Of God and Atheism…

Bad logic. Atheism is not a faith. It’s not that I belive there is no God. It’s just that I see no proof of a God therefore I arrive at the logical conclusion that there is no God.

Harini, do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? No you don’t? Why? Because you have no proof of it’s existance? Or because you have faith in it’s non-existance?

May 31st, 2005 at 5:22 pm

Existence!Existence!!

May 31st, 2005 at 5:27 pm

Athiesm is a belief that God does not exist. Just as theism is a belief that God does.
You can no more disprove God doesn’t exist to me, than i can that God exists for you.
As far as life and universe is concerned God is as useful a belief as any!
The big bang is a belief that the universe started with a bang.
The mini bang theory is that there wasn’t one bang - but lots of little ones that led to creation.
There is a belief that life began on earth because some meteor came to earth with ice. You ask any scientist the probablity of bacteria surviving on a meteor that is racing through space and you would know how improbable it is!
There is a theory that space travellers brought life to earth.
There is another which says that god had nothing better to do, and created life.
You want proof of God look around you. If you can’t see it, I can’t help you:)

May 31st, 2005 at 6:18 pm

You can no more disprove God doesnâ€™t exist to me, than i can that God exists for you.

Not true. If you claim something exists, the burden of proof lies with you. I don’t have to disprove it. We start from nothingness, and you claim something called “god” exists. Well, you have to show me. I don’t have to prove god does not exist.

Let me take the Invisible Pink Unicorn as an example. Say Mr. X believes in the IPU. I say “Don’t be silly, the IPU is a myth. Prove that it exists” Mr. X respons with “No, you disprove that it does not exist!”

May 31st, 2005 at 6:50 pm

Yazad the DNA existed before Watson & Crick “proved” that it existed.
The quarks existed before people even knew they were there,
The Universe existed before we figured it out.
The list is endless.
You want a mathematical equation for God - i cant give it to you. In any case maths is just as innacurate as anything else. Except that it is inaccurate in a formula form:)
Like I said :
You want proof of God look around you. If you canâ€™t see it, I canâ€™t help you:)

As far as the IPU is concerned, i can’t disprove that it exists. And if it exists for Mr.X i hope that he is very happy with it. imagine a unicorn, and pink and invisible! what fun:)

May 31st, 2005 at 10:07 pm

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/overview.htm

You want proof of God look around you. If you canâ€™t see it, I canâ€™t help you.

Well, I did look around me when the tsunami struck, in which tens of thousands of people died senselessly, and I saw no evidence of God at all. Quite to the contrary.

And “Darwinism” is hardly unscientific. Natural selection explains pretty much everything around us, for most of which “God” is an utterly inadequate explanation.

May 31st, 2005 at 11:37 pm

MadMan

You want proof of God look around you. If you canâ€™t see it, I canâ€™t help you.

There’s far too much crap in this world for that to be anything close to a decent argument.

(Amit, the number dead was in the hundreds of thousands.)

Related links:
Burden of proof
God of the gaps

As far as life and universe is concerned God is as useful a belief as any!

Which version of God? The numerous faiths around the world have varying accounts of him. Some even say their God is the real deal. Perhaps you can tell me if the Christian God kicks the arse of the Muslim God. Or is it vice versa? Or are both of them deluded?

June 1st, 2005 at 2:04 am

Joe

Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, not a faith that no gods exisst.

June 1st, 2005 at 3:09 am

enjoying the erudite debate and learning…

given the chaos and mayhem all around - and if the hindu gods do exist - then shiva should be commencing his “tandava” pretty soon!

have chased the IPU quite a lot in the past, but the context here was interesting!

June 1st, 2005 at 3:24 am

Amit
Darwinism is one hypothesis about creation. more likely than the rest. but a hypothesis all the same. Not yet proven. IF it were - there would hardly be the controversy about it. Do I disbelieve it ? no. i believe that it possibly the most likely way in which evolution happened. Did I see it, has mankind managed to line up every species in the chain. No.

As far as the Tsunami is concerned. or a riot. or any thing else is concerned - why is that proof of no god?Why do athiests believe (and my assumption is that u are one) that faith in God is going to keep you safe and immortal? It doesn’t.
Joe thnx.

Madman - God as complete conciousness works for me. Not the cuddly bearded version who acts as a placebo effect. I am also terribly basic (animistic? in my faith. For me everything is God. will read the links later. tnx for them. You are also confusing religion and God.
God - atleast mine - has no religion, and assumes whatever form that i want:) I have my own hang ups on religion and religious organisation, but that is for another post and another debate.
I really have an issue with the English word God - because it really boxes in the concept. There are too many connotations of what God ought to be.
pH - looks like being fun. The tandav must have been something else.:!have chased the IPU too - usually after copious amounts of alcohol:))

June 1st, 2005 at 8:50 am

Joe - tnx for the link will look it up later.
check out this

June 1st, 2005 at 9:02 am

Darwinism is one hypothesis about creation. more likely than the rest. but a hypothesis all the same. Not yet proven. IF it were - there would hardly be the controversy about it.

There is a controversy about it only because the religious right refuses to accept that it removes the need for God or religion as an explanation. It is a political controversy, not a scientific one. In the words of Douglas Adams, those who prefer Religion as an explanation for the world are favouring “the awe of ignorance” over the “awe of understanding”. Try reading any of Richard Dawkins’s books, especially The Blind Watchmaker, which is an argument against creationism, which you seem to favour.

You miss the point. A few hundred thousand people died in a terrible manner in the tsunami - and I was there, I saw the rotting bodies - and I believe that if any God does exist, then he or she is worthy of our contempt for allowing that to happen. I spit on any God who, despite being supposedly all-powerful, does nothing about the suffering in the world, and needs bribes in the form of worship and belief.

Of course, no such God exists, so I can save my saliva.

On that subject, also read this. Answer it if you can.

Of course, you’re welcome to your faith, and can believe in anything you want - be it God or invisible pink unicorns. But it’s a bit silly to accuse people who don’t believe in something they see no evidence of “faith”.

June 1st, 2005 at 11:37 am

Amit
i don’t believe in creationism. i dont belive that “God” created the world in 6 days and on the 7th the rested. Nor do i believe the “Hindu’ view on creation which says that the universe is created when God wakes up, and dies when the God goes to sleep. Both these are religious belief, emphasised by religious books, and a part of religious dogma.
i don’t really ascribe or prescribe to any body of religious faith. And i believe that religion and religious passions have caused more grief, war, colonisation etal - than any other way of thinking.
Having said that - i have no qualms in accepting that Darwinism is one theory amongst many scientific ones . Creationism is not a scientific theory - it is a religious belief. About as plausible as the world being flat or earth being at the centre of the universe.
I also think that the loony right has hijacked the science debate a bit too much for comfort.
When i say there are issues on Darwinism - i really didn’t consider creationism, simply because its not a theory, its religious dogma. (written in a book 3000 years ago - and therefore it must be true). I meant more the scientific issues both with natural selection and with the origins of life. How did life start? there are too many species that don’t “”conform” into the theories of natural selection - what happens to them - did scottie beam them down!
Check out the Evolution wiki here
Any scientiest worth his or her salt will tell you that Darwinism or Relativity or anything else that is making waves it is not proven fact but dominent hypothesis. A hypothesis that will change with time as we understand the universe around us better. Read this article in Wired - it is on how dominant theories on Time have changed with time:)
I have read the Blind Watch Maker which I have enjoyed, and a number of others on origines. Try Stephen Jay Gould - brilliant writer.
Back to death and destruction - why do you assume the presence of God nullifies death and tragedy?
You are also assuming that just because i believe in God - i am ritualist. As I said earlier i also have a problem with the word “God” it just covers too many sins and has too much of baggage attached to it. Faith, in God - as you so generously point out - is personal. So is lack of faith.
I guess on this one we will have to agree to disagree

June 1st, 2005 at 4:40 pm

kamesh

As always GOD/RELIGION is a popular topic…

June 1st, 2005 at 7:47 pm

u can say that again:)

June 1st, 2005 at 7:55 pm

Here’s my favourite spanner for the works…
i’m sure all of you have heard of the so-called “ichneumon fly”.

They are not flies, but insects of the family Ichneumonidae, related to wasps. When these insects were first studied scientifically in the Middle Ages, they threw the Church and the Clergy in a quandry (for they preached that God the Creator was Benevolent and Merciful). And here was this little fly - His Own Creation - which made the “rack” or the “iron maiden” feel like pampering!

Consider this, the female insect has an extremely long ovipositor which it uses to deposit eggs into the body of living caterpillar and other larvae. The ovipositor is even capable of piercing several inches of tree trunk to reach caterpillars and other larvae within.

When the eggs hatch, the ichneumon larvae feed on the living host. This feeding is selective - fat and muscle tissues are devoured earlier than vital organs - keeping the host alive longer, thereby keeping the food from rotting! The host is literally eaten alive from the inside. Even inert chrysalis have been observed to writhe in distress as they are eaten to a shell by larvae inside.

So much for the Merciful…

Incidentally, the Ichneumonidae are harmless to humans and plants and in fact, help to keep many insect pests under control!

June 2nd, 2005 at 1:19 am

Lakshmikanth

how about this:

Whether there is God or not : I dont care at all….. that is what i mean by atheism.

June 2nd, 2005 at 3:55 pm

Lakshmikanth, that’s agnosticism, not atheism.

June 2nd, 2005 at 7:52 pm

Lakshmikanth

does the terms matter… that is what i am…..

Agnostic means the following

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I am not an atheist… i dont profess there is NO GOD
and nor am i an agnostic coz i DO NOT profess that there is no way of knowing that there is a God or not.

I just say i dont care its a very simple statement.

Live your life the happiest way you can i.e. by doing the work you love. I am into that!!!! then why should i care about whether there is God or not and waste the time that i can enjoy doing what i love to do.

June 2nd, 2005 at 10:26 pm

Btw, Harini, thanks for the Wired link.

And is Gravity also just a dominant hypothesis?

June 2nd, 2005 at 10:59 pm

Sunil Laxman

Darwinism is really well proven, and rigorously tested. The only people who claim Darwinism isn’t provable are strong supporters of Creationism (nothing against them, only against their arguements).
I wrote a short post explaining evolution (which has moved way beyond Darwin, and is explained in far greater detail by molecular evolution). Hate it, love it or ignore it, but it will continue to happen, and continue to shape our lives.
here’s my post:

June 3rd, 2005 at 1:22 am

Sunil Laxman

June 3rd, 2005 at 1:22 am

Hi Sunil
the problem is not with evolution as a theory. The question mark is on the process of natural selection. Darwinism is on both. Dawkins whom Amit has refered to and Gould whom I have - both believed in evolution. but disagreed on natural selection. The fact remains we know very little about the world that we live in. and as technology advances to verify scientific hypothesis - our way of looking at and understanding the world changes.

June 3rd, 2005 at 1:28 am

Hi Amit
LOL.
gravity as a force that keeps us on earth and the moon in its orbit exists.
Gravity as a theory postulated by Newton was replaced by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. so when u say is it the dominant hypothesis i guess the answer is no.
And if General relativity has been replaced, i really don’t know - haven’t kept in touch with science news for a long time:)

June 3rd, 2005 at 1:37 am

PH
all religious organisations are fossilized in terms of thought. it is hardly surprising that a body that put out the message “Condom causes Aids” in the 21st century, believed what they did in the distant past:)

June 3rd, 2005 at 1:45 am

Laksmikanth
:)) interesting viewpoint.

June 3rd, 2005 at 1:51 am

Doniv

With Amit bringing gravity into the picture, I would like to add then that newton was a deeply religious person. Newton’s argument for the existence of god - “in the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of god’s existence”. For newton the study of science reaffirmed his faith in god.

Closure: misunderstandings in any subject comes from our inadequate knowledge (be it science OR economics OR Math OR faith). And in this ensuing topic, understanding and convergence of all knowledge including the “correct interpretation of the scriptures” will confirm our belief one way or the other.

BTW, to blame god for the loss of any life would lead one to a conclusion that “we want god to be partial” which would then lead us not to believe in him. God is impartial and hence, to blame god for tsunami-like disasters (or any kind of loss in human life) would be incorrect.

June 3rd, 2005 at 7:10 am

Dawkins whom Amit has refered to and Gould whom I have - both believed in evolution. but disagreed on natural selection.

I’ve read most of the work by both of them, and their disagreements over natural selection were on nuances here and there, such as spandrels. They both essentially believed in it. And being scientists, how could they not? Natural selection is pretty much established, except by creationists and proponents of “intelligent design”, as the way we evolved. It explains pretty much everything in that field that there is to be explained, and barring creationists etc, which you say you are not, no one disputes it.

June 3rd, 2005 at 10:53 am

No-shirk

grant nothin of human conception authority beyond reason

end of debate

June 3rd, 2005 at 11:41 am

Amit
that is like saying that mani shankar iyer and bal thackeray have minor differences of opinion over Savarkar!
Gould and Dwakins ‘violently’ clashed on natural selection. they came from different schools of thought as far as natural selection is concerned.
Even within “Darwinism” there is a schism- between those who believe that Natural Selection explains everything. And others who believe it is not.
An excellent article that sums up the disagreement between the two schools of thought that they represent is here.

from a purely personal viewpoint - i enjoy reading both. I am not a scientist - therefore for me to opine on which school is more right is impossible. But i enjoy reading and following the debate - it gives you a perspective on the fact that even in science there are but a few absolutes.

will the two schools of thought synthesize - most likely. It is a dialectic.
Finally, it is the process of questioning the dominant hypothesis across the ages that is the spirit of enquiry. And enquiry leads to advances, and advances to progress! I don’t think that any one should be too upset if scientists question theories postulated Darwin or Newton or anyone else.

June 3rd, 2005 at 11:49 am

http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec03/VisitingTheOriginOfLifeAgain.html

I’m afraid the essay you linked to is a bad one (one of the pitfalls of doing searches on the www). Dawkins himself, in a essay about Gould, summed up their differences much better. He wrote:

“Gould saw natural selection as operating on many levels in the heirarchy of life. Indeed it may, after a fashion, but I believe that such selection can have evolutionary consequences only when the entities selected consist of replicators … genes are such entities.”

That’s the gist of it. Both men believed strongly in natural selection, but Gould objected to what he called Dawkins’s reductionism, his explaining the process from the level of the gene. (In the Gould-Lewontin v Dawkins-Wilson argument, I tend to favour the latter group, but that is irrelevant, because both believed in natural selection.)

You could call it a dominant hypothesis if it was an incomplete theory but currently the best one. It isn’t that. It is complete in that it explains everything it sets out to explain, with no lacunae at all, and the only disputes come either from creationists, or are about nuances that don’t negate the theory as a whole. Natural selection is as real a force as gravity is, and to call it merely “dominant hypothesis” is, um, rather strange. That is faith.

June 3rd, 2005 at 1:52 pm

jayadev calamur

this is really interesting check this out

June 4th, 2005 at 11:08 am

Jayadev,

Don’t know if you’ve noticed this little para from the home page of http://www.doesgodexist.org

This journal is a part of a program of service titled Does God Exist? The purpose of the program is to provide thinking, seeking people with scientific evidence that God does exist and that the Bible is His Word.

June 4th, 2005 at 3:12 pm

jayadev calamur

Sorry Yazad. My mistake didn’t check that part out. Since you’re more into the scientific part of it, check this out
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html

June 4th, 2005 at 8:13 pm

Hi Doniv
so was Einstein. So was oppenheimer. and a whole host of other greats in science.
Besides incompete knowledge - i am not a scientist to have a deep and meaningful conversation on science - what is so worrisome is intolerance. \

The tragedy of our age is that most arguments have become bi polar “with me or against me” and neither side is ready to concede that there may be something right about the others’ argument. Somehow argument has become denying someone else’s rationality. Because if we are rational beings - and one would assume we are - then all of us make rational choices. even someone whose point of view we have major differences with.
And there is a lack of maturity - and this definition of maturity probably sums up what is so lacking in the world of arguments:

As Amit pointed out elsewhere - in another context - , the majority who are the middle ground are being left out. What happens when i am neither for you or against you - i sit out the process!

June 5th, 2005 at 11:26 am