feel, touch, examine them as tangible beings and said "hey, here's God on the phone with irrefutable proof of his existence" then yes, I'd reconsider. That's what a rational person would do, no?"
What about eyewitness accounts of other people who claim to have done similar things?

*takes a seat in the 'agnostic' stand to watch the action*

Is there a questions suggestion box? Can I suggest this question then, How can either side claim to *know* either way? Because while many many people (often on this site) will state personal positions (fine) there are just as many will attack the mental state or intelligence of others who dont 'see' what is 'obvious' or 'feel' the 'truth' (IMO not fine).

I mean, for me as far as religion goes, I find words like Righteous and Truth quite worrying. It's strongly implying all sorts of negative outcomes and states for people who dont follow the word and I find it difficult to understand why people dont wish to look further back and be more abstract in their faith rather than copying and working from relatively recent texts who, for the most part, have obvious social control subtexts (well, that's how they read to me).

So, feel free to discuss or ignore this, it's just a thought...

"I am curious as to how people can believe in an organised religion."
Well, I have major disagreements with the vast majority of organized religions, including the majority of Christian churches. (including Catholics, Protestants and Mormons) Some of the things these groups say, teach and believe seem absurd to me for many of the same reasons I've heard from atheists, in fact.

"To put it coarsely I'd call that a belief in 'magic'. So that would make me materialistic, because, though I acknowledge some strange stuff goes on, I think it's a function of the material universe."
You may be right. What is you definition of magic? It may be true that under your definition, I believe in magic.

"How can either side claim to *know* either way?"
That's an excellent question. The theists answer would be "Because I, personally, have seen unavoidably impossible things happen." I really don't understand the atheistic position on this question, which is why I brought this up.

"I mean, for me as far as religion goes, I find words like Righteous and Truth quite worrying. It's strongly implying all sorts of negative outcomes and states for people who dont follow the word"
That is a fundamental point which I think is one of the most important reasons for the divide between atheists and most of so-called Biblical Christianity.

"and I find it difficult to understand why people dont wish to look further back and be more abstract in their faith rather than copying and working from relatively recent texts who, for the most part, have obvious social control subtexts (well, that's how they read to me)."
Meaning ... you don't like the idea of a written code of moral law that has spiritual consequences. Or am I interpreting this statement wrong?

When you talk about the existence of something, what do you mean? Physical? or Logical?

If the former, then you are bringing it within the event horizon of scientific thinking and would presumably need to justify it within that framework.

If the latter, then you should be able to derive God from first principles, so long as we can agree on the axioms you choose to start with.

Or does existence mean something else to you?