what do y'all think? (the atheism thread) [Archive]

bryantm3

02-04-2011, 12:27 AM

i had a discussion with someone regarding religion on a social network that ended in them deleting me off their list— i'm not sure if i was harsh or mean or something, but i decided to post it here to see what y'all think. tell me if you think i was disrespectful or if you agree. here we go.

OP posted this picture:

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lffnkhMzEf1qzh75lo1_500.jpg

my reply:
jeez. more inaccurate and inflammatory atheist evangelism.

another person:
Christianity is mostly inaccuracy and inflammatory evangelism anyways. I'm sure a little joking back wouldn't be an injustice.

me:
i agree on your first note. but to me the whole 'religion is like a penis, it's great that you have one but don't shove it down my throat' applies to atheists, too.

original poster:

Atheists are different from Christians in that they're not looking to improve some imaginary, invented afterlife, but see that religion is aiding in the destruction of our world. And I firmly defend that posting a picture on [social network] is in no way attempting to change someone's mind. You think I think I could "save" a Christian? I'd sooner believe I could strike a fire under water. I'm appealing to the humorous side of people who already believe this.

In all reality, the belief is incredibly laughable.

me:

the scientific facts in the image aren't correct— there weren't hairy cavemen 6000 years ago, the human species was probably very similar to what we are now. it seems to me that whoever made the image has more of a problem with the actual belief system itself rather than how that belief system relates to scientific fact considering they couldn't even get their own dogma correct.

i think it's incredibly laughable that any one person thinks that they have a monopoly on the truth, whether they are a christian, atheist, muslim, jew, etc.

OP:

Just going based on amount of evidence. Some, if little, versus absolutley none. There isn`t a g-d. How we got here is debatable, but we weren`t created. Yes, the image is off by a tiny, tiny bit of time in cosmic terms, but the sentiment it expresses is deniable, but in fact true. G-d exists only in the minds of man.

Unlike some, I come to the internet looking to agree with people rather than argue. I enjoy knowing other people think the way I do. I don`t give a flying fuck if you`re mormon, muslim, or pastafarian. I converse with atheists, because I like to expand and alter my views. I don`t want to convert or feel superior or attack. And if you try to find fault with that, you will fall short, and will also get no reply, so please don`t try.

I think perhaps you`re a bit bored and just attempting to stir up trouble. Only those who question themselves would really respond to that negatively.

me:

i don't have a problem with what you believe. just as i'm sick of fundamentalist christians trying to convert me, and posters like "you KNOW there's a g-d" and whatnot, i'm sick of atheists doing the same thing. it's uncanny how alike many atheists (not all, but many) evangelize in nearly the same way as christians— i think it derives from the US being a mostly christian society. the way that westerners have a religion isn't the same as others around the world. if you're an atheist in the united states i don't think it has the same impact as if you were an atheist in say, turkey.

because in the united states there's a little slot in everyone's lives that they call their religion, and they pack all their stuff there and it mostly doesn't affect other parts of their lives, but they're convinced that they have to tell everyone about it and proudly proclaim "I AM A CHRISTIAN" even though in many cases their actions don't reflect their religiosity. many american atheists are much the same, they have a dogma and feel the need to share it and spread it around like the christians they once were (or are influenced by in US society).

my point is, american atheism is mostly a rejection of christian beliefs and customs rather than a rejection of G-d himself. a lot of atheists (and christians also) don't really understand that religions across the world don't work the same as religion in the united states, this is why many religions in the US have adapted to more reflect the place that christianity takes in society (see reform judiasm and many muslims in the US). religion in other parts of the world and even in some places here in the US, plays a different role. it's an interweaving mesh that connects to every section of your life and goes to the core of who you are— not limiting your actions but changing the way you look at the world. christianity doesn't really have that.

i guess my point overall is that just because you have rejected christianity, don't think that you have a hold on the truth better than anyone else or that you've found the answer. thinking you have all the answers is basically an admittance of naïvety— i don't condemn your non-belief in G-d. but i think stating it like "THERE IS NO G-D AND THERE NEVER WILL BE" is a bit quick on the draw. none of us have all the answers and i think it's foolish to pretend that any of us do.

OP:

Well you're completely wrong. It's a rejection of all beliefs. It's just mostly centered around Christianity because that's the society a) you are in and b) we are in.

You're being ignorant, actually, but I'm not going to argue. Frankly, I hardly know you, and I don't really like the conversations we've had, so I'm just going to take you off my friends list. Not because you're "arguing" with my beliefs, but because I've seen you post things that have really made me wonder about your character. Bye.

froopy seal

02-04-2011, 09:18 AM

i guess my point overall is that just because you have rejected christianity, don't think that you have a hold on the truth better than anyone else or that you've found the answer. thinking you have all the answers is basically an admittance of naïvety— i don't condemn your non-belief in G-d. but i think stating it like "THERE IS NO G-D AND THERE NEVER WILL BE" is a bit quick on the draw. none of us have all the answers and i think it's foolish to pretend that any of us do.I see myself as an agnostic, and, shamefully, believe (ha!) to be superior to religious people as regards the natural sciences - not superior in terms of happiness, or quality of living, or "being human", though.

Quite frankly, I don't see why you two had this argument at all. The OP seems a little sensitive to criticism. Also, his result that you're supposed to be of doubtful character might be premature. Then again, everybody may decide about their company for themselves.

My conclusion: It's teh Interwebs, so forget the episode and move on.

stimpee

02-04-2011, 10:13 AM

I think the OP was just trying to be funny in the first place. Questioning the picture because of inaccuracies isnt really relevant to the point. I dont think the original intention of the OP was atheist evangelism but rather humour. Unfortunately it got a bit out of control. As an atheist myself, i find its fairly pointless to get into these arguments, as the atheist evidence is out there for all to see. I'd rather point someone to a nice book someone like Dr Steve Jones (genetics/anthropology) and everyone knows about Richard Dawkins. I'd say get over it. Posting a pic like that is not really a big deal and you both got the handbags out pretty quickly.

Deckard

02-04-2011, 03:08 PM

Posting potentially provocative stuff on platforms that aren't mutually agreed invitations for debate is always going to be asking for trouble.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Forums on the other hand...

http://i56.tinypic.com/29w79sz.png

( ;) )

No you weren't disrespectful. The purpose of posting the pic was probably more humour than evangelizing, but still he could have handled the criticism better. Anyway it's the social web. You didn't really know each other, so don't sweat it. It's why I've so far avoided Facebook. (That, and the fact that I have no friends)

Sarcasmo

02-04-2011, 04:47 PM

I think that starting a conversation about religion on the interwebs is unwise, unless you really know your audience, and even then, it should never be used to proselytize. In either direction, let me make that clear. I think we should be able to accept that religion can have a very scary effect on people, but that it largely has to do with whomever is giving orders. For my own part, I don't get into any kind of semantic or personal arguments about my faith, because I understand how counterintuitive a lot of what I accept as truth may seem to others, and that's fine. It's not my job to convert people. It's my job to show love and compassion and self-sacrifice, and be an example of what I believe.

I don't think you did anything wrong, but it should have been obvious from the get-go that the OP was trolling.

bryantm3

02-04-2011, 10:36 PM

well i actually did know the person, albeit not very well. from high school (i'm 20).

the OP wasn't trolling, i knew this person a little in HS and knew they were an atheist and everyone so far had been clicking like to show approval. it was on facebook, but i'm trying to be as non-specific as possible to protect their ID.

we have a couple of friends in common, i just hope they don't see that and somehow side with them

Andrea

02-05-2011, 05:24 AM

http://i56.tinypic.com/29w79sz.png

:) this picture is interesting, now I see the point of the "walking on water" story
but who is the story for? the conventional logic people or the religious?

Deckard

02-05-2011, 08:04 AM

this picture is interesting, now I see the point of the "walking on water" story
but who is the story for? the conventional logic people or the religious?
Assuming you mean the walking on water story, the 'or' is a bit misleading. The story is obviously for the religious - but clearly there are plenty of believers who take a more conventional logic (ie. less literalist) approach to biblical stories than others, which is probably why I didn't interpret the picture as being about biblical literalism. Personally I took it as an atheist-centric reference to the famous burden of proof argument for God's existence.

Just to be clear, posting it was no more than a little good-humoured mischief making on my part. True, I consider the logic of the religious person deeply muddled when it comes to the issue of belief in God or gods (I'm sure plenty think mine equally muddled) - but it would be a far stretch for me to conclude from it that religious people reject logic in any other area of their life.

Sarcasmo

02-05-2011, 10:21 AM

...but it would be a far stretch for me to conclude from it that religious people reject logic in any other area of their life.

And I would hope that anybody, regardless of what they choose to place their faith in, understands that their faith is not a tool by which they elevate themselves above other people. In fact, the opposite is the truth.

stimpee

02-05-2011, 11:37 AM

http://www.boingboing.net/images/_tumblr_lg23mi157x1qfo9wxo1_500.jpg

Sarcasmo

02-05-2011, 12:09 PM

http://www.boingboing.net/images/_tumblr_lg23mi157x1qfo9wxo1_500.jpg

What's funny is that most religious people (especially Christians in this country) feel like their rights are being trampled on by atheist groups, when there has been a steady increase in religiosity since the early 1800's. You can't be oppressed if you're the majority opinion, and if you're seriously upset about some rocks with words on them being removed from public property, then you're not very secure in your faith to begin with. There is no reason, at least to my way of thinking, that science and faith can't coexist. Science is, after all, just a tool by which we attempt to understand what's around us, not some competing faith.

Deckard

02-05-2011, 01:10 PM

What's funny is that most religious people (especially Christians in this country) feel like their rights are being trampled on by atheist groups, when there has been a steady increase in religiosity since the early 1800's. You can't be oppressed if you're the majority opinion
I wish someone would tell that to the populist commentators in this country, many of whom make a healthy living from regular frothing about how white people are the real victims of racism, how men are more discriminated against than women, how homosexuals have more rights than heterosexuals, how Muslims are always getting special treatment and Christians are the most vilified, etc etc.

Of course there are Christians being persecuted around the world in different ways - and certainly there are a greater number of more vocal/vociferous non-believers around these days. Christians living in countries where their religion in the dominant one (such as the US and UK) will of course feel the brunt of that. But still - perspective frequently seems to go out the window.

-

OK... would I be pushing it too far by posting another pic?

http://i55.tinypic.com/2jg3tkp.jpg

(that's the last one from me before you have permission to call me Mongoose :D )

Deckard

02-05-2011, 01:12 PM

we have a couple of friends in common, i just hope they don't see that and somehow side with them
I'm sure they won't, but if they do (based solely on what you wrote) then I'd suggest they were never great friends to begin with.

Andrea

02-05-2011, 03:07 PM

Assuming you mean the walking on water story, the 'or' is a bit misleading. The story is obviously for the religious - but clearly there are plenty of believers who take a more conventional logic (ie. less literalist) approach to biblical stories than others, which is probably why I didn't interpret the picture as being about biblical literalism. Personally I took it as an atheist-centric reference to the famous burden of proof argument for God's existence.

Just to be clear, posting it was no more than a little good-humoured mischief making on my part. True, I consider the logic of the religious person deeply muddled when it comes to the issue of belief in God or gods (I'm sure plenty think mine equally muddled) - but it would be a far stretch for me to conclude from it that religious people reject logic in any other area of their life.

What do we mean by "God´s existence"?
You see, I grew up in Hungary during the Communism where religion was strictly forbidden so I´m still trying to sort things out. (I got the Bible For Dummies for a couple of years ago and that was my first book ever about religion.)
I may be wrong but as I understand "God" is something bigger than everything and anybody and that "God"/divinity is what some people experience as a kind of magical revelation (e.g. the ability to walking on water, making vine of the water, hear God´s voice etc). I´m not surprised people, religious or not, need some kind of proof, unless they have experienced the "magic" themselves. I´m still not clear about it but it might be some difference between what we call "believers" and "religious" people. For me, the "believer" sounds like a person who believes without any proof or own experience. But it´s maybe just a translation/language thing so I may be wrong.

However, I think that "God"/divinity exists in everything and everybody even though some of us has experienced it in some way and some of us not.
Personally, I don´t belong to any particular religion just because I haven´t find the genre that fits my experience. The "making vine of water" variant sounds quite interesting though :)

Deckard

02-05-2011, 05:11 PM

What do we mean by "God's existence"?
The question: Does God exist?

And in my opinion the correct response (which you rightly identify) should always be to answer with the following question:

How are we defining God for the sake of the present argument?

After all, there are several ways, each of which might elicit a quite different response or provoke a quite different discussion...

- God as described in the Old/New Testament, the Qu'ran, or other holy books?
- God merely as a Being who (note the pronouns here) concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings?
- God merely as some unifying spiritual force that connects every living thing?
- God merely as a synonym for 'whatever created everything that exists'?
- God merely as a synonym for 'everything that exists'?
- etc.

Only then can we can go on to explore:

- the question of God's existence.
- the question of whether it's even possible for humans to know the answer to such a question!

bryantm3

02-05-2011, 10:10 PM

well, i don't believe i can really define who G-d is, i don't know how he works but i know that he's there. i would probably go with #2 in your list because i don't think G-d limits himself to a certain race or religion... that is asinine. but i do believe that he's active in our lives. as for all the pain and suffering in the world, i'm not going to even pretend to try to understand all that. i don't know why it happens. does that trouble me sometimes? yes, it does. but i think that G-d has a hold on it, and there must be some sort of reason why things happen the way they do. i just don't think it's in the grasps of any human to try to understand.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

02-06-2011, 03:48 AM

bryantm3

02-06-2011, 11:30 AM

LOL nice one.

froopy seal

02-09-2011, 04:06 AM

For my own part, I don't get into any kind of semantic or personal arguments about my faith, because I understand how counterintuitive a lot of what I accept as truth may seem to others, and that's fine. It's not my job to convert people. It's my job to show love and compassion and self-sacrifice, and be an example of what I believe.Good point. I hate churches as institutions, and usually despise their pompous decision makers, but I respect and support the empathic, humanitarian, "good" views and actions that religion and belief often bring with them.

well, i don't believe i can really define who G-d is, i don't know how he works but i know that he's there.Why do you always write "G-d" instead of "God"? Does this have anything to do with the no-image rule? Please excuse my ignorance, I'm just curious.

bas_I_am

02-09-2011, 06:09 PM

- the question of whether it's even possible for humans to know the answer to such a question!

The nature of man is agnostic. Which means, simply, "without knowledge."

How is it that man truly "knows" things? Through the application of empirical methods. Unfortunately, God - if there is a God - by definition, is not temporeal/corporeal, therefore, empirical methods always yield the same incomplete results. The human senses lack the ability to discern the spiritual.

At this point, many venture the fool's folly and proclaim that due to the lack of empirical data and the inability of science to quantify God, God, therefore, does not exist. . . nevermind the fact that many of these people have never tackled a serious course in physics, let alone analytics. For if they had, they would be embarassed by their own fatuous reasoning.

. . I will end now as I have to go home. . . but I will chime in more

Deckard

02-10-2011, 08:28 AM

The nature of man is agnostic. Which means, simply, "without knowledge."

True. But agnosticism involves an altogether separate question from that of atheism/theism.

Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god.
Agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge concerning a god (or some other supernatural being).

Agnosticism is not the midway point between theism and atheism. It's something entirely different.

Deckard

02-10-2011, 09:11 AM

I'm going to elaborate on that, because discussions between people calling themselves agnostic and people calling themselves atheist almost always degenerate due to mere semantic and etymological differences rather than epistemological and theological ones. What's clear is that there are no definitions of agnosticism and atheism on which everyone would agree, so let me at least expand on where I'm coming from on this.

1) Theism and atheism

On the question of belief in a god, I subscribe to the school of thought that says theism and atheism exhaust all possibilities. You either posit that "god exists" - or you do not. You either hold a belief in god - or you lack that belief. Notice that the binary choice I'm describing here is not "god exists -vs- god doesn't exist". Rather, it's: "I have a particular belief... -vs- I do not have that particular belief...". It's important not to get these two comparisons muddled up.

Theism, in its fundamental sense, is no more than a belief in a god or gods.
Atheism in its fundamental sense, is no more than the absence of those beliefs. A lack of theism. (Just as the 'a' prefix signals 'without' in a-gnosticism, so it does in a-theism). In this sense, and as has been said many times before, the answer to the charge of "Ah, but atheism is a faith too" is that atheism is a faith only in the same way that 'not fishing' is a hobby.

But of course there's a glaring omission from my description here, so let's deal with it. It's the point that, I think, makes many so-called agnostics think they have to choose (mistakenly, in my view) agnosticism rather than atheism...

There are some atheists who go further and choose to declare a positive belief of their own. They don't settle for a mere lack of others' beliefs; they insist that, according to them, "god does not exist". Well the first thing to state about this is that it's a subset of atheism, it's not atheism itself. And the second thing is that, often, what they're really saying it "I live my life as if there's no god, but no obviously I can't really prove it". Notwithstanding all that, then yes, this particular subset (which goes by several confusing names including strong atheism) is essentially a belief in itself, and, taken literally, you would be right in rejecting this as being as presumptious as the theistic belief that god exists.

The problem is that many non-atheists insist on portraying this subset of atheism as the very definition, the only definition, of atheism.

It's interesting, because in my experience, most atheists, when pressed, don't subscribe to this view. Most seem to define their own atheism in the much less presumptious sense - simply as an absence of belief in god. A rejection (implicit or explicit) of what others are positing. Which to my way of thinking is really the only sensible way forward if you hold to the logical view that the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim (not least because of the impossibility of proving a negative).

So that's confusion number one - the definition of atheism as being more certain than it necessarily is - this largely, I suspect, a legacy of it having been defined historically from the religious point of view (ie. atheism = the universe with a god-shaped hole in it). Still, one interesting outcome here is that most people calling themselves agnostic could probably quite easily redefine themselves as atheist without changing their beliefs one iota (which is precisely what many of us did). It just takes a change of definition. I suppose it depends how attached a person has become to the identity cultivated around the label 'agnostic'. Anyway, this brings me on to confusion number two...

2) Agnosticism

One of the outcomes of acknowledging only this narrower and more arrogant form of atheism is that it appears to open up a space in the middle for a nice, sensible, humble "don't know" position, midway between theism and atheism - and conveniently, in plonks agnosticism. The problem here is that agnosticism and theism-atheism are fundamentally separate questions. Agnosticism can very easily co-exist with either atheism or theism, for the simple reason that it's classified according to different criteria. A theist, for example, may also be an agnostic by maintaining that an aspect of the supernatural such as God is inherently beyond the scope of human knowledge. Cultural reasons may prevent that theist from using the term 'agnostic' to describe themselves, but to take an example in this thread, if you read bryant's posts, it would be hard to deny that in between the religious content, he is actually demonstrating a certain degree of healthy agnosticism.

To confuse the debate further, we also have the question of believing in religious aspects that go beyond the mere question of god's existence - miracles, walking on water, etc. I think these sometimes motivate some atheists to over-reach in their statements about capital-G God.

Huxley held the position that because the supernatural is by definition outside nature and therefore outside the scope of human knowledge, the only logical thing to do was to suspend judgment. Well that's fine as far as it goes; it's hard to disagree with it - but we need to be clear what precisely we're merely 'suspending judgment' about, because belief in a supernatural god is more specific than belief in 'religion'. Who could possibly disagree with the statement (the tautology) that it's not possible to have knowledge about something that lies beyond the scope of human knowledge?

My point here is that we need to be clear when using the term agnostic that we're really just making a statement about the (un-)knowability of a supernatural god; we're saying nothing of the various other elements of religion, upon which we should feel more confident relinquishing our agnostic suspension of judgment.

It's surely much more reasonable to step off the fence and pass judgment about the plethora of religious stories and phenomena than it is about the existence of an entity that lies beyond human comprehension.

I'm as confident in my outright rejection of the existence of Jesus as the son of God as I am in any other mythical or religious figure (though I acknowledge that Jesus the man may have existed). I'm as confident in the falseness of the efficacy of prayer (not counting placebo) as I am in the falseness of crystal healing or astrology - and I'm certainly not agnostic about any of those (though neither am I so dogmatic that I'd refuse to ever be proved wrong).

I reject the notion of a "loving" god or a "jealous" god as readily as I reject the notion of a "hating" god or a "crippled" god. Similarly I'm as confident rejecting the Christian version of Creation as I am the Hindu version of Creation, or, for that matter, the version of some long lost primitive Peruvian tribe.

There are many core elements of religion like this that are not necessarily a matter for agnosticism in the religious sense of the word - elements of the natural world, elements of everyday experience that science has demonstrably proven to be well within its remit (regardless of the ontological conclusions we might subsequently attach to everyday experience itself). It's quite possible to reject all these religious elements in a confident way and maintain the the agnostic view of the impossibility of knowledge concerning a god in the supernatural realm, while labelling oneself an atheist by virtue of not holding theistic beliefs. We all choose our own labels and their definitions. I'm confident that atheism represents mine. The additional (not alternative) option of agnosticism is so bleedin' obviously correct, I feel it doesn't even need to be an identifying label! :D

bas_I_am

02-10-2011, 02:02 PM

True. But agnosticism involves an altogether separate question from that of atheism/theism.

Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god.
Agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge concerning a god (or some other supernatural being).

Agnosticism is not the midway point between theism and atheism. It's something entirely different.

Absolutely!

I am human, therefor agnostic. . .

I accept my human limitations,yet personal experience has convinced me there is a God. . .
Still, I will be agnostic until the day I die.

Sean

02-10-2011, 02:10 PM

stimpee

02-10-2011, 02:57 PM

Douglas Adams summed my atheistic attitude perfectly when he described himself as a radical atheist. Read the full interview here: http://www.atheists.org/Interview%3A__Douglas_Adams (its also in his final book, The Salmon Of Doubt - great book btw)

It begins like so:
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)
___
I too believe strongly that there is no God (or G-d or god). I find the idea just so utterly ridiculous. May as well believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. But I'll not get into those arguments willingly because I truly do not care one way or the other what people believe in as long as it doesnt fuck up my daily life and/or friends/family around me.

BTW, fairies dont exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

stimpee

02-10-2011, 02:57 PM

Sean

02-10-2011, 04:13 PM

it's uncanny how alike many atheists (not all, but many) evangelize in nearly the same way as christians— i think it derives from the US being a mostly christian society.I just wanted to speak to this one point, because I've been on the receiving end of accusations along these lines before, and I disagree - or at least I do in my case.

As much as I personally don't believe in God, and as much as I think religion causes more problems than it does offer solutions in the modern world, I have no interest in evangelizing in the classical sense, with the goal of trying to convert anyone from their religion to non-belief. All I, and most atheists I tend to come across, tend to speak to is the willful denial of basic scientific knowledge and such in the name of religion. And that's a pretty common occurrence in the U.S. For example, out of all western nations the United States ranks second only to Turkey in the population's rejection of the theory of evolution (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html). In fact, just shy of 40% of all Americans outright dismiss the theory, which is much higher than most European nations. So when I encounter someone who insists evolution is false in the context of a religious debate, I will take them on over it. Typically, the arguments against it are that "it's just s 'theory'" and such, which really serves only to illustrate their ignorance on the subject, not to mention on the scientific definition of the word "theory". Or they try to argue that irreducible complexity - a failed hypothesis - somehow disproves it. Or, they claim there are no transitional fossils to prove evolution's accuracy.

So I and other atheists will jump in and explain evolution a bit more. Of course some are nicer than others in their explanations, but it's not done in hopes of conversion to our non-belief, it's just a defense of fundamental scientific knowledge.

That's pretty much all I wanted to mention.

Strangelet

02-10-2011, 08:43 PM

religion is like a penis

awesome.

bas_I_am

02-10-2011, 10:24 PM

God. . . the bailout value of the ultimate recursive function -> why(x)

function why(x){
var answer = because ( x );
if ( !answer ){
return God;
}
else{
return why ( answer );
}
}

bryantm3

02-10-2011, 11:22 PM

1) Theism and atheism

lots of stuff

well, once again you're examining semantics. it's really hard to not discuss semantics when we're talking about what a term really means. i know that you have *your* definition of what atheist/theist means, based on the etymology of the words, but i don't really believe that most people in the united states apply those terms in the way that you do, although your definition may be technically correct. i think that most people who describe themselves as agnostics would probably fall under your definition of atheism. most people who describe themselves as atheists would probably fall under the subset that you describe as making a positive claim— despite what the terms actually mean, society has generally moved towards the idea that an atheist is a person who is making a positive claim that there is no G-d.

*oh, by the way, to whomever asked about using G-d instead of the full word, basically it's a sign of respect— someone may very well print out this thread and take it to work, and then throw it in the trash later on not thinking about it. it's basically an acknowledgment that his name is important enough not to throw around willy-nilly— in many cases G-d's name can be written such as in a siddur (prayer book) or on a religious website as long as a disclaimer is posted to please refrain from taking the posting lightly. it's basically an interpretation of the 3rd commandment to not take his name in vein.

this reminds me of a discussion i had with an atheist a while back, it was very extensive but i might be able to copy it and paste it here later— y'all might find it interesting.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

02-10-2011, 11:53 PM

[QUOTE=bryantm3;149151 . . . i think that most people who describe themselves as agnostics would probably fall under your definition of atheism. . . .[/QUOTE]

Maybe if everyone was always reading from the same book. What I mean to say relates to my first reading of the term agnostic and my first exposure to it's "definition". From that point I always told others I spoke with regarding my views on fatih that I considered myself to be agnostic. I can only imagine the impression I had made on many in the past . . . . not that I care of others impression of me or anything.

Anyways, my first reading of agnosticism went along the lines of: a lack of faith towards organized religious institutions.

Deckard

02-11-2011, 04:44 AM

well, once again you're examining semantics. it's really hard to not discuss semantics when we're talking about what a term really means.
Yes, and that was entirely the point of that particular post - to elaborate on (my own particular use of) terms, given that those differences often lie at the heart of much of the disagreement.

i think that most people who describe themselves as agnostics would probably fall under your definition of atheism.
Yes, though possibly in addition to agnosticism. See above. ;)

most people who describe themselves as atheists would probably fall under the subset that you describe as making a positive claim— despite what the terms actually mean, society has generally moved towards the idea that an atheist is a person who is making a positive claim that there is no G-d.
Actually I'm finding quite the opposite - that there seems to be a steady trend towards people declaring their atheism as a statement about what they don't believe, not a statement about what they do. I know a lot of the debate sadly consists of atheists shouting "Hey suckerz your sky fairy don't exist, deal with it, lolz!!" I'll readily admit that I'm not counting that as valid opinion. But of those who put their argument in more measured terms, there seems to be a steady increase in self-described atheists exercising the burden of proof argument and taking the broader 'without theism' defintion of atheism.

All this is obviously anecdotal and subject to my own biases.

Deckard

02-11-2011, 05:52 AM

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts on this. I've long been slightly confused as to the specifics of agnosticism versus atheism, although I've felt in my gut for quite a while that I'm most accurately described as an atheist who, due to understanding and respect for the scientific process, acknowledges the highly unlikely, yet also unknowable possibility that capital-G God could exist. So reading your thoughts on it have certainly helped me at least form some deeper opinions about it. Well done, sir!
Happy as I am that it's given you something to think about, I would just want to re-emphasize that this is only my particular take on those terms. Ok, so I didn't just decide on them arbitrarily, but hopefully it goes without saying that neither am I trying to suggest they're in any way definitive. I happen to think they make the most sense, but others will have definitions just as valid (as a glance at most dictionaries makes clear). Some may even find the attempt to file people's views under pre-existing labels as highly offensive (indeed someone once PM'd me on here to tell me as much). But I've long reached the conclusion that agnostics and atheists are, very often, in no disagreement on the philosophy; they merely differ in their terminology. Not always mind you - as Stimpee's post seems to demonstrate. But too many religious discussions get hobbled from the outset by an inability to agree on a single definition of the most fundamental terms (usually the words 'god', 'atheist' and 'agnostic'). One option is to remove every usage of those contentious terms and attempt to carry out the discussion in their absence. Another is simply to reach an agreement on our definitions upfront - even if only for the purpose of the present argument - so that it can progress hopefully more productively.

Deckard

02-11-2011, 05:52 AM

I can only imagine the impression I had made on many in the past . . . .
jOHN, I'm sure the impression given off by your use of the word agnosticism will have been the least of anyone's concerns :D

Seriously though, they'd have got the gist of what you meant.

Deckard

02-11-2011, 05:53 AM

religion is like a penis
It is indeed. It's fine to have one and be proud of it. But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around, and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my children's throats.

(How I wish I could claim authorship of that.)

bas_I_am

02-11-2011, 08:00 AM

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

02-11-2011, 10:17 AM

jOHN, I'm sure the impression given off by your use of the word agnosticism will have been the least of anyone's concerns :D

Seriously though, they'd have got the gist of what you meant.

You REALLY don't get "God Fearing(sooo rolling my fing eyes here) America" even more so, THE SOUTH.

Deckard

02-11-2011, 10:51 AM

Despite peoples inability to agree on their understanding of certain words, that does not change the concrete meaning of words.
And the concrete definition is what exactly? Your definition? That's just your definition. The original definition? Not always as discoverable nor as discernible as you might think. The dictionary definition? Choose your dictionary, then choose your definition, then tell me why you rejected the other definitions, because in the case of atheism, guess what... they don't all accord.

Alternatively, we can just accept that the definitions of some words, particularly those describing philosophical positions, are mere starting points, and that multiple definitions of contentious words like atheist may well differ, sometimes in ways that are imperceptible to the average person but fundamental to someone who has thought deeply about it.

For instance, you claim that an atheist is "one who believes there is no God", but you make no mention of the alternative definitions involving no such positive claim. If that's because you don't understand or accept the difference between, say, a lack of belief in god, and belief in a lack of god, then I'm afraid it may be you who needs the primer in analytic philosophy, not anyone else.

There is no universally agreed 'concrete' meaning for words. The fact that words are not as fluid as water does not mean they are as solid as concrete. Some definitions are less solid than others. Words in general are closer to slurry than concrete.

In the realm of physics, experts are coming to the determination that their are dimensions of reality beyond our human experience. To be atheist, is to deny the possibility that these dimensions are devoid of intelligence.
Why would an atheist deny the possibility of other dimensions being devoid of intelligence? Did you trip up with your double negative there?

Whichever way round you meant it - to be an atheist is no such thing. Either your deductive reasoning is in need of fine-tuning, or you're demonstrating that your concrete definitions are not so concrete after all. Atheism refers merely to the element of belief in a god. God is not, to most people, synonymous with "any intelligence residing in dimensions of reality beyond our human experience". If that was the case, it would be leaving the door open for God to be a theme park dolphin or a 78 year old prostitute or a cockroach, albeit in some higher-dimensional form. And none of us thinks that (apart from that evil Richard Dawkins, the bitter old swine!) Most of us imagine the concept of God as traversing dimensions, as being beyond them, and of possessing certain qualities.

The reality is that there's a pretty big difference between what most atheists are rejecting (the omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient gods of religion) and the possibility of intelligent life residing in areas of reality beyond what is current known to us - regardless of whether that area of reality is beyond the boundary of the observable universe, or in another universe of higher dimensions within a greater multiverse, or in a completely different reality about which we are destined to remain forever ignorant. Being an atheist involves ruling out no such thing. All it involves is not positively believing in god, a being about which, by most definitions, we can have no actual knowledge. (Look up ignosticism.)

There may be a lot more intelligence out there, not only in our own Universe, but in other universes, multiverses, and beyond even that, in a way that we can't begin to imagine. But there's a huge gulf between the idea of that and the idea of an all-encompassing loving judging God who takes an interest in human affairs, listens to prayers, and so on and who presumably straddles what we might call "everything". And that's why it's important to elaborate (http://www.borndirty.org/forums/showpost.php?p=149083&postcount=15) on word definitions, otherwise it can lead to quite different discussions and incorrect assumptions.

Deckard

02-11-2011, 10:52 AM

You REALLY don't get "God Fearing(sooo rolling my fing eyes here) America" even more so, THE SOUTH.
You're quite right, I forgot about that.

Sean

02-11-2011, 01:10 PM

Despite peoples inability to agree on their understanding of certain words, that does not change the concrete meaning of words.

Theist=one who believes there is a God
Atheist=one who believes there is no God
Gnostic=one who believes it is possible to know God
Agnostic=one who believes it is impossible to know GodI'm not sure those are as concrete as you're asserting. For example, I'm an atheist, and I don't feel your definition describes me accurately. Saying that I "believe there is no God" implies an active belief system about it, when in reality, I just don't think God exists. As Deckard pointed out above, it's the difference between "a lack of belief in god, and belief in a lack of god". For me, it's a lack of belief in god - not just the Christian god, but any god at all. And my lack of belief is based on my rudimentary understanding of human history, and our invention of gods and religion concurrent with the evolution of our intellect. It's no coincidence that many religious people fear and decry science, as science has systematically given evidence-based answers to questions that religion and gods have historically been invented to address. Personally, I'll take conclusions based on the scientific process over conclusions based on mythology and faith any day.

On another note. . . why do talks about God always digress into arguments (for lack of a better word) about the human failings of religion? Can't spirituality be seperated from religion?From my perspective, this happens for exactly the reasons I mentioned above. Human failings are inseparable from gods because gods are mythological beings that have been invented by humans. I know many Christians would likely argue that I'm putting the cart before the horse by making an assertion that assumes "God" is man-made. But in the same breath, those Christians would also likely agree that Zeus, Ra, Kukulcan, and any other god from any other religion throughout history that isn't their Christian God is man-made. From my atheistic perspective though, why would the Christian God be any different? Especially when we know that Christian mythology is derived and adapted from past polytheistic religions.

In the realm of physics, experts are coming to the determination that their are dimensions of reality beyond our human experience. To be atheist, is to deny the possibility that these dimensions are devoid of intelligence. To quote D. Adams, "I see no evidence. . . therfore I am a radical athiest." Has he had access to all the evidence to make a solid decision?What you omit from this assertion is that fact that there's more to evidence-based conclusions than just a black and white "no evidence means I conclude it doesn't exist" mentality. Basically, you have to include likelihood in your considerations of atheist thought here.

For the sake of discussion, I'll assume you've accidentally used a double negative in your comment that "To be atheist, is to deny the possibility that these dimensions are devoid of intelligence". As an atheist, I fully acknowledge that dimensions beyond our perception, as well as theorized alternate universes and such (if they even exist) could all contain forms of life and intelligence that we've never even dreamed of. In fact, it's quite likely that they do based on what we know - even though there's no direct evidence of it yet. Because what we know is that here on Earth, life is tenacious. It persists through mass extinctions, it thrives in the most extreme of environments, it recovers from seemingly insurmountable setbacks. If anything, the evidence all points to the likelihood that life could be quite common in the universe and beyond, relatively speaking.

But that's a separate issue from not believing in a god. While we know that life in general is tenacious and pervasive based on a variety of evidence, we have no such comparable evidence of any god - only faith. So from a scientific perspective (which a large portion of atheists share), life in unknown places has a fair likelihood of existing, while gods do not.

froopy seal

02-13-2011, 05:11 AM

Douglas Adams summed my atheistic attitude perfectly when he described himself as a radical atheist. Read the full interview here: http://www.atheists.org/Interview%3A__Douglas_Adams (its also in his final book, The Salmon Of Doubt - great book btw)

It begins like so:
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)Thanks, Steve. Once again, DNA has added a valuable insight to my life. Hereinafter, I will proudly call myself a radical atheist (the term 'radical' befitting my ever-growing beard).

I too believe strongly that there is no God (or G-d or god). I find the idea just so utterly ridiculous. May as well believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. But I'll not get into those arguments willingly because I truly do not care one way or the other what people believe in as long as it doesnt fuck up my daily life and/or friends/family around me.Full ack.

Andrea

02-15-2011, 03:01 PM

Back from the land where the smell of horse-droppings is still mixed with exhaust fumes from camions...
http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/114/l_f4ff94828f7f43378040af709f87e431.jpg

and where the winter dark is even darker, the wet is even more wet and the cold is creeping in to the bone from the very first centigrade below zero.
http://www.borndirty.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=9&pictureid=107

Sorry if I´m a bit of topic but this is the only way for me to describe how I feel...

Last week we had a gathering at the concrete as well but not as pleasant as the gatherings at the National Theatre these days.
http://www.borndirty.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=9&pictureid=106

Deep in contemplation I was sitting there and pondering about this opportune "What is God" question, while I was watching my father in that tiny wooden box. I was wondering if there was anybody on Earth who had a clue why we got the intellect to think about and searching for the meaning of our lives, if many of us have to depart this life without the answer anyway.
However, at some point I think I came to a conclusion that "God" must have been the universal synonym for the "Unknown" throughout the history of mankind. That this "Unknown", no matter how we try to explain everything around us, is still around, both in our spiritual and our scientific world. We name the unknown "God" and "Lord" or "N" (in mathematics) but names make people associate to different things so I guess this is the main reason for the conflicts between the fanatics. The ostrich-heads in the sand really need a major upgrade like a software in a computer, just as much as old scripts, like the Bible itself. I may be naive but I do believe one day we will find a general term/concept that fits everybody. We need to handle the "Unknown", things that is beyond the bounds of human knowledge, there is no doubt about that.

As a matter of curiosity, apropos of the "Unknown", while I was sitting and contemplating at my fathers funeral, I was totally unaware that a few hours later, during a dinner with relatives I haven´t seen in 30 years, I would find out that I´m actually a relative of one of the famous Hungarian poets, Kölcsey Ferenc, who also wrote the Hungarian national anthem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Kölcsey
What a coincidence, what a surprise and what an amazing timing! I mean is it Richard Dawkins memetics or genetics or the "unknown" that made me be interested in art, music and poetry so intensively during the last few years? The wonder is that none in my family ever was writing poems or was interested in literature or art so deeply so nobody ever told me about this until now, and I still can´t recall how or why I started to paint and write lyrics for a couple of years ago. Kinda 'Spooky Action At A Distance' eh? :)
And this is only one of the funny coincidences with an excellent timing among many others in my life. It´s like I have to pinch myself sometimes to be sure I´m not dreaming. Whatever power it is I have a deep respect for it but I´m still not religious, at least not that I know of.

bryantm3

02-15-2011, 10:21 PM

i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists. if you don't believe in G-d, you're an atheist. if you believe there is no G-d, you're an atheist. either way it doesn't make you any more or less valid or intelligent in your belief system, although i disagree.

Sean

02-16-2011, 12:45 PM

i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists. if you don't believe in G-d, you're an atheist. if you believe there is no G-d, you're an atheist. either way it doesn't make you any more or less valid or intelligent in your belief system, although i disagree.I get what you're saying, but there is a difference regardless of how insignificant the semantics may sound on a superficial level. It's not that I "don't want to appear to have positive beliefs", it's that I actually DON'T have any positive beliefs associated with gods or religion. I choose to live my life and shape my philosophies around knowledge rather than beliefs. So the conclusions I have reached regarding gods and religion are informed conclusions.

Meanwhile, others out there may not be actively pursuing knowledge in regards to how the biological and social evolution of our species led to the advent of gods and religions, and as such, may very well reach their conclusions about god's non-existence based solely on a personal, unsupported belief about it.

Yes, in both cases, you have people who say god doesn't exist. But their philosophical approaches in reaching their conclusions are very, very different.

Deckard

02-17-2011, 07:49 AM

i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists.

Before I start, I want to say to you bryant that I fully understand that it can look suspiciously as if some of us are being a bit sneaky or even dishonest about this question. That we want to profess one part of the definition of atheism but not be lumbered with the bit that supposedly implicates us as having a belief system. After all, faced with a firm positive belief that god does not exist, the theist (along with many who view themselves as an in-the-middle agnostic) would then be quite right to shift the responsibility for providing evidence onto atheism, which should then justifiably be treated as a rival belief system. And on that basis, you could quite reasonably attack it. But really and honestly, it's simply the case that I don't share your belief in god. I don't believe. I lack that belief. And that's it.

I'm going to try to minimize the use of category labels here, because I want to concentrate on this important distinction - between not believing in god and believing there is no god. If you get to the end of it and feel I'm an agnostic but not an atheist, then that's fine, that's up to you. I've already outlined in this thread why I consider my theistic position to be atheism rather than agnosticism (agnosticism is my gnostic position!), so I won't go back into the argument here except to say that it's one that can be debated separately. For now, I want to focus on the fundamental difference between the two positions you mentioned.

As Sean said, semantically the difference might seem minuscule, but in fact it's more than merely saying something different; it's actually meaning something different. The distinction between the two statements is crucial in terms of what the person is or is not assuming to know. It's common to mistake the two statements "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists" as being one and the same. Both appear very similar, but in fact the first is a hypothesis, and the second is a rejection of a (different) hypothesis. As such, it's my view that those who use the statements interchangeably will find that they are either:

(1) taking a looser definition of the word 'believe' than I am
(2) or committing a logical error.

Dealing with these one at a time:

(1) Defining 'believe'
My dictionary defines 'believe' as 'assume to know' or 'accept as true'. The difficulty is that in day-to-day usage, the word believe is often used in a weaker way - people sometimes use the word to indicate that they are merely 'fairly sure' of something. And unfortunately this can make all the difference to this argument. For example, when I say I don't believe god exists, I'm saying I don't assume to know that god exists. I lack the belief in god that you possess. I reject your hypothesis that god exists. However when I also reject the other hypothesis that 'god does not exist', that's because I don't assume to know that for certain either. I don't assume to have that knowledge. (And the reasons for that I'll explain a little later.)

The confusion arises because, despite not knowing for certain that 'he' does not exist, I live my life 'as if' god does not exist. Now some mistakenly assume that living as if there is no god and positively believing there is no god are the same thing. My view is that no human being can know for certain that there is no god. Yes I lead my life 'to all intents and purposes' as if there is no god, just as I lead my life to all intents and purposes as if there are no invisible unicorns or trans-dimensional devils. The reason I live 'as if' there is no god is because it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. I refuse to believe in your Christian God only in the same way that I refuse to believe in Nagaraja, the Hindu snake god, or indeed in anything else the human mind can dream up. Only in that sense am I believing (assuming) that god doesn't exist - but to term it like that requires a much looser definition of the word believe than we normally employ, so we just need to be aware of that.

(2) The logical error
For the sake of dealing with this second point, let's settle on one definition of 'believe' - any one, it doesn't matter which - so that we can examine the logical error. Let's take the common definition of believe as 'assume to know'.

Essentially, we are dealing with two hypotheses, and their counterpart rejections:

Hypothesis 1: I believe god exists
(Rejection of hypothesis 1: I do not believe god exists)

Hypothesis 2: I believe god does not exist
(Rejection of hypothesis 2: I do not believe god does not exist)

As a theist, you would presumably accept hypothesis 1 and reject hypothesis 2.
Douglas Adams, quoted earlier, has effectively rejected hypothesis 1 but accepted hypothesis 2.
My position (and I think Sean's position) is that I reject both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2.

Now I might well live my life as if god doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean I feel sufficiently qualified or knowledgable to posit for certain that god does not exist.

[contd...]

Deckard

02-17-2011, 08:09 AM

So we reach the question: why might someone lack a belief in god, but not believe in a lack of god?

There are several possibilities.

One is that they might never have come across the concept of god before. Perhaps they're too young. Or perhaps they've been too isolated. Unlikely in this day and age, I know, but it's possible enough to demonstrate the logical error in assuming the two statements to be the same. Denial pre-supposes something to deny, and in this case, there would be nothing apparent to deny. Another possible reason is that a person might be undecided. In that case, they lack a belief in god. Again, never mind the category labels for now, whether or not you think this counts as agnosticism - just recognize that this person would lack a belief in god, without having a belief that 'god does not exist', so this is perfectly possible. A further one is that they may simply be indifferent to belief in god, for whatever reason. Or they might just think the idea of the supernatural absurd and the claims of the theist absurdly overspecific and presumptious. Again, no belief in god, and no firm belief in the non-existence of god. Just a lack of belief. In none of these cases is it necessary that the person positively believes or claims to know that god Does Not Exist.

My own reason for lacking a belief in god but not believing in a lack of god can be summed up in an argument that runs along this path...

It seems realistic to suppose that there are limitations to human comprehension.
We are not in a position to be able to say "this is all there is."
God is a human-posited Being that is supposedly beyond human comprehension.
If a realm beyond human comprehension exists, then by definition we cannot say or know anything about it.
We can say nothing about the non-existence of a god.

This by the way is pretty much how I'd have responded to Douglas Adams' atheist comments - a man who I otherwise greatly admire, but who I suspect, on this issue, allowed his over-enthusiastic defiance of/rebellion against religion to carry him into a more strident but intellectually shaky position than he might otherwise have adopted.

If you're not already bored to tears, this will finish you off ;) Those 5 points in more detail:

Point 1) It seems realistic to suppose there are limitations to human comprehension.
Brain capacity/cognitive ability is one thing. We will probably make great advances in this area in centuries to come, but for now it places a constraint on what we can know. However, irrespective of brain capacity, there are other limitations placed on us from living in the Universe in which we do. Some of these limitations - such as the physical constants, the speed of light, etc - may place a fundamental limit on what we're ever able to discover. But even if we were able to conquer those physical constraints, there are other factors that may place a fundamental limit on what we can ever comprehend. Being creatures of a very specific number of dimensions of time and space, it seems reasonable to me to think that, beyond a certain point, humankind is as destined to ignorance as the fictional characters of Flatland. Consequently.....

Point 2) We are not in a position to be able to say "this is all there is."
Yes this life may be all there is for humanity - this organic body, this brain-based personality and this strange attribute we call consciousness may be all there is for each of us for the few decades that we're lucky to be alive. Yes the observable Universe may or may not be all humankind can ever observe. But it does NOT follow that all the things we're capable of discovering or comprehending represent ALL of "everything" there is. Because, by definition, we would never know.

Point 3) God is a human-posited Being that is supposedly beyond human comprehension.
If we are defining god as the ultimate Being, as we usually are, he would have to encompass not just the realm that we can comprehend, but also the realm that we cannot - not so much in a different parallel realm, but rather in a greater more all-encompassing realm. Our inability to comprehend infinity tells us just how far beyond human comprehension such a Being must be. Generally, when we're talking about the concept of a god, we're talking about something and/or somewhere and/or some-(?) that we accept as being fundamentally beyond our ability to comprehend.

Point 4) If a realm beyond human comprehension exists, then by definition we cannot say or know anything about it.
Yep, the famous tautology. We cannot say what this aspect of reality contains, and we cannot say what it does not contain, because we are incapable of knowing anything about something that's being posited as being beyond human comprehension, including whether or not it even exists. The entire question is off the page.

Point 5) We can say nothing about the non-existence of a god.
Since we cannot know anything about the area beyond human comprehension, and since god is supposed to occupy such an area, we cannot possibly confirm his absence (nor his presence, but that's not the point of this particular argument).

As such:

- I label myself an atheist because I do not believe in God, I have no belief in God
- But nor do I have a belief that god 'does not exist' - because I feel that question cannot be answered by any of us.
- By placing the concept of god outside the realm of human comprehension and evidence, I am asserting that this hypothetical being is unknowable. By doing this, I am also an agnostic. Anyone else who places god outside this realm (which, I should think, is almost everyone in the modern world) will, by my reckoning, be similarly agnostic.

But as I say, category labels weren't the main point of this post. If you think I'm not a true atheist, then that's entirely up to you, but be aware that many people who share my position also call themselves atheists and refuse the narrow definition of atheism foisted on them by self-labelled agnostics and theists. The main point here was to elaborate on the specific nature of my position and to let you know what I am claiming and what I'm not.

Deckard

02-17-2011, 08:14 AM

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

02-17-2011, 01:18 PM

Andrea . . . Was your father particularly creative or musical?

????

Deckard

02-17-2011, 02:09 PM

Andrea . . . Was your father particularly creative or musical?
????

Just curious in light of what Andrea mentioned about genetics/memetics.

As a matter of curiosity, apropos of the "Unknown", while I was sitting and contemplating at my fathers funeral, I was totally unaware that a few hours later, during a dinner with relatives I haven´t seen in 30 years, I would find out that I´m actually a relative of one of the famous Hungarian poets, Kölcsey Ferenc, who also wrote the Hungarian national anthem.

What a coincidence, what a surprise and what an amazing timing! I mean is it Richard Dawkins memetics or genetics or the "unknown" that made me be interested in art, music and poetry so intensively during the last few years?

bryantm3

02-17-2011, 07:17 PM

tons of stuff

makes sense to me. i think the bigger difference, though, is whether you try to spread the belief that you do not believe in G-d, while believing other belief systems are incorrect, or you just accept it as your own personal non-belief, that is the biggest difference— if that's what you're trying to say, then i can see the difference. either way i don't think G-d really cares whether or not you believe in him as long as you don't hurt anyone else and work to better the world, but i can't really speak for G-d (no one can). i also don't really accept you defining G-d as a christian G-d, being that i'm not christian— but i think we have the same G-d no matter what religion you are, so i guess he could be a christian G-d, muslim G-d, jewish G-d, hindu G-d, whichever— it's like different ways to eat: hindu people don't eat beef and love curry, and i don't eat pork and love smoked salmon, but regardless we're getting the same proteins and carbohydrates that everyone else is getting.

but i'm getting off track. if your (non) belief system differs because you don't believe you have a hold on the truth, whereas dawkins thinks he does, i have infinite respect for you.

Deckard

02-18-2011, 05:22 AM

In all honesty I rarely talk about religion in everyday life, let alone spread anything. I have family and friends who are religious and I have no desire to raise the issue with them. I would say something if I thought they were damaging themselves or others. But their comfort and happiness is more important to me than the particulars of an academic debate on religion. I don't think that's tip-toeing around the issue or being 'scared' to offend them; I think it's just consideration.

If they raise the issue themselves, then I might respond. But mostly I don't feel anything productive can be gained from a face to face religious debate. It's generally less effective than written debate anyway, because (a) emotional reactions are more instantaneous (b) the response time is shorter, and (c) some issues require lengthy elaboration and clarification that lend themselves better to written than verbal debate. So there's a difference between that kind of 'everyday life' scenario, and a platform specifically intended for debating, such as this one, where people are (generally) stepping up to debate, explore and challenge. Which brings up full circle to your original dilemma! In this respect, does a social network count as everyday life - or internet debate? It's a thorny one. Perhaps it ultimately depends on who's in your friends list.

if your (non) belief system differs because you don't believe you have a hold on the truth...
The one truth I hold is that no-one who claims to hold the truth really holds the truth, apart from the person who declares that...
(and loop back to beginning of sentence)

Andrea

02-18-2011, 03:25 PM

Andrea - God as a synonym for "the unknown" is a good point, and the history of mankind - with an ever-retreating/less interacting God - makes that painfully apparent.

A nice claim to fame btw. Yes it could be genetics or memetics or coincidence - there's plenty there to choose from! Was your father particularly creative or musical?

Oh no, not at all. Believe it or not, my father was a dental technician :)

It's common to mistake the two statements "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists" as being one and the same. Both appear very similar, but in fact the first is a hypothesis, and the second is a rejection of a (different) hypothesis. As such, it's my view that those who use the statements interchangeably will find that they are either:

(1) taking a looser definition of the word 'believe' than I am
(2) or committing a logical error.

I would like to add:
(3) or speaking a different language

Is "I believe X does not exist" grammatically correct? However I try to translate the two, "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists", to Swedish or Hungarian I get the same sentence. In both cases it starts with "I do not believe..."

Deckard

02-18-2011, 05:04 PM

Oh no, not at all. Believe it or not, my father was a dental technician :)
Being a dental technician probably involves a certain amount of creativity - certainly here in the UK, with our teeth. :D

Is "I believe X does not exist" grammatically correct? However I try to translate the two, "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists", to Swedish or Hungarian I get the same sentence. In both cases it starts with "I do not believe..."
I should think it's exactly the kind of subtlety that can be lost in translation very easily. If you're translating, probably the best starting point is to decide which object you want to be taken in the negative: I, or X (shown in bold below) then work from there.

"I do not believe x exists"

"I believe X does not exist"

bas_I_am

02-19-2011, 01:06 PM

"I do not believe x exists"

"I believe X does not exist"

Um they are the same thing. . . if one does not believe x exists, what, then, do they believe? They believe that x does not exist.

Furthermore. . . if they were not equivalent, then the following would be reasonable. . .

"I do not believe x exists, yet I believe x exists."

You must admit that is foolish, no???

Back to your original contention. . ."I have no belief in God" is different from "I believe there is no God".

Consider the statements "I have no belief in God, yet I believe there is a God" and "I have belief in God, but I believe there is no God" . . . again both are foolish statements.

Andrea

02-19-2011, 02:13 PM

Being a dental technician probably involves a certain amount of creativity - certainly here in the UK, with our teeth. :D
I should think it's exactly the kind of subtlety that can be lost in translation very easily. If you're translating, probably the best starting point is to decide which object you want to be taken in the negative: I, or X (shown in bold below) then work from there.

"I do not believe x exists"

"I believe X does not exist"
So now you understand why this thing "being an Underworld fan" is actually running in my blood. :D
http://www.youtube.com/user/UnderworldLiveTV#p/u/4/jUemgrazg-U

Language...
I don´t know if I ever gonna understand the difference you describe since the languages I speak on a decent level doesn´t have this subtlety in this case.
It´s just not my mindset. Here is another, less subtile example so you understand what I mean:
In Hungarian if you talk about a third person (she or he) it´s called "ö" ("ö" funnily enough means island in Swedish btw. :)) so whenever I get going and talking fast in Swedish about a third person I easily mix the "she said so and so…" or "hi said so and so…" even though I´m totally aware about the difference between the two. It´s just not my mindset to distinguish a male from a female when I´m talking about them in third person.

If you are talking about a third person who is unknown the Swedish s say "X and Y" and the Hungarians say "Y". Does "X" mean the same in English? …just curious.

Deckard

02-19-2011, 03:21 PM

Um they are the same thing. . .
No they're not. . .

. . . if they were not equivalent, then the following would be reasonable. . .

"I do not believe x exists, yet I believe x exists."

You must admit that is foolish, no???
What's foolish is your if/then statement. It doesn't in any way follow.

Once again, two hypotheses, which can each be accepted or rejected:

1) God exists
[ACCEPT] I believe God exists.
[REJECT] I do not believe God exists.

2) God does not exist
[ACCEPT] I believe God does not exist.
[REJECT] I do not believe God does not exist.

Whereas when you say...

"I have no belief in God, yet I believe there is a God"
That's a contradiction because you're accepting - then immediately rejecting - the same hypothesis ('God exists'), though you're confusing it unnecessarily by wrapping it around a mere semantic difference - to believe, and to have a belief. (I've not claimed any meaningful difference between 'believing' and 'having a belief'.) So all you've really done is applied one negative to the subject without changing the hypothesis. And the result, inevitably, is a contradiction.

"I have belief in God, but I believe there is no God".
Ditto, just in reverse.

if one does not believe x exists, what, then, do they believe?
They can believe anything they like, as long as it's not that 'x exists'.

...They believe that x does not exist.
No they don't. That would be a different hypothesis. Does a person completely unfamiliar with the concept of x somehow "have a belief" that x does not exist? No of course not. Does a newborn baby believe that God does not exist? Or does s/he simply lack that particular belief? The same applies to anyone who is either undecided about God's existence or feels that, because the posited concept of God lies beyond human reach, then so presumably does the answer. Such people don't have a belief that God exists. But if they're undecided or they think the answer inherently unknowable, then they won't have a belief that God does NOT exist either.

Deckard

02-19-2011, 03:27 PM

If you are talking about a third person who is unknown the Swedish s say "X and Y" and the Hungarians say "Y". Does "X" mean the same in English? …just curious.
X is a lot more abstract in English. I really wish there was a gender-neutral word for when talking about a third person of unknown sex. It always ends up sounding either clumsy ("s/he", "(s)he", "he or she") or a bit wrong (the plural - "they").

bas_I_am

02-19-2011, 10:52 PM

Let's first use proper english,

The clause "I have a belief that..." is considered poor grammar. This usage indicates the verb is "to have" and is called "passive construct" as it corrupts the conveyance of the subject's action-"to believe". Other common examples include statements of the sort "I made/took a decision" (I decided), "they took a vacation" (they vacationed) etc...

Using your example of an infant, it doesn't apply... has the infant considered the God concept? No... but you have... do you believe or do you not believe? Two states... you are in one or the other. Now that I think about it... the infant does not believe in God.

I believe in God... am I without doubt? At times, no. As a matter of fact, sometimes I have great doubt.

Deckard

02-20-2011, 04:49 AM

The clause "I have a belief that..." is considered poor grammar. This usage indicates the verb is "to have" and is called "passive construct" as it corrupts the conveyance of the subject's action-"to believe". Other common examples include statements of the sort "I made/took a decision" (I decided), "they took a vacation" (they vacationed) etc...
The grammatical difference between "believing in" and "having a belief in" is not what's at dispute here.

Using your example of an infant, it doesn't apply...
Then that alone proves the two statements do not mean the same thing. You are now forced to accept the axiom that not believing a claim does not mean making an alternate claim. And it's not only the infant to which this applies...

has the infant considered the God concept? No... but you have... do you believe or do you not believe?
I remain unconvinced by the theists' hypothesis that God exists, so to answer your question directly, I do not believe. But that is not the same as declaring that "I believe God does not exist". It might mean that I assume or live my life 'as if' God does not exist, but that is different to a firm belief or assertion that 'God does not exist'. If you doubt that, go back to where I covered at length why I refuse to posit a lack of God despite lacking a belief in God.

Now that I think about it... the infant does not believe in God.
Correct. But notice how you chose not to word it as: "the infant believes that God does not exist". Ask yourself why you chose not to word it that way...

Andrea

02-20-2011, 05:44 AM

X is a lot more abstract in English. I really wish there was a gender-neutral word for when talking about a third person of unknown sex. It always ends up sounding either clumsy ("s/he", "(s)he", "he or she") or a bit wrong (the plural - "they").

oh, even the Swedish language is missing a world for a third person with unknown sex so they have to say "she or he"
my question was if "X" means an unknown person/individual solely

Deckard

02-20-2011, 06:15 AM

oh, even the Swedish language is missing a world for a third person with unknown sex so they have to say "she or he"
my question was if "X" means an unknown person/individual solely
No, it can mean anything, not just a person. And when it's used for an unknown person, it's usually as part of an impersonal discussion such as when making a statement of logic. For instance, you would be very unlikely to hear a statement such as: "When X comes in, we will introduce them and then seat them at this table." We would just use 'the person' or 'the people' or be more specific - e.g. 'the guest'.

Sean

02-24-2011, 01:32 PM

Using your example of an infant, it doesn't apply... has the infant considered the God concept? No... but you have... do you believe or do you not believe? Two states... you are in one or the other. Now that I think about it... the infant does not believe in God.The infant example most certainly does apply in that it starkly highlights the differences being discussed. You are right that the infant "does not believe in God". And that statement is far different from saying that the infant "believes there is no God". The infant holds no active beliefs on the subject at all since, as you pointed out, it has no knowledge of the concept.

Where you get off track is in assuming that simply because an adult is aware of the concept of "God", these clear differences no longer apply. Using myself as an example, I "do not believe in God". I've simply discarded the concept as statistically unlikely to the point of irrelevance based on the history of human knowledge as I understand it, and a complete lack of anything that could be considered scientific evidence to support it. Nothing in my reasoning requires an active "belief" on my part in the common, practical sense of the word. So to say that I "believe there is no God" is simply inaccurate, just as it is in the case of the infant example. I don't actively "believe there is no God" any more than I actively "believe there is no Easter Bunny", and yet I don't believe in either.

Now if I went beyond simply reaching a conclusion of unlikelihood based on history, statistics and evidence and started insisting that "I know for a fact that there is no God", then that would require belief on my part, and it would be accurate to say that "I believe there is no God". The leap from "exceedingly unlikely" to "definitive assertion" in this case is not based on any factual knowledge, so it inherently requires belief to make it.

In the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

Deckard

02-24-2011, 04:33 PM

Where you get off track is in assuming that simply because an adult is aware of the concept of "God", these clear differences no longer apply.
Precisely. Being unfamiliar with the concept of God is only one reason why someone may lack a belief in God, though it's sufficient to debunk the argument that not believing a claim necessitates making an alternate claim.

Using myself as an example, I "do not believe in God". I've simply discarded the concept as statistically unlikely to the point of irrelevance based on the history of human knowledge as I understand it, and a complete lack of anything that could be considered scientific evidence to support it.
Just a small point on this. The reason I don't believe in God is not just because of an absence of scientific evidence, but also (perhaps moreso) the likelihood that scientific evidence for such a Being might be fundamentally impossible. After all, if the commonly held notion of God is correct - that He/it is beyond human comprehension - then we should probably not be too surprised at the lack of scientific evidence available to humans!

Contrast this with, say, astrology. I don't believe in the claims of astrologers, not because there can be no evidence of astrology, but because there is no evidence. Unlike the notion of God, if there is truth to the claims of astrology, we would expect to be able to observe the evidence, to comprehend it, to measure it. The cause and the effect are safely within our observable Universe. With the posited concept of God however, that's not necessarily the case.

This isn't to say I disagree with you in the main point you're making, which is that you can simply "not believe" without necessarily positing anything more. It's just to pre-empt the possible counterargument to your reference to a lack of scientific evidence. When it comes to the concept of God, it's not (just) that there is no evidence, but that there probably can be no evidence (therefore no solid basis for positive belief either way, whether in something's presence or absence).

froopy seal

02-25-2011, 11:46 AM

When it comes to the concept of God, it's not (just) that there is no evidence, but that there probably can be no evidence [...].Which is, of course, one of the most brilliant components in the invention of the concept of god-like beings.

Sean

02-25-2011, 04:01 PM

Just a small point on this. The reason I don't believe in God is not just because of an absence of scientific evidence, but also (perhaps moreso) the likelihood that scientific evidence for such a Being might be fundamentally impossible. After all, if the commonly held notion of God is correct - that He/it is beyond human comprehension - then we should probably not be too surprised at the lack of scientific evidence available to humans! Absolutely. In fact, the "unknowable" aspect of "God" is exactly why I maintain that there is a chance that he exists - albeit a minuscule chance from a reason-based outlook. And just to be clear, the absence of scientific evidence is only one part of what motivates my disbelief. More active in my disbelief is a modest understanding of how religion developed and evolved throughout human history. When you take the time to understand that, it becomes exceedingly apparent that deities and religions are man-made concepts meant to help us deal with the questions we can't yet answer - particularly in regards to death.

Deckard

02-26-2011, 04:04 AM

More active in my disbelief is a modest understanding of how religion developed and evolved throughout human history. When you take the time to understand that, it becomes exceedingly apparent that deities and religions are man-made concepts meant to help us deal with the questions we can't yet answer - particularly in regards to death.
Understood, and in the latter case, very understandable. Those moments when we're confronted with death and suffering are the only times that even a staunch atheist like me comes close to praying - more out of sheer human desperation and distress than anything. I suppose it's akin to grabbing at whatever passing branch you can. And obviously in the times when most of us are lucky enough not to be immediately confronted with these things, there's the permanent, almost unbearable prospect of a great looming void awaiting us all. But hey - way too heavy a subject for a Saturday morning. :D

Deckard

02-26-2011, 04:08 AM

Which is, of course, one of the most brilliant components in the invention of the concept of god-like beings.
The killer feature.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

02-26-2011, 02:13 PM

The killer feature.

In, like, slang, or like for real?*

(Damn, is it just me or do I sound like a valley girl?)

Deckard

02-26-2011, 04:44 PM

Slang, and, like.... yeah you sooooo do (like)...

the mongoose

02-27-2011, 04:32 PM

that's the last one from me before you have permission to call me Mongoose :D

Stop laughing motherfucker......you will never have that permission.....I already go by that name, it's MINE!:mad:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MkqlcytX57E/Se66pqo1YjI/AAAAAAAAAxo/fFPayGdesHE/s800/Mongoose+5316.jpg

http://kaybee.mlblogs.com/easter%20cross.jpg

bryantm3

02-27-2011, 09:32 PM

Which is, of course, one of the most brilliant components in the invention of the concept of god-like beings.

i don't regard it as a concept and i think it's misguided to call it a concept, but nonetheless. in practicality, though, think about it: if everyone had proof G-d existed, no one would be afraid to die, everyone would be asking him for everything, and life would be utterly pointless.

froopy seal

02-28-2011, 09:55 AM

The killer feature.If only I were able to code that into an app...

BrotherLovesDub

02-28-2011, 10:46 AM

Religion is for the weak. God doesn't exist.

Sean

02-28-2011, 12:24 PM

i don't regard it as a concept and i think it's misguided to call it a concept, but nonetheless. in practicality, though, think about it: if everyone had proof G-d existed, no one would be afraid to die, everyone would be asking him for everything, and life would be utterly pointless.I would think people might still be uneasy about whether they'd be going to heaven or hell, no?

And could you expand on why you feel that "life would be utterly pointless" if everyone had proof that God existed?

bryantm3

02-28-2011, 04:07 PM

I would think people might still be uneasy about whether they'd be going to heaven or hell, no?

And could you expand on why you feel that "life would be utterly pointless" if everyone had proof that God existed?

well, i'm jewish, i don't really believe in hell. the general consensus among jews is that virtually everyone goes to gehenna, which is sort of like a temporary hell, so that they can learn all the things they did to people during their lives and learn from their mistakes. afterwards several things can happen, one of which is reincarnation and the other is going to heaven.

i think if everyone knew G-d existed, the purpose of this life, which is to learn right from wrong and to help other people, and whatnot, our values would be totally different. if everyone knew there was a G-d, they would say, "why doesn't he help the poor/sick/etc.?" or "it doesn't matter, i'm going to live forever anyway". all questions, inquiries, conflict, etc. would all be directed towards G-d to get him to solve all of our problems, and we wouldn't learn anything from each other or have any purpose in anything you do— why work all your life, find a husband/wife, become president, anything when you know that what awaits you afterwards is going to be better and in comparison this life is pointless?

but of course, this life isn't pointless— but some people have reached that extreme even without absolute proof. for example, the extremist muslims in al qaeda believe that suicide bombing is okay because they're all going to heaven and they do not value human life because of this view.

froopy seal

03-02-2011, 01:27 PM

i think if everyone knew G-d existed, the purpose of this life, which is to learn right from wrong and to help other people, and whatnot, our values would be totally different.I think every human more or less knows what's right and what's wrong. We're just too lazy and egoistic to follow that knowledge. The odd sadist or egocentric might even find enjoyment in doing the opposite of what is considered appropriate.

if everyone knew there was a G-d, they would say, "why doesn't he help the poor/sick/etc.?" or "it doesn't matter, i'm going to live forever anyway". all questions, inquiries, conflict, etc. would all be directed towards G-d to get him to solve all of our problems, and we wouldn't learn anything from each other or have any purpose in anything you do— why work all your life, find a husband/wife, become president, anything when you know that what awaits you afterwards is going to be better and in comparison this life is pointless?If we had proof of god-like beings and heavenly afterlife, and if your assumptions of the results were correct, wouldn't it be the easiest and holiest path to kill yourself once you were enlightened and sufficiently brave? Consequently, we wouldn't have to worry about pointless lives down here on Earth for long.

but of course, this life isn't pointless— but some people have reached that extreme even without absolute proof. for example, the extremist muslims in al qaeda believe that suicide bombing is okay because they're all going to heaven and they do not value human life because of this view.I've always wondered if anyone could be that much of a believer. I mean, all this stuff about martyrdom, eternal life, a bunch of eager-to-please virgins etc. - just for blowing yourself to pieces, accompanied by the correct, sacred state of mind? I suspect there are more mundane motives behind this extremism, such as desperation, hate, or blindly following megalomaniac, charismatic, evil nutheads.

(Please excuse the heavy use of clichees.)

Sean

03-04-2011, 11:34 AM

i think if everyone knew G-d existed, the purpose of this life, which is to learn right from wrong and to help other people, and whatnot, our values would be totally different. if everyone knew there was a G-d, they would say, "why doesn't he help the poor/sick/etc.?" or "it doesn't matter, i'm going to live forever anyway". all questions, inquiries, conflict, etc. would all be directed towards G-d to get him to solve all of our problems, and we wouldn't learn anything from each other or have any purpose in anything you do— why work all your life, find a husband/wife, become president, anything when you know that what awaits you afterwards is going to be better and in comparison this life is pointless? I guess my biggest question in response to this would be if faith in a god as it currently exists shares similar shortcomings. As you pointed out, there are suicide bombers who kill themselves and others because they're certain based on their faith that they'll be off to an afterlife filled with virgins. There are Christians who already ask why God doesn't help the poor/sick/etc. There are countless people who depend on prayer to solve their problems, and who attribute their successes and failures to God's response to their prayers. And how do people with extremely strong convictions about their faith today motivate themselves to do anything when the promise of the afterlife is so much better than their mortal life?

In short, what you described is a partial list of problems that I already have with religion in general, even when it's based on faith and not conclusive knowledge. I'm a little confused as to how these would be significant problems with conclusive evidence of God, but they're not problems now even though they already exist based on faith.

Andrea

03-04-2011, 02:58 PM

Afetrlife? Is there a beforelife too? What is the meaning with the real life if the meaning is to live it before or after? I don´t understand...

myrrh

03-08-2011, 08:59 AM

bryantm3

03-09-2011, 10:37 PM

This a very long and interesting thread. The one thing about it is that when these kinds of discussions ensue there usually is no clear definition of the concept of God. So, everyone reading this can have their own idea of this concept and it be different to everyone elses.

Therefor you can have people saying that they don't beleive in God, but that is based on a Biblical/Christian definition of God. And I have found most atheists come from this type of background. It seems that most people who denounce the concept of God come from Europe or the US, and these were the heartlands of Christianity.

So, perhaps, that speaks more about the religion of Christianity and how it defines God, rather than the existence of God in a general stance.

that was sort of my whole point in discussing it with the person i did at the beginning of the thread. christianity draws a lot from roman/greek mythology in that there is a lack of forgiveness at the end of life, and everyone who doesn't do what G-d wants will go to hell and have no second chance, burn for eternity, etc. and it paints G-d as an unforgiving character. that's kind of how i see christianity, it's not really judaism plus jesus, it's more than that— and i think it's mostly to do with the theologists that came after jesus such as paul and many of the european theologists, they took judaism, put jesus in, and then added an evil anti-G-d (satan) to kind of push everyone into doing what they wanted, and proclaimed that G-d was a non-forgiving character who would send you to hell if you didn't exactly do everything the catholic church proscribed.

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

03-10-2011, 09:47 AM

O.K. look guys, y'all are WAY overthinking all of this WAY too much.

If any of you have been paying ANY attention to the way the world works you'd know this by now . . .

Just go about yourself as a Conservative Christian. You can get away with ANYTHING then. I tell anyone I meet now that I'm "Christian" and "Conservative". (wink, wink)

Sean

03-10-2011, 06:21 PM

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

03-10-2011, 06:37 PM

One thing I've learned about atheists is how many of "those" kind use science to legitimize their own style of bigotry and/or racism . . .

bas_I_am

03-14-2011, 07:33 PM

I maintain that there is a chance that he exists - albeit a minuscule chance from a reason-based outlook.
Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith. — Miguel de Unamuno
More active in my disbelief is a modest understanding of how religion developed and evolved throughout human history. When you take the time to understand that, it becomes exceedingly apparent that deities and religions are man-made concepts meant to help us deal with the questions we can't yet answer - particularly in regards to death.
religion <> spirituality
While religion is a social entity, spirituality is not. Spirituality is personal, developed be each of us, or not, on our own.
My spirituality enables me to deal with the questions I can answer, and which actually matter. It better enables me to live in the here and now, instead of life's distractions that are of no true consquence.

I think every human more or less knows what's right and what's wrong. We're just too lazy and egoistic to follow that knowledge.
No. . . While everyone of us, save the psychopath/sociopath, knows right from wrong.
It is FEAR that leads us to fall short of our ideals. Driven by various forms of subtle, corrosive, self-centered fear, we fall into sloth, greed, envy, pride, gluttony, lust and anger.
This fear is present in all of us to some degree.
One thing I've learned about atheists is how many of "those" kind use science to legitimize their own style of bigotry and/or racism . . .
Exactly. The closed mind can rationalize myopia by arguing either for, or against, dogma.

Sean

03-14-2011, 08:11 PM

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith. — Miguel de UnamunoI wouldn't call my acknowledgment that there's a miniscule chance god exists "doubt", because I flat out do not believe there is a god. Really, it's just practical acceptance of the fact that god's existence/non-existence simply can't be proven. And it probably never will be either, given the fact that god has been perfectly constructed by believers to be exempt from any and all methods of scrutiny.

I just had a brief debate with a religious girl on another website in which she asserted that the complexities of the human body proved God's existence, because nothing that complex could possibly have come into being without the involvement of a "creator". I noted that if this was so, then that creator would presumably have to be at least as complex as humans if not moreso. I then asked her if a being's complexity inherently necessitated a creator, wouldn't that creator's complexity also necessitate a creator of their own? Her answer was that no, it didn't, because the nature of God is outside our realm of understanding. This is the kind of argument I always see. If you apply any logic or scientific method to the concept of "God", it simply gets brushed aside as irrelevant.

So believers will likely always update their descriptions and definitions of god so that he/she/it can never be disproven through human knowledge or understanding. As such, folks like myself will always just have to acknowledge on a philosophical level that sure - maybe there's a god, but I'm extremely confident that there isn't. Just like we all could actually be living in the Matrix....

bas_I_am

03-14-2011, 08:27 PM

Sean,

Have you read Heinlein's Job ?

stimpee

03-15-2011, 09:54 AM

Sean,

Have you read Heinlein's Job ?Its well known that Heinlein was no big fan of organised religion. Stranger in a Strange Land is a great example of this, and a fantastic book at that. Job is also very good.

Sean

03-15-2011, 10:07 AM

Sean,

Have you read Heinlein's Job ?No, I haven't. Honestly, I don't read many books because I usually pass out asleep after two pages or so. They end up taking me forever to get through. Would this one be worth a shot?

bas_I_am

03-15-2011, 06:46 PM

No, I haven't. Honestly, I don't read many books because I usually pass out asleep after two pages or so. They end up taking me forever to get through. Would this one be worth a shot?

Job is one of the few books I've read... cs lewis' the screwtape letters is another.

Both quick fun and worth reading.

Those and lowy's programming wcf services and are my fave three books.

bas_I_am

03-15-2011, 07:27 PM

Its well known that Heinlein was no big fan of organised religion. Stranger in a Strange Land is a great example of this, and a fantastic book at that. Job is also very good.

Who the fuck said anything about organized religion????

stimpee

03-16-2011, 06:10 AM

Who the fuck said anything about organized religion????Heinlein. Keep your knickers on.

myrrh

03-18-2011, 06:59 PM

I just had a brief debate with a religious girl on another website in which she asserted that the complexities of the human body proved God's existence, because nothing that complex could possibly have come into being without the involvement of a "creator". I noted that if this was so, then that creator would presumably have to be at least as complex as humans if not moreso. I then asked her if a being's complexity inherently necessitated a creator, wouldn't that creator's complexity also necessitate a creator of their own? Her answer was that no, it didn't, because the nature of God is outside our realm of understanding. This is the kind of argument I always see. If you apply any logic or scientific method to the concept of "God", it simply gets brushed aside as irrelevant.

Actually, logic would dictate that a Creator can not be created. For if He was created, He could then not be the Creator. Therefor, for a Creator to exist, He would have to have always existed; ie being eternal.

That is logic in it's simplest.

bas_I_am

03-18-2011, 11:22 PM

Actually, logic would dictate that a Creator can not be created. For if He was created, He could then not be the Creator. Therefor, for a Creator to exist, He would have to have always existed; ie being eternal.

That is logic in it's simplest.

A being that transcends time. . .

We are three dimensional beings, our experience is over the fourth dimension of time. the only thing we can know is the 'right now' - see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I can know where something is x or how fast its moving Δx / Δt, but I can't know both, as my perception of time is discrete.

God is a four dimensional being with an experience that is beyond our comprehension.

the cross section/shadow of a point - dim(0) - is null. . .
the cross section/shadow of a line - dim(1) - is a point - dim(0)
the cross section/shadow of a plane - dim(2) - is a line - dim(1)
the cross section/shadow of a solid - dim(3) - is a plane - dim(2)
the cross section/shadow of God - dim(4) - is the material world - dim (3)

Andrea

03-19-2011, 03:05 AM

Cool!
Sounds like 5 dimensions to me whether the cross section/shadow of a point - dim(0) - is null or dim(0), probably because math is not my strong point :)

Sean

03-21-2011, 04:29 PM

Actually, logic would dictate that a Creator can not be created. For if He was created, He could then not be the Creator. Therefor, for a Creator to exist, He would have to have always existed; ie being eternal.

That is logic in it's simplest.And yet it's still logic that necessarily falls outside the realm of human comprehension, because as soon as any reality-based logic is applied to the concept of god, the entire idea comes crumbling down.

myrrh

03-22-2011, 11:33 AM

The only part that is outside of human comprehension is the concept of eternity. This is because we and everything else in the Universe, including the Universe itself are finite.

However, I don't see that as being an issue because the result of using logic leads us to the point that there must be something that always existed. Otherwise, one would have to say that something came from nothing, which is completely illogical.

bas_I_am

03-22-2011, 05:28 PM

And yet it's still logic that necessarily falls outside the realm of human comprehension, because as soon as any reality-based logic is applied to the concept of god, the entire idea comes crumbling down.

Huh???

Are you contending that the logic based in reality based logic can explain all truth within that reality?

bas_I_am

03-22-2011, 05:32 PM

The only part that is outside of human comprehension is the concept of eternity. This is because we and everything else in the Universe, including the Universe itself are finite.

Ummmmmm... no.

How long is the coastline of england? Australia? Oahu?

bryantm3

03-22-2011, 08:19 PM

Ummmmmm... no.

How long is the coastline of england? Australia? Oahu?

that's a silly question. you seem to be grasping here.

bas_I_am

03-22-2011, 08:40 PM

that's a silly question. you seem to be grasping here.

Its not a silly question. And it goes back to the concept of dimensions.

The perimiter, dim(1), of any island, is infinite. It contains a finite area, dim(2).

And back to seans point, godels incompleteness theory proves that every axiomatic system contains unprovable truths.

Its not that the concept of god breaks down under logic, its that the logic is incomplete.

bryantm3

03-22-2011, 10:55 PM

i don't know where you're going with this, but the coastline of an island is the distance it takes to get around the island, ditto with a circle or a square or whatever. it isn't infinite.

this whole thread has gotten stupid because the people who believe in G-d can't prove it, and the people who don't believe are miserably failing at trying to disprove his existence.

bas_I_am

03-22-2011, 11:50 PM

i don't know where you're going with this, but the coastline of an island is the distance it takes to get around the island, ditto with a circle or a square or whatever. it isn't infinite.

Trust me. . its infinite... its a matter of resolution.

if n is the size of your ruler,

as n → 0, P → ∞

http://library.thinkquest.org/3120/text/britain.htm

bas_I_am

03-23-2011, 12:01 AM

. . . and a circle/square are regular shapes.

if you swam around the coast of britain, into every nook and cranny that you could fit, you would travel a certain distance. . . .
if a bacteria swam around the coast of britain, into every nook and cranny that it could fit, it would travel a tremendously longer distance than you would have. . . .
if you lined up atoms around the coast of britain, the length of that chain of atoms would be unimaginable.

bryantm3

03-23-2011, 12:07 AM

Trust me. . its infinite... its a matter of resolution.

if n is the size of your ruler,

as n → 0, P → ∞

http://library.thinkquest.org/3120/text/britain.htm

that is the most moronic thing i've ever read. that doesn't mean the coastline of britain is infinite, it means it can't be measured precisely. infinite means that it goes on forever, which it obviously doesn't. what the heck is your point anyway?

bryantm3

03-23-2011, 12:15 AM

http://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/courses/guitar-building/lecture-notes/logarithmic-audio/log_graph.jpg

in math the coastline of britain can be defined as X in this logarithmic function. the more precise measurements we take, the closer the measusurement will come to approaching X, but never precisely reaching it. in this you could say that the number with more precise measurements will infinitely approach X, but you can't say it's an infinite coastline, because bottom line no matter how precisely you measure it, the coastline of britain is never going to be 25,000 miles.

bas_I_am

03-23-2011, 12:42 AM

that is the most moronic thing i've ever read. that doesn't mean the coastline of britain is infinite, it means it can't be measured precisely. infinite means that it goes on forever, which it obviously doesn't. what the heck is your point anyway?

I admit it is counterintuitive, but yes the measurement of the perimiter goes on forever.
It is the area of britain that is finite.

The point is, there are anomolies when you consider entities of a greater dimension than those that define them.

Area => finite dim(2) , Perimiter => infinite dim(1)

Our "being" occupies the three dimensions (x,y,z) and our experience spans the fourth, (t)

Might there be a being that occupies all four dimensions with an experience that spans an unfathomable fifth???

When you account for the work of Benoit Mandelbrot (fractal geometry), Kurt Gödel (number theory), Albert Einstein (relativity) and the numerous contributors to the field of Quantum Physics, one can only determine that material reason will fall short when contemplating a 'God.'

One either closes their mind and say's "Nope! Not going to do consider it! Material Reason is the end all, be all" or they open their mind and pursue other means of contemplating 'God'.

The first will always draw the same conclusion - no God.
The second will always draw the same conclusion - God.

Each with an equal degree of certainty.

bas_I_am

03-23-2011, 12:44 AM

bas_I_am

03-23-2011, 12:50 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Long_Is_the_Coast_of_Britain%3F_Statistical_Se lf-Similarity_and_Fractional_Dimension

bas_I_am

03-23-2011, 12:55 AM

bas_I_am

03-23-2011, 01:21 AM

using Richardson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Fry_Richardson) formula, the coast of britain is as follows:

Length of Measure (km) Length of coast (km)
1 9041.103
0.1 16077.60731
0.01 28590.47804
0.001 50841.85842
0.0001 90411.03
0.00001 160793.8559
0.000001 285968.026
0.0000001 508587.2866
0.00000001 904510.3

bas_I_am

03-23-2011, 01:30 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox

bryantm3

03-23-2011, 02:15 AM

first of all that's bad math. second of all, what is your point???

froopy seal

03-23-2011, 02:29 AM

Trust me. . its infinite... its a matter of resolution.

if n is the size of your ruler,

as n → 0, P → ∞
Wouldn't it be prudent, for all practical purposes, to assume that n >= Planck length, which is 1.616... 10^-35m? I'm sure that with this, proof or disproof of God is imminent...

Deckard

03-23-2011, 06:06 AM

bas_I_am

03-23-2011, 12:15 PM

With Planck-length precision, froopy hits the nail on the head. Based on our current understanding of quantum physics, the infinity of the coastline paradox is merely conceptual, not physical. Yes, it's still a consciousness-raiser of a paradox - but as a way to demonstrate the physical existence of infinity within our Universe, it's useless.

You and froopy do not understand Plank's length.

Plank's length does not define a limit to physical length, but defines the the length at which space-time is overcome by quantum effects. . . and the point at which the coastline would become unmeasurable due to its 'foaminess'

To say there is no infinity, is equvalent to saying there is no zero.

and bryant. . . there is nothing wrong with the math.

Deckard

03-23-2011, 02:17 PM

You and froopy do not understand Plank's length.
I can assure you I do ;)

I'm not suggesting the Planck length is a mere uncuttable length in the sense that Democritus and others pondered 2,000 years ago. Clearly twentieth century physics taught us that the Planck limit is more profound and fundamental than that.

(Nor am I suggesting that the concept of infinity doesn't exist.)

What I am saying is that I think you are on dodgy ground if you point to this sub-quantum level, this seething quantum foam, and say "Hey look... infinity." It certainly aint infinity in the sense of the ever-growing length of the coastline paradox that you cited earlier.

We can say that eventually, when we reach the Planck length, it becomes unmeasurable, yes. Uncertain, yes. Maybe even turbulent - if we want to use that kind of imagery - yes. But infinite? Not in the sense of something that just 'continues' getting smaller and smaller beyond our ability to measure. I'm sure you at least agree that that's fundamentally not what the Planck limit represents. When you get down to the Planck length (and for that matter, Planck time), the very concept of 'going smaller' ceases to have meaning. And what's left can't just arbitrarily be called 'infinity'.

So when you say "the measurement of the perimiter goes on forever" that's just not true. It's not true of the measurement - and we can't even say it's true of the perimeter.

The analogy I heard years ago compared it to the idea of taking the temperature of a liquid. You can stick a thermometer in a jar of water and take the temperature - no problem. But get to the level of individual H20 molecules and the very concept of temperature ceases to have meaning. In other words, the limit isn't a practical one, it's a conceptual one. And that's why the notion of a perimeter that we can keep measuring for infinity - as in the coastline paradox - is a fundamentally flawed one.

As for God - I think he's an 82 dimensional sphere. Who loves us. :D

jOHN rODRIGUEZ

03-23-2011, 05:05 PM

As for God - I think he's an 82 dimensional sphere. Who loves us. :D

Nah, it's just infatuation.

Sean

03-23-2011, 07:05 PM

The only part that is outside of human comprehension is the concept of eternity. This is because we and everything else in the Universe, including the Universe itself are finite. That's not quite accurate. Yes, eternity is something we can't comprehend, but so is the concept of an eternal, conscious, omnipotent being that knowingly created the entire universe.

However, I don't see that as being an issue because the result of using logic leads us to the point that there must be something that always existed. Otherwise, one would have to say that something came from nothing, which is completely illogical.This is true, but there's no scientifically valid evidence that what has always existed is an all-knowing, all-powerful, mythical entity.

Sean

03-23-2011, 07:10 PM

Huh???

Are you contending that the logic based in reality based logic can explain all truth within that reality?No. I'm essentially contending that every aspect of god has been intentionally constructed to fall outside of human comprehension, thus making it impossible to ever have a way of proving or disproving his existence. And I was still addressing this point through the context of the debate I recounted earlier. Here it is once again:

"I just had a brief debate with a religious girl on another website in which she asserted that the complexities of the human body proved God's existence, because nothing that complex could possibly have come into being without the involvement of a "creator". I noted that if this was so, then that creator would presumably have to be at least as complex as humans if not moreso. I then asked her if a being's complexity inherently necessitated a creator, wouldn't that creator's complexity also necessitate a creator of their own? Her answer was that no, it didn't, because the nature of God is outside our realm of understanding. This is the kind of argument I always see. If you apply any logic or scientific method to the concept of "God", it simply gets brushed aside as irrelevant."

Sean

03-23-2011, 07:13 PM

this whole thread has gotten stupid because the people who believe in G-d can't prove it, and the people who don't believe are miserably failing at trying to disprove his existence.Who's trying to disprove his existence? I believe everyone who's said they don't personally believe in god in this thread has also said it's impossible to prove either way. I know I've said as much multiple times.

Sean

03-23-2011, 08:20 PM

One either closes their mind and say's "Nope! Not going to do consider it! Material Reason is the end all, be all" or they open their mind and pursue other means of contemplating 'God'.

The first will always draw the same conclusion - no God.
The second will always draw the same conclusion - God.

Each with an equal degree of certainty.This seems to miss the fundamental point that whatever mathematical or philosophical approach you want to apply, we're still talking about a supposedly omnipotent being that has never provided a single shred of objective evidence to support it's existence. So how are we to suppose man even found out about a being that is unobservable and unknowable in the first place? Because god spoke to a few of them? In an ancient society where psychological disorders were a complete mystery, we're to take the words of people who heard voices in their heads so seriously that we've fought wars over them, repressed minority groups over them, murdered people over them, alienated people from their families over them, etc?

I'm absolutely open to considering theories, but they have to be based on SOMEthing legitimate. And ultimately, god's existence is based purely on anecdotal evidence from bronze and iron age people that's been handed down verbally, and through layer upon layer upon layer of translations over thousands and thousands of years. These are people who thought the world was flat, that sea monsters were a legitimate threat and that spitting on wounds was a legitimate medical treatment - and we're supposed to take the application of fractal geometry, number theory and relativity to the claims of these people seriously? And if we don't, we're being closed-minded?