The Rational Atheist mindset

[godBoy]

Hello,

I see 'the question of God' as a clear hands-down winner of important questions that one asks in their lifetime. Great men and women throughout history have been compelled by the mystery of creation and the 'weirdness' of existence.

The Rational Atheist highly values his ability to reason and deduce facts logically - that is concepts that are able to be tested. The consistency that is found in using the Scientific Method to deduce facts appeal to the Rational Atheist. He looks at the history of religious belief in God and notices that Science has been taking ground from God - Before Darwin, people marveled(still should) at all the glorious complexity of biological life? God was a fitting answer to this 'gap' in our understanding.
He will surely never believe something because of a gap in his understanding - he won't be fooled or tricked by a mystery - and claim existence of a being that he can't 'reason'.

Then He makes the giant irrational leap of claiming that there is nothing outside the assurance of Science (The cosmos is all that there is, ever was, or ever will be - Carl Sagan)

The simpler ones reach for the FSM or the IPU - The celestial teapot is of great comfort when hassled by religious people - that they have indeed made the correct, logical response to this grand question that has pressed upon countless minds.

Then there are the Rational Atheists who question their very ability to reason, they seek mutual understanding and well communicated points of view - They are open to all discussion and will never need resort to quarreling - simply to prove themselves right.

I personally value common sense and reason in the same way, I simply see something beyond the universe that is outside the reaches of Scientific Investigation. In fact I see it as a really strange thing indeed that people use Science in defense of Atheism. Not all do this - most scientists realize that their methods can not be applied to a being that is claimed to exist outside of the universe/time. I suppose Science education teaches us to be skeptical and never too quick to jump to conclusions - so it's understandable why people with this background would not as easily accept an others 'belief' without proof of their own.

Are there any good reasons for believing that God should be testable by the scientific method? And why should that leave him out of the question?

I've truly valued the exchange of thoughts that has occurred here at SMP over the last few years. Cheers,

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
most scientists realize that their methods can not be applied to a being that is claimed to exist outside of the universe/time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any good reasons for believing that God should be testable by the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the god you describe couldn't be testable by scientific methods. Not that it's relevant to theist discussions on this planet, because they focus on a god that does cause events to occur which obviously is IN this universe and cause/effect is what science deals with.

hope that helps.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
most scientists realize that their methods can not be applied to a being that is claimed to exist outside of the universe/time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any good reasons for believing that God should be testable by the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the god you describe couldn't be testable by scientific methods. Not that it's relevant to theist discussions on this planet, because they focus on a god that does cause events to occur which obviously is IN this universe and cause/effect is what science deals with.

hope that helps.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Ran across this comment by Metric in the "Question for Physics Nerds" thread -

[ QUOTE ]
This is a difficult thing about gravitational physics -- if you want to take some system and affect it some way with some external influence, then you really can't ignore the energy/momentum of the external influence -- in that sense it's not really treated as an "external" influence any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

a glimpse for you at the scientific mind :-) which should be easy for you to understand since you have amazing conceptual abilities -
[ QUOTE ]
I simply see something beyond the universe that is outside the reaches of Scientific Investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

"simply" .. wow.

luckyme

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
a glimpse for you at the scientific mind :-) which should be easy for you to understand since you have amazing conceptual abilities -
"simply" .. wow.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're one of the quarreling types.. Some questions such as these people actually don't wish to explain away - but actually challenge their presuppositions.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You're one of the quarreling types.. Some questions such as these people actually don't wish to explain away - but actually challenge their presuppositions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked a question in your OP. I pointed out the god you postulate ( an non-intervening god) is a different one than the one described by theists .. a god that does cause events to occur, sometimes on request.

Perhaps I misunderstand your question. Which god are you asking about when you talk about science and atheism? Yours or the one in the tabernacle down the street?

I agreed with your claim about your god ( it's not an issue for science). But you seemed interested in the god(s) that the theists of the world describe and that seemed to be the one your question was about. That one obviously can't claim to be 'outside of this universe'.

clarification, please.

luckyme

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
I see 'the question of God' as a clear hands-down winner of important questions that one asks in their lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no god. Question resolved. Importance gone.

[Phil153]

I would happy be with theists admitting that:

1) God is not a person or being you can have any kind of "relationship" with, in any sense of the word;

2) God does not intervene in any way in the universe, and has zero interest in human affairs;

3) If an afterlife exists, it would not conform to most people's desires and preconceptions.


The first one is from a basic understanding of human psychology, and the scale of thought.

The second one is from simple observation of the universe, cohesive understanding of most physical processes, and the hilarity of the God hypothesis getting destroyed a million times. Do we really need a million and one?

The third is due to the scale of imagination, and the fact that almost all human traits can be linked back to animal desires. The personality is built on top of biology and sense perception.

If theists can admit those three points, then anything else is fair game.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If theists can admit those three points, then anything else is fair game.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can make your post a lot shorter. Just say "I would be a happy if theists would become atheists". Same thing you said, less ink.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If theists can admit those three points, then anything else is fair game.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can make your post a lot shorter. Just say "I would be a happy if theists would become atheists". Same thing you said, less ink.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, completely different. There is plenty of room for a "spiritual realm" or a greater power that exists outside of what we know. It's not a choice between Christian-god-who-loves-me-and-sent-his-only-son or nothing. It might be if you've been brainwashed from childhood or built the foundation of your life on such a premise. But the possibilities are larger than you imagine - I think theists need to open their minds and hearts a little.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

No, completely different.


[/ QUOTE ]

Technically what you describe could be deism but that's effectively just another form of atheism.

[Phil153]

I don't think Deists believe in a spiritual dimension or the possibility of a "loving" force that pervades everything. And I don't think Buddhists are Deists either??

[gull]

godBoy, I think you have an interesting point and I've discussed it with other people before. Is logic universally applicable? Is science universally applicable? I personally cannot conceive of the world where logic does not work. Things need to make sense. We may not know how they make sense, we may never know how they make sense, but in the end, they must make sense.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I would happy be with theists admitting that:

1) God is not a person or being you can have any kind of "relationship" with, in any sense of the word;

2) God does not intervene in any way in the universe, and has zero interest in human affairs;

3) If an afterlife exists, it would not conform to most people's desires and preconceptions.


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Deists believe in a spiritual dimension or the possibility of a "loving" force that pervades everything. And I don't think Buddhists are Deists either??

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying you would have no problem with the view that there is a "spiritual dimension" and a "loving force that pervades everything"?

If so, why do you insist on the metaphorical description of this "loving force" as a "Force"? Does calling it a "Force" make it more compatible with your metaphors from science? What is doing the "loving" in this "loving force"? If we exist within this "loving force", what are we being loved by? The force? The Universe itself? The "spiritual dimension"?

It makes much more sense to me that if there is a "loving force that pervades everything" and a "spiritual dimension" then there is a Source for that Loving Force. A Source which is at home in the spiritual dimension of which you speak. A Source which I am connected to within that Spiritual Dimension by way of that Loving Force. A Source whose presence I am aware of spiritually. A Source I might describe as the Spirit of the Spiritual Dimension. The Spirit of Love.

How does this "Force of Love" work? Do you once again require metaphors from science? Must it work like a cog in a machine? It makes more sense to me that for me to experience Love there should be a source for that Love which I can relate to. I can't just go to the Super Market of Love and pick some Love up on one of the shelves. I don't see how that could be described as "Love". If someone sends me such a Love Package the intrinsic element for me in experiencing any kind of Love from it is the fact that the person who sent it was expressing their love for me. Without that, the Love Package can have little to do with what I understand Love to be. For Love to have common sense meaning to me, it requires a Lover. What should I call that Lover, the Source of the Force of Love, that Spirit of Love that is the Spirit of the Spiritual Dimension? I think I'll use the word "God".

What is the nature of my relationship with this Lover of mine? I don't see how I can hope to explain or describe the Great Mystery behind it all. But I can relate to this God in Love according to my contingent limited human experience with Love. I know the Love of a Mother, Father, Brother, Friend, Wife. So I seek a relationship with this Lover-God according to what I know. I meditate on my Lover-God's presence in the Spiritual Diminsion much as I would enjoy without words the presence of an earthly lover. I talk to my Lover-God. I share my feelings, fears, desires. And if this Force of Love really exists with my Lover-God as its source, my Lover-God hears me. Otherwise, there is no relationship. There is no "Lover". Furthermore, my Lover-God responds to me in the Spiritual Dimension by way of the Spirit of Love. I can be moved by my Lover-God's response. I feel the movement spiritually, in my "Heart" so to speak. I can be guided by this movement. I believe there is Wisdom in my Lover-God's response. In fact, I can believe this is indeed the source of All Wisdom.

So out of this comes a Lover-God who Loves me, cares about me, which I can communicate with as best I can with my limited contingencies, and which responds to me. This Lover-God need never intrude on our physical realm. But this Lover-God can move us from within the Spriritual Dimension according to our response to the Spirit of Love. And in so doing this Lover-God can influence human history.

Nothing magical going on here. But it is a Great Mystery.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

You only need to look at all the great discoveries that have been made - by people contemplating that God - to see that even if God doesn't exist - It doesn't change the importance of the question.

Perhaps Newton and Galileo would have become builders if they weren't so intent on understanding the mind of God. We owe more to theological thought than you realise.

[godBoy]

Phil,

Well I don't think any theist would change what they believe to simply make you happy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

You have no reason to believe those 3 points, I mean you have not arrived there logically.

[ QUOTE ]

God is not a person or being you can have any kind of "relationship" with, in any sense of the word;
...The first one is from a basic understanding of human psychology, and the scale of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]
I simply don't get this, please explain further - Are you saying that Psychology has proven that God can not speak to you? I'd be very interested in hearing why.

[ QUOTE ]
God does not intervene in any way in the universe, and has zero interest in human affairs;
...The second one is from simple observation of the universe, cohesive understanding of most physical processes, and the hilarity of the God hypothesis getting destroyed a million times. Do we really need a million and one?

[/ QUOTE ]
All you are offering is your opinion - something akin to "I can't unite the idea of a loving personal God with all the bad stuff I see in the world" - This really has no more merit than "I see God as wonderful loving father - and I see his fingerprints everywhere".
Isn't it possible that God just has different thoughts and interests than you do? Again, there are many many ways that God could intervene in human affairs you just don't believe in them.

[ QUOTE ]

3)If an afterlife exists, it would not conform to most people's desires and preconceptions.
The third is due to the scale of imagination, and the fact that almost all human traits can be linked back to animal desires. The personality is built on top of biology and sense perception.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's only your lack of imagination that is stopping you from seeing a possibility of a pleasing heaven. I can surely imagine higher pleasures than those gained by biological physical human traits. You don't believe in a spirit; so how do expect to be able to reason what would is possible in a spiritual realm?

[godBoy]

I agree PairTheBoard,

Very C.S.Lewis of you /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have an interesting point and I've discussed it with other people before. Is logic universally applicable? Is science universally applicable? I personally cannot conceive of the world where logic does not work.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the God theists believe in requires belief in a world where logic does not work (2+2=5)?
I don't see how that shoe fits, you are right that I am describing another realm (spritual) - all I am saying is that there is no reason to believe Science can be used to validate the existence of this realm. It doesn't mean that logic doesn't exist, or can't be applied here - As you said - Things need to make sense. At the very roots of things there is a logical reason.
[ QUOTE ]
Things need to make sense. We may not know how they make sense, we may never know how they make sense, but in the end, they must make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[godBoy]

No. That's wasn't at all the God I postulated.
You're trying to explain away the questions I asked.

Are there any good reasons for believing that God should be testable by the scientific method?
Why should that leave him out of the question?

[ QUOTE ]
I agreed with your claim about your god ( it's not an issue for science). But you seemed interested in the god(s) that the theists of the world describe and that seemed to be the one your question was about. That one obviously can't claim to be 'outside of this universe'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was not describing Deism, you are correct that I am talking about the one in the tabernacle down the street. Though even there the God only exists in spirit - as he does everywhere else. So we are back to this idea of two separate realms - I suppose i'm not discussing anything new - it's the idea of NOMA.

[godBoy]

There was no hint of a straw man - I didn't name any characteristics of the God I described. And my question was very relevant to you rational atheists who claim to have come to your stance on the existence of a God - logically.

You're doing more trickery than the theist.
Both positions require an amount of faith - If you don't give God the time of day, you won't see him - so you're logic will go something like "Well the God they describe I can't see a hint of - he doesn't exist".
The theist's logic is - "I see God everywhere - he surely exists".

So you can keep your atheism - just don't say that you have come to that position logically or rationally. Your position is based upon faith in what you can't see / test.

[Justin A]

If God is untestable and unobservable by science, then how can you claim to have a relationship with him? If you claim to have a spiritual connection, then at some point there must be a connection between the physical world and the spiritual world. Are you suggesting that this connection is also unobservable?

[godBoy]

you're right, i'm suggesting that every person has a spirit connected to their physical being. And God's spirit can communicate with your own.

I'm having a hard time trying to imagine how this connection could be tested by science. All you can ever test is the result - of effect - and not the cause itself.

The closest I have seen to this - is where a monk in meditation had a brain activity scan. They were trying to find what sort of brain activity occurred during a 'spiritual' exercise.
But all that science can see is the brain - and not the cause of the effect. If there is something else behind the effect - it is undetectable.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The closest I have seen to this - is where a monk in meditation had a brain activity scan. They were trying to find what sort of brain activity occurred during a 'spiritual' exercise.
But all that science can see is the brain - and not the cause of the effect. If there is something else behind the effect - it is undetectable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did they disprove rancid cheese?

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
If God is untestable and unobservable by science, then how can you claim to have a relationship with him? If you claim to have a spiritual connection, then at some point there must be a connection between the physical world and the spiritual world. Are you suggesting that this connection is also unobservable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Our use of words here betrays our limited conceptual abilities. We use words like tools. Those people most comfortable with science sounding word-tools naturally try to apply them. I think they believe that by using science sounding word-tools they can apply normal logic to them to arrive at conclusions. I think this is a mistake when talking about the Spiritual. In such a discussion none of our word-tools are really adequate.

