Any atheists in here?

POSTED BY: BlackCollarBrowncoat
UPDATED: Sunday, March 12, 2006 20:19
VIEWED: 38381
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

BLACKCOLLARBROWNCOAT

Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:48 AM (P)

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

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

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:01 AM (P)

Actually I think Mal believes, I think that is why he is so against God. I think he believes and is very, very angry at God.

-

As for Atheists here, there are quite a few. If you look at one of the, "What are your thoughts on god?" threads you'll find a fair number saying, "I don't believe and this is why."

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:22 AM (P)

I'm not sure. He used to believe something he doesn't believe now. Anyway, still Taoist. I believe in forces in motion, but no supreme guiding hand.

THEINCOMPARABLENOTION

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:25 AM (P)

I can't know for certain one way or the other, and as such won't hold myself to either belief (in the existence or non-existence of a superhuman power), because i'm the kind of person who needs profound evidence before I determine what I believe in. There's no definitive evidence one way or the other, just a sheer amount of theories and yet a myriad of variance in those theories. I'd have to describe myself as an agnostic, I suspect that it would take genuinely compelling evidence to convince me one way or the other. Although, that being said, Eastern religions (or, philisophies rather) are quite fascinating.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:33 AM (P)

Hard-core atheist, and pretty anti-religious. Somewhat of a mystic, tho. While I think that science is the way to knowledge, I'm reasonably certain we will never know everything.

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

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:50 AM (P)

I'm atheist. In theory I'm ok with the idea of religion, or more generally spirituality, but in practice it seems like its almost always a vehicle for people interested in promoting some kind of 'right way to live'. All too often they're willing to apply various kinds of coercion to achieve that goal. That annoys me a great deal.

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

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 1:52 AM (P)

Many people here are against religion, even the devout.

GEEZER

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:14 AM (P)

Militant Agnostic here. Try to prosthelytize me at your peril.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:23 AM (P)

Ok, I can do with some peril.

Look around you, at all of the world, the intricate system of shifting forces, electrons and quarks, predators and prey, all moving in one perfect system better designed than any watch, the cogs so subtle yet important that they must have had a designer, and intelligent one at that.

Oh ... wait a minute, I have to try to convert you to my own faith?

Come back in another twenty years, I'll proselytize you then.

RUE

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:50 AM (P)

I have issues with belief. Belief is what exists in the absense of (or even in contradiction to) data.

I do not 'believe' in god (or gods). I do not disbelieve in god (or gods).

I appreciate the time here.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:58 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I have issues with belief. Belief is what exists in the absense of (or even in contradiction to) data.

Belief is also what makes you trust the data, or trust that data is worth considering.

KHYRON

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:13 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hard-core atheist, and pretty anti-religious. While I think that science is the way to knowledge, I'm reasonably certain we will never know everything.

Yep, that sums me up pretty well, except I'm not just reasonably certain we'll never know everything, I'm absolutely, utterly, totally and completely certain we'll never know everything.

RUE

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:26 AM (P)

Belief is also what makes you trust the data, or trust that data is worth considering.

I used to have issues with that at a quite early age (pre-teen). What is real, what is significant etc. The I realized I wasn't about to test reality by jumping off a roof, and I settled on the pragmatic side.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:52 AM (P)

I'm strongly in favor of belief. The nonsense that people believe is really just a misguided part of the idea. Most of believe is about believing in a set of rules, not necessarily strict ones, that would make you fundamentalist, but guidelines. Like Jack Sparrow. Sometimes religions have silly rituals and nonsense but that gives them flavor, culture, and helps the outside world brand them as looneys, a factor much sought after by a religion. Any religion is going to want to make life better, but not let in people who don't believe in the rules. Willingness to say "Jesus died for our sins" is not dedication to that misconstued perception of the facts, it's dedication to the set of rules. Most of these people believe as I did that Jesus died for treason, PN just thinks he wasn't guilty, which is fair.

All societies ultimately are a set of rules, even serenity is a set of rules, albeit lose ones. Religion is a society which one can freely enter or leave, and which can exists with or without a govt. or specific territory or financial relationship. It's no more 'good' or 'evil' than a corporation or a government. It's just a different type of organization. IMHO

CHRISMOORHEAD

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:03 AM (P)

I've been shot, I am Christian. There are no athiests in foxholes.

Have you ever:
Used your teeth as wire strippers?
Given yourself stitches?
Made improvised munitions with no base supplies?
Pissed in a canteen?
Gone a month without bathing?

If so, you MIGHT just be a !HOOAH MOTHERF*CKER!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:11 AM (P)

I’ve been called an atheist by some of my more religious friends. Does that count?

Although technically, I’m not an atheist. I actually have a very ardent belief in god. I just don’t necessarily have the same passion for “religion.” I’m certain god exists, beyond that things start getting really fuzzy.

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.

BOVINITY

Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:26 AM (P)

I thoroughly believe that god does not exist. Does that make me a believer or a non-believer? Now I'm confused...

But, then again, not more than 20 minutes ago I was certain that everything in my house was stolen, including my car, which was used to haul all my other stuff away. Then I woke up from a feverish dream, which was strangely ok until the theft part.

ROCKETJOCK

Saturday, February 25, 2006 8:38 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by bovinity:
I thoroughly believe that god does not exist. Does that make me a believer or a non-believer? Now I'm confused...

You've just hit on the primal paradox of atheism. Since it's axiomatic that one cannot prove a negative (you can't prove there's no such thing as a black swan, you can only prove that none has been discovered yet) It becomes logically impossible to prove that God does not exist. Therefore, asserting that God definately does not exist is an act of faith. Which, by my definition, makes atheism a religion...

(Agnotism, by contrast, claims no specific knowledge of God's existence/non-existence, and therefore can be classified as a philosophy.)

Reminds me of an old Hindu tale about an atheist who was so convinced of God's non-existence that he repeated "There is no God!" over and over, at least once every conscious minute, until the day he died--whereupon, since he had spent every waking moment focusing upon God, he was immediately reunited with the Godhead.

Big fans of irony, them there deities.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

ASARIAN

Saturday, February 25, 2006 8:57 AM (P)

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.

Depends on which direction I look:

If I look at what they did to River, I would say He does not exist, or does not care.
But when I turn my head, and see what Simon did for her, then I know there's a God, after all.

N.B. I'm being serious.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

HOTPOINT

Saturday, February 25, 2006 10:47 AM (P)

I'm what is termed a "Soft" Atheist in that I don't believe in God because there's no evidence but it's not a matter of certainty or faith on my part.

If Atheism is a religion then bald is a hair colour by the way

And for those that think there are no atheists in foxholes what about the millions of Soviet Troops in WWII for a start? (I also have an atheist freind who has seen active service under fire with the British Army for that matter)

As regards any theists looking in remember that we're both atheists in reality to some degree, I just believe in one less God than you do (because I'm betting you don't carry a Sword in case the Norse were right about Odin, Thor and the afterlife in Valhalla).

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

GAMMARAYGIRL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:09 PM (P)

I'm also atheist, but feel strongly that every human has a right to worship or not worship whatever they please (well, as long as I'm not forced to worship too!). I'm posting a link to an essay by Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) that aired on NPR several weeks back as part of their "This I Believe" serices. It's very nice.

Here's the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

Also, there was a really great This American Life on NPR called "Godless America". It aired 6-3-2005. The segment by Julia Sweeney is amazing. I very much related to her story of going from Catholic to atheist. You can find it at:

http://www.thislife.org/

Go to the Episodes/RealAudio, by year originally
produced, and click on 05. Scroll down until you find "Godless America". It's really good!

MEGMAC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:23 PM (P)

I'm atheist, but still pretty spiritual. I believe in some form of afterlife but no clear-cut heaven and hell.

TBH, I can't watch the news everyday and still believe in a God, but that's just me.

Mal: Wheel never stops turning, Badger.
Badger: That only matters to the people on the rim.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Belief is also what makes you trust the data, or trust that data is worth considering.

I used to have issues with that at a quite early age (pre-teen). What is real, what is significant etc. The I realized I wasn't about to test reality by jumping off a roof, and I settled on the pragmatic side.

I've got nothing against that. I like philosophy but when I took a class in it I found myself wanting to ask, "Why are we still talking about this?" quite a bit.

What if I don’t really exist? Lets say I’m the delusion of the person I sat next to in third grade. How does that effect me? Well it doesn’t, I still have my delusion of a life to live and my delusions of decisions to make. It hardly effects me no matter what I am. Why don’t we look at questions that actually have an effect on things?

-

What I wanted to make sure you know is that everything is based on belief. Science requires as much faith as any religion I know of. In fact it requires more than some.

Without belief and faith we can not operate, as such they are perhaps the most important things we’ve ever created. Some people think they go against logic, and they do, but you also have to remember that logic requires them to exist.

They are the irrational things that allow the very concept of, “Rational,” to exist.

They are the foundation of everything we have ever done. As such I dislike it when people seem to think that they can group them in with religion and superstition. Everyone has them, and everyone needs them. Science takes two, maybe three, gigantic leaps of faith and from that we have been able to build up a far more coherent picture of the universe. Then people who claim to support science also claim that leaps of faith in and of themselves are stupid.

You are obviously not one of these people, but I didn’t know it at the time.

-

When it comes to belief in god I think people should take whatever leaps they make and stick with them, a lot of people instead try to support them with more and more irrational beliefs whenever they have a perceived contradiction. That makes no sense to me. Figure out what you believe:

For example:
Cause follows effect and all things have a cause
My senses are an adequate way to perceive the world
God as represented in the bible exists in reality

And then interpret things based on that. When you come across something you can’t explain use logic and reason to try to explain it rather than introducing a new leap of faith.

I think science is a good model. When something that seems to contradict science appears they study it and think on it until they find a way to fit it in, even if it takes centuries. They consider the possibility that anything other than their basic premises are false and will overturn a theory they’ve held for ages if logic tells them to.

Religion should be willing to do the same things, for example if you just believe in the bible why try so hard to maintain dogmas added three or four hundred years after the fact? Why not get back to basics and then check to see if it really fits?

-

Sorry about the rant.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by bovinity:
I thoroughly believe that god does not exist. Does that make me a believer or a non-believer? Now I'm confused...

Well it makes you a believer, and a strong one at that.

Since you have a belief based on god you are a believer of a religious nature. A lot of people who believe there is neither god nor gods hate that fact but that doesn't change the fact it is true.

The fact is that only people who believe neither in divinity nor lack there of are non-believers. They're also the ones with the strongest position.

I believe in god and you believe in a lack of god, that means we both believe something with no hard evidence, those that don't believe have the only intellectually defensible position.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:14 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
You've just hit on the primal paradox of atheism. Since it's axiomatic that one cannot prove a negative

I can prove that the set of primes is not finte and thus that there exists no finite set containing all the primes.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
If Atheism is a religion then bald is a hair colour by the way

When talking about hard atheists you are so very, very wrong.

Think about your analogy. Every set of beliefs on god would be a hair color, so Catholics might be blonde, and Hindus are redheads and whatnot.

To have a hair color you must have hair.

The belief that there is no god is a belief about god.

Thus those who believe there is no god must have hair. They are not bald.

Now those who do not believe there is no god, and do not believe there is a god, those people are bald.

-

I mean come on, if holding a belief about the nature of god is not religious than what is religious?

According to you if I believe there is a god that is not religious because belief regarding the existence of god is not religious.

HOTPOINT

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I mean come on, if holding a belief about the nature of god is not religious than what is religious?

According to you if I believe there is a god that is not religious because belief regarding the existence of god is not religious.

Well it was just a throwaway line really

In any case Atheism just means "without theism" ie. without belief in God. This should not be automatically equated with being Religious or Irreligious as there are in fact some Religions that do not have a God in the strictest sense making them Atheist Religions.

There is more to being a religion than simple theism, or lack of it, and you cannot call Atheism a Religion in the same way you could assign the term to Christianity, Hinduism or Islam for example.

If you seek to classify atheism as a religion then by implication all the theist faiths are a religion too... collectively. You should not muddy the waters by equating religion with faith either.

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

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 4:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
In any case Atheism just means "without theism" ie. without belief in God. This should not be automatically equated with being Religious or Irreligious as there are in fact some Religions that do not have a God in the strictest sense making them Atheist Religions.

This I know, but very few Atheists like it when one points out that the most famous Atheist in history was Buddha.

Also I said hard atheism for a reason. I realize that grouping together non-believers with those that believe there is no god is exactly the same as grouping non-believers with those that believe there is a god.

Quote:
There is more to being a religion than simple theism, or lack of it, and you cannot call Atheism a Religion in the same way you could assign the term to Christianity, Hinduism or Islam for example.

I know, but usually when one pulls out the, "Not a religion," line they are trying to separate themselves from all theists, even though many who believe in god are not part of any religion.

Quote:
If you seek to classify atheism as a religion then by implication all the theist faiths are a religion too... collectively.

Not really, religions hold common beliefs, that is why Lutherans and Catholics are not the same religion.

Atheists hold one set of common beliefs about the nature of god and are more united and uniform in this set than any two popes could ever be said to be. Also, with very few exceptions, they have exactly the same set of customs and rules with respect to god.

Hardly like other religions where custom differs from place to place and order to order. Certainly the Atheist belief has a more uniform set than any other dogma ever did and all who believe in a lack of god agree in totality about what god mandates in any give situation.

Atheism has an answer for every situation. A set of customs and mandates more strict than any other religion I know of. Every single hard atheist agrees on exactly what god wants them to do, when god wants them to pray, what god will allow them to eat, what god considers good or bad, which commandments god holds highest.

They have an agreement on what god considers Kosher that not even the Jews can rival. The have an agreement on when god wants them to pray that no Prophet ever managed to instill.

In short they have a set of common beliefs more uniform than any other religion on this planet, they have a set of religious mandates applicable to any situation, they have a set of religious customs that no member has ever challenged. And they always, without any hesitation, agree on exactly what god wants from them.

Quote:
You should not muddy the waters by equating religion with faith either.

I was unaware that I had done that. I certainly would never do it intentionally.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 25, 2006 5:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The belief that there is no god is a belief about god.

Thus those who believe there is no god must have hair. They are not bald.

Now those who do not believe there is no god, and do not believe there is a god, those people are bald.

-

I mean come on, if holding a belief about the nature of god is not religious than what is religious?

According to you if I believe there is a god that is not religious because belief regarding the existence of god is not religious.

This is interesting. First of all, I'm not sure that any belief concerning the existence of god is necessarily religious, just as a belief about the existence of republicans isn't necessarily political.

Secondly, I call myself an atheist, but it's not a 'belief' for me. It's a lack of belief, and despite the attempts to muddy the waters, those aren't the same thing. Rejecting an unproven proposition is not a question of faith. If you make a proposition that something or another exists and I look where you say it is and see nothing, I'm not expressing belief when I say "but there's nothing there". I'm merely reacting to what my sense tells me. If you want to call that 'faith' then all bets are off and any possible conviction is 'belief'. That seems overly broad to me, and watering down the concept to the point that it's meaninglesss.

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

HOTPOINT

Saturday, February 25, 2006 5:11 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
[Not really, religions hold common beliefs, that is why Lutherans and Catholics are not the same religion.

Atheists hold one set of common beliefs about the nature of god and are more united and uniform in this set than any two popes could ever be said to be. Also, with very few exceptions, they have exactly the same set of customs and rules with respect to god.

Hardly like other religions where custom differs from place to place and order to order. Certainly the Atheist belief has a more uniform set than any other dogma ever did and all who believe in a lack of god agree in totality about what god mandates in any give situation.

Atheism has an answer for every situation. A set of customs and mandates more strict than any other religion I know of. Every single hard atheist agrees on exactly what god wants them to do, when god wants them to pray, what god will allow them to eat, what god considers good or bad, which commandments god holds highest.

They have an agreement on what god considers Kosher that not even the Jews can rival. The have an agreement on when god wants them to pray that no Prophet ever managed to instill.

In short they have a set of common beliefs more uniform than any other religion on this planet, they have a set of religious mandates applicable to any situation, they have a set of religious customs that no member has ever challenged. And they always, without any hesitation, agree on exactly what god wants from them.

Your argument here does not stand up to much scrutiny. By seeking to equate a group as in any way a religion, whose only collective identity within the group is a lack of ritual then I might easily say that I am also a member of the Religion of Non-Golfers where the only commonality of our Religion is that none of us play golf.

Does our uniformity of non-golfingness gives us a unity of non-purpose?

The fact is that a Catholic and a Lutheran have more in common in their basic world view, moral attitudes and ethical motivations than I do with a Chinese Communist Party Member (for example) whose only similarity with myself is our atheism.

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

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 5:28 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Secondly, I call myself an atheist, but it's not a 'belief' for me. It's a lack of belief, and despite the attempts to muddy the waters, those aren't the same thing.

There are many types of Atheist, they can be divided into two groups though.

Soft Atheists don't believe, Hard Atheists believe in the lack of any divinity. The difference is important and what stops the water from getting muddied.

Those who believe something does not exist without evidence it does not exist are believers as much as those who believe it does exist without any evidence it does.

Those who wait for proof are not believers.

-

Think about it in terms of other things.

If I say, "Dinosaurs are still alive," or I say, "I have a gecko," the statements are the same. I am claiming something exists without offering any proof whatsoever.

However if you chose to believe I do not have a gecko you are doing it without reason, and considering the fact that I do have a gecko you'll also be wrong. (Though you have no proof of course.)

On the other hand if you chose to believe that dinosaurs are not still alive you have evidence to support it, you can check the habitats that they could survive in and see that they are not there. You can look at the archeological record and notice that dinosaur bones stop appearing after a given point in time.

You can not look at where god is supposed to live, you can not check the archeological record, you can not examine satellite images in search of herds of god, you can't even check for footprints. You have as much reason to believe that god does not exist as you have to believe that I have no gecko.

-

That is the difference. To believe something doesn't exist without proof is often enough a necessary thing, but to believe it does not exist without evidence is the same (in terms of soundness) as believing something does exist without evidence.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 5:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is interesting. First of all, I'm not sure that any belief concerning the existence of god is necessarily religious, just as a belief about the existence of republicans isn't necessarily political.

Secondly, I call myself an atheist, but it's not a 'belief' for me. It's a lack of belief, and despite the attempts to muddy the waters, those aren't the same thing. Rejecting an unproven proposition is not a question of faith. If you make a proposition that something or another exists and I look where you say it is and see nothing, I'm not expressing belief when I say "but there's nothing there". I'm merely reacting to what my sense tells me. If you want to call that 'faith' then all bets are off and any possible conviction is 'belief'. That seems overly broad to me, and watering down the concept to the point that it's meaninglesss.

Having a lack of belief in something is not the same thing as believing that something doesn’t exist. Those are two different things, and ChrisTC was quite clear in pointing out, by indicating that he was referring to “hard” atheism, that he was referring to the latter. Believing that there is no god is a religious opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Your argument here does not stand up to much scrutiny. By seeking to equate a group as in any way a religion, whose only collective identity within the group is a lack of ritual then I might easily say that I am also a member of the Religion of Non-Golfers where the only commonality of our Religion is that none of us play golf.

You’re welcome to be a part of that religion if you want. I personally am an avid observer of said religion,

BUT that’s not the same thing as believing that Golfers don’t exist.

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 5:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Your argument here does not stand up to much scrutiny. By seeking to equate a group as in any way a religion, whose only collective identity within the group is a lack of ritual then I might easily say that I am also a member of the Religion of Non-Golfers where the only commonality of our Religion is that none of us play golf.

You've totally missed the point. You argued that grouping together Hard Atheists as a religion would require grouping together all theists as a single religion (unless I missed something.) My point is that Hard Atheists have a distinct lack of difference when it comes to religion and that is what allows them to be placed in one group and what prevents others from being placed in one group.

Quote:
Does our uniformity of non-golfingness gives us a unity of non-purpose?

Yes. When people are grouping golfers together in terms of when they play the game you all get put in the same group.

Quote:
The fact is that a Catholic and a Lutheran have more in common in their basic world view, moral attitudes and ethical motivations than I do with a Chinese Communist Party Member (for example) whose only similarity with myself is our atheism.

