Any atheists in here? by BlackCollarBrowncoat

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
No, because it's not a straight question. Your distinction is loaded with assumptions and not justifiable. For example, where do you put these statements in your terminology?

1. I don't believe in god.
2. God isn't real.

The first is a statement of non-belief, the second is a statement of belief with no evidence of any kind to back it up.

Ok, then I have to ask, what kind of evidence do you imagine as necessary to prove the 'non-existence' of a thing? What evidence could there be beyond the lack of evidence supporting its existence? This is the fallacy at the heart of the 'atheism as religion' argument. The burden of proof is on those who propose god's existence. If you choose to believe without that proof, that's faith. Refusing to believe something without proof isn't faith, it's the starting point.

To be clear, I'm not saying that logic and proof are the only paths to Truth, but I am rejecting the attempt to remove the distinction between rational conclusion and faith. It diminishes both concepts.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
If you choose to believe without that proof, that's faith. Refusing to believe something without proof isn't faith

I agree with this entirely, but refusing to believe something exists is not the same as believing it does not exist.

I'm not talking about refusing to believe in something, I agree that that obviously requires no faith at all. However believing that very same thing does not exist does require faith, either faith in the evidence against such a thing's existence, or (if there is no evidence) blind faith.

Since we are talking about something that has no evidence against its existence the faith must be blind. That is very, very different from faith in evidence. I rarely even refer to faith in evidence as faith, and will not for the rest of this post.

-

As you say god is a thing that can not be disproved, there are several things like that.

For example something said by one of our resident atheists (which I agree with):
"Everything is within the natural world. If you find something you think must be outside nature, then the very fact you can see it, measure it, or observe it's effects on the world in any way means it is natural, even if you can't explain it."
That is a belief of existence, it claims that there is such a thing as the natural world that encompasses all phenomena. It can not be disproved, it is set up such that every time you find something that appears to contradict it you assume that it is part of nature until such time as you prove it is. If you never prove it is you just go on assuming it is.

So since nothing can disprove this statement, and it is a claim of existence, according to you the burden of proof is on those who claim that this thing exists.

No such proof has ever been offered. Not one bit, oh we can prove, assuming we take certain scientific axioms on faith, that a natural world exists. What we can not prove is that there is a thing meeting the definition of nature that encompasses all phenomenon.

Therefore, according to you, believing in this all encompassing natural world is an act of faith, which I agree with, but believing that this all encompassing nature does not exist is a rational conclusion.

Well if it does not exist then there must be things outside of nature, in this language such things are called, "Supernatural." So the people who believe in the supernatural are actually being rational?

I disagree with that, the people who say something does not exist, in this case an all encompassing natural world, in other cases such things as god and cause and effect, have just as much responsibility to support their position as those who believe such things do exist.

(Just try to prove the existance of cause and effect. Remember that to be an acceptable proof it must not use the concept it is trying to prove, thus you will have to prove it without using the concept of cause and effect. It can't be done. According to you the rational conclusion is that cause and effect doesn't exist. I do not hold to that.)

-

I have a feeling that you'll accuse me of mudding the waters, but god is just a concept. Whether or not that concept has a basis in reality (in which case a god exists) or imagination (in which case no god exists) should be tested the same way as any other.

If your logic can't be applied to other concepts: cause and effect, nature, objective reality and the like then why should we use it on god? Why does god get a special place?

If, on the other hand, your logic can be applied to those things then the rational conclusion is that none of these things exist, do you really believe that?

-

I think the rational conclusion is that you make a leap of faith if you believe in the existence or non-existence of anything that lacks proof either way. Obviously you disagree.

What I fail to see is how you can base so much on the totally unproved and non-disprovable belief in the existence of cause and effect and then turn around and say that the rational conclusion is to believe in the non-existence of unproved and non-disprovable things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:09 PM

BRITET

Quote:
I agree with this entirely, but refusing to believe something exists is not the same as believing it does not exist.

I'm not talking about refusing to believe in something, I agree that that obviously requires no faith at all. However believing that very same thing does not exist does require faith, either faith in the evidence against such a thing's existence, or (if there is no evidence) blind faith.

Since we are talking about something that has no evidence against its existence the faith must be blind. That is very, very different from faith in evidence. I rarely even refer to faith in evidence as faith, and will not for the rest of this post.

Fair enough I suppose, but the only thing you have to have faith in in order to claim “god does not exist” is your own perception, and your ability to make sense of the world and say/think meaningful things about it. If you're going to deny this, then you'd be forced mute in principle; you couldn't say anything about anything without being a hypocrite. I can't prove logically that God doesn't exist but there are a boatload of things logic can't prove but that you'd be a complete fool to deny or abstain from having a belief on. There is plenty of evidence that God doesn't exist, because there is no evidence he does and there is ample evidence that he (likely she, or more likely Them, at first) was a construct of humans/hominids, struggling under the burden of a rapidly-developed conscious Self to define and understand the world around them, that happened to be an extremely effective meme that evolved so perfectly and lasting for so long as to embed itself deeply in the cultural consciousness, such that it gains an aura of reasonability it deserves no more than do leprechauns, oracles or spontaneous generation. And when that notion is inculcated into children's worldview and personal narrative at such a young age, before the difference between fact and fiction is understood and statements or teachings of authority figures are encoded very strongly in the brain as fact and so persist later in life despite reason to the contrary, the notion becomes staunchly reasonable on an individual level in addition.
Experience and experiment strongly suggest that humans are at the most basic level no different from rocks and stars and that the phenomenon of mental activity is a remarkable emergent property of basic physical processes. There is no magic in it, there are just electrons going zzt zzt and the remarkable systemic complexities possible from elaborate arrangements of tiny binary switches. All we know about the world, and have tried and tested, indicates in spectacular (though admittedly incomplete) detail how this could all come about via the basic laws of physics and the whims of happenstance. There is no worthwhile evidence to the contrary.
Sure, I don't know what exactly happened or if anything “happened” or it makes sense to speak so, before everything went BANG and then fate took over. I don't know why it BANGed in the first place; could be a quantum fluctuation, or collision of two m-branes, or the dream of a deity sleeping on a lotus petal. But to suggest, because of this uncertainty, that flat-out denying the latter takes an act of faith equivalent to that of belieiving in it or any other religious view out there requires use of an extraordinarily broad definition of “faith” so as to make it essentially meaningless. I can't be sure my roommate wasn't just eaten by a bear a second ago, because I just saw him walk into his room....but to say this is thus based on “blind faith” is something I suspect you wouldn't subscribe to; you'd say it was based on evidence. The disbelief in god is no different.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:57 PM

FLETCH2

Myself, I still stand with the big guy. I can't explain it because it seems at odds with my own more rational instincts. It's something I kind of know at a non conscious level and I simply can't explain it. It's like staggering through the dark completely blind and yet somehow knowing that someone is right there beside you keeping pace and that if you should stumble, you only need reach out and someone is there to catch you. I find that reassuring, even if it's my aim never to stumble.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 2:52 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by britet:
Fair enough I suppose, but the only thing you have to have faith in in order to claim “god does not exist” is your own perception, and your ability to make sense of the world and say/think meaningful things about it.

This is only true if you begin with the assumption that god does not exist. Everything you said in this post is very well put, but it all hinges on the assumption that god does not exist. In order to claim that “god does exist” the only thing one need faith in is indeed one’s own perception, then everything you have said here would follow as evidence that god does exist. God is the hand behind the electrons that go “zzt, zzt.” God is the reason that gravity holds the galaxies and the solar systems together. God is the perpetrator of the Big Bang. There is plenty of evidence that god does exist, because there is no evidence that he doesn’t, and everything human beings understand to exist is a construct of human consciousness. Electrons don’t really go “zzt, zzt,” that’s purely a construction of your own imagination. Electrons, instead, exists as probability waves, but that’s also a construct. “Reality” is a slice of the universe bounded by certain wavelengths of light and sound vibrations and the boundary of opposing electrons interpreted by a consciousness that can only comprehend a certain number of dimensions. To claim that “god does not exist,” one must first assume that god does not exist, because no degree of rationale or perception will provide that answer for you. It is every bit as faith-based as the assumption that god does exist.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To claim that “god does not exist,” one must first assume that god does not exist, because no degree of rationale or perception will provide that answer for you. It is every bit as faith-based as the assumption that god does exist.

By the same logic it would be a faith position to say that there is not an omniscient, omnipotent invisible pink unicorn watching everything we do.

An assumption that something does not exist until there is some evidence for it is not a faith position. A faith position is assuming something exists when there is no evidence for it

The burden of evidence falls to the one making a claim for the existance of something, not on the person who maintains its non-existance before that proof is produced.

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by britet:
Fair enough I suppose, but the only thing you have to have faith in in order to claim “god does not exist” is your own perception, and your ability to make sense of the world and say/think meaningful things about it...

Thanky you, Britet - well put. That's exactly what I've been trying to say. Their goal (folks trying to equate faith and disbelief) seems to be to avoid the label of 'irrational'. They seem to want to claim that believing in god is no more irrational than not believing. That sort of takes all the meaning out of the word 'faith' doesn't it?

Then they keep clinging to this artificial distinction between the 'not believing' and 'believing not' - (ie "I don't believe in god. I believe god doesn't exist). The second is a nonsensical statement that they foisted on a hypothetical "Strong Atheist". There's never any point in 'believing' in the non-existence of something. As you pointed out its a matter of perception.

I wouldn't say, for example, "I believe I don't have a million dollars." It's just that I don't have that much money. There's no "evidence" that I don't have a million dollars, in a bank, somewhere, somehow. But by their reasoning I'm acting on faith to assume it's not there.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...To claim that “god does not exist,” one must first assume that god does not exist, because no degree of rationale or perception will provide that answer for you. It is every bit as faith-based as the assumption that god does exist.

I don't want to be a smart-ass, but have you considered where this sort of logic leads?

To claim that “[any insane proposition you can imagine] isn't true,” one must first assume that [any insane proposition you can imagine] isn't true, because no degree of rationale or perception will provide that answer for you. It is every bit as faith-based as the assumption that [any insane proposition you can imagine] is true.

Seriously, you're essentially saying that denying the existence of anything is just as much an act of "faith" as believing in god. We can use the word in that sense if you wish, but what's the point?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:26 AM

JAMESTHEDARK

I don't know what one would properly call me. I am not an athiest, exactly, in that I do not strictly believe in God's non-existence, nor am I an agnostic, who is not particularly sure one way or another on the subject of the former. Perhaps, it could be best said that I spend as little time on the subject as possible. I don't disbelieve, nor believe; I just don't care.

Which is why I was particularly struck by Mal's line in the Big Damn Movie. You know the one? It's currently in my signature line.

--------------
I ain't lookin' for help from on high. That's a damn long wait for a train don't come.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:51 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
By the same logic it would be a faith position to say that there is not an omniscient, omnipotent invisible pink unicorn watching everything we do.

Well if it really was invisible it wouldn’t be “pink,” would it?

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
To claim that “[any insane proposition you can imagine] isn't true,” one must first assume that [any insane proposition you can imagine] isn't true, because no degree of rationale or perception will provide that answer for you. It is every bit as faith-based as the assumption that [any insane proposition you can imagine] is true.

If there is no evidence to assert the truth or untruth of such an “insane proposition” then that would true.

You seem to assume that it is not true by defining the proposition as “insane.” So you would seem to be operating on the assumption that such a proposition is not true. If you operate on the assumption that a proposition for which you have no evidence to assert one way or another is not true, then you will probably draw the conclusion that such a proposition is not true, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not true. That is simply your initial assumption returned to you as a conclusion.

You cannot prove that a proposition is untrue simply because there is no evidence to assert its truth or untruth. You can assume that it is not true if you do not have evidence to support its truth or untruth, which is often what people do, but that is an assumption, not a proof.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well if it really was invisible it wouldn’t be “pink,” would it?

That's where the faith element comes in

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it... etc.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

You cannot prove that a proposition is untrue simply because there is no evidence to assert its truth or untruth. You can assume that it is not true if you do not have evidence to support its truth or untruth, which is often what people do, but that is an assumption, not a proof.

Non-existance doesn't require proof as it is a logical fallacy to expect someone to prove a negative.

Existance however does require proof.

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 5:14 AM

BRITET

Quote:
You cannot prove that a proposition is untrue simply because there is no evidence to assert its truth or untruth. You can assume that it is not true if you do not have evidence to support its truth or untruth, which is often what people do, but that is an assumption, not a proof.

I think we’re miscommunicating concerning proof and rationality. I never claimed to be able to absolutely disprove god’s existence--my contention is that it is irrational, as SergeantX capably pointed out, and that based on what we know and can intelligently opine about, most likely a false belief. Logical proofs don’t account for probability, but probabilities are really what we’re working with when we make most of the claims we do about the world....”Alexander the Great could not fly” is unprovable, and yet I think we can all be sure as sugar it is a true statement.

To further illustrate, I’m aware that the notion of electrons as tiny little balls zapping to and fro is just a quaint little notion left over from grammar school, and I used it as such to be cute. But while however I conceptualize it, the conception is just a construct, the thing itself a measurable entity and has perceivable effects on the world, even if we don’t know exactly why it behaves the way it does and why it stubbornly refuses to have a definite position and velocity at any given moment. God, on the other hand, is a construct of a different type, one that makes use of constructs we have of “intelligence” and directed agency and embodies them in the form of a universal consciousness conducting the universe’s affairs. This is a tremendous leap from saying “electrons exist.”
If you want to equate god with basic laws of the universe, that’s fine, but then we are arguing only over definitions and I don’t see what your point is. If your point was that it is reasonable to conclude from the workings of the world that there is a conscious, purposeful being controlling it all, I’d suggest you’re only pushing a form of the argument by design; there is no reason to presume (for you must presume this) that there is any consciousness capable of omniscience or any other cool tricks a deity is capable of. The only intelligence we are aware of is ourselves, and to project this onto the universe itself is a kind of species-based narcissism....
To posit one further example, I can’t disprove that there is a small magical orb floating around somewhere in the galaxy that grants people’s wishes. Now, I understand the distinction here–this of course would be measurable in theory, though for all practical purposes is impossible to prove/disprove (good luck searching every square inch of the galaxy in a lifetime or a billion lifetimes). My point is that “granting wishes” is a construct completely dependent upon human understanding and imagination and this is why we can say confidently it does not exist....electrons exist, in whatever nebulous fashion they assume, whatever our visualization or understanding of them is, and we know by their effects. god has no such tangible effects on the world–and, again, saying “he’s controlling it all” is either playing with definitions or basing existence directly on human constructs, rather than forming human constructs based on observable phenomena.

This discussion began in response to a claim that disbelief was "faith" of the same sort that belief is. My goal wasn't to logically disprove god (and you're right--good luck doing so) but to undercut that claim, and propose that it is far more likely and reasonable to believe there is no such entity.

my apologies--i tend to be overly verbose. Since I saw an aes rock fan here I'll close with a relevant line:

"I will not bow to a god that I can't look in the face"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 1:09 PM

ODDNESS2HER

Mal believes in God, he just doesn't like him. I myself tend towards agnosticism rather than athiesm since it's not possible to know for sure one way or another.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:41 PM

THEINCOMPARABLENOTION

Existence through experience (living) is a great equalizer.

Perception and awareness are all relative to oneself, these constitute existence in the sense of consciousness (as one needs to be conscious and cognitive in order to perceive the existence of oneself).

If you suppose that everything is a construct of your own mind, then nothing truly exists but your mind...and that's liable to incite an impractical view of existence. Then that of course leads to yet more questions as to whether anything truly exists...and that very well could be.

This relates to belief and faith much in the same way, if there's no proof that renders a belief or theory true or untrue, then that begs the question concerning perception and belief. If you perceive it as true (presuming that reality and existence are all relative to perception) what evidence says otherwise? And then there's the question of what constitutes proof, as most of what we perceive is based upon assumptions.

And then there is the surmise that everything's empty, just variations of atoms (again, just a theory, this can't be proven by any evidence as of yet) and that everything you thought of as this and that really isn't this and that. In this sense, God is empty, you're empty, reality is empty, and everything is the same; therefore the existence of God is irrelevant and illogical because nothing exists. Perception factors into this as well, on account of the fact that it's required in order to perceive this complex and chaotic, but essentially empty and merciless, variation of atoms.

How does everyone define perception?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:37 AM

DAVEC5

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackCollarBrowncoat:
Like the beloved Cap'n, I'm an atheist, and I was wondering if any of my fellow browncoats are non-believers.

Secular Humanist myself. I haven't read each post, so maybe someone has already covered this. But you asked...so here's 2 cents worth of something i've found to represent my feelings about this subject.

Humanism

Humanism is the belief that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. Humanists make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves. We take responsibility for our actions and work with others for the common good.

What humanists believe

Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason - humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text.

Humanism encompasses atheism and agnosticism but is an active and ethical philosophy far greater than these negative responses to religion.

Humanists believe in individual rights and freedoms but believe that individual responsibility, social cooperation and mutual respect are just as important.

Humanists believe that people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's problems so that quality of life can be improved for everyone.

Humanists are positive gaining inspiration from our lives, art and culture, and a rich natural world.

Humanists believe that we have only one life it is our responsibility to make it a good life, and to live it to the full.

.....and we all shine on......

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:12 AM

BLACKCOLLARBROWNCOAT

I seriously wonder if some of you read the title of the thread. Go ahead, read it. I won't go anywhere.......see? I asked if there were atheists here, nothing else. You didn't need to reply if you do not consider yourself as atheist. Simple right? If someone posted a thread asking if there were any theists here, I would stay away. I wouldn't pop in and try to argue with them about their stance. It's common courtesy, and reason.

I don't know why threads like these have to start logic wars with folks endlessly and futilely trying to "educate" and convince each other with their arguments and opinions. Those of us who have made our minds, don't give a damn. Thanks for ruining a perfectly simple thread

By the way, last time I read this thread (last Saturday I think), I was in agreement with Hotpoint(?) and the Sergeant.

"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch me soar."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:35 PM

THEINCOMPARABLENOTION

That's the way these things work on most, if not all forums, reason plays very little a role when discussing religous beliefs as does courtesy. It's basically just a chaotic free-for-all wherein everybody posts profound and sometimes illuminating, but more or less irrelevant comments. Therefore, carry on in your impotent rage; these comments and debates are an inevitable by-product of threads concerning any religous beliefs. It never fails...it will always wind up that the thread will be speckled with everyone's beliefs. It's just, unreasonable is what it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:08 PM

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

I like to use the Douglas Adams definition of myself as a "radical atheist". He started referring to himself that way when someone would ask him if he was religious, he would respond "No, I'm atheist", and then said person would inevitably say "Oh, you mean agnostic". He then started answering the question with "I'm a radical atheist" to let people know that he is firmly convinced that there is no god.

When I read the first post in the thread, I assumed BlackCollarBrowncoat was referring to Joss when he said "cap'n", as Joss has stated many times that he is an atheist. I think it is not so cut and dry with the character of Mal, who lost his religion but may find his way back someday.

"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in order to prove that you care. Or indeed, why it should be necessary to prove it at all." -Kerr Avon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:09 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackCollarBrowncoat:
Any atheists in here?

I don't believe so.

---

I don't need a gorram back-spaceship driver!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 3:45 AM

1978

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackCollarBrowncoat:
Any atheists in here?

Quote:
I don't believe so.

---

Me neither!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 4:18 AM

Instigation:

Most real notable scientists (with very few exceptions such as Steven Hawking) have been men of faith. It's not the scientists or the clergy that draw a line between rational and spiritual thought .... it's the people that know little about both.

Modern Science and Modern Religion are both children of philosophy. They are brothers... and much the same process attempting to describe two compeltely different things.

The only time they conflict is when someone claims that one of the things being described does not exist. That doesn't happen from scientists or clergy... it happes from people who have bad experiences with faithless eighth grad teachers or biggoted and self-help book sytle preachers.

I don't believe in athesists. We all believe in God. Some of us just use a different name.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 4:23 AM

that being said - I draw a distinction between "Real Religion" and "Bible-Belt Self-Help Book Easy Answers Religion"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:
I don't believe in athesists. We all believe in God. Some of us just use a different name.

Unless you include the results of pure random chance, and basic scientific laws (eg. gravity, thermodynamics, natural selection), in what must be your extremely broad definition of God then I'm afraid you're wrong in your opinion that there are no atheists.

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:22 AM

Science is the search for Fact.
Religion is the search for Truth.

The facts you mention are all in dispute. Gravity is a theory and no one knows how it works - we just all know it does (are you old enough to remember Gravitons or Ether? they were both popular scientific thought until VERY recently).
I fail to see how that's different than God. Theists don't know or understand how it works, it just does.

You have faith in a metaphor that explains your surroundings that you know will be disproven in ten years (maybe 100). Science advances by continually disproving parts of itself. There are also aspects of it that are both true yet conflict. You know your metaphor for reality is flawed... but it's the best you have at the moment to help you live your life.

Again, I fail to see the difference.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:24 AM

ALGUS

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:

I don't believe in athesists. We all believe in God. Some of us just use a different name.

That's a most untrue statement. Neither Buddhists nor Taoists worship any sort of Godhead or diety (The Buddha is not a diety and I cringe every time someone compares the Buddha to a God or Gods) though Buddhism does not necessarily reject the idea of entities that other religions would describe as divine.

Of course, someone could bring up the fact that the Chinese Imperial Government established Taoism as an official State religion with Lao Tzu as the godhead at some point, but I don't think that's what a lot of modern Taoists believe. I know I don't pray to Lao Tzu...

Anyway, I'd never condemn anyone for their religious thought, I might say they were misguided, but I'd never condemn them. But you can't just make broad assumptions like that, many religions are so different that drawing up similarities only proves you don't know what you're talking about. Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, so please don't take this as a personal attack.

---
Where's the KABOOM?! There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom! *sigh* Delays...delays...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:27 AM

BROWNCOATRECRUITER

I'm a deist of sorts, myself. The common Judeo-Christian conception of the deity is false and needs to be seriously questioned by any who accept it. The largest philosophical and theological failing of Christianity has to do with the nature of infinity and the exsitence of evil. I could go on and on but is this a debate we really want to have on this board?

Not to be rude, but lately it seems like all I hear from Christians in the public sphere is "God the Father this, Holy Spirit that, Jesus Chirst hit me with a whiffle-ball bat..." They just don't make any sense and irrationality is no way to convert heathens.

"...there's a whole universe of folk who are gonna know it too. They're gonna see it. Somebody has to speak for these people." -Mal

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoatRecruiter:
I'm a deist of sorts, myself. The common Judeo-Christian conception of the deity is false and needs to be seriously questioned by any who accept it. The largest philosophical and theological failing of Christianity has to do with the nature of infinity and the exsitence of evil. I could go on and on but is this a debate we really want to have on this board?

Not to be rude, but lately it seems like all I hear from Christians in the public sphere is "God the Father this, Holy Spirit that, Jesus Chirst hit me with a whiffle-ball bat..." They just don't make any sense and irrationality is no way to convert heathens.

I would really recommend learning about what Christianity really is before you criticize it. I felt the same way you do before I learned anything about it.

I don't want to attack you, but it seems that you are falling into the trap of equating a system of belief into the way its practiced by the majority.

It may seem that Christianity is a majority - but its in the minority. We Christians are just as pissed about the so called "Christian Right" as you are.

Also, Islam doesn't teach suicide bombing. The radicals of any religion are the first to be seen and heard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Algus:
Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:
Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, so please don't take this as a personal attack.

I don't take it as an attack.

However, I will make the claim that Buddhists believe in a divine reality. The difference between God and divine reality is a personification. In the scheme of inifinity, that's not a whole lot of difference.

What I meant was... all people are called to discover the divine. How they interpret that divinity in different ways.

I'm not a Catholic, but the Catechism of that faith states that Scientists do the work of God even if they are opposed to that idea - they discover God's world and the processes by which it operates and was created.
That is what the religion teaches - whether or not your average catholic believes that or not is largely up to them.

It's a matter of perspective, is what I'm trying to say. Easy answers whether they be scientific or religious are just an escape for what is truly a complicated universe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:06 AM

Quote:
...I don't believe in athesists. We all believe in God. Some of us just use a different name.

That's cute. :)

How about, "I don't believe in people of faith. Faith is simple a matter of delusion. Some of us are more deluded than others."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Science is the search for Fact.
Religion is the search for Truth.

The facts you mention are all in dispute. Gravity is a theory

Drop anything lately? Which way did it fall? Seems like more than a "theory" is at work here.

Quote:
and no one knows how it works - we just all know it does (are you old enough to remember Gravitons or Ether? they were both popular scientific thought until VERY recently). I fail to see how that's different than God. Theists don't know or understand how it works, it just does.

How does religion "work", exactly?

Turning on a light switch (the construction of light switches, the production and transmission of electricity, the glow of hot metal in a vacuum was all developed using interlocking concepts of the nature of subatomic particles, the nature of metal, the relationship between moving electrons and heat and light radiance) is far more predicatable and useful than- say- praying to a god. Given that the only purpose of religion seems to be to shear people of the ability to ask questions (Don't ask! BELIEVE!) I question why anyone "should" be religious.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That's cute. :)

How about, "I don't believe in people of faith. Faith is simple a matter of delusion. Some of us are more deluded than others."

That doesn't really work... EVERYONE has faith in something.

Our currency's value is based on faith, as is the value of every common stock in the market. Frienship, love, trust, money, exchange, trade... EVERYTHING in this world of any worth is worth what it is worth based on people's faith in it. Faith that other people will also have faith and the value will go up; faith that we will not be betrayed; faith that when we hand over our money that we'll get an equal thing in return.

Faith/Belief is the most valuable thing in this world to anyone be they religious or not.

"Why is it that when I say 'believe' you automatically think I'm talking about God."

So, frankly, your statement just doesn't fly. Everyone is a person of faith.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:28 AM

The most conservative studies show that the divorce rate in America is 50% and the divorce rate of couples that share and PRACTICE a common religion together is 1 in 1005.

(mind you the bible-belt counts for most of the divorces in the country, so it's not the zealous right-winged fundamentalists who are staying together out of fear. It's the sane liberal religious folks who make up for those fanatics and then some to make this statistic possible).

In Japan, some business executives DEMAND that their employees learn zazen sitting metitation because statistics show that it makes them better and more efficient workers with a stronger work ethic and a larger attention span.

So does religion turn on lights? No.
Religion helps people learn how to love and be loved in contructive and lasting ways.

In the end... which is more important to you?
Your electrical outlets or your marriage and your interpersonal relationships?

It works. It works for what is truly valuable in life.

Personally, I choose to believe in science and religion - as do most people of a decent education on either side of this argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You're confusing "faith" with "consensus", "cooperation" and "reciprocity".

And in fact, we DON'T know that the value of stocks will go up, nor do we know that the value of currency will remain the same, just as we don't know that our love will be returned and our trust will be honored.

I guess you can say that now you've run into ONE person who has faith in nothing: me. What I have is an a priori assumption- one that I chose but to this day also admit may be totally wrong, about which I will have no way of ever "knowing" "for sure".

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
In Japan, some business executives DEMAND that their employees learn zazen sitting metitation because statistics show that it makes them better and more efficient workers with a stronger work ethic and a larger attention span.

Zazen sitting is not a religion.

Quote:
So does religion turn on lights? No.
Religion helps people learn how to love and be loved in contructive and lasting ways.

Except when they are killing each other in the name of religion.

You don't need religion to teach love, trust, and cooperation. Cooperation is an in-built human motive that lights up with pleasure when people behave mutually. Love is based on oxytocin. Trust depends (among other things) on the "theory of mind". All of these are natural human impulses, which we are trained out of under capitalism, which teaches that we are- and should be- relentlessly pitted against each other. I find both capitalism and it's counterpoint- religion- to be artificial and mutually reinforcing constructs.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Drop anything lately? Which way did it fall? Seems like more than a "theory" is at work here.

Common... any idiot can tell you that gravity is real. Science can't explain it. We have no idea why it happens. There's a popular theory by Hawking about space-time bends and density and before that it was a sub-automic particle known as the graviton.

Science is supposed to tell us why things happen. Religious Druids 2000 years ago could predict the weather, plot the movement of the stars, construct huge monuments, watch things fall to the ground when dropped....

Science doesn't discover these things! It's supposed to tell us why they happen and then be able to manipulate them for our benefit.

That being said. Science is wonderful.

I have a bizarre perspective on this as I am a rational scientifically minded computer programmer (amatuer archaeologist) with a Master's Degree in Comparative Religion. Makes me see both sides.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Any idiot can tell you that gravity is real. Science can't explain it. We have no idea why it happens.

Science does not tell us "why" things happen, science tells how "how" things happen. We can describe gravity and its interactions with our other consructs under various circumstances. In the future, we will probably develop more inclusive descriptions of "gravity" which will allow us to predict even more.

The answer to "Why is there air?" could be legitimately answered with "To blow up basketballs". Keep asking the question "why" often enough in chain of questions and answers, and you wind up with either "because I said so" or "because god made it". (Most parents have gone thru this at least once!

) The question "why", by supposing intent, preordains (so to speak) a theist answer.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:46 AM

Zazen sitting is not a religion.

um... it is the principal form of religious practice in Zen Buddhism. It's the Christian equivalent of contemplative prayer.

You don't need religion to teach love, trust, and cooperation. Cooperation is an in-built human motive that lights up with pleasure when people behave mutually.

um... the world is full of evil and selfishness. Cooperation is not built in to us. GREED is built into us. Look at the world and see how often people corrupt all good things to get more stuff. I don't see a lot of Cooperation going on.

Love is based on oxytocin.
umm.... yeah. Not sure where to go with that one.

Trust depends (among other things) on the "theory of mind". All of these are natural human impulses, which we are trained out of under capitalism, which teaches that we are- and should be- relentlessly pitted against each other.

How exactly does capitalism train us not to be pitted against each other. Free Market. The whole point is to undersell and do better than the next guy. Have you looked at Microsoft or WalMart recently? Why do you think they are doing so well?

I dunno. I suppose you gould be right. However, what are the fruits of your world view?

To have things we love fall apart is so common in our world that we don't even think about it anymore. We just expect divorce, war, corporate buyouts, theft, murder...etc. Isn't that disturbing. And you think you aren't operating in a broken system?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Science does not tell us "why" things happen, science tells how "how" things happen.

The answer to "Why is there air?" could be legitimately answered with "To blow up basketballs". Keep asking the question "why" often enough in chain of questions and answers, and you wind up with either "because I said so" or "because god made it". (Most parents have gone thru this at least once!) The question "why", by supposing intent, preordains (so to speak) a theist answer.

True.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:
The most conservative studies show that the divorce rate in America is 50% and the divorce rate of couples that share and PRACTICE a common religion together is 1 in 1005.

(mind you the bible-belt counts for most of the divorces in the country, so it's not the zealous right-winged fundamentalists who are staying together out of fear. It's the sane liberal religious folks who make up for those fanatics and then some to make this statistic possible).

Interestingly a study into Divorce Rates in the US showed that as a whole it was the Atheists and Agnostics that seemed to come out best

Religion % have been divorced

Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 11:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
um... the world is full of evil and selfishness. Cooperation is not built in to us. GREED is built into us. Look at the world and see how often people corrupt all good things to get more stuff. I don't see a lot of Cooperation going on.

The you aren't looking. Most of us drive on the correct side of the street. Most of us pay our taxes. Most of us take care of our families. The average person is not violent or aggressive. When was the last time you were assaulted by the postman or battered by the grocery clerk?

Did you realize that without cooperation there would be no warfare? How else can you get someone to sacrifice their job, family, time, and potentially their health and life? If we were all so terribly selfish, wars would never even get off the ground!

You are right- evil people (like all biological populations, there are those three standard deviations away from the norm!) can- and do- commandeer our impulse to cooperate. I think this is a system flaw, not a biological one. There was an interesting study of a group of primates- I believe it was baboons- in which all of the most aggressive members- approximately half of the adult male population- was wiped out by bovine tuberculosis. (long story on how that happened, too much typing for now). It led to a radical cultural change in that particular troop- a change which has persisted through two-three generations of newborns and immigrants

Quote:
How exactly does capitalism train us not to be pitted against each other.

Actually, that was my point, badly stated. Capitalism teaches us that competition is "natural". That was folded into Darwinsim to create the "scientific" basis for capitalism: We are the result of generations of fierce, relentless intraspecies competition and are fundamentally greedy, selfish, predatory individualists.... Except that I can show you globally, biologically, and evolutionarily that this isn't true. We are, in fact, a social species. With the usual caveat for those three standard deviations away from the norm (I'll call them "deviants" for short) people have always occurred in groups. Biologically, fMRI and other brain studies and psychological studies have shown that there IS a biological basis for cooperation, trust, love, and altruism. This makes sense because, evolutionarily, our young are so helpless for so long it takes the cooperative efforts of many adults to bring the young to reproductive age.

Quote:
Free Market. The whole point is to undersell and do better than the next guy. Have you looked at Microsoft or WalMart recently? Why do you think they are doing so well?

The last thing that Walmart and Microsoft want is a free market. They behave in anticompetitive behavior, not by outperforming the competition but by getting rid of it.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 11:19 AM

I actually think we largely agree... just from two different perspectives.

We define our words a little differently and that makes us somewhat inflamatory towards eachother... but I think that we're mostly in agreement.
?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 11:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

One last comment- Religions, as I have known them, usually contain three aspects:

1) A set of rules of behavior, right and wrong, etc
2) An attempt to control the uncontrollable- bring the rains, bring the game, ward off disease, etc
3) Belief in a supernatural deity which is not (necessarily) connected to real-world evidence.

IMHO, the first function is ethics. The second is science. Only the third- belief in a supernatural deity- can properly be called "religion". That is whay I said that zazen sitting is not a religion- it doesn't fall into MY definition of religion.

---------------------------------
"Your results may vary"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 11:24 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:
Gravity is a theory and no one knows how it works - we just all know it does (are you old enough to remember Gravitons or Ether?

Actually Gravitons are still alive and well as a theory. Ether I suppose is still kind of around in the form of Gravity and Inertia arising from the Zero Point energy Field.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 5:04 PM

There is plenty of evidence that God doesn't exist
Could you point to it please, because nothing in your post even hints at it.

I can't be sure my roommate wasn't just eaten by a bear a second ago, because I just saw him walk into his room....but to say this is thus based on “blind faith” is something I suspect you wouldn't subscribe to; you'd say it was based on evidence. The disbelief in god is no different.

How? How is it the same? If you want me to believe that they are the same offer proof because I've already taken my leaps of faith, three of them, and I'm not in the mood for more.

((I am however willing to reject the one that relates to god if anyone can produce any mildly convincing evidence. My other two leaps of faith support science and logic, if it looks like those clash with the existance of god I'll certainly move into nonbelief while I think it over, depending on the outcome I might return to the ranks of hard atheists.))

-

If you want proof of the existence of god then pick a god, how about the Hindu god? God is everything, you exist, you are part of everything, therefore God exists.

It is a sound proof provided that the definition of god as everything is correct. However many people (notably atheists, agnostics, and Christians) disagree with that definition.

What if you define god as supernatural?

Well then we go:
Everything is a part of nature.
God is not a part of nature.
Therefore god is not a part of everything (and thus does not exist.)

Of course things like the Judeo-Christian-Islamic family of faiths believe that god is not only a part of nature, but the most important part (the founding part no less) and thus not supernatural. ((Though they will use the non-literal definition of supernatural which is more accurately referred to as, "supernormal."))

Try another way of describing god:
God is the ultimate being:

There exist many beings in the universe.
Of those some are lesser and some are greater.
There must be at least one being which none are greater than.
This can be described as "The/a ultimate being."
At least one god exists.

Another definition of god:
God is that which controls everything in the universe.

All things in the universe obey the laws of physics and are in this way controlled by them.
So, by definition, God is the laws of physics.
The laws of physics exist.
Therefore God exists

Yet another definition of god:
God is the conscious controller of all things in the universe.
We have no clear understanding of that which controls the universe (hence ongoing scientific study) and thus we can not yet speculate on whether it is conscious or not.

God is the force that caused the Plagues of Egypt.
In that case God is the weather, the red tide, and cause and effect the weather and the red tide exist, cause and effect is one of our axioms, thus god exists.

God is the creator of the universe.
The universe exists, since existence can be defined as the state of being after creation and before destruction the universe must have been created (or the entire concept of existence must be overthrown, which I wouldn‘t mind because the chaos it would cause would be interesting.) To be created it needs a creator be that creator random chance or a goat named bob.
God (the creator), be he/she/it random chance or a goat named bob, must exist.

-

Ok, I've given a couple of silly definitions and a couple that are in common use. The problem is that no agreed upon definition exists. For example the dictionary gives this:

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

Well if you use one definition of "conceived" this is the very thing that hard atheists claim exists. In fact they go a step further and claim that this is the only version of god that exists.

If you use another definition of "conceived" it has a variable meaning ranging from what the hard atheists claim exists to what the theists believe exists, which are obviously polar opposites.

Of the three remaining definitions of conceived two point to god as what the hard atheists believe in (a concept instead of a real life being) and the last one is "to become pregnant with" and thus does not fit.

Obviously I can't use this definition. Three and a half out of four versions of it are believed to exist by those who believe god doesn't exist.

Further the claim of omniscient goes directly against the book of Genesis which is canon in two of the three major Monotheistic religions.

Another dictionary defintion (from the same dictionary) is:
"The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being."
Well if god is a delusion who only exists in the minds of people than it is hard to deny the effect of this being, the Crusades are a nice example, or, on a less bloody note, St. Peter's Basilica. In this case "god" by this definition, obviously exists.

-

You see the problem? If you can not go to a dictionary for a definition where can you go? Well if you go Hindu god obviously exists, what's more god is conscious and does indeed have an effect on the universe because you and I are conscious and have an effect on the universe.

If you take the Christan-and Jewish versions than god is more or less the forces of nature and probability, and until such time as we can figure out things like chaos theory and quantum phenomenon (no that isn't a River joke) we can not support or reject this god's existence or consciousness.

I don't know enough about Islam to talk about their god (though I do know it says it is the Jewish/Christian one so it's probably on the same footing.)

Buddhist's claim there is no god, and thus are on your side.

That covers the big five religions.

I have forgotten which one you were claiming did not exist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Then they keep clinging to this artificial distinction between the 'not believing' and 'believing not' - (ie "I don't believe in god. I believe god doesn't exist). The second is a nonsensical statement that they foisted on a hypothetical "Strong Atheist". There's never any point in 'believing' in the non-existence of something.

You know it’s not all that easy to piss me off but you've done it. Fuck you.

I'll let you attack my religious beliefs, my honesty and my merit as a person but not the basis of mathematics you son of a bitch. Maybe it isn't the universal language or any of those other things people like to say about it but it is what brought you this fucking message board and you should show a little respect before calling it bullshit.

Maybe you don't like the fact that it is based on the belief that existence and non-existence are both things that need to be proven and when proven believed in but it doesn’t change the fact that the progress we have made in most areas of life is based on this very simple thing.

A thing that rests all of it's power on the idea that things must be proven to (and thus believed to) exist, or they must be proven to (and thus believed to) not exist, and until that time the only rational position is to reserve judgment and thus not believe it exists AND not believe it doesn’t exist. Every proof rests on the idea that believing something doesn’t exist is fundamentally different from not believing it does exist.

But no. You think we should just throw all of that out the fucking window. Why not? After all what good did math ever do anyone?

You’re right. There's never any point in believing in the nonexistence of something, that’s why people worked for hundreds of years to prove that their belief in the non-existence of the non-zero integer solution to x^n + y^n = z^n (n>2) was well founded. (Actually you might be right about that one not having a point, bad example.)

You know what, you converted me, first thing when I wake up tomorrow I'm going to set fire to everything in my house that employed a mathematical proof which placed value in believing in the non-existence of something.

-

On second thought, no I won't.

If you missed the point here it is: I don't give a damn if you insult my beliefs but leave the foundations of math out of it you gorram asshole. To much rests on it for you to try to convince people to reject it all. But I hope with all the poetic justice in my soul that someday you buy a house built by a carpenter who holds math in the same esteem you do.

Quote:
I don't want to be a smart-ass, but have you considered where this sort of logic leads?

Have you? She claimed that becasue god does not exist god does not exist and used that as a proof.

He said that was bad logic. It is bad logic. Since I'm still on the topic of math let me tell you the fist thing they tell you about a proof: Don't assume your conclsion.

I can claim that 1=2 and prove that 1=2 as a result but no matter how many steps I shove in between it is still bad logic because all it does is come around in a circle and prove nothing.

But since you're supporting britet's logic and coming out against Finn mac Cumhal's critisim of it, and you've already gone against one of the fundamentals of math, let's reject all others too.

From now on it is ok to "prove" something is true by assuming it is true.

Let's redefine all of science too, since you're on such a great roll. I mean you just decided to rip appart the concept of "proof" so why not throw away experimentation too?

Hell since all that we need to do to prove something is to assume that it is true why don't you assume that you rule the world so we'll all be your slaves?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 5:58 PM

So, chris, I'm wondering if you'd care to address the tongue-in-cheek parody of intelligent design put forth by followers of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? The thing is, by your reasoning we can't reject His existence any more than we can reject the Jewish or Christian god.

I guess that's what I don't get about your insistence that non-believers supply some kind of proof of non-existence (a thoroughly fallacious stance). It essentially makes any claim at all subject to the same rules. If you can't find proof that something doesn't exist, you can't reject those who claim it does.

If you're saying that there is proof of god, and that atheists ignore it, well, that's another argument altogether - one that can at least make some sense. I don't find any of the 'proof' you mentioned compelling at all, but at least you're acknowledging that the burden of proof is on the positive claim.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You know it’s not all that easy to piss me off but you’ve done it. Fuck you.

I’ll let you attack my religious beliefs, my honesty and my merit as a person but not the basis of mathematics you son of a bitch...

OK... this has gone much too far. It was never my intent to enrage you. I thought we were having an interesting debate. My apologies. I'll drop it at this point.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 7:45 PM

BRITET

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If you want proof of the existence of god then pick a god, how about the Hindu god? God is everything, you exist, you are part of everything, therefore God exists.

You're right--I wasn't explicit enough with my definitions. Generally, by “God” I meant the Primary Mover of any major religion; the creator of the universe, the consciousness directing all being. Since there is considerable disagreement even among the same faith as to what this means, the waters will remain inevitably muddy; basically, I am using “god” to cover the belief systems of any organized religion.

This post will be somewhat disjointed, as i have two previous posts in this thread and won't reiterate certain points; I refer you to them if something seems confused.

Quote:
If you take the Christan-and Jewish versions than god is more or less the forces of nature and probability

I doubt there are many, if any, christians or jews who would agree with that statement. There is a tremendous difference between the unfolding of physical laws and the guided, conscious agent that most religions envision God being. I'll admit to not knowing a whole lot about Hinduism, but I'd be willing to bet that “god is everything” is a mischaracterization. At the very least, I'm reasonably sure, mainstream Hinduism makes some contentions about a universal consciousness and everlasting life (as part of this consciousness) not to mention reincarnation. If you want to say “god is the universe” or “god is nature” then I have no immediate quarrel, it's just that it's tautological and of little use for any purpose. If, however, you feel that saying “god is the universe” ascribes some consciousness or intentionality to the workings of nature, I most vigorously dissent. And here is why.

Quote:
(my words):I can't be sure my roommate wasn't just eaten by a bear a second ago, because I just saw him walk into his room....but to say this is thus based on “blind faith” is something I suspect you wouldn't subscribe to; you'd say it was based on evidence. The disbelief in god is no different.

(christhecynic's words): How? How is it the same? If you want me to believe that they are the same offer proof because I've already taken my leaps of faith, three of them, and I'm not in the mood for more.

I'd ask you first to suggest to me how it IS different--aside, that is, from the fact that my roommate's continued existence intact is verifiable by me peeking in the room....my point was that conclusions drawn from evidence need not be based on direct, incontrovertible evidence for probable certainty but can (and often are) based on inferences made from evidence and on inductive reasoning.

The crux of my argument is that every major extant religion has relatively recent origin compared to the emergence of modern humans and language/complex culture. They were predated by a multiplicity of various religious traditions with a vast array of gods and godlike figures and all sorts of shamanistic and other practices. This variety itself renders each rather suspect. The fact that the modern major religions persisted so long when so many others died out before them may have something to do with the fact that writing was invented soon after their origins, and not because they were any more accurate. The fact that even these religions have morphed and changed over time is further evidence of their ad-hoc quality and arbitrariness of doctrine.
Furthermore, (and sticking to judeo-christian-islamic tradition, which I actually know something about), vast quantities of the bible/koran/torah are patently false. these (creation, etc.) are illustrious enough to omit here. When these portions are so clearly based on myth, it renders the rest of the texts decidedly unreliable.
One cannot blame early humans from inventing such spectacular myths--indeed, one would expect it, given our evolved passion for making sense of things we observe. Being sentient, intelligent creatures, and recognizing the uniqueness and specialness of this capacity in comparison to the rest of the creatures around them, they described natural events and the very nature of BEING itself in terms of a similar (though far greater) consciousness.

But modern understanding most convincingly suggests there is nothing special about consciousness. Although there is much we do not (and perhaps will never) understand, all things considered, we have a remarkably clear picture of everything that happened from the birth of the universe to the present day. The only leap one has to make is a nugget of stuff that went boom, and the rest is history. In light of evolutionary theory, we realize that man is simply the product of millions of years of self-replicating protein strands and selection based on fitness in the face of scarce resources. That intelligence of a human magnitude arose from such processes is truly amazing and wonderful....but it is merely an emergent property borne from mindless natural processes. There is no basis for imputing such a property on the universe itself, or to attribute the fact of existence at all to such an intelligence--conscious, intentional thought is ultimately no different a system from the water cycle or plate tectonics--even if it makes sense to distinguish it for our purposes because it operates much differently and is far more complex.

Every major religion (with the exception of buddhism, in its purest form) comprises some notion of a soul, as being the essence of a person. When, I ask, on our evolutionary pilgrimage, did people start possessing souls? Did neandertals, who were very much like us and had religious practices of their own, have souls? Or any of our mutual ancestors? What is the function of a soul when mental activity has been experimentally observed to have direct correlates to neural activity?

when i say with conviction that my roommate is not right now giving a grizzly indigestion, I am making an inference. There has never been a bear in my house, and we'd know if there was. But I can't logically prove he wasn't eaten because you never know--one just might have been lying in wait, and just finished my buddy off.
Likewise, I can't say with absolute certainty that none of the world's religions are true. But I make that inference, based on evidence that they were all simply made up by people and perpetuated, among other factors, because eternal life and other tenets happen to be extraordinarily effective memes to a species of individuals capable of contemplating (and consequently fearing) their own deaths. If you infer something different, that's your right....but I struggle to see how anything different--at least, anything affirming the validity of any organized religion--is reasonable, given this data about the world.

As a final sidenote, I dig buddhism in that it extols mindfulness and meditation as paths to enlightenment. That the self is an illusion was a brilliant and phenomenal insight. In its purest form I wouldn't even call it a religion but simply a discipline, a way of living and thinking about the self. If, like some buddhists, however, one worships the Buddha as some sort of deity or supernatural figurehead, or subscribes to some variation of pantheism, they fall in the same boat as the rest.

long post. more apologies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 3, 2006 2:30 AM