First of all, I have more in common with atheists than religious people, so my intention isn’t to come here and attack, I just want to hear your opinions. Maybe I’m wrong, I’d like to hear from you if I am. I’m just expressing here my perception of the movement and not actually what I consider to be facts.

My issue with atheism is that I think it establishes the lack of a God or gods as the truth. I do agree that the concept of a God is hard to believe logically, specially with all the incoherent arguments that religions have had in the past. But saying that there’s no god with certainty is something I’m just not comfortable with. Science has taught us that being wrong is part of the process of progress. We’re constantly learning things we didn’t know about, confirming theories that seemed insane in their time. I feel like being open to the possibilities is a healthier mindset, as we barely understand reality.

In general, atheism feels too close minded, too attached to the current facts, which will probably be obsolete in a few centuries. I do agree with logical and rational thinking, but part of that is accepting how little we really know about reality, how what we considered truth in the past was wrong or more complex than we expected

I usually don’t believe there is a god when the argument comes from religious people, because they have no evidence, but they could be right by chance.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    My issue with atheism is that I think it establishes the lack of a God or gods as the truth.

    Atheism is not about truth, it is about belief. Atheists do not believe there are gods.

    If an atheist says that it is an absolute truth that there are no gods, they are an atheist, but also a gnostic. Gnostics claim to know essentially unknowable things as truths.

    • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      OK, it still seems like taking sides to me when there’s no evidence one way or the other. I’d just say “I don’t know” and move on. No need to take sides on something that I’m clueless about, like what’s reality or its origins.

      A human believing that God’s don’t exist based on reason is totally irrelevant, considering how limited human knowledge and reason is in these matters.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        There is no third position here. You have to know whether or not you believe something. Either you believe it or you don’t.

        Either you believe unicorns exist or you don’t. You can’t not know whether or not you believe they exist. You can not know whether or not they exist, but that is a different thing.

        You have to know what you believe because it’s what you believe.

        • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I think you can’t say this is a rule for every scenario. “Believe or not believe” seems to be an opinion of yours that I’m personally not bound to. I’m fine just accepting I don’t know something that is clearly outside of the grasp of my rational thought or logic.

          I’m not sure why you guys keep comparing the existence of a god with unicorns or leprschauns. But ok, I’ll play along. Do I believe there are unicorns in earth? No, we have a pretty good understanding of the land of this planet. If you said “they live in another dimension” I’d just dismiss that because whoever said it has no clue about what “another dimension” is.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Bernard Russell used a teapot in space analogy to show that belief in something that may or may not exist and isn’t tangible to living doesn’t seem to be worth investing the effort of belief in.

            Carl Sagan had a quote, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

            Christopher Hitchens had his own: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

            All of these are open-minded observations that can be easily changed with evidence that supports the religious claims. Which are lacking.

            • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I agree with all of them. I feel both sides have the problem of belief. “May or may not exist”, as you said.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            “Believe or not believe” seems to be an opinion of yours that I’m personally not bound to. I’m fine just accepting I don’t know something that is clearly outside of the grasp of my rational thought or logic.

            Whether you believe something or not is not outside the grasp of your rational thought. Just… answer the question. That’s all it takes to know if you believe something, you take a moment to introspect and you say whether you believe it or not.

            There’s also a difference between lacking a belief in a proposition and believing in the negation of that proposition. Lacking a belief in something (for example, any particular god) is not the same thing as believing that that god does not exist. Both are atheism, they’re just different kinds of atheism. “Strong atheism” and “weak atheism” are the usual terms to distinguish between them.

            • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I’ll play along. When I ask myself that question I immediately answer “I don’t believe”, just because I’ve conditioned myself to answer that over the years. The same way I answered “I believe” when I was conditioned during my childhood.

              My point is that choosing sides is a fallacy, it’s something very human though. Over the past years I’ve realized that I don’t need to take sides and that I’m better off accepting when I just don’t know something, just avoid having opinions about matters that I can’t understand.

              But yes, I still answer “I don’t believe” internally. Hopefully I’ll learn to turn “I don’t know” into my instinctual answer.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                You seem to think if you believe something, you have to hold that belief for a length of time before it becomes a belief. That’s not how believing things work.

                If you don’t believe that there is a god for 10 seconds and then start believing again, you are an atheist for 10 seconds.

                • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  I honestly didn’t understand what you said there. I don’t believe a person needs to hold a belief for some time for it to be valid. Not sure how you arrived to that conclusion.

                  I just said that my instinctual answer isn’t one that matches my worldview clearly. When I say “I don’t believe” I actually mean “I have no belief/I don’t know”. I just need to train myself to say “I have no belief” which represents what I feel much better and with less ambiguity.

      • Hobbes@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        There is no end to things that may exist but are not provable. Where do you draw the line? There might be a toaster orbiting the sun.

        • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Based on our understanding of human history, we KNOW that toasters were created on earth and that it is unlikely one is in orbit on the sun… This is based on knowledge. Even if based on knowledge, I could be wrong.

          Now, what do you KNOW about the creation of the universe or the nature of reality?

          This is my whole point. I’m not saying it is wrong to have solid opinions about some things. I’m saying it is wrong having solid opinions about things we really don’t understand.

          • bramkaandorp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            There is no precedence for the existence of deities.

            For belief in deities, yes, but not for their existence.

            That is all we need to say if we believe in the existence of deities; prior plausibility.

            Staying in the middle ground of “maybe, we don’t know” makes no sense, because it puts the plausibility one step further towards “yes” than is warranted based on the evidence we have.

            • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              “There is no precedence for the existence of deities”

              What makes you think humans have the capacity to perceive or understand deities?

              It feels like you guys are really not understanding my point. Please put human existence into perspective and tell me how much we really know. Now, how much is there to know?

              It’s like a blind person saying color doesn’t exist because he can’t experience it. You see? Humans will live and die in the relative blink of an eye. Chances are we won’t really get to know what’s actually going on. Right now we don’t really know, so having any opinion about what’s happening based on lack of evidence is really pointless. We have no evidence for most things that are actually happening in the universe.

              • bramkaandorp@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Sorry for my very late response.

                In your example of color, there are people who can, and people who can’t see colors.

                Is there any analogy between that and god belief?

                Not just belief, because anyone can believe anything. I mean knowledge, or sensory input.

                If no one can sense (detect) deities, then how can anyone say that there is one?

                And if we can’t say that there is one, why would it be unreasonable to conclude that there probably isn’t one?

                That is all I as an atheist believe. That, lacking any evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that there probably aren’t any deities.

                All this talk about it being beyond our understanding sounds like begging the question if you can’t demonstrate it.

                • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Yes, it is unreasonable to conclude anything when the subject is so out of our reach.

                  My point is that human perception, intelligence and understanding of the universe is comparable to a blind person and colors. Just because a blind person doesn’t perceive colors or has evidence of its existence, doesn’t mean that colors don’t exist. Just because humans aren’t intellectually capable of understanding the origin of the universe and the existence of a creator, doesn’t mean a creator doesn’t exist.

                  This whole “there’s no evidence” isn’t an absolute statement, it’s more like “humans haven’t gathered the evidence”. Humans haven’t gathered evidence for most of the things that are actually happening in the universe, and they are happening. We’re miniscule. We’re so small that we’re trapped in the observable universe, which is probably miniscule itself.

                  Yet, we stand tall and say aloud “I firmly believe this doesn’t exist because we, humans, haven’t experienced it”.

                  I hope you see my point now. An ant has no evidence of black holes, yet, they are. Yes, we have no evidence. No, we shouldn’t BELIEVE something based on lack of evidence.

                  The thing I love about science is that it is a tool, it isn’t concerned with questions such as “does God exist”. Atheists use science as the basis for a belief that not even scientists are concerned with. Science is a practical tool to increase our knowledge, it doesn’t take a stand on matters outside of it’s reach. Science doesn’t say “there are probably no gods because there’s no evidence”. That belief is not a direct result of the evidence we have gathered, that’s just atheism thinking science and evidence have more power than they do.

                  So again, yes, it is unreasonable to conclude something besides “I don’t know”.

          • Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            So there is actually a valid critisism of Russel’s teapot, or toaster in this case, that there could be a detectable causality that put the object in orbit even if the object itself cannot be observed (such as a rocket to deliver it). However, this (minor) flaw in a popularized analogy does nothing to reject what the analogy represents: A stupid idea that cannot really be falsified, even though it is false (see what I did there?).

            Atheist do not carry any belief in not believing (this even sounds stupid). We simply have come to the conclusion that there is no basis for believing in any particular denomination, nor some unspecific general one for that matter.

            • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Yeah, I guess it really comes down to semantics.

              Does “I don’t believe” mean “I believe there is no god” or “I don’t have a belief”? I think there is a very important distinction here. The first one says “based on my experience, I think it is unlikely there is a god”. The second one says “I really don’t believe anything about it, one way or the other”.

              My point targets the first one. The experience and evidence built by humans is just relatively insignificant… This is my problem with this line of thought. “There is no evidence” doesn’t give any degree of confidence at all when it comes to this matter. There no evidence for most of the things that make reality exist, and yet here we are.

              • Urist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Atheists mean by the second that they find as little material basis for believing in god as in [insert whack theory here (teapot, spaghettimonster, etc.)]. We do make a judgement one way or the other, we say that our default position is not believing literally incredible things without proof.

                The bar for what needs to be proven unless assumed false is higher the more that is claimed. Since god (especially to monotheistic denominations) are by definition the highest being claimed to exist, there is a huge burden of proof required for believing in it. Since there exists none, we choose to assume that the statement is false.

                The reason we make all these stupid analogies is to hammer through the point that we, like everyone else, make a lot of assumptions that unproven things are false. The question of god is not really special in this regard, except for the historical and biological conditions that makes people inclined to believe in the fairytale absent of any good objective reason.

                • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  You used “not believing” in your explanation. Does that mean “I have no belief” or does it mean “I believe it is false”?

                  Edit: ah ok, so you choose to believe it is false. Yeah, I can’t agree with this. I do agree with having no belief at all. Assuming something is false because there is no evidence seems like a rushed conclusion to me. I understand the burden of proof falls on them, but the fact they don’t have evidence doesn’t make them wrong.

                  If you want to make conclusions about matters humans can barely comprehend based on your human comprehension, that would be something very human to do, so it’s understandable.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The concept of “god” implies not being bound by physical laws. So science simply doesn’t apply here. We can never scientifically prove or disprove god’s existence, because if we could, then whatever we proved or disproved wouldn’t fit our concept of “god” anymore. It would just be another natural phenomenon that can be studied.

    But our world functions very well without a god. If one does exist, it doesn’t seem to affect anything meaningfully and noticeably. So is it really a god if you can just ignore it with no ill effects?

    And without any real proof of its existence, it becomes equivalent with any other explanation that may or may not be true and can never be proven, like the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn. It becomes meaningless and useless, so it can be discarded as untrue.

    • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I agree, we will never know if it exists or not… So why should we believe something about it?

      Isn’t “I know” much better than “I believe”?

      • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because that’s not how it works. You either believe or you don’t. This isn’t quantum physics, you don’t exist in some superposition of belief. You seem to keep ignoring everyone reminding you that knowledge and belief are two entirely separate things.

        Just because you say “I don’t know” doesn’t have any bearing on your belief or lack thereof. You either believe or you don’t, it’s that simple.

        • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          It’s possible to have no belief, not sure why you’re saying there are only 2 options as if that was an absolute truth. In fact, some people have pointed out that atheism is lack of belief, Wikipedia says that.

          Yes, knowledge and belief are different, I never said they are the same. My point is that knowledge is more valuable than belief. When there’s no knowledge, belief is worthless. We have no knowledge about a creator or the actual events of the origin of the universe, thus, belief is pointless. Whatever you choose to believe is just a very uncertain guess.

          Why believe based on almost zero knowledge? Isn’t that as bad as what religious people do?

          • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I believe that there is no god BECAUSE there is no evidence to support one. I base my belief on the fact that there is zero evidence. When someone makes a claim, it is the responsibility of the claimant to give evidence.

            And again, either you believe there is a god or you don’t believe there is a god. It is a yes or no question.

            • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              There is zero human evidence about most of the things that are actually happening right now in the universe.

                • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Just because I’m arguing doesn’t mean it is in bad faith. I enjoy standing my ground and seeing what comes out of it. Otherwise it isn’t actually a discussion. I do feel some people are getting triggered by this, but I don’t care, I’m being respectful and explaining things the way I see them.

                  Maybe this is a bad habit of mine, but it’s when the good stuff happens. I’ve actually learned a lot through my stubbornness in this post.

    • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yeah, Schrodinger’s was also a logical paradox that contradicted superposition. Too bad reality is more complex than human logic. “well I’ve never seen a cat being dead and alive at the same time, I guess superposition is just false because there’s no evidence”.

      The fact you’re pointing Russell’s Teapot shows exactly what I mean with this post. You’re using a simple logical thought experiment to derive a most likely conclusion about the nature of the universe, when in reality you have basically null knowledge of what is actually going on with reality. This is exactly my disagreement with atheism.

      • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        But reality isn’t more complex than human logic… There are solid mathematical proofs that superposition is valid. Superposition is also falsifiable.

        • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, we discovered that AFTER the thought experiment. That was possible through knowledge and experimentation. Two things we don’t have about the origin of the universe… We have a lot of theories though.

          • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            You should know that theories like superposition are articulated after they find math implying the behaviour.

            • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              OK, so if maths were so clear about it, why very smart people who think logically didn’t think it was the case?

              Could it be because maths have said many times in the past “Hey, this could be possible”… Only to find out that, yes, it is possible in maths but not in reality.

              https://youtu.be/6akmv1bsz1M?feature=shared

              And yeah, we don’t have the tools right now to fully unrestand the origin of the universe, so we can’t know how to make falsifiable theories around it. For example, Dark Matter is non-falsifiable because we don’t have enough knowledge about it.

              We observe certain behavior in the universe, we call the cause Dark Matter even if we don’t fully understand how to prove or disprove it. We observe the existence of reality and we assume there is a creator even if we don’t fully understand how to prove or disprove it. We can observe reality, thus, theorizing about the existence of a creator isn’t absurd.

                • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  If it is falsifiable or not depends on how you define it.

                  It could be defined in many falsifiable ways, give it a try, pretty sure you can find many.

                  My point about Dark Matter is that it isn’t something we will likely have the means to falsify soon given the nature of the problem. It is also a pretty weak theory that contradicts many of the facts that we already know about the universe. So I could also create a very weak falsifiable argument about the existence of a creator and then call it a day.

                  “The creator was physically present in the origin of spacetime”. In theory, if we could look back in time, we could verify this. There are plenty techniques that allow us to “look” back, we may just need to discover a better one.

                  “God is physical and exists in the universe”

                  Making something falsifiable isn’t a problem.

                  You’re saying the concept of a god used by traditional religions isn’t falsifiable, which is right. But there’s no reason to limit the idea of a god to those traditional definitions.

  • Halasham@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    First of all, I have more in common with atheists than religious people, so my intention isn’t to come here and attack, I just want to hear your opinions.

    Welcome. Happy to talk with people rather than have to counter rhetorical attacks.

    My issue with atheism is that I think it establishes the lack of a God or gods as the truth.

    Personally, I’m partial to the definition of Atheism as ‘Lack of belief in any gods’ rather than ‘Belief that there are no gods.’ I fit both definitions but I think the first is more accurate and better represents most Atheist’s relationship with the truth value of the claim. Even for those of us who believe there are no gods I believe it’s a grand commonality between a super-majority of atheists that there’s some quantity of sufficient evidence that would change our minds… though quite likely the specific amount will vary from one to another.

    But saying that there’s no god with certainty is something I’m just not comfortable with. Science has taught us that being wrong is part of the process of progress.

    The way I see it most of the time scientific advancement doesn’t say our previous understanding was wrong, rather that it was incomplete. One of the better examples being Newtonian Physics and Relativity, Newton wasn’t wrong so much as his work didn’t account for special behavior under extreme circumstances. We do occasionally have counter examples such as miasma being replaced with the Germ Theory of Disease but this tends to be when a historical unscientific position is unraveled by a scientific explanation.

    As-is I don’t see how any such gods that have been commonly claimed could exist as stated without them violating various scientific, and in some cases logical, laws. So, I feel quite secure in my position that these things that contradict our best evidenced understanding of the universe are not real.

    I feel like being open to the possibilities is a healthier mindset, as we barely understand reality.

    Sure, it’s worthwhile to look at the evidence against our own positions. But evidence is the key word here. The theistic position has yet to forward any noteworthy body of anything that would fit the definition of the word. They’re welcome to keep trying in perpetuity if they so wish but I’m not going to lend credence to the claim until such time as they are not only successful in finding something that is evidence but a sufficient body of it to outweigh what the claim is mutually exclusive with which already has evidence or they can by some means discredit the whole body of evidence against their claim and forward evidence for it.

    That being said so long as there is measurable harm to come from theistic belief and the benefits of it are ephemeral I will be opposed to inflicting it on others.

    I usually don’t believe there is a god when the argument comes from religious people, because they have no evidence, but they could be right by chance.

    I don’t believe that that’s the case. To be no amount of assertion creates a chance that anything could be the case. What makes a chance is that an assessment of possibilities puts a known or estimable probability on it being the case.

    • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If most atheists identify with “lack of belief” and not “believe God doesn’t exist” then I don’t have much else to say because I think that pretty much describes myself. I just don’t have a belief, I don’t support or reject.

      I feel that even if evidence is not given, we can’t rule something as false. Let’s assume the idea of God wasn’t impossible to deny or prove. Do you think lack of evidence provided by humans, little animals who live in a dust spec for a relative short amount of time, gives you enough confidence to say “there is no creator”?

      That is exactly my issue with atheism, that they think their human reason gives them enough capacity to take a position to something as complex as the origin of reality. It feels to me like an ant taking a position on quantum mechanics. It’s just outside of our reach. Anything we choose to believe, even if rooted in reason, is a wild guess.

      The most rational thing to do is just to stop guessing. I feel if people accepted their ignorance more frequently instead of taking sides without actual knowledge, the world would be a better place.

      • Halasham@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Do you think lack of evidence provided by humans, little animals who live in a dust spec for a relative short amount of time, gives you enough confidence to say “there is no creator”?

        For some generalized creator figure? I can’t disprove that, however I think Russel’s Teapot comes into play at this point. We couldn’t detect a porcelain teapot the size of a common teapot in stellar orbit between the Earth and Mars. So, currently, it would be impossible to disprove that claim, however there is also no reason to accept it. The burden of proof is on those who make these claims to support them, not on those who don’t accept them to disprove every claim they could posit.

        For any of the creator figures I’m aware of non-deist theists claiming exist? At least of all those that I am familiar with they have self-contradictory stated natures, operate in logical contradictions, and perform impossibilities. In short: They don’t exist because for that not to be the case then the few things we can demonstrate to be true must be false.

        That is exactly my issue with atheism, that they think their human reason gives them enough capacity to take a position to something as complex as the origin of reality.

        The only times I’ve seen an atheist back their atheism just with human reason is when explaining logical contradictions about the asserted god. Most arguments I’m aware of use more than just logical contradictions in the opposing claim. More often than not I see them engaging with the proposed evidence for the claim and providing contrary evidence against it.

        It’s just outside of our reach and anything we choose to believe, even if rooted in reason, is a wild guess.

        We use the terms ‘rooted in reason’ and ‘wild guess’ to mean different things. To me a wild guess is made in the absence of reason or without regard to it while something that is ‘rooted in reason’ is about as opposed to that as is possible, a belief that stems only from what it well supported by evidence, reasoning, or most preferably both.

        I’m not sure I take your meaning for ‘just outside our reach’. Are you stating that we’re close to it but not there yet or that it is categorically beyond our ability to reach such that we will never reach it?

        The most rational thing to do is just to stop guessing. I feel if people accepted their ignorance more frequently instead of taking sides without actual knowledge, the world would be a better place.

        I’m sorry but this comes off as somewhat disingenuous directed toward atheists. We’re not accepting the other side’s guess and generally also provide reasoning for that decision when prompted. Contrast with the theistic position of the assertion of some grand causer or creator and subsequent assertions that anything not yet explained rationally is somehow the work of this unsupported asserted entity.

        • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Something rooted in reason can be a wild guess when the reasoning isn’t mature enough to handle the subject. This is a subject that is out of our reach.

          As you already pointed out, not all atheists think “God doesn’t exist”. My last paragraph was aimed towards religious people and atheists that have a solid opinion. I don’t think accepting ignorance is something bad, I advice to do it whenever possible.

          Saying “I don’t know” or “you don’t know” is much better IMO. In reality we don’t know and can’t know.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Something rooted in reason can be a wild guess when the reasoning isn’t mature enough to handle the subject.

            Example, please. I would say when you start wildly guessing, it ceases to be reason. Speculation based on available evidence might involve reason, but a wild guess is, as far as I can tell, as lacking reason as possible.

            • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              This topic is the example. Just because you’re using your rational thought doesn’t mean you’re getting anywhere near an actual answer or having a better chance of answering “is there a creator”?

              You can use all the reason you want, you just don’t understand reality with such depth that you can start scratching that question.

              Schrodinger was using reason when he proposed his paradox… But he was wrong because he lacked knowledge. Without actual knowledge, logical thought can make sense but still be wrong. Reality is more complex than the conceptual abstractions our minds use.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                I don’t have to make any wild guesses to say that I don’t believe there are any gods due to a lack of empirical evidence.

                But then you’re still, and I think intentionally now, trying to claim that knowledge and belief are the same thing. They are not, and atheism is still about belief and not knowledge.

                I realize you don’t like that, but that’s still what atheism means. A lack of belief. Guesses aren’t needed to lack belief in something. I don’t have to guess to not believe in werpreopwerwqop because there is no reason for me to believe it exists.

                • platypus_plumba@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  I don’t know why you keep saying I’m saying belief and knowledge are the same. They are not the same. My point is that belief without knowledge is pointless. See? Not the same.

                  Belief based on knowledge = good.

                  Belief without knowledge = not good.

                  Do I have knowledge about the creation of the universe? Do I understand reality? Do I know anything about a creator? No. Thus, I choose not to believe anything about it. Anything I choose to believe without actual understanding is just a guess.