Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Marty Champions on December 25, 2012, 11:17:00 AM
-
power?
just wondering if theyve ever considerd macro-entities
-
Are you interested in the sociological fact of whether atheists do in fact tend to think this way, or in what they can believe in while still being logically consistent? The former can be captured in a poll (though I haven't looked to see whether there is one), the latter thrashed out with some philosophizing.
-
Are you interested in the sociological fact of whether atheists do in fact tend to think this way, or in what they can believe in while still being logically consistent? The former can be captured in a poll (though I haven't looked to see whether there is one), the latter thrashed out with some philosophizing.
your post=basically what im saying, sometimes its better to troll a post to get a more intriguing answer than spelling it out for everyone :D
-
No such thing as a "higher power".
-
The Weed-Smokers are the Highest
-
Humans are insignificant in the Universe Johnny, but that does not mean we can`t enjoy ourselves and help others live in comfort and peace as well.
-
-
No such thing as a "higher power".
i can think of a few
higher = longitude (north/south) = north america is a higher power than south america
higher = altitude = denver is a higher power than los angeles
higher = wattage = lightening is a higher power than electrons
higher = intelligence = humans are a higher power than rodents
-
higher = power to determine price = scarcity is a higher power than usefulness
-
i can think of a few
higher = longitude (north/south) = north america is a higher power than south america
higher = altitude = denver is a higher power than los angeles
higher = wattage = lightening is a higher power than electrons
higher = intelligence = humans are a higher power than rodents
Get the fuck out of here.
You would have done better to say Gravity or the Speed of Light or Black Holes, but no, you went retard just as expected.
-
lightening is a higher power than electrons
???
ROFLAMFOAFAMFAFOAFMFAFOF AMAFFAO
-
i can think of a few
higher = longitude (north/south) = north america is a higher power than south america
higher = altitude = denver is a higher power than los angeles
higher = wattage = lightening is a higher power than electrons
higher = intelligence = humans are a higher power than rodents
You do realize that Lightning is nothing but electrons?
-
???
ROFLAMFOAFAMFAFOAFMFAFOF AMAFFAO
i see you deleted your comment making fun of my assertion that lightening is a higher power than electrons ;D
man youve got to lighten up a little bit and stop taking your opinions so damn seriously. for one thing, youll never convince anybody to change their own opinion if you are presenting it in such a way. for two, its just plain unhealthy.
-
You do realize that Lightning is nothing but electrons?
maybe electrons are nothing but miniature lightening ? :D
aggregate is greater than individual pieces.. = higher power.. ??? ;)
-
i see you deleted your comment making fun of my assertion that lightening is a higher power than electrons ;D
man youve got to lighten up a little bit and stop taking your opinions so damn seriously. for one thing, youll never convince anybody to change their own opinion if you are presenting it in such a way. for two, its just plain unhealthy.
I didn`t delete anything. I cleaned it up to get YOUR moronic quote correct.
-
Get the fuck out of here.
You would have done better to say Gravity or the Speed of Light or Black Holes, but no, you went retard just as expected.
and so what would you consider those things to be higher powers than?
-
lightening is a higher power than electrons
I have seen a lot of stupid shit, but this has to rank up there.
-
A more important question is do they give their Christmas bonuses back to their bosses?
-
A more important question is do they give their Christmas bonuses back to their bosses?
Christmas has nothing to do with religion at this point.
-
Christmas has nothing to do with religion at this point.
Sure it does, at least to some degree.
-
I have seen a lot of stupid shit, but this has to rank up there.
adam abeles is a higher power than atoms.
would you say that is stupid? since adam abeles is nothing but an aggregate of atoms?
-
adam abeles is a higher power than atoms.
would you say that is stupid? since adam abeles is nothing but an aggregate of atoms?
Completely stupid.
-
No, Christmas is just a time-period of commerce, nothing else.
-
Completely stupid.
adam abeles, or the idea that he is a higher power than atoms ? ;D
-
your post=basically what im saying, sometimes its better to troll a post to get a more intriguing answer than spelling it out for everyone :D
The majority of people I spend time with above and beyond 'acquaintance' level are atheists. Almost none affirm the existence of anything you might reasonably call a higher power, though some retain a core of mysticism and speak in vagaries of such things as 'spirits', a 'spiritual realm', and of their being 'something more than the physical' (and other similar statements).
Do we want to call such statements evidence of belief in a higher power? It depends on what you mean by the term. Anyway, there's definitely a contingent of atheists who believe in supernatural things, however vaguely defined. Whether we decide to call these things 'higher' or not is a relatively boring semantic issue we can solve by stipulation.
Now I'm going to generalize a bit. I think that, in general, those atheists who have dedicated the most thought to the matter tend to eschew any supernaturalism, whereas those who still affirm some sort of supernatural realm/entities are either recent converts and are loathe to abandon religiosity entirely, haven't thought about the issue all that much, or aren't particularly bright.
-
adam abeles, or the idea that he is a higher power than atoms ? ;D
Yah thats logical. ::)
-
The majority of people I spend time with above and beyond 'acquaintance' level are atheists. Almost none affirm the existence of anything you might reasonably call a higher power, though some retain a core of mysticism and speak in vagaries of such things as 'spirits', a 'spiritual realm', and of their being 'something more than the physical'.
Do we want to call such statements evidence of belief in a higher power? It depends on what you mean by the term. Anyway, there's definitely a contingent of atheists who believe in supernatural things, however vaguely defined. Whether such things are 'higher' or not is a relatively boring semantic issue.
Those people are as dumb as barb wire on the moon.
-
The majority of people I spend time with above and beyond 'acquaintance' level are atheists. Almost none affirm the existence of anything you might reasonably call a higher power, though some retain a core of mysticism and speak in vagaries of such things as 'spirits', a 'spiritual realm', and of their being 'something more than the physical' (and other similar statements).
Do we want to call such statements evidence of belief in a higher power? It depends on what you mean by the term. Anyway, there's definitely a contingent of atheists who believe in supernatural things, however vaguely defined. Whether we decide to call these things 'higher' or not is a relatively boring semantic issue we can solve by stipulation.
Now I'm going to generalize a bit. I think that, in general, those atheists who have dedicated the most thought to the matter tend to eschew any supernaturalism, whereas those who still affirm some sort of supernatural realm/entities are either recent converts and are loathe to abandon religiosity entirely, haven't thought about the issue all that much, or aren't particularly bright.
i have found the same thing = when prodded, many outspoken "atheists" do believe in the possibility of spirits and/or some kind of supernatural force.
-
Yah thats logical. ::)
i asssume you think there are more similarities between electrons and lightening than there are between atoms and adam abeles?
-
watch this, How can you deny God?
-
watch this, How can you deny God?
That was the biggest load of crap I have seen in a long time. if anyone is influenced by that nonsense, they DESERVE to be enslaved for eternity. All he did was point out what all Scientists KNOW that their are fixed laws of NATURE and then suggested because of this THERE MUST BE A GOD and because their is a GOD a human BEING must SUBMIT (Submit to what exactly?, maybe the CHURCH or Spiritual Leaders, since GOD isn't around to submit too). Talk about a failed leap of logic. Even if their was a GOD, why the fuck would he want anybody to SUBMIT to him, that makes him more pathetic than HUMANS. Only a human being could suggest their is an all powerful deity put he is so pathetic he wants you to SUBMIT to him. As an atheist, I could easily come up with a more intellectually satisfying concept of a divinity than that. Those who repeat this NONSENSE insult anybody with Intelligence, it literally blows me away that somebody could even remotely believe this, and be completely unaware that they are being manipulated for other peoples purposes and NOT GOD's.
-
its foolish to not beleive in aliens, they could be the gods for all we know
-
its foolish to not beleive in aliens, they could be the gods for all we know
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/259/977/9bf.jpg)
-
I don't class myself an athiest. I believe in a higher force/power/beings etc.... that created all of this nonsense we call a universe. Everything just works too perfectly, and is too complex, to have "just happened". The bible and "commercial religions" are full of shit.
-
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/259/977/9bf.jpg)
hahah but actually its the only simplistic explanation we can attain right now, im sure its fairly relative to the real reason we were created
-
I don't class myself an athiest. I believe in a higher force/power/beings etc.... that created all of this nonsense we call a universe. Everything just works too perfectly, and is too complex, to have "just happened". The bible and "commercial religions" are full of shit.
to me this is the most sensible explanation
there is some powerful beings like Wilson Falcon who prevented the apocalypse but he had to go back intime for some pure white hoes
-
hahah but actually its the only simplistic explanation we can attain right now, im sure its fairly relative to the real reason we were created
Simplistic explanations are usually the best explanations. Sort of like occams razor. However, the idea that it was ancient aliens is not a simple explanation.
-
hahah but actually its the only simplistic explanation we can attain right now, im sure its fairly relative to the real reason we were created
Being created/relatives to an alien species has more ground with me than a god/jesus angle. "God" maybe the master race.
-
Simplistic explanations are usually the best explanations. Sort of like occams razor. However, the idea that it was ancient aliens is not a simple explanation.
simplistic explanations sound best but how simplistic are we talking
id enjoy someone giving me a "simplistic explationation" of a computer ciruit board in just under a few hundred words so i could build my own falcon computer but im not sure its possible
-
I THINK IT MORE LIKELY THAT WE ARE GOD AND GOD IS US AND WE (GOD AND US AND ME AND YOU) HAVE AN ETERNAL MUTUAL CONSCIOUSNESS THAT WE ARE CONSTANTLY ADDING TO AND IMPROVING UPON WITH EVERY NEW LIFE AND EVERY NEW EXPERIENCE THAT EVER OCCURS.
-
power?
just wondering if theyve ever considerd macro-entities
I think we consider these questions as much as anyone, the only difference being that we make our conclusions based on evidence and what is scientifically plausable and probable. Made up stuff is appealing to some people though, and I don't begrudge them that. I would imagine many atheists like myself would not consider themselves the highest power, but rather one animal on a whole planet of animals in a tangible physical world. If loads of horrible shit happened to me or my family however, I can completely appreciate and understand a need to fabricate a higher purpose + afterlife etc.
-
I don't class myself an athiest. I believe in a higher force/power/beings etc.... that created all of this nonsense we call a universe. Everything just works too perfectly, and is too complex, to have "just happened". The bible and "commercial religions" are full of shit.
Nothing works perfectly, everything is headed for Entropy. Why would you think the Universe or anything in is "perfect"?
-
i have found the same thing = when prodded, many outspoken "atheists" do believe in the possibility of spirits and/or some kind of supernatural force.
I think what you are saying is that us athiests are open minded. The evidence points at there not being a god. So I for one believe that there is a 99.99% of there not being a god but I can not completely rule it out as I havent died yet.
Religious fanatics on the other hand believe there is 100% chance there is a god even though all the evidence would point at there not being one, especially when the evidence that they rely on is in there good book.
-
It seems to me you could ask 1,000 atheists what they believe and you might get that many variations on the question of a higher power. My guess is many atheists are fairly independent thinkers. After all, they are willing to go against the norm and admit to it. That takes courage.
-
power?
just wondering if theyve ever considerd macro-entities
ALL atheists don't fit into the same box.
-
So how do you explain Dr. Laurence Browns Story? remember he was an atheist and like many here aruged against there being a higher power.
3:05-13:50 if your short on time.
ultrasound dosent lie...
-
i can think of a few
higher = wattage = lightening is a higher power than electrons
That still doesnt make any sense. Electrons by themselves are just charge and wattage measures power or charge*voltage/time. So....
-
So how do you explain Dr. Laurence Browns Story? remember he was an atheist and like many here aruged against there being a higher power.
That's a silly question. Why are you asking us to explain someone elses' actions? Is there a rational reason for me to attempt to do so? Sidenote and preemptive comment: his claiming to have been an atheist who then converted to Islam is not a rational reason.
-
That still doesnt make any sense. Electrons by themselves are just charge and wattage measures power or charge*voltage/time. So....
charge times voltage over time? What?
-
That's a silly question. Why are you asking us to explain someone elses' actions? Is there a rational reason for me to attempt to do so? Sidenote and preemptive comment: his claiming to have been an atheist who then converted to Islam is not a rational reason.
Did you watch the vid?
-
Did you watch the vid?
No. Why would I? The simple fact is that I am not particularly interested in hearing what he has to say - he's just some atheist became a Muslim and that doesn't have any bearing on me.
With that said, is there something specific you think that I should watch? If so, what is it and why should I take the time?
-
No. Why would I? The simple fact is that I am not particularly interested in hearing what he has to say - he's just some atheist became a Muslim and that doesn't have any bearing on me.
With that said, is there something specific you think that I should watch? If so, what is it and why should I take the time?
It is about proof of god. His quest to find the true religion comes AFTER his incident in the hospital(the part i asked you to watch). He becomes Muslim after searching and researching, he discribes that in the second part...hence why i said skip to 3:05 -13:50, the part about his daughters heart problem...He dosent even talk about his becoming Muslim until much later...
No ones forcing you to watch the video, I just wondered how an atheist will explain what happens in the video @ 3:05-13:50...
-
Athiests generally believe in a complete cessation of existence apon the death of the physical body and that consciousness and spirit are just the by product of the bodys life. So for them there is nothing higher than the bodily life to which their existence depends.
Those who have gone deeply in to meditation have the experience of being a consciousness/spirit/existence which is ever alive and free from dependency on physical life.
-
i can think of a few
higher = longitude (north/south) = north america is a higher power than south america
Who says North is the top, and not South? ???
-
power?
just wondering if theyve ever considerd macro-entities
It's a difference between playing with ideas and believing. Toying with the idea of "macro" entities/ phenomena is interesting, but its a far stretch to go from there to saying that there is a man in the sky who made man in his image and has opinions on masturbation, marriage, gay sex and so on. The cosmos is to large to worry about such minutiae.
Just wanted to get this off my chest: christianity/judaism/islam is pure nonsense and the term "atheism" should not really be necessary, because in a world of truly intelligent creatures, nobody would believe in such nonsense.
NN
-
It really is all there if you just think about it... Atheist or believer alike. A simple statement:
Knowledge is power.
Eating the apple to gain knowledge = bad. "The Gods" didn't want that. So the "God" who gave away knowledge gets labeled "Satan" for making humans closer to the gods. In that simple symbolic story we have the creation of good and evil.
This is the basis for new world order teachings, the search for knowledge because knowledge is power. We can BE the gods. Satan wasn't the bad guy, he liberated us by giving us knowledge. So basically the gods were the bad guys for trying to keep us down. Deep stuff if you read into it. The deep part is really who was good and who was evil in the stories.
My opinion? On a simplistic level, mythology and bible stories were based on actual events but misinterpreted. Gods were flesh and blood visitors and DID fashion us in their image. Our thirst for knowledge and to be thier equals made them leave, and allowed us to hide the truths and turn it into religion... a man made business to turn a profit. Not a big fan of organized religion. I have faith though... it is just not divinity based.
-
(http://www.dan-dare.org/Dan%20Saber/DarthMaulAni.gif)
-
Tremendous thread....God bless!!
-
It is about proof of god. His quest to find the true religion comes AFTER his incident in the hospital(the part i asked you to watch). He becomes Muslim after searching and researching, he discribes that in the second part...hence why i said skip to 3:05 -13:50, the part about his daughters heart problem...He dosent even talk about his becoming Muslim until much later...
No ones forcing you to watch the video, I just wondered how an atheist will explain what happens in the video @ 3:05-13:50...
For every adult "atheist" (remember we are all born atheists) converted to a religion, there are people who can tell compelling stories of how they were christians etc and became atheists. Dan Barker author of Losing Faith in Faith and the VP of the Freedom From Religion Foundation was an evangelist at one point in his life. Would YOU benifit from hearing his personal testimony?
-
I THINK IT MORE LIKELY THAT WE ARE GOD AND GOD IS US AND WE (GOD AND US AND ME AND YOU) HAVE AN ETERNAL MUTUAL CONSCIOUSNESS THAT WE ARE CONSTANTLY ADDING TO AND IMPROVING UPON WITH EVERY NEW LIFE AND EVERY NEW EXPERIENCE THAT EVER OCCURS.
you need to read the works of Isaac Asimov...what you speak of is called Gaia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_and_Earth
-
religion is a necessary invention as a it serves several purposes
1. To explain things that we did not have answers to.
- When we die where we do go?
- What is above the clouds
- what is night and day
- why should enslave or treat others wrongly (god didn't choose them)
2. To control the masses.
- If you work hard in this life time and serve your superiors you will be rewarded in the next life time.
- God is watching you, so do "good"
- Follow the laws, god said that you should.
people with knowledge created religion as a tool. But somewhere it became too much to control.
-
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius
-
watch this, How can you deny God?
::) ::)
Just because you lack the intelligence or free will to break free of your constraints dont expect everyone to subscribe to your life in prison. Some people are born to be slaves. Only those born of ignorance submit without question. Allah is a creation by the madman muhaaMAD. Islam steals from christianity and other religions For their tenants. The koran was a book written using shit out of muahahahmed's ass.
I think all the destruction, and chaos muslims have caused over the centuries is a valid enough reson to deny allah.
-
GOD = DOG
-
The evidence points at there not being a god.
would you be so kind as to provide me with a single piece of evidence that points at there not being a god.
-
That still doesnt make any sense. Electrons by themselves are just charge and wattage measures power or charge*voltage/time. So....
my useage of the term "wattage" may have been incorrect.
-
Who says North is the top, and not South? ???
it is completely arbitrary, yes thats true. but the general consensus is that we consider north to be "top" and "south" to be bottom" (look at any map or globe youve ever seen)
-
the term "atheism" should not really be necessary, because in a world of truly intelligent creatures, nobody would believe in such nonsense.
NN
because newton and descartes and socrates and others were unintelligent. ;D
-
It really is all there if you just think about it... Atheist or believer alike. A simple statement:
Knowledge is power.
Eating the apple to gain knowledge = bad. "The Gods" didn't want that. So the "God" who gave away knowledge gets labeled "Satan" for making humans closer to the gods. In that simple symbolic story we have the creation of good and evil.
This is the basis for new world order teachings, the search for knowledge because knowledge is power. We can BE the gods. Satan wasn't the bad guy, he liberated us by giving us knowledge. So basically the gods were the bad guys for trying to keep us down. Deep stuff if you read into it. The deep part is really who was good and who was evil in the stories.
My opinion? On a simplistic level, mythology and bible stories were based on actual events but misinterpreted. Gods were flesh and blood visitors and DID fashion us in their image. Our thirst for knowledge and to be thier equals made them leave, and allowed us to hide the truths and turn it into religion... a man made business to turn a profit. Not a big fan of organized religion. I have faith though... it is just not divinity based.
put down the crack pipe and stop correlating folk tales with metaphysics. man made religous dogma is blasphmeous and ridiculous and has absolutely nothing to do with the philosophical subject of "god" (intelligent creating force/metaphysics)
-
you need to read the works of Isaac Asimov...what you speak of is called Gaia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_and_Earth
looked into it. what im talking about is something very very different.
-
religion is a necessary invention as a it serves several purposes
1. To explain things that we did not have answers to.
- When we die where we do go?
- What is above the clouds
- what is night and day
- why should enslave or treat others wrongly (god didn't choose them)
2. To control the masses.
- If you work hard in this life time and serve your superiors you will be rewarded in the next life time.
- God is watching you, so do "good"
- Follow the laws, god said that you should.
people with knowledge created religion as a tool. But somewhere it became too much to control.
it is important to disassociate religion from "God" and spirituality. while religion was probably created for reasons concerning power and control, belief in spirit and god were around long before such institutions.
people with "knowledge"? name one single piece of knowledge.
-
would you be so kind as to provide me with a single piece of evidence that points at there not being a god.
Evidence of absence .
-
Evidence of absence .
where?
-
where?
Absence of evidence
-
Absence of Malice
Paul Newman. Great actor.
-
Paul Newman. Great actor.
Beautiful man
(http://www.valleyoflife.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/paul_newman.jpg)
-
where?
there is no evidence (up to this point) that points to the existence of god. And don't give us Descartes "I exist therefor god must exist" ::)
-
Beautiful man
(http://www.valleyoflife.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/paul_newman.jpg)
Yes, very handsome. His wife was/is quite beautiful.
-
GOD = DOG
It is fitting, is it not, that the one animal that loves mankind with such an unconditional nature would be the dog? Without the domestication of the dog, early man would have been a lot worse off.
Perhaps that is why "dog" spelled backwards is "god". I think that it is quite the honor for our four legged friends.
;D
-
It is about proof of god.
Proof is a strong word... Is it a proof based solely on logic and without any fallacies or unproven assertions or assumptions?
His quest to find the true religion comes AFTER his incident in the hospital(the part i asked you to watch). He becomes Muslim after searching and researching, he discribes that in the second part...hence why i said skip to 3:05 -13:50, the part about his daughters heart problem...He dosent even talk about his becoming Muslim until much later...
Ahh... So something bad happens, and during that "bad" period he decides that he needs to search for and find a deeper meaning to life, the "something more" that will maybe provide him with a broader context. You will forgive me if I say that he was never an atheist; he merely convinced himself he was one.
I very much doubt that his proof is based on logic an would bet money that it contains at least an appeal to emotion.
No ones forcing you to watch the video, I just wondered how an atheist will explain what happens in the video @ 3:05-13:50...
Of course nobody is forcing me. My question was why I should bother to watch it. It's conceivable (unlikely but conceivable) that his monumental proof of god is rational and undeniable, but the chances of that are "almost exactly" nil.
With that in mind I will be frank: given the odds, watching it simply doesn't seem like a good investment of time on my part.
-
because newton and descartes and socrates and others were unintelligent. ;D
Hehe, of course not, but all these men lived in a time where they had to publicly accept religion or face the consequences. Newtons religious ramblings and alchemy were not exactly the high points of his career.
It's a strange phenomenon that the "a priori" assumption should be : these is a "god". You also subscribe to that notion when you ask for proof of there NOT being a "god". "Proof" is needed for positive statements about reality, but inductive proof is not really proof of anything..., or proof is needed for falsification (according to Popper), but that requires that what should be falsified is portrayed in a way that makes falsification possible. How does that relate to your idea of "god"?
Another point: one should distinguish between the concept of a personal "god" and the belief in some more abstract higher principle or power. Very few of todays nobel prize winners subscribe to the idea of a personal god, as portrayed in christianity.
NN
-
power?
just wondering if theyve ever considerd macro-entities
power is irrelevant in the eyes of time
we're all worm meat
-
Atheists, by definition, believe there is no higher power. So they do have a belief system.
Agnostics choose to believe that mankind does not possess the ability to prove or disprove the presence of a higher power. They believe there may (or may not) be something out there, but until there's proof, they'll just sit on the fence.
Theists believe in a higher power.
I guess, if you don't like being proven wrong and you want the safest row to hoe, then be an agnostic. You don't have to believe in (or disbelieve in) the presence of a higher power. Just say "I don't think we have all the facts to prove or disprove it". It's a very PC approach to deities, and is an oft used belief system by scientists and rational thinkers.
To be a theist or atheist, you have to be pretty sure of yourself and committed that you know a truth. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't go around waving a flag selling your belief system (I would say agnostics waving their "belief" system flags are as obnoxious as staunch theists and atheists).
The safest belief system is one you can hold as your own. And when you do find it, do us all a favor and shut the hell up about it. No one cares to hear another person's feckless meanderings on the topic of faith, beliefs, and religions. That is, if we don't count the weak-minded slack-jawed mouth-breathers of society who are easily taken in by the hucksterish behavior of faith peddlers (be it theism, atheism, or agnosticism).
Just be your own person, find your own belief system, and keep it to yourself. You'll find out soon enough if you were right, when you're dead. If you're a theist, and you're right, then you can praise Jesus/Allah/Vishnu/Other for eternity. If you're an atheist and you're right, then you won't know you're right, because you're dead and you won't even know you're dead....you'll just be dead. If you're agnostic and you're right, then you get to find an answer who/what this power is (and if there isn't, you'll never know, because you'll be dead, and therefore, won't be able to know anything, because you're dead).
-
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I fucking love that quote. It is utter truth.
-
Atheists, by definition, believe there is no higher power. So they do have a belief system.
That depends on what you mean by belief system, but generally speaking it's a mockery of language and logic to claim that the absence of belief is, itself, a belief; it's like claiming that the absence of hair is, itself, hair.
To be a theist or atheist, you have to be pretty sure of yourself and committed that you know a truth. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't go around waving a flag selling your belief system (I would say agnostics waving their "belief" system flags are as obnoxious as staunch theists and atheists).
Nonsense. To be an atheist all one needs to say is that "the entity you describe as god is logically inconsistent and not rationally possible." It requires no belief. Just logical deductions.
-
That depends on what you mean by belief system, but generally speaking it's a mockery of language and logic to claim that the absence of belief is, itself, a belief; it's like claiming that the absence of hair is, itself, hair.
Nonsense. To be an atheist all one needs to say is that "the entity you describe as god is logically inconsistent and not rationally possible." It requires no belief. Just logical deductions.
Atheists aren't absent of belief. Rather, they choose to believe that there cannot be a god/higher power, because the belief in such a higher power is inconsistent with what they perceive to be the facts of the situation they're faced with. But an atheist cannot prove that god does not exist. He simply chooses to believe that god does not exist, because he has seen no rational proof to the contrary. It is, thus, a belief system. I'm quite sure that, were god to show himself with conclusive proof to the world to the satisfaction of the scientific method (to atheists and theists alike), then atheists would become theists, since they believe in the rationality of what can be proven using the scientific method.
Of course, it's easier to use the scientific method to prove god does not exist than it is to prove he does exist. But as an atheist, I choose to believe that the things we cannot explain will be eventually explained using the scientific method. Theists believe this is where god steps in.
But let's be rational here: there is no proof that god does not exist, just as there is no proof he does exist. There is simply a lack of proof to satisfy the atheist that he does exist and all testing methods we know of today do not produce a god. So the atheist believes in the strength of the scientific method to prove his theories correct/incorrect. But is still a belief system - the belief in the infallibility of the scientific method to prove/disprove theories. There's nothing wrong or weak about a belief system...perhaps that's where my language hasn't been clear?
By the way, I'm an atheist. But I also recognize the holes in atheism, as most atheists eventually or already do. Atheism cannot conclusively be proven to be correct, because we have no certainty that all forms of scientific testing have been applied, that all forms of logical thinking have been exhausted...we only know what we've done and what we believe we know how to do. We don't know everything. But I refuse to believe in something magical just because I don't know everything yet. We'll figure it all out, and when we do, I believe we'll find that there is no god. Just random chance, the mystics of quantum mechanics and atomic theory, and a strange universe that does not always behave as we on earth think it should, when we get to the outer or inner reaches of it. And that's where our theories will break down, and we'll need new ones. And that's why I find brash atheists to be myopic...their staunch belief that it's impossible. They are as fundamentalist as hardline theists in their beliefs...unwilling to question their own belief systems. And that's just what they are. But we can argue over the semantics of linguistics all night here...
If there's a god, he gave me this ability to think this way, as christians would have me believe he created me in his image and gave me free will. I deny his existence until he proves it to me, in which case, I'm happy to recognize him. But I won't believe in a god just because some book, and some men, say I should. That sounds ludicrous. I'll choose not to believe in a god, because my brain believes what has been proven using the scientific method, and so far, no dice on the whole god thing. I will never be sure in my lifetime on this earth, but that's what I know and believe right now.
-
Atheists aren't absent of belief. Rather, they choose to believe that there cannot be a god/higher power, because the belief in such a higher power is inconsistent with what they perceive to be the facts of the situation they're faced with. But an atheist cannot prove that god does not exist. He simply chooses to believe that god does not exist, because he has seen no rational proof to the contrary. It is, thus, a belief system. I'm quite sure that, were god to show himself with conclusive proof to the world to the satisfaction of the scientific method (to atheists and theists alike), then atheists would become theists, since they believe in the rationality of what can be proven using the scientific method.
You are confused. Why would atheists be responsible for disproving the existence of an entity that others believe in? That's just ludicrous.
Saying "the entity that you describe as your god is inconsistent with the facts of reality and therefore cannot exist" involves no belief.
Of course, it's easier to use the scientific method to prove god does not exist than it is to prove he does exist. But as an atheist, I choose to believe that the things we cannot explain will be eventually explained using the scientific method. Theists believe this is where god steps in.
It's easier to prove something doesn't exist versus proving it exists? Really? Challenge accepted. Please prove to me that a talking link unicorn doesn't exist.
But let's be rational here:
Yes. Let's.
there is no proof that god does not exist, just as there is no proof he does exist.
So... Let me get this straight, you consider the statements "I can't prove potatoes that talk exist" and "I can't prove potatoes that talk don't exist" to be equivalent and equally strong? And here I thought you wanted to be rational!
There is simply a lack of proof to satisfy the atheist that he does exist and all testing methods we know of today do not produce a god. So the atheist believes in the strength of the scientific method to prove his theories correct/incorrect. But is still a belief system - the belief in the infallibility of the scientific method to prove/disprove theories. There's nothing wrong or weak about a belief system...perhaps that's where my language hasn't been clear?
No. No belief is required.
By the way, I'm an atheist. But I also recognize the holes in atheism, as most atheists eventually or already do.
Far be it from me to tell you what you are or aren't. But it seems to me that your idea about what atheism is, philosophically, is flawed.
Atheism cannot conclusively be proven to be correct
But there's nothing to prove...
-
You are confused. Why would atheists be responsible for disproving the existence of an entity that others believe in? That's just ludicrous.
Saying "the entity that you describe as your god is inconsistent with the facts of reality and therefore cannot exist" involves no belief.
It's easier to prove something doesn't exist versus proving it exists? Really? Challenge accepted. Please prove to me that a talking link unicorn doesn't exist.
Yes. Let's.
So... Let me get this straight, you consider the statements "I can't prove potatoes that talk exist" and "I can't prove potatoes that talk don't exist" to be equivalent and equally strong? And here I thought you wanted to be rational!
No. No belief is required.
Far be it from me to tell you what you are or aren't. But it seems to me that your idea about what atheism is, philosophically, is flawed.
But there's nothing to prove...
You know what I just discovered? I strongly detest interacting with you on the internet. You're argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, what with your perjorative, pedantic and pedestrian arguments. And your examples lack logic, so much so in fact, that I simply don't care to get into it with you.
I should have known posting in a religious thread was going to be the ruin of me, and I'd have to suffer fools. Shame on me.
So, in summation, kindly fuck off and bother someone else.
-
You know what I just discovered? I strongly detest interacting with you on the internet. You're argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, what with your perjorative, pedantic and pedestrian arguments. And your examples lack logic, so much so in fact, that I simply don't care to get into it with you.
I should have known posting in a religious thread was going to be the ruin of me, and I'd have to suffer fools. Shame on me.
So, in summation, kindly fuck off and bother someone else.
Yikes. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the the bed.
Take care.
P.S.: I know what you mean about posting in religious threads...
-
Atheists aren't absent of belief. Rather, they choose to believe that there cannot be a god/higher power, because the belief in such a higher power is inconsistent with what they perceive to be the facts of the situation they're faced with. But an atheist cannot prove that god does not exist. He simply chooses to believe that god does not exist, because he has seen no rational proof to the contrary. It is, thus, a belief system. I'm quite sure that, were god to show himself with conclusive proof to the world to the satisfaction of the scientific method (to atheists and theists alike), then atheists would become theists, since they believe in the rationality of what can be proven using the scientific method.
Of course, it's easier to use the scientific method to prove god does not exist than it is to prove he does exist. But as an atheist, I choose to believe that the things we cannot explain will be eventually explained using the scientific method. Theists believe this is where god steps in.
But let's be rational here: there is no proof that god does not exist, just as there is no proof he does exist. There is simply a lack of proof to satisfy the atheist that he does exist and all testing methods we know of today do not produce a god. So the atheist believes in the strength of the scientific method to prove his theories correct/incorrect. But is still a belief system - the belief in the infallibility of the scientific method to prove/disprove theories. There's nothing wrong or weak about a belief system...perhaps that's where my language hasn't been clear?
By the way, I'm an atheist. But I also recognize the holes in atheism, as most atheists eventually or already do. Atheism cannot conclusively be proven to be correct, because we have no certainty that all forms of scientific testing have been applied, that all forms of logical thinking have been exhausted...we only know what we've done and what we believe we know how to do. We don't know everything. But I refuse to believe in something magical just because I don't know everything yet. We'll figure it all out, and when we do, I believe we'll find that there is no god. Just random chance, the mystics of quantum mechanics and atomic theory, and a strange universe that does not always behave as we on earth think it should, when we get to the outer or inner reaches of it. And that's where our theories will break down, and we'll need new ones. And that's why I find brash atheists to be myopic...their staunch belief that it's impossible. They are as fundamentalist as hardline theists in their beliefs...unwilling to question their own belief systems. And that's just what they are. But we can argue over the semantics of linguistics all night here...
If there's a god, he gave me this ability to think this way, as christians would have me believe he created me in his image and gave me free will. I deny his existence until he proves it to me, in which case, I'm happy to recognize him. But I won't believe in a god just because some book, and some men, say I should. That sounds ludicrous. I'll choose not to believe in a god, because my brain believes what has been proven using the scientific method, and so far, no dice on the whole god thing. I will never be sure in my lifetime on this earth, but that's what I know and believe right now.
This is the most unbiased, honest, rational and "void of any agenda post" I have ever read.
You know what I just discovered? I strongly detest interacting with you on the internet. You're argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, what with your perjorative, pedantic and pedestrian arguments. And your examples lack logic, so much so in fact, that I simply don't care to get into it with you.
I should have known posting in a religious thread was going to be the ruin of me, and I'd have to suffer fools. Shame on me.
So, in summation, kindly fuck off and bother someone else.
OUCH, sorry avxo but he just gave you an owning of V-board proportions, lol.. and I thought it would be someone who believes in God that would set you straight, NOPE I was wrong. :-\ ;D ;)
-
You know what I just discovered? I strongly detest interacting with you on the internet. You're argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, what with your perjorative, pedantic and pedestrian arguments. And your examples lack logic, so much so in fact, that I simply don't care to get into it with you.
I should have known posting in a religious thread was going to be the ruin of me, and I'd have to suffer fools. Shame on me.
So, in summation, kindly fuck off and bother someone else.
LOL
-
Hehe, of course not, but all these men lived in a time where they had to publicly accept religion or face the consequences. Newtons religious ramblings and alchemy were not exactly the high points of his career.
It's a strange phenomenon that the "a priori" assumption should be : these is a "god". You also subscribe to that notion when you ask for proof of there NOT being a "god". "Proof" is needed for positive statements about reality, but inductive proof is not really proof of anything..., or proof is needed for falsification (according to Popper), but that requires that what should be falsified is portrayed in a way that makes falsification possible. How does that relate to your idea of "god"?
Another point: one should distinguish between the concept of a personal "god" and the belief in some more abstract higher principle or power. Very few of todays nobel prize winners subscribe to the idea of a personal god, as portrayed in christianity.
NN
my belief in a high probability of a creator is not a priori. although born to believers and raised being brought to church, I can remember being a toddler and thinking how "stupid" belief in god was and that religion was obviously just a place for those fearful of death to hide.
I came to thinking a creator exists after reading Descartes' "Meditations" and after being exposed to the cosmological argument in a philosophy class. nothing a priori about that.
as for making a distinction between a personal god and an abstract higher power, I don't see why they are mutually exclusive :)
-
Saying "the entity that you describe as your god is inconsistent with the facts of reality and therefore cannot exist" involves no belief.
what about the idea of a god is inconsistent with which facts about reality?
-
Yikes. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the the bed.
Take care.
P.S.: I know what you mean about posting in religious threads...
You're right. That was harsh. I think I just got a test rage there. Apologies for being a douche. I can recognize when I'm being a prick and will own up to my bullshit. Still, no more religion/deity talk for me. I think I'll leave that up to the experts, lest I become what I detest (a guy who talks incessantly about religion and god, or lack thereof, or whatever in between).
Peace.
-
This is the most unbiased, honest, rational and "void of any agenda post" I have ever read.
You must not have read many rational and unbiased posts. Granted, on the Internet they are hard to come by. With that said, I don't think the post that I responded to was horrible. We simply have a disagreement about details - or at least that's how I see it.
OUCH, sorry avxo but he just gave you an owning of V-board proportions, lol.. and I thought it would be someone who believes in God that would set you straight, NOPE I was wrong. :-\ ;D ;)
*shrugs* I personally, don't see the "ownage" there, but hey, if it makes you happy then just keep seeing it my friend. :)
You're right. That was harsh. I think I just got a test rage there. Apologies for being a douche. I can recognize when I'm being a prick and will own up to my bullshit. Still, no more religion/deity talk for me. I think I'll leave that up to the experts, lest I become what I detest (a guy who talks incessantly about religion and god, or lack thereof, or whatever in between).
Peace.
No worries - I don't get easily offended. In fact, I just don't get offended, period. Threads about religion and politics can get heated fast and even the coolest of heads will reach temperatures way past "BOIL".
P.S.: This is getbig... you don't tell people to "kindly fuck off". You tell them to "FUCK OFF OR I WILL USE YOUR SKULL AS A SPITTOON AND YOUR RIBS AS TOOTHPICKS" followed by a stream of expletives and insults about one's parentage. Get with the program ;)
-
my belief in a high probability of a creator is not a priori. although born to believers and raised being brought to church, I can remember being a toddler and thinking how "stupid" belief in god was and that religion was obviously just a place for those fearful of death to hide.
I came to thinking a creator exists after reading Descartes' "Meditations" and after being exposed to the cosmological argument in a philosophy class. nothing a priori about that.
as for making a distinction between a personal god and an abstract higher power, I don't see why they are mutually exclusive :)
That is interesting, I only know one person who became a christian by "the intellectual route". Most people I know who are christian, grew up in a christian home and the religion is more of an emotional bond, not an intellectual issue.
Personally, I never really understood the cosmological argument, as one can just as well say that the cosmos is eternal as one can say that "God" is eternal. But if I ever were to become religious, I guess that the two would pretty much be one and the same. I kinda like pantheism/monism :-).
NN
-
You must not have read many rational and unbiased posts. Granted, on the Internet they are hard to come by. With that said, I don't think the post that I responded to was horrible. We simply have a disagreement about details - or at least that's how I see it.
*shrugs* I personally, don't see the "ownage" there, but hey, if it makes you happy then just keep seeing it my friend. :)
No worries - I don't get easily offended. In fact, I just don't get offended, period. Threads about religion and politics can get heated fast and even the coolest of heads will reach temperatures way past "BOIL".
P.S.: This is getbig... you don't tell people to "kindly fuck off". You tell them to "FUCK OFF OR I WILL USE YOUR SKULL AS A SPITTOON AND YOUR RIBS AS TOOTHPICKS" followed by a stream of expletives and insults about one's parentage. Get with the program ;)
You are not being very honest with yourself believing that your response to people who believe in God is not biased. The very fact that you do not agree with another atheist that you can not disprove God 's existence is extremely naive and biased, not to mention silly.
-
You are not being very honest with yourself believing that your response to people who believe in God is not biased. The very fact that you do not agree with another atheist that you can not disprove God 's existence is extremely naive and biased, not to mention silly.
The fact that I do not agree with another atheist only proves one thing: that different people have different reasons for being atheists. Unlike a religion, which usually has a rigid belief system, atheism has no such system.
To use a broad brush, atheists can be divided into two groups: those who adopt the position that the existence of certain gods is impossible (e.g. the Christian God, or Allah, or Thor) and those who adopt the position that "deities" are impossible.
I suspect that snx is in the former group and I am in the latter, but he can speak for himself if he's so inclined. Also please note that the core of our disagreement seems to be about whether science and logic require faith; he claims they do, I claim they don't.
As for your "biased" comment, I guess it depends on what you mean. I do not believe in your God. If fact, I claim he doesn't exist and, based on what I know, could not exist. That doesn't make me biased. I'm open to being convinced otherwise if new facts merit a reconsideration.
You can argue, of course, that anyone who holds a position is biased, but that definition would result in everyone being biased, which makes it useless.
As for disproving God's existence, I don't have to. If you assert God exists, the onus is on you to prove it. Proving a negative is, in the general case, impossible. Let's assume that we both agree that a certain thing does not exist. Can you prove it doesn't exist? Arguments based on logic aside, you can maybe prove it doesn't exist in your house, or maybe even an entire city, but you can't prove it doesn't exist.
-
Your own words contradict themselves. see you say you know "that my God does not exist" then you say if something valid comes along you may reconsider. If you admit a possibility, even if it is only 0.0000000000001 % then that means you could NOT know to begin with. Because to know is to be 100% certain. That is why I think you are not being honest and are biased cause you claim to know something when in reality that something you claim to know is not possible for you to know. My English may suck but you know what I mean ;)
-
...
To use a broad brush, atheists can be divided into two groups: those who adopt the position that the existence of certain gods is impossible (e.g. the Christian God, or Allah, or Thor) and those who adopt the position that "deities" are impossible.
No. I am an atheist but I fully accept the possibility of gods. The christian god is perhaps problematic, especially the problem of evil, omnipotence and omniscience.
I simply don't believe in any gods. But I will believe if shown positive evidence that I can reproduce.
NN
-
No. I am an atheist but I fully accept the possibility of gods. The christian god is perhaps problematic, especially the problem of evil, omnipotence and omniscience.
I simply don't believe in any gods. But I will believe if shown positive evidence that I can reproduce.
NN
Another honest atheist, wow this thread is bringing out all the good guys. See avxo this is an honest, unbiased answer, unlike yours that reek of "agenda"
-
No. I am an atheist but I fully accept the possibility of gods. The christian god is perhaps problematic, especially the problem of evil, omnipotence and omniscience.
I simply don't believe in any gods. But I will believe if shown positive evidence that I can reproduce.
NN
I'm in the same boat. I don't believe any gods we have names for exist. I believe they are man made inventions. That "something" may exist that created everything...I don't believe it at the moment, but certainly haven't closed the door to it. IF it does exist, I have no reason to believe it is anything like we imagine it is..
-
I'm in the same boat. I don't believe any gods we have names for exist. I believe they are man made inventions. That "something" may exist that created everything...I don't believe it at the moment, but certainly haven't closed the door to it. IF it does exist, I have no reason to believe it is anything like we imagine it is..
another unbiased answer, thank you sir for your hnestly and lack of any agenda.
So avxo what's going on here?
-
That is interesting, I only know one person who became a christian by "the intellectual route". Most people I know who are christian, grew up in a christian home and the religion is more of an emotional bond, not an intellectual issue.
Personally, I never really understood the cosmological argument, as one can just as well say that the cosmos is eternal as one can say that "God" is eternal. But if I ever were to become religious, I guess that the two would pretty much be one and the same. I kinda like pantheism/monism :-).
NN
i am not christian. i consider pantheism to be theism. the cosmological argument hinges upon a belief in causality.
-
Beautiful man
(http://www.valleyoflife.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/paul_newman.jpg)
"STFU you stupid bitch FAGGOT no one cares."
-
i am not christian. i consider pantheism to be theism. the cosmological argument hinges upon a belief in causality.
woah, I thought you were...
-
another unbiased answer, thank you sir for your hnestly and lack of any agenda.
So avxo what's going on here?
Why would you think anything is going on? First of all, as I said, atheism, unlike religion, doesn't involve dogma and a fixed set of beliefs that people must ascribe to: different people have different positions; the only common position is that none of us believe in deities.
Secondly, there are some atheists, who are open to the possibility of a deity (although I think that a more accurate description for them would be agnostics); I am not one of those. I will gladly explain why (for the hundredth time):
All present descriptions of deities (that I am aware of) are either logically inconsistent or so vague as to be worthless (e.g. "god is love"). I dismiss such deities outright: what is logically inconsistent cannot exist and what cannot be described cannot be distinguished from what doesn't exist. Additionally, what I am asserting is that any description of a being that qualifies as a deity (under the most common use of the term) must either be logically inconsistent or vague or, alternatively, involve the supernatural, i.e. placing the entity being defined outside the realm of nature.
Some other atheists may think that the assertion that I am making may be unwarranted, and although I believe that they are wrong from a logical standpoint of view, I am not particularly concerned by their opinion.
So with that said, you may consider this position to be biased. That's your prerogative. Regardless of what you (and others) think, it is my position and it is one that I arrived at after a lot of careful and deliberate thought. I am uninterested in forcing others to accept it on my say so. Instead, I think that people should examine the evidence and use their rational faculty to reach their own decisions. In the process, they may reach a decision that differs from my own, and that's fine.
In other endeavors, I would say that reality would be the ultimate judge. After all, if your rational faculty tells you that you can walk on water and mine says you can't, then reality will be the final arbiter, and we'll know which one of us was right when you sink all the way to your neck.
Alas in this case, we won't know which one of us is right - although that's something that you will certainly dispute.
-
``what is logically inconsistent cannot exist and what cannot be described cannot be distinguished from what doesn't exist. Additionally, what I am asserting is that any description of a being that qualifies as a deity (under the most common use of the term) must either be logically inconsistent or vague or, alternatively, involve the supernatural, i.e. placing the entity being defined outside the realm of nature. ``
OK so answer this; what is so logically consistent of ``everything in existence``(space, time and matter) not having a beginning?
-
``what is logically inconsistent cannot exist and what cannot be described cannot be distinguished from what doesn't exist. Additionally, what I am asserting is that any description of a being that qualifies as a deity (under the most common use of the term) must either be logically inconsistent or vague or, alternatively, involve the supernatural, i.e. placing the entity being defined outside the realm of nature. ``
OK so answer this; what is so logically consistent of ``everything in existence``(space, time and matter) not having a beginning?
"Beginning" and "end" as you are using them in that context are notions tied to temporal or spatial relations which are intrinsic properties of the Universe. The notions of "time" or "space" are (for the time being at least) devoid of meaning outside of the Universe.
I know you find this a difficult concept to accept (or understand), but in a very real sense and if our understanding of the Universe is accurate, time had a beginning and it will, at some point, have an end. There is no "before tbeginning" and no "after tend" anymore than there is a starting point in a circle or a boundary in a Klein bottle.
There are many questions whose answers seem counterintuitive and illogical but which are perfectly logical. For a perfect example take a look at Cantor's diagonal argument, and the notion of cardinality and countable versus uncountable infinities.
-
I don't class myself an athiest. I believe in a higher force/power/beings etc.... that created all of this nonsense we call a universe. Everything just works too perfectly, and is too complex, to have "just happened". The bible and "commercial religions" are full of shit.
I have been leaning towards this idea for awhile now... It is funny 16 years of Catholic School has pushed me AWAY from organized religion after seeing how much bs and corruption it is.. plus a lot of tall tales and hypocrites
-
Beautiful man
(http://www.valleyoflife.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/paul_newman.jpg)
agreed.
and here's another hot jew Mr. Michael T. Weiss :P
-
There's no meaning to anything, complete random chaos.
We're just animals living on the instinct to reproduce and survive. That is it. Anything else is a way to justify these two instinctual urges.
'Morality' is relative and created by us humans according to culture.
If children where brought up that killing people and eating their hearts to go to heaven was good, for them it would be 'good'.
The moment you realise you are just an animal, you are able to understand yourself better, try and focus on your gut instincts and understand what makes others tick.
-
"Beginning" and "end" as you are using them in that context are notions tied to temporal or spatial relations which are intrinsic properties of the Universe. The notions of "time" or "space" are (for the time being at least) devoid of meaning outside of the Universe.
I know you find this a difficult concept to accept (or understand), but in a very real sense and if our understanding of the Universe is accurate, time had a beginning and it will, at some point, have an end. There is no "before tbeginning" and no "after tend" anymore than there is a starting point in a circle or a boundary in a Klein bottle.
There are many questions whose answers seem counterintuitive and illogical but which are perfectly logical. For a perfect example take a look at Cantor's diagonal argument, and the notion of cardinality and countable versus uncountable infinities.
This is why I laugh at you because you some how think that this shit your saying above is logical. Time had a beginning and you can not ask what was before ??? ???, WTF does that explain, FUCK ALL, we still are left with no answers and a big dilemma here. Nothing logical about that scenario, think about for a second, common sense.
-
...
All present descriptions of deities (that I am aware of) are either logically inconsistent or so vague as to be worthless (e.g. "god is love"). I dismiss such deities outright: what is logically inconsistent cannot exist and what cannot be described cannot be distinguished from what doesn't exist. Additionally, what I am asserting is that any description of a being that qualifies as a deity (under the most common use of the term) must either be logically inconsistent or vague or, alternatively, involve the supernatural, i.e. placing the entity being defined outside the realm of nature. ..
You know, I have tried to find out what agnosticism really means, and I think the term is misunderstood. What you are writing above, is perhaps closer to the concept of agnosticism than to atheism.
Huxley, in creating the term "agnosticism", has been interpreted as meaning to say that he was "open" to the idea of a god. Many agnosticists embrace agnosticism as a way to not come across as dogmatically rejecting religion. However, agnosticism as Huxley conveived it, can be interpreted as meaning that deities are "unknowable". A radical interpretation of this, is that statements about deities are meaningless, as they are "unknowable".
This perhaps corresponds to what you call "supernatural"? But you also say that ideas of deities may be logical inconsistent. I think this is true if you try to make sense of for instance literal interpretation of the Bible. Such a deity is in my view logically inconsistent.
NN
-
"Proof" is needed for positive statements about reality, but inductive proof is not really proof of anything..., or proof is needed for falsification (according to Popper), but that requires that what should be falsified is portrayed in a way that makes falsification possible. How does that relate to your idea of "god"?
NN
Is it really the case that proof is needed for "positive statements about the world"? This seems like a stipulation that needs justifying, especially since it would seem to prevent all manner of inquiry (primarily, scientific inquiry) which relies on less than proof. That is, the statements (sentences with truth values) most inquiries churn out have a probability associated with their being true but are not proof-amenable. We're never certain about any of it the way we are with proof-amenable statements derived from, say, logic.
Is this claim from Popper (I haven't read him yet)?
-
This is why I laugh at you because you some how think that this shit your saying above is logical. Time had a beginning and you can not ask what was before ??? ???, WTF does that explain, FUCK ALL, we still are left with no answers and a big dilemma here. Nothing logical about that scenario, think about for a second, common sense.
You cannot ask using the framework of logic and the laws and properties of the Universe such as temporal causality.
You are more than welcome to seek supernatural explanations, if you think those are important questions that can and should be answered but you should not seek to give those supernatural answers a status equal to the answers provided by logic and science which operate on the natural plane and don't concern themselves with the supernatural.
Whether you find this rational or not is your business. Whether it is rational is a whole 'nother question.
I will also point out one thing: you say that with my "answer" to this, we're still left with no answers and a big dilemma. That may be so, but ask yourself, what does your "answer", such as it is, leave you with? You merely push those questions one level further away by saying "Goddidit".
Answer two simple questions for me: (a) why does the universe require a creator but your God does not? (b) how do you know this?
-
It can be said that an Atheist is an individual that thinks their existence, their very life if you will, is nothing more than mere chance. An "accident" of nature or the universe. But a person that believes in God more often than not, thinks that while they were created by the Lord the are somehow guilty of life itself. Hence the terms, "original sin", "Catholic guilt" or "Jewish guilt".
Muslims are currently guilty of a great many crimes against humanity, none of which the perpetrators seem to feel guilty for. Why? Because like any nutcase they think "God" or in their case "Allah" told them to do it. Muhammad taught them evil and men are prone to evil especially when they can falsely justify it by saying that some deity wills it so.
Jesus taught us otherwise. To deny that is to deny the truth.
I have no problem with Atheists in general, so long as the do not make a habit of forcing their lack of faith down my throat (a turn of events there, eh my Atheist friends!). ;D The ones I know are well aware of my beliefs and that if asked I would discuss it with them. I have found that if you define everything, and I mean everything in your life by your faith or lack thereof then it is a certainty that you will miss out on a great many chances to demonstrate that what you are is more than that.
This thought may well escape the likes of tbombz as it deals neither with putrid self portraits by him in a filthy, poorly lit subway bathroom nor with having a giant penis inserted into his bum.
-
Atheists, by definition, believe there is no higher power. So they do have a belief system.
Presumably everyone has a belief system, so your statement that atheists have one too isn't particularly interesting. If you mean that they have a particular belief the possession of which makes them atheist 'by definition', well, we can stipulate as much if you like (in fact, that does seem to be the commonly accepted meaning of the term), but nothing much hinges upon our doing so.
Fretting over whether that's the case or not would be like arguing about whether submarines swim or not -- a clash over the way words are used rather than about some substantive issue about the way the world is.
-
Is it really the case that proof is needed for "positive statements about the world"? This seems like a stipulation that needs justifying, especially since it would seem to prevent all manner of inquiry (primarily, scientific inquiry) which relies on less than proof. That is, the statements (sentences with truth values) most inquiries churn out have a probability associated with their being true but are not proof-amenable. We're never certain about any of it the way we are with proof-amenable statements derived from, say, logic.
Is this claim from Popper (I haven't read him yet)?
Sorry, not proof, but rather positive "evidence"/observations etc that can be reasonably interpreted as fitting with some coherent system. The empiricists showed us how inductive evidence never can be "proof", but Popper tried to amend that by introducing the requirement of falsifiability for a statement to belong to the scientific discourse. Hence, we accept induction if it leads to falsifiable hypotheses.
NN
-
You cannot ask using the framework of logic and the laws and properties of the Universe such as temporal causality.
You are more than welcome to seek supernatural explanations, if you think those are important questions that can and should be answered but you should not seek to give those supernatural answers a status equal to the answers provided by logic and science which operate on the natural plane and don't concern themselves with the supernatural.
Whether you find this rational or not is your business. Whether it is rational is a whole 'nother question.
I will also point out one thing: you say that with my "answer" to this, we're still left with no answers and a big dilemma. That may be so, but ask yourself, what does your "answer", such as it is, leave you with? You merely push those questions one level further away by saying "Goddidit".
Answer two simple questions for me: (a) why does the universe require a creator but your God does not? (b) how do you know this?
Thank you, finally getting through to you. You see if you go back to all my posts ever, I never ever held the position of my answer being any better then yours, mine still leaves me with the `dilema`(for lack of a better term) that I accused your position leaves you with. The only difference is you like to sweep it under the rug and pretend you have the final answer when you and me both know that answers you can come up with simply pushes those questions one step further as you pointed out that saying `God`does the same thing.
So here is my point and this has been my only point and nothing more; To finally put a concrete answer to to those questions we are describing as you said;
You are more than welcome to seek supernatural explanations, if you think those are important questions that can and should be answered
There is no way around it, a supernatural way is the only remaining option to fully solving this puzzle. Or I can be like you `Time has a beginning but it`s like a circle`OK Einstein ::)
-
The idea that time is circular is an intriguing one. I don't personally think its the case however.
-
So here is my point and this has been my only point and nothing more; To finally put a concrete answer to to those questions we are describing as you said;
You are more than welcome to seek supernatural explanations, if you think those are important questions that can and should be answered
You are - but don't pretend that your answers are anything more than mystical hocus pocus, or that they are, in any way, different from what the "medium" reading palms and tea-leaves or using ouija boards employs.
There is no way around it, a supernatural way is the only remaining option to fully solving this puzzle. Or I can be like you `Time has a beginning but it`s like a circle`OK Einstein ::)
I never said that time is like a circle. You can twist my words if it makes you feel better, but my position is infinitely more honest than yours: I say "I can't answer that question." You say: "Magical mystical insight!" and when challenged, your answer, ultimately boils down to: "Well, uhm. Nobody can answer that except the magical, mystical being I posit exists because of some magical, mystical knowledge I received in some unknownable way."
Time is a dimension of the Universe, and provides a way to order temporal events and define causality. No universe, no time. Terms like "before" and "after" become meaningless outside of the frame of reference in which "before" and "after" can be used to order events.
I understand you may find this to be a difficult concept, but your difficulty doesn't make the concept any less valid.
-
No-one knows the answers.
We can all only speculate and guess.
To say otherwise and with some kind of absolute authority on what the 'truth' is, is completely ridiculous and extremely arrogant of us specks of humans in this universe of trillions of stars and perhaps even a multiverse of who can even guess what kind of existence out there beyond our own.
-
You are - but don't pretend that your answers are anything more than mystical hocus pocus, or that they are, in any way, different from what the "medium" reading palms and tea-leaves or using ouija boards employs.
I never said that time is like a circle. You can twist my words if it makes you feel better, but my position is infinitely more honest than yours: I say "I can't answer that question." You say: "Magical mystical insight!" and when challenged, your answer, ultimately boils down to: "Well, uhm. Nobody can answer that except the magical, mystical being I posit exists because of some magical, mystical knowledge I received in some unknownable way."
Time is a dimension of the Universe, and provides a way to order temporal events and define causality. No universe, no time. Terms like "before" and "after" become meaningless outside of the frame of reference in which "before" and "after" can be used to order events.
I understand you may find this to be a difficult concept, but your difficulty doesn't make the concept any less valid.
What part do you not understand. You have repeated this a million times, why would you, I never disagreed with this ever. You keep pointing this out like it is an answer and it is not any answer and does not solve shit by saying something so logical. Who the fuck doesn`t know what you just wrote, a 2 year old knows this shit.wow you feel smart. Stop repeating the obvious.... wooooooooosh
Now back to square one we need an answer still and you can not provide one. So this is where your journey ends and since you can not go any further that means you do not know if there is a GOd or there is not, siple as that.
-
No-one knows the answers.
We can all only speculate and guess.
To say otherwise and with some kind of absolute authority on what the 'truth' is, is completely ridiculous and extremely arrogant of us specks of humans in this universe of trillions of stars and perhaps even a multiverse of who can even guess what kind of existence out there beyond our own.
Thank you sir, I agree. I have been debating avxo for months and all my whole goal was this whole time is for him to write what you just wrote, that`s it nothing more, that is all I want him to admit but his agenda or biased thoughts do not allow him to write what you just wrote he is to close minded.
-
Sorry, not proof, but rather positive "evidence"/observations etc that can be reasonably interpreted as fitting with some coherent system. The empiricists showed us how inductive evidence never can be "proof", but Popper tried to amend that by introducing the requirement of falsifiability for a statement to belong to the scientific discourse. Hence, we accept induction if it leads to falsifiable hypotheses.
NN
Sounds like a good first approximation for how naturalistic inquiry -- inquiry into the way the world is -- ought to proceed. As I said, I haven't read Popper yet so anything I might have to say will be at a superficial level of discourse (still useful, potentially, but not to those who are already familiar with the work).
One problem: it seems to me that for certain forms of naturalistic inquiry, the falsifiability criterion isn't relevant because it isn't clear what evidence bears on its hypotheses in the first place, meaning that they aren't falsifiable in any obvious sense. For example, does physiological data about neurons bear on hypotheses about computational states of the brain? Nobody knows for sure, but this indeterminacy doesn't stop cognitive scientists from postulating such states to account for human behavior, embedding hypotheses about them in wider explanatory schemes that also aren't clearly falsifiable, for similar reasons.
Such hypotheses -- and the schemes they are a part of -- get adopted/jettisoned for their explanatory scope rather than anything to do with falsification. It isn't clear how Popper's ideas could be made to apply, either, except in an ideal future where we magically know in advance all the sorts of observations that are pertinent to specific claims from specific sciences, and thus may falsify them, and by then we'd already know everything there was to know. (In other words, observations don't come with labels saying: "I am relevant to computational, representational theories of mind, I am relevant to Y, I am relevant to Z . . ." and a position that allows us to definitively affix such labels would require complete knowledge of things.)
Can you comment on this?
-
Thank you sir, I agree. I have been debating avxo for months and all my whole goal was this whole time is for him to write what you just wrote, that`s it nothing more, that is all I want him to admit but his agenda or biased thoughts do not allow him to write what you just wrote he is to close minded.
Oh the irony... I'm the one who says "there are things we can't answer". You are the one that claims that everything requires an explanation and that you have the explanation, which you magically learn by reading a magical book written by goat herders, who had "divine" revelations through unknowable means.
-
Oh the irony... I'm the one who says "there are things we can't answer". You are the one that claims that everything requires an explanation and that you have the explanation, which you magically learn by reading a magical book written by goat herders, who had "divine" revelations through unknowable means.
i think if you were able to think about the idea of god as being completely and totally unrelated to the religions of earth that you would find it very easy to believe such a thing might exist.
-
What part do you not understand.
The part where you, apparently, seem to feel that the words "before" and "after" have meaning outside of the concept that we understand as time.
You have repeated this a million times, why would you, I never disagreed with this ever.
And yet, you continue to suggest that words like "before" and "after" have meaning outside of the concept that we understand as time.
You keep pointing this out like it is an answer and it is not any answer and does not solve shit by saying something so logical.
That's not why I keep pointing it out. See above.
Who the fuck doesn`t know what you just wrote, a 2 year old knows this shit.wow you feel smart. Stop repeating the obvious.... wooooooooosh
Well, apparently, you don't.
Now back to square one we need an answer still and you can not provide one.
What's the question again?
So this is where your journey ends and since you can not go any further that means you do not know if there is a GOd or there is not, siple as that.
My journey starts with the maxim that we live in a Universe which we can understand and explain, and by then asking the question: "what do we know about the world around us?"
Where we diverge is that I don't concern myself with the supernatural or with assorted fairy-tales from millenia past. Instead I only concern myself with the natural. If you want to worry about the supernatural, then do so, but don't try to pass this off as providing "answers" or being anything other than mystical hocus pocus.
You keep insisting that we need an answer to a burning question - a question that you, inevitably, answer with "goddidit!" But is an answer needed? And if it is, is "goddidit" an answer?
Let's assume, for a second, that the question is valid and that it can and must be answered. What does your answer tell us? NOTHING. It merely adds another layer of abstraction.
Instead of the Universe having no beginning and no end, in the sense that time is a property of the Universe, now your silly deity doesn't have a beginning and an end. Instead of the Universe not requiring a creator, now your silly deity doesn't require a creator. I could go on, but I trust the point is made: Your silly myths answer nothing.
i think if you were able to think about the idea of god as being completely and totally unrelated to the religions of earth that you would find it very easy to believe such a thing might exist.
[I make it a policy to not answer buffoons, and I have avoided replying to you for this very reason, but this bit was just too good to pass up. So here we go.]
No, I really wouldn't. I need to know what it is I must "believe" might exist. I have seen no cogent, rational and consistent definition of the term "god". And "something completely and totally unrelated to the religions of earth" doesn't really define what this thing might be. There's nothing to even consider.
-
[I make it a policy to not answer buffoons, and I have avoided replying to you for this very reason, but this bit was just too good to pass up. So here we go.]
No, I really wouldn't. I need to know what it is I must "believe" might exist. I have seen no cogent, rational and consistent definition of the term "god". And "something completely and totally unrelated to the religions of earth" doesn't really define what this thing might be. There's nothing to even consider.
whatever "God" is, if it is anything at all, is necessarily something beyond complete comprehension, thus making your desire for a definition of the term an unquenchable thirst. however, most agree that when the term "God" is used that the basic platform of the idea Is an "intelligent, creating force".
I think you are still very much lost in the realm of correlating "god" with the religions of the earth and what those religions say on the subject.
-
My journey starts with the maxim that we live in a Universe which we can understand and explain, and by then asking the question: "what do we know about the world around us?"
1) we can not understand or explain the universe
2) what we "know" is limited to what we personally experience, and what we personally experience is limited to our fallible and primitive cognitive capabilities.
-
fallible and primitive cognitive capabilities
What a strange loop (i.e., recursive self-reference)!
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the very face of 'fallible and primitive cognitive capabilities' (to view the rest would result in unpleasant traumas and haunt your dreams):
-
1) we can not understand or explain the universe
It must suck for you to live in a mystical, magical world, one that you feel is beyond your understanding. Not all of us see things that way.
2) what we "know" is limited to what we personally experience, and what we personally experience is limited to our fallible and primitive cognitive capabilities.
...
It's a pity that you, and those who share your worldview, benefit from the advancements we make by working to expand out understanding of the world you can't understand.
-
The human soul needs God. It's something deep down, you cannot deny it.
Interesting thing, a man like richard Dawkins is known for his athiest beliefs. There was an interview he was doing and the guy interviewing ask him something which he couldn't remember the answere to. As he was saying "uh hh... Hm.... Uh.., let me see... He couldn't help but say Oh God as he was having trouble answereing. Why would an athiest say "oh God?" because its a natural thing to do, the idea of God is something that can't be denied inside your soul even though some people thinks its cool and pretend to not care, inside they do.
-
So much quality content to respond to in this thread, I'm blown. Best god/religion thread I've ever witnessed on getbig!
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS528jWc8j6S1SSHjQWSUNgGN19JTkK8qOkgvZLMD1lcH6103_T)
The moment you realise you are just an animal, you are able to understand yourself better, try and focus on your gut instincts and understand what makes others tick.
It is uncontroversial that ignoring instinct, intuition, and other commonalities of our genetic endowment has led to significant progress via the use of what rationality we have in the realm of science, a place where such factors are irrelevant.
No-one knows the answers.
We can all only speculate and guess.
That said, there are liable to be objective differences in our theories' ability to accurately describe reality, and thus presumably norms for proper theory construction. That we must speculate does not leave all of our theories in the same boat as far as quality is concerned (especially not the ones we generally call 'scientific' versus the ones we generally call 'religious').
-
The human soul needs God. It's something deep down, you cannot deny it.
Interesting thing, a man like richard Dawkins is known for his athiest beliefs. There was an interview he was doing and the guy interviewing ask him something which he couldn't remember the answere to. As he was saying "uh hh... Hm.... Uh.., let me see... He couldn't help but say Oh God as he was having trouble answereing. Why would an athiest say "oh God?" because its a natural thing to do, the idea of God is something that can't be denied inside your soul even though some people thinks its cool and pretend to not care, inside they do.
It is not a "natural thing" that "cannot be denied" or a subconscious or hidden belief, just years of indoctrination and frequent usage/hearing of the same phrases ("Jesus!" "OMG" etc), same way if he pauses for reply and he says "umm" instead of "ooob". At any rate it is a figure of speech, no different than "son of a bitch" or "FILT".
-
Its funny seeing TDONGZ get owned in every single debate like this lol.
-
We'll figure it all out, and when we do, I believe we'll find that there is no god.
My journey starts with the maxim that we live in a Universe which we can understand and explain, and by then asking the question: "what do we know about the world around us?"
The core belief of the Enlightenment -- that human reason can conquer all -- is still surprisingly common among atheists today. Sorry my fellow secularist neeguls, but there is a sound argument indicating that we as a species cannot come to understand all that is understandable of the universe: all creatures in nature are evolved with finite cognitive capacities such that certain aspects of the universe are incomprehensible to them (e.g., rats cannot comprehend numbers, cats cannot comprehend spacetime curvatures); human beings are evolved creatures; therefore, there are aspects of the universe human beings cannot comprehend (save definite evidence that we are perfectly evolved, akin to our being angels -- something that is rather unlikely, to say the least).
Saying "the entity that you describe as your god is inconsistent with the facts of reality and therefore cannot exist" involves no belief.
Well, if you're merely saying it then perhaps no belief is involved (e.g., if you're an actor playing a part), but generally when one asserts something, belief is taken to play a role. And that makes sense, does it not? It's odd to say you are asserting a proposition you don't believe; assertion is the laying down of that proposition as true.
Avxo, do you think much hinges upon casting the term 'atheist' in terms of belief or not? I think one possible consequence (due to 'belief' apparently having a subtly different connotation in these sorts of discussions) is that doing so leads to claims that 'atheism is only a belief,' 'atheism is just a belief system like any other,' and so forth. So your method of not defining it as such may be preferable for tactical reasons as well as for convenience' sake.
*Warning, vague and probably idle speculation almost nobody is going to care about ahead*
Now for some vague, but hopefully not idle, speculation. Casting atheism in terms of belief is harmless, 'belief' properly construed. On our best science, beliefs (if real) need to be explained in terms of computational, representational (C-R) theories of mind; beliefs in such a scheme are computational states of the brain. Atheism can be construed as a metabelief (belief about belief) of the form, 'Deity D does not exist,' where 'D' is a variable that a concept of a deity can serve as a value of once the owner of the C-R belief system acquires it. Since on C-R theories beliefs are causally efficacious, we are allowed to say that this metabelief generates other beliefs in the C-R system in appropriate contexts (e.g., if an atheist anthropologist discovers a lost tribe and is able to extract from their ramblings a coherent notion of god 'g,' he will subsequently acquire the belief 'Deity g does not exist' -- assuming his C-R system and related performance systems function properly).
-
The human soul needs God. It's something deep down, you cannot deny it.
'Souls' are explanatorily empty posits of either commonsense, outdated naturalistic inquiry, or both. Commonsense is mostly irrelevant for establishing correct theories, and outdated inquiry doesn't have much purpose outside of sating historical curiosity.
If you're speaking metaphorically, then consider this: there are a variety of things which apparently come naturally to human beings, including sexism, racism, and a variety of forms of brutal violence. Clearly, a form of thought's being natural doesn't make it good, nor establish its truth. So a natural tendency towards god concepts (supernatural concepts, or whatever) doesn't necessarily do much -- if anything -- to establish their truth.
Why would an athiest say "oh God?" because its a natural thing to do, the idea of God is something that can't be denied inside your soul even though some people thinks its cool and pretend to not care, inside they do.
The word 'god' has come to be influential in Western civilization; its historical importance and regularity of use are historical contingencies that don't establish its denotatum (more or less, the thing the word is supposed to refer to) as real (assuming there is a single denotatum for this word, which there clearly isn't).
It is an expression in English, meaning that it isn't natural to say it since our nature was forged by evolution before English existed; further, in many languages no equivalent of the word exists, since the majority of speakers across the species' history have not been enslaved by Christian memes.
Your attempt at universalizing your rather parochial and culture-specific belief in 'god' (whatever you mean by that) has been an utter failure.
-
It is uncontroversial that ignoring instinct, intuition, and other commonalities of our genetic endowment has led to significant progress via the use of what rationality we have in the realm of science, a place where such factors are irrelevant.
Maybe in terms of science but in terms of everyday life, no. Intuition and gut feeling is very important, can help you read people and situations better and help you make quicker decisions on the spot.
That said, there are liable to be objective differences in our theories' ability to accurately describe reality, and thus presumably norms for proper theory construction. That we must speculate does not leave all of our theories in the same boat as far as quality is concerned (especially not the ones we generally call 'scientific' versus the ones we generally call 'religious').
Yes, but all these concepts and 'theories' are created by human minds....and 'reality' is subjective.
Whose to say whose theories are 'better'?
As I said earlier, no-one knows, to say otherwise is the height of arrogance.
-
What's the bottom line, I'm not reading all this.
-
What's the bottom line, I'm not reading all this.
well, this tune kinda gives a glimpse into it all
"you invent the future that you want to face......."
meaning that it's up to each man to discover his own "truth"
-
well, this tune kinda gives a glimpse into it all
"you invent the future that you want to face......."
meaning that it's up to each man to discover his own "truth"
Let me check it.
-
whatever "God" is, if it is anything at all, is necessarily something beyond complete comprehension
Only if you stipulate as much. There's nothing inherent about the word that makes concepts associated with it impossible to comprehend in full, nor anything about the notion of an intelligent creator that is necessarily beyond our cognitive reach.
thus making your desire for a definition of the term an unquenchable thirst.
It might seem strange, but there is no difficulty in defining the incomprehensible. If God is incomprehensible, we can still associate any manner of descriptive content with the term and use that as its definition, e.g., 'the creator of the universe.'
Thinking of it in formal terms makes the point clearer. Suppose our definition of 'God' is (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/7/a/b7ad7eadd6e5c1ef0b902c25310402ec.png)x(Cx) (where C=the property of having created the universe and '(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/7/a/b7ad7eadd6e5c1ef0b902c25310402ec.png)x(φx)' reads 'the x such that x is φ'). We can comprehend the formula just fine; we just won't be able to comprehend the value of the variable (the thing that is true of x, or, that fits into x's slot in the formula, if you will).
however, most agree that when the term "God" is used that the basic platform of the idea Is an "intelligent, creating force".
That seems right.
-
The core belief of the Enlightenment -- that human reason can conquer all -- is still surprisingly common among atheists today. Sorry my fellow secularist neeguls, but there is a sound argument indicating that we as a species cannot come to understand all that is understandable of the universe: all creatures in nature are evolved with finite cognitive capacities such that certain aspects of the universe are incomprehensible to them (e.g., rats cannot comprehend numbers, cats cannot comprehend spacetime curvatures); human beings are evolved creatures; therefore, there are aspects of the universe human beings cannot comprehend (save definite evidence that we are perfectly evolved, akin to our being angels -- something that is rather unlikely, to say the least).
It's an argument and it may be valid (i.e. if the premises are true, then through a series of accurate logical steps we show that the conclusion must, necessarily, also be true) but it's not sound. A sound argument is one that is valid and one whose premises are true. You haven't shown that a major premise in your argument is true.
With that said, I don't think your argument about finite cognitive capacities holds much water, although I don't know that I can conclusively prove this. I think that reason (a definitive characteristic of our species if not the definitive characteristic) is a powerful tool, which has proven extremely successful at explaining many things that were previously thought unexplainable. Additionally, keep in mind that we don't just start from scratch every time, but rely on the knowledge accumulated by the generations and generations that came before us.
Can I prove that logic can prove everything in the Universe? No, but (a) I think a very strong argument can be made that it can and (b) I don't have to do so anyways.
Well, if you're merely saying it then perhaps no belief is involved (e.g., if you're an actor playing a part), but generally when one asserts something, belief is taken to play a role. And that makes sense, does it not? It's odd to say you are asserting a proposition you don't believe; assertion is the laying down of that proposition as true.
I think that the word belief has been tainted with religious connotations and implicates faith. My take on this is that when someone cannot necessarily prove something, it is still possible to believe it without involving faith. I'll give you an example:
My parents love me. Assuming that there was a concrete, logical definition of love, I might still be unable to logically prove this fact. Yet I believe that they do, without any faith involved.
Avxo, do you think much hinges upon casting the term 'atheist' in terms of belief or not? I think one possible consequence (due to 'belief' apparently having a subtly different connotation in these sorts of discussions) is that doing so leads to claims that 'atheism is only a belief,' 'atheism is just a belief system like any other,' and so forth. So your method of not defining it as such may be preferable for tactical reasons as well as for convenience' sake.
Correct. As I said above I think that the term "belief" can be misconstrued and leads to statements like those you describe.
Now for some vague, but hopefully not idle, speculation. Casting atheism in terms of belief is harmless, 'belief' properly construed. On our best science, beliefs (if real) need to be explained in terms of computational, representational (C-R) theories of mind; beliefs in such a scheme are computational states of the brain. Atheism can be construed as a metabelief (belief about belief) of the form, 'Deity D does not exist,' where 'D' is a variable that a concept of a deity can serve as a value of once the owner of the C-R belief system acquires it. Since on C-R theories beliefs are causally efficacious, we are allowed to say that this metabelief generates other beliefs in the C-R system in appropriate contexts (e.g., if an atheist anthropologist discovers a lost tribe and is able to extract from their ramblings a coherent notion of god 'g,' he will subsequently acquire the belief 'Deity g does not exist' -- assuming his C-R system and related performance systems function properly).
I think that this is, actually, helpful, although I don't know how clear it is. I also am not sure how to make it much clearer and at 2:30 I'm not super-inclined to try ;)
The word 'god' has come to be influential in Western civilization; its historical importance and regularity of use are historical contingencies that don't establish its denotatum (more or less, the thing the word is supposed to refer to) as real (assuming there is a single denotatum for this word, which there clearly isn't).
It is an expression in English, meaning that it isn't natural to say it since our nature was forged by evolution before English existed; further, in many languages no equivalent of the word exists, since the majority of speakers across the species' history have not been enslaved by Christian memes.
Your attempt at universalizing your rather parochial and culture-specific belief in 'god' (whatever you mean by that) has been an utter failure.
I don't think I could have put it better myself.
It is not a "natural thing" that "cannot be denied" or a subconscious or hidden belief, just years of indoctrination and frequent usage/hearing of the same phrases ("Jesus!" "OMG" etc), same way if he pauses for reply and he says "umm" instead of "ooob". At any rate it is a figure of speech, no different than "son of a bitch" or "FILT".
Right. Taking a figure of speech and pretending that uttering it implies some deep, religious truth is just... well... god damn stupid! ;D
-
What's the bottom line, I'm not reading all this.
Bottom line:
No-one actually knows anything but think they do.
-
Bottom line:
No-one actually knows anything but think they do.
Exactly all speculation.
-
It's an argument and it may be valid (i.e. if the premises are true, then through a series of accurate logical steps we show that the conclusion must, necessarily, also be true) but it's not sound. A sound argument is one that is valid and one whose premises are true. You haven't shown that a major premise in your argument is true.
There's no one way do to this: I can either cast the argument in inductive terms and thus we can call it 'cogent' rather than 'sound,' or I can cast it in deductive terms and imbue certain of the premises with probability and thus retain the 'sound' label (since I don't wish to say that it is 100% certain that our finite cognitive capacity cannot capture all the facts of the universe). These seem to me different paths towards the same truth.
Inductive version
1. 100% of known evolved creatures have finite cognitive capacities such that certain aspects of the world are incomprehensible to them.
2. Human beings are evolved creatures.
3. Therefore, human beings have finite cognitive capacities such that certain aspects of the world are incomprehensible to them.
Deductive version
1. If human beings are evolved creatures, then probably they have limited cognitive capacities such that certain aspects of the world are incomprehensible to them, since this is the case for all other evolved creatures.
2. Human beings are evolved creatures.
3. Therefore, human beings probably have finite cognitive capacities such that certain aspects of the world are incomprehensible to them.
I think that this is, actually, helpful, although I don't know how clear it is. I also am not sure how to make it much clearer and at 2:30 I'm not super-inclined to try ;)
Me neither. ;D
Can I prove that logic can prove everything in the Universe? No, but (a) I think a very strong argument can be made that it can and (b) I don't have to do so anyways.
Well, if anybody ever makes the argument then I'll be glad to see it.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/305624_474366552621040_384679826_n.jpg)
-
Inductive version
1. 100% of known evolved creatures have finite cognitive capacities such that certain aspects of the world are incomprehensible to them.
I don't buy this.
Deductive version
1. If human beings are evolved creatures, then probably they have limited cognitive capacities such that certain aspects of the world are incomprehensible to them, since this is the case for all other evolved creatures.
Even with the "probably" I still don't buy this. It's true that certain aspects of the world are incomprehensible to some creatures - even to most creatures. But I do not know that this applies to humans. Our entire history points to this being false.
We can talk probability if you want, but in a completely unscientific hand-wave manner, I'd peg this at less than 1%.
-
Even with the "probably" I still don't buy this. It's true that certain aspects of the world are incomprehensible to some creatures - even to most creatures. But I do not know that this applies to humans. Our entire history points to this being false.
We can talk probability if you want, but in a completely unscientific hand-wave manner, I'd peg this at less than 1%.
You're in line with the majority in hand-waving away the opposition while merely hinting at actual counterargument (I appreciate your honesty in this regard); the only point of departure between you and orthodoxy is that you didn't call me any names ('new mysterian' is the standard term of opprobrium in this context) -- and I appreciate that :).
It may be that the issue boils down to a difference in intuitions: I intuit that our finite cognitive capacities (that they are finite is uncontroversial) present a built-in limitation to what can be comprehended, and further, that there are liable to be facts of the universe that lie beyond this limitation, just like for every other evolved creature that has ever existed. You intuit that this is not the case, or that there is no reason to believe that it is so, given the clear evidence of progress in understanding the world that naturalistic inquiry has achieved thus far, something that is unique to our species. I recognize such progress and hope that it continues ad infinitum but don't think it supersedes the underlying biological facts.
Anyway, I certainly hope that you are right!
-
So much quality content to respond to in this thread, I'm blown. Best god/religion thread I've ever witnessed on getbig!
AHAHAAHAH!! I'm sure this is a favorite "god/religion" thread among Getbig atheists because it is has nothing to do with either religion or God.
Who has the biggest philosophical penis so far? Whose handwaving has proven superior over all others?
-
AHAHAAHAH!! I'm sure this is a favorite "god/religion" thread among Getbig atheists because it is has nothing to do with either religion or God.
Neegul please, here is just a small sampling of the topics discussed thus far that are related to God or religion:
-What those who don't believe in Him tend to believe
-How to define the term 'God'; whether it is possible to do so
-Whether God is likely to be fully comprehensible to human beings or not
-The role of certainty as far as religious belief is concerned
-Why religion exists
-Whether the evidence points towards there being a god or not
-The role of science in fixing our knowledge of the world -- including of God
Who has the biggest philosophical penis so far? Whose handwaving has proven superior over all others?
It's a waiting game; we won't know until the dust settles.