This could be fun. I have always loved puzzles. Is it supposed to represent the Big Bang?Quote:
..!.,
Printable View
This could be fun. I have always loved puzzles. Is it supposed to represent the Big Bang?Quote:
..!.,
Yeah, but it is a pretty irritating personality trait. There are a lot of us that will side with the opposing view just to spite people with the "evangelical bug," so more often than not it has the opposite to the desired effect. If pushy folk are going to look at it logically, shoving their opinions down other people's throats is a total waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Viejo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth
I suppose it was only a matter of time before this debate descended into semaphore.
I suspect you're looking at it from the wrong angle - it's not the kind of salute you were thinking of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt
I could be wrong - and my apologies if I am - but I see four fingers and a thumb, with the middle finger extended and the other fingers folded down.
Didn't really add a lot to the thread, but one way of saying "**** you" without recourse, I suppose.
Well, I wasn't thinking it was at all positive. My guess, was that he was mocking the perceived simplicity of the Big Bang Theory. *Sigh* But, I suppose your right. That was a whole lot less interesting than it could have been.Quote:
I suspect you're looking at it from the wrong angle - it's not the kind of salute you were thinking of.
I could be wrong - and my apologies if I am - but I see four fingers and a thumb, with the middle finger extended and the other fingers folded down.
Didn't really add a lot to the thread, but one way of saying "**** you" without recourse, I suppose.
That's a shame - I had thought it some kind of ontological quandry.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
This thread shouldn't descend into abuse, from either side. We are, all of us, mature adults. I'm sure that we can have an informed, civilized discussion, even in view of our differing opinions. I may not like Dawkins' ideas, but I respect the man as an intellectual and a free thinker, and I certainly wouldn't give him the one-fingered salute.
Heh, I suppose I should feel honored.Quote:
We are, all of us, mature adults.
I wholeheartedly agree with your post, but I don't want to condemn him until he verifies what it truly means. I'm still holding out on the possibility that I might be right in my previous guess.
Have to differ on 'total waste of time.' Noisy, abrasive pushing works very well for Rush, et al.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
When one has the notion that they know something that others need to know (e.g. the Gospel, the primary ingredient of Soylent Green, the correct spelling of 'millennium') they try to pass on the information. They may be inept, irritating, even dangerous, but their intentions just might be good.
Unfortunately it is the evangelical members who are out front creating the public image of a group, particularly when it's viewed through the lens of the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt
It really is unfortunate, because of this a lot of people get defensive with their views, and hardliners have been created on each side.:(Quote:
Unfortunately it is the evangelical members who are out front creating the public image of a group, particularly when it's viewed through the lens of the media.
Hey man, they aint noisy and abrasive! They're... whimsical and rebellious!Quote:
Originally Posted by El Viejo
Maybe you both know... Maybe neither of you realize... Nice work, either way!
Ho hum - re-education time again!
This is wrong. To save me repeating it all, please read the thread from the start. You are not the arbiter of the meaning of the word and you are incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
You'd be wrong there as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Deists are not theists and generally don't belong to any religion.
I've noticed that atheists spend more time thinking about/pondering/discussing/worrying about God than people who actually believe there is a God
Atheism has been a theory, an antagonistic theory and nothing beyond that. It is a reaction to believers only and in itself it is drivel.
Theism is on the other hand is a search for the unknown. It is not the final. In the Veda there is a mention of eternal search. I do not know for sure there is God or not but the search is fascinating
Either they don't see it, or don't want to admit it, just the fact that they can't stop from coming into religious threads, the God(s) that they don't believe in actually controls their lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by keilj
Really? Because I don't stop several times a day to pray to my God like a Muslim, nor do I commemorate a weekly Sabbath. The only time I ever engage in these debates on the site is when I witness outright misunderstanding of science, which offends me as a scientist, or silly attacks on atheism like the above, which offends me as an atheist. Either you're grossly underestimating how much time is spent in religious worship by many theist, or grossly overestimating the amount of time it takes an atheist to make a forum post.Quote:
Originally Posted by keilj
I don't go into the theistic threads to argue that God doesn't exist.
Nonsense, let's distance ourselves merely from the existence of modern militant atheism. Early atheist philosophers, like Mill and Locke, have been essential in the development of our concepts of secular liberty. Religious minorities have benefited from atheist thinkers, just as some have suffered as a result of others like Mao and Stalin. Likewise, many atheist have been murdered by religious extremist.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
To take such a reductionist position and view an entire group of people as purely antagonistic is nothing more than outright prejudice.
