Atheist Must Require Faith (Hear Me Out, Please!)

[DivideByZero14]

Hey, Fires! Yeah, Sangu told us about the whole JINYS thing...  

[PoeticVengeance]

DivideByZero14

Hey, Fires! Yeah, Sangu told us about the whole JINYS thing...

Yeah, I'm so sad Roman didn't come back.

We'll all miss that firebrand.  

[Copper Forrest]

DivideByZero14

Imagine this hypothetical situation. A man develops a computer and the software to run a simulation complex enough to emulate a universe similar to ours. All of the physical laws are identical. This simulation would treat the universe simply as a collection of particles and their properties. (In other words, it's not like some grand game of Age of Empires; it's a basic mathematical recreation of our reality.)

In this simulation, simulated life comes to be on one of the simulated planets. Eventually, some of the simulated life evolves to have self-awareness. Some of the simulated organisms explain the world around them by citing a creator, a higher being.

Alright, hyptothetical-ness over. In that situation, would they not be correct? They were indeed created by something on what could be called a higher plane then themselves. Although he has no involvement in their development, he is watching.

THEREFORE, I POSTULATE THAT one must acknowledge the infinitesimal, minute, super-duper remote chance that there is a God. I reason that most of us do not claim that the existence of a God or gods is impossible, but that it is just plain stupid to assume that as fact with no evidence.

Don't get me wrong. If I am an agnostic, then I am the most atheistic agnostic possible. I believe, I think, I really hope that there is no God, but, for the same reason I can't say that there is, I cannot say that there isn't.

So, being a true atheist requires the leap of faith that this one chance just isn't the way it went down. And since "leaps of faith" are irrational, illogical, and scientifically unsound, that makes them no better than the theists themselves.

I urgently need commentary on this! Please consider your argument carefully. This has been bugging me, and, despite my lifelong claims, I fear I truly am agnostic.

Relax, it has nothing to do with a leap of faith, it has to do with being a reasonably bright person. Being a logical person must include allowing for the possibility, however remote, that s/he is wrong. That is to say, in order to quantify the likelihood of any event, a statistician must formulate his/her hypothesis to include the possibility of an alternate outcome.

Thankfully, there is no god because s/he's surely strike me down for quoting a bumper sticker to you, but its appropriate and maybe it'll comfort you in this time of need:
"Militantly Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either!"  

[SmurfsonAcid]

You can't base a logical conclusion off of 'some'.  

[Soaring Resurrection]

I've thought about that a lot, and I agree, there is always a slight chance that there is a God, but, however you go about it, that God that might possibly exist, is in no way anything like the God described by the Bible, or any other text for that matter. There are too many contradicting theories about God in said religious texts, so they alone prove that any God can't be like in the Bible.  

[Nonymous]

[ Message temporarily off-line ]  

[Lethkhar]

But isn't God a perfect being?

And are we perfect?  

[Sanguvixen]

Lethkhar

But isn't God a perfect being?

And are we perfect?

Nope...far from it.

The way I look at it is this.

They say that God is Perfect, Omnipotent, and All-powerful. That he is the supreme being that created our world.

Firstly perfection is an illusion, there is no such thing as perfect.
Secondly, is God able to create a rock so heavy than he cannot lift it? If he cannot than he is not Omni-Potent. If he can he is not Omni-Potent. Omni-potence is logically impossible.
If he is all powerful than our world should not be full of evil, and it should be perfect. He is not all-powerful if he cannot destroy his own fallen Archangel who supposedly fell from his graces when he refused to bow to humans(god's ultimate creation).

Humans are not perfect. The bible was made by human hands. That's nothing new. However humans were supposedly made in the image of God himself. If god made humans imperfect than he must be imperfect himself.

There...it is solved.

 

[Anthropomorphic person]

I'm open to the idea of Logos, but not neccessarily of a god.  

[Lethkhar]

Sanguvixen

Lethkhar

But isn't God a perfect being?

And are we perfect?

Nope...far from it.

The way I look at it is this.

They say that God is Perfect, Omnipotent, and All-powerful. That he is the supreme being that created our world.

Firstly perfection is an illusion, there is no such thing as perfect.
Secondly, is God able to create a rock so heavy than he cannot lift it? If he cannot than he is not Omni-Potent. If he can he is not Omni-Potent. Omni-potence is logically impossible.
If he is all powerful than our world should not be full of evil, and it should be perfect. He is not all-powerful if he cannot destroy his own fallen Archangel who supposedly fell from his graces when he refused to bow to humans(god's ultimate creation).

Humans are not perfect. The bible was made by human hands. That's nothing new. However humans were supposedly made in the image of God himself. If god made humans imperfect than he must be imperfect himself.

There...it is solved.

Precisely.

Though, due to certain philosophical reasons, I still remain a weak atheist. Because there still is a very, very small chance that God exists and he doesn't follow logic at all. Our senses are not trustworthy, and we thus cannot truly trust our own logic. I read too much Descartes philosophy. sweatdrop  

[Azaleya]

I'd just like to say that even if there is a god,which i highly doubt, then why on earth would he (or she) pay any attention to us whatsoever? i no that if i had that kind of power i wouldn't bother messing with us. i would play pool with the stars and black holes.  

[Xanthir]

DivideByZero14

Imagine this hypothetical situation. A man develops a computer and the software to run a simulation complex enough to emulate a universe similar to ours. All of the physical laws are identical. This simulation would treat the universe simply as a collection of particles and their properties. (In other words, it's not like some grand game of Age of Empires; it's a basic mathematical recreation of our reality.)

In this simulation, simulated life comes to be on one of the simulated planets. Eventually, some of the simulated life evolves to have self-awareness. Some of the simulated organisms explain the world around them by citing a creator, a higher being.

Alright, hyptothetical-ness over. In that situation, would they not be correct? They were indeed created by something on what could be called a higher plane then themselves. Although he has no involvement in their development, he is watching.

Nope. Nearly all of them would be incorrect, if their world is anything like ours. They'd all invent some god with all manner of magical powers and inscrutable motivations, when really it's just some guy doing a research project on universe construction. ^_^ The only ones who would be right would be the guys who think The Matrix is real, and even they would get details wrong.

Quote:

THEREFORE, I POSTULATE THAT one must acknowledge the infinitesimal, minute, super-duper remote chance that there is a God. I reason that most of us do not claim that the existence of a God or gods is impossible, but that it is just plain stupid to assume that as fact with no evidence.

Don't get me wrong. If I am an agnostic, then I am the most atheistic agnostic possible. I believe, I think, I really hope that there is no God, but, for the same reason I can't say that there is, I cannot say that there isn't.

So, being a true atheist requires the leap of faith that this one chance just isn't the way it went down. And since "leaps of faith" are irrational, illogical, and scientifically unsound, that makes them no better than the theists themselves.

I urgently need commentary on this! Please consider your argument carefully. This has been bugging me, and, despite my lifelong claims, I fear I truly am agnostic.

There's a difference between having an open mind and letting your brains fall out. ^_^ There is a point where you cannot entertain the possibility of something. Otherwise, you have to admit the possibility that I am riding an invisible pink unicorn. You have to admit the possibility that there is an elf on my shoulder who controls the weather. You have to admit the possibility that dogs can talk, but they only do it when you aren't looking. You have to admit the possibility that the universe really does exist only when you're watching it, and there is always an infinite void of nothing ness behind you.

All of these are silly, right? You don't believe in any of them. You don't even entertain the thought of them. The only reason that the existence of God is different is because it has such an exaggerated importance in our society. You can call someone who believes in talking dogs a crackpot, but it's not PC to call a religious person who believes in a magical sky daddy a crackpot. It's even getting to where people are offended if you call an astrologist or a psychic a crackpot! (Note: These people at least make testable claims about their abilities. They have merely been shown to be wrong in every single properly double-blinded test.)

So, yeah, there is the tinest, most minute possibility that god is real, along with unicorns, elves, talking dogs, and the monstrous void behind your back. It's still okay to say that you're sure they don't exist. ^_^