You Don’t Have to Know to Not Think So

Question from Neil:
Why do atheists mostly dismiss the existence of an intelligent creator of any kind?

I see no firm evidence of any god being especially the Old Testament one, he doesn’t seem to be aware the Earth moves among many other things!
But I accept the possibility that one could exist and may have caused the Big Bang.

Until we discover what did cause the Big Bang it seems arrogant to dismiss the possibility.

Athiests are accused of being arrogant (mainly by arrogant religious people). I wonder if they’re right or are most atheists really agnostics?

Answer by SmartLX:
It all depends, heavily, on the atheist.

Like you I acknowledge the possibility, however remote, that there is or was a creator god or equivalent entity. To know for a fact that there wasn’t one would take more information than the human race as access to at the moment. I’m still an atheist because I don’t think or believe that there was a creator, but I accept that there’s a chance I’m wrong simply because I don’t know. That makes me an agnostic atheist, same as Dawkins, same as Dennett and same as many other prominent atheists who spell out their positions in public. I think most or at least a lot of atheists are agnostic but statistics on that are hard to come by.

Those who claim to know there’s no god are gnostic atheists and when I discuss gods with them, like you I ask them how they think they know.

3 thoughts on “You Don’t Have to Know to Not Think So”

  1. The basis of all atheism is that there is no evidence of any god at any time. As I often say to theists, “Shown undeniable proof, I will change my mind on anything, including religion.” Then I ask the theist, “What will it take to change your mind?”

    On the very rare occasions I receive an answer, it is invariably, “Nothing will change my mind.” Ironically, that same person will often accuse me of being closed-minded. Then they assert that we atheists and scientist (most of whom are atheists) “think you know everything.” That is also ironic because science has never claimed to know everything and, shown better evidence, will change their thinking on anything.

    It is theists that claim to have all the answers. It is always the same answer, “God did it.” I admit, that is much easier than thinking, especially when, to be a theist, you must abandon any semblance of rational thought.

    1. “Like you I acknowledge the possibility, however remote, that there is or was a creator god or equivalent entity.” “That makes me an agnostic atheist, same as Dawkins, same as Dennett and same as many other prominent atheists who spell out their positions in public”
      This part of a post from SmartLX, does, I’m afraid does kind of lean to “some evidence” for their being God. I’m sorry to have to be a kill joy, but the same evidence, or at least some of that evidence, that the Atheists look at and don’t see any need to accept that there is God, the Creationists look at and say that it is sufficient to say that God is. The failure of the Atheists to explain how this universe did come to be, points to that God did it. The failure for the Atheists to demonstrate how life came to be, is another point the the possibility that God did it. The failure to demonstrate that either one of these could have come about through any of the other theories that they would rather accept. Now when we get to other small details that are also denied as evidence for God, is the fact that life is too complex to have come to be on its own. Not only are the structures of those organisms are too specially made, but the programming that would be needed would have had to be on board at the same time the organisms came to be. It makes no sense to believe that an almost life come to be and then it begins to evolve to something else. How would it be able to do anything if it doesn’t have programming to direct it to perform any act. This suggest that that life didn’t not even have the capability to hold information of programming. So that means that the almost life would need to evolve to develop DNA. But how would this be possible, because without DNA, it would not be able to be programmed. And the only thing that the Atheists say about it is quiet. They can’t even explain this failure of theirs to have not thought of this slip up on their part. Every action of an organism, from the most simple to the most complex, is determined by the programming and the sub routines that determine how the programming is used and such. So to believe that anything could have come to be by itself, is ludicrous and shows an utter failure to reason logically. But then to assume that even if a life of any sort could have come to be by accident, then how would that sort of life ever have received any programming to direct it to do and tasks necessary for its survival, or to insure the continuation of its lineage. You see it would have been the first of any life. All organisms that are always receive their programming from their predecessor. That means that the DNA needed to have in place and that all programming would have needed to be on board when it comes to be. So a brand new what ever life would have not had that opportunity. So to assume that it could have known what to do, is also illogical. Everything needed to have been created all ready to hit the road running with the knowledge that it would have needed to fulfill any required tasks. To believe anything else is not thinking logically. Everything points to the fact that an intelligence created all of it and us.

  2. Neil:

    My experience is that most atheists will openly admit that they can never say, with 100% confidence, that there is no such thing as gods. I am one of them. It’s an honest thing to say too, because you cannot prove that gods don’t exist (you can’t prove a negative). As LX pointed out, we have only a partial understanding of the universe, and therefore the evidence for gods may exist and we just haven’t found it yet.

    Some believers, by the way, take that position as a sign of “weakness”, or that atheists are “hedging their bets” about gods. Don’t let anyone accuse you of that if you are an agnostic atheist like I am. I’m being intellectually honest with myself and with everyone else when I admit that there is a possibility that god creatures exist. That’s not a weakness, that is a strength.

    So while I can never be sure, I can say quite comfortably that I don’t find the idea of god beings to be even remotely plausible. There are way too many contradictions and irrational claims in the pantheon of human religions, and because of that they simply do not make logical sense. No believer has ever been able to provide even one piece of empirical data or evidence for god creatures, despite being asked all the time at this website and others. There is no rational reason for me to think such beings actually exist, and therefore I don’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *