What or who created the universe?

[Homo Aestheticus]

And keep in mind that I have no problem with theists, I have problems with theists making facile, pseudo-logical arguments to support their beliefs.

Look, I didn't want to enumerate the most obvious examples. Of course we have suicide bombing, the right to life fundies against abortion, opposition to gay marriage and stem cell research, etc.... but I consider both neonatal and religious circumcision as a greatly under-reported human rights issue.

[karlhenning]

Look, I didn't want to enumerate the most obvious examples. Of course we have suicide bombing, the right to life fundies against abortion, opposition to gay marriage and stem cell research, etc.

You're clumping "opposition to gay marriage" together with "suicide bombing"?

[Homo Aestheticus]

You're clumping "opposition to gay marriage" together with "suicide bombing"?

What I meant was that neither of those would exist if it weren't for the religious element.

[Joe_Campbell]

What I meant was that neither of those would exist if it weren't for the religious element.

I disagree. Religion, among other things, has been used for centuries to justify the predispositions of its "followers." Why do you think there's such controversy surrounding Christianity and homosexuality?

[greg]

You're clumping "opposition to gay marriage" together with "suicide bombing"?

[Homo Aestheticus]

I didn't realize that I was conversing with a baboon.  My mistake.

Do you really find it easier to believe that matter came into existence out of nothing rather than a deity, however malevolent ?

[arkiv]

Most atheists/agnostics grow up in families with conventional beliefs

Why mixing agnostics with atheists? We agnostics are different from atheists.

[jlaurson]

Why mixing agnostics with atheists? We agnostics are different from atheists.

Similar to atheists, granted, but without the spine. 

(I love the bit where Freud rips agnostics in the introduction to "Civilization and its Discontents". Not agnostics "hedge their bets", but a lot seem to be doing just that... Unable to disprove the existence of the invisible pink unicorn, they dare not go on the record stating that it doesn't exist. That's incidentally not how Freud puts it, but I haven't the book here for the exact quote.)

Do you really find it easier to believe that matter came into existence out of nothing rather than a deity, however malevolent ?

The lack of an answer to one question does not in any way stipulate another specific answer. That's the old "I don't know XYZ ---> therefore God" fallacy. Aside: Atheism isn't trying to give the "easy" answer. In that sense you are right. It's of course easier to answer every unanswerable question with "therefore God" and stop thinking beyond those points. That's perhaps the main reason for the existence of supernatural, omnipotent beings in all cultures.

It's simply more difficult to believe that there are things beyond our comprehension than to trust the explanation ("God") that very conveniently gives us all the "answer". "God" is really just an acronym for "Beyond my comprehension" or "Can't Explain".

----------
"The Invisible Pink Unicorns is a being of great spiritual power. We know
this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based
upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we
know that she is invisible because we can't see her."

[71 dB]

I don't participate to this kind of discussions much anymore. The reason is:

Religion is poison that contaminates the mind. Arguing with religious people is usually pointless. Since they can't give up their beliefs, they have to resort to false logic. Whenever logic supports atheists (that tends to happens very often), religious people say you can't use logic to religious things (NOMA - Non-Overlapping Magisteria). At the same time they use false logic to support their own claims! That's intellectually disgusting.

[Harry]

Hey, I want to believe!

[Homo Aestheticus]

Jens,

The lack of an answer to one question does not in any way stipulate another specific answer. That's the old "I don't know XYZ ---> therefore God" fallacy. Aside: Atheism isn't trying to give the "easy" answer. In that sense you are right. It's of course easier to answer every unanswerable question with "therefore God" and stop thinking beyond those points. That's perhaps the main reason for the existence of supernatural, omnipotent beings in all cultures.

I am very amenable to rational arguments except when it comes to this matter of the existence of supernatural beings.

A question:

If there most likely are no gods, why is suicide unethical ?

Why do we give so much weight to the functionalist argument which says that we as individuals are not 'islands' and therefore suicide is wrong.

[DavidW]

Hey, I want to believe!

Okay Mulder--

[Harry]

Okay Mulder--

Excellent

[jlaurson]

Jens,
I am very amenable to rational arguments except when it comes to this matter of the existence of supernatural beings.

A question:

If there most likely are no gods, why is suicide unethical ?
Why do we give so much weight to the functionalist argument which says that we as individuals are not 'islands' and therefore suicide is wrong.

There are many things in life that go beyond reason and rationality. The very notion of the Romantic, for example. Or trust, the little cousin of faith. There are also inborn needs in humans, that cannot be traced and justified entirely on rational grounds. Not yet, at any rate, and I hope the day never comes when we can. Accepting intangibles in life is important... they make it worth living. Not unlike the many intangibles that go into a superb orchestral performance where it can make for greatness -- greatness that could not be, if a computer perfectly simulated every note in just the right way. It's the 'dirt' in the creases, nooks, and corners that gives the flavor. It's the absence of absolutism. But accepting intangibles (accepting question marks) is in no way indicative of definitive answers (God, that argumentative exclamation mark.)

Specifically on suicide: Well, I am not sure if it is any more widely considered unethical than there are people who question the existence of a higher being.  In other words: Most people believe in higher powers and most people find suicide problematic. Some people don't find suicide problematic, some don't believe in God. The latter two are surely minority opinions... but I should think that more people don't find suicide unethical than there are non-religious people.

In any case, the numbers-argument on ethics isn't a very good one. Although ethics are obviously related to social norms, this democratic approach doesn't prove anything. Is suicide unethical only because a lot of people think so? You can't expect an atheist to agree with that kind of argument. It'd be like saying God (Allah, I suppose) exists, because more people believe in him/it than don't.

But let's look at why suicide is widely considered immoral. I suppose it has to do with the idea that *being* is the first principle of anything human (the ultimate "sine qua non"), and hence the self-*undoing* of it must seem very offensive, indeed. Perhaps, more practically, it's considered unethical because it sucks for those who remain? Or because there is an element of cheating yourself out of culpability and (earthly) accountability???

All I can say with any sort of definitiveness is that I'm pretty sure that an internet forum is not a satisfactory place to discuss this fascinating question. But I don't see it related to the existence of God in any essential way.

[Ten thumbs]

Suicide may well be immoral because of the distress it causes to others. On the other hand this may not always be the case. Some of you seem to be arguing that without religion there is no morality. This is surely a bad mistake.

[Guido]

This is a new one on me! I have never met anyone in my life who has said that they thought suicide was immoral.

[Renfield]

This is a new one on me! I have never met anyone in my life who has said that they thought suicide was immoral.

Good thing you've never run into Kant, then!

[Guido]

Good thing you've never run into Kant, then!

I haven't read that part of Kant, no! He's the most difficult philosopher that I have ever tried to read - so hideously dense that it's a wonder that anyone persevered enough to realise quite how important he was!

[drogulus]

The lack of an answer to one question does not in any way stipulate another specific answer. That's the old "I don't know XYZ ---> therefore God" fallacy. Aside: Atheism isn't trying to give the "easy" answer. In that sense you are right. It's of course easier to answer every unanswerable question with "therefore God" and stop thinking beyond those points. That's perhaps the main reason for the existence of supernatural, omnipotent beings in all cultures.

      You're right. Notice this is the approach of the creationists/ID'ers. Evolution is false so creation is right. This amounts to a failure of imagination equaling insight into possibilities.

   

Do you really find it easier to believe that matter came into existence out of nothing rather than a deity, however malevolent ?

     Creation out of nothing and creation by god are both bad solutions. They are the same. Something can't come out of a nothing god or a nothing nothing. All we can do with what exists is observe it and figure out what it does. Insight into origins can't come any other way. If you aren't reasoning about evidence what are you reasoning about?

     Ideas about existence can come from anywhere. What matters is not where they come from, but if they can be confirmed by observations. I like to run this backwards. Since true ideas are those that are confirmed by observation, I build that into my definition of truth. The truth simply is what is confirmed*, and absolutist ideas about the "real truth" are rejected as useless abstractions. This view is called pragmatism (a variant of it). Self validating abstract systems like logic and mathematics don't receive this treatment. Once you give up on the idea of an absolute "truth beyond truth" life is simpler, and food tastes better. 

     Remember, even if there was a "real truth out there" beyond what we're capable of observing/confirming, the only way you could know is ....by confirming it!

    _{* If I was strict about this, I'd be a positivist. I allow for probabilistic interpretations and enough speculative room for new science. What matters is that confirmation is the goal, the gold standard. I'm rejecting unknowable truth out of hand, not things we haven't figured out yet. If I can't tell if a proposition is one or the other the tie goes to the runner.} 

[Homo Aestheticus]

Drogulus,

Creation out of nothing and creation by god are both bad solutions. They are the same. Something can't come out of a nothing god or a nothing nothing. All we can do with what exists is observe it and figure out what it does.

A different angle for a moment: Don't you think that the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens have an important blindspot and that is that their version of atheism is purely negative.... you just strip belief away and go on from there.   

Isn't that inadequate ? I think society needs a substitute that will fill some of the valuable functions that religions have served.  Shouldn't we put the humanism back in the secular ?