Thread: Purpose - An argument for belief in God

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Agnostic is a neutral stance, in reference to a belief in God. It is neither affirming God exist nor is it affirming that God does not exist.

At the same time, it is a negative stance, in reference to the fact that it is asserting that the question is unanswerable.


Your acknowledgement that the two perspectives (an anti-theist's belief that there is no God and a baby's lack of belief in God) are two different things. That's the first time I believe that you have shown that you understand that concept. So, taking that into consideration, as Xei said, what point are you actually trying to get at?

Before, you simply said that an atheist stance (you didn't differentiate) was a belief system. It's not. It is, in the most fundamental use of the word, like a baby's Lack of belief. A baby doesn't believe it doesn't believe in God. It simply doesn't believe in God. It is not a belief system. Now that you have actually acknowledged that you are talking about an assertive disbelief (as not every atheist has an assertive disbelief), it makes the conversation more clear.


The button for quoting more than one person is the little quote box with the + sign beside it, next to the button that says "Reply with Quote." Press that button beneath each person's post that you are going to reply to, and it will put them all in the same post box for you.

Alright thank you about the post quote thing

and okay, I see, I was confused.
But I mean, I totally get what you are saying-A baby is born an Atheist, and later on chooses to stay the same, or not. But what I mean, is that when you willfully choose to "stay" an atheist, wouldn't that be the belief of a disbelief of a belief? because you are consciously choosing to disbelieve something? I'm sorry if I'm being confusing ^^; I'm just a teenager, which I know about beliefs and religion but I obviously have much more to learn. So thank you for enlightening me, whether you knew it or not

they they believe that they don't believe in God.

Yes I got that, what point are you trying to make? ._.

Originally Posted by erible

Alright thank you about the post quote thing

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by erible

But I mean, I totally get what you are saying-A baby is born an Atheist, and later on chooses to stay the same, or not. But what I mean, is that when you willfully choose to "stay" an atheist, wouldn't that be the belief of a disbelief of a belief? because you are consciously choosing to disbelieve something? I'm sorry if I'm being confusing ^^; I'm just a teenager, which I know about beliefs and religion but I obviously have much more to learn. So thank you for enlightening me, whether you knew it or not

I understand what you're trying to say, but you are really just making it more difficult than it is.

If I told you that I was Bill Gates's heir - and in line to inherit all of his empire - and you chose to neither believe me nor openly believe I'm lying to you, your state of suspended belief is not a belief. Sure, you can say they believe that it's best for them not to choose a side, but to define that as a 'belief of a lack of belief' is redundant. It really serves no purpose. You could call it a "perspective" (one of neutrality), but to call it a "belief" implies that they are putting faith in something, when all they are actually doing is refusing to put faith in something.

In the case of an anti-theist, or a 'strong atheist', as some people would call them, then yes. You would be correct in calling their view a belief, because they are believing in the non-existence of a God. No matter how they want to rationalize it as not being a belief, it is. I believe that this might have been what you were getting at, in the first post that I replied to, but the problem was that you didn't differentiate as to 'what kind' of 'atheist' you were talking about. Weak atheism / 'lack of belief' is not a 'belief' to claim as invalid, as you were trying to do with strong atheism / 'assertive disbelief.'

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You're welcome.



I understand what you're trying to say, but you are really just making it more difficult than it is.

If I told you that I was Bill Gates's heir - and in line to inherit all of his empire - and you chose to neither believe me nor openly believe I'm lying to you, your state of suspended belief is not a belief. Sure, you can say they believe that it's best for them not to choose a side, but to define that as a 'belief of a lack of belief' is redundant. It really serves no purpose. You could call it a "perspective" (one of neutrality), but to call it a "belief" implies that they are putting faith in something, when all they are actually doing is refusing to put faith in something.

In the case of an anti-theist, or a 'strong atheist', as some people would call them, then yes. You would be correct in calling their view a belief, because they are believing in the non-existence of a God. No matter how they want to rationalize it as not being a belief, it is. I believe that this might have been what you were getting at, in the first post that I replied to, but the problem was that you didn't differentiate as to 'what kind' of 'atheist' you were talking about. Weak atheism / 'lack of belief' is not a 'belief' to claim as invalid, as you were trying to do with strong atheism / 'assertive disbelief.'

alright, I get what you're saying now. So wouldn't an "atheist" be more on the agnostic side, opposed to a "strong atheist"?

Theist -> Person who subscribes to some sort of theology
Atheist -> Person who does not subscribe to any type of theology.

Gnostic -> In this context, a person who believes their theological beliefs or lack thereof to be the 'correct answer' to the question of religion.
Agnostic -> Generally a person who believes that religion is not a question thus cannot be answered- most are also atheist, but it is not exclusive. Theists can be agnostics. These types tend to identify themselves as 'deists' however. Or 'pantheists'.

I feel there is no god because God is just a concept of thought and there is no real evidence that he once exsisted

The original assumption that "All human accomplishments will end with the death of humanity, eventually." is false. As long we accept the rules of causality, it is impossible for the state of the universe to be unchanged by the existence of humanity once humanity no longer exists. If our sun blows up tomorrow and our planet is destroyed, we still would have had some effect on the over all state of the universe. Some obvious examples would be the electromagnetic radiation that we have sent off into space (radio waves, etc.) as well as the more tangible probes that are currently floating off past the edge of our solar system. Our existence now is affecting the future state of the universe regardless of what eventually becomes of us.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The original assumption that "All human accomplishments will end with the death of humanity, eventually." is false. As long we accept the rules of causality, it is impossible for the state of the universe to be unchanged by the existence of humanity once humanity no longer exists. If our sun blows up tomorrow and our planet is destroyed, we still would have had some effect on the over all state of the universe. Some obvious examples would be the electromagnetic radiation that we have sent off into space (radio waves, etc.) as well as the more tangible probes that are currently floating off past the edge of our solar system. Our existence now is affecting the future state of the universe regardless of what eventually becomes of us.

But the point is that none of that is of value to us, especially if we no longer exist. You're saying it's not for nothing in the end, it causes some atoms to move into pretty formations. If there are no people, no consciousnesses to experience it, it's worthless.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The original assumption that "All human accomplishments will end with the death of humanity, eventually." is false. As long we accept the rules of causality, it is impossible for the state of the universe to be unchanged by the existence of humanity once humanity no longer exists. If our sun blows up tomorrow and our planet is destroyed, we still would have had some effect on the over all state of the universe. Some obvious examples would be the electromagnetic radiation that we have sent off into space (radio waves, etc.) as well as the more tangible probes that are currently floating off past the edge of our solar system. Our existence now is affecting the future state of the universe regardless of what eventually becomes of us.

Quite honestly, when you say it like that it seems even more pointless.

I'd like to step in here if you please and try to clear this one up.

O' you're a fine gentleman but I'll have to disagree with this statement, if you may.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Before, you simply said that an atheist stance (you didn't differentiate) was a belief system. It's not. It is, in the most fundamental use of the word, like a baby's Lack of belief. A baby doesn't believe it doesn't believe in God. It simply doesn't believe in God. It is not a belief system.

A baby's lack of belief is really not anywhere near the same as an Atheist disbelief not even fundamentally. No one is born Atheist.

Can the Atheist take the stand and back me up on this one? How many Atheist here can really say they are Atheist because of a lack of belief in a God in the same way a baby lacks belief?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

A baby's lack of belief is really not anywhere near the same as an Atheist disbelief not even fundamentally. No one is born Atheist.

Can the Atheist take the stand and back me up on this one? How many Atheist here can really say they are Atheist because of a lack of belief in a God in the same way a baby lacks belief?

Well, as someone that is a strong atheist towards some gods (e.g. yours) and a weak atheist towards others (e.g. gods that do not logically implode) I can say that my weak atheism is very much a state of not knowing. We are born not knowing, ergo, my lack of belief is very much a direct continuation of the lack of belief that I was born with.

Hope that helps

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I'd like to step in here if you please and try to clear this one up.

O' you're a fine gentleman but I'll have to disagree with this statement, if you may.



A baby's lack of belief is really not anywhere near the same as an Atheist disbelief not even fundamentally. No one is born Atheist.

Can the Atheist take the stand and back me up on this one? How many Atheist here can really say they are Atheist because of a lack of belief in a God in the same way a baby lacks belief?

Babies have no knowledge of what a God is, so they can't have a belief one way or another for them. I don't think they can be categorized as Atheist until they have a simple understanding of what God is, or whatever deity will be in their religion. Atheists are Atheist for the simple fact that they see no reason to believe in whatever deity they question the existence of.

Also, just throwing this out there.. all Theists are Atheists unless they're full blown Polytheists.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

But the point is that none of that is of value to us, especially if we no longer exist. You're saying it's not for nothing in the end, it causes some atoms to move into pretty formations. If there are no people, no consciousnesses to experience it, it's worthless.

So what you are saying is that you are also operating on the assumption that humans represent all consciousness in the universe. You are full of baseless assumptions aren't you?

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

Quite honestly, when you say it like that it seems even more pointless.

Really? Even though it means that any extraterrestrials within 70 or so light years from here could be potentially watching Hitler Open the Olympics in Berlin on their space t.v. right now?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Babies have no knowledge of what a God is, so they can't have a belief one way or another for them. I don't think they can be categorized as Atheist until they have a simple understanding of what God is, or whatever deity will be in their religion. Atheists are Atheist for the simple fact that they see no reason to believe in whatever deity they question the existence of.

Thanks for clearing that one up. I can relate to this example better.

Originally Posted by Justin

Also, just throwing this out there.. all Theists are Atheists unless they're full blown Polytheists.

Errr?

That's right. Completely disregard the opposing view and feign(?) stupidity concerning an obvious and valid point.

You're a strong atheist regarding Zeus Einstein.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Errr?

Maybe I should rephrase- All Theists are Atheists in their own ways. They're Atheistic towards different religions.

Is he trying to make an argument for any specific belief?
Or does he mean, like, roll a dice and pick a faith, since it's still better than "nothing".

And I don't know what purpose means here or how I should change my behavior?
Or does he just mean believing in a god or a purpose, in which case it's irrelevant.

If he means complete devotion to a very specific, yet highly unlikely and outdated set of rules and punishments, I'd say completely limiting ones own life seems like a high price to pay. And I agree that meaning lies in the moment. Not being myself and therefor not thinking for myself would make my existence meaningless, I wouldn't want to risk that.

Originally Posted by no-Name

what? atheists believe they don't have any beliefs? the fuck?

alright, here. what do you call a child that can't speak or understand any form of language? they are an atheist by default, because they do not know of any gods. atheism is a default setting on a person, and changes later.

if you had never been introduced to the idea of god, never thought of any celestial/supernatural beings, and never been around anyone that had, what would you be?

(the correct answer is an atheist)

not necessarily. human brains seem to be wired for spiritual belief.
there is a cortex for these feelings, they appear to be natural to us.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Agnostic is a neutral stance, in reference to a belief in God. It is neither affirming God exist nor is it affirming that God does not exist.

On that basis I would argue that actually agnosticism is true belieflessness.
Although agnosticism is originally referred to the "belief that we cannot now".

Atheism described as a complete lack of belief I would guess may merely be possible in a state of Zen or detachment of the conscious and subconscious patterns of ones mind. People are always operating on certain systems of belief - that is why we have the scientific method, because we (including atheists) are human. So while atheism ideally means a lack of belief, many people arguing for it are still operating on assumptions about, for example, the universe. My point is that it's quite impossible to not at least believe something sometimes.

Originally Posted by dajo

(only read the first page)

Is he trying to make an argument for any specific belief?
Or does he mean, like, roll a dice and pick a faith, since it's still better than "nothing".

And I don't know what purpose means here or how I should change my behavior?
Or does he just mean believing in a god or a purpose, in which case it's irrelevant.