So in saying that the Spiritual Realm and Physical Realm are "seperate", the word-tool "seperate" is not adequate. In saying we have a "connection" between them the word-tool "connection" is not adequate. In saying there is a Force of Love which pervades everything, the word-tools "Force", "pervades", "every", and "thing" are not adequate. Even the word "Love" can only point from what we experience as Love to what we have Faith in. Our use of word-tools when talking about the Spiritual is like a Caveman trying to build an Apollo spacecraft with stone implements. Or like trying to describe a Poem or a work of Art or Literature with Numbers.

We really need to create a word to stand for the relationship between the Physical and the Spiritual. Seperate but not seperate. Intimate but not invasive. Immanent and Transcendent. Some describe the Physical as having a "Ground of Love". The Spiritual "sustains" the Physical.

So your contention that the Physical and Spiritual are "seperate" so that our "connection" to the Spiritual from the Physical must have an "observable" "point" of connection, is a model based on word-tool concepts that do not apply. They don't even apply very well in explaining something simple like the Two Slit Experiment. Much less the Mystery of the Spiritual.

I imagine Science will be able to observe more and more neurological phenomenon as they relate to reports of spiritual experiences. But I don't think that will amount to discovery of the human Spirit.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

I'm sorry, did you have something to add?

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]
you're right, i'm suggesting that every person has a spirit connected to their physical being. And God's spirit can communicate with your own.

I'm having a hard time trying to imagine how this connection could be tested by science. All you can ever test is the result - of effect - and not the cause itself.


[/ QUOTE ]

For me, the issue boils down to this:

Before I accept a statement as being true, I want to know that it's been arrived at by a method that is epistimologically robust. Generally, that means subjecting the evidence for that statement to the scientific method.

People want statements about their faith to be somehow excluded from this epistimological rigor, while at the same time, expecting them to be accorded the same degree of respect with regard to truth, reliability, replicability, etc.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If you simply want to say, 'this is what I believe, because believing it makes me feel X', that's fine and dandy. I don't have a problem with that.

However, when you start saying, 'this is literally true, and you should also believe it because X', then the tools of scientific and philosophical rigour are going to come out to play, and those supernatural arguments inevitably get trounced yet again.

At this point, the whole process does become tedious, because you'll never successfully use reason to change the mind of somebody whose beliefs aren't subject to rational argument. Even if you're able to successfully able to completely disprove one of their core doctrines (say, the idea that the world was built in seven days, or that your sacred scriptures were dreamed up by a treasure hunting, fortune telling scam artist), they simply amend their dogma with an alternative explanation that's equally spurious but preserves the fiction in the minds of the faithful.

Whither Limbo? (http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=23885)

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I accept a statement as being true, I want to know that it's been arrived at by a method that is epistimologically robust. Generally, that means subjecting the evidence for that statement to the scientific method.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that those are the most satisfying sorts of answers - and the most accurate - But not all questions can be answered by that method.
Say if you are questioning a philosophical thought. You can't physically see the thing in question nor test it - but you can still apply your reason and apply logic to it.
For these questions you just need to think and reason - logic is the important thing - not science.

[ QUOTE ]
People want statements about their faith to be somehow excluded from this epistimological rigor, while at the same time, expecting them to be accorded the same degree of respect with regard to truth, reliability, replicability, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
It all depends on what you are being rigorous about trying to prove/disprove - and if the methods you are using are appropriate.
For what it's worth I definitely think that science can offer a much more reliable answer than that conjured up through thought processes alone. But it doesn't mean that that sort of reasoning is invaluable - it's sometimes the only appropriate method to use.
[ QUOTE ]
However, when you start saying, 'this is literally true, and you should also believe it because X', then the tools of scientific and philosophical rigour are going to come out to play, and those supernatural arguments inevitably get trounced yet again.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with someone using an appropriate method of reasoning to challenge my own beliefs - in fact I encourage many people to do so on a regular basis.
What do you mean those supernatural arguments inevitably get trounced yet again? Many people have changed their position on the existence of God throughout their life. You must be speaking personally of your own experience.

I have no problem discussing why I believe X - and I welcome all challenges and opinions about that - I'll just be quick to point out when I see your logic is flawed.

These sorts of comments are widespread among the "Rational Atheist Movement" - "We are passionate about the truth, we believe in rational thought, we apply logic to the world, we value thought". Sexing up Atheism to make it more attractive is misleading.

In fact, much of the bible proclaims those 4 things - Atheism in it's self isn't any of those things - and they're not mutually exclusive - I too value all of those good things but theism doesn't require you to leave those methods of reasoning at bay - I find it stirs them up even more.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I accept a statement as being true, I want to know that it's been arrived at by a method that is epistimologically robust. Generally, that means subjecting the evidence for that statement to the scientific method.


[/ QUOTE ]

By that definition of "true" I would not consider statements of Faith to be "true". They are "something else".

[ QUOTE ]
People want statements about their faith to be somehow excluded from this epistimological rigor, while at the same time, expecting them to be accorded the same degree of respect with regard to truth, reliability, replicability, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that statments of Faith are "exluded" from what you call "epistimological rigor". It's that methods of such epistimological rigor do not apply to the "something else" for statements of Faith.

On the issue of "reliabilty" in regards to the "something else" for statements of Faith. They are not "reliable" in the scientific sense that they can be empirically tested by independent testers with reliable "repeatable" results. However, Believers in these statements of Faith do find them reliable in providing comfort, a sense of meaning in their lives, and motivation to live in a way which they find beneficial both to themselves and their fellows. Furthermore, to the extent that subjective experience can be "repeatable", there is some repeatability to this subjective experience in others who are attracted to the statement of Faith, come to Believe it, and adopt it in their life.

I would say the word "degree" is not applicable here in the phrase "degree of respect". The "something else" for statements of Faith is of a different Quality than the "truth" which you have defined. Thus, there is a different Quality of Respect to be accorded to it.

[ QUOTE ]
when you start saying, 'this is literally true, and you should also believe it because X', then the tools of scientific and philosophical rigour are going to come out to play, and those supernatural arguments inevitably get trounced yet again

[/ QUOTE ]

When Religious statements intrude on the Scientific realm your complaint certainly applies. But notice how careful the Vatican is these days in avoiding that. So it is unfair to characterize all theological thought by the foolishness of some. I think Religion tends to have greater Inertia than Science. Old ways of thinking are more difficult to let go of for the Religious. I think the reason for this is that the kind of "Reliability" and "Repeatability" I described for statements of Faith has a different Kind of robustness than their counterparts in science. In other words, Religions that have not caught up with modern theological positions wrt science still work for people. There is yet another Quality of Respect to have for them, similiar to what an anthropologist might have for the ways of primitive tribes. I think you are being foolish to spend much time arguing with them on their foolish terms. Any more than an anthropologist would argue with the leaders of the primative tribe. Or a scientist would argue with someone caught in the crackpot scientific intertia of Flat Earthers, or Anti-Einsteinian Newtonians, or Anti-Quantum Einsteinians.

If a Believer claims a statement of Faith which does not intrude on the Scientific Realm is "literally true" I think it is because of his limitations in use of language. We probably need to invent a new word for the "something else" of statements of Faith. For example, "God is Love". What in the world would it mean to say this is "literally true"? "Literally" means according to the precise definitions of the terms. But it is impossible to give precise definitions of those terms. At least not ones that everybody would agree on. It's certainly not the kind of statement you can apply empirical methods to so it isn't "true" according to your epistimological criteria. So what is the "something else" Believers contend for this statement?

For a statement of Faith such as "God is Love" I think Believers want to stress that it conveys a Spiritual Reality. It's not just a nice thing to say. It's not just wishfull thinking. It's not just a nice poem. Sullivan of the Harris-Sullivan debate recently discussed here, simply says it's true. Granted, it's not true according to your epistimological criteria. Nevertheless, in the sense of conveying Spiritual Reality I think Sullivan is justified in using the word "true". At least he "believes" it so. You might read some of the statements coming out of the Vatican these days. They often stress that the best we can do with our language is to provide metaphors and analogies for the Truth which we believe as a matter of Faith. To my mind such statements have something in common with Zen Koans which I discussed in the thread,

Is a Zen Koan "Accurate"? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10035988&an=0&page=5#Pos t10035988)

Consider this analogy. A Checkers expert who has never played a game of chess looks at two people playing Chess and says, "You can't move a piece like that. That's against the rules of Checkers. What you're doing makes no sense. You have nothing to teach me about Checkers. Don't even try to tell me anything about Checkers because you will be wrong if you base it on what you're doing. You people are Frauds. You're Deluded. What? You even have books? What a joke. They will tell me nothing about Checkers. You people are living in a Checkers Fantasy World."

This to me is how silly the agressive Atheists are sounding these days.

PairTheBoard

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Newton and Galileo would have become builders if they weren't so intent on understanding the mind of God. We owe more to theological thought than you realise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far more likely, they'd be intent on understanding the universe. Just substitute "mind of God" with "unknown universe" and there is no difference to how they approached science.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any good reasons for believing that God should be testable by the scientific method?

[/ QUOTE ] only if you claim it has any effect on reality?

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Newton and Galileo would have become builders if they weren't so intent on understanding the mind of God. We owe more to theological thought than you realise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far more likely, they'd be intent on understanding the universe. Just substitute "mind of God" with "unknown universe" and there is no difference to how they approached science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I knew people would deny the fact that they owe so much of their what they love to Theological thought. Perhaps Newton and Galileo still would have studied Astronomy - you're quite right and there's no way of knowing now.
But, the fact is that the early scientists like these were clear about why they were studying the universe - and that reason was a religious one.
We owe written music to the church - and without it music never would have reached the amazing variety we see today.

The truth is we all owe much to religion.

[godBoy]

It certainly effects the thoughts and actions of countless people today. Again, Why should God be testable by the scientific method?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Newton and Galileo would have become builders if they weren't so intent on understanding the mind of God. We owe more to theological thought than you realise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far more likely, they'd be intent on understanding the universe. Just substitute "mind of God" with "unknown universe" and there is no difference to how they approached science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I knew people would deny the fact that they owe so much of their what they love to Theological thought. Perhaps Newton and Galileo still would have studied Astronomy - you're quite right and there's no way of knowing now.
But, the fact is that the early scientists like these were clear about why they were studying the universe - and that reason was a religious one.
We owe written music to the church - and without it music never would have reached the amazing variety we see today.

The truth is we all owe much to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a historical fact that the church was behind a lot of these good things but that doesn't mean that a different history wouldn't have resulted in much the same or better - maybe it would have been slower of faster.

I tend to agree with you that it would have been a lot slower but that's even more true of war which has been a phenomenal driving force. Not sure what we conclude from this.

chez

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Newton and Galileo would have become builders if they weren't so intent on understanding the mind of God. We owe more to theological thought than you realise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far more likely, they'd be intent on understanding the universe. Just substitute "mind of God" with "unknown universe" and there is no difference to how they approached science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I knew people would deny the fact that they owe so much of their what they love to Theological thought. Perhaps Newton and Galileo still would have studied Astronomy - you're quite right and there's no way of knowing now.
But, the fact is that the early scientists like these were clear about why they were studying the universe - and that reason was a religious one.
We owe written music to the church - and without it music never would have reached the amazing variety we see today.

The truth is we all owe much to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a historical fact that the church was behind a lot of these good things but that doesn't mean that a different history wouldn't have resulted in much the same or better - maybe it would have been slower of faster.

I tend to agree with you that it would have been a lot slower but that's even more true of war which has been a phenomenal driving force. Not sure what we conclude from this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am interested, How has war been such a great driving force of 'good things' ?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Newton and Galileo would have become builders if they weren't so intent on understanding the mind of God. We owe more to theological thought than you realise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far more likely, they'd be intent on understanding the universe. Just substitute "mind of God" with "unknown universe" and there is no difference to how they approached science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I knew people would deny the fact that they owe so much of their what they love to Theological thought. Perhaps Newton and Galileo still would have studied Astronomy - you're quite right and there's no way of knowing now.
But, the fact is that the early scientists like these were clear about why they were studying the universe - and that reason was a religious one.
We owe written music to the church - and without it music never would have reached the amazing variety we see today.

The truth is we all owe much to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a historical fact that the church was behind a lot of these good things but that doesn't mean that a different history wouldn't have resulted in much the same or better - maybe it would have been slower of faster.

I tend to agree with you that it would have been a lot slower but that's even more true of war which has been a phenomenal driving force. Not sure what we conclude from this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am interested, How has war been such a great driving force of 'good things' ?

[/ QUOTE ]
scientific and technological progress:

nuclear research
space exploration
da computer
radar
aeronautical research
etc

and that just a few seconds consideration of WW2.

chez

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Newton and Galileo would have become builders if they weren't so intent on understanding the mind of God. We owe more to theological thought than you realise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far more likely, they'd be intent on understanding the universe. Just substitute "mind of God" with "unknown universe" and there is no difference to how they approached science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I knew people would deny the fact that they owe so much of their what they love to Theological thought. Perhaps Newton and Galileo still would have studied Astronomy - you're quite right and there's no way of knowing now.
But, the fact is that the early scientists like these were clear about why they were studying the universe - and that reason was a religious one.
We owe written music to the church - and without it music never would have reached the amazing variety we see today.

The truth is we all owe much to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call shenanigans. If you can say we owe all this to religion, then I can say we also owe a lot of atrocities to religion. Then you'd say that these things would have occurred anyways and religion was the excuse. Can't have it both ways.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Interesting discussion so far.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Newton and Galileo would have become builders if they weren't so intent on understanding the mind of God. We owe more to theological thought than you realise.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you presume "understanding the mind of God" was the driving force of Newton & Galileo becoming great scientists, and that religion or "theological thought" deserves credit for this? Also how you mention this w/o mentioning how the Church treated Galileo when he discussed his ideas publicly? He was tried for heresy, condemned by the Church, and publication of his work or any future work was forbidden.

[ QUOTE ]
We owe written music to the church - and without it music never would have reached the amazing variety we see today.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does religion get credit for music? Why not animals like birds, whales or any other animal? Religion is not the originator of music. Animals made music before us, so you can't invoke religion as it's cause and say it wouldn't exist w/o religion. Nor does it deserve credit for the variety and abundance of music that we have today. That credit goes to mathematics & technology.

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is we all owe much to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems to be the theme of your posts. You take something which I assume you consider as good and credit religion for it, while ignoring to mention much else that would paint an accurate portrayal of religion's contributions or lack thereof.

[godBoy]

You're absolutely right, feel free to blame religion for the errors it's due.
Though, be sure not to direct your blame at the act "of seeking truth" - for this is not a religious act, but an earnest seeking to know what is true. And this surely isn't the root of the atrocities.

Nor is God to blame for acts of bad men - If you can blame Jesus for any bad deeds then you may be attacking something that is worth me defending. But, while you target bad men - well.. I can do that too.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Newton and Galileo would have become builders if they weren't so intent on understanding the mind of God. We owe more to theological thought than you realise.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you presume "understanding the mind of God" was the driving force of Newton & Galileo becoming great scientists, and that religion or "theological thought" deserves credit for this? Also how you mention this w/o mentioning how the Church treated Galileo when he discussed his ideas publicly? He was tried for heresy, condemned by the Church, and publication of his work or any future work was forbidden.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you ask /images/graemlins/smile.gif - Perhaps you won't presume I make so many presumptions in the future.

My source is Paul Davies' - The Goldilocks Enigma
Newton, Galileo and other early scientists treated their investigations as a religious quest. They thought that by exposing the patterns woven into the processes of nature they truly were glimpsing the mind of God.

Again, the church was wrong in it's treatment of these scientists investigations - But it doesn't change that they themselves were in fact studying the universe to understand God.
So i'm not saying that we owe all good things to the church - But we do owe respect to the cause of what was behind their findings - namely their love for God. Gee you're not going to like the way I phrased that, it's true though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We owe written music to the church - and without it music never would have reached the amazing variety we see today.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does religion get credit for music? Why not animals like birds, whales or any other animal? Religion is not the originator of music. Animals made music before us, so you can't invoke religion as it's cause and say it wouldn't exist w/o religion. Nor does it deserve credit for the variety and abundance of music that we have today. That credit goes to mathematics & technology.

[/ QUOTE ]
Though ultimately I do believe that music was God's idea - That's not the point I was making.
Written music as in the music on a stave was invented by Guido Arrezzio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_d%27arezzo), a Christian monk. While you may think that music would have developed equally without this invention. I strongly disagree - Once there is something to study - it advances far more quickly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truth is we all owe much to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems to be the theme of your posts. You take something which I assume you consider as good and credit religion for it, while ignoring to mention much else that would paint an accurate portrayal of religion's contributions or lack thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]
I truly want to give an accurate portrayal - and I would like credit to be placed where it's due. The way many atheists talk on this forum - it's likely they've never heard or considered what a great benefit the church has been to Science, Literature, Medicine, Human rights and the Arts.

While I don't see the entire church's history as roses and chocolates I don't think it's right to focus on the acts of bad men - just as you don't want me to focus on Stalin.
Plus personally, I have seen the church do much good. There are many many christians today feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and restoring sight to the blind. Shouldn't all this be looked at if you are to 'paint an accurate portrayal of religion's contributions or lack thereof'?

[ChrisV]

godBoy,

I am presumably one of these "rational atheists". Asking whether the God question should be testable by the scientific method is a bit of a red herring. It's like asking whether a verdict in a criminal trial can be reached using the scientific method. A better way to phrase the question is to ask whether God might be an exception to the general rule of giving credence to claims only to the extent to which evidence is presented for them.

You theists generally claim that if one seeks truth with respect to God, then one will find it. This claim itself is something I would need evidence for, and the evidence doesn't look good for it. For instance, it is a certainty that the vast majority of people who seek religious truth in this way end up with an answer that is completely wrong (because Christianity, the world's largest religion, is only followed by one third of the world's population). Also, overwhemlingly the biggest factor determining a person's religious beliefs are the beliefs of their family and the community at large. This holds true even when said beliefs are easily disproved, blatantly fraudulent gibberish such as Mormonism. This is a pretty good indication that for people who seek religious truth, any truth will do fine.

In short, you're asking me to discard a truth-seeking technique (requiring evidence) that works extremely well for everything else, in favor of a technique that is guaranteed to work badly and appears not to work at all.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
You're absolutely right, feel free to blame religion for the errors it's due.
Though, be sure not to direct your blame at the act "of seeking truth" - for this is not a religious act, but an earnest seeking to know what is true. And this surely isn't the root of the atrocities.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right. The act of seeking truth isn't the root of the atrocities, but it's also not religiously oriented. Seeking the truth is separate from religion, even if the truth seekers believed they were just getting a glimpse of the mind of God. If they believed there was no God, they'd still be truth-seekers trying to get a glimpse of how the universe works.

[ QUOTE ]
Nor is God to blame for acts of bad men - If you can blame Jesus for any bad deeds then you may be attacking something that is worth me defending. But, while you target bad men - well.. I can do that too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and that was my point. You can't blame religion for the evil deeds and you can't credit religion for advances in society.

[Lestat]

I think the rational atheist's position is simply, "I do not know whether there is a god or not, but there is no reason to currently suspect that there is". That's simple, and non-argumentative.

The real problem comes in when dealing with the specific gods of religion. For instance, it is a slam dunk that most things which are espoused by Christians as facts, are untrue. Not only are they overwhelmingly likely to be wrong, but these "facts" require a suspension of logic to be believed. This is why debates get so heated.

So rather than concentrate on the rational mindset of atheists, you should focus on the irrational mindsets of the religious persuasion. That's where circular thoughts abound and why arguments start to boil over.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
godBoy,

I am presumably one of these "rational atheists". Asking whether the God question should be testable by the scientific method is a bit of a red herring. It's like asking whether a verdict in a criminal trial can be reached using the scientific method. A better way to phrase the question is to ask whether God might be an exception to the general rule of giving credence to claims only to the extent to which evidence is presented for them.

You theists generally claim that if one seeks truth with respect to God, then one will find it. This claim itself is something I would need evidence for, and the evidence doesn't look good for it. For instance, it is a certainty that the vast majority of people who seek religious truth in this way end up with an answer that is completely wrong (because Christianity, the world's largest religion, is only followed by one third of the world's population). Also, overwhemlingly the biggest factor determining a person's religious beliefs are the beliefs of their family and the community at large. This holds true even when said beliefs are easily disproved, blatantly fraudulent gibberish such as Mormonism. This is a pretty good indication that for people who seek religious truth, any truth will do fine.

In short, you're asking me to discard a truth-seeking technique (requiring evidence) that works extremely well for everything else, in favor of a technique that is guaranteed to work badly and appears not to work at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
A better way to phrase the question is to ask whether God might be an exception to the general rule of giving credence to claims only to the extent to which evidence is presented for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the exception here is to what type of evidence is being considered. In Science, as vhawk as often pointed out, although subjective intuition and hunches can often guide the direction of the research, objective repeatable evidence has proved much more reliable and successful than subjective experience for coming to conclusions we can think of and rely on as being "true". The Exception being made here is not for "God" but rather for Subjective Experience in the particular case of the Spiritual. If it were an Exception of Choice then scientific minded objections would be valid. But it's not an Exception of Choice. It is an Exception of necessity.

If there is anything to the Spiritual as the Spiritualists understand it, then subjective experience is our only access to it. It is our only means of investigation. Granted, what we propose to have gleaned from such investigation should be treated differently than how we look at facts of science. What exactly is the best way to look at such Spiritual Proposals? I think there is a great deal of work to be done on that question.

There are two Extreme positions. The rational Atheist insists Spiritual Proposals should be dismissed out of hand because they don't meet scientific criteria. This seems closed minded to me. The rational Atheist is refusing to even look at the Spiritual because his tools of objective evidence do not apply. He is being closed minded because there are other tools that do apply. Rather than try to determine how best to apply the tools that are available he just closes his mind and walks away from them.

The other extreme is the Religious Authoritarian. He claims that Spritual Proposals based on past investigations are absolute and must be accepted whether they make sense to current investigators or not. His determination of how best to view Spritual Proposals can be challenged on the basis of ulterior motives and the archaic mindset from which it emmerged.

I think the real challenge to those interested in Spiritual Investigation is to develop a better theory than one of these two extremes. It seems to me that Honest Inquiry into the Spritual requires Humility in the propositions that result. This seems self evident to me based on the nature of the subjective experience evidence on which the investigation depends.

PairTheBoard

[arahant]

Sounds to me like this misses the point. You are still left with the problem that you have a system of obtaining knowledge that leads large segments of the population to accept contradictory propositions. In addressing the question of "how should we treat subjective knowledge", I would think this would be a fairly crucial point.

Edit: I should note, though, that if we are talking about applying the tools of subjective experience, western religions certainly don't hold a candle to eastern. The sum total of time spent in introspection by eastern practitioners is probably 1,000 fold greater than that of westerners. Abrahamic religions aren't really about applying tools and examining experience.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds to me like this misses the point. You are still left with the problem that you have a system of obtaining knowledge that leads large segments of the population to accept contradictory propositions. In addressing the question of "how should we treat subjective knowledge", I would think this would be a fairly crucial point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said that the challenge is in determining how best to use the subjective evidence and how best to view the Spiritual Proposals that result from them. You gave the example of a specific type of Spiritual Proposal that makes use of the word "knowledge". Spiritual Proposals in general need not use that word. If they do use that word they may intend a special meaning for it peculiar to their particular viewpoint or spiritual system. Similiar to the special technical meaning of certain words in mathematics and the sciences. If their use of the word is coming from a Religious Authoritarian platform, as I suspect you think is implicit, then I addressed that extreme position. You evidently missed my point that better positions are what we should be looking for. Notice the criteria of Humility I proposed for Honest Spiritual Inquiry.

PairTheBoard

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds to me like this misses the point. You are still left with the problem that you have a system of obtaining knowledge that leads large segments of the population to accept contradictory propositions. In addressing the question of "how should we treat subjective knowledge", I would think this would be a fairly crucial point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said that the challenge is in determining how best to use the subjective evidence and how best to view the Spiritual Proposals that result from them. You gave the example of a specific type of Spiritual Proposal that makes use of the word "knowledge". Spiritual Proposals in general need not use that word. If they do use that word they may intend a special meaning for it peculiar to their particular viewpoint or spiritual system. Similiar to the special technical meaning of certain words in mathematics and the sciences. If their use of the word is coming from a Religious Authoritarian platform, as I suspect you think is implicit, then I addressed that extreme position. You evidently missed my point that better positions are what we should be looking for. Notice the criteria of Humility I proposed for Honest Spiritual Inquiry.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I did miss the point, but then, what you suggest doesn't seem applicable to the vast majority of what people believe.

I'm not really clear what you are proposing. You can choose not to use the word 'knowledge', but for this discussion to have any meaning (as a discussion, that is) there has to be some ground for sharing/communication/whatever. Otherwise, from what I can tell, you are basically proposing "everyone can have their own private experience"...which is nice, but doesn't seem particularly useful.

Anyway, I probably missed your point again /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Can you be more concrete about what you are saying? How does it apply to, say, the average US christian? Should they be doing or believing differently than they do? And what, specifically, should the 'rational atheists' be doing differently?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I should note, though, that if we are talking about applying the tools of subjective experience, western religions certainly don't hold a candle to eastern. The sum total of time spent in introspection by eastern practitioners is probably 1,000 fold greater than that of westerners. Abrahamic religions aren't really about applying tools and examining experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's way too simplistic a viewpoint. I think prayer and ritual can produce just as rich a subjective experience as sitting meditation. Looking at the Bible as containing a record of Reports on such experiences I think you have to give considerable respect to the fact that a lot of those people back then thought about little else. Of course the contigencies of their culture have to be considered too when looking at what they came up with.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds to me like this misses the point. You are still left with the problem that you have a system of obtaining knowledge that leads large segments of the population to accept contradictory propositions. In addressing the question of "how should we treat subjective knowledge", I would think this would be a fairly crucial point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said that the challenge is in determining how best to use the subjective evidence and how best to view the Spiritual Proposals that result from them. You gave the example of a specific type of Spiritual Proposal that makes use of the word "knowledge". Spiritual Proposals in general need not use that word. If they do use that word they may intend a special meaning for it peculiar to their particular viewpoint or spiritual system. Similiar to the special technical meaning of certain words in mathematics and the sciences. If their use of the word is coming from a Religious Authoritarian platform, as I suspect you think is implicit, then I addressed that extreme position. You evidently missed my point that better positions are what we should be looking for. Notice the criteria of Humility I proposed for Honest Spiritual Inquiry.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I did miss the point, but then, what you suggest doesn't seem applicable to the vast majority of what people believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I am proposing is probably radical to a vast number of the Religious. That should not bother us though. Galileo and Newton were radical to a vast number of Aristotelians of their time. If you had lived then whose positions would you have been most interested in?

Furthermore, I believe there is major movement both within established religions and outside of them. Sullivan of the Harris-Sullivan debate recently discussed here is an example of what's happening with a lot of people within religions. New Age spiritual pursuits are an example of those outside the establishment. I contend that people in this movement are trying to apply exactly the principles I proposed. They are seeking a better way to view the proposals and interpretations of spiritual experience. A better way than the two extremes I noted.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really clear what you are proposing. You can choose not to use the word 'knowledge', but for this discussion to have any meaning (as a discussion, that is) there has to be some ground for sharing/communication/whatever. Otherwise, from what I can tell, you are basically proposing "everyone can have their own private experience"...which is nice, but doesn't seem particularly useful.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, everyone Will have their own private experience whether you like it or not. That's exactly the problem for the Rational Atheist. They don't like it. The propositions that come from it are not subject to objective testing. They can't meet the criteria for scientific "knowledge" or "truth".

So what can we say about the Propositions that come out of these Individual Personal Experiences? What we see historically is that they seek a "Common Ground". Certain Propositions work well for many people. They "ring true" for them. One way or another, people come together and find Common Ground with their propositions. The historical trend has been for this Common Ground to proceed from the Local to the Regional to the Global. Often not in the nicest ways unfortunately. So although everyone has their own individual personal experience they tend to find Common Ground with others in their interpretations.

