The God Delusion

[fxnews]

The notion of a grand designer, god or whatever you want to call it is nonsense. Until someone can bring forward proof that this entity exists no one has a reason to believe it does.

Religion creates magical beings and incidents like miracles so THEY have to proof that this is possible and not the non believers that such magic can not exist.

This entity they create in their scriptures is something i want nothing to do with. The way it is portrait as vengeful, murdering people, genocide, killing newborns and striking down entire cities is not something i want anywhere near me or my children.

People believe out of fear and that is what motivates most religious people, the fear of death, the fear of the god they created in their heads. I would call that schizophrenic if anything.

[monk]

I think the most reasonable view is agnosticism.

[thegooseking]

I think the most reasonable view is agnosticism.

Yes and no.

There is neither enough support to assert that there is no god nor enough support to assert that there is.

But that certainly doesn't mean they're equally supported.

Thinking, for example, that atheism is not sufficiently supported to be a certainty but is still a lot more likely than the alternative (like I do) makes one both atheist and agnostic. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Fumarole]

Indeed, theism addresses belief while gnosis addresses knowledge.

[RandomTangent]

I think the most reasonable view is agnosticism.

The logical conclusion of agnosticism is "modern" atheism, imo. A hypothesis for which you can find no evidence is not equally like true and not true. The logical conclusion is to reject the hypothesis in lieu of evidence. Atheism, in the modern sense, is simply a lack of belief in God, not the certain conclusion that God does not exist.

[Fumarole]

Atheism, in the modern sense, is simply a lack of belief in God, not the certain conclusion that God does not exist.

Quite true. Many people seem to wrongfully believe it is the assertion that no gods exist. The metaphor I find apt is that of the rulings in US criminal courts of guilty/not guilty. Jurors vote on whether the evidence is enough to indicate guilt, the lack of which does not necessarily indicate innocence. One can vote not guilty without thinking the defendant is innocent simply because the evidence isn't strong enough to pass the legal requirement to attain a guilty vote.

[monk]

Yes and no.

There is neither enough support to assert that there is no god nor enough support to assert that there is.

But that certainly doesn't mean they're equally supported.

Thinking, for example, that atheism is not sufficiently supported to be a certainty but is still a lot more likely than the alternative (like I do) makes one both atheist and agnostic. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Keep in mind that atheism deals with certainty and not likeliness.

[monk]

The logical conclusion of agnosticism is "modern" atheism, imo. A hypothesis for which you can find no evidence is not equally like true and not true. The logical conclusion is to reject the hypothesis in lieu of evidence. Atheism, in the modern sense, is simply a lack of belief in God, not the certain conclusion that God does not exist.

Agnosticism does not argue that the hypothesis is "equally like true and not true" but merely uncertain.

[RandomTangent]

Quite true. Many people seem to wrongfully believe it is the assertion that no gods exist. The metaphor I find apt is that of the rulings in US criminal courts of guilty/not guilty. Jurors vote on whether the evidence is enough to indicate guilt, the lack of which does not necessarily indicate innocence. One can vote not guilty without thinking the defendant is innocent simply because the evidence isn't strong enough to pass the legal requirement to attain a guilty vote.

Indeed. I've heard that analogy before - it's a good one. No one really lives their life assuming everything anybody tells them is equally likely true as not true. Indeed, the more implausible the claim, the greater the chance of instinctive scepticism, and the insistence on evidence before the claim is accepted. I suppose it's an easy strawman for the faithful though - "you require just as much faith as we do!" etc.

Agnosticism does not argue that the hypothesis is "equally like true and not true" but merely uncertain.

True enough. The atheist position is simply to extrapolate from that uncertainty a default rejection of the hypothesis since it lacks evidence. I think the difference between atheism in the sense many people today mean it, and agnosticism, is pretty marginal.

[Jigowatt]

Quite true. Many people seem to wrongfully believe it is the assertion that no gods exist. The metaphor I find apt is that of the rulings in US criminal courts of guilty/not guilty. Jurors vote on whether the evidence is enough to indicate guilt, the lack of which does not necessarily indicate innocence. One can vote not guilty without thinking the defendant is innocent simply because the evidence isn't strong enough to pass the legal requirement to attain a guilty vote.

Exactly right. Your analogy reminded me of this excellent video on the subject:

[monk]

True enough. The atheist position is simply to extrapolate from that uncertainty a default rejection of the hypothesis since it lacks evidence. I think the difference between atheism in the sense many people today mean it, and agnosticism, is pretty marginal.

I think the only logical conclusion that can come from uncertainty is also uncertainty.

However, it is understandable if one comes up with a default rejection of God or acceptance based on faith given the same uncertainty.

[RandomTangent]

I think the only logical conclusion that can come from uncertainty is also uncertainty.

However, it is understandable if one comes up with a default rejection of God or acceptance based on faith given the same uncertainty.

In that case I think uncertainty, in this context, is an inadequate description of the state of evidence. For example, I could claim that I'm a space-faring hippopotamus disguised as a human being to gather information for my robotic overlords. In the sense that you lack any evidence at all to contradict my assertion, you are uncertain as to its veracity. Is it therefore logical to reserve judgement? Would you genuinely answer that claim with "we just don't know if he is or isn't"? Or, instead, do you require that I provide you with evidence to back up my rather extraordinary claim and reject it until I have?

The problem with the word "uncertainty" the way you're using it, is that it implies some controversy as to the evidence. It implies some balance in the argument. The truth is simply that there exists zero empirical evidence - experimental or documentary - for the existence of God. On that basis, the hypothesis is rejected. We are not certain that it is false, we just don't accept that it is true.

You wrongly equate this position with acceptance of God based on faith in the above, by offering them as two equivalent alternatives. That is simply not the case. It takes no faith to reject a hypothesis which lacks any sort of credible evidence. It is just logical to do so. If it did, we would all be exercising that faith every time we reject the Toothfairy hypothesis, or the Santa Claus hypothesis, or for that matter the Thor, Zeus or Mars hypothesis.

EDIT: or instead of listening to me, just watch that video above. It is an excellent explanation of the modern catch-all term "atheism" with which many of us would identify.