But we are not talking about world view. We are talking about religion.

You and the communist do not disagree on religion, thus you can be considered a part of the same religion. The Catholic and the Lutheran have different religious views to such a degree that they must be considered different religions.

NUCLEARDAY

Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:06 PM (P)

My two cents for what it's worth...

First off, reading through this thread, it seems like once again we're coming against the limitations of the English language. We're lacking proper terms to quantify the various subsets of belief or non-belief that fall under the umbrella term of "Atheism." Ditto with Agnosticism and all the other myriad belief structures out there. The modern era has seen if anything, a general muddying of the waters in this aspect. Religion has become a very personal concept for many people... even a term like Christianity now has a wide variety of meaning depending on who you're talking to.

Actually, this is why I guess I'm an agnostic, if anything. Though I always get the feeling it never means quite what it's supposed to anymore, and I lean a bit towards Gnosticism at times (and I'm a little too sketchy on terminology to say "Zen Gnosticism":)

I just figure whatever ultimate truth exists (assuming any does) that it's beyond the scope of the human mind. We lack both the terminology and symbology to quantify it in any way we'd be able to comprehend. We can't voice a concept in our heads unless we have the proper symbols or language to voice it. (Like George Orwell talks about in 1984... limited vocabulary after a certain extent limits thought.)

Here's my take. Say hypothetically you're raising a goldfish in a fishbowl in a room in your house. Imagine that you can magically communicate with said fish. Now, keeping in mind that the sum total experience of this fish is it's bowl and what it can make out of the room around it, try and explain to it what a spaceship is. :P That's the problem humankind has trying to figure out the afterlife, or god, or the nature of the universe. In a closed system, it's night impossible to figure out what's going on outside said system. We lack proper context.

I'd say I'm an atheist, but even saying that would mean that I "know" one way or another.

________________________________________________
You can take my hope when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

HOTPOINT

Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

You've totally missed the point. You argued that grouping together Hard Atheists as a religion would require grouping together all theists as a single religion (unless I missed something.) My point is that Hard Atheists have a distinct lack of difference when it comes to religion and that is what allows them to be placed in one group and what prevents others from being placed in one group.

I'm sorry but I must disagree. To continue my analogy does the fact that some Golfers follow the PGA Rules and others those of the Royal and Ancient mean they have less commonality with each other than the Non-Golfers who follow no Golf related rules at all?

A collective lack of Golf related ritual does not mean that the Non-Golfers are a more closely related group, or even the hard-core Golf Dislikers are for that matter, than the Golfers themselves.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Does our uniformity of non-golfingness gives us a unity of non-purpose?

Yes. When people are grouping golfers together in terms of when they play the game you all get put in the same group.

Oh come on you can't possibly argue that non-golfers have a unity which is greater than golfers surely (because that is the implication here)

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

You and the communist do not disagree on religion, thus you can be considered a part of the same religion. The Catholic and the Lutheran have different religious views to such a degree that they must be considered different religions.

Your definition of "religion" is so sweeping on the one hand as to be meaningless and then it switches to differentiate minor doctrinal differences on the other.

Religion is a term that means more than merely a group it implies commonality of belief beyond that merely in a Diety itself

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

CAPTAINSHINY

Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:32 PM (P)

nuclearday, if you have one of those "alert me if someone replies" things, this isn't a direct reply to you, I just needed to click omeones reply thing and you were the last poster.

I am an atheist, but I have no problem with other peoples religion. Whatever helps get you through the day. It can make people "better" people, in that things can run a whole lot smoother.(I dont believe in good/bad, right/wrong, there just factors in the little world that humans put themselves into- if you know of Plato's parable of the cave, they're part of the cave-world) However, I don't like when people take religion a little to far, or it has the reverse effect on people(very much like the pax to the people of miranda, and the creation of reavers)

I believe i am enlightened in a way; i had an epiphany very similar to that Joss described in the "Objects" commentary, and was relieved to find out I'm not the only who'd experienced such a thing. If you know of Plato's parable of the Cave, I've been outside the cave and dwell in the threshold, i go back in most of the time to interact with people, etc. but I don't go too far in. Okay, I'm reaching this whole "limit of words" thing and I'm sure I sound like a lunatic to the unenlightened, i.e. most people. I'm sure Joss, Plato, and some other thinkers know what I'm talking about.

-Stay Shiny
"The people who made the show, and the people who saw the show, which is roughly the same number of people, fell in love with it, a little bit too much to let it go, too much to lay down arms when when the battle looked pretty much lost. In Hollywood, people like that are called unrealistic, quixotic, obsessive... In my world, they're called Browncoats."
-Joss Whedon

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 9:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by nuclearday:
First off, reading through this thread, it seems like once again we're coming against the limitations of the English language. We're lacking proper terms to quantify the various subsets of belief or non-belief that fall under the umbrella term of "Atheism."

Atheism – a disbelief in the existence of deity

Local Atheism – the disbelief in a certain diety

Strong Atheism – The belief that no deity exists.

Weak Atheism – The belief that a doctrine or belief in existence of a deity or deities is unnecessary.

Weak Agnosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity or deities is unknown

Strong Agnosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity or deities is unknowable

Ignosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity is meaningless.

Gnosticism – the thought and practice of various pre-Christian and early Christian cults distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that salvation comes through an esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.

THEINCOMPARABLENOTION

Saturday, February 25, 2006 10:11 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by nuclearday:
First off, reading through this thread, it seems like once again we're coming against the limitations of the English language. We're lacking proper terms to quantify the various subsets of belief or non-belief that fall under the umbrella term of "Atheism."

Atheism – a disbelief in the existence of deity

Local Atheism – the disbelief in a certain diety

Strong Atheism – The belief that no deity exists.

Weak Atheism – The belief that a doctrine or belief in existence of a deity or deities is unnecessary.

Weak Agnosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity or deities is unknown

Strong Agnosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity or deities is unknowable

Ignosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity is meaningless.

Gnosticism – the thought and practice of various pre-Christian and early Christian cults distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that salvation comes through an esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth

That's quite a detailed index of various theologies and philosophies concerning atheism and agnosticism. Of which I had examined extensively prior to this, but, however; i'm still a bit uncertain as to why there aren't more varying degrees of these beliefs that are widely recognized.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Those who believe something does not exist without evidence it does not exist are believers as much as those who believe it does exist without any evidence it does...

That is the difference. To believe something doesn't exist without proof is often enough a necessary thing, but to believe it does not exist without evidence is the same (in terms of soundness) as believing something does exist without evidence....

The water is still plenty muddy. I think the convoluted nature of these sentences is a strong indicator of the soundness of the ideas they're trying to sell.

As usual, the attempt being made is to equate disbelief with belief. This goes hand in hand with the insistence that the disbeliever prove a negative. Basically, you're saying that to justify a lack of belief in god, one must supply evidence of his non-existence. Such a thing can't be done, which is why religious apologists love this argument so much. But that doesn't mean the argument makes any sense.

Quote:

You can not look at where god is supposed to live, you can not check the archeological record, you can not examine satellite images in search of herds of god, you can't even check for footprints...

Right, which is exactly why I reject the notion of god on conceptual grounds. The proposition of 'god' is specifically designed to evade the notion of proof. You've put forth something no one can disprove and tried to say that anyone who doesn't believe you is acting on faith. That's nonsense.

Believing in god requires a leap of faith. Not believing requires no such thing.

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

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:33 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Believing in god requires a leap of faith. Not believing requires no such thing.

I'm not talking about not believing, I'm talking about believing in the lack of god.

Not believing in god is not the same as believing there is no god. I keep on saying things about believing there is no god, and you keep responding in terms of not believing in god.

If I am as wrong as you claim why do you refuse to respond to what I'm actually saying?

After all if I'm wrong shouldn't you be able to prove it with a straight answer?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by TheIncomparableNotion:
That's quite a detailed index of various theologies and philosophies concerning atheism and agnosticism. Of which I had examined extensively prior to this, but, however; i'm still a bit uncertain as to why there aren't more varying degrees of these beliefs that are widely recognized.

I would imagine because most atheist don’t spend a lot of time in self reflection about their philosophical and religious opinions. I think that many, if not most, atheists are not necessarily opposed to the belief in god, as much as they are skeptical of religion. This is why many atheists get their dander up when someone suggests, perhaps rightly so, that strong atheist views are distinctly religious in nature. Many atheists don’t want to be labeled religious. In fact, on more then one occasion I’ve had atheists admit to me that their opinions are really more agnostic, but they proclaim an atheist position because they don’t feel that agnosticism is “strong” enough. And then there is my own personal experience: I once held very strongly atheists positions, even though I think I knew that this was in conflict with what I really believed. When I began to reflect on what it was that made me feel that I was an atheists, I was forced to abandon that characterization. It occurred to me that what I was really opposed to was certain aspects of human nature often associated with religion, but in reality I don’t think I was ever actually opposed to the existence of god, much less believed that god didn’t exist. To a large extent, atheism is a surrogate for opposition to religious belief, more then it is an actually independent theological or philosophical conviction, and that’s why, I believe, that there isn’t wide acceptance of the diversity of atheistic opinion.

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 25, 2006 11:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
After all if I'm wrong shouldn't you be able to prove it with a straight answer?

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.

Or some more.

1. I don't believe the earth is made of spaghetti.
2. The earth is not made of spaghetti.

Is someone who utters statement two acting on faith? If so, we've expanded the definition of faith to encompass all of perception, haven't we?

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

COPILOT

Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:04 AM (P)

I'm not an atheist I'm not really anthing. I dislike religion but I understand the need to believe that there is something more. Sometimes I try to believe in reincarnation but I can't get too certain. I grew up Christian (daughter of a preacher man) so sometimes I still get scared of that god. Anyway I don't have any problem with the religious as long as they don't try to convert me. I do think that Mal believed so hard in his God and in the Independents cause that losing the war just crushed that part of him into a very thin powder and then someone sneezed on it.

An I carried such a torch

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:26 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
After all if I'm wrong shouldn't you be able to prove it with a straight answer?

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.

Obviously someone who holds the belief stated in 2 also shares the lack of belief stated in 1, however as many soft atheists will tell you to honestly say 1 you do not have to believe 2.

Quote:
Or some more.

1. I don't believe the earth is made of spaghetti.
2. The earth is not made of spaghetti.

The first is a statement of non-belief, the second is a statement of belief that is backed up by, and probably based on, empirical evidence.

Quote:
Is someone who utters statement two acting on faith?

Well that really depends doesn't it? If they've never stepped foot outside a house, never seen the ground or dug a hole and knew nothing of geology or the origin of spaghetti I suppose it could be on faith.

But if we assume that they have seen the earth and know about the nature of spaghetti then I’d say it's probably based on evidence instead of faith.

You can see that the earth isn't made of spaghetti, thus the belief that the earth is not made of spaghetti is not something based on faith. It is still a belief, but I think we can all agree it is a very, very valid belief.

THEINCOMPARABLENOTION

Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:36 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheIncomparableNotion:
That's quite a detailed index of various theologies and philosophies concerning atheism and agnosticism. Of which I had examined extensively prior to this, but, however; i'm still a bit uncertain as to why there aren't more varying degrees of these beliefs that are widely recognized.
I would imagine because most atheist don’t spend a lot of time in self reflection about their philosophical and religious opinions. I think that many, if not most, atheists are not necessarily opposed to the belief in god, as much as they are skeptical of religion. This is why many atheists get their dander up when someone suggests, perhaps rightly so, that strong atheist views are distinctly religious in nature. Many atheists don’t want to be labeled religious. In fact, on more then one occasion I’ve had atheists admit to me that their opinions are really more agnostic, but they proclaim an atheist position because they don’t feel that agnosticism is “strong” enough. And then there is my own personal experience: I once held very strongly atheists positions, even though I think I knew that this was in conflict with what I really believed. When I began to reflect on what it was that made me feel that I was an atheists, I was forced to abandon that characterization. It occurred to me that what I was really opposed to was certain aspects of human nature often associated with religion, but in reality I don’t think I was ever actually opposed to the existence of god, much less believed that god didn’t exist. To a large extent, atheism is a surrogate for opposition to religious belief, more then it is an actually independent theological or philosophical conviction, and that’s why, I believe, that there isn’t wide acceptance of the diversity of atheistic opinion.

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.

Precisely, most atheists profess to have no religous beliefs, and that's false. Their very belief indicates religous meditation. I personally believe that their beliefs are inherently religous in nature, and therefore comprise what is more or less, a religion. And, in regard to agnosticism, which is a philosophy that I identify most with, some have the misconception that agnosticism entails having no religous ideas. That's not true, it applies only to the belief of a God; for example, I hold the opinion that the prospects that a God exists are considerably better than those of one not existing. I just don't particularly know or believe one way or the other.

I think that all religions merit a certain degree of respect, there's no basis of which to prove any correct or incorrect.

PIRATEJENNY

Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:47 AM (P)

well I'm not exactly an atheist, but I don't believe in God, like the Christian or Muslim God, I consider myself a spirtual person, but I tend to think more along the lines of Zecharia Stitchen, and I'm pretty anti religion myself, I can't wait till the time comes when people have evolved past that.

HAPPYBRAIN

Sunday, February 26, 2006 1:53 AM (P)

If I ever choose to blindly follow a fictional character I'm sure I can come up with a better one than God.
Seriously, If I come face to face with the big guy when I die, I will gladly admit that I was wrong. I just don't see the point in worry about it now.

CAPTAINSHINY

Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by HappyBrain:
If I ever choose to blindly follow a fictional character I'm sure I can come up with a better one than God.
Seriously, If I come face to face with the big guy when I die, I will gladly admit that I was wrong. I just don't see the point in worry about it now.

So thats why you have a happy brain.

-Stay Shiny
"The people who made the show, and the people who saw the show, which is roughly the same number of people, fell in love with it, a little bit too much to let it go, too much to lay down arms when when the battle looked pretty much lost. In Hollywood, people like that are called unrealistic, quixotic, obsessive... In my world, they're called Browncoats."
-Joss Whedon

CAUSAL

Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:32 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hard-core atheist, and pretty anti-religious. Somewhat of a mystic, tho. While I think that science is the way to knowledge, I'm reasonably certain we will never know everything.

Can you explain what "anti-religious" means to you? Being a faithful-type myself, I tend to read into statements like that--but in the interest of not jumping to conclusions, I thought I'd just ask.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:36 AM (P)

Quote:

If I ever choose to blindly follow a fictional character I'm sure I can come up with a better one than God.

Blood and souls for my lord Arioch?

BTW, when did this board die? I seem to be posting by myself.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:06 PM (P)

Non believer here as well.

You're welcome on this boat. Your God ain't.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SERGEANTX

Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:06 PM (P)

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

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:45 PM (P)

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 con

BRITET

Monday, February 27, 2006 6:09 AM (P)

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.

B]

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.

FLETCH2

Monday, February 27, 2006 6:57 AM (P)

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, February 27, 2006 12:52 PM (P)

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

HOTPOINT

Monday, February 27, 2006 1:15 PM (P)

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

SERGEANTX

Monday, February 27, 2006 1:51 PM (P)

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

JAMESTHEDARK

Monday, February 27, 2006 2:26 PM (P)

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, February 27, 2006 2:51 PM (P)

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.

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

HOTPOINT

Monday, February 27, 2006 3:11 PM (P)

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

BRITET

Monday, February 27, 2006 3:14 PM (P)

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"

ODDNESS2HER

Monday, February 27, 2006 11:09 PM (P)

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.

THEINCOMPARABLENOTION

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:41 AM (P)

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?

DAVEC5

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:37 PM (P)

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......

BLACKCOLLARBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 9:12 PM (P)

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."

THEINCOMPARABLENOTION

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:35 PM (P)

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.

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:08 PM (P)

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

SHINY

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:09 PM (P)

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

I don't believe so.

---

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

1978

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 1:45 PM (P)

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

Quote:
I don't believe so.

---

Me neither!

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 2:18 PM (P)

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.

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 2:23 PM (P)

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

HOTPOINT

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 6:14 PM (P)

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

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 6:22 PM (P)

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.

ALGUS

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 6:24 PM (P)

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...

BROWNCOATRECRUITER

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 6:27 PM (P)

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

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 6:38 PM (P)

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.

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 6:43 PM (P)

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.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:06 PM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:15 PM (P)

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.

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:22 PM (P)

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.

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:28 PM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:29 PM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:36 PM (P)

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.

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:37 PM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:44 PM (P)

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.

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:46 PM (P)

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?

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:47 PM (P)

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.

HOTPOINT

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 8:48 PM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 9:07 PM (P)

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.

ZEKE023

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 9:19 PM (P)

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.
?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 9:21 PM (P)

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"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 9:24 PM (P)

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

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, March 3, 2006 3:04 AM (P)

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 t

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, March 3, 2006 3:50 AM (P)

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?

SERGEANTX

Friday, March 3, 2006 3:58 AM (P)

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

SERGEANTX

Friday, March 3, 2006 4:04 AM (P)

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

BRITET

Friday, March 3, 2006 5:45 AM (P)

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 uniquenes

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, March 3, 2006 12:30 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
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.

Yeah, we were, when it was about religion. And as long as you stuck on the topic of relgion you could say anything and I wouldn't mind. You could say my god was a delusion only held by childmolesters and I'd let it fly.

But you took a step further than that and made generalizations that, if true, would invalidate things such as math, science and logic. That I won't stand for. There's no place for that kind of thing in a relgious debate. Not even creationists push as far as you did.

I enjoy religious debate, I enjoy debate in general. What I don't like is when someone decides to change the basis of the whole thing just to win.

If you want to say that our entire system of logic is wrong, which you did (twice), at least tell us what system you want to replace it with. Whatever you do don't just say it like it is commonly accepted fact and then offer no explanation beyond useing it as fact in a sentance.

I'm not saying this should stop, I'm just saying be civil.

HAZE

Friday, March 3, 2006 1:32 PM (P)

I’m going to relate some personal stuff here. I make no pretence of being right and I mean no offence this is just personal stuff.

I went to Catholic school. Just before my first communion a very young and “down with the kids” priest came to class to explain to us the process of transubstantiation. Afterwards he asked us we had any questions. I throw up my hand and asked and quite innocently asked “If I am eating the body and blood of Christ does that make me a cannibal?” Let me be honest here, I have some mental heath issues (I’m not going into what, that’s my business) but some of the social breaks you have, I don’t. As I’ve gotten older I’ve learned to logically stop myself from asking the obvious question but when I was younger my habit of indiscriminately cutting to the heart of a subject got me into a lot of trouble. That was the only example involving an actual priest so I consider it the worst. Needless to say he wasn’t happy. But I never did get an answer. Other questions I never got answers to where (There went to various teachers) “If Adam and Eve only had sons did they have sex with there mother?” And “If God wants us to worship him does that make him a narcissist?”

Still though years went by and I was still a catholic. What finally killed my faith was a heated argument I had with a member of the legion of Mary. He was explaining how protestants and none Christians where all going to hell along with people who didn’t go to church enough. For the first time in years I didn’t hold back and asked the obvious question. “Are you saying that all loving God would condemn a good and kind person to eternal damnation ETURNAL unending torture just for not worshiping him right?” “Yes” was the basic response. It was at that point I realised, if God is what this man says he is, if God created us just to worship him and would condemn us just for doing it wrong then I don’t want to worship him. I wont bow my knee to God the tyrant .

But then I realised something. This man does not know God. God has not spoken to him. He has no access to a grand high vault of the invisible. He access to no information that I don’t. And that’s as true of the Pop as it is of Priest or a bishop or a leader of one of the other religions. There information comes from what was written down. And it was not God who wrote it, it was men. Men with agendas. Agendas that God has been made to fit. God hates homosexuality because the men who use his name do. God thinks women are inferior because men the men who use him name do.

The problem is not with God, the problem is with organised religion. As the bard said the fault is not in the stars it is in ourselves. Look around you at the horrible things religion has been used to justify, this was not the work of God this was the work of men.

I don’t know if there is a God or not but I do know one thing, needier does anyone else that walks this earth and I wont take stock in the word of men who say they do.

--------------------------------------------------
Who do you suppose is in there?

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE