• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

expat_panama said:
There is no logical proof that the universe exists.
Click to expand...

Wait, wut? NASA would probably disagree with you.

What I know is that I exist, and while I get sensations that can be explained by the existence of a universe, they can also be explained as simply products of my super imagination. So what works for me is that I just assume the universe exists outside of me because the idea feels right and it works well for handling my 'universe sensations'.

This is the same formula that many use for assuming God.
Click to expand...

And that's just as silly as assuming that the universe is a product of your super imagination.
 
expat_panama said:
There is no logical proof that the universe exists. What I know is that I exist, and while I get sensations that can be explained by the existence of a universe, they can also be explained as simply products of my super imagination. So what works for me is that I just assume the universe exists outside of me because the idea feels right and it works well for handling my 'universe sensations'.

This is the same formula that many use for assuming God.
Click to expand...

Yet YOUR imagination, regardless of how "Super" cannot reach into my mind of anyone elses. What you think does not in any possible way effect the reality of anything outside your interesting mind.
 
Into the Night said:
Because you really have no choice if you wish to avoid a logical fallacy.
.
Click to expand...
A logical fallacy based on a misinterpretation does not count for much.
How do you know it is a fictional character unless the author of that character told you so?
Click to expand...
Because no evidence has been produced for a god. Not one good reason has been given for why a god should exist. Therefore i have no good reason to consider gods to be anything but a fiction.
Nope. No trickery. Just logic.
Click to expand...
No, starting from the position of a god might be possible without any reason given as to why is trickery.
No one is asking for a proof other than you.
Click to expand...
I am not asking for something that i have no reason to consider even exists. However if a theist demands their god exists then the onus on them is to provide evidence or a good reason for such.

It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any god or gods.
Click to expand...
Trickery again. First tell me why i am even bothering to consider the possibility.

Argument of ignorance. This fallacy is based on attempting to prove a negative by default. That is a logical error
Click to expand...
No, not an argument of error. Yours is the logical fallacy of believing evidence or reason exists without providing an example of such. For example i could say that somewhere out there is good reason to consider that Into the night is full of crap. By your standard we just given the possibility to consider this as a truth.
 
expat_panama said:
There is no logical proof that the universe exists. What I know is that I exist, and while I get sensations that can be explained by the existence of a universe, they can also be explained as simply products of my super imagination. So what works for me is that I just assume the universe exists outside of me because the idea feels right and it works well for handling my 'universe sensations'.

This is the same formula that many use for assuming God.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Super imagination. Another word for that is that it is a bad example of how metaphysical philosophy works. In that its a pretence that because we can imagine anything then anything must be imagination.
 
Critter7r said:
Wait, wut? NASA would probably disagree with you...
Click to expand...
If you have a NASA link that talks about the nature of logical proof then please share. There's never been one that I've come across but I try to keep an open mind.
Critter7r said:
...And that's just as silly as assuming that the universe is a product of your super imagination.
Click to expand...
soylentgreen said:
Yeah! Super imagination. Another word for that is that it is a bad example of how metaphysical philosophy works. In that its a pretence that because we can imagine anything then anything must be imagination.
Click to expand...

Y'all are in good company if you want to just say it's silly, a lot of folks have. Still, we're not talking about imaginations being silly, we're asking if we can logically prove the universe exists --and that's a question has been the topic of the doctoral theses of a lot of very well paid professors.

Wikipedia gets into the question here:

...assuming there is a universe that is independent of the agent's mind, the agent can only ever know of this universe through the agent's senses. How is the existence of the independent universe to be scientifically studied? If a person sets up a camera to photograph the moon when they are not looking at it, then at best they determine that there is an image of the moon in the camera when they eventually look at it. Logically, this does not assure that the moon itself (or even the camera) existed at the time the photograph is supposed to have been taken. ​

tecoyah said:
...What you think does not in any possible way effect the reality of anything outside your interesting mind.
Click to expand...
That's actually the point we need to understand together, that we can decide whether we accept this or that evidence as being logical, but our decision does not affect "anything outside" our "interesting minds". If it's reality we want to understand, the best we can do is maintain the humility of knowing we can be mistaken and that we have to continuously strive to recheck our choices for cognitive biases.
 
Last edited:
expat_panama said:
Y'all are in good company if you want to just say it's silly, a lot of folks have. Still, we're not talking about imaginations being silly, we're asking if we can logically prove the universe exists --and that's a question has been the topic of the doctoral theses of a lot of very well paid professors.

Wikipedia gets into the question here:

...assuming there is a universe that is independent of the agent's mind, the agent can only ever know of this universe through the agent's senses. How is the existence of the independent universe to be scientifically studied? If a person sets up a camera to photograph the moon when they are not looking at it, then at best they determine that there is an image of the moon in the camera when they eventually look at it. Logically, this does not assure that the moon itself (or even the camera) existed at the time the photograph is supposed to have been taken. ​
Click to expand...

Well, we don't even have photographs of God to dissect with such existential silliness.
 
expat_panama said:
If you have a NASA link that talks about the nature of logical proof then please share. There's never been one that I've come across but I try to keep an open mind.

Y'all are in good company if you want to just say it's silly, a lot of folks have. Still, we're not talking about imaginations being silly, we're asking if we can logically prove the universe exists --and that's a question has been the topic of the doctoral theses of a lot of very well paid professors.

Wikipedia gets into the question here:

...assuming there is a universe that is independent of the agent's mind, the agent can only ever know of this universe through the agent's senses. How is the existence of the independent universe to be scientifically studied? If a person sets up a camera to photograph the moon when they are not looking at it, then at best they determine that there is an image of the moon in the camera when they eventually look at it. Logically, this does not assure that the moon itself (or even the camera) existed at the time the photograph is supposed to have been taken. ​

That's actually the point we need to understand together, that we can decide whether we accept this or that evidence as being logical, but our decision does not affect "anything outside" our "interesting minds". If it's reality we want to understand, the best we can do is maintain the humility of knowing we can be mistaken and that we have to continuously strive to recheck our choices for cognitive biases.
Click to expand...

Step outside at night, look up for a minute, explain what you see.
If you believe it to be a Gods creation....it still exists.
If you believe it is an expanding natural universe...it still exists.

If neither then please explain what you see?
 
expat_panama said:
Sure we do, hundreds of them here. That's what the above wiki was saying, that photographs (or lack of same) prove nothing. Sure, they can be entered as evidence but there's a big difference between providing evidence and proving.
Click to expand...

There were maybe a half-dozen that could be construed as being a phot that presented a potential image of God. The rest were pics of rays of sunshine, and water droplets, and pamphlets with the word God on them. Oddly enough, there were pics of the moon halfway down the page.
 
expat_panama said:
There is no logical proof that the universe exists. What I know is that I exist, and while I get sensations that can be explained by the existence of a universe, they can also be explained as simply products of my super imagination. So what works for me is that I just assume the universe exists outside of me because the idea feels right and it works well for handling my 'universe sensations'.

This is the same formula that many use for assuming God.
Click to expand...

If you know that you exist, then you know that the universe exists because you and the universe you are part of are made of the same stuff. You are a piece of the universe. That's as rational and logical as anything can be. The relationship is demonstrably true.

Now, we don't have to understand fully what makes the universe tick to understand that we and it exist as one. The same exact "sensations" you experience of the universe around you are the ones which enable you to know yourself. This is not an assumption. It's a fact of observation.

That formula obviously does not work in the case where we can not "sense" in the same way a supposed or imagined existence.
 
Ben K. said:
If religion is merely a belief upon which you act, then taking antibiotics for an infection makes medical science a religion too.

By casting the net out so broadly with this definition, you make everything a person does religious.
Click to expand...

I prefer to put my faith in education and science over the belief in some imaginary guy in the sky. I was raised as a non believer, brought my son up the same way. now my Grandson is the third generation of Atheist. All three generations have been taught to respect all faiths and those that practice those faiths. I rarely come on to these types of threads, but as of late, there is an effort from some on these boards to vilify Atheist by classing us all as militant. I have no problem with CHRISTMAS displays, it is now a cultural holiday as much as it is a religious one. We are all free to pray, or not too, some folks on these boards need reminding of that fact. As long as their is separation of Church and State to prevent a religious fundamentalist from taking away my Right not to practice a faith I am good.
 
Just too lazy to read all the posts...Religion is a subset of ideology. Briefly, an ideology is a belief system one holds that really has no factual basis.

Yes, atheism is an ideology. No, it's not religion. Yes, a Charger is a car. No, a Charger isn't a Ford.

Is atheism and religion closely related? You betcha.
 
itsforthekids said:
I just think a lot of people feel that it's in line with current beliefs to state that they're atheists. They feel that they fit in better. The proof that God exists is in the fact that we're here. The other option based on opinion is that everything simply popped into existence.
Click to expand...

How does that work and to which god are you referring?
 
tecoyah said:
...believe it to be a Gods creation....it still exists. If you believe it is an expanding natural universe...it still exists.

If neither then please explain what you see?
Click to expand...
Most of us look at the stars and say well, there's stars up there. Makes sense. Still, someone else can say "I'm so magnificent that now I'm dreaming of seeing stars." You try to tell him he's wrong and he'll say "I'm so wonderfull I'm now imagining that there's an a$$hole arguing w/ me." Logic goes no where because yet another guy can say w/ equally sound logic that he's looking up at a computer generated reality (ala "The Matrix").

The bottom line here is that logic is all well and good but it's got limits and your question is an excellent one. The fact that you change the subject from logical proof to choosing belief systems is (imho) a very good step so let's be clear on how we got here. We started with--

soylentgreen said:
Except that we know the universe exists. No such claim can be made for a god...
Click to expand...
--the idea being that we can logically prove a universe but not logically prove God. It's a dumb idea because logic structures are based on fundamental agreed upon assumptions --the first one being the assumption that logic has any value at all in the first place.

Side note: Seems that most folks on this thread don't follow where this reasoning goes and it's a confusion of habit or possibly a conscious choice. Whatever it is, their focus is on how great they are and how they can cr@p on other people's posts and strut their stuff. My personal take is that while the mode is a bad idea it does happen to be how a lot of folks operate --and people are good and worth understanding.​
 
expat_panama said:
Most of us look at the stars and say well, there's stars up there. Makes sense. Still, someone else can say "I'm so magnificent that now I'm dreaming of seeing stars." You try to tell him he's wrong and he'll say "I'm so wonderfull I'm now imagining that there's an a$$hole arguing w/ me." Logic goes no where because yet another guy can say w/ equally sound logic that he's looking up at a computer generated reality (ala "The Matrix").

The bottom line here is that logic is all well and good but it's got limits and your question is an excellent one. The fact that you change the subject from logical proof to choosing belief systems is (imho) a very good step so let's be clear on how we got here. We started with--

--the idea being that we can logically prove a universe but not logically prove God. It's a dumb idea because logic structures are based on fundamental agreed upon assumptions --the first one being the assumption that logic has any value at all in the first place.

Side note: Seems that most folks on this thread don't follow where this reasoning goes and it's a confusion of habit or possibly a conscious choice. Whatever it is, their focus is on how great they are and how they can cr@p on other people's posts and strut their stuff. My personal take is that while the mode is a bad idea it does happen to be how a lot of folks operate --and people are good and worth understanding.​
Click to expand...

Perhaps removing the person from thought on this and instead focusing on observation or tangible reality would be helpful? We are discussing the inverse and origins and Philosophy/Imaginings are not productive in this. The Universe is tangible (as I have shown) while a "God" entity is not which makes one worthy of exploration and the other mere mental masturbation.
 
Russell797 said:
If you know that you exist, then you know that the universe exists... ...This is not an assumption. It's a fact of observation...
Click to expand...
People 'observe' things every day that turn out to be not there, just ask a politicization about that big economic trend that he says is plain as day --and there are other folks that don't observe things that really are there ("what stop sign officer?").

--but knowing we exist is different. All I have to do is ask if I exist and presto the question exists. When I ask where the question came from then the question proves that I existed to raise it.
 
tecoyah said:
...Philosophy/Imaginings are not productive in this. The Universe is tangible...
Click to expand...
A lot of folks see it that way, the idea being that morons can yammer about goofy stuff like "spirit" and "meditation" but we got to deal in real hard concrete stuff we can touch and feel so we know it's really there.

My experience has been many decades working as a civil engineer in building construction and what I came to understand is that while many folks say concrete's there and we can't just walk through a wall, I can tell you that one moment I can show you a front lawn and the next moment I can wave my arm and presto there's a concrete slab. Then, if you don't like it I can wave my hand again and the concrete's gone and a pond's there instead. Then I produce a bill for $75,000 for accelerated overtime construction work.

Something else I can tell you is that when a loved one suffers a broken spirit and dies there's not a damn bit of arm waving I can do about it. All I can do is meditate on what to do next.
 
expat_panama said:
A lot of folks see it that way, the idea being that morons can yammer about goofy stuff like "spirit" and "meditation" but we got to deal in real hard concrete stuff we can touch and feel so we know it's really there.

My experience has been many decades working as a civil engineer in building construction and what I came to understand is that while many folks say concrete's there and we can't just walk through a wall, I can tell you that one moment I can show you a front lawn and the next moment I can wave my arm and presto there's a concrete slab. Then, if you don't like it I can wave my hand again and the concrete's gone and a pond's there instead. Then I produce a bill for $75,000 for accelerated overtime construction work.

Something else I can tell you is that when a loved one suffers a broken spirit and dies there's not a damn bit of arm waving I can do about it. All I can do is meditate on what to do next.
Click to expand...

I see...as you "Telling Me" or waving your hand is an unacceptable reason for belief I think we are done here.

Have A Nice Day:)
 
expat_panama said:
--the idea being that we can logically prove a universe but not logically prove God. It's a dumb idea because logic structures are based on fundamental agreed upon assumptions --the first one being the assumption that logic has any value at all in the first place.
Click to expand...

No, that is an incorrect description of logic. Logic is based on demonstrating valid and sound arguments. The values of truth and false used in logic is what is based on fundamental agreed upon assumptions.

Which is why at best a theist can make a valid argument but always fails to make that same argument a sound one. Even though they think and act as if it is sound.
Side note: Seems that most folks on this thread don't follow where this reasoning goes and it's a confusion of habit or possibly a conscious choice. Whatever it is, their focus is on how great they are and how they can cr@p on other people's posts and strut their stuff. My personal take is that while the mode is a bad idea it does happen to be how a lot of folks operate --.​
Click to expand...

This of course is simple theist nonsense. They talk crap and then demand respect. They use their idiot morality to pretend they have the high ground and any attack upon their nonsense views are therefor to be considered persecution.

and people are good and worth understanding
Click to expand...

An optimistic reply with the unfortunate corollary that we can define optimism as someone who does not know what is going on.
 
expat_panama said:
People 'observe' things every day that turn out to be not there, just ask a politicization about that big economic trend that he says is plain as day --and there are other folks that don't observe things that really are there ("what stop sign officer?").

--but knowing we exist is different. All I have to do is ask if I exist and presto the question exists. When I ask where the question came from then the question proves that I existed to raise it.
Click to expand...

Actually you have misunderstood the argument put forth by descartes.
He was not attempting to prove that he existed. He was attempting to prove god existed.


The line,"I think, therefore i am." is a cliche often misunderstood. You could also say, "i am not therefore i am." It makes as much sense.
At 2.36 the presenter makes the claim he is skipping over some thing he "Thinks" is unnecessary to his dialogue.
The thing he is missing out is that descartes was actually using that cliche to prove the existence of god, not himself.

A very simplified version of what descartes was arguing goes like this.

I think therefore i am
therefore if something can think it must exist
god thought up the universe and all within it
so god must be able to think
Therefore god must exist.
 
soylentgreen said:
Actually you have misunderstood the argument put forth by descartes.
He was not attempting to prove that he existed. He was attempting to prove god existed.


The line,"I think, therefore i am." is a cliche often misunderstood. You could also say, "i am not therefore i am." It makes as much sense.
At 2.36 the presenter makes the claim he is skipping over some thing he "Thinks" is unnecessary to his dialogue.
The thing he is missing out is that descartes was actually using that cliche to prove the existence of god, not himself.

A very simplified version of what descartes was arguing goes like this.

I think therefore i am
therefore if something can think it must exist
god thought up the universe and all within it
so god must be able to think
Therefore god must exist.
Click to expand...

I haven't been paying as much attention to who is making which arguments in this thread, so forgive me if this post is you pointing out, without so many words, what to me is obvious.

The 5 lines above are essentially saying that God exists, therefore God must exist. The same circular logic used by many theists. No different from, "Well, we're here, there must be a God".

Who determined that "God thought up the universe ..."?
 
Critter7r said:
I haven't been paying as much attention to who is making which arguments in this thread, so forgive me if this post is you pointing out, without so many words, what to me is obvious.

The 5 lines above are essentially saying that God exists, therefore God must exist. The same circular logic used by many theists. No different from, "Well, we're here, there must be a God".

Who determined that "God thought up the universe ..."?
Click to expand...

You have to work in context here.
Descartes lived in a time where no philosopher would have dared argue the non existence of a god unless being tortured to death took their fancy.
Like all philosophers of that time and even now they begin their thinking at the point that a god does exist it is just a matter of creating the reasons to believe so.
 
expat_panama said:
People 'observe' things every day that turn out to be not there, just ask a politicization about that big economic trend that he says is plain as day --and there are other folks that don't observe things that really are there ("what stop sign officer?").

--but knowing we exist is different. All I have to do is ask if I exist and presto the question exists. When I ask where the question came from then the question proves that I existed to raise it.
Click to expand...


Sure, but we need to avoid circular arguments if we are to make logical sense. We must avoid infinite regress. Claiming I exist simply because I can ask the question informs us of nothing. However, if I ask you and millions of other's if I exist then we have a source of independent confirmation. We can build a consensus of opinion as to whether or not I exist. That's the best we can hope to do.

We still have not reached an absolute certainty that I exist, but we have gained a degree of confidence that I do. If there is a high probability that I exist, then since I am part of the outside world, that outside world also exist to a high level of confidence. By doing science we can study the composition of the world and of me and know that if one exists so does the other because as it turns out, we are made of the same stuff. That is unless there is no true determinism and set of laws which govern the universe, but as best we can tell, there are so we can again gain confidence in our existence. That's the best we can do.
 
Last edited:
soylentgreen said:
Actually you have misunderstood the argument put forth by descartes.
He was not attempting to prove that he existed. He was attempting to prove god existed.


The line,"I think, therefore i am." is a cliche often misunderstood. You could also say, "i am not therefore i am." It makes as much sense.
At 2.36 the presenter makes the claim he is skipping over some thing he "Thinks" is unnecessary to his dialogue.
The thing he is missing out is that descartes was actually using that cliche to prove the existence of god, not himself.

A very simplified version of what descartes was arguing goes like this.

I think therefore i am
therefore if something can think it must exist
god thought up the universe and all within it
so god must be able to think
Therefore god must exist.
Click to expand...

That is in no way, shape, or form Descartes’ argument. The argument was that as as a first principle, he can be sure he exists as he is doing the thinking. His argument for God is roughly that since he can conceive of a perfect being, it must exist otherwise he, as an imperfect being, wouldn’t be able to conceive of one. It’s a variation of the ontological argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom