I believe in Atheism...

[Slytovhand]

Thought I'd start it as a seperate thread, as it comes up occasionally.

But specifically:

Originally Posted by AdminAssistant
(and lack of belief IS a belief - an atheist BELIEVES that there is no God)

No. Not so. Is lack of a steak dinner a different kind of steak dinner? I don't knit quilts. Is "not knitting quilts" a hobby? Is a lack of funds in my wallet actually funds that I can spend at a different store? No. Lack of belief is quite simply lack of belief. Nothing more, no mysticism, no rituals.

I'll tell you what I do believe, though. The similar notions of God as presented by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism present to me a very flawed, very human entity that does not possess the qualities or capabilities of an omnipotent, omniscient being. Instead I see what primitive people thought such a being might be like.

I don't believe He's real in the same way I disregard Santa, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny. Do you consider your lack of belief in them to be a belief, or is it simply something you don't believe?

How about... an athiest believes that the creation of the universe can be fully explained using only natural laws and materials still found within the universe itself. There is no need to invoke any form of supernatural or external force of any kind.

Also, they believe that any and all phenomenon that occur within this universe can also be explained by similar laws and forces, again without any recourse to divine intervention. And thus, anything that religious believers would see as a 'miracle' an atheist believes there is always an alternative natural explanation for.

I have to use the term believes in such a way, because they don't actually know, and thus, it forms a belief only.

Also, as a bit of a technicality, we are all atheists. We all have a certain 'non-belief' towards some aspect of the various worlds deities. I'm an atheist towards a Christian, Muslim and Judaic 'God'. They are atheist towards the shamanic spirituality. etc etc.

[Boozy]

I suppose atheism could be considered a belief of sorts, but I wouldn't say it's a belief that there is no God. It's more the belief that information provided by observation with the five senses, and analysis of that information with the logical mind, comprises the totality of being. Ergo, there is no God, because God would be both inaccessible to the five senses and illogical.

I'm not atheist, that's just my understanding of it. I'm quite open to being enlightened if I'm misinformed.

[anriana]

Also, as a bit of a technicality, we are all atheists. We all have a certain 'non-belief' towards some aspect of the various worlds deities. I'm an atheist towards a Christian, Muslim and Judaic 'God'. They are atheist towards the shamanic spirituality. etc etc.

Monotheists believe in only 1 G/god, whether that's Jehovah or Ahura Mazda.

Polytheists believe in 2+ gods.

Atheists believe in 0 gods.

[Sylvia727]

"Atheism" has the word "god" in it. If it is not a religious belief, then it needs a new name. Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake. Sure, it's the absence of religion, but zero is a number, too.

[Pedersen]

"Atheism" has the word "god" in it. If it is not a religious belief, then it needs a new name.

Amoral has the word moral in it, but the definition is the absence of morality. Guess we need a new word for that, too.

Anaerobic has the word aerobic in it, but the definition includes the lack of oxygen. Guess we need yet another new word.

Arrythmia is used to indicate the loss of heart rhythm. But, it includes rhythm in the world. Guess we need yet another new word.

Or, wait, I've got an idea! Why don't we use the prefix "a" for words that start with a consonant, and the prefix "an" for words that start with a vowel, and that way we have an easy way of indicating lack of something! Why, we wouldn't even have to rewrite any dictionaries, then, since that's what already is done!

Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake. Sure, it's the absence of religion, but zero is a number, too.

So, lack of religion is a religion? I think I might have to add to that critical logic failure thread I started. To say that lack of something is simply a form of that something is a way of forcing somebody else to accept your beliefs.

He's an atheist. He doesn't believe in any religion. He doesn't believe in any god. That's not a religion, that's the lack of religion. To say that it is a religion is showing a massive amount of disrespect for atheists. And to think that you are one of the ones asking for respect in other threads, but unwilling to show it here.

[Slytovhand]

Personally (and let's face it, that's all that matters :p), I don't see atheism as a religion, but I do think it is a belief (believing in Santa Claus is not religious...).

Anriana - if you don't believe in my god, and my god is the only god, then you are an atheist. That's what it says in all those books, and that's the way it's been for thousands of years, and so many wars and people have died for it. And people who don't believe in *my* god will all die and go to hell - and that's *my* hell, not whatever hell you think you might have....

Since a 'theist' Theism is a belief system incorporating a god or gods into the lives of humans is specifically about god and incorporating, it's not merely about some vague concept - it's about a specific variant only.

This compares to a deist - One who admits the possibility of the existence of a God or gods.

(quotes from google - define: theist/deist)

[Sylvia727]

Or, wait, I've got an idea! Why don't we use the prefix "a" for words that start with a consonant, and the prefix "an" for words that start with a vowel, and that way we have an easy way of indicating lack of something! Why, we wouldn't even have to rewrite any dictionaries, then, since that's what already is done!

I have always read the prefixes "a/an" as meaning "the loss of something where it should be or is expected to be". All three of your examples indicate this. Language being a living, twisting thing, this may not be a nuance that other people read into it.

In any case, putting the word "god" into it focuses the belief on G/god(s) and the lack thereof. If it is a belief about something else, then it needs a new name. If it is a belief about God, then I fail to see how it is not a religious belief. Perhaps not a "religion", per se, but still a religious belief.


Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake.

So, lack of religion is a religion?

No. That's exactly what I didn't say. If one asks an atheist what religion he is, the answer "atheist" makes sense and fits in context. Even though "atheism" is a lack of belief, I tend to class it as a religion for simplicity's sake. Kind of like how black isn't an actual color. If you ask me what color my shirt is, I'll say "black", not "my shirt doesn't reflect any light and so is colorless". People understand that when I refer to black as a color, I'm not implying that it should get its act together and be more like its big sister red, who is an actual color.

To say that lack of something is simply a form of that something is a way of forcing somebody else to accept your beliefs. <snip> To say that it is a religion is showing a massive amount of disrespect for atheists. And to think that you are one of the ones asking for respect in other threads, but unwilling to show it here.

*cracks up*

I'm just going to assume that your brain operates on a very different wavelength than mine. Nothing in my four sentence post indicated intolerance, force, disrespect, or hypocrisy. If that's what you read, then I apologize for whatever share of the miscommunication is mine. Also, I may be reading too much into your comments on this and other threads, but you seem to be under the impression that I'm an evil theist trying to force others to conform to my mainstream religion. I'm not sure why that might be, but I'd like my posts to be dissected from the correct perspective.

Personally I don't see atheism as a religion, but I do think it is a belief

I like that phrasing. :)

[Flyndaran]

My lack of superstions is not a belief, dang it!
"You" believe that a black cat crossing your path is bad luck, and I don't. That does not make me have a belief.

Calling my interpretation of reality that is completely based on rationality and facts a belief is insulting.
"Your" interpretation of reality that is completely based on faith, books, and flies in the face of "normal" reality is a belief.

[Slytovhand]

My lack of superstions is not a belief, dang it!
"You" believe that a black cat crossing your path is bad luck, and I don't. That does not make me have a belief.

Calling my interpretation of reality that is completely based on rationality and facts a belief is insulting.
"Your" interpretation of reality that is completely based on faith, books, and flies in the face of "normal" reality is a belief.

So, what you are saying is that it is absolutely, 100% IMPOSSIBLE, beyond even the merest shadow of a doubt that a) you are not some figment of some entities (not necessarily a 'god') imagination, nor that of a computer simulation, nor that there is some form of mutli/universal creator that brought all of this into existence.

Funny - even the most professional and skilled and knowledgeable scientists - including good old astrophysicists looking at the origins of the universe - don't have that level of .... conviction.

Personally - I believe what I believe. There are things I don't believe. I'm not so arrogant (call it hubris) that I can't possibly be wrong....

[AFPheonix]

No he's saying that the physical evidence for such a being is so vanishingly small as to be insignificant.

Of course there's always a CHANCE that there's a tooth fairy, but it's pretty vanishingly small, so there's no point in dwelling on it.

[Flyndaran]

There is far more evidence for unicorns than there is for an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving god.
We have paintings of unicorns and supposed eye-witnesses that weren't considered nuts at the time.
How many people do you know that claim to have seen this god critter and weren't obviously loopy in other ways?
How nearly impossible is it to wrap one's mind around the idea of a loving god that doesn't help people out at all, lets them suffer, and is ultimately responsible for all the good and bad that exists in the universe?
A simple intelligant stealthy horse with a horn that is impervious to poison and can sense virginity isn't even in the same ballpark of illogical-ness.

I am not simply an atheist, for I don't believe in any superstions. Some would call me a rationalist, but others take offense to the implication that they aren't rational so I'm stuck without a proper term to label myself for easy conversation.
I was born this way lacking the ability to have or even understand faith. Most would call this a weakness or even a real form of brain damage. I won't dispute this as in the literal sense of lacking the "god module" as it has been called or some other neural section.
I prefer to call it a strength, or even a furturistic evolution.

Every atheist that I have met started out religious, can understand faith etc., but through introspection and logical analysis came to their present interpretation of reality.
I don't really fit in with these people. They can understand "the other side" of the discussion. I can't. It's not a matter of won't, bigotry, or refusal to study. I've tried. The concept just doesn't fit with my neural architecture the way it does in nearly every other human.

[Jadedcarguy]

Wow. I need to check the front page more often, I totally missed this thread.

"Atheism" has the word "god" in it. If it is not a religious belief, then it needs a new name. Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake. Sure, it's the absence of religion, but zero is a number, too.

I have always read the prefixes "a/an" as meaning "the loss of something where it should be or is expected to be". All three of your examples indicate this. Language being a living, twisting thing, this may not be a nuance that other people read into it.

Amoral has the word moral in it, but the definition is the absence of morality. Guess we need a new word for that, too.

Anaerobic has the word aerobic in it, but the definition includes the lack of oxygen. Guess we need yet another new word.

Arrythmia is used to indicate the loss of heart rhythm. But, it includes rhythm in the world. Guess we need yet another new word.

Quite right. Putting a- or an- in front of a word to signify a lack of something does not imply that "something" was there before and was taken away. It simply states that it isn't there.

Sylvia, Religion requires doctrine, a specific set of beliefs, usually ritualized services or practices, and most importantly it requires faith. Atheism requires none of these things. What I believe is believed for very different reasons than your reasons for your beliefs. Before you tell me I can't know what you believe and why, know this:

I USED TO BE CHRISTIAN.

That's right. I went to church every Sunday for over a decade. I prayed, avoided "immoral" behavior, watched my language, and tried to be a "good" Christian. Then I started to pay attention to the world. My faith started to falter and dwindle for another decade and a half until one day I realized that it was gone. I could fill many pages with specific reasons for my lack of faith but they would fall on deaf ears so I wont waste our time with that.

I will tell you what I believe in, though. I believe in things that can be observed and verified. Science, astronomy, geology, and so forth are things I can believe because their "realness" can be demonstrated. I do not believe in things that require an undue amount of faith and hope. Personal saviors fall into the latter category, I'm afraid. Wanting something to be real because it makes me feel better, even though nothing supports it's existence, does not make it real.


In any case, putting the word "god" into it focuses the belief on G/god(s) and the lack thereof. If it is a belief about something else, then it needs a new name. If it is a belief about God, then I fail to see how it is not a religious belief. Perhaps not a "religion", per se, but still a religious belief.

It is not a religious belief. It is a belief about religion, and they are not one and the same. Allow me to explain.

Religious beliefs require faith in religious doctrine. If you have no faith in a religious belief, then you don't believe it, simple as that. Atheism on the other hand does not require me to have faith. I look at the evidence for a god, and I look at the evidence for a lack thereof, and I come to a decision. There is no need for faith there.





If one asks an atheist what religion he is, the answer "atheist" makes sense and fits in context. Even though "atheism" is a lack of belief, I tend to class it as a religion for simplicity's sake.

Actually, my answer to that question is "none". If I'm answering a questionnaire that asks about my religion, I have seen it listed as "atheist", "none", and "atheist/none". The only one that is correct is "none", since atheism is not a religion. I can't say that enough. Atheists don't have an established church. We don't formally meet to talk about no gods. We may informally go get coffee and discuss it, but that's not a church group. My thoughts, feelings and beliefs can be vastly different from another atheist, but neither one of us believes in any sort of god. In that we are the same, but it could be only that.

If you were to describe an individual atheist to an inquisitive child as "they don't believe in God", you would technically be correct. If that same child had never seen a horse before and they asked you what it was, if you told them "an animal without wings" you'd also be technically correct. You've also told them nothing. But it will do for "simplicity's sake."

If a child asked me what a Christian was and I told them "a person who kills Muslims at the end of a sword and dashes out the brains of Aztec babies after baptizing them" I would be technically correct. I would also be giving a woefully inadequate description, but for simplicity's sake I'll just leave it at that.



Man, I can ramble on!! :D

[Sylvia727]

If you were to describe an individual atheist to an inquisitive child as "they don't believe in God", you would technically be correct. <snip> If a child asked me what a Christian was and I told them "a person who kills Muslims at the end of a sword and dashes out the brains of Aztec babies after baptizing them" I would be technically correct.

:( Please, for the love of Mom's apple pie, don't tell me you think lack of belief is anywhere near the same scale as mass murder. Not to mention that every single atheist "doesn't believe in God" but no Christian alive today has ridden on the Crusades or "dashed out the brains of an Aztec baby".

If you need help thinking of a current, hurtful stereotype about Christianity, PM me and I'll help you brainstorm.

What I believe is believed for very different reasons than your reasons for your beliefs. Before you tell me I can't know what you believe and why, know this:

I USED TO BE CHRISTIAN.

Thus giving you valuable insight into the beliefs of many Christians. Persons who believe in another version or denomination of Christianity, or another religion altogether, will have drastically different beliefs and reasons for holding them. Even a Christian from your old congregation might have reasons for their beliefs you never learned about. Two people can read the same novel and come up with two different interpretations. Neither makes the other less valid. Alice may feel that Bob's gushing presentation on the novel's use of the true power of love is absolute drivel, but she can't say with absolute authority that he didn't read some nuance or connotation into the text that she didn't.

Oh, and for the record: you can't know what I believe and why, your insight into another major religion notwithstanding. :p

Wanting something to be real because it makes me feel better, even though nothing supports it's existence, does not make it real.

True, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to say that every single religious person follows their faith for this reason and only this reason. It would be incredibly arrogant of you...and would presuppose that you possess the supernatural power of mass telepathy. And you've already said that you don't believe in the supernatural. ;)

Actually, my answer to that question [insert: about religion] is "none".

The only answer that I can see remains consistent. Good, this is coming together.

Putting a- or an- in front of a word to signify a lack of something does not imply that "something" was there before and was taken away. It simply states that it isn't there.

To formally end the semantics in my own mind (can't speak for anyone else, of course), I went to the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?o=0). Even the first, vaguest description doesn't apply to atheism, as it mentions belief in the purpose of the universe.

So while I had always agreed that atheism isn't a religion in the true sense of the word, I am forced to conclude that there is no way one can batter the definition around to include atheism.

It is not a religious belief. It is a belief about religion, and they are not one and the same.

Thus explaining why the word "god" can be in the definition without making it religious. This may be the first post I've read on this thread that actually made sense to me. Congratulations, Jadedcarguy, I am now changing my position on this topic.

[Jadedcarguy]

:( Please, for the love of Mom's apple pie, don't tell me you think lack of belief is anywhere near the same scale as mass murder. Not to mention that every single atheist "doesn't believe in God" but no Christian alive today has ridden on the Crusades or "dashed out the brains of an Aztec baby".

If you need help thinking of a current, hurtful stereotype about Christianity, PM me and I'll help you brainstorm.

No no no of course I don't believe that living Christians have done those things. However, Christians in the past most certainly have. My point was that it would be woefully inadequate to describe Christians in that manner as the behavior does not reflect most Christians, or any living today.


Oh, and for the record: you can't know what I believe and why, your insight into another major religion notwithstanding. :p
I never claimed to. I was simply illustrating that I have been on both sides of religious belief.


True, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to say that every single religious person follows their faith for this reason and only this reason. It would be incredibly arrogant of you...and would presuppose that you possess the supernatural power of mass telepathy. And you've already said that you don't believe in the supernatural. ;)

I wouldn't say that, either. Blanket statements usually backfire so I try to avoid them.

Many people, however do subscribe to some form of Pascal's Wager, which is this:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

Basically saying it's best to believe because it can't hurt to do so. I say it can hurt, but I wont go into that here for reasons of length.






To formally end the semantics in my own mind (can't speak for anyone else, of course), I went to the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?o=0). Even the first, vaguest description doesn't apply to atheism, as it mentions belief in the purpose of the universe.

So while I had always agreed that atheism isn't a religion in the true sense of the word, I am forced to conclude that there is no way one can batter the definition around to include atheism.



Thus explaining why the word "god" can be in the definition without making it religious. This may be the first post I've read on this thread that actually made sense to me. Congratulations, Jadedcarguy, I am now changing my position on this topic.

Woot!! :D

Glad I could explain it in a manner that made sense.

[Slytovhand]

There is far more evidence for unicorns than there is for an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving god.

Possibly... but that's only 1 interpretation of the term 'god',which from my experience in talking to other atheists, is what they always fall back on - the traditional arguments against god. Either 'He' exists, and allows evil to exist, in which case, he is not all good, or 'He' isn't omniscient... and all of those sorts of arguments.

But... you do nicely back up one of my original arguments - we are all atheists! I have a belief in a definition of 'god' that does not fit your description. Thus, if I took what you just said about 'god', then I too am an atheist!

There is nothing about some sort of creator that popped its/thier/his/her head up, made all of this, and then buggered of to do something more interesting.

See - that's what annoys me about this whole religion thing - the arrogance and ego of humans. If 'my' god doesn't seem to exist, then no god does... Why couldn't you as a human just have it wrong?? There is far more than 1 side to the coin.

Jadedcarguy... Sylvia, Religion requires doctrine, a specific set of beliefs, usually ritualized services or practices, and most importantly it requires faith. Atheism requires none of these things.
Excellent! You've just said why atheism isn't a 'religion'... you haven't said why it isn't a 'belief'.. and hence my OP.

As you've neatly explained (I suspect without intending to), a religion and a belief are not the same thing, and that's what the 'confusion' is all about.

If you want, we can go into Pascal's Wager :D (which boils down to - if God is omniscient, He knows that you're only playing the odds, rather than actually having faith... which apparently doesn't cut it!)

BTW - yes, actually, christians living today have participated in crusades... just not the ones given that title! There are those who profess a faith in Jesus Christ as being their saviour, and will go out of their way to persecute and even execute non-christians - such as muslims. (is anyone on here really going to argue that there are a few christian fanatic nutjobs who saw a war going on in 'towelheadland' Iraq and thought to themselves that they need to go over and do 'Gods' work??) (besides, there's all those people who have reincarnated since the original crusades :p)

[Jadedcarguy]

Jadedcarguy...
Excellent! You've just said why atheism isn't a 'religion'... you haven't said why it isn't a 'belief'.. and hence my OP.

As you've neatly explained (I suspect without intending to), a religion and a belief are not the same thing, and that's what the 'confusion' is all about.

I did intend to explain it that way. My understanding of the way 'belief' is being used here is the same way religious belief works, that is to say that I believe it without anything other than faith to back it up. That is not why I'm an atheist. I consider my atheism to be more of an understanding of reality as opposed to any kind of belief, hence my tendency to refute the 'belief' argument.

If you want, we can go into Pascal's Wager :D (which boils down to - if God is omniscient, He knows that you're only playing the odds, rather than actually having faith... which apparently doesn't cut it!)

That's my understanding of it as well. If God is a real entity as described in Scripture, he can see right through that kind of BS. :)

BTW - yes, actually, christians living today have participated in crusades... just not the ones given that title! There are those who profess a faith in Jesus Christ as being their saviour, and will go out of their way to persecute and even execute non-christians - such as muslims. (is anyone on here really going to argue that there are a few christian fanatic nutjobs who saw a war going on in 'towelheadland' Iraq and thought to themselves that they need to go over and do 'Gods' work??) (besides, there's all those people who have reincarnated since the original crusades :p)

Absolutely. There are Christians among us as we speak who believe the Gospel as strongly, if not more so, than the most devout Islamic jihadist believes the Qu'ran. They see the most vile passages of the OT as a set of instructions that must be fulfilled before the return of Christ abd are perfectly willing to carry them out. Joel's Army is one. Watch Jesus Camp if you haven't already. Scary shit. :(

[Slytovhand]

JC (hmmm... nice appropriate initials :p) - so what about 'Intelligent Design Theory' - no, not the creationist proposed version to justify their version of God, but just the general idea that in physics, chemistry and biology, there are just waaaaaayyyyy too many coincidences that it had to have some sort of intervention? Or are you of the other opinions - either multiple universe, or the basic, that if this universe didn't work this way, we wouldn't be here to talk about it anyway...and we got lucky?

I'm thinking most of the 'issue' here is merely semantics. Pick your dictionary, people :p

There are Christians among us as we speak who believe the Gospel as strongly, if not more so, than the most devout Islamic jihadist believes the Qu'ran

Really???? I dunno - how many christians in those groups are willing to suicide? (oh - sorry... yeah, point taken). But seriously, suicide bombings are a lot more a part of Islam, probably because there is something about dying while acting is far more holy... I don't think Xtianity has that (other than as martyrdom - and that's only for saints and holy men (nope - not even the women)..

[Jadedcarguy]

JC (hmmm... nice appropriate initials :p)

:rolleyes: I'll ignore that.

- so what about 'Intelligent Design Theory' - no, not the creationist proposed version to justify their version of God, but just the general idea that in physics, chemistry and biology, there are just waaaaaayyyyy too many coincidences that it had to have some sort of intervention? Or are you of the other opinions - either multiple universe, or the basic, that if this universe didn't work this way, we wouldn't be here to talk about it anyway...and we got lucky?

Not sure what ID has to do with atheism. But as far as that goes, I'm not a biologist, physicist, geologist, chemist or any other -ist that requires a degree. :)

I do read their work, though. When you look at from a naturalistic point of view standing on the shoulders of people who study this stuff for a living, they explain it very well. The ID advocates do not for one simple reason: they try to do science while having a presupposition that they are unwilling to discard when evidence clearly goes against it. That's not science. It's chocolate-coated horseshit. An intelligent designer is pure speculation based on some folks' inability to grasp the concept of life overcoming obstacles and challenges over billions of years to get to the rich variety we see today. When truly looked at in context and with a true understanding of the timeframe involved, it is not difficult to grasp. The problem is most people don't really understand just how long billions of years really is.

You will hear ID proponents speak of the Cambrian explosion as a "relatively short period of time". That period of time is more like 10 million years! 10 MILLION!! That dwarfs humanity's reign of about 250K years by 9,750,000 years. Think about that, and think about how much we have accomplished in the "eye-blink" that we've been here!! :)

Human accomplishments are starting to show dogma for what it really is, ancient belief that should have been abandoned as soon as we learned that the Earth is round and goes around the Sun. Slowly and surely science is pushing religion aside. Every discovery that contradicts Scripture takes one more little bite out of it. Notice how frothy the fundies get with every new fossil discovery that supports evolution? They rush to discredit it, and they do it poorly.

Really???? I dunno - how many christians in those groups are willing to suicide? (oh - sorry... yeah, point taken). But seriously, suicide bombings are a lot more a part of Islam, probably because there is something about dying while acting is far more holy... I don't think Xtianity has that (other than as martyrdom - and that's only for saints and holy men (nope - not even the women)..

When did I mention suicide bombings? Oh, right. I didn't.

But since you brought it up.............Christians don't suicide bomb because their holy book does not advocate jihad. It does however advocate killing your neighbors for all sorts of "crimes" which is what the more radical Christian sects have done from time to time. Abortion clinic bombings, shooting abortion doctors, killing your kids for blasphemy, killing or severely beating gays, the list goes on. The Mike Huckabee's in our country want to instate Christian law, which would be similar to sharia law in the ME. Do you want to be stoned to death for wearing polyester/cotton blend? Eating shellfish? Going to work on Sunday? Think about that while you ponder this comic. (http://bp3.blogger.com/_blBRacH1VWk/Rlc0iX7ZrdI/AAAAAAAAAIY/Cpt-DeG4SxE/s1600-h/ByTheBook19.png)

Unfortunately these events hardly get any coverage at all, rarely more than local news material. Suspected Muslim activity however gets national if not international coverage due to the current ME situation. This is because of the undue respect Christianity has in the US. Criticizing religion, especially Christianity, in the US is taboo.

Until that ends we will continue to allow these groups to flourish unchecked, we will continue to retard our kids with ID garbage, and we will continue to push what was once the most advanced country in the world, what was once a beacon of discovery and science, back into the dark ages. We are smarter than that and it is up to every reasonable person to say "Enough is enough!"

[AdminAssistant]

The Mike Huckabee's in our country want to instate Christian law

Just chiming in on this point. The only thing Huckabee was ever able to accomplish was the 'covenant marriage' - basically, before you get married you go through extensive counseling with a priest, then after the wedding, a divorce can only be granted in cases of abuse, fraud, etc. No 'irreconcilable differences' or anything like that. Yes, the gay marriage ban was passed while he was Governor. The ban passed with something like 70% of the vote. We were all thrilled to have gotten as much support against the ban as we did. Can't really blame him for that one, it's the overriding belief of many of the citizens there.

I'm not saying there aren't dangerous neo-Conservatives - but Huckabee is actually pretty harmless. The man's not smart enough to win any more elections. I can't even see him running for Senator...both of Arkansas Senator's have been Democrats for decades. Not likely. If McCain is elected he would be a possibility for a Cabinet position. Other than that, he'll probably stick to writing books and doing interviews for Fox News.

[Jadedcarguy]

Just chiming in on this point. The only thing Huckabee was ever able to accomplish was the 'covenant marriage'

I'm not talking about what he did do or what he's capable of doing, I merely stated what he wanted to do. He was very clear on this during his presidential campaign. He wanted to rewrite the Constitution to reflect Christian principles. Not OK. Not at all.

Yes, the gay marriage ban was passed while he was Governor. The ban passed with something like 70% of the vote. We were all thrilled to have gotten as much support against the ban as we did. Can't really blame him for that one, it's the overriding belief of many of the citizens there.

Why is gay marriage such a sticking point for Christians? Is it really that important? Nothing else in the world that would be a better use of your time? Feeding the hungry would be a start. Clothing the needy, sheltering the homeless. All good causes, but no. We're going to find two dudes a-livin' in a-sin and smack them over the head with the Bible while screeching "We do not approve!!"

Excellent use of your time. Not.

I'm not saying there aren't dangerous neo-Conservatives - but Huckabee is actually pretty harmless.

No, he's pretty harmful. He was a rallying point for fundies who thought like he did and wanted the same "Christian Nation" as he did. That is dangerous. Just look at the religious kooks making the news at McCain rallies. These people have calmed down some, imagine how rabid they'd be if the ticket was Huckabee/Palin.


Yeah, I just threw up in my mouth a bit too. :(

[AFPheonix]

Why is gay marriage such a sticking point for Christians? Is it really that important? Nothing else in the world that would be a better use of your time? Feeding the hungry would be a start. Clothing the needy, sheltering the homeless. All good causes, but no. We're going to find two dudes a-livin' in a-sin and smack them over the head with the Bible while screeching "We do not approve!!"

Excellent use of your time. Not.



Because teachers push on that and other hot-button issues because it keeps the masses from actually paying attention to the evil and corruption going on around them. Fortunately this time around fewer people are listening. There's still enough to be scary, unfortunately.
This is what happens when religion intertwines with politics. It corrupts the religious and sidelines them from their true purpose.

I'm still going to have to call out your Intelligent Design "theory", Slyt. It does not pass the test to be called science, so therefore it really cannot be discussed in terms of science, simply because it cannot be tested or measured. There may be "coincidences" as you call them, but I would probably chalk that up more to poor understanding of what research has already uncovered, and lack of discovery so far in those realms of science. Do not fear however, physics has entered a golden age thanks to Einstein, and it's growing by leaps and bounds. Biology also now that it has the base of Evolution to move off of and to tie its areas of study together.
At best it can be discussed in terms of philosophy, but not as science.

[Jadedcarguy]

Because teachers push on that and other hot-button issues because it keeps the masses from actually paying attention to the evil and corruption going on around them. Fortunately this time around fewer people are listening. There's still enough to be scary, unfortunately.
This is what happens when religion intertwines with politics. It corrupts the religious and sidelines them from their true purpose.

I know. :o

I'd just really like to hear Admin's take on it, how it can be so important that it usurps the place of true "good work".

I'd like to know why this OT verse is still valid, while "no mixed cloth, no shellfish, no Sunday work, no shaving for men, etc" are not.

[Slytovhand]

JC (tee hee hee) and APF...

I'll just quickly point to this bit in mine:
no, not the creationist proposed version to justify their version of God, but just the general idea that in physics, chemistry and biology, there are just waaaaaayyyyy too many coincidences that it had to have some sort of intervention?

with appropriate re-emphasis...

As you pointed out APF(accidentally), I first came across ID in a philosophy class, when I was doing my degree in philosophy. Thus, when I was introduced to it, it was from that angle - and had absolutely nothing to do with the Christian right... other than just some vague references. So, my version of ID doesn't include anything to do with scriptures, books, holiness or otherwise. It is more the type that Einstein himself advocated! Along with a stack of other physicists, biologists, chemists etc across the planet, who figure that with all that went on, there was some sort of 'intention' involved, and thus, and 'intendor'. No comments on what that thing was like - other than being rational and logical... that's it folks.... It's been well written up by a guy called Paul Davies - who isn't christian (AFAIK) and thus has no desire to 'validate' the Bible - or any other holy book (and yes, I know - we've been down this line in the other thread. But we're talking about A-theism here... it hasn't defined what that Theos is like in any way shape or form.. which is why I brought it up). Evolution doesn't even enter into the discussion... (for the simple reason that *my* version of ID - as discussed on here - is about the basic principles of physics and chemistry. That the concept of 'time' is even real. That, even though the background temperature of space is about 1degree Kelvin, we still have radiation that interacts with other molecules and forces to give us heat - in just the right spot in the solar system from which those gases can be formed on a substantial surface which wasn't there but for the force of gravity, over billions of years... etc etc etc)

I totally agree with the point on keeping religion out of a lot of stuff - and that Christians are just as bad as Muslims. But that's because they are human.

And I also agree that anti-christian sentiment in the US is a real sticking point. No, really - it gets people stuck on what's really un-important to the world as a whole, rather than what actually needs to be done.

[AFPheonix]

Even if someone was postulating that Cthulhu was the creator, ID still could never be tested. An intelligent designer would have to be above the very natural laws it created, or else it would be ruled by them. If that were so, then by his very nature we could never perform experiments to prove his existence. There would not be any observable, tangible evidence. You would not be able to measure it. What is it mass? How tall is it? What is its displacement?
Now, if it was a natural being, how could it create that which manipulates it, and how come we've never been able to measure it before?

(It wasn't purely accidental that I mentioned philosophy. I remember the other thread on this and your position and why you've arrived at it)

[Jadedcarguy]

Even if someone was postulating that Cthulhu was the creator, ID still could never be tested. An intelligent designer would have to be above the very natural laws it created, or else it would be ruled by them. If that were so, then by his very nature we could never perform experiments to prove his existence. There would not be any observable, tangible evidence. You would not be able to measure it. What is it mass? How tall is it? What is its displacement?
Now, if it was a natural being, how could it create that which manipulates it, and how come we've never been able to measure it before?

(It wasn't purely accidental that I mentioned philosophy. I remember the other thread on this and your position and why you've arrived at it)

Well said. That's why it ain't science, kids! :D

[AdminAssistant]

I'd just really like to hear Admin's take on it, how it can be so important that it usurps the place of true "good work".

My take? Um, ok.

First off, I'm about as bleeding-heart liberal as you can get. I'm pro-choice, a feminist, and, yes, pro-gay marriage. VERY pro-gay marriage. (These beliefs do not contradict with Christianity as I see it. Which is why I no longer identify with a church or denomination.) And I'm a bit insulted by the fact that you assumed I wouldn't be. As I said before, we (as in myself and others) fought against the gay marriage ban. When we got 20 something percent of the vote, we were all thrilled.

As to why it is such a hot topic? Well, that's a really lengthy discussion that gets into the family ideal, rural life, gender roles, etc. Neo-cons perceive it as a threat to their way of life. Perhaps they're using God as an excuse to justify their own fears about change. Who knows? I don't identify myself with those people, so I can't speak as to their justification against it.

[Jadedcarguy]

My take? Um, ok.

First off, I'm about as bleeding-heart liberal as you can get. I'm pro-choice, a feminist, and, yes, pro-gay marriage. VERY pro-gay marriage. (These beliefs do not contradict with Christianity as I see it. Which is why I no longer identify with a church or denomination.) And I'm a bit insulted by the fact that you assumed I wouldn't be. As I said before, we (as in myself and others) fought against the gay marriage ban. When we got 20 something percent of the vote, we were all thrilled.

I misread what you wrote the first time. I was under the impression you supported the ban. No insult intended there.

[Slytovhand]

Well said. That's why it ain't science, kids! :D

It presumes that our understanding of the universe is all correct.

We don't have any ideas on what the nature of deity actually is. We're still left with the opening question of how the universe actually came into being in the first place.

Oh yay - science hasn't got an answer for this one - thus god can't exist....

What AFP has just said is that because we humans are unable to prove the existence of God in any way, and because such a question apparently falls outside of the realms of science - and by that logic alone, God does not and cannot exist (If that were so, then by his very nature we could never perform experiments to prove his existence. - hence 'atheism'. Bugger, hey??

So I pose the question - does the existence of some sort of creator have to be proven by us humans before he/she/it/they can become a possibility? Because that is the nuts and bolts of the argument that I'm reading here. (note: The term being used is 'atheist', not 'agnostic').

[AFPheonix]

What AFP has just said is that because we humans are unable to prove the existence of God in any way, and because such a question apparently falls outside of the realms of science - and by that logic alone, God does not and cannot exist ( - hence 'atheism'. Bugger, hey??


Actually, I only proved why ID cannot be science, regardless of what being a person thinks the creator is. Science cannot explore the supernatural, and the supernatural cannot be used to explain the natural world. Science can make no claim about God or spiritual matters, it's not its job. If someone wishes to believe in higher powers, that's their business.

As for myself, I am agnostic. I do not personally feel the supernatural, and therefore I do not believe in it. I also don't really relate to any organized religion any longer, because I feel it is the height of narcissism to say that only the followers of any one religion were able to correctly discern god.
But I do not doubt that people at least think they feel the realm of the supernatural. I do not begrudge anyone their beliefs, as long as they cause no harm to anyone else.

[Slytovhand]

Oh, Ok...

It read as I suggested, that because it can't prove it, then it can't exist.

Speaking of which... hypothesis - there was a planet in another part of the universe, say near the Horsehead nebula. There was a race comparable to homo sapiens sapiens. They had a technology similar to, say, Victorian England. Unfortunately for them, their star went supernova about 150 million years ago. Did they exist? I mean, obviously their existence falls into the 'natural' category, but there is basically no way on Earth we'll ever be able to prove they existed.... Does that mean, according to the arguments provided here, that as far as we are concerned, they didn't?

I still won't suggest that ID is a form of scienc (see that little thread...), but....

Question regarding 'supernatural'. Why would you think that science can't touch 'supernatural'?? Is it because of definitions? That science can only deal with 'natural' phenomenon? I ask, because I am other belief that such things do fall into the realm of 'science' - though not with the technology we have today.

Have you ever read anything by either Anne McCaffrey in her "Tower & Hive" series, or Julian May's "Golden Torc" and "Galactic Milieu" trilogy. Ok, it's classed as fantasy, but still sort of reflects what I'm getting at. Same also with the Technomages on B5.

Still not referring to 'god', but am introducing concepts that currentl fall outside of science.

Also curious... if you don't believe in such things, but will allow that people 'think they may feel' - what do you think is going on?? Self-delusion?

I'm thinking of doing a long post on the ID thread... but should wait til after the other one I posted has sunk in a bit...

[AFPheonix]

I suppose for some people it could be self-delusion. For others it's personal preference. I think of it like people who like Coke or Pepsi. Is someone who likes Coke and thinks Pepsi is absolute swill more right than one who thinks Pepsi is the best thing since sliced bread? No, they just detect different things in both beverages that they like. It is the same for people in spiritual matters. Some people are just more sensitive to whatever their religious preference is. I tried to be a good Christian when I was a kid, but I never could shake the feeling that I was really praying to thin air, and not to a deity at all. Maybe someday I'll come across some spiritual truth that grabs me, but for now, I am content with where I am.

As for other beings that we have no knowledge or record of, even if they are measurable: our inability to detect them does not have a bearing on their existence or lack thereof. How many species on our own planet still exist without us knowing? They don't care, they go about their business and their lives undisturbed. The thing with science is that all scientists know that there are a host of things yet unknown and undiscovered, and the hope is that with enough time and experimentation, we will add to the body of knowledge that we have.

Science cannot measure the supernatural because science depends entirely on observation and experimentation. How does one observe and experiment on god, and get reliable results that other labs can replicate? The thing is, it cannot be done. God and other supernatural things are above the laws of nature. (hence super-natural).
This is not to say that spiritual study and scientific study do not overlap at times. The origin of life is one of those times, and to get a full view of it one needs both the nuts and bolts of science (how things work) and the inspiration of spiritualism (why things work). It is vitally important, however not to confuse the two or make the one try to explain the realm of the other.

[Flyndaran]

I suppose for some people it could be self-delusion. For others it's personal preference. I think of it like people who like Coke or Pepsi. .... .
Reality is not up for personal opinion. It is what it is. Individuals may be completely or partially wrong.


As for other beings that we have no knowledge or record of, even if they are measurable: our inability to detect them does not have a bearing on their existence or lack thereof. How many species on our own planet still exist without us knowing? ....
Again that is a very poor comparison. Whether or not there is a being that violates everything we know and observe about the universe is not anything like whether an undiscovered rodent exists in the jungles of mumble mumble that DOESN'T violate any known laws.

Science cannot measure the supernatural because science depends entirely on observation and experimentation. How does one observe and experiment on god, and get reliable results that other labs can replicate? The thing is, it cannot be done. God and other supernatural things are above the laws of nature. (hence super-natural).
....

Again not very understandable. The supernatural is defined by not being predictable or obseverable when someone wants to examine it, like some omnipotent petulant child. Even if something like ghosts, goblins, and magic were to exist, they would not truly be supernatural as they would be measurable and observable.
There is nothing above the laws of nature. You mean to say that there are laws of nature that supercede all those we have learned and studied, despite there being no experiment that detected such unknown laws.

[AFPheonix]

Reality is not up for personal opinion. It is what it is. Individuals may be completely or partially wrong.
Sure, if we're talking a reality based on natural law. We're not, though. Your reality and mine do not have the presence of the supernatural in it, but others might. That does not harm to you and I, so I'm not going to worry about whether someone wishes to believe in God or not.


Again that is a very poor comparison. Whether or not there is a being that violates everything we know and observe about the universe is not anything like whether an undiscovered rodent exists in the jungles of mumble mumble that DOESN'T violate any known laws.
I was referring to his statement about another humanoid race somewhere in a galaxy far, far away. I was not referring to God or any other supernatural being or power.



Again not very understandable. The supernatural is defined by not being predictable or obseverable when someone wants to examine it, like some omnipotent petulant child. Even if something like ghosts, goblins, and magic were to exist, they would not truly be supernatural as they would be measurable and observable.
There is nothing above the laws of nature. You mean to say that there are laws of nature that supercede all those we have learned and studied, despite there being no experiment that detected such unknown laws.
I'm not saying that at all. Not all things have to be natural is all I'm saying. But again, I don't believe in the supernatural. I am what you would refer to as an agnostic athiest. I'm just intellectually honest enough to say that we don't know for sure, probably won't ever know, so I will not make a hard and fast statement that there is no supernatural. I will only admit that people at least think that they can discern it.

[Slytovhand]

Hey AFP - nice first post up there... :D I like!

You've made a great point, which I was trying to get to with this whole thread - our inability to detect them does not have a bearing on their existence or lack thereof.

that's actually the same thing about anything 'supernatural'. Why should there be a difference? Obviously, I'm one who thinks that such things as "ghosts, goblins, and magic" are a part of the 'natural' universe. But for those things whose existence is in a different part of the universe? What if the laws of nature that we understand operate differently in their universe?

"there is nothing above the laws of nature"... Ok, question Flyn... if I happen to cast a spell in the middle of a desert under a clear blue cloudless sky, with the intention of having a bucket-load of rain fall within minutes (or seconds)... and within 2 minutes of completing that spell, a massive thunderstorm comes overhead and soaks us all in seconds, and persists for the next 2 days. Where does that fit in your universe? Obviously, this would fall into the 'laws of nature that supercede all those we have learned and studied' - but because it doesn't fall into that, does that mean a) we haven't studied enough, or b) there is stuff out there that falls outside the laws as we know them? (yes, it's hypothetical. But there are things that have happened which may be comparable...and will keep happening)

I suppose the ultimate question here is - can science explain everything? You seem to think that it can. (Spice Girls??? :p)

Flyn - where do you get the idea that anything supernatural (in the real meaning of the word) violates any laws? (yep - now we're heading into philosphy...).

[machinest]

I think that there are no things that are inherently unknowable given enough time and effort to study them but that there are many reports of occurrences where the necessary information to accurately asses them is simply not present . Also many of the fields of study don't intrude enough on every day life as to make them appear to be worth putting in the effort to study.

[Slytovhand]

Hmmmm - well said, machinest!

Although - Ignoble Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize) - sort of puts paid to the bit about Also many of the fields of study don't intrude enough on every day life as to make them appear to be worth putting in the effort to study. :p

[Flyndaran]

There is no such thing as supernatural. If magic, goblins, ghosts, and luck were to exist, then they would be part of real/natural existance.
Science isn't some limited world view perpetuated by white men in white lab coats. It is a reational method by which we examine and learn about reality. If it exists, then scientific analysis will prove it.

Hypothesising a creature, god, that can do things that only it can do, violating everything ever learned about the universe, AND chooses to do these things only to erase evidence of its existance, seems somewhat silly, let alone absurdly implausible.
It's on par with the creationists that label dinosaur bones hoaxes placed there by Satan.
Yes, it's technically possible that we are all autonomous robots with memories edited to make us believe that we are flesh and blood. But to just accept such unprovable things on faith alone is irrational.

And for any of those romantics that may label emotions, beauty, etc. irrational, I must disagree. Emotions exist. They have real effects on behaviors and health. To ignore and repress them Vulcan style is the height of irrationality. Understanding, accepting, and logcially steering feelings with human judgement is logical.
Logic and the sceintifc methos is not cold, and unable to fully understand certain aspects of reality.
It is the only sensible method of thought that can fully understand ANY aspect of reality.

If when I die, as a born atheist, I experience some form of continued existance, I would adapt. I may not accept infinities expressed by any fellow "dead" or non-human entities. But I will accept that my previous interpretation of reality was at least partly wrong... for the right reasons of course, but wrong none-the-less. And I will burst forth with such joyous relief that the very foundations of existance will shake.

[Slytovhand]

Hey Flyn. I can deal with magic etc being real/part of natural existence.

Not so sure that 'if it exists, scientific analysis will prove it". I'd sort of like to think that there won't be a lot that we won't get, but I still think the human mind just can't grasp a lot of things. Can't just break everything down to neat little bite-size components.

I also agree about this god creature that ALSO erases evidence of it's existence... yeah - silly. And silly humans for even thinking it... totally absurd! And dinosaur hoaxes....

I will say that emotions are, by their very definition, irrational. Emotions and rationality are two different kettles of fish - they are apples and oranges. Yep - real, have effects, but totally irrational. For that matter, it's rationality that needs to override emotions in many or most circumstances. Not even remotely suggesting we suppress them - rather, we should learn to deal with them in a more sensible way... (whatever that may end up being).

Back to science and it's method. I just thought of something that is a very day to day thing, yet science is still at a bit of a loss over (in one sense...) - death. Sure, easy to talk about physical death, and what causes it, and all the metabolic breakdowns etc... but what is it?.

Also - have to disagree massively about "it is the only sensible method of thought that can fully understand ANY aspect of reality". Let's see... peace. Ever felt it? Sure, science can tell you all about the chemicals involved, the brainwave patterns, and a whole stack of other things.. but there is no way that science, by bringing it down to such evaluations, that it actually understands this aspect of reality. And there are a stack more... I'd even say all of human existence (and, no doubt, any other intelligible existence).

And I will burst forth with such joyous relief that the very foundations of existance will shake.


Even if you end up in hell??? :p

[crashhelmet]

The problem with science is it always starts with a guess. From that guess a scientist creates a "fact."

How many times has science been wrong?

Is Pluto a planet or not? Is milk good or bad for you? Will a butterfly flapping its wings in England really cause a poor little girl from Kansas to kill a pair of witches?

The battle between Ideology/Religion/Beliefs and Science will never end. Even Des Cartes gave up eventually.

CH

[Rapscallion]

The problem with science is it always starts with a guess.


More of an observation than a guess, for proper science.


How many times has science been wrong?


Aproximately as often as science has admitted that it was initially mistaken, but now has a better understanding of the world.


Is Pluto a planet or not?


That's a reclassification. It's still a large lump of rock discovered by scientific means (noting changes in the orbits of other large lumps of rock caused by gravity).

Is milk good or bad for you?

No idea, but it's damned tasty!

Will a butterfly flapping its wings in England really cause a poor little girl from Kansas to kill a pair of witches?

Be a bugger to observe that in a lab. Sounds more like fiction, though.

The battle between Ideology/Religion/Beliefs and Science will never end. Even Des Cartes gave up eventually.

CH

The difference for me is that science is willing to change its mind based on observed and tested evidence. Religion/Beliefs/Ideology is ... fixed.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

The problem with science is it always starts with a guess. From that guess a scientist creates a "fact."

I think you skipped a few steps. For a hypothesis to become a theory or a fact, there is a process. This process involves observational and experimental evidence and inductive reasoning. The scientific method is brutally strict.

What you have implied in the above quote is that "facts" are just science's best guess. That is not true. No astronomist, for example, would have said "It is a scientific fact that Pluto is a planet." Instead, they would have said, "Our best research to date has led us to classify Pluto as a planet." The problem here is that many people do not see the difference between the two statements. In the scientific world, there is all the difference in the world.

Part of the problem is that the general public is often exposed to science solely through the capitalist system. Someone who wants to sell his book called "Why milk will kill you" is going to claim that he uses scientific "facts" to prove his hypothesis. He may even have a PhD. And then when the scientific community rightfully comes forward and says, "He has no evidence!" we see it as the scientific community disagreeing with and contradicting itself. When in reality, there was really never any conflict at all.

[Evandril]

The problem with science is it always starts with a guess. From that guess a scientist creates a "fact."

It may start with a guess, but I am at a loss to think of another way TO start. You take your guess, then see if the data you can gather supports your guess. If it does, you move on, if it doesn't, you toss out your guess, and come up with a new one. At any point, a true scientist is willing, and hopefully *eager* to be proven wrong.

The battle between Ideology/Religion/Beliefs and Science will never end. Even Des Cartes gave up eventually. CH

Because it's like the battle between apples and oranges... The first set relies on faith, and the second on facts. If something is a fact, it takes no 'faith' to believe in it. If it cannot be proven, then it is not a fact.

[crashhelmet]

But the number of planets and moons has never been described or taught as a theory. It's always been a fact.

That's where my beef with "science" really comes from. All too often, it's fueled by capitalism instead of ethics. Some scientists are only proving what they want to prove or what they're paid to prove. But then that "discovery" becomes a "fact" until it's disproven.

Yes, as technology grows we learn more and more about things, but how much of the "building blocks" of science was pulled out of someone's ass because they couldn't figure out what it was?

CH

[Slytovhand]

The first set relies on faith, and the second on facts. If something is a fact, it takes no 'faith' to believe in it. If it cannot be proven, then it is not a fact.I'll just buzz in here for $20...

Hopefully, people will beleive in something because of evidence and experience.

If the 'supernatural' (be whatever it may...) really is out there, it has been since the beginning of the universe, and has probably got something to do with it as well. I don't really see that it would feel the need to prove itself - certainly not to a pesky bunch of mammals who have only been around for a short tick of the clock... and with the way things are going, aren't likely to be around for another tick.

But, back to the main point... I have experienced certain things. Logic is at a loss to explain it away as merely natural stuff. So, I'm left with either I'm a looney, or there is more to this universe than science actually knows. (sure - the former certainly has it's possibilities :p)

As I've expressed previously, I'm more inclined to think that science will eventually come to accept things that currently it won't.

[Evandril]

I'll just buzz in here for $20...

Hopefully, people will beleive in something because of evidence and experience.

But, back to the main point... I have experienced certain things. Logic is at a loss to explain it away as merely natural stuff. So, I'm left with either I'm a looney, or there is more to this universe than science actually knows. (sure - the former certainly has it's possibilities :p)


I'm thinking I wasn't clear, sorry :) I was seperating 'knowing' something is real (ie, because of factual evidence), and 'believing' something is real (based on their personal faith)

The whole 'stranger things' is something I quite agree with, and don't believe science will ever 'prove' everything...The more we learn, the more we discover we HAVE to learn...on not quite a logrithmic scale, but similar ;)

Supernatural, as a term, I tend to dislike...because it's saying outside of nature. Being within nature doesn't mean you're following the same rules as everything else, it just means you're part of the system. (And, no, not everything follows the same rules, even the stuff we know about ;) )

[Slytovhand]

Yes, I'm sure you believe in 'supernatural'...why?? Cos of deja vu.

Deja vu?

Yes, deja vu.

We've had this discussion before...:D

And I totally agree!

(I bet you knew I was going to say that, hey??)

[Pedersen]

How many times has science been wrong?

I like this thought. It quite neatly, in one little statement, shows the greater problem faced by society at large.

People are not allowed to make mistakes any more. Mistakes are caused by somebody else. People who admit that they make mistakes are inherently weaker on the grounds that they make mistakes, whereas people who show how the mistakes are always somebody else's fault are stronger and better.

The other side of that coin: People cannot change their mind anymore, either. If you are presented with evidence that would otherwise make you change your mind, then that evidence must have been fabricated. Why? Because if you change your mind, then you were wrong, and that would have been a mistake. And as has already been shown, that makes you weak.

Which, right now, is why I think that people are turning towards religion. Go and ask the religious leaders, and they'll tell you: God doesn't make mistakes. As they are emissaries of God, he shields them from making mistakes, and that makes religion better than any science could be, since science can learn something that shows them wrong.

Science can make mistakes. Religion can't. Or, at the least, it can't admit to them.

For me, personally, that makes religion weaker. I make mistakes. I'm not perfect. There's no human being who is. Anybody who claims to be perfect is, ipso facto, lying, which makes them imperfect immediately.

Failure to admit to imperfection is the first sign of weakness, since it takes personal strength to ask "Am I wrong here?" If you are unwilling to admit the possibility, then you are already weaker than I am.

Oh, and a tidbit that religious people really seem to get up in arms about: No matter how divinely inspired, any given religious text was written down by a flawed human being. It was then transcribed by another flawed human being, and another. Still others translated it, combined it with other texts, tossed out sections they didn't like, etc.

The religious texts of today are written in different languages, with different intonations from their original sources, with different meanings, etc. Study them all you wish. You are studying a flawed source of divine inspiration, given to you by another flawed human being, all the while decrying the flaws of people seeking to understand the nature of reality.

All in all, fascinating to me. And all of that (plus so much more, but I'm cutting my rambling short) comes from one flawed person's flawed statement about a flawed understanding of flaws in other people.

Thank you.

[Boozy]

People are not allowed to make mistakes any more. Mistakes are caused by somebody else. People who admit that they make mistakes are inherently weaker on the grounds that they make mistakes, whereas people who show how the mistakes are always somebody else's fault are stronger and better.


Quoted for truth! I liked this post.

That's why we get politicians who lie to us. We practically demand it of them.

Now I had better shut up before I cause any major thread drift.

[Slytovhand]

While for the most part I have to agree with your rambling, Mr Ped, there's just one bit I'll chuck in - more as a 'clarification' than anything else.

There is a difference between a 'natural' religion and an 'inspired' or 'revealed' religion. The latter have their books and all, the former don't.

If a Native American wants to get in touch with their religion, they don't go looking in a book for 'truth' - they go out and actually experience it. They don't need such an unchanging, unwieldy thing like absolute truth. (and this is the same for all natural religions... I just thought I'd use Native American, as most ppl on that part of the world are more familiar with it...). Change is actually a requirement (well... I'll use that term :p) The universe and nature changes - so should 'truth'. I know for myself (and I use the word 'know' to mean 'have actually experienced') that I can ask a question today and get one answer, ask the same question tomorrow, get a different answer.... (bloody annoying, that is, too! :p)

[Sylvia727]

People are not allowed to make mistakes any more. Mistakes are caused by somebody else. People who admit that they make mistakes are inherently weaker on the grounds that they make mistakes, whereas people who show how the mistakes are always somebody else's fault are stronger and better.

"Pride is the most dangerous of the seven deadly sins because pride will have you repeating the other six again and again." -Can't remember who said it, but it's all too true.

[Flyndaran]

I'm an atheist, but I don't believe in atheism any more than I believe in negative unicorns. I don't believe in unicorns as I don't believe in afterlives, magic, fairies, and souls. All just feel good stories people tell themselves to cover for the uncomfortable truths of ignorance and that everything, including ourselves, having an end.

[Slytovhand]

.... All just feel good stories people tell themselves to cover for the uncomfortable truths of ignorance and that everything, including ourselves, having an end.

Ah... just as arrogant and 'know it all' as any 'true believer' of any other religion :D And just as dismissive of every experience of everyone else who believes something because of those experiences... miracles never occur, sightings are all figments of the imagination, revelations are all crap..????

Yeah, I know - that's the sort of thought pattern you have to give yourself to justify your beliefs. :)

[Jadedcarguy]

Yeah, I know - that's the sort of thought pattern you have to give yourself to justify your beliefs. :)

Yeah, it is. :D

[Evandril]

I'm an atheist, but I don't believe in atheism any more than I believe in negative unicorns. I don't believe in unicorns as I don't believe in afterlives, magic, fairies, and souls. All just feel good stories people tell themselves to cover for the uncomfortable truths of ignorance and that everything, including ourselves, having an end.

The definition of an atheist is the belief there are no dieties. Since there is no proof for or against their existance, it cannot be classified as anything other than a belief.

[Flyndaran]

The definition of an atheist is the belief there are no dieties. Since there is no proof for or against their existance, it cannot be classified as anything other than a belief.

Do you also classify your belief in the non-existance of Zeus as a belief? Is so, then alright. If not, then why not?

You can disprove that I don't have a magical, tiny, insubstatial, invisible, unicorn in my butt, so your disbelief is a belief, right?

That's what it boils down to. Is disbelief a form of belief? I don't think so. You do. End of discusssion, eh?

[Evandril]

Do you also classify your belief in the non-existance of Zeus as a belief? Is so, then alright. If not, then why not?

You can disprove that I don't have a magical, tiny, insubstatial, invisible, unicorn in my butt, so your disbelief is a belief, right?

That's what it boils down to. Is disbelief a form of belief? I don't think so. You do. End of discusssion, eh?

Can I prove Zeus does/did not exist? Nope...So I'm neutral on the matter, I've never claimed he does or does not exist. And honestly, I'd be more inclined to believe in Zeus's existance than the Christian god, m'self...Zeus wasn't all powerful, even within the mythos, nor all knowing.

If you can show me proof of something, then it no longer requires taking something on faith...of course, absoulte proof is such a pain...*shrugs*

If you can tell me how you can say 'x' does NOT exist anyplace within the universe, without asking me to take part of it on faith, I'd be impressed. Heck, if you've read Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, give me proof that the diety mentioned in that book doesn't exist, and we're not all to be wiped out by the coming of the great hankerchief ;) That god had *nothing* to do with Earth, so wouldn't leave any signs here...

[Gabrielle Proctor]

Okey dokey, just to chime in here... I don't remember who said it, but let me make a clarification, ahem, EINSTEIN DID NOT SUPPORT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
This is just like Darwin's "eye quote" which is taken out of context and never expanded upon.

Also, Intelligent design was denounced IN COURT. That's right, the government found that it had absolutely no merit in the court of law. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

"A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago."

Also, I do not believe in God(s). I guess that makes me an Atheist. I would be glad to believe in God(s) if there was evidence to support God(s), but there isn't. Also, I can't justify believing in one without entertaining the possibility that all of the other ones are true too.

[Slytovhand]

Hi Gab... long time and all....

Firstly, twas I who mentioned Einstein's name, and it was indeed in a post in which ID was mentioned. But I didn't say he supported 'it'. I was heading towards the idea that he looked at what he saw and thought that there seems to be rational reason for believing in some form of 'Intelligent Designer'... that it made more sense to him than 'all this' being purely random.

But that's for the ID thread... (which it went to anyway :p)

And yes, I know it got thrown out it court... strangely, that in itself doesn't actually mean it's wrong! Only that it was unlawful to teach it in science (in particular, biology... which to my way of thinking is a real stupid place for ID'ers to even bother fighting said battle! Their argument makes no sense whatsoever!!) After all, for all we know, what those ID'ers are trying to say was actually the way the universe unfolded!

But... back to this thread. I don't understand quite why belief in one deity must necessarily mean belief in all. I can understand "I might be wrong, and any number of other options are therefore possible", but maybe I'm just mis-reading you...

[Evandril]

But... back to this thread. I don't understand quite why belief in one deity must necessarily mean belief in all. I can understand "I might be wrong, and any number of other options are therefore possible", but maybe I'm just mis-reading you...

If this was directed at my arguements, then I wasn't clear. I'd been saying I personally won't say if any given deity exists or not, not that if you believe in one, you need to believe in them all. Belief is just that, taking something on faith...and if you're doing that, that does not mean you have to take the rest of 'em on faith as well. I was just saying that, to the best of my knowledge, you cannot *disprove* the existance of a diety with the information we have.

Btw, Aethist = There are *no* gods, period, according to all the definitions I've heard. Agnostic = There might be gods, might not be, not going to worry about it. (More definitions for that one, but the 'not worrying about it' part tends to be fairly standard)

[Slytovhand]

Ev.. no, Gab's line.

Oh - did we define 'deity', given that Zeus has now been mentioned? After all, no real reason to believe some being calling itself Zeus, who, compared to the local population, didn't have super amazing magical powers type stuff... and thus got labelled as a 'god'... thus making him a 'deity'... even if he was just an alien.

[Evandril]

Concidering I tossed in one from a fictional book...Nope, but I'd give a loose one as something believed to be a diety...since faith is the issue in question. *shrugs* Be glad to hear a better one :) Though I would argue if the 'omnipotent' lable is a given, as few gods in history have had that label attached to them...Including some currently worshipped.

[Gabrielle Proctor]

All of them require faith. None of them require or have any evidence. Therefore, I would have to entertain the possibility that they all exist.

"Can I prove Zeus does/did not exist? Nope...So I'm neutral on the matter, I've never claimed he does or does not exist. And honestly, I'd be more inclined to believe in Zeus's existance than the Christian god, m'self...Zeus wasn't all powerful, even within the mythos, nor all knowing."

It isn't up to us to disprove God(s). The burden of proof falls on those who make the positive claim for existence(sp?).

I used to consider myself an Agnostic, because I was under the mistaken impression that Atheists were 100% sure that there weren't any Gods. But, when I started to research, I found out that I was an Atheist even though I wasn't 100% sure God(s) wasn't real.

Most Atheists don't have this militant attitude towards the non-existence of God(s). Most of them are pretty sure that God(s) isn't real, but are willing to change their mind when evidence presents itself to support the existence of God(s).

And even though they aren't 100% sure, they aren't going to fall back on God(s) as some kind of default option. It's like a celestial teapot. There could be a teapot orbiting earth right now. It's too small to find and there is no evidence for said teapot. Do I believe in it anyway because it might be there? Nope.

That's pretty much my take on God.

There is no faith required for the non-existence of God(s), just like there is no faith for the non-existence of the celestial teapot.

[Evandril]

I used to consider myself an Agnostic, because I was under the mistaken impression that Atheists were 100% sure that there weren't any Gods. But, when I started to research, I found out that I was an Atheist even though I wasn't 100% sure God(s) wasn't real.

Could you give me a reference for that, please? Not saying you're wrong, but it does go against what I was taught the word meant, when I was studying Philosophy. I know quite a few people who call themselves atheists don't take that hard of a stance...but I also know quite a few people who call themselves 'christians'....and I'd never give them credit for that title ;) I am weird, though, I tend to enjoy being proven wrong...means I get to learn something new :)

[Slytovhand]

One small bit to chuck in there...

There may not be a teapot now, but there may be in the future...

Meaning, some sort of Divine Being may have created this universe, and then sodded off. Or is down here walking amongst us, forgotten it's true nature, and has absolutely no idea what's going on.

Or we're just one of many creations, and we've currently been shelved for something with more colours :p

None of this helps the argument in anyway possible :D

But... isn't it science's role to disprove theories? (ok, sure, when did science enter this debate...). I don't think anyone has to prove (or disprove) anything. But I do think we all have the brain cells to accept some things when they are blatantly obvious ... (not withstanding the whole 'we are all figments of an imagination' theory).

Ev... I'd be interested in the definition of Christian then... I only figure it means to believe that JC is the one and only son of the one and only God, and unless you believe in Him and that he sacrificed himself for your immortal soul's entry into heaven (presuming you keep believing that), - then you're a Christian...

You've got something different?

[Gabrielle Proctor]

Could you give me a reference for that, please?

I could give you TONS. You should check out "The Foundational Falsehoods of Christianity" by Aron-ra on youtube. I think he has a video that talks about the topic of this thread. I just don't know which one it is. There are like, 14 of them and I don't have a couple hours of free time to find it.

Keep in mind it's not like anyone told me that most Atheists are like what I just described, I discovered it on my own by being a part of the community. I guess that would be the biggest reference.

Ev... I'd be interested in the definition of Christian then... I only figure it means to believe that JC is the one and only son of the one and only God, and unless you believe in Him and that he sacrificed himself for your immortal soul's entry into heaven (presuming you keep believing that), - then you're a Christian...

You've got something different?

I think he means that a lot of Christians don't practice what they preach.

[Gabrielle Proctor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTsP_vBuZUM

This was just put on youtube 3 hours ago. Quite a coincidence lol. I was like, "Snap! I found a video about what I was JUST talking about!"

This covers a lot of ground for my position. Even a definition of Atheism for Evandril.

[protege]

Here's something to ponder. Why is it that people who go around spouting off that they believe in (and I apologize for the analogy...but it's the best I could come up with) someone who is more-or-less an "invisible friend" is considered "sane" for the most part. Yet, someone else, who believes in space aliens, and goes on about them with the same fervor, is considered crazy? Why one, and not the other...especially since there's no *absolute* proof that *either* exists?

As for me, well, I'm an agnostic. I simply got tired of having religion forced down my throat growing up. Well, that and being told by various idiots in grade school (a *Catholic* one at that) that I'd never amount to anything, plus being told that I was "going to hell" constantly for various "offenses," etc. meant I'd had enough. Maybe God does exist, maybe he doesn't. Either way, I have bigger things to worry about--getting the bills paid on time, my job, etc.

Believe what you want, but don't attempt to force it down my throat.

[Evandril]

Ev... I'd be interested in the definition of Christian then... I only figure it means to believe that JC is the one and only son of the one and only God, and unless you believe in Him and that he sacrificed himself for your immortal soul's entry into heaven (presuming you keep believing that), - then you're a Christian...

You've got something different?

I'd thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you both had to believe that, and *try* to emulate him, and do your best to live according to the 'rules' in the bible. The ones preaching hate from a doctorine based off of love...yeah, not people *I* would call Christian, though they themselves do fairly often.

Protege, another good one...Catholics who believe in saints...as long as it's noone they know. Anyone they know who claims to be a saint tends to be viewed as insane by their 'friends', from my experience. Agreed, though, when you have odds of a billion to one on life existing someplace else...and ten billion other stars...by the odds, that's ten other places with life ;) (All numbers purely imaginary, btw...The one time I looked at the 'odds', though, it was less than the guesstimate of other stars...By a significant amount)

[Boozy]

Here's something to ponder. Why is it that people who go around spouting off that they believe in (and I apologize for the analogy...but it's the best I could come up with) someone who is more-or-less an "invisible friend" is considered "sane" for the most part. Yet, someone else, who believes in space aliens, and goes on about them with the same fervor, is considered crazy? Why one, and not the other...especially since there's no *absolute* proof that *either* exists?

This is a very good point.

I think the difference between believing in God and believing in aliens is that one is incredibly unlikely based on what we know of the universe and its laws, and one is at least possible based on those same laws. There's no proof of either - and yet if you were to tell me that there will be proof of either God or intelligent alien life within my lifetime, I'd put money on the latter.

Whether or not I think you're crazy for being religious or believing in aliens is another matter. If you say you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, I don't think you're crazy. You've just chosen to take a leap of faith because you find a certain form of spirituality/religion helpful and comforting. But if you say you're the reincarnation of Jesus himself, and are attempting to convert others in preparation for the end of the world on some specific date in the near future, I'd say you're either nuts or a con artist.

Likewise with belief in aliens. If you believe in aliens because you've reflected on the vastness of the universe, of which we have only charted an unimaginably small fraction, and think the odds are good that there are other intelligent life forms out there, then I can respect that. It's a different story if you believe that aliens are probing your anus on a nightly basis. :D

[Jadedcarguy]

Here's something to ponder. Why is it that people who go around spouting off that they believe in (and I apologize for the analogy...but it's the best I could come up with) someone who is more-or-less an "invisible friend" is considered "sane" for the most part.

These same people will call someone like myself foolish or stupid or even worse, just evil for saying, "Ya know, I just don't buy it."

The delusion runs deep.

[Flyndaran]

Why is it a leap of faith to believe in ridiculous religions but delusion for EVERY other lunatic idea?

[Jadedcarguy]

Why is it a leap of faith to believe in ridiculous religions but delusion for EVERY other lunatic idea?

Define lunatic. :)

[Evandril]

Why is it a leap of faith to believe in ridiculous religions but delusion for EVERY other lunatic idea?

Because the ideas that are concidered 'lunatic' tend to have a good deal of proof against them...IE, flat earth theories, and the like. There are quite a few 'lunatic' ideas that have been proven *CORRECT*, so perhaps believing in more than what we 'know' isn't always a bad thing?

[Slytovhand]

Define lunatic. :)

Followers of a lunar cult :D

I'd say the issue with having faith in some deity, vs actually saying you are the reincarnation of said avatar, is evidence. Not easy to convince 'god' to come down and do a quick bit of miracles just to prove a point, but certainly shouldn't be an issue if the reincarnation of JC is in front of you, why wouldn't they do something more interesting than hankies up sleeves type tricks?? After all, if he was serious about being followed, he'd give reason to believe - not just say "Hey guys, it's me, I'm back...now - worship!".

I can't see why deity and aliens can't be in the same beliefs... well, for that matter, I know they can... cos I do!

Ev - yeah, someone did some sort of calculation regarding intelligent evolved life elsewhere (go on, someone tell us his name :) ).... reduction from number of stars in the universe, reduced by number of stars with planets, number of planets with atmosphere, # of atmosphere capable of sustaining life, # been around to keep life going and evolving, # where evolution has gotten life to advanced state. I think he was using a ratio of 100:1 (every 100 stars had 1 planet, etc). Still, turned out to be a very large number... just a long way away... and still had a few in our galaxy alone.

Oh yeah - invisible friend. You're only sane if the conversations go 1 way. When God starts speaking back to you, then there's a problem. (of course, that depends on what 'god' tells you... somehow, 'god' is all peaceful and loving... so it's bad to be told to kill people... I dunno)

[Jadedcarguy]

so perhaps believing in more than what we 'know' isn't always a bad thing?

Actually, it is. Belief in the unlikely without evidence of any sort is utter horseshit.

If I told you I 'believed' the sun would rise in the morning you'd go along with it. If I told you the moon would rise in the late afternoon you'd be fine with it. Why? Because that's what both celestial bodies have done for countless millennia.

Now, if I told you that the sun would not rise, but instead the moon would spin backwards and spread fire and hate and pain against all who didn't believe it would do such a thing, you'd laugh at me and call me a fool, and rightly so. If I gathered 10,000 other individuals who shared my delusion you'd still be skeptical.

Why?


Because it would be horseshit! You and everyone else would know better. Yet, without evidence and in spite of vast evidence against such a notion, billions, fucking BILLIONS, believe in an invisible sky daddy who is obsessively concerned with their well-being (and bedroom behavior:rolleyes:) while ignoring the millions of starving children simply because they haven't been fucking saved.

A deity of that nature is not deserving of worship or adoration. :mad:

[Pedersen]

Ev - yeah, someone did some sort of calculation regarding intelligent evolved life elsewhere (go on, someone tell us his name :) ).... reduction from number of stars in the universe, reduced by number of stars with planets, number of planets with atmosphere, # of atmosphere capable of sustaining life, # been around to keep life going and evolving, # where evolution has gotten life to advanced state. I think he was using a ratio of 100:1 (every 100 stars had 1 planet, etc). Still, turned out to be a very large number... just a long way away... and still had a few in our galaxy alone.

I'll interject the Drake Equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation), and return you to the regularly scheduled thread.

[Slytovhand]

Thanks Ped :D

JC, what is out there that's unlikely with evidence?

Now, while I'm willing to go along with your following points, you've only tried to invalidate one version of deity...there are stacks of others out there that are believed in. What I find interesting is the number of cosmologists and astrophysicists putting their hand up to say there's something else out there that created all of this. As if, in seeing a much bigger picture, they see much less randomness at work.

[Jadedcarguy]

JC, what is out there that's unlikely with evidence?

With evidence? Not a whole hell of a lot.

Show me evidence, real evidence, not circumstantial bullshit, for any deity and I will investigate it. Seriously. :)

Now, while I'm willing to go along with your following points, you've only tried to invalidate one version of deity...there are stacks of others out there that are believed in.

Oh, for fuck sake.

Zeus? Bullshit. Apollo? Bullshit. Athena? Bullshit. <Insert Greek God Here>? Bullshit. Horus? Bullshit. Ra? Bullshit. Hathor? Bullshit. Sekhmet? Bullshit. Geb? Bullshit. Nut? Bullshit? Thoth? Bullshit. Sobek? Bullshit. <Insert Egyptian God Here>? Bullshit.

Vishnu? Bullshit. Zoroaster? Bullshit. Buddha? Bullshit. Thetans? Bullshit. Mithra? Bullshit. <Insert currently worshipped non-Christian God here>? Bullshit.

Baldr? Bullshit. Forseti? Bullshit. Höðr? Bullshit. Thor? Bullshit. <Insert Norse God here>? Bullshit. Atlacamani? Bullshit. Chantico? Bullshit. Cinteotl? Bullshit. <Insert Aztec God here>? Bullshit. Ah Peku? Bullshit. Hunab Ku? Bullshit. Balam? Bullshit. Ekchuah? Bullshit. Kinich Ahau? Bullshit. <Insert Mayan God here>? Bullshit.

Hachiman? Bullshit. Benzai? Bullshit. Jikoku? Bullshit. Hoderi? Bullshit. <Insert Japanese God here>? Bullshit.

Do I need to elaborate any further? The preceding list is only a small sliver of the gods who are/were believed in at one point in time or possibly now. Why should Yahweh/Jehovah/Jesus garner any more respect when the evidence for their existence is as flimsy as the gods in the 'bullshit' list I just posted? Why?


What I find interesting is the number of cosmologists and astrophysicists putting their hand up to say there's something else out there that created all of this. As if, in seeing a much bigger picture, they see much less randomness at work.

What they're doing is allowing the scope of what they don't know to get the best of them. Inserting a deity into the picture to account for the unknown is childish. And utter bullshit. :)

[Boozy]

Why is it a leap of faith to believe in ridiculous religions but delusion for EVERY other lunatic idea?

You'd have to provide some examples of other "lunatic" ideas. I think some beliefs are easier explained by simple ignorance than actual mental illness. There is a difference between being uninformed and crazy.

You've mentioned that you are a "born atheist" more than a few times. If that's possible (and I believe that it is), then there are likely "born believers" too. I don't see why either characteristic necessarily precludes sanity.

[Evandril]

Actually, it is. Belief in the unlikely without evidence of any sort is utter horseshit.

So the fact man can fly is utter horseshit? Or that we'll make it to the moon someday? BOTH of which were 'unlikely' at their time, and, other than some rather confused people, are fairly accepted now as having happened.


A deity of that nature is not deserving of worship or adoration. :mad:

While I'd agree with that last part...that has little to do with their existance. Show me how there is more evidence for a quark than a diety...and yet quite a few scientists state they exist. What about the matter we can't *find*, that science says must exist?

[Flyndaran]

...
While I'd agree with that last part...that has little to do with their existance. Show me how there is more evidence for a quark than a diety...and yet quite a few scientists state they exist. What about the matter we can't *find*, that science says must exist?

I really wish you religious people would stop bringing up scientific discoveries that you clearly don't understand. It just makes you look ignorant.
People have seen, and measured, and discovered quarks in particle acclerators. No one has predicted, measured, and witnessed an impossibly perfect deity.
Only psuedo-science has even a passing resemblance to religion.

[Jadedcarguy]

So the fact man can fly is utter horseshit? Or that we'll make it to the moon someday? BOTH of which were 'unlikely' at their time, and, other than some rather confused people, are fairly accepted now as having happened.

Some people said we'd never fly. They were wrong. If someone can show me evidence of a supernatural being, perhaps I'll change my mind. Until then, I'll stick to my guns. :D

Now then, on to your feeble arguments. :)

The people who made human flight possible believing it could be done were not crazy, because they could see birds and insects and bats do it, so they knew it was mechanically possible. Therefore, believing that it could be done was in no way belief without evidence.

By the time we went to the moon, human flight was commonplace. We'd already put manned and unmanned craft into orbit and beyond, so we knew sending a man to the moon was possible. That isn't belief without evidence either.




While I'd agree with that last part...that has little to do with their existance.

No, it has to do with their divinity.
Show me how there is more evidence for a quark than a diety...and yet quite a few scientists state they exist. What about the matter we can't *find*, that science says must exist?

Flyn covered this one as good as I could have. :)

[Evandril]

I really wish you religious people would stop bringing up scientific discoveries that you clearly don't understand. It just makes you look ignorant.
People have seen, and measured, and discovered quarks in particle acclerators. No one has predicted, measured, and witnessed an impossibly perfect deity.
Only psuedo-science has even a passing resemblance to religion.

Wow...I'm religious! News to me, thanks for letting me know ;) Last I'd heard, quarks were still unproven, my apologies for using a bad example...I do know there are lots of things scientists won't say exist or not, but they think they do. *shrugs*

I do not believe I've ever stated it needed to be even a moderatly perfect diety, much less impossibly perfect... And the 'evidence' behind things happening without an explination is fairly concrete, if you were talking other scientific investigations.

[Evandril]

The people who made human flight possible believing it could be done were not crazy, because they could see birds and insects and bats do it, so they knew it was mechanically possible. Therefore, believing that it could be done was in no way belief without evidence.

When they started trying to do it...it wouldn't work, because we *don't* fly the same way birds, insects or bats do...the way we do it is quite a bit different. So the 'evidence' they had was pretty much 'I think we can do this, lets see if we can find a way'. It's still believing something without knowing it's possible...sorta like the scientists working on teleportation now. People say they are crazy, but I'm withholding judgement until they either do it or not.


By the time we went to the moon, human flight was commonplace. We'd already put manned and unmanned craft into orbit and beyond, so we knew sending a man to the moon was possible. That isn't belief without evidence either.

Yes, by the time we *DID* it...people were talking about it LONG before then, in Science Fiction, and were widely called crazy for it.


No, it has to do with their divinity.

Ok, so your other post about various dieties doesn't apply? Most of the ones you listed don't fall under the example you gave of divinity...which is it? A diety who's sole power is to make sure the cores of the suns are the right color is *still* a diety...just one we'd never notice...and wouldn't ask for anything you listed, nor do anything you'd said a god/ess *must* do.

[Jadedcarguy]

When they started trying to do it...it wouldn't work, because we *don't* fly the same way birds, insects or bats do...the way we do it is quite a bit different. So the 'evidence' they had was pretty much 'I think we can do this, lets see if we can find a way'. It's still believing something without knowing it's possible...sorta like the scientists working on teleportation now. People say they are crazy, but I'm withholding judgement until they either do it or not.




Yes, by the time we *DID* it...people were talking about it LONG before then, in Science Fiction, and were widely called crazy for it.

You should change your username to Red Herring. I shall henceforth call you Mr. Herring. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to get into a debate about the mechanics of flight or space travel, other than to say this. The forefathers of flight and space travel knew it was possible before it was attempted. They could see animals do it. They simply had to figure out how we could do it. All of this of course has absolutely nothing to do with deities. Jesus jack-hammerin' Christ!

Besides the fact that attempting to do something never before done that you know is theoretically possible is an entirely different kind of "leap of faith" than a religion. Come on, man.




Ok, so your other post about various dieties doesn't apply? Most of the ones you listed don't fall under the example you gave of divinity...which is it? A diety who's sole power is to make sure the cores of the suns are the right color is *still* a diety...just one we'd never notice...and wouldn't ask for anything you listed, nor do anything you'd said a god/ess *must* do.


My other post about long lost deities had absolutely nothing to do with my statement that the God of the Bible would be unworthy of worship, Mr. Herring. It meant that if that particular god existed, his behavior as chronicled in the OT made him less than divine, thus my qualifying statement about divinity, not existence. In other words, I don't believe in Him, but if he were real and the OT were accurate, he is unworthy of worship. Ya dig? I gave no example of divinity, only an example of what was not divine.

[Evandril]

I'm not going to get into a debate about the mechanics of flight or space travel, other than to say this. The forefathers of flight and space travel knew it was possible before it was attempted. They could see animals do it. They simply had to figure out how we could do it. All of this of course has absolutely nothing to do with deities. Jesus jack-hammerin' Christ!

Actually, it was in response to someone saying why are people who believe in various dieties concidered sane, but others who have *NON-RELIGIOUS* ideas, ie, having nothing to do with deities, are concidered insane. I was saying that people who *were* concidered insane at the time...Have been proven right.


My other post about long lost deities had absolutely nothing to do with my statement that the God of the Bible would be unworthy of worship, Mr. Herring. It meant that if that particular god existed, his behavior as chronicled in the OT made him less than divine, thus my qualifying statement about divinity, not existence. In other words, I don't believe in Him, but if he were real and the OT were accurate, he is unworthy of worship. Ya dig? I gave no example of divinity, only an example of what was not divine.

So if a god is not a nice deity, they are not worthy of worship, and therefore not divine? I've very rarely heard of a god that didn't have the manners of a spoiled child, in *my* opinion, but lots of people worship them...It seems a different definition of 'divine' than most is being used here...Could you please clarify?

[Jadedcarguy]

Actually, it was in response to someone saying why are people who believe in various dieties concidered sane, but others who have *NON-RELIGIOUS* ideas, ie, having nothing to do with deities, are concidered insane. I was saying that people who *were* concidered insane at the time...Have been proven right.

Seems like an odd thing to be directing towards me then. I consider deity belief to be a little childlike myself.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, and to some extent the early 20th, polite society considered themselves to be at the absolute pinnacle of achievement. Therefore anyone trying to improve on that was considered loopy. Once it was realized how much else was truly possible, the ridicule of the dreamers subsided quite a bit.




So if a god is not a nice deity, they are not worthy of worship, and therefore not divine? I've very rarely heard of a god that didn't have the manners of a spoiled child, in *my* opinion, but lots of people worship them...It seems a different definition of 'divine' than most is being used here...Could you please clarify?

It depends on the definition of divine that you want to apply to it. I used divine in this instance as being "perfectly or supremely good", which most gods fall well short of. If you simply want to say that divine is in reference to a god, then no, my use of the word will not work. When I said that the god of the Bible was not divine, I was using the first definition.

[Rapscallion]

Does divine necessarily mean 'good'? Western culture, infused by generations of christianity, has instilled the idea that a god has to be good, but there are examples out there of nasty ones. Polytheistic religions usually have some sort of god who is mischievous (Loki for example), or downright nasty (Loki at his worst, Shiva, Kali, Nemesis).

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

okies... just 2 things immediately came to mind skimming through.

1 - way back when (say, oh, 5000 years ago), looking up at the sky and thinking "hey, I might be able to do that" was looney! The only difference is science and engineering at the time...so - does that count??

2 - what about other dimension or other universes? We don't know if they exist (mathematically possible, even mathematically 'proven'... ) but not in physics at this moment in time (and perhaps never). Mathematically, there is evidence.

How do those compare to divinities?

(and I've also got to agree, some of the specific 'divine' references have come out confusing...)

[Jadedcarguy]

Does divine necessarily mean 'good'? Western culture, infused by generations of christianity, has instilled the idea that a god has to be good, but there are examples out there of nasty ones. Polytheistic religions usually have some sort of god who is mischievous (Loki for example), or downright nasty (Loki at his worst, Shiva, Kali, Nemesis).

Rapscallion

In the definition of divine that I was using, it does mean 'good'. Divine can also mean 'in reference' to a god'. That is not the definition I was using. Don't blame me, blame the English language for assigning multiple meanings to one word. :D

[Jadedcarguy]

1 - way back when (say, oh, 5000 years ago), looking up at the sky and thinking "hey, I might be able to do that" was looney! The only difference is science and engineering at the time...so - does that count??

In and of itself, no. Wondering if something can be done is not loony. Assigning deities to what one doesn't understand is loony. Notice that the two are not one and the same, nor are they intertwined in any way.

You want to talk about gods? Fine. You want to talk about the mechanics of flight and when our tech made it possible? Start another thread. I'm done with it.


2 - what about other dimension or other universes? We don't know if they exist (mathematically possible, even mathematically 'proven'... ) but not in physics at this moment in time (and perhaps never). Mathematically, there is evidence.

How do those compare to divinities?

They don't. All kinds of unproven things are 'mathematically possible'. Show me a mathematical equation that makes a god possible. It doesn't exist.

(and I've also got to agree, some of the specific 'divine' references have come out confusing...)

Notice that I've clarified my usage of the word. Twice now. :p

[Slytovhand]

In and of itself, no. Wondering if something can be done is not loony. Assigning deities to what one doesn't understand is loony. Notice that the two are not one and the same, nor are they intertwined in any way.

You want to talk about gods? Fine. You want to talk about the mechanics of flight and when our tech made it possible? Start another thread. I'm done with it.

Working with the theories and 'sciences' of the time is looney? Remember, the concept of 'science' is incredibly new as far as humanity is concerned.

As for this discussion, it revolves around the idea of what 'atheism' is, and where it comes from. By definition, this means comparing religion and science. It started from the difference between 'knowledge' (ie - evidence and proof), vs 'belief' (ie - theories, ideas etc).


They don't. All kinds of unproven things are 'mathematically possible'. Show me a mathematical equation that makes a god possible. It doesn't exist.


No, you won't.. but I'm reminded of a joke that fits in perfectly here:

One day in the not too distant future, the worlds scientists have worked out completely the human genome, and also all the physics that prove evolution. They approach God, to say that since they've proven such things, they've also proven God doesn't exist. God says "Fine, please demonstrate this for me". The scientists say "Sure, I'll just grab this handful of dirt...". God intervenes and says "Hang on - you get your own dirt!"

So... part of my beliefs come about because mathematics and physics works so well, so succinctly, and because rational judgements can be made regarding the unvierse. The universe is logical and rational.

Now, the word 'god' doesn't sit comfortably with me, but I have no problem with thinking this universe (and, theoretically, any others) were 'made'.


Notice that I've clarified my usage of the word. Twice now. :p

Yes, I know... just mentioning it, tis all :)

[Jadedcarguy]

Working with the theories and 'sciences' of the time is looney? Remember, the concept of 'science' is incredibly new as far as humanity is concerned.

It's loony if it involves making up a deity to explain things. I don't care how long a go it was, even if it was the "science" of the time.

Seeing an animal take flight and wondering how you could do it is not loony.

As for this discussion, it revolves around the idea of what 'atheism' is, and where it comes from. By definition, this means comparing religion and science. It started from the difference between 'knowledge' (ie - evidence and proof), vs 'belief' (ie - theories, ideas etc).

It equates a completely different kind of belief and faith than religion is based on with calling someone stupid for having it. Two very different things.

[Slytovhand]

Are you actually implying that believing in something that science has yet to prove (and, according to this forum, doesn't even have the 'right' to even look into) is 'stupid'? (or am I misinterpreting that sentence??)

I was thinking about this today, and I came to a conclusion that many notable persons throughout history have done - it is more rational to believe in some form of deity (not saying what type... only that one should exist) than to say that it is impossible for any to exist based on 'evidence'. Why? Because 'science' is there to disprove theories. Divinity is not one of those things it can actually go near.

To actually say that there is no evidence for a deity is enough to categorically deny the possibility is, therefore, irrational. Doubt? Sure. To call any such circumstance 'bullshit'...nuh-uh! It thus falls into something basically the same as the religious nuts who "know" that what they think is the truth, and everything else is....say... bullshit??

[Jadedcarguy]

Are you actually implying that believing in something that science has yet to prove (and, according to this forum, doesn't even have the 'right' to even look into) is 'stupid'? (or am I misinterpreting that sentence??)

It would help if you would quote the sentence in question, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

If you believe in something unproven by science and without any evidence to imply it could exist or be done, yes you are silly. If something is theoretically possible but yet unproven, it isn't necessarily 'stupid' to believe it could happen someday, similar to the work done with the Large Hadron Collider. They are looking for something that hasn't been seen but should exist. That's not stupid, it's called exploration and experimentation. So far nothing has been found to imply a deity, no matter how much someone wants to believe that the universe was 'made'.

I was thinking about this today, and I came to a conclusion that many notable persons throughout history have done - it is more rational to believe in some form of deity (not saying what type... only that one should exist) than to say that it is impossible for any to exist based on 'evidence'. Why? Because 'science' is there to disprove theories. Divinity is not one of those things it can actually go near.

I have never said it is impossible. Never, not once, ever. A deity could exist without any evidence in out testable world if it is outside of our plane of existence. If, however it has influence of any kind in our plane, that would have to leave some kind of mark or clue or evidence. There isn't any.

It is unlikely that such a being exists. I never said it couldn't exist. As I said earlier, the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim, I am under no pressure to disprove any god. You seem to be under the impression that I'm claiming to have evidence against gods. I don't. I am saying that evidence for their existence is seriously lacking. Big difference.

To actually say that there is no evidence for a deity is enough to categorically deny the possibility is, therefore, irrational. Doubt? Sure. To call any such circumstance 'bullshit'...nuh-uh! It thus falls into something basically the same as the religious nuts who "know" that what they think is the truth, and everything else is....say... bullshit??

Until evidence for a deity comes up, claiming that one exists and has influence of any kind in someone's life is bullshit. Nothing has been observed, detected, recorded, or otherwise to indicate anything else. God-belief is about emotion and faith, which is belief without evidence, not about facts and proof.

I don't believe in Unicorns, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, The Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra or any other cryptozoological critters either, and there is a hell of a lot more evidence for them than there is for any kind of god. Deities have come and gone countless times since humanity climbed out of the trees. Like belief in a flat earth, a pillar of turtles, an earth-centric universe, and so on, myths about gods are slowly being replaced with proven facts.

If you want to believe, have fun with it. I won't tell you not to. Just understand where I'm coming from when I say it isn't something I'd put stock in. I lack belief in deities because it is something that I can't reconcile with what I know is true and real. If something comes along to change that, so be it. I'll modify my stance at that time.

[Jadedcarguy]

OK, after my last post I've been kicking around some thoughts that I think I need to put down here, mainly the misconceptions about what atheism is and what it isn't.

Atheism is exactly that: a-theism, or lack of gods. Some one who is asexual doesn't have sex and has no desire to. I have no gods and have no desire to acquire any. The a- prefix simply means without, not that I'm 100% sure that they aren't real, just that I find no reason to believe.


"But Jaded, that makes you agnostic LOL!!1!"

No, it doesn't. Agnostic is, in my opinion, a safe place. An agnostic will say "I really don't know if gods are real." An atheist will say "I don't have a belief in any gods." The difference is that an agnostic is trying not to alienate the believers or the nonbelievers, an atheist stopped caring who he/she pisses off quite some time ago. Not that I'm trying to piss anyone off, just that if my lack of belief makes you uncomfortable, well, fuck off. That's your problem. :D

The believer in a god or religion is going to do one of two or possibly three things:

1)Continue to believe until the day they die, shunning all information that refutes their faith.

2)Start to investigate their faith when they come across inconsistencies in the doctrine, realize that their holy texts are in fact fallible, and lose their faith. This is what I did.

3)Realize that the texts aren't ironclad and contain errors, yet continue in the faith anyway, because it makes them 'feel good'. I think this represents the majority of Christians.


In any case, it takes a great deal of denial and closed-mindedness to continue in any faith when the vast majority of scientific knowledge is in conflict with its major tenets.

[AFPheonix]

Except that of you pick apart the word "agnostic" the way you picked apart "athiest", you will find that you come up with something like "without knowledge". It's not being wishy washy, it's just acknowledging that we simply do not have the knowledge one way or another to make a claim. Agnosticism can run the gamut from mild belief in the possibility of a god, or more to where I am, where the existence of such is unlikely, but not particularly provable one way or another.

[Flyndaran]

Can I call all of us that don't believe in unicorns a-unicorn-ites? Why must only we atheists get saddled with names for not believing in the absurd?
All we are a-leprechaun-ites a-X-ites ad infinitum for not believing in all the impossible but also linguistically impossible to prove nonsense?

[Boozy]

Can I call all of us that don't believe in unicorns a-unicorn-ites? Why must only we atheists get saddled with names for not believing in the absurd?

The subject of unicorn-belief comes up so seldomly and has such little bearing in modern culture and philosophy that there's no need for a term to desribe people who believe/don't believe in them.

I was being a bit pedantic there. I do understand what your point is, but I think you can also recognize that religion is a major force in the world, so we need words to describe how people feel about it.

[Pedersen]

So... part of my beliefs come about because mathematics and physics works so well, so succinctly, and because rational judgements can be made regarding the unvierse. The universe is logical and rational.

Slyt, this has been bothering me for a couple of days, and I'm hoping that I've misunderstood. But my understanding of what you've said is, basically, this: Since the universe makes sense, there is some sort of deific entity out there.

Which, if we extrapolate the whole rational/makes sense bit, we eventually come down to a statement like "Since cause precedes effect, there's a deity of some sort."

I know I've misunderstood, but that's what I've understood. Please tell me what I got wrong.

[Evandril]

Atheism is exactly that: a-theism, or lack of gods. Some one who is asexual doesn't have sex and has no desire to. I have no gods and have no desire to acquire any. The a- prefix simply means without, not that I'm 100% sure that they aren't real, just that I find no reason to believe.

athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity



No, it doesn't. Agnostic is, in my opinion, a safe place. An agnostic will say "I really don't know if gods are real." An atheist will say "I don't have a belief in any gods." The difference is that an agnostic is trying not to alienate the believers or the nonbelievers, an atheist stopped caring who he/she pisses off quite some time ago. Not that I'm trying to piss anyone off, just that if my lack of belief makes you uncomfortable, well, fuck off. That's your problem. :D

Wow, I'm trying not to piss people off now...now *THAT* is a shocker. Personally, I thought it was that I didn't *care* if there might be a god/goddess or not, or many of 'em, I'm going to live my life how I see fit...Guess I'm wrong ;)


In any case, it takes a great deal of denial and closed-mindedness to continue in any faith when the vast majority of scientific knowledge is in conflict with its major tenets.

You do realize that statement is highly insulting to anyone who *does* hold religious beliefs, for no apparent gain, do you not? And is the same reason quite a few people (myself included) highly dislike xtains? I don't care what your beliefs are or are not...but to tell me *mine* are wrong...That I dislike.

Btw, how much scientific knowledge is in conflict with *itself*?

[Jadedcarguy]

Except that of you pick apart the word "agnostic" the way you picked apart "athiest", you will find that you come up with something like "without knowledge". It's not being wishy washy, it's just acknowledging that we simply do not have the knowledge one way or another to make a claim. Agnosticism can run the gamut from mild belief in the possibility of a god, or more to where I am, where the existence of such is unlikely, but not particularly provable one way or another.

Not trying to make agnostics sound wishy washy. Sorry if I gave that impression.

athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Uh, yeah. I knew that. :D



Wow, I'm trying not to piss people off now...now *THAT* is a shocker. Personally, I thought it was that I didn't *care* if there might be a god/goddess or not, or many of 'em, I'm going to live my life how I see fit...Guess I'm wrong ;)

Well, I'm not trying to piss people off either. My point is that if someone gets angry because I don't share their particular flavor of belief, too bad. That truly is their problem.




You do realize that statement is highly insulting to anyone who *does* hold religious beliefs, for no apparent gain, do you not?


Many religious people make a hobby out of taking insult to anything that doesn't tow their particular line. Look at the pointless outrage over the atheist adverts on the London bendy-buses. They quickly forget that they are a response to all the pro-Xtian ads that have been inside and outside of the buses for years, but now someone is saying something different, and they are all frothy over it. It's hypocrisy honed to an art form. :rolleyes:


And is the same reason quite a few people (myself included) highly dislike xtains? I don't care what your beliefs are or are not...but to tell me *mine* are wrong...That I dislike.

If you hold a religious belief that works for you, run with it.

If you have a particular belief that has been insulted here, ask yourself why you're insulted. Did a statement made by me or someone else cause your faith to falter or fail? If not, why be insulted?

I have been listening to Xtian criticism of atheism for quite a while and it's water off of a duck's back as far as I'm concerned. I don't take insult unless they call me stupid. At that point the discussion is over.

True faith, no matter what flavor it is, is not swayed by a negative critique. If you are offended then your faith isn't all that strong to begin with. That's not meant to be an insult, it's just an observation.

Btw, how much scientific knowledge is in conflict with *itself*?

Good science is not in conflict with itself. If new evidence is brought forth that conflicts a standing theory, the theory is either modified to work with the new evidence, or if that can't be done, the theory is scrapped altogether.

Do you have any examples of conflicting science you'd like to hold up?

BTW, if you say Evolution and ID, you fail. :p

[Evandril]

If you believe in something unproven by science and without any evidence to imply it could exist or be done, yes you are silly.
Until evidence for a deity comes up, claiming that one exists and has influence of any kind in someone's life is bullshit.

Well, I'm not trying to piss people off either. My point is that if someone gets angry because I don't share their particular flavor of belief, too bad. That truly is their problem.

The first two statements do not support the third. The impression you've given is that if we do not believe the way you do, we are wrong. As I've said, quite often, believe what you want, but don't tell ME how to believe. If you don't like the xtians doing it to you, then do not do it to others.

If you have a particular belief that has been insulted here, ask yourself why you're insulted. Did a statement made by me or someone else cause your faith to falter or fail? If not, why be insulted?

So if I were to say all left handed people, or all of X race are silly/full of BS, and they are offended, that makes them less left handed, or not a member of their race anymore? The statements were not directed at their beliefs, they were directed at the individuals themselves.


The a- prefix simply means without, not that I'm 100% sure that they aren't real, just that I find no reason to believe.?


athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

I see nowhere in the definition room for doubt. If someone calls themselves a Christian, but is only fairly sure that their god exists...I'd not agree with the title they give themselves. I'm fairly sure an honest Christian priest would tell the person if they didn't believe fully, they were not saved, as well.


Good science is not in conflict with itself. If new evidence is brought forth that conflicts a standing theory, the theory is either modified to work with the new evidence, or if that can't be done, the theory is scrapped altogether.

Do you have any examples of conflicting science you'd like to hold up?

Almost any theoretical postition has some scientist trying to prove the opposite...If you want easy examples, look at what's been 'proven' to be good/bad for you, and why. That's the *nature* of science, you find something you don't know about, form a theory, and try and see if it's right...Then try and find out where it's wrong, since there aren't very many absolutes around. If you stop looking once you think something is 'proven'...You're in for some VERY rude awakenings a bit down the line.

[Jadedcarguy]

The impression you've given is that if we do not believe the way you do, we are wrong.

I'm giving my opinion. If you don't share it, I'm not going to try to change your mind. I am refuting points you have brought up that I disagree with. It's called debate. ;)



So if I were to say all left handed people, or all of X race are silly/full of BS, and they are offended, that makes them less left handed, or not a member of their race anymore?

What? Where are you getting that?

I'm disagreeing with most religious doctrine, which last I checked was something you chose to believe. Left-handedness or race are not things you choose.





athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

I see nowhere in the definition room for doubt. If someone calls themselves a Christian, but is only fairly sure that their god exists...I'd not agree with the title they give themselves. I'm fairly sure an honest Christian priest would tell the person if they didn't believe fully, they were not saved, as well.

Even Richard Dawkins says there is room for doubt. Most atheists I know have said at one point or another that if good evidence for a deity were found/discovered/stumbled upon/handed down from on high then they would change their position. So far no good evidence or in most cases any evidence has surfaced.

One more time for those who have missed it. Atheists by and large do not insist beyond any doubt that there isn't a god. Most of them will allow for the possibility if evidence can be presented. Capiche?




Almost any theoretical postition has some scientist trying to prove the opposite...If you want easy examples, look at what's been 'proven' to be good/bad for you, and why.

Almost as a rule, if a scientist is trying to prove any well established theory wrong, they likely have an agenda or their continued grants are dependent on proving the theory wrong.

That's the *nature* of science, you find something you don't know about, form a theory, and try and see if it's right

Who told you that? :confused:

Science work, whether it's in biology, chemistry, physics, etc, starts with an idea, which is based on what you think is correct based on observation. This idea is called a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is a well established explanation that uses known facts to explain a function, such as gravity, evolution, light rays, sound waves, and so on. A hypothesis can become a theory once it has been supported by research and/or experimentation, and new data and evidence is found that supports it.

.Then try and find out where it's wrong, since there aren't very many absolutes around.

Also wrong. You don't try to find out where it's wrong, you examine new evidence as it is processed or discovered and see if it fits the theory. If it does, great. If not, does it disprove it or take you in a new direction? Most likely the latter because as I said a theory is an explanation based on known facts. New facts usually don't disprove it, they just modify our understanding of it.
If you stop looking once you think something is 'proven'...You're in for some VERY rude awakenings a bit down the line.

This I agree with.

[Slytovhand]

Oh, for fuck sake.

Zeus? Bullshit. Apollo? Bullshit. Athena? Bullshit. <Insert Greek God Here>? Bullshit. Horus? Bullshit. Ra? Bullshit. Hathor? Bullshit. Sekhmet? Bullshit. Geb? Bullshit. Nut? Bullshit? Thoth? Bullshit. Sobek? Bullshit. <Insert Egyptian God Here>? Bullshit.

Vishnu? Bullshit. Zoroaster? Bullshit. Buddha? Bullshit. Thetans? Bullshit. Mithra? Bullshit. <Insert currently worshipped non-Christian God here>? Bullshit.

Baldr? Bullshit. Forseti? Bullshit. Höðr? Bullshit. Thor? Bullshit. <Insert Norse God here>? Bullshit. Atlacamani? Bullshit. Chantico? Bullshit. Cinteotl? Bullshit. <Insert Aztec God here>? Bullshit. Ah Peku? Bullshit. Hunab Ku? Bullshit. Balam? Bullshit. Ekchuah? Bullshit. Kinich Ahau? Bullshit. <Insert Mayan God here>? Bullshit.

Hachiman? Bullshit. Benzai? Bullshit. Jikoku? Bullshit. Hoderi? Bullshit. <Insert Japanese God here>? Bullshit.

Do I need to elaborate any further? The preceding list is only a small sliver of the gods who are/were believed in at one point in time or possibly now. Why should Yahweh/Jehovah/Jesus garner any more respect when the evidence for their existence is as flimsy as the gods in the 'bullshit' list I just posted? Why?.....

Well, I'm not trying to piss people off either. My point is that if someone gets angry because I don't share their particular flavor of belief, too bad. That truly is their problem.

Nope - don't buy it! That entire 'bullshit' post was one massive piss-off session.

I mean, it's one thing to say "I don't believe, and there's no evidence to support", and quite another to say "What you believe is total bullshit... and you're stupid to believe such things" (which is also a term you used).

No, this has nothing to do with questioning of one's faith - this has to do with blatantly insulting someone just because they hold a different belief to you. This thread is a debate and discussion - not an insult session.....


Pedersen... well, sort of - but then again... not! :D

The basic question comes back to how all this started. Was it by accident, was it 'designed', was it one of many versions and we're just the latest?

If option A)... I'd say it's pretty unlikely that we'd have all this organised order.. as a one off. Winning lotto would have better odds than flipping a coin in comparison. And "It just is" doesn't add up to me... as Philip Davies said, there's something fishy going on.

Option C)... that there have been numerous universes in existence, and this is just another model. Yeah, fair enough. Still leaves a fair bit for 'randomness', and I'm not sure I can believe in the idea that universal (multiversal?) physics changes each time a new universe is created.. that doesn't make a lot of sense... how do the laws of physics evolve as it were? Just because something doesn't work in one universe (or part of the universe) doesn't mean it's going to adapt.

So... option B)... we have this wonderful universe, with it's wonderful laws of physics that makes rational sense, that is predictable, and doesn't instantaneously implode on itself..and just happens to be life-conducive in a stable environment...if you wanted to design a universe, this is what you'd be doing. Sure, bad argument in and of itself, but I hope you get the idea. Now, I'm not using the term 'god' here.. only 'designer'. As I've mentioned before, nothing saying this isn't some lab experiment.

[Flyndaran]

The universe just happens to exist in such a way as to allow us to exist. No shit! If it weren't, then we wouldn't be here to whine about it.

If I went to a family reuninion, am I allowed to marvel at how everyone seems to be related to me?

[Evandril]

If option A)... I'd say it's pretty unlikely that we'd have all this organised order.. as a one off. Winning lotto would have better odds than flipping a coin in comparison. And "It just is" doesn't add up to me... as Philip Davies said, there's something fishy going on.


The big thing with this...From what we can tell, the universe isn't very good at sustaining life...the odds are actually highly against it. The saving grace there is, there is SO much to the universe that anything that's merely 'insanely unlikely' has a reasonable chance of happening, someplace. (By life, I was talking about our type, btw...I've no clue about any other types it might be perfectly suited for ;) )

[Flyndaran]

The big thing with this...From what we can tell, the universe isn't very good at sustaining life...the odds are actually highly against it. The saving grace there is, there is SO much to the universe that anything that's merely 'insanely unlikely' has a reasonable chance of happening, someplace. (By life, I was talking about our type, btw...I've no clue about any other types it might be perfectly suited for ;) )

There is the old saying that god must love nothing because he made so darn much of it. Stuff is actually the insignificant impurity in such an otherwise beautiful hard vacuum.

[Evandril]

'Tis the one thing I find most amusing in 90% of the religions I know of...The same diety responsible for creating the whole universe...Is focusing their attention on one little world in it ;)

[Jadedcarguy]

.....



Nope - don't buy it! That entire 'bullshit' post was one massive piss-off session.



Not intended to be. Look at the gods I listed. Most of them aren't believed in by anyone anymore, and the ones that are, well, Christians would say that they aren't real. Could I have used more tact? Sure, but then I wouldn't have gotten your attention. :D

I mean, it's one thing to say "I don't believe, and there's no evidence to support", and quite another to say "What you believe is total bullshit... and you're stupid to believe such things" (which is also a term you used).

Quote the post where I called anyone who believed differently than me stupid. Please. I'd love to read it.

I have used the word silly. I may have even said deluded. I can't recall saying stupid, though. So please quote the post where I did. :)

No, this has nothing to do with questioning of one's faith - this has to do with blatantly insulting someone just because they hold a different belief to you. This thread is a debate and discussion - not an insult session.....

This entire thread could be interpreted by me as an insult to atheism. I don't take it that way, but you want to take my pointing out the flaws in Xtianity or other religions as an insult? Why? Are you that thin skinned? ;)

[Evandril]

This entire thread could be interpreted by me as an insult to atheism. I don't take it that way, but you want to take my pointing out the flaws in Xtianity or other religions as an insult? Why? Are you that thin skinned? ;)

So far we've mainly said that the dictionary states one definition of atheism, but you've said you use a different one, as do most atheists. I do not believe a single person has used *any* derogatory terms towards your beliefs, all we've argued is how they should be classified.

Not intended to be. Look at the gods I listed. Most of them aren't believed in by anyone anymore, and the ones that are, well, Christians would say that they aren't real. Could I have used more tact? Sure, but then I wouldn't have gotten your attention.

Sorry, I know a few people who worship various gods you mentioned, and most of 'em more 'faithfully' than 90% of 'Christians'. Using insults to get attention is normally not a practice encouraged here, btw.

Quote the post where I called anyone who believed differently than me stupid. Please. I'd love to read it.

I have used the word silly. I may have even said deluded. I can't recall saying stupid, though. So please quote the post where I did.

To me, 'silly' and 'deluded' are insults...and saying someone who does not believe as you do requires insulting...*shrugs* That's one of the *MAIN* reasons I have very little respect for xtains. If they are the type of people you want to model your behavior after...

[Jadedcarguy]

So far we've mainly said that the dictionary states one definition of atheism, but you've said you use a different one, as do most atheists. I do not believe a single person has used *any* derogatory terms towards your beliefs, all we've argued is how they should be classified.



Sorry, I know a few people who worship various gods you mentioned, and most of 'em more 'faithfully' than 90% of 'Christians'. Using insults to get attention is normally not a practice encouraged here, btw.

Actually, most dictionary definitions of atheism are pretty good, it's the ones that say we're 100% sure that I disagree with.

As far as your friends worshiping some of the gods on the list, I mentioned that some of them were still worshiped, didn't I? But from an atheist and Xtian perspective, none of them are real. Can we agree on that? Your friends can worship their cat for all I care. That's their prerogative.


To me, 'silly' and 'deluded' are insults...and saying someone who does not believe as you do requires insulting...*shrugs* That's one of the *MAIN* reasons I have very little respect for xtains. If they are the type of people you want to model your behavior after...

So then we agree that I didn't call anyone stupid? I don't think anyone who disagrees requires insulting. The list was posted in response to the misperception that I was only going after one god.

And no, I don't model my behavior after them. You won't catch me knocking on your door on Saturday trying to convince you of anything, nor voting on what you can or can't do in private and with whom.

Start a thread about atheism, though, and I will be in it. :)




-EDIT-


I've been thinking about this thread off and on this evening. The more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that no one has the right not to be offended or insulted by someone else's viewpoint. Not you, not me, no one.

I have pointed out several times in this thread that I didn't come in here to offend any one or any belief system in particular, but I knew that because of the viewpoint I hold, it would offend someone. No escaping that. I have said that I think religion is silly, delusional, irrational even. I stand by those statements. If it pleases you, call me a heathen and tell me I'm going to Hell. It doesn't bother me. My derision of your beliefs(or your friends beliefs) is not a personal attack on you or your friends. It's my opinion.

Whether you pick Xtianity, atheism, Buddhism, Jainism(please don't, or at least agree to bathe), Hinduism, Judaism, Mithraism, or any other -ism or-anity, The Bears or the Packers, the Raiders or the Niners, Manchester United or Chelsea, someone on the "other side" is going to call you an idiot. Can you deal or are you going to cry?

Like I said, no one has the right not to be offended. I will respect your right to believe in any asinine thing you wish, but if I think it's silly or delusional, I won't respect the belief itself. That's life.

That being said, I think I'm done with this thread. Any further and it's going to turn into name calling and character assaults, and no one needs that. :) Good day.

[Slytovhand]

The 'stupid' comment came from:
It equates a completely different kind of belief and faith than religion is based on with calling someone stupid for having it. Two very different things.

and all that followed with :Are you actually implying that believing in something that science has yet to prove (and, according to this forum, doesn't even have the 'right' to even look into) is 'stupid'? (or am I misinterpreting that sentence??).. and others.

So, hopefully, 'stupid' has been misconstrued....

The more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that no one has the right not to be offended or insulted by someone else's viewpoint. Not you, not me, no one.

Well, this is very true. How one expresses that viewpoint. It seriously pisses me to hear Xtians deride any other religion (especially if they use terms like 'nonsense' or 'ridiculous'... pots & kettles anyone.???). Saying "I don't believe because..." is cool. Just labelling it as "crap" etc is emotive. Emotive isn't good :(

someone on the "other side" is going to call you an idiot Yeah... but they're intending to be insulting, not hold a debate...

Start a thread about atheism, though, and I will be in it.

I thought we did...?? :D

This entire thread could be interpreted by me as an insult to atheism.

Actually, this thread started as definitions of words... it just ended up slightly skewed - though related. So, we kept going (as seemed appropriate). No one was being called silly (or even stupid) in relation to that re-defining.


If I went to a family reuninion, am I allowed to marvel at how everyone seems to be related to me?

Ah... but, you weren't invited to a family reunion... to recreate (ha!) the analogy, it'd be more like you just decided to go overseas (or different planet), ended up in someone's home, and then just happened to find all of the people there were your relatives.. and all of them just chose to be there at that time and place with no forethought or planning... or discussion with anybody else.

Closer to statistics, if you win lotto once, you think yourself lucky. If you happened to win it 10 times in a row, you'd be highly suspicious of the organisers. If lotto was only going to be drawn for those 10 times only, and you happen to win all 10 times - then what do you think??


The big thing with this...From what we can tell, the universe isn't very good at sustaining life...the odds are actually highly against it. The saving grace there is, there is SO much to the universe that anything that's merely 'insanely unlikely' has a reasonable chance of happening, someplace.

Not, apparently, true. There's this issue known as 'physics' which might take exception to some things... like square circles, my coffee instantaneously turning into a fish with no specific cause, etc. It's the physics of the universe I'm looking at with my ... 'belief'.

Which thus follows:
'Tis the one thing I find most amusing in 90% of the religions I know of...The same diety responsible for creating the whole universe...Is focusing their attention on one little world in it
Totally agree! I really don't understand all this personal god stuff. I do, however, believe that there is more to this universe than meets the eye (or scanner, or radar dish...). Some of that includes beings and entities that are willing to support our journey through this thing called 'life'... hopefully, as we humans are towards other beings (once we've got our shit together). Some choose to call them 'gods'... I'm a bit loathe to use that word.

The universe just happens to exist in such a way as to allow us to exist. No shit! If it weren't, then we wouldn't be here to whine about it.
You know, I've heard that line a few times over the years. And I just realised tonight how irrelvant it is... sure, it slightly alters the odds towards favouring life, but has no effect on the fact that the universe has it's physics, and they work.

[Jadedcarguy]

This is part of a PM I sent to Slytovhand that he thought I ought to post in here.


I have a tendency to be very blunt and no-punches-pulled when it comes to topics like this, as I'm sure you've noticed.

You're right, the 'stupid' was misconstrued. My parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, some cousins, all still Xtian. I don't think they're stupid, I just think that they want the comfort that belief can bring(which is why it's so prevalent) and are unwilling to examine it critically. That certainly doesn't make them stupid.

Like I said, I can be very blunt and lack sensitivity to someone else's feelings when I call religion bullshit. Not trying to be a dick, but there ya go. I have pretty thick skin due to high school and the like not being my "best years", so I can easily forget that others may take offense. That being what it is, I will sometimes call someone an ass for doing what they do without thinking that it's a deep seated part of their identity. Not trying to be a dick, but again, there ya go.

Hopefully this will 'clear the air' somewhat. If anyone thought I was trying to be a jerk or piss others off, I wasn't and hopefully this explanation will help you see where I'm coming from. :)

[Boozy]

I think that should conclude the discussion on that particular tangent. I don't believe anyone meant to call anyone else names.

But this is nevertheless a good opportunity for a few reminders: Debate the point and not the poster. If you feel someone isn't doing that, please report the post.

Thanks guys. Carry on. :)

[Slytovhand]

Yeps :D

But, I have actually thought a bit more about that, and the entire thread, especially in relation to both the 'BS' and 'this thread is an insult to me' bits...

It shows just how intrinsic our beliefs are to us, and our identity. Basically, what you believe is a large part of who you are. So, attack my beliefs - attack me (is the way it's seen). After all, just try changing your beliefs. (there are a couple of processes - and books - on the subject of not identifying with them, and not attaching to them).