If he means complete devotion to a very specific, yet highly unlikely and outdated set of rules and punishments, I'd say completely limiting ones own life seems like a high price to pay. And I agree that meaning lies in the moment. Not being myself and therefor not thinking for myself would make my existence meaningless, I wouldn't want to risk that.

The part of the argument I've tried to summarize (but never completed because I apparently don't completely understand it) is only an argument that it's rational to assume there is a purpose, a goal to attain beyond life. It doesn't discuss which religion or other type of belief should be held. But he is Catholic, and admits he hasn't looked into the different religions much, but as far as he can tell Catholicism is the religion that's most likely true. (He was raised Catholic, big surprise). I'm not sure why he thinks it's better than other non-Christian religions, but I'm pretty sure his reason for thinking Catholicism is more likely true than other forms of Christianity is because it was the 'original' one, while all others are basically branches of Protestant which, according to him I think, was formed basically because people wanted to make up their own rules. And Catholics remained true to the real Christianity. It's funny, I just realized, I was raised Jewish and that was the same attitude my teachers had about Jewish and Christian people - that the Jews stayed on the 'true' path while the Christians worshipped a man they falsely believed to be God and went off-track.

He thinks he has a completely logical reason that we should assume there is a higher purpose. Whenever the topic comes up, he rebukes me for bringing up words like 'percent' or 'chance' while talking about the likelihood of the purpose really existing. He says the percent chance is completely irrelevant because he's arguing that it's only logical to believe in purpose. Maybe it can be compared to the uselessness of investigating the percent chance that we have free will, or that we aren't brains hooked up to a Matrix, after logically establishing it would make no difference to the way we should live and that we need to assume those things are true anyway.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

(He was raised Catholic, big surprise).

big surprise indeed.

So if truly living up to ones own potential would be the "purpose" or it's just the moment that counts - and both seem to be far more likely than the whole concept of Catholicism to me - there is still everything to loose, with major limitations in lifestyle and thinking on the way.

He thinks he has a completely logical reason that we should assume there is a higher purpose. Whenever the topic comes up, he rebukes me for bringing up words like 'percent' or 'chance' while talking about the likelihood of the purpose really existing. He says the percent chance is completely irrelevant because he's arguing that it's only logical to believe in purpose. Maybe it can be compared to the uselessness of investigating the percent chance that we have free will, or that we aren't brains hooked up to a Matrix, after logically establishing it would make no difference to the way we should live and that we need to assume those things are true anyway.

It sounds like he assumes that life without purpose would instantly become devoid of value as well. "Believing in purpose" may be very logical to him and it's not surprising, considering that he is arguing his own point of view. But logical belief or logical behavior may differ greatly, depending on who is doing the thinking. And even purpose is an incredibly wide term. I can appreciate that someone comes to a logical conclusion that life without purpose is meaningless, therefor purpose should be assumed. But another may come to the equally logical conclusion that purpose is not needed.

What I don't understand is his logical reasoning for then making the leap from purpose in general to the very specific form of purpose in Catholicism. It is obviously due to that fact that he was raised this way and has never investigated anything else. But if purpose and belief matter to him so much, then why not show some more effort?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That's right. Completely disregard the opposing view and feign(?) stupidity concerning an obvious and valid point.

You're a strong atheist regarding Zeus Einstein.

I completely missed your response, my bad. Ok let's back up shall we.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Well, as someone that is a strong atheist towards some gods (e.g. yours) and a weak atheist towards others (e.g. gods that do not logically implode) I can say that my weak atheism is very much a state of not knowing. We are born not knowing, ergo, my lack of belief is very much a direct continuation of the lack of belief that I was born with.

Hope that helps

It doesn't help and that's impossible.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

It doesn't help and that's impossible.

So if you take a newborn and lock them in a room with no outside contact for 20 years they will believe in the christian god?

Will they disbelieve in one?

dis-belief is not the point. LACK OF BELIEF (is that big enough for you) is the point.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

dis-belief is not the point. LACK OF BELIEF (is that big enough for you) is the point.

It's exactly the point and what you are saying here...

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

my lack of belief is very much a direct continuation of the lack of belief that I was born with.

Doesn't make sense and is impossible.