Hello, and welcome to a newly created blog about atheism. This blog will discuss many highly debated arguments for and against religious belief. As such, this blog is dependant upon your input and any argument you post will be welcome even if it is contradictory with what I have written. This weeks topic will be religious agnosticism.
Agnostics assert that the existence of god cannot be determined based upon the fact that it cannot be scientifically proven nor disproven. Thus, they reject the certainty with which atheists claim there is no god and that with which theists claim there is.
I however, reject the agnosticist's argument based upon the the following premises.
1. The existence of god highly unlikely.
2. A strong enough extent of probability is sufficient
for one to make a judgement with certainty.
Since there has never been found any evidence to support the exisence of a god, the existence of god in the scientific world is on par with the existence of the Easter Bunny. Furthermore, it would sound absurd to say that one is agnostic about the existence of the Easter Bunny. Thus, I believe that the scientific world is certain enough that there is no god so as to be atheist as opposed to agnostic.
5 comments:
Totally. I recently referenced a movie on my blog, under the heading "writing assignement 1" about a movie exposing the Christian religion as a movement to control the people. It takes the focus of man off of the world around him and preaches blind submission to an almighty being. The movie is called Zeitgeist and is currently being shown for free on Google.
Just wondering if you could unpack that Easter Bunny example a bit more? Are there similarities and differences we can work out between the Easter Bunny and God?
And if "there has never been found any evidence to support the existence of a god," are there any other beliefs, maybe within science, for example that lack evidence, if you mean measurable?
My favorite "easter bunny" example was when the Da Vinci Code had just come out. I read an article, I think it was in Newsweek, about a preacher who had an older woman come up to him after the service holding the Da Vinci Code in her hands and ask, "Did Jesus really have a baby?" The preacher was somewhat stunned and realized that most people aren't theologically trained, and are therefore likely to believe whatever they read in some book that a random person wrote.
After reading this, I thought to myself, "Hmm, what other book that was written by people do other people believe in without question...?" If people will believe something they read that is so clearly marked as "fiction", what else can they be made to believe?
I just wish I could remember where that article was.
I firmly believe that everyone has the right to their personal beliefs, and I understand the perspective that logic and science are reality. What I don't agree with is the idea that faith equates "blind submission to an almighty being". I think it is possible to believe in God and still question and pay attention to the world around you. Just because something hasn't been proven true, doesn't mean it's false. A belief in God doesn't signify a less intelligent or engaging person. I think that people need to figure out what works best and makes the most sense for them individually and then respect what others believe.
I'd like to argue that there is no scientific proof that the existance of a God is "highly unlikely." How can you determine that? There is no possible way for you to say that, just like I couldn't claim that it is likely if you aren't willing to believe it. If you want proof, consider this. It is a scientific law that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So the energy which our live revolve on had to come from somewhere. Let's say that the energy in our universe is the result of a "big bang" or some other plausauble, scientific reasoning. The energy from the beginings of these energy transfers had to have come from somewhere, since it can't just appear (according to science). The energy had to come from some source, it wasn't just an infinite chain of energy transfer; it had to start somewhere. I am a scientist myself and I fully support it, but how could energy/matter exist if it wasn't started at some point in time by someone/thing?
Post a Comment