I would argue the search is a waste of time and energy could be used better elsewhere. The only problems I have with religion is when it is used to try and justify limiting the liberties of others. Unfortunately, it so often is.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Thank you. But other atheists do, and with a lot of venom.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
And in some countries atheism is punishable by death. And public opinion polls show that Americans are less likely to vote for atheist, they're less popular than gays but a bit more than pedophiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
It's not as if religious proselytizing and self-promotion isn't a common occurrence.
As usual, I've been pipped by Orphan.Quote:
Originally Posted by keilj
This is so absurd as to almost be beyond comment.
I don't know any atheists that spend any time at all thinking about god.
A few of us are interested in religion.
I don't see how you could describe it as antagonistic - can you explain please?Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Science is a search for the unknown as well; it actually gets the odd result.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Ah, I see you repeating the same fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
In what way does entering a discussion control my life?
I have pointed out on more occasions than I could count that we have numerous, demonstrable instances of where religion, left unchecked, would rule our lives as it does in many parts of the world where a theocracy exists.
It's not even an original assertion you're making, but it's one of the less well-known ones.
Instead of making silly assertions, just expand on your premise and explain how me attending the occasional religious thread - and if you check the number I'm involved in, it is a small percentage of the whole - is "controlling my life".
Thanks.
You do realise this thread is about atheism, don't you?
I am dead set sick and tired of you making all these excellent comments while I'm asleep! You leave me with little to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
:D
I'll just add a question to Pip's comments:Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
Last time you made this assertion, I asked you for evidence of these people who "Go into atheist threads to argue that god doesn't exist, with venom"
I'm still waiting.
Where is your evidence that what you're claiming exists? Please show me more than one or two posts where that has ever happened at LitNet.
I believe your entire position is made of straw.
I'm not aware of polls about atheist leaderships, I heard there's some issues with Protestants vs. Catholics on the presidency level. But that's ages ago. Now it's all about who has a better spin on jumpstarting the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
there's always a bit of that on both sides, but just don't trash other people's faith and do any naming calling like the guy in the sky but much worse. Just yesterday there was another inflammatory post about the Pope but thankfully it was quickly deleted by the mods.Quote:
It's not as if religious proselytizing and self-promotion isn't a common occurrence.
Wow, I thought you were a pretty honest guy. But this is a blatant lieQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
let's keep the conversation honest Atheist - you've used the word god 40 times in this thread so far - no time at all thinking about him huh
There was a CNN poll conducted where people were asked if they would vote for a person if they were black, a woman, a mormon, a catholic, an atheist, or gay. I'm having trouble finding that article though, I remember it on TV and circulating a lot around the election time, but searches for keywords like atheism, CNN, popular seem to just turn up articles about people thinking Obama is an atheist, which is in turn being used as a character assault on Obama, like the Muslim accusations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
Fox News conducted a poll in 1999 that found that 69% of respondents wouldn't vote for an atheist. In 2003 they conducted a similar poll on religions, the worst performer was Islam, with 47% saying they would be less likely to vote for someone if they were Muslim.
in 2008, atheist were slightly more popular than Scientologist, but still more unpopular than muslims.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251802,00.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
I do wish you wouldn't come barging into this atheist thread. Although you can't see it or won't admit it, atheism evidently controls your life.
Well, I am a little doubtful as to not any time thinking about god, but I do find that when people see the unlikelihood of God, most focus on some other aspect of life. I rarely ever talk about God outside of the internet, and only in politics or conversations involving a misrepresentation of atheism do I interject.Quote:
Wow, I thought you were a pretty honest guy. But this is a blatant lie
let's keep the conversation honest Atheist - you've used the word god 40 times in this thread so far - no time at all thinking about him huh
What? I'm really confused as to what your trying to say. How is it drivel?Quote:
Atheism has been a theory, an antagonistic theory and nothing beyond that. It is a reaction to believers only and in itself it is drivel.
There is an enormous difference between tolerance and respect.Quote:
there's always a bit of that on both sides, but just don't trash other people's faith and do any naming calling like the guy in the sky but much worse. Just yesterday there was another inflammatory post about the Pope but thankfully it was quickly deleted by the mods.
