Is it necessary to believe in Nothing?

[KebertX]

I'm not some Christian Fanatic trying to convert everybody, I just want to know, how do you make the logical leap to say

The Bible is Shit --> There is No God --> Nothing spiritual or supernatural is true.

The Bible is absolutely ridiculous, filled with bullshit falsities and backwards morals (and one or two good morals).  So because the Bible isn't true, you shouldn't believe in God?  You think just because God doesn't exist, NOTHING spiritual is real.  I'm not talking about an invisible man in the sky, I mean a spiritual force that's all around us.  It didn't create us, it's not benevolent, it's not omnipotent, It couldn't even really be called God.

I believe all living things have Chi Energy.  I don't believe anything illogical, or contrary to science, I just think there's something more to life than self-replicating molecules.  I think we all produce Karma, we have a life force that cannot be destroyed, and Reincarnation, and all that Buddhisty Stuff.

So just because you don't believe in God, how do you draw the conclusion that all spiritual things are false.  There is no evidence for these things, but It's not necessarily illogical or anti-scientific to believe in something more.  Occam's Razor violation aside, why do so many atheists reject scientifically neutral concepts like Karma?  What's the thinking?

[philosoraptor]

Not everyone here believes that just because God doesn't exist, there is nothing of spiritual value in the world.  We could take a poll, but I'm pretty sure there's at least a few people here who would refer to themselves as naturalistic pantheists or something similar.  

I don't have to believe in God to admire the awesome power of nature or Mother Earth.  But I don't necessarily think that's a spiritual belief, either.

[Davin]

I only accept a thing as true if there is sufficient reasonable evidence. I have no problem talking about everything else, the only problem I have is when others expect me to believe in something unfounded. I don't think it's necessary to believe in nothing but I also don't think that believing in a specific something is necessary... so I guess I believe that: nothing is necessary while something is.

This guy said something that I agree with: "Absence of evidence, of a thing that is claimed to be common and plentiful, everywhere that humanity is able to search, is, for all practical purposes, evidence of absence" Sternwallow

[i_am_i]

To me it's just not necessary to believe. It's not that I don't believe in anything, it's that I don't believe at all. Belief, I think, is a great thing for children, and there are all kinds of possibilites, things that may exist, but I don't want to waste a minute of my life doing anything but thinking and doubting and questioning and getting my work to be the best that it can and trying to make myself become the best human being that I can be.

I very much want my mind to be sharp and alert. To me, believing is exactly the opposite of that, so I've made it a point to jettison any tendency toward belief from my mind. It's an ongoing process and it's worth every minute of it.

I'm not saying that everyone should do this, though, just that this is how I choose to live.

[pinkocommie]

If something can't be verified, I don't see any reason to believe in it.  You might as well ask atheists why, just because they don't believe in god, they also don't believe in the soul.  First, some atheists very well may believe in the concept of a soul.  However, personally, I don't because the concept of a soul fails the personal requirements I have to believe something is real.  Maybe you have personal experiences that make you believe in reincarnation, Karma, etc., but I don't so - given that these concepts cannot currently be scientifically quantified, I have no reason to believe in them.

This post reminds me of another person I recently ran into who claimed that it wasn't illogical or unscientific to believe in ghosts because ghosts could possibly be some kind of energy that we don't fully understand yet.  My response to this was - well yeah, it's possible ghosts are really energy the we have yet to but may one day understand, but why would you go so far as to hold a belief about something based on a possibility?  Why not wait until it's actually proven to be true before believing in it?  That doesn't make much sense to me, but I suspect it's just a difference in the way 'spiritual' people and I think.

[Whitney]

I'm not some Christian Fanatic trying to convert everybody, I just want to know, how do you make the logical leap to say

The Bible is Shit --> There is No God --> Nothing spiritual or supernatural is true.

If I had done that I'd tell you....please don't make assumptions by dumping all atheists into the same boat.

[Squid]

Let me first start out by saying that back when I was still a god-believing individual I rejected many supernatural things such as the proposed existence of other gods, miracles, magick/spells/voodoo/etc., telekenesis, ESP and many other things.  Therefore once I eventually rejected the existence of god, that concept ended up on the junk pile with all the rest.  That being said, I'll finish my thought below...

I believe all living things have Chi Energy.  I don't believe anything illogical, or contrary to science, I just think there's something more to life than self-replicating molecules.

Why?

I think we all produce Karma, we have a life force that cannot be destroyed, and Reincarnation, and all that Buddhisty Stuff.

How do you know this?

So just because you don't believe in God, how do you draw the conclusion that all spiritual things are false.  There is no evidence for these things, but It's not necessarily illogical or anti-scientific to believe in something more.  Occam's Razor violation aside, why do so many atheists reject scientifically neutral concepts like Karma?  What's the thinking?

To me, I took an "evidence-based" view - call it materialism, naturalism whatever but a section of a book written by Carl Sagan back in the mid 1990's summarized the thinking of this view up very succinctly and is now often referred to as "Sagan's Dragon":

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Therefore, in my position, I cannot say that I have permanently rejected such ideas as I am always open to new evidence but my tentative conclusion is to reject them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

...The Bible is Shit --> There is No God --> Nothing spiritual or supernatural is true.

My atheism is based in reason, not in the rejection of the Bible.  Indeed, my rejection of the Bible is based on reason as well.  You're committing post hoc.

The Bible is absolutely ridiculous, filled with bullshit falsities and backwards morals (and one or two good morals).  So because the Bible isn't true, you shouldn't believe in God?  You think just because God doesn't exist, NOTHING spiritual is real.  I'm not talking about an invisible man in the sky, I mean a spiritual force that's all around us.  It didn't create us, it's not benevolent, it's not omnipotent, It couldn't even really be called God.

No.  As pointed out above, reason is my epistemology.  I reject spiritualism not only because there are no reasonable bases for accepting it, but that there are good reasons to actively disbelieve.

I believe all living things have Chi Energy.  I don't believe anything illogical, or contrary to science, I just think there's something more to life than self-replicating molecules.  I think we all produce Karma, we have a life force that cannot be destroyed, and Reincarnation, and all that Buddhisty Stuff.

Such beliefs have been held up to science and found wanting, but if you're happy believing it, cool.

So just because you don't believe in God, how do you draw the conclusion that all spiritual things are false.  There is no evidence for these things, but It's not necessarily illogical or anti-scientific to believe in something more.  Occam's Razor violation aside, why do so many atheists reject scientifically neutral concepts like Karma?  What's the thinking?

If by karma you mean sequential reincarnations through stages of consciousness until a state of Nirvana is reached, then I'd argue that this is not scientifically neutral at all.  Additionally, you're asking us to reject other faiths on the grounds of lack of evidence, yet you wave away that concern when it's directed at you.  What gives?

[curiosityandthecat]

Postmodernism.

[/thread]

[Tank]

I only accept a thing as true if there is sufficient reasonable evidence. I have no problem talking about everything else, the only problem I have is when others expect me to believe in something unfounded. I don't think it's necessary to believe in nothing but I also don't think that believing in a specific something is necessary... so I guess I believe that: nothing is necessary while something is.

This guy said something that I agree with: "Absence of evidence, of a thing that is claimed to be common and plentiful, everywhere that humanity is able to search, is, for all practical purposes, evidence of absence" Sternwallow

I'll be lazy and quote Davin, but frankly I doubt I could put my own world view better than that.

[Gawen]

I only accept a thing as true if there is sufficient reasonable evidence. I have no problem talking about everything else, the only problem I have is when others expect me to believe in something unfounded. I don't think it's necessary to believe in nothing but I also don't think that believing in a specific something is necessary... so I guess I believe that: nothing is necessary while something is.

This guy said something that I agree with: "Absence of evidence, of a thing that is claimed to be common and plentiful, everywhere that humanity is able to search, is, for all practical purposes, evidence of absence" Sternwallow

I'll be lazy and quote Davin, but frankly I doubt I could put my own world view better than that.

Same here. I can't add anything to this.

[Dregs]

Hmmm well I'm new here, but I'll save the introductions for another time.  My response doesn't make for great debate which I admit can be fun, but it is how I feel.  If you reject the God of the Bible which most if not all of us do (no matter how we arrived there) then as far as your day to day actions how does your belief or non-belief in a spiritual being affect things?  I mean if you completely rejected God in all size, shapes, and forms how would you act differently?  If you firmly stand by the fact that there is a spiritual energy of some form or even a "creator" what would you do differently?  In my case the answer to all those is I wouldn't do a damn thing differently so why sweat it.  Believe what makes you comfortable, and do the right things how can you go wrong!

[Ellainix]

I believe all living things have Chi Energy.  I don't believe anything illogical, or contrary to science, I just think there's something more to life than self-replicating molecules.  I think we all produce Karma, we have a life force that cannot be destroyed, and Reincarnation, and all that Buddhisty Stuff.

I believe a Pink Puppy visits me every morning in person and gives me good advice. I've never seen or heard him, but I still believe it.

[Cite134]

*See sig*

[winli]

I don't think it's necessary to believe in nothing but I also don't think that believing in a specific something is necessary...




___________________
spam removed by admin