The concept of creating a cult

[Mr.Clark]

Sorry, but nope! If you dont believe in a deity, you're saying that 'X deity does not exist'. And no, there isnt much evidence to support this position. Its true that there isnt a great deal of evidence that God *does* exist either, but that just means that the informed person should (in my opinion) just form no opinion on the matter. If there's no evidence that something is either true or false, then it seems to me that the logical position is agnosticism. Whatever the Atheist says, its not the case that God's existence is inherantly unlikely. More importantly, I think statements of religious belief carry such weight - and are so hard to retract once they're committed to - that if anything you should need even more evidence before committing to a position then you would do about other matters.

"There may be a God, or there may not. In either case, I dont believe there is enough evidence to warrant committing to a belief that would require such drastic action on the part of the believer." There you are, thats me.

Except that you're starting on the premise that there's exactly a 50/50 chance that god exists. That's a flawed assumption.

Thats true, there is strong evidence that mavity exists. However, there is very little, or no, evidence that God doesnt exist. Being an atheist requires faith in a way that being a scientist does not. (Although technically being a scientist does require some faith - See Hume's Problem of Induction.)

Being a scientist requires the ability to change convictions when presented with evidence. If someone proves to me that God exists, I'll believe in Him/Her/It. Until then, I'm quite happy with the evidence disproving his existence.

Its not quite the same. Where you have evidence, but not proof, that X being doesnt exist its not such a leap of faith to believe it doesnt. For example, the fact that the whole planet has been explored and no-one has ever seen a unicorn would provide rational grounds for not believing in one. God is a different matter - for starter, there is some evidence that he exists. There are a lot of logical arguments for the existence of God, and no matter how hard Atheist philosophers might try, there are several ways in which you can show that the belief in a deity is at least a rational, and quite possibly a reasonable decision.

There is no evidence that God exists. If I'm wrong, prove it. Show me some. (seriously. No sarcasm. I honestly don't know of anything that proves the existence of god.)

Also, which God? There are quite a lot to chose from...

Having been brought up in a religious but educated family, and going on to look at these issues for myself, I've come to the opinion that there isnt really any other suitable response to the question of religion than 'I do not know'. If there is a God, he won't mind me being undecided since he made me such a skeptic in the first place. If there isnt, I havnt lost anything. I've had some interesting intellectual adventures, and I think exploring Philosophy and Religion with the open mind of the Agnostic has made me a more rounded, and certianly a more accepting person along the way.

I went through a period of agnosticism, but gradually, I decided that I didn't want to be a "well, you know, maybe, possibly, I don't really know" sort of person, so jumped into atheism.

 

[Andr3w]

I think we should start a proper OCUK cult, would be great!

 

[Mr.Clark]

I think we should start a proper OCUK cult, would be great!

What would it do?

 

[Andr3w]

What would it do?

destory things...erm...camel spiders :|?

we could all use mustard and get mighty beards as well! Oh and we could all spell properly?

 

[Shoseki]

The point is, to take all the good stuff that has come out of religion and independent thought, and put it up into its own category, so that religion cannot cite it as "its own, its precious" and can concentrate on what its really about - the weird and wonderful ways of paying penance to mystical, invisible creatures, and leading your life according to its' whims, as long as they don't interfere with Humanological beliefs.

Then it doesn't matter what religion you are - as long as everyone is Humanological, all of our beliefs are compatible and we can coexist in a practical sense. It also means that it doesn't matter that you are an atheist - you can be an atheist and still be a good person (even though that is true now, its not easy to stand up for).

Fundamentalism would therefore be impossible with Humanology, because the vision of humanity as a whole which is shared between religions / worldviews is not shared with the fundamentals of any particular world view.

 

[calnen]

Except that you're starting on the premise that there's exactly a 50/50 chance that god exists. That's a flawed assumption.

Thats not quite what I meant. It may be slightly more likely that he exists, or more likely that he doesnt. The point is that I'm not willing to commit one way or the other without being sure, since in either case the decision would have such drastic consequences on the way I had to live my life. I dont know exactly how strong the evidence would have to be before I made a decision, but stronger than it is at the moment at any rate. Since the belief in God would have to make me live in a totally new way, I'd want to be at least 99% sure before I jumped in And likewise with Atheism.

Being a scientist requires the ability to change convictions when presented with evidence. If someone proves to me that God exists, I'll believe in Him/Her/It. Until then, I'm quite happy with the evidence disproving his existence......There is no evidence that God exists. If I'm wrong, prove it. Show me some. (seriously. No sarcasm. I honestly don't know of anything that proves the existence of god.)

As far as I know, Alvin Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument has yet to be refuted. The argument, if successful, does not prove that God exists, but it does prove that the belief in him is rational. There are others too, but they take a while to study properly! The Cosmological Argument (proving the existence of a creator) is also extremely difficult to refute. Then there's the design argument, etc.

EDIT - If you look these up, please make sure you're using a resource that will deal with the issues properly. I've seen some websites that give the whole ontological argument only a page, and then decide one way or the other. (Both Christian and Atheist sites seem to do this.) In fact, these arguments are tremendously complex and thousand-page books have been written on them. If you want to use the internet, I'd recommend the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. It seems fairly well balanced.)

Also, which God? There are quite a lot to chose from...

Thats one of the problems, yes. Most of these logical arguments are trying to show the existence of the 'God of the Philosophers' - that is, an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent being. Beyond that, it doesnt seem that Philosophy can say a lot about God. However, most of the world's religions agree on these characteristics, so some people have argued that the religions are just 'a bit wrong' each, or perhaps that they focus on different interpretations and characteristics of the same being. I couldnt really comment on that view as I dont know a lot about most of the world's faiths, but there might be something to it.

I went through a period of agnosticism, but gradually, I decided that I didn't want to be a "well, you know, maybe, possibly, I don't really know" sort of person, so jumped into atheism.

Fair enough
Agnostics tend to get a hard time of it - partly because we always get involved in these debates But the best part is that if I ever change my mind, I dont have to alter my whole life to do it. Admitting that God does or does not exist wouldn't involve the rest of my prior life being wrong, or misguided, which are the problems that some people face once they commit to a belief system and then find out something new about the world, or themself.

All the best