:lol:Quote:
I do wish you wouldn't come barging into this atheist thread. Although you can't see it or won't admit it, atheism evidently controls your life.
:smilielol5:Quote:
Originally Posted by keilj
Brilliant!
You talk of honesty then make that comment?
Given that I'm here stressing that atheists do not believe in god/s, it's impossible to discuss atheism without using the word, unless I resort to "deity/ies" which is much less finger-friendly. Is this a ploy to cause me RSI?
I have to say that that's probably the silliest post I've ever seen on any bulletin board.
A belief system indicates by definition:
'faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society'
If an atheist is only defined as 'one who lacks belief in a god or deity' then this could not be justified a belief system as a single belief could not hold out as a complete system.
However, depending on an individual's degree of 'atheism,' their way of living may also come with a set of 'fixed and coherent beliefs' with 'lack of belief in God' as its main catalyst which may include:
-belief that there is no god/deity
-belief that there is no afterlife
-belief in the doctrine of evolution
-belief in a moral and content life without the need of a god
-belief that the more constituted religions are unnecessary and tend to do more evil than good
-belief that the universe did not begin with God nor is it endured by God
Even though these beliefs vary with each individual, they probably have more affect on the individual themselves rather than an entire culture or community, unless they let it affect the community(but it is not usually a case). Nevertheless they could qualify as a personal belief system as these beliefs have yet to be universally declared as facts. Our whole way of living is based upon a belief system by how we see concepts as more fitting and efficient in accordance to our own common sense and reason. A life lived without God could be a belief one sees fitting to their life. But if one really opposes a certain system, there is no need to congregate under the same stylistics as what militant atheists do.
Atheism may be 'without belief in God,' however, it is still not without belief. It is actually logically impossible not to believe in anything, as each opposing thought is really just belief in the opposite, unless fact succeeds the belief.
As a deeply religious non-believer myself, I have no problem admitting that I have beliefs and hold belief of life without a god. But I tend to refrain from using the title 'atheist' as it seems too ambiguous, self-contradicting and conform. I am however, without worship in anything, without desire of an immortal life, without the use of God as the ultimate answer for everything and a immensely high believer in goodness with evil as a reluctant counter-balance. I an not sure exactly how this categorizes me, but it is easy enough to just refer to myself as simply just 'complacent.'
would you vote for a high school dropout...do you want someone with excessive BMI to rule the country... how do you feel about a president who snorts when he/she laughs...They poll everything. I personally have no problem with an atheist president, but Scientologist, that's a differnt story. I wouldn't like a president wearing an alumium foil hat with an anntenna.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
No sir, I didn't barge in. Atheism doesn't control my life. Neither does religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Came in here because it says it's the "final" word, just wanted to see if the curtains came down and when the gigantuan strobe light display starts over the Atlantic.
I'm just saying it's indicative of high levels of mistrust and dislike of atheist in the general American population. Muslims and atheist are, at least for the poll respondents, unfit for leadership by virtue of their views on religion. There is still a heavy emphasis placed on the specifically Christian values of American politicians, with some moderate tolerance for Jews. I say it's probably true that many atheist have antagonistic views towards the religious, but there is a similar, if not higher, level of dislike of atheism by the religious that is usually brushed aside when people decide to criticize the militant atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
Hell, when an atheist group decided to advertise on buses it caused an uproar, I don't think there's ever been an atheist letter campaign to ban religious ads. Likewise, ads for atheist groups are routinely targeted for vandalism.
The attempt to paint atheist as merely trouble makers and the religious as benign victims of the angry insecure atheist ignores the reality of how these issues seem to play out in reality.
Some of those bear no relation to atheism, which really is just a lack of belief in god/s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena03
I only find one belief necessary - that reality exists. Once we get past that, everything else has conformed to empirical investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena03
Man ! I was trying to read the whole posts.. reached until 3 or 4 ...
couldn't resist replying...
There were many comments that i liked .. and infact suppported ; among which JBI 's
Quote:
If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude, rather than some crying cyberbullying. As it is, whether you believe in god or not is particularly irrelevant. What is irrelevant is how well you treat the people around you, and how well one contributes to the society they are in. If someone was an Atheist or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or whatever, I wouldn't care as long as they don't go around preaching how much truer their nonsense is, and actually do things for those around them.
All you do is cheapen nonbelieving to suit your own political agenda, and quite frankly, the manner in which you carry it out is insulting to both those with religious affiliation, and those of us, like me, without it, who don't want to be grouped together with hateful preachers.
Simply put, the flaw with your reasoning is its hypocrisy - you define atheism as a state of consciousness - by necessity then you are promoting a movement, rather than a non-belief - you are believing in your standpoint, as apposed to not considering the question. The same way evolution is taken as a doctrine in opposition to creationism, as apposed to a simple scientific principle, like gravity, without any real political affiliation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keilj
I've noticed that atheists spend more time thinking about/pondering/discussing/worrying about God than people who actually believe there is a God
So as i see it .. and since we are talking about what atheism means ..
It's somelanguages the word Atheism mean ABSTANING FROM THE INTENDED or from whats intended .
In religion .. it mostly stands for denying God !
Now where comes the big issue .. because Atheism is not belief.. BUT however , they tend to make it that way .. Many ATHEISMS defend it , the create this as a religion.. as something with a base or something which was there since Adam and Eve.. They try to be atheistic in every behavior , act , teaching .. and mostly in everything !!!
So the problem is not Atheism itself.. but its the Atheist.
And if we want to discuss this .. i guess we will be dragged into many things .. and Scheherazade will end up closing this thread
We will end up into couple points most of which :
- The prove that he world was created
- The prove that there is God
- and the prove that there is only one God ..
and .. and .. and ... and..
We have discussed this over and over again .. and i yet don't know why most of the atheist ( as said by keilj ) spend more time in discussing and arguing..
Whats the point ? and where it will take us ?
Do you want us to admit that Atheism is right .. or that YOU are right ? Or its just for the sake of discussion !!!!
If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude....
I think you're missing the point. The Atheist is not saying that atheism is more moral or progressive or anything. I'm sure he'd agree that an atheist mass murderer is just as likely as a Catholic or Sikh mass murderer. Equally, an atheist is as likely as a Baptist or a Jainist to dive in to the river to save a puppy from drowning.
Theists do not have a monopoly on insane cruelty or on selfless loveliness. Both those qualities seem to be pretty evenly distributed across all human beings, whatever worldview they profess.
Likewise. Please remember that next time you see me contributing my atheist views in a thread about God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
If we are only defining 'atheism' by one principle, then it is true that it could not constitute as a 'religion' or 'belief system.' However, many atheists would use similar beliefs like these as reasons not to believe. A theist as well may be simply defined as one who believes, also not a constituted religion on its own, but there is generally more advocacy involved so a single conclusion can be made. But an individual's constitution of fixed beliefs which leads to one singular belief could be justified as a 'belief system' for drawing a conclusion of belief or disbelief.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Are there no supporting claims as to why you only believe in this? It seems empirical investigation has already been endlessly going as to what exactly 'reality' is as well as existence, leading to more questions or beliefs that are less likely to ever be answered, thus we are forever stuck on belief.Quote:
I only find one belief necessary - that reality exists. Once we get past that, everything else has conformed to empirical investigation.
Pip, I'm sorry you feel that way. I personally had no opinion of atheism and I'm really not aware of any campaign against atheism. I don't talk religion with my friends, I've known them for years and didn't know what their faith is until they get married and I have to find my way to the church.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
However I uses past tense saying I had no opinion, that because I now do, and that started on Litnet as I read more and more hateful posts ridiculing or even attacking religion and God. But I assure you, I would not stereotype atheists as being obnoxious as a group based on the behavior I witnessed here. I have made a great atheist friend here, we share views on this subject early on but most of the time we just chat about our lives, talk about books, share music...
As far as American distrust of atheist and muslims in key political leadership, a lot has to do with the fact that this country is founded on Christian principles and values, that's what attracted countless immigrants here. Or else the society built by Christians produced such a favorable environment that anyone can enjoy, people just want it to stay that way.
But it goes beyond religion. We have to consider the policies as a result of a leadership from those who hold very different religious (or the lack of) values. This may result in political alliances that would impact the welfare and security of the country. Back in the day Protestants were suspicious of Catholic leadership too, but as I understand it, part of it was on a policy and political level.
I assume you are atheist. If you take up US citizenship and run for president, I wouldn't rule you out, and so will a percentage of the population no matter how small it is. If you are well spoken, reasonable, (which you seem to be in your reply posts to me, sparing any insults), I would certainly consider you. But mind you, we are not big on curling here, and if you want to make us a curling country, I doubt if you'd have a chance.
I'll assume you're serious in asking those questions and answer accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoope
I don't care whether people are theist, atheist or agnostic.
The point of the thread is exactly as it say on the title - what "atheism" means, not whether it's right.
Bingo!Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena03
It truly is that simple.
Sure, but as I have repeatedly said, atheism isn't a group or a doctrine, so the only criterion needed to self-identify as one is lacking a belief in god. This includes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena03
People who say "There is no god"
Panpspermians. (I really want to meet one of these, I know they are out there)
David Icke
Hundreds of millions of Buddhists
No, theism is just as simple - a theist is someone who believes there is one god, of the "personal" variety to use Eonstein's terms, although it doesn't feel right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena03
Buddhists alone ruin that position, because the vast majority of them do not believe in a god. I know quite a number of Buddhists that cheerfully admit to being atheists.
Except not even all theists need a conclusion. The Church of England is happily agnostic in congregational terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena03
Again, I find this extremely simple. If I look at every single philosophical, metaphysical, supernatural, paranormal [and tautological!] claim ever made, there is one inescapable dichotomy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena03
Reality exists or it does not.
Solipsism just doesn't cut it for me.
Since I learned to learn, empirical investigation has a 100% track record in predicting and verifying how the universe I perceive works. If reality exists, so do those empirical conclusions.
That I believe reality exists doesn't bother me philosophically for a millisecond.
Again, the same assertion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
Where is your evidence?
I don't believe there is a shred of evidence that there are "hateful posts ridiculing and attacking religion and God.", so I have had to go and check it out myself.
I currently have open the first.....13, dammit! threads that feature god/s and religions.
Out of thousands of posts, there are two that could be classed as ridiculing religion. (I have ignored the Buddhist threads for reasons which should be obvious)
On the other hand, I can point to several dozen instances where the assertion is made that atheists on this site attack religion. You are not the only one that believes this and it is demonstrable - and now demonstrated - that the assertion is incorrect.
Please don't confuse my stance on the present pope as being an attack on religion; I repeatedly extol the virtues of Rowan Williams just as do the opposite to Ratzinger - I think he is a bad example of human being, nothing to do with Catholicism.
Now it's at least somewhat on topic:
Quote:
If you are doubting something you should read both arguments against and in favor of. And there are quite a number of arguments for the existence of god, both old and new. Also, even being an agnostic myself, I find the notion that atheism (or agnosticism) involves "having no beliefs" very strange. Sure, you don't believe in one thing - god - but then if you think that the statement "god is real" is false, and if you think that doesn't make sense, then you'd have a whole lot of beliefs about astronomy, geology, biology, etc. How? Let me explain. Everywhere around the world, all of this was first explained by religion - then came science, and had to work very hard to establish new paradigms. It wouldn't make much sense to be an atheist in the modern sense of the world in, let's say, 1300AD - if you didn't believe in god, back then, you couldn't even explain why stars moved in the night sky. Well, of course things are different today - but, at least if you are a "Dawkinsonian" atheist, you'd still would have to express a belief that the scientific method is our best shot at understanding the world (and why, you'd even have to believe in "truth", and that itself is very problematic).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Everyone uses different definitions of the noun 'agnostic'. Some use it as in 'one can never know' (being consistent, these people would have to use the same reasoning for ghosts, unicors or Narnia), some use it as in 'I don't believe in god, but there could be one', in that case, they are atheists and just confusing everyone including themselves, and finally, some use it in the sense 'I'm totally undecided and don't want to take a stand either way'. Those last ones are the ones I refer to as 'agnostics', because knowing nothing except that someone calls himself an 'agnostic', I grant him the only definition of the word that actually makes sense. But it's never wrong to ask for clarification. So yeah, the last definition of agnostics sorta assigns a probability, but it reflects the personal attitude on the issue and isn't regarded as an objective estimate or whatever. The 'we just can't know' definition is probably the one most used, but I think everyone who uses it is making a huge mistake having to do with the burden of proof. In short, if something does exist, it is possible to find evidence for it. So that's why I think that definition sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Now, and this makes things even more complicated, there's also an adjective 'agnostic'. One that actually does have a precise meaning (thank God!): noncommittal or undogmatic. Thus, used as an adjective, any atheist who doesn't claim to have absolute knowledge is an agnostic atheist. In the same way, I'm don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I'm not dogmatic about it, which makes me an agnostic a-toothfairyist.
Also, of course atheists don't need to assign a probability to their beliefs. They can if they want to, but technically, as this thread here has hopefully established, atheists just don't believe in god, whether they would put the probability of non-existence at 51% (in which case there'd be a case for Pascal's wager), 99.99999999999999%, or 100%.
Check out the bolded statement again in the quoted post of mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Why the latter claims has more merit? Well for one thing, 'energy' doesn't claim to care about your well-being, or whether you worship it, or whether whatever it is predestined to do will produce conscious beings or not. And for another thing, scientists didn't learn of 'energy' by studying an ancient book, but they actually found evidence for its existence. You have two alternatives, one a totally wasteful, conscious super-intelligent being, and the other as simple as possible, always-existing quantum fluctuation (our concept of 'zero' is a construct because in reality, there's always some quantum fluctuation, tiny particles popping in and out of existence), which one should you chose?. Ockham's razzor cuts god into tiny quantum particles (I just thought of that, how original!).
If there's a million possible realities, why this one? Well, string theory suggests there's 10^500 possible realities, and they all are. Lots of parallel universes out there. Every possible combination of fundamental constants allowed by the Callabi-Yau shape of the additional seven hidden dimensions (I'm no physicists though, I have no idea what a Callabi-Yau shape is, but anyway, it sounds kinda cool and I definitely have more reason to trust astro-physicists on astrophysics than ancient goat herders on astrophysics.
Of course, string theory isn't yet universally accepted. But it's a promising approach, and even if wrong, something like it would actually make sense, compared to 'god' it would actually explain some troubling things, i.e. why the universe just happens to be friendly for life. Answer: There are so incredibly many of it one of them almost has to be, and obviously we can't be in the ones that don't support life.
Think the same thing trough with god: why does the one thing (god) that always exists want to consciously create a universe? Why is that one thing already conscious, and why does it have a plan, and where the hell did that plan come from if it contains something that would just as well working without a conscious plan-haver?? (Also, why does 'he' want to be worshipped? And why does he have a son, and what about the ghost? But yeah, you're probably talking about the 'impersonal' god, because no one with decent education takes the Bible literally. Well, what use is that god for? There aren't even any gaps left in science really. You have quantum stuff or god, and whatever you choose it won't really make a practical difference because the definition of god has been crippled in order to not contradict science. The only difference it makes is that your faced with having to explain why theres a conscious being just eternally existing. Good luck with that.)
People don't have 'faith' in science. They have reasonable evidence to believe science works. Ever flown with a plane and landed in the right spot? Even when they lost your luggage along the way, you gotta admit that this wouldn't just happen if science was nonsense. The computer in front of you? Just happend to arrange itself? The moon landing? The accurate prediction of time-relativity in two watches, one still, one orbitting the earth at high speed? Or hold on, how can we proof that the empirical confirmation of a staggering prediction isn't nonsense? Why is nonsense nonsense and not something else? Why is anything anything? Why broat greendo panscake? I'm sorry, if you abolish logic itself, I might as well say god is a ham sandwich. You lose all basis to even have a discussion. If that's truly your belief, why bother to make a (somewhat) coherent argument? Hypo(crit).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Oops, looks like you do accept logic and math. Never mind my last few sentences then. Anyway, how about this definition of truth: truth := whatever best predicts reality. We might not have it perfectly right, but at least right enough to make damn good predictions. And what else do we really need anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Is there even a reality? I say there is. It feels like one. Prediction fulfilled, case closed.
Could we be living in a matrix? Technically yes, but Ockham's razzor speaks against it, as does the ethical argument that whoever would've created that matrix is a jerk, and generelly, highly evolved beings aren't jerks (because they would've killed each other before they'd reached such advanced technology). So no, most likely not.
I don't care how you define agnostic; I'm flexible enough to assume another person's definition in an argument. But you were clearly equivocating, and that's a pretty big problem which renders your argument incoherent. Likewise, you were equivocating on the definition of atheist, between a practical atheist and a theoretical atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Oh, they're confusing everyone? I think they're confusing you. Or, you're confusing yourself with everyone. I thought you said people used different definitions ... so what, do tell, makes yours better than his or hers or mine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Things are much clearer, indeed, when you refer to these individuals as apatheists instead of agnostics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
And that's why you should use it too, unless you don't care about confusing people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Burden of proof is in many instances a joke. So what, are the atheists trying to present a circumstantial case, through which they raise a ton of questions, thus shifting the burden of proof? That, in itself, makes two rather flimsy assumptions: 1) that every theist is trying to prove something and 2) that their policy in doing so is necessarily scientific ... for the latter, most theists use, last I checked, a policy called faith and can easily counter rationality by saying "that's why it's called faith".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
In other words, you're a theoretically agnostic practical a-toothfairyist ... the problem, again, with these words is that they sometimes refer to a practical POV and sometimes a theoretical opinion. Sano was using "agnostic" to refer to his theoretical POV, and you seemed to miss that in your original post ... the real joke was that, when you tried to impose your own definition onto him you couldn't even agree with yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Anyways, anyone who makes a theoretical assertion about God is using faith ... it is as simple as that. Furthermore, atheists who make theoretical assertions about God (this category seems to comprise mostly angsty teenagers) are idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
This isn't responding to my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
As most any Doctor of Philosophy will tell you, Occam's Razor isn't a legitimate way of measuring metaphysical claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
You failed to see my point. You can't explain why you're here, conscious in your body ... what, if anything, is preventing you from being conscious in another body? At some level these types of things boil down to randomness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Ah, so you're admitting your faith in what scientists say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
True that ... in any case, don't think I'm arguing for faith or God. I'm essentially Kantian (see my signature) and arguing for a proper understanding of the limits of reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
So they use science to prove the merits of science ... that's pretty much the definition of an unsound argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
I didn't say science was nonsense; I very much like science to the extent that it makes my life, in many respects, a lot easier to live. But there is no rule that necessitates the laws of physics and, therefore, for all we know, they may not hold true two minutes from now. There is no apodictic (strict) proof that can be done which shows they will, though through reference to experience this makes for a sensible assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
I'm not denouncing logic, you're just overstating and stepping far beyond its limits. You're demonstrating quite well the grievous fault, which I pointed out before, modern philosophy is afflicted by. Evidently, you think you can move forward without even understanding what constitutes a logical deduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
That's almost fair, though there are things that have a higher degree of certainty than even, say, laws of physics (such as the existence of space and time, as I pointed out). If we are to keep with 3000 years of tradition and reserve the epithet of truth for that which is most certain and strictly necessary, then I have to contest that your definition is quite unsuitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Again, the razor is meaningless in the field of theoretics. Contrary to popular belief, Occam's Razor merely states that that which makes the least number of new assumptions is the most intuitive or commonsensical. It does not say that the hypothesis that makes the least number of assumptions is correct ... indeed, it doesn't say anything with respect to "correctness".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
The fact that atheism has a precise definition, and thus if someone uses the same definition for agnostic it is inefficient and confusing. If you want to distinguish between practical and theoretical, fine, but that still doesn't change the fact that people who don't believe in god but grant that he may exist are by defintion atheists. I owe you an explanation why the most common definition is nonsensical too, it's coming later when you attack 'burden of proof'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
You suggested this for the ones 'totally undecided and not willing to take a stand either way. This doesn't necessarily assume that the question whether god exists itself is irrelevant to these people. They might base their position on their current view of the evidence. In many cases, they indeed are apatheists, but not always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Actually, why don't all non-theists get rid of the freaking labels and simply emphasize they use reason instead of faith?
They aren't 'countering rationality'. They're simply being irrational. The very point is that atheists don't have to present anything, the burden of proof always rests on the believer. Without a single argument or piece of evidence for the existence of flying pink unicorns, there is no reason whatsoever for you to bother about this claim, even if people have faith in them. Some agnostics use the argument (and I've seen it at least half a dozen times almost literally as follows) 'the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproven'. That's their position. Well, what about 'the existence of pink flying unicorns can neither be proved nor disproven'. See what's wrong? If they existed, why the hell shouldn't we be able to 'prove' it? Not in the mathematical sense of course, but in the same way people know evolution is true. Circumstancial, statistical evidence. Prayer might have effects. Holy texts might for once be consistent and actually accurately predict something that isn't vague. They might contain knowledge that couldn't possibly have existed two thousands of years ago. Neuroscience might show that all causality breaks down in the human brain, giving room for 'free will' or 'souls'. All of this would be evidence (though in some instances weak evidence) for the existence of god. Only non-existence is unproveable, but that's tautological because you can't prove the non-existence of any non-contradicting concept!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Some people argue science a priori rules out the supernatural. In one sense, it's true, science expects things to work according to laws and patterns, if not, there would be no motivation to even bother investigating. However, here comes the important part: Science could in principle detect the supernatural, so it doesn't totally rule it out. It only couldn't explain it if it were encountered.
In short: 'theoretical agnosticism' is simply wrong. There's been a time where lots of people didn't think black holes existed. But no one was theoretically agnostic about them, at least I hope not, because now, we KNOW they exist. There's evidence.
If I say 'god most likely doesn't exist', there's no faith in that statement (except if theists are right about what they consider 'evidence for god', but so far no one has brought forward a sound argument. They even admit their position rests on faith). If, on the other hand, I say the likelihood of god's existence is exactly 0.00000000000001%, then I'm just being stupid, and yeah, there'd be faith in that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
You Kant possibly mean that! It totally nailed the answer to your question. The latter claim has more merit because its explanatory power, a highly relevant concept in the scientific method and the philosophy of science, is much much much much much (go on some thousands times) greater than invoking god. You have to start with something, in the atheistic position, it's energy. In the theist one, it's god, who then creates energy. (And by 'energy', I just mean the fundamental nature of existence as represented in the relatively simple equation(s) of m-theory or some other not yet discovered theory). We already know energy exists. We don't know god exists. What does god add to energy? Does he explain it by invoking something simpler? Does he explain it the way Darwinian evolution explained the complexity of life? NO!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
He doesn't even attempt to explain it, instead, invoking god postulates a hyper-complex unsolveable freaking mystery. Explanatory power: ZERO. Analogy: Why does it rain? Answer 1: water vapor condenses when it gets too cold. Answer 2: Thor forces water vapor to condense when it gets too cold. Thor is a huge man with muscles who likes to wear ancient clothes. He is immortal and he lives in the sky.
You have two possible answers, one postulates the fact that it simply happens to be the nature of water vapor to condense when it gets too cold. And the other... Well you get the point.
Explanatory power is. And as the scientifically literate philosophers will tell you, metaphysics is nonsense by its very own assumptions. Carnap wrote a paper about that somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Uhm, 'my' consciousness is the result of processes going on in my brain. In someone else's brain, there are different processes, so 'someone else' (or bether, 'something else') is conscious there. And if you think consciousness itself produces unsolveable problems, that's not the case. It would so in god, because we have nothing to explain god with. On earth however, consciousness is accounted for by the forces of evolution. There still remains 'the hard problem of consciousness' with qualia and everything, but there have been some very convincing and promising approaches, fascinating stuff. 'Consciousness Explained' by Dennett is well worth reading (twice).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
You're misusing the word faith. It's defined as 'belief without evidence'. I have reasons (-> evidence) to 'trust' scientists. Try to understand this, you're making the same mistake over and over again. What is it with 'faith' that you find so important? It's always irrational to have faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
No. They use the achievements of science to show science works. What do you use to show math isn't nonsense? Same thing, it works, it produces great results, it makes sense. If you really want to make the point that people think science works because of their faith in it, just don't do so using a computer. It's hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
So what? You're still using the damn computer. No one is claiming that science is 100% ultimate infallible explanation of everything, including the future. It just has an impressive track record, and it makes accurate predictions over and over again. If I were to offer to bet with your for ten dollars whether the next stone you throw will come down or hover into the void of the cosmos, you surely would take the bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Tradition isn't a good reason. Also, I don't quite get your distinction. Let's just keep it at the 'almost fair', I'm good with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Actually, I suppose your right, in this one case, invoking Ockham's razzor as evidence against the matrix possibility isn't sound. It's not too implausible that sometime in the future of this universe, beings will be able to create a matrix just like our universe. That's still way different from the god proposition, because whoever would have created the matrix would still be the product of evolution in some universe, so the explanation would still go on and lead to simpler things that started the chain of causation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
I don't believe in this thread.
<smirk>
hav sum f8 m8! lolQuote:
Originally Posted by jajdude
Quick Essay Quiz:
Discuss the differences among this quartet of statements:
"I believe that this is wrong."
"I believe that you are wrong."
"This is wrong."
"You are wrong."