Can this Common Ground ever be called "Truth" or "Knowledge" in any meaningful sense? Certainly not in any scientific understanding of the words, which accepts no diversity for "truth". So what are we to make of these diverse Common Grounds for interpretations of Spiritual Experience?

I would say, we should try to pry our minds open from the uniqueness of scientific "truths" to look at the Diversity of Common Spiritual Grounds in a different way. That is part of the challenge. Consider the question for Mathematicians of whether they are Platonists or not. If asked, I believe most will say they are not. They do not "believe" that their mathematical concepts exist as any kind of Platonic Ideals. Nevertheless they admit that when working with such concepts that's how they think of them. Now, suppose an Alien Race with an entirely different brain structure came up with a totally Alien kind of mathematics. One that worked just as well for building starships but whose concepts were completely incompatible with human brain structure. How would you deal with That Diversity? Would you say that you can't meaningfully apply the words "knowledge" or "truth" to either because of their Diversity? Suppose there were thousands of such Diverse Alien mathematical systems?

Wouldn't you say that despite the Alien Diversity, our human mathematics "works" for us? Wouldn't mathematicians continue to think of their concepts as if they were Real and True like Platonic Ideals.

My view is that at best, our Spiritual propositions and interpretations act as metaphoric and allegorical guideposts for pointing us toward the Spiritual Reality we seek. At worst they are contingent not on the best in our nature but the worst. The proof as I see it is in the fruits they produce in our lives. I think the best evidence the Religious can provide to the Rational Atheist is in how they live their lives. I have no argument with the observation that the Religious have a long way to go on this score. In fact, the best examples are so rare they make saints out of them.

I don't claim to have any definitive solution for how to best view the Diversity of Common Spiritual Grounds. However I am saying it is a mistake to simply dismiss the whole process of Religious Development because it doesn't conform to the nice clean way science works.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I probably missed your point again /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Can you be more concrete about what you are saying? How does it apply to, say, the average US christian? Should they be doing or believing differently than they do? And what, specifically, should the 'rational atheists' be doing differently?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what the "average U.S. Christian" is these days. The dominant Christian movement in the 19th and early 20th century was I believe socially liberal. I think that movement continues today but doesn't get much press. The media attention is mostly on those allied with the so called Religious Right. And I suppose that element of U.S. Christianity is having the most growth these days. Regardless of what makes up the "majority" I'm sure some will be more open to what I suggest than others.

I think the challenge for Christians is to take the Reality of the Spiritual more seriously not less. For example, those Christians who insist on an understanding of the Resurection as a magical physical phenomenon which broke the laws of nature do so, in my view, because they don't take the Reality of the Spiritual seriously. A Spiritual Resurrection does not satisfy their need for a sense of the "Real". In Christian terms, this shortcoming of theirs is a shortcoming of the "Flesh". Their "Flesh". They have not reached a maturity of the Spirit. If they had, they would see how much more meaningful, deep, and "Real" a Resurrection of the Spirit is than the archaic magical one they insist on now. That's what scripture was pointing to in describing the Resurrecton of the "Body". It is a Spiritual "Body" and as "Real" as the bodies we live in. Give up this childish notion of magical physical events and start to take the Reality of the Life of the Spirit seriously.

Christians will naturally believe they have the best Guidepost to Spiritual Reality. If they want to prove it, if they really want the message of Christ to be "heard" by everyone in the world, then let them speak with their actions. Maybe if they concetrate on acts of love and compassion and empathy for a while they will come to see that a lot of the words they are using these days sound more like a nightmare of cruelty than the "Good News" of Jesus. Take his "Good News" that the Kingdom of Heaven is Near seriously. It is a kingdom of the Spirit and the heart. Make it so in your lives. People "hear" your actions not your self righteous words or complicated theologies often infested with the contingencies of your baser instincts.

God damn it, have some f-in humility.

For the Rational Atheist I would suggest taking a new look at the Spiritual if you are so inclined. I would especially urge anyone who feels the need for a Spiritual Solution in their lives to realize he can seek that solution on a sensible basis. It is not "irrational" to seek out the Spiritual. It merely requires a different way of looking. Also, it requires participation. You can only go so far by watching and analyzing the metaphorical Spiritual Channel on Television. At some point you have to step through the screen and experience it for yourself.

PairTheBoard

[ChrisV]

PairTheBoard,

I think it should be possible for theists to simultaneously believe that introspection is a good way for them personally to get at truth and yet concede that the evidence is that it doesn't work very well for people on average. Most theists will not do that because, as you suggest, they lack f-in humility.

[arahant]

you're going all weird on me...
don't make me lump you in with carlos and diondublin2

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PairTheBoard,

I think it should be possible for theists to simultaneously believe that introspection is a good way for them personally to get at truth and yet concede that the evidence is that it doesn't work very well for people on average. Most theists will not do that because, as you suggest, they lack f-in humility.

[/ QUOTE ]

The common opinion I see here is that average people must have their baser instincts of fear and greed appealed to in order to motivate them toward a so called Spiritual Life. And that the best to be hoped for in such a so called Spiritual Life is the practice of rituals, intolerant archaic codes of morality, and conviction by way of magical doctrines.

This probabably applied in the past to a large extent. I think it will apply progressively less well in the future. More and more people are coming to see it for what it is. Superstition.

I see this failure not as an end of spirituality but a beginning. The Old makes way for the New. People will continue to seek Spiritual Solutions for their Life right here and now. There is good evidence that people can come together in a tolerant open approach to such Spiritual Discovery. Meditation will continue to be practiced. Prayer will continue to be practiced. Spiritual Fellowship will continue to be practiced. People will be attracted to those they see who are happy, loving, compassionate, empathetic, respectful, tolerant and who treat others with care and dignity. People will want to learn how they came to be that way. The wheat will be sifted from the chaff. The best of the Old will be preserved and renewed while the worst will be discarded. This is the translation of Revelation I see coming.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I am presumably one of these "rational atheists". Asking whether the God question should be testable by the scientific method is a bit of a red herring. It's like asking whether a verdict in a criminal trial can be reached using the scientific method. A better way to phrase the question is to ask whether God might be an exception to the general rule of giving credence to claims only to the extent to which evidence is presented for them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with that - i'm of the opinion that there are many suitable types of evidence to be presented though - I'm not making a special exception for God here, there are many things where scientific inquiry isn't a valid method to prove the truthfulness of said claim.
[ QUOTE ]
You theists generally claim that if one seeks truth with respect to God, then one will find it. This claim itself is something I would need evidence for, and the evidence doesn't look good for it. For instance, it is a certainty that the vast majority of people who seek religious truth in this way end up with an answer that is completely wrong (because Christianity, the world's largest religion, is only followed by one third of the world's population). Also, overwhemlingly the biggest factor determining a person's religious beliefs are the beliefs of their family and the community at large. This holds true even when said beliefs are easily disproved, blatantly fraudulent gibberish such as Mormonism. This is a pretty good indication that for people who seek religious truth, any truth will do fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, I do believe that if one seeks truth with respect to God, then one will find it.
The fact that people seek God and find him in Islam, Judaism or Buddhism - doesn't mean that what they are finding is not God. I don't care much for the religiosity that says if you don't follow any set of rules you aren't right before God. The Christian message is this - we are all now living under a time of grace - by where any person can be close to God if he wishes. It's not through any religious practice - but a heart towards him that will suffice.
[ QUOTE ]
In short, you're asking me to discard a truth-seeking technique (requiring evidence) that works extremely well for everything else, in favor of a technique that is guaranteed to work badly and appears not to work at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's clearly not appropriate here. I'm not asking you to disregard scientific investigation into God's existence - but there's no reason to believe that it's an appropriate method to use. If God is - as the theists believe - a spiritual being then, by using Science as the only method of inquiry - you are mislead.

Use science where it appropriate - use probability where it's appropriate - use a can opener where it's appropriate - It's a simple point.

Science can be used to explain the natural world - and it does so marvelously.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the rational atheist's position is simply, "I do not know whether there is a god or not, but there is no reason to currently suspect that there is". That's simple, and non-argumentative.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the view I am questioning - and I think you should make it "I have not found a reason to currently suspect that there is a God - that satisfies me" - As there a many people who are satisfied with that explanation. I would ask you then - Is evolutionary theory somewhat supportive of your belief that there is no God? Is Astronomy / Physics etc... supportive of you beliefs?
If you answer yes? Then my question is relevant again.

The truth is 'the rational atheist' as I understand him indeed finds comfort in the blanket of Science. I'm asking why ?

No doubt you will answer "The universe appears to be as no-one is intervening with it." - The universe appears to based upon unchanging laws - through consistent natural phenomena alone. These natural laws and the abundance of the right stuff - in a completely random, purposeless universe - is just perfect isn't it?
[ QUOTE ]
The real problem comes in when dealing with the specific gods of religion. For instance, it is a slam dunk that most things which are espoused by Christians as facts, are untrue. Not only are they overwhelmingly likely to be wrong, but these "facts" require a suspension of logic to be believed. This is why debates get so heated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do share - though I suspect that things you mention will not have been 'espoused as facts' to me.
[ QUOTE ]
So rather than concentrate on the rational mindset of atheists, you should focus on the irrational mindsets of the religious persuasion. That's where circular thoughts abound and why arguments start to boil over.

[/ QUOTE ]
One thing at a time. Perhaps I will.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
you're going all weird on me...
don't make me lump you in with carlos and diondublin2

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely there was Something in my post that you liked.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

Don't worry, I enjoyed reading your essay /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the rational atheist's position is simply, "I do not know whether there is a god or not, but there is no reason to currently suspect that there is". That's simple, and non-argumentative.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the view I am questioning - and I think you should make it "I have not found a reason to currently suspect that there is a God - that satisfies me" - As there a many people who are satisfied with that explanation. I would ask you then - Is evolutionary theory somewhat supportive of your belief that there is no God? Is Astronomy / Physics etc... supportive of you beliefs?
If you answer yes? Then my question is relevant again.

The truth is 'the rational atheist' as I understand him indeed finds comfort in the blanket of Science. I'm asking why ?

No doubt you will answer "The universe appears to be as no-one is intervening with it." - The universe appears to based upon unchanging laws - through consistent natural phenomena alone. These natural laws and the abundance of the right stuff - in a completely random, purposeless universe - is just perfect isn't it?
[ QUOTE ]
The real problem comes in when dealing with the specific gods of religion. For instance, it is a slam dunk that most things which are espoused by Christians as facts, are untrue. Not only are they overwhelmingly likely to be wrong, but these "facts" require a suspension of logic to be believed. This is why debates get so heated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do share - though I suspect that things you mention will not have been 'espoused as facts' to me.
[ QUOTE ]
So rather than concentrate on the rational mindset of atheists, you should focus on the irrational mindsets of the religious persuasion. That's where circular thoughts abound and why arguments start to boil over.

[/ QUOTE ]
One thing at a time. Perhaps I will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Astronomy, evolution, science in general do not support the view that there is no God, they are merely consistent with it. IOW, there is no reason that a universe w/o God is impossible, at least none that has yet been discovered. Since that is the case, we are free to fall back on our default position, i.e. that there is absolutely no reason to posit a God. Nothing is explained, no answers given, no problems solved by this God.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I would ask you then - Is evolutionary theory somewhat supportive of your belief that there is no God? Is Astronomy / Physics etc... supportive of you beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a belief there is no god.
I don't have a belief there is a god.
I realize that's somehow muddy to some.

hope that helps, luckyme

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]

For the Rational Atheist I would suggest taking a new look at the Spiritual if you are so inclined. I would especially urge anyone who feels the need for a Spiritual Solution in their lives to realize he can seek that solution on a sensible basis. It is not "irrational" to seek out the Spiritual. It merely requires a different way of looking. Also, it requires participation. You can only go so far by watching and analyzing the metaphorical Spiritual Channel on Television. At some point you have to step through the screen and experience it for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I spent 23 years seeking a spiritual solution. You know what I got out of it? Nothing.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For the Rational Atheist I would suggest taking a new look at the Spiritual if you are so inclined. I would especially urge anyone who feels the need for a Spiritual Solution in their lives to realize he can seek that solution on a sensible basis. It is not "irrational" to seek out the Spiritual. It merely requires a different way of looking. Also, it requires participation. You can only go so far by watching and analyzing the metaphorical Spiritual Channel on Television. At some point you have to step through the screen and experience it for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I spent 23 years seeking a spiritual solution. You know what I got out of it? Nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are more successful than some I've known if you are still here after 23 years. If your current perspective is working for you, more power to you.

PairTheBoard

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You theists generally claim that if one seeks truth with respect to God, then one will find it. This claim itself is something I would need evidence for, and the evidence doesn't look good for it. For instance, it is a certainty that the vast majority of people who seek religious truth in this way end up with an answer that is completely wrong (because Christianity, the world's largest religion, is only followed by one third of the world's population). Also, overwhemlingly the biggest factor determining a person's religious beliefs are the beliefs of their family and the community at large. This holds true even when said beliefs are easily disproved, blatantly fraudulent gibberish such as Mormonism. This is a pretty good indication that for people who seek religious truth, any truth will do fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, I do believe that if one seeks truth with respect to God, then one will find it.
The fact that people seek God and find him in Islam, Judaism or Buddhism - doesn't mean that what they are finding is not God. I don't care much for the religiosity that says if you don't follow any set of rules you aren't right before God.

[/ QUOTE ]

One problem with this warm and fuzzy attitude is that if pressed, even theists with a healthy amount of doubt will generally end up admitting that they do in fact make the claim that their religion is true and others false. You can see an example of this in the Sullivan-Harris debate.

The major problem though is that this view of religion is not one that is shared by the majority of theists in the world. The vast majority of Christians would not agree with the view that one can get closer to God while denying the divinity of Jesus and not accepting him as Saviour. For instance:

[ QUOTE ]
The Christian message is this - we are all now living under a time of grace - by where any person can be close to God if he wishes. It's not through any religious practice - but a heart towards him that will suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a thread a few days ago, a number of Christians, at least one of whom is an evangelical, explicitly denied that this is the Christian message and told me that the message is the exact opposite - i.e. Jesus before all else.

I think that my point about most people who seek religious truth not finding it must now be conceded on different grounds. You "don't care much for the religiosity that says if you don't follow any set of rules you aren't right before God", but that is exactly the kind of religiosity that the average seeker-after-truth eventually adopts. So in this, at least, their introspection has not led them to the truth.

Less dogmatic theists like yourself generally try to claim that dogmatic theism is a perversion, but actually it is exactly what one would expect. If you tell people that Ultimate Truth can be found within, then you can't be surprised when they emerge from their contemplation claiming to be the possessors of Ultimate Truth. Better is to emphasise the idea that the sort of truth we can all agree on is that arrived at by the collection of evidence, and to point out the empirical fact that the majority of people who search inwards for Truth must, statistically, have come out with ideas that are wrong. After that, if people still want to make the search, then bon voyage. But buyer beware and don't try to tell the rest of us that you know what is true.

[ QUOTE ]
It's clearly not appropriate here. I'm not asking you to disregard scientific investigation into God's existence - but there's no reason to believe that it's an appropriate method to use.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to believe there are any appropriate methods to use. The alternative method you've proposed gives provably bad results, whereas the only reason you call an evidence-based approach "clearly not appropriate" is that you've declared by fiat that your subject is outside of the realm of evidence.

If you feel that declaring that something requires no evidence is a reasonable thing to do, can you give an example of something else which you are prepared to believe exists without evidence? Ghosts? Telekinetic powers? Astrology? What's special about the idea of God that means you get to adopt this position?

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You theists generally claim that if one seeks truth with respect to God, then one will find it. This claim itself is something I would need evidence for, and the evidence doesn't look good for it. For instance, it is a certainty that the vast majority of people who seek religious truth in this way end up with an answer that is completely wrong (because Christianity, the world's largest religion, is only followed by one third of the world's population). Also, overwhemlingly the biggest factor determining a person's religious beliefs are the beliefs of their family and the community at large. This holds true even when said beliefs are easily disproved, blatantly fraudulent gibberish such as Mormonism. This is a pretty good indication that for people who seek religious truth, any truth will do fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, I do believe that if one seeks truth with respect to God, then one will find it.
The fact that people seek God and find him in Islam, Judaism or Buddhism - doesn't mean that what they are finding is not God. I don't care much for the religiosity that says if you don't follow any set of rules you aren't right before God.

[/ QUOTE ]
One problem with this warm and fuzzy attitude is that if pressed, even theists with a healthy amount of doubt will generally end up admitting that they do in fact make the claim that their religion is true and others false. You can see an example of this in the Sullivan-Harris debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Call it what you will - I follow Christ, religious doctrine has never been of major importance to me.[ QUOTE ]

The major problem though is that this view of religion is not one that is shared by the majority of theists in the world. The vast majority of Christians would not agree with the view that one can get closer to God while denying the divinity of Jesus and not accepting him as Saviour. For instance:

[ QUOTE ]
The Christian message is this - we are all now living under a time of grace - by where any person can be close to God if he wishes. It's not through any religious practice - but a heart towards him that will suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a thread a few days ago, a number of Christians, at least one of whom is an evangelical, explicitly denied that this is the Christian message and told me that the message is the exact opposite - i.e. Jesus before all else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exact opposite? you're mistaken - they were most likely to be expounding the greatest of the commandments as Jesus named them - to love the Lord your God with all your heart all your mind and all your strength. It's exactly the same! The second being - to love people. That Jesus character sounds like real war-mongering tyrant.
[ QUOTE ]
I think that my point about most people who seek religious truth not finding it must now be conceded on different grounds. You "don't care much for the religiosity that says if you don't follow any set of rules you aren't right before God", but that is exactly the kind of religiosity that the average seeker-after-truth eventually adopts. So in this, at least, their introspection has not led them to the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
The message of Christ is the exact opposite to what you describe - so I would doubt that all these seekers adopt that set of beliefs.
[ QUOTE ]
Less dogmatic theists like yourself generally try to claim that dogmatic theism is a perversion, but actually it is exactly what one would expect.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not what I would expect from teachings of grace / humility and selflessness.
[ QUOTE ]
If you tell people that Ultimate Truth can be found within, then you can't be surprised when they emerge from their contemplation claiming to be the possessors of Ultimate Truth. Better is to emphasise the idea that the sort of truth we can all agree on is that arrived at by the collection of evidence, and to point out the empirical fact that the majority of people who search inwards for Truth must, statistically, have come out with ideas that are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Geesh, we've covered the inappropriateness of the type of evidence your are describing for this question. I noticed you didn't label it science this time - whether you like it or not people do have well considered reasons for God's existence - You just either aren't interested in hearing that evidence - or it isn't good enough for you.
You can't say any persons introspections of God - are incorrect - you don't know - At worst, you can say that they are different.
[ QUOTE ]
After that, if people still want to make the search, then bon voyage. But buyer beware and don't try to tell the rest of us that you know what is true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone shares what they believe to be true - I suppose it's easy to share a message if it has drastically changed your life. Here's a simple example 'All I know is that I was blind and now I can see.' - This person didn't have many words to say - but she went around saying them anyways. I sense you're a little annoyed with all the theists thanking God for what he's done - maybe you need to consider them and learn to deal with it - because people will continue to give God him praise for what they believe he has done.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's clearly not appropriate here. I'm not asking you to disregard scientific investigation into God's existence - but there's no reason to believe that it's an appropriate method to use.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no reason to believe there are any appropriate methods to use. The alternative method you've proposed gives provably bad results, whereas the only reason you call an evidence-based approach "clearly not appropriate" is that you've declared by fiat that your subject is outside of the realm of evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Outside the reach of Scientific Inquiry yes.
[ QUOTE ]
If you feel that declaring that something requires no evidence is a reasonable thing to do, can you give an example of something else which you are prepared to believe exists without evidence? Ghosts? Telekinetic powers? Astrology? What's special about the idea of God that means you get to adopt this position?

[/ QUOTE ]
For the last friggin' time, science is the method to use if you want to find the truthfulness of a natural event. Philosophical thought belongs to a clearly distinct set. If I were testing the goodness of something - I could hardly answer it by science.

[Lestat]

Did you ever hear the joke about the kid who turns in a blank canvas to his art teacher? It's titled, "Cow in a meadow". When the teacher asks, "Where's the grass?", the student replies, "The cow ate it all". When she asks, "Where's the cow?", the student answers, "It went to look for more grass".

The point is, you start off with a blank canvas in which there can be no default assumption. When faced with an unanswerable universe, you can imagine any scenario you'd like... If higher dimensions and multi-verses aren't your thing, then maybe a Christian God, Allah, Olympic Gods, Norse Gods, the FSM, or the Juju at the bottom of the sea will suit your fancy. But so what? Where does that get you?

Rationality demands we do not make default assumptions about things in which no assumptions can yet be made. It takes EVIDENCE, not human imaginition, to form a theory.

As for erroneous facts of the bible, I'm not even going there. Pick a biblical tale and we can discuss its validity if you'd like.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Exact opposite? you're mistaken - they were most likely to be expounding the greatest of the commandments as Jesus named them - to love the Lord your God with all your heart all your mind and all your strength. It's exactly the same!

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, look. Here's Sklansky's original post in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=100785 92&page=0&fpart=all):

[ QUOTE ]
Just thought that I would remind everyone that Professor Librescu, the Romanian, Holocaust survivor who blockaded the door at Virginia Tech, while his students jumped to safety, is burning in hell right now and will continue to endure unimaginable torture for eternity... He [was] skeptical of a story involving [God]. Not because he thought it was a bad story but rather because he had, in his mind anyway, logical reasons to think it wasn't true. In fact he probably thought that God would be at least a little displeased if he believed, what to the professor, was an obviously fraudelant story.

Big mistake. He didn't realize that God didn't care about his heroism or that his disbelief of the story was partially based on an effort to please him. So now he's frying.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here's KUJustin in response:

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming that this stance is ignorant or irrational comes from not being able to see things from any perspective other than your own. I'll gladly agree that from a worldly perspective where there is no God, the idea of the professor being in hell and a killer being in heaven is outrageous. But from someone with different views none of the above is outrageous.

So you can mock ppl for believing, but you can't really mock them for having this stance given that they're believers. In fact, a stance other than this for a believer would likely be the one that defies logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

KUJustin here states that a Christian thinking that good works alone are enough to get a person into heaven "defies logic". If you'd like to explain how this is "exactly the same" as your opinion that "The fact that people seek God and find him in Islam, Judaism or Buddhism - doesn't mean that what they are finding is not God. I don't care much for the religiosity that says if you don't follow any set of rules you aren't right before God", I'm all ears. To me it seems like the exact opposite. If anyone else reading the thread disagrees, chime in.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't say any persons introspections of God - are incorrect - you don't know - At worst, you can say that they are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not listening. I can say with certainty that the majority of them are incorrect. Let's try you on a few concrete examples. Was Jesus divine, or was he not? Would you say that people who deny the divinity of Jesus are wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
For the last friggin' time, science is the method to use if you want to find the truthfulness of a natural event. Philosophical thought belongs to a clearly distinct set. If I were testing the goodness of something - I could hardly answer it by science.

[/ QUOTE ]

The goodness of something is subjective, while all the other things I listed (ghosts, telekinesis etc) are (if they exist) objective phenomena. God is presumably an objective phenomenon also. What I mean by this is that you believe he exists outside of your head. I want to hear about anything else which you think exists outside of your head, the existence of which you are prepared to accept without evidence.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't say any persons introspections of God - are incorrect - you don't know - At worst, you can say that they are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not listening. I can say with certainty that the majority of them are incorrect. Let's try you on a few concrete examples. Was Jesus divine, or was he not? Would you say that people who deny the divinity of Jesus are wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this obsession with "correctness". Why can't you open your mind to the possibility that when it comes to the Spiritual it just doesn't work the way you want it to? I see it asserted over and over again, that it is unlikely any particular religious sect is "correct" because they are all different and there's no objective way to determine which is "correct". Response after response is made to the assertion, but it's as if they are all ignored because they won't say what you want them to say. It reminds me of the Scientology practice of Repeating the Auditing Question. They don't care what the response is. They just keep repeating the question until they have flattened you with it.

To begin with, an Individual seeking a Spiritual Solution in his life does not have to identify the "correct" Religious Sect whose statements are all 100% "accurate". He can instead take what he finds best in each of the religions in forming his relationship to Spiritual Reality and the individual spiritual Solution for his life. If he shares his Solution with another spiritual seeker that person can take it or leave it. It may provide a lot of people with what they are looking for. Their lives improve and the lives of those around them benefit. Meanwhile You stand outside it all with your critical objective eye repeating your mantra, "it's just another Solution among so many that it's very unlikely to be the 'correct' one". Why should they care about your mantra? What does your mantra even mean? What matters to them is they've found a Solution for their lives.

You refuse to consider the idea that Spiritual Propositions cannot be treated according to your concept of objective "correctness". You refuse to look at them for what they really are. Metaphors and Allegories that can only point to Spiritual Reality. A Spiritual Reality that can only be experienced subjectively. You just continue repeating your mantra, "they are each unlikely to be 'correct' because there are so many of them that look different". I can see you wandering through an Art Gallery trying to determine which work of Art is the "correct" one. Meanwhile Art lovers take them home, enjoy them, and add some beauty to their lives.

Then there's the other version of your mantra,

[ QUOTE ]
God is presumably an objective phenomenon also. What I mean by this is that you believe he exists outside of your head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spiritual Reality can only be experienced subjectively. In that experience people talk about "God". It's a word acting as a Guidepost to Spiritual Reality. From that you presume "God" is an "objective phenomenon" and complain about the lack of objective evidence. You keep repeating this regardless of responses to it because it is so obviously "correct" to you. To me, you are not making any sense. You are like someone who claims the Two Slit Experiment is impossible because it doesn't conform to his idea of the "correct" way for things to work.

PairTheBoard

[arahant]

Isn't it a little incongruent that you would make what certainly appears to be a dig at Scientology in the course of a post extolling the freedom of belief and unimportance of 'correctness'? But then I guess that's ok under your system.

At least you are starting to get closer to Zen /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you ever hear the joke about the kid who turns in a blank canvas to his art teacher? It's titled, "Cow in a meadow". When the teacher asks, "Where's the grass?", the student replies, "The cow ate it all". When she asks, "Where's the cow?", the student answers, "It went to look for more grass".

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's a good one.
[ QUOTE ]
The point is, you start off with a blank canvas in which there can be no default assumption. When faced with an unanswerable universe, you can imagine any scenario you'd like... If higher dimensions and multi-verses aren't your thing, then maybe a Christian God, Allah, Olympic Gods, Norse Gods, the FSM, or the Juju at the bottom of the sea will suit your fancy. But so what? Where does that get you?

[/ QUOTE ]
If I were the only person on the planet then you may have a point.. I mean if it were only up to me to find an answer to an unanswerable universe - But, I have the benefit of being able to discuss beliefs with those I respect. I don't think it's fitting to throw away a persons testimony because they can't provide you with a detailed analysis of what occurred.
Christians have a historical person who they follow - not juju at the bottom of the sea. And no theist just picks a religion at random, all have been persuaded to move from their default position as you put it.
[ QUOTE ]
Rationality demands we do not make default assumptions about things in which no assumptions can yet be made. It takes EVIDENCE, not human imaginition, to form a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Precisely, I am saying to you that I have plenty of personal evidence that satisfies. And the combined personal evidence of people over the globe for God supports belief in his existence.
[ QUOTE ]
As for erroneous facts of the bible, I'm not even going there. Pick a biblical tale and we can discuss its validity if you'd like.

[/ QUOTE ]
That definitely depends on what you mean by valid. What is meaningful to me may not be meaningful to you - and I suspect it wouldn't be. But OK :
I find the story where Jesus saves the life of the adulteress about to be stoned - by suggesting that the one without sin cast the first stone - to be valid today.
Valid today because it's an attack against religiosity, suggesting that judgement is for God alone - and we should all be forgiving and loving to one another. I just love that sort of warm and fuzzy stuff /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[godBoy]

I find the universe more consistent with the view that there is God - So I am free to move from my default position?

Christians will tell you precisely what was explained, what answers were given and what problems that God has solved, you only need to listen... and not demand to see a peer reviewed article of their testimony /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I find the universe more consistent with the view that there is God - So I am free to move from my default position?

Christians will tell you precisely what was explained, what answers were given and what problems that God has solved, you only need to listen... and not demand to see a peer reviewed article of their testimony /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So why can't you answer Chris's question? Why are you willing to accept that God answers these questions with no evidence? What ELSE gets this special treatment? He suggested possible alternatives, you didn't seem to like any of them. What other externally real things are you willing to believe without evidence, or at least with this standard of evidence? Ghosts and telekinesis are only two of the more obvious examples. Surprise us.

Or is it just God that gets this privilege?

You make the claim that the universe is more consistent with God existing. Thats fine, but you miss the point. You would need to demonstrate that God is necessary, first. The universe is ENTIRELY consistent with the FSM or the celestial teapot, as well. So what? It is consistent with an infinite number of things. None of those are necessary.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't say any persons introspections of God - are incorrect - you don't know - At worst, you can say that they are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not listening. I can say with certainty that the majority of them are incorrect. Let's try you on a few concrete examples. Was Jesus divine, or was he not? Would you say that people who deny the divinity of Jesus are wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this obsession with "correctness". Why can't you open your mind to the possibility that when it comes to the Spiritual it just doesn't work the way you want it to? I see it asserted over and over again, that it is unlikely any particular religious sect is "correct" because they are all different and there's no objective way to determine which is "correct". Response after response is made to the assertion, but it's as if they are all ignored because they won't say what you want them to say. It reminds me of the Scientology practice of Repeating the Auditing Question. They don't care what the response is. They just keep repeating the question until they have flattened you with it.

To begin with, an Individual seeking a Spiritual Solution in his life does not have to identify the "correct" Religious Sect whose statements are all 100% "accurate". He can instead take what he finds best in each of the religions in forming his relationship to Spiritual Reality and the individual spiritual Solution for his life. If he shares his Solution with another spiritual seeker that person can take it or leave it. It may provide a lot of people with what they are looking for. Their lives improve and the lives of those around them benefit. Meanwhile You stand outside it all with your critical objective eye repeating your mantra, "it's just another Solution among so many that it's very unlikely to be the 'correct' one". Why should they care about your mantra? What does your mantra even mean? What matters to them is they've found a Solution for their lives.

You refuse to consider the idea that Spiritual Propositions cannot be treated according to your concept of objective "correctness". You refuse to look at them for what they really are. Metaphors and Allegories that can only point to Spiritual Reality. A Spiritual Reality that can only be experienced subjectively. You just continue repeating your mantra, "they are each unlikely to be 'correct' because there are so many of them that look different". I can see you wandering through an Art Gallery trying to determine which work of Art is the "correct" one. Meanwhile Art lovers take them home, enjoy them, and add some beauty to their lives.

Then there's the other version of your mantra,

[ QUOTE ]
God is presumably an objective phenomenon also. What I mean by this is that you believe he exists outside of your head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spiritual Reality can only be experienced subjectively. In that experience people talk about "God". It's a word acting as a Guidepost to Spiritual Reality. From that you presume "God" is an "objective phenomenon" and complain about the lack of objective evidence. You keep repeating this regardless of responses to it because it is so obviously "correct" to you. To me, you are not making any sense. You are like someone who claims the Two Slit Experiment is impossible because it doesn't conform to his idea of the "correct" way for things to work.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

He's talking about beliefs that are directly contradictory. I know you have an aversion to words like correct and true, but thats your problem. If 1 billion people believe something and 900 million people believe that what those billion people believe is wrong, AT LEAST 900 million people ARE wrong. No way around it. We aren't talking about everyone being correct in their own way, we aren't talking about what is true for some not being true for others. We are talking about directly contradictory beliefs. It doesn't matter if we want to use subjective evidence or objective evidence, two directly contradictory things cannot both be true. At least, not if you want your words to continue having meaning. It cannot be both A and not A.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about beliefs that are directly contradictory. I know you have an aversion to words like correct and true, but thats your problem. If 1 billion people believe something and 900 million people believe that what those billion people believe is wrong, AT LEAST 900 million people ARE wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see in the last while we've heard this deflected by -
- roll your on god. Perhaps a ham sandwich.
- god is love.
- now, we're into he's unique 'Spiritual Reality'.

I want a proper scorecard !!!

luckyme

[ChrisV]

PairTheBoard:

What you're proposing is essentially mysticism. If you answer "no" to all the following questions:

- Are people wrong to deny the divinity of Jesus?
- Are people wrong to claim that Mohammed is the messenger of God?
- Are people wrong to say that there exists more than one God?

Then you are stretching the definition of "Christian" beyond breaking point.

I have no problem with mysticism. If you can never say definitively that anyone else is wrong, then you can never yourself make any clear objective claims about the world. You will feel no impulse to interfere in other people's lives, or to fight other people on religious grounds.

However, this sort of theism is just not widespread in the world today. If I put a poll up in this forum and got all those who self-identify as Christian to answer the three questions above, how many do you think would respond "no" to all three? It isn't me that makes the claim that if two groups of people have opposing religious beliefs, one group must be wrong. It's the groups themselves. As I pointed out to godBoy in my last post, even if you take the view that the only religious belief that can definitively be called "correct" is that there are many possible ways to experience spiritual reality, then the vast majority of theists are still wrong, because hardly any of them believe that.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a little incongruent that you would make what certainly appears to be a dig at Scientology in the course of a post extolling the freedom of belief and unimportance of 'correctness'? But then I guess that's ok under your system.

At least you are starting to get closer to Zen /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say that implied we could not make critical judgements of Religious Propositions and Religious Organizations? Certainly you've seen my criticisms of the Doctrine of a Hell of eternal torture. I've gone so far as to assert that teaching it to children amounts to child abuse. That's a bit more than a "dig". That's a whole hearted condemnation. As a guidepost to Spiritual Reality it sucks.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about beliefs that are directly contradictory. I know you have an aversion to words like correct and true, but thats your problem. If 1 billion people believe something and 900 million people believe that what those billion people believe is wrong, AT LEAST 900 million people ARE wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see in the last while we've heard this deflected by -
- roll your on god. Perhaps a ham sandwich.
- god is love.
- now, we're into he's unique 'Spiritual Reality'.

I want a proper scorecard !!!

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I like PTB's conceptualization the best out of any of those and it isn't really close. That probably doesn't mean much, though.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a little incongruent that you would make what certainly appears to be a dig at Scientology in the course of a post extolling the freedom of belief and unimportance of 'correctness'? But then I guess that's ok under your system.

At least you are starting to get closer to Zen /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say that implied we could not make critical judgements of Religious Propositions and Religious Organizations? Certainly you've seen my criticisms of the Doctrine of a Hell of eternal torture. I've gone so far as to assert that teaching it to children amounts to child abuse. That's a bit more than a "dig". That's a whole hearted condemnation. As a guidepost to Spiritual Reality it sucks.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense? What criteria do you use to determine the best methods?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a little incongruent that you would make what certainly appears to be a dig at Scientology in the course of a post extolling the freedom of belief and unimportance of 'correctness'? But then I guess that's ok under your system.

At least you are starting to get closer to Zen /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say that implied we could not make critical judgements of Religious Propositions and Religious Organizations? Certainly you've seen my criticisms of the Doctrine of a Hell of eternal torture. I've gone so far as to assert that teaching it to children amounts to child abuse. That's a bit more than a "dig". That's a whole hearted condemnation. As a guidepost to Spiritual Reality it sucks.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense? What criteria do you use to determine the best methods?

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense. My conscience. Reports from others about how certain teachings have impacted them. My own subjective spiritual experience. My intuition. My knowledge of history. Critical anaysis of people I respect. My best judgement.

It's not like proving a Theorem in mathematics. It's different. It has some similarities (also differences) to the way we choose a political affiliation.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a little incongruent that you would make what certainly appears to be a dig at Scientology in the course of a post extolling the freedom of belief and unimportance of 'correctness'? But then I guess that's ok under your system.

At least you are starting to get closer to Zen /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say that implied we could not make critical judgements of Religious Propositions and Religious Organizations? Certainly you've seen my criticisms of the Doctrine of a Hell of eternal torture. I've gone so far as to assert that teaching it to children amounts to child abuse. That's a bit more than a "dig". That's a whole hearted condemnation. As a guidepost to Spiritual Reality it sucks.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense? What criteria do you use to determine the best methods?

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense. My conscience. Reports from others about how certain teachings have impacted them. My own subjective spiritual experience. My intuition. My knowledge of history. Critical anaysis of people I respect. My best judgement.

It's not like proving a Theorem in mathematics. It's different. It has some similarities (also differences) to the way we choose a political affiliation.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so the vast majority of people disagree with you, and think that it is a perfectly fine guidepost for determining Spiritual Truth. Now what? Am I to trust you or them? How will I know? More importantly, what benefits will a good guidepost get me that a poor one won't? If you can clearly delineate these benefits, couldn't we easily set up an experiment whereby some people used YOUR method and some people used this standard, 'inferior' method, and we measured outcomes?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PairTheBoard:

What you're proposing is essentially mysticism. If you answer "no" to all the following questions:

- Are people wrong to deny the divinity of Jesus?
- Are people wrong to claim that Mohammed is the messenger of God?
- Are people wrong to say that there exists more than one God?

Then you are stretching the definition of "Christian" beyond breaking point.

I have no problem with mysticism. If you can never say definitively that anyone else is wrong, then you can never yourself make any clear objective claims about the world. You will feel no impulse to interfere in other people's lives, or to fight other people on religious grounds.

However, this sort of theism is just not widespread in the world today. If I put a poll up in this forum and got all those who self-identify as Christian to answer the three questions above, how many do you think would respond "no" to all three? It isn't me that makes the claim that if two groups of people have opposing religious beliefs, one group must be wrong. It's the groups themselves. As I pointed out to godBoy in my last post, even if you take the view that the only religious belief that can definitively be called "correct" is that there are many possible ways to experience spiritual reality, then the vast majority of theists are still wrong, because hardly any of them believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, as you can see from my reply to arahant, I don't think anything I said implies that we can't be critical of Religious Propositions and Religious Organizations.

From what I understand there is an element of mysticism in most every religion. Look. I am not promoting Christianity. What I'm saying is that people can find a sensible livable spiritual home there, as well as in Islam, Paganism, and other religions. They can also make a spiritual home for themselves by using their best judgement and choosing what they find best in all the religions. They can also make community with a particular religion while using their best judgement as to how they want to apply it, like Sullivan does with his Catholicism.

What I see you doing is going into these spiritual homes and telling them that the paintings on their walls cannot be correct because they are different paintings than all the ones in all the other spiritual homes. You keep talking about "correct", "accurate", "objectively true", and now who's "right" and who's "wrong". You refuse to see it in any other terms.

You refuse to look at the possibilty of common ground for the various religions. That the common ground may in fact be far far more important than their apparent differences.

I will give you this. I can hardly criticize you for being unable to look at Spritual Reality as I propose while defending Religious people when they are blind to it as well. But I thought I made myself clear about that in my "weird" post above when I was asked what this way of looking at the Spiritual implied for Christians as well as Atheists.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find the universe more consistent with the view that there is God - So I am free to move from my default position?

Christians will tell you precisely what was explained, what answers were given and what problems that God has solved, you only need to listen... and not demand to see a peer reviewed article of their testimony /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So why can't you answer Chris's question? Why are you willing to accept that God answers these questions with no evidence? What ELSE gets this special treatment? He suggested possible alternatives, you didn't seem to like any of them. What other externally real things are you willing to believe without evidence, or at least with this standard of evidence? Ghosts and telekinesis are only two of the more obvious examples. Surprise us.

Or is it just God that gets this privilege?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't avoiding the question - I just hadn't got there yet - Surely you don't expect me to keep on the internet 24 hours to please you..
[ QUOTE ]
You make the claim that the universe is more consistent with God existing. Thats fine, but you miss the point. You would need to demonstrate that God is necessary, first. The universe is ENTIRELY consistent with the FSM or the celestial teapot, as well. So what? It is consistent with an infinite number of things. None of those are necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
Science consistently looks for the best possible answer to questions - I have found the most consistent answer to be that of God.
If I find that it makes more sense to believe in a God - It won't bother me in the slightest that there is a possiblity that he doesn't exist. I am building a case for God as more and more evidence presents itself, if the fact that there is a possibility that God doesn't exist - is the reason for your atheism - that's a spectacularly weak reason.
There's a possiblity that your reality as you know it is nothing more than the mental wanderings of a mentally disabled alien on a distant planet - but you will live your life based on the assumption that - that in fact is not true.
So in a sentence - it's not the question whether a God is absolutely neccessary that's important - but which explanation bets fits the evidence that is worth taking into consideration.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find the universe more consistent with the view that there is God - So I am free to move from my default position?

Christians will tell you precisely what was explained, what answers were given and what problems that God has solved, you only need to listen... and not demand to see a peer reviewed article of their testimony /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So why can't you answer Chris's question? Why are you willing to accept that God answers these questions with no evidence? What ELSE gets this special treatment? He suggested possible alternatives, you didn't seem to like any of them. What other externally real things are you willing to believe without evidence, or at least with this standard of evidence? Ghosts and telekinesis are only two of the more obvious examples. Surprise us.

Or is it just God that gets this privilege?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't avoiding the question - I just hadn't got there yet - Surely you don't expect me to keep on the internet 24 hours to please you..
[ QUOTE ]
You make the claim that the universe is more consistent with God existing. Thats fine, but you miss the point. You would need to demonstrate that God is necessary, first. The universe is ENTIRELY consistent with the FSM or the celestial teapot, as well. So what? It is consistent with an infinite number of things. None of those are necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
Science consistently looks for the best possible answer to questions - I have found the most consistent answer to be that of God.
If I find that it makes more sense to believe in a God - It won't bother me in the slightest that there is a possiblity that he doesn't exist. I am building a case for God as more and more evidence presents itself, if the fact that there is a possibility that God doesn't exist - is the reason for your atheism - that's a spectacularly weak reason.
There's a possiblity that your reality as you know it is nothing more than the mental wanderings of a mentally disabled alien on a distant planet - but you will live your life based on the assumption that - that in fact is not true.
So in a sentence - it's not the question whether a God is absolutely neccessary that's important - but which explanation bets fits the evidence that is worth taking into consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

The chance that God may not exist has nothing to do with my atheism. Nor does the chance that the Loch Ness monster may not exist explain my a-Nessism. I don't think you get it at all. The simplest explanation is whatever is both necessary and sufficient. Using all of science PLUS God is certainly sufficient, it just isn't necessary, much like the infinite other possible things we can add on that cannot be verified.

It is interesting to me that you use a scientific framework and modality when it suits your purposes, and then criticize the limitations of that modality when it doesn't.

[m_the0ry]

We are always looking for ways to explain observations. For example if we see an apple fall and a coin toss land on the ground we in our currently educated state link the two events together by saying that gravity made both objects fall. This is not necessarily as obvious as it seems as it was only recently that gravity was conceived of.

When we cannot explain our observations is when the trouble arises. The theist model godBoy describes answers every inexplicable question with 'God'. Returning to our example, the layman on the year of Newton's birth is very likely to explain the tendency of all objects to fall to the ground as 'God's choice'. This layman claims that he 'knows' (the word having very powerful implications, as 'knowing' something implies it is both a belief and a truth) this. If this man lives to be 300 years old he will eventually explain falling objects with gravity and either denies that he ever believed it was God or he finds the next unanswered question, "where does mass come from to create gravity?" and demands an explanation. He then immediately rebuts with explaining it as 'God'.


Theism is denial that our understanding of reality is transient and is likely to always be changing.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exact opposite? you're mistaken - they were most likely to be expounding the greatest of the commandments as Jesus named them - to love the Lord your God with all your heart all your mind and all your strength. It's exactly the same!

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, look. Here's Sklansky's original post in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=100785 92&page=0&fpart=all):

[ QUOTE ]
Just thought that I would remind everyone that Professor Librescu, the Romanian, Holocaust survivor who blockaded the door at Virginia Tech, while his students jumped to safety, is burning in hell right now and will continue to endure unimaginable torture for eternity... He [was] skeptical of a story involving [God]. Not because he thought it was a bad story but rather because he had, in his mind anyway, logical reasons to think it wasn't true. In fact he probably thought that God would be at least a little displeased if he believed, what to the professor, was an obviously fraudelant story.

Big mistake. He didn't realize that God didn't care about his heroism or that his disbelief of the story was partially based on an effort to please him. So now he's frying.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here's KUJustin in response:

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming that this stance is ignorant or irrational comes from not being able to see things from any perspective other than your own. I'll gladly agree that from a worldly perspective where there is no God, the idea of the professor being in hell and a killer being in heaven is outrageous. But from someone with different views none of the above is outrageous.

So you can mock ppl for believing, but you can't really mock them for having this stance given that they're believers. In fact, a stance other than this for a believer would likely be the one that defies logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

KUJustin here states that a Christian thinking that good works alone are enough to get a person into heaven "defies logic". If you'd like to explain how this is "exactly the same" as your opinion that "The fact that people seek God and find him in Islam, Judaism or Buddhism - doesn't mean that what they are finding is not God. I don't care much for the religiosity that says if you don't follow any set of rules you aren't right before God", I'm all ears. To me it seems like the exact opposite. If anyone else reading the thread disagrees, chime in.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that good works alone are enough to get a person into heaven - it's a heart turned towards God that is suffice.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't say any persons introspections of God - are incorrect - you don't know - At worst, you can say that they are different.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not listening. I can say with certainty that the majority of them are incorrect. Let's try you on a few concrete examples. Was Jesus divine, or was he not? Would you say that people who deny the divinity of Jesus are wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, I would say that they are wrong about the question of Jesus' divinity - It doesn't mean they don't know anything about God.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the last friggin' time, science is the method to use if you want to find the truthfulness of a natural event. Philosophical thought belongs to a clearly distinct set. If I were testing the goodness of something - I could hardly answer it by science.

[/ QUOTE ]
The goodness of something is subjective, while all the other things I listed (ghosts, telekinesis etc) are (if they exist) objective phenomena. God is presumably an objective phenomenon also. What I mean by this is that you believe he exists outside of your head. I want to hear about anything else which you think exists outside of your head, the existence of which you are prepared to accept without evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well there's only two realms that I have reason to beleive in - The Physical and the Spiritual.
I will believe anything about either realm - or even that of another realm if they present themselves to me.
I believe that I have encountered God and demons - so I believe they exist. I'm not able to measure these sorts of encounters by using any physical methods. These are the only two spiritual beings that I beleive I have encountered - so I don't have any other examples of things that are outside the realm of Scientific Investigation.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a little incongruent that you would make what certainly appears to be a dig at Scientology in the course of a post extolling the freedom of belief and unimportance of 'correctness'? But then I guess that's ok under your system.

At least you are starting to get closer to Zen /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did I say that implied we could not make critical judgements of Religious Propositions and Religious Organizations? Certainly you've seen my criticisms of the Doctrine of a Hell of eternal torture. I've gone so far as to assert that teaching it to children amounts to child abuse. That's a bit more than a "dig". That's a whole hearted condemnation. As a guidepost to Spiritual Reality it sucks.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense? What criteria do you use to determine the best methods?

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense. My conscience. Reports from others about how certain teachings have impacted them. My own subjective spiritual experience. My intuition. My knowledge of history. Critical anaysis of people I respect. My best judgement.

It's not like proving a Theorem in mathematics. It's different. It has some similarities (also differences) to the way we choose a political affiliation.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so the vast majority of people disagree with you, and think that it is a perfectly fine guidepost for determining Spiritual Truth. Now what? Am I to trust you or them? How will I know? More importantly, what benefits will a good guidepost get me that a poor one won't? If you can clearly delineate these benefits, couldn't we easily set up an experiment whereby some people used YOUR method and some people used this standard, 'inferior' method, and we measured outcomes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you need somebody else to tell you what to believe? I said I would use My best judgement. Why can't you use yours?

There are problems with your objective measurement of how these teachings affect people's lives. In principle, what you suggest sounds similiar to what Jesus suggested when asked how we would know his followers. He said, you will know them by their fruits. The problem is that tasting the fruits is a subjective experience. How do you objectively determine if someone has a hard heart? It's often a subjective judgement. And why should you decide a hard heart is less desirable than a loving one?

There may be some objective measures you could try to apply. I take seriously the reports I hear from people who were traumatized at a young age by the good news of Hell and Damnation. I don't use the term "child abuse" lightly. The problems of Controls and acceptable objective measures seem pretty daunting to me. Who knows what nuerotheology might tell us though. However whatever might come of it, it still won't satisfy your insistence on knowing what is objectively "correct". It can only show what works for the objective measures you want to apply. You will still have to use your best judgement as to which results are ones you deem desirable.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
We are always looking for ways to explain observations. For example if we see an apple fall and a coin toss land on the ground we in our currently educated state link the two events together by saying that gravity made both objects fall. This is not necessarily as obvious as it seems as it was only recently that gravity was conceived of.

When we cannot explain our observations is when the trouble arises. The theist model godBoy describes answers every inexplicable question with 'God'. Returning to our example, the layman on the year of Newton's birth is very likely to explain the tendency of all objects to fall to the ground as 'God's choice'. This layman claims that he 'knows' (the word having very powerful implications, as 'knowing' something implies it is both a belief and a truth) this. If this man lives to be 300 years old he will eventually explain falling objects with gravity and either denies that he ever believed it was God or he finds the next unanswered question, "where does mass come from to create gravity?" and demands an explanation. He then immediately rebuts with explaining it as 'God'.

Theism is denial that our understanding of reality is transient and is likely to always be changing.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are saying that my God is a 'God of the Gaps' - but he's not. I only say God is responsible for where it is most fitting - I may or may not be right about my current beliefs - exactly the same as scientific truth. I do not answer every inexplicable question with 'God' - if something is unexplainable it is a mystery.
Why does time exist? It's a mystery.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
The simplest explanation is whatever is both necessary and sufficient.
Using all of science PLUS God is certainly sufficient, it just isn't necessary, much like the infinite other possible things we can add on that cannot be verified.

It is interesting to me that you use a scientific framework and modality when it suits your purposes, and then criticize the limitations of that modality when it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that a cause for the universe is necessary. The only thing I am criticising is the unreasonable belief that everything that has existed, or will exist must be able to meet the Scientific Criteria that you want to place on it. What I find interesting is beliefs like Dawkins - that what we have witnessed on earth and tested with science - is the only possible explanation at the roots of everything in existence.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">And no theist just picks a religion at random, all have been persuaded to move from their default position as you put it. </font>

C'mon... You don't REALLY believe this, do you? The overwhelming majority of people are not intellectually pursuaded towards a particular religion. They are BORN into it! They are brainwashed from infancy to believe in the same dogma as their parents and/or those around them. This should prove my point, not yours. If you were born in Pakistan, you'd be a Muslim. If you were born in India, you'd be a Hindu. But by the sheerest of accidents, you weren't born in any of those places, so you happen to be Christian. Hardly a blank canvas from which you could've wound up in any number of religious faiths.

<font color="blue"> Precisely, I am saying to you that I have plenty of personal evidence that satisfies. </font>

Well, this is what it all boils down to. If you feel you have satisfactory evidence, then more power to you. I can't fault you for that. It's just that there's little doubt that what you and I would consider "evidence" are two different things.

Hey, I like that story too (Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone). I think it rocks! I think it's a great moral reference. I also think it's valid today. Unfortunately, it would be just as valid whether someone named Jesus said it or not. What started this, was when I said things in the bible that Christians take for "facts" are untrue. The fact this is a good story is undoubtedly true. The fact that Jesus said it... Well, that's a whole other story.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">And no theist just picks a religion at random, all have been persuaded to move from their default position as you put it.</font>
C'mon... You don't REALLY believe this, do you? The overwhelming majority of people are not intellectually pursuaded towards a particular religion. They are BORN into it! They are brainwashed from infancy to believe in the same dogma as their parents and/or those around them. This should prove my point, not yours. If you were born in Pakistan, you'd be a Muslim. If you were born in India, you'd be a Hindu. But by the sheerest of accidents, you weren't born in any of those places, so you happen to be Christian. Hardly a blank canvas from which you could've wound up in any number of religious faiths.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, except that it is relevant to the point which I am making - That God shouldn't be expected to be found via the scientific method - and it's not reasonable or logical to believe that it should be.
Persuaded was the wrong word, I meant at some stage they accepted the idea that they heard, this may or may not have been through intellectual reasoning.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, this is what it all boils down to. If you feel you have satisfactory evidence, then more power to you. I can't fault you for that. It's just that there's little doubt that what you and I would consider "evidence" are two different things.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm absolutely sure I know next to nothing about truth and existence, yet God's a shoe-in. If it were only by understanding how the quality of my life has drastically changed after I chose God - that would be enough.

Because this thread is drawing to a close, I don't mind preaching...
I know how I used to be - I know how I am now - and I know what it took for it to change. You must never have been crumby enough to need a saviour - I understand how the sort of God that looks at the least of men would frustrate the wise and knowledgeable. I think it's simply marvelous.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Theism is denial that our understanding of reality is transient and is likely to always be changing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense. I am a theist, and I realize that my understanding of reality is constantly changing.

You guys put some weird constraints on theism.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are always looking for ways to explain observations. For example if we see an apple fall and a coin toss land on the ground we in our currently educated state link the two events together by saying that gravity made both objects fall. This is not necessarily as obvious as it seems as it was only recently that gravity was conceived of.

When we cannot explain our observations is when the trouble arises. The theist model godBoy describes answers every inexplicable question with 'God'. Returning to our example, the layman on the year of Newton's birth is very likely to explain the tendency of all objects to fall to the ground as 'God's choice'. This layman claims that he 'knows' (the word having very powerful implications, as 'knowing' something implies it is both a belief and a truth) this. If this man lives to be 300 years old he will eventually explain falling objects with gravity and either denies that he ever believed it was God or he finds the next unanswered question, "where does mass come from to create gravity?" and demands an explanation. He then immediately rebuts with explaining it as 'God'.

Theism is denial that our understanding of reality is transient and is likely to always be changing.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are saying that my God is a 'God of the Gaps' - but he's not. I only say God is responsible for where it is most fitting - I may or may not be right about my current beliefs - exactly the same as scientific truth. I do not answer every inexplicable question with 'God' - if something is unexplainable it is a mystery.
Why does time exist? It's a mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Godboy,
How does this sound? I have always thought of science as the process filling in the "gaps" of our understanding. The whole "God of the gaps" thinking of theism is borne from a tremendous misunderstanding of theism. God is boundless. He exists at infinity. He is the alpha and the omega, as those evil Christians would put it. Thus, the process of science is the process of understanding how God did it. Understanding evolution, for example, doesn't "fill in the gap" in such a way that it removes God. God did it, and a religious person claiming "that's the way it is because God made it so" is not incorrect if God exists. It simply is not a rigorous way of understanding things. A more precise way of understanding nature is through science. It reveals the "how God did it", but it doesn't replace God.

Religion and science are both ways of understanding reality. They should converge. I think a lot of people completely misunderstand how they converge however, thus the gross misunderstanding that modern scientific discovery disproves or is evidence against God. Science and religion should point to the same thing. Religion has a far greater scope, but it is much less precise. Science is very limited (by empirical observation), but it is far more precise. They are simply different ways of framing the question. If God exists, then religion is right when they claim "God did it", no matter what they are referring to -- because if God exists, then he is directly or indirectly the cause of everything. Also, science is right when they make a claim such as "photons did it" if they are looking at something like, say, the photoelectric effect. It is simply a different way of looking at things, neither one more or less valid than the other. Science just gives us a way of understanding the underlying mechanism, and a way of predicting future outcomes.

[Lestat]

Fair enough. There have been some great posts in this thread. I think you'd do well to re-read vhawk's posts in particular and really try to understand his points. What you're employing is faith, which is fine. But I for one, would feel a great sense of accomplishment if you also understood exactly where your thinking enters the realm of faith and leaves logic behind. I don't think you yet understand the difference between having faith, and having logical reasons based on real evidence to believe something is true or false.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you yet understand the difference between having faith, and having logical reasons based on real evidence to believe something is true or false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Consider the possibility that Theists may very well understand the difference. Atheists understand that there is a difference. But Atheists may not understand what the difference is.

PairTheBoard

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]

Consider the possibility that Theists may very well understand the difference. Atheists understand that there is a difference. But Atheists may not understand what the difference is.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely arrogant, condescending, theocentric thing to say.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consider the possibility that Theists may very well understand the difference. Atheists understand that there is a difference. But Atheists may not understand what the difference is.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely arrogant, condescending, theocentric thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I said "may" and "consider the possibility". Also notice it was in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you yet understand the difference between having faith, and having logical reasons based on real evidence to believe something is true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which could also be described as "arrogant" and "condescending".

You might also consider the observation that the educated Theist has experience with both Science and Faith while the Atheist often times has experience with only one. So which is more qualified to determine what the "difference" is between the two?

PairTheBoard

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consider the possibility that Theists may very well understand the difference. Atheists understand that there is a difference. But Atheists may not understand what the difference is.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely arrogant, condescending, theocentric thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I said "may" and "consider the possibility". Also notice it was in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you yet understand the difference between having faith, and having logical reasons based on real evidence to believe something is true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which could also be described as "arrogant" and "condescending".

You might also consider the observation that the educated Theist has experience with both Science and Faith while the Atheist often times has experience with only one. So which is more qualified to determine what the "difference" is between the two?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

You are insinuating that an atheist's failure too perceive the supernatural is due to some form of blindness on the atheist's part, rather than the reality of the situation which is that an atheist's failure too perceive the supernatural is due to the non-existence of the supernatural.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consider the possibility that Theists may very well understand the difference. Atheists understand that there is a difference. But Atheists may not understand what the difference is.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely arrogant, condescending, theocentric thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I said "may" and "consider the possibility". Also notice it was in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you yet understand the difference between having faith, and having logical reasons based on real evidence to believe something is true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which could also be described as "arrogant" and "condescending".

You might also consider the observation that the educated Theist has experience with both Science and Faith while the Atheist often times has experience with only one. So which is more qualified to determine what the "difference" is between the two?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

You are insinuating that an atheist's failure too perceive the supernatural is due to some form of blindness on the atheist's part, rather than the reality of the situation which is that an atheist's failure too perceive the supernatural is due to the non-existence of the supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not put insinuations into my mouth.

You know, I looked at the last few posts you've made in other threads. In the "Inertia" thread you jumped in with a disrespectful comment to the OP insinuating that what he was trying to get at was probably trivial - in fact it's far from it. In another thread where the OP had a pertinent but probably not very practical point which he was being criticized for, you jumped in and posted a poll basically calling the OP a "troll" and/or "idiot". And in yet another thread you jumped on a poster calling him a "moron".

And these were just the last few posts of yours that I looked at.

Do you have any ideas of your own you would like to share with us on this topic? Or is your specialty restricted to slamming other people with inane criticisms.

PairTheBoard

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Do not put insinuations into my mouth.

..In the "Inertia" thread you jumped in with a disrespectful comment to the OP insinuating that

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a penchant for this.
You may not understand what you are saying, and you might want to consider the possibility that your beliefs are just totally unsupportable.

I know you want everyone to love each other in a big happy spiritual world...hey, who doesn't want a world full of peace, love, and compassion. Nevertheless, theists are overwhelmingly flat out deluded, confusing various emotions and thoughts as evidence that Jesus Christ died for our sins, Mahomed was gods messenger, Demons hold them in bed at night, etc.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consider the possibility that Theists may very well understand the difference. Atheists understand that there is a difference. But Atheists may not understand what the difference is.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely arrogant, condescending, theocentric thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I said "may" and "consider the possibility". Also notice it was in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you yet understand the difference between having faith, and having logical reasons based on real evidence to believe something is true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which could also be described as "arrogant" and "condescending".

You might also consider the observation that the educated Theist has experience with both Science and Faith while the Atheist often times has experience with only one. So which is more qualified to determine what the "difference" is between the two?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

You are insinuating that an atheist's failure too perceive the supernatural is due to some form of blindness on the atheist's part, rather than the reality of the situation which is that an atheist's failure too perceive the supernatural is due to the non-existence of the supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not put insinuations into my mouth.

You know, I looked at the last few posts you've made in other threads. In the "Inertia" thread you jumped in with a disrespectful comment to the OP insinuating that what he was trying to get at was probably trivial - in fact it's far from it. In another thread where the OP had a pertinent but probably not very practical point which he was being criticized for, you jumped in and posted a poll basically calling the OP a "troll" and/or "idiot". And in yet another thread you jumped on a poster calling him a "moron".

And these were just the last few posts of yours that I looked at.

Do you have any ideas of your own you would like to share with us on this topic? Or is your specialty restricted to slamming other people with inane criticisms.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't dodge the issue. (And the posts you refer to were humorous and in line with the general sentiment of each thread ... except for the "moron" comment --- that guy really was a moron.) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Now you have claimed that atheists are lacking in some respects. Why don't you clearly articulate exactly what the deficiency is, and justify your claims. As far as I can see you are simply harboring theist-supremacist views.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, theists are overwhelmingly flat out deluded

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm being arrogant and condescending?

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consider the possibility that Theists may very well understand the difference. Atheists understand that there is a difference. But Atheists may not understand what the difference is.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely arrogant, condescending, theocentric thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I said "may" and "consider the possibility". Also notice it was in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you yet understand the difference between having faith, and having logical reasons based on real evidence to believe something is true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which could also be described as "arrogant" and "condescending".

You might also consider the observation that the educated Theist has experience with both Science and Faith while the Atheist often times has experience with only one. So which is more qualified to determine what the "difference" is between the two?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

You are insinuating that an atheist's failure too perceive the supernatural is due to some form of blindness on the atheist's part, rather than the reality of the situation which is that an atheist's failure too perceive the supernatural is due to the non-existence of the supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not put insinuations into my mouth.

You know, I looked at the last few posts you've made in other threads. In the "Inertia" thread you jumped in with a disrespectful comment to the OP insinuating that what he was trying to get at was probably trivial - in fact it's far from it. In another thread where the OP had a pertinent but probably not very practical point which he was being criticized for, you jumped in and posted a poll basically calling the OP a "troll" and/or "idiot". And in yet another thread you jumped on a poster calling him a "moron".

And these were just the last few posts of yours that I looked at.

Do you have any ideas of your own you would like to share with us on this topic? Or is your specialty restricted to slamming other people with inane criticisms.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't dodge the issue. (And the posts you refer to were humorous and in line with the general sentiment of each thread ... except for the "moron" comment --- that guy really was a moron.) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Now you have claimed that atheists are lacking in some respects. Why don't you clearly articulate exactly what the deficiency is, and justify your claims. As far as I can see you are simply harboring theist-supremacist views.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not dodging anything. You are not staying on point.

See if you can follow this logic:

Person A has experince with X but not Y.
Person B has experience with X and Y.
Person A claims Person B doesn't understand the difference between X and Y.

Do you not see a problem with that?

In this case,

A = A particular Atheist (Not Atheists in general)
B = A particular Theist (Not Theists in general)
X = Science
Y = Faith

If you don't think the logic applies in this case then make your argument on that point. I'm not going to discuss every off the wall insinuation you pull out of the woodwork that doesn't go to that point.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consider the possibility that Theists may very well understand the difference. Atheists understand that there is a difference. But Atheists may not understand what the difference is.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an extremely arrogant, condescending, theocentric thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I said "may" and "consider the possibility". Also notice it was in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you yet understand the difference between having faith, and having logical reasons based on real evidence to believe something is true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which could also be described as "arrogant" and "condescending".

You might also consider the observation that the educated Theist has experience with both Science and Faith while the Atheist often times has experience with only one. So which is more qualified to determine what the "difference" is between the two?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

You are insinuating that an atheist's failure too perceive the supernatural is due to some form of blindness on the atheist's part, rather than the reality of the situation which is that an atheist's failure too perceive the supernatural is due to the non-existence of the supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not put insinuations into my mouth.

You know, I looked at the last few posts you've made in other threads. In the "Inertia" thread you jumped in with a disrespectful comment to the OP insinuating that what he was trying to get at was probably trivial - in fact it's far from it. In another thread where the OP had a pertinent but probably not very practical point which he was being criticized for, you jumped in and posted a poll basically calling the OP a "troll" and/or "idiot". And in yet another thread you jumped on a poster calling him a "moron".

And these were just the last few posts of yours that I looked at.

Do you have any ideas of your own you would like to share with us on this topic? Or is your specialty restricted to slamming other people with inane criticisms.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't dodge the issue. (And the posts you refer to were humorous and in line with the general sentiment of each thread ... except for the "moron" comment --- that guy really was a moron.) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Now you have claimed that atheists are lacking in some respects. Why don't you clearly articulate exactly what the deficiency is, and justify your claims. As far as I can see you are simply harboring theist-supremacist views.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not dodging anything. You are not staying on point.

See if you can follow this logic:

Person A has experince with X but not Y.
Person B has experience with X and Y.
Person A claims Person B doesn't understand the difference between X and Y.

Do you not see a problem with that?

In this case,

A = A particular Atheist (Not Atheists in general)
B = A particular Theist (Not Theists in general)
X = Science
Y = Faith

If you don't think the logic applies in this case then make your argument on that point. I'm not going to discuss every off the wall insinuation you pull out of the woodwork that doesn't go to that point.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, PTB, you know thats not what his (or mine) problem is with this. The logical premise we object to is either the second one, that Person B has experience with X and Y, or the first one, that Person A has experience with X only. IOW, we have no real reason to accept that the theist has any more meaningful experience with faith than anyone, or we have no reason to think the atheist has less meaningful experience with faith. The key word here is meaningful. Having faith and, specifically, professing faith doesn't really mean anything, since we have no way of determining if that is USEFUL experience wrt faith. People have cancer and know nothing about the disease (to use an unflattering example but it isn't mean as an insult) because their experience with cancer isn't useful in that sense. It is useful in terms of the symptoms and the effects, but not the mechanisms. To continue the analogy, the theists may be better equipped to talk about what faith does for them, or the 'symptoms' of faith, but that doesn't mean they are in any way better equipped to talk about what faith is or the mechanisms for faith.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not dodging anything. You are not staying on point.

See if you can follow this logic:

Person A has experince with X but not Y.
Person B has experience with X and Y.
Person A claims Person B doesn't understand the difference between X and Y.

Do you not see a problem with that?

In this case,

A = A particular Atheist (Not Atheists in general)
B = A particular Theist (Not Theists in general)
X = Science
Y = Faith

If you don't think the logic applies in this case then make your argument on that point. I'm not going to discuss every off the wall insinuation you pull out of the woodwork that doesn't go to that point.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]


Define "Faith" in this context, distinguishing between natural and supernatural aspects.

Then explain how this "Faith" relates to knowing or learning what is actually true and real.

State what aspects of truth and reality are, according to you, missed out on by an atheist who categorically rejects the legitimacy of (religious) "Faith".

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, theists are overwhelmingly flat out deluded, confusing various emotions and thoughts as evidence that Jesus Christ died for our sins, Mahomed was gods messenger, Demons hold them in bed at night, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

What intrigues me is how all these experiences, some of which can already be induced in a lab on demand, no matter how varied or contradictory are all used by the ' your god may be a ham sandwich' crowd as subjective evidence for the same thing!

The Buddhist ‘one with the universe’ feeling is an example of a former spiritual experience that is understandable now and attributing it to external sources today would be like thinking Gabriel is delivering our orgasms. We can, even without lab technician help, bring on a variety of psychological/emotional/spiritual experiences, some even come and go out of fashion, swooning has died down of late. Near death experiences occur to atheists, deists, theists and plumbers and as we understand the various experiences that occur under that vague umbrella they become no more spiritual than seeing stars when you whack your head. Atheists simply don’t attach mysterian causes to something as their first choice, they prefer leaving it labeled “hmmmm, wonder what causes that, weird.”

If somebody says, "A-is a mysterious experience, I'm sure there's something mysterious causing it. B-is a mysterious experience, I'm sure there's something mysterious causing it, but there's no reason to think it's the same mysterious thing causing such different experiences." I can easily cut them some slack.
But when they are so desperate to find some validity for their psychologically driven experience that they say, "aha, the one big mystery is causing it all." I actually feel uncomfortable around them.

It gets worse when they resort versions of the "I have powers you don't have." claim .. that reaches the goosebumps level. A revved up version of the "come on, you're just jealous because the voices don't talk to you." joke.

That's when the "my religion is right and rest are wrong" group starts to look a bit saner to be around. At least you know where you stand and if they decide to go jihadist on you it’s possible to at least follow their ‘reasoning’. The ‘your god may be a ham sandwich’ crowd doesn’t even leave you with that.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, PTB, you know thats not what his (or mine) problem is with this. The logical premise we object to is either the second one, that Person B has experience with X and Y, or the first one, that Person A has experience with X only. IOW, we have no real reason to accept that the theist has any more meaningful experience with faith than anyone, or we have no reason to think the atheist has less meaningful experience with faith. The key word here is meaningful. Having faith and, specifically, professing faith doesn't really mean anything, since we have no way of determining if that is USEFUL experience wrt faith. People have cancer and know nothing about the disease (to use an unflattering example but it isn't mean as an insult) because their experience with cancer isn't useful in that sense. It is useful in terms of the symptoms and the effects, but not the mechanisms. To continue the analogy, the theists may be better equipped to talk about what faith does for them, or the 'symptoms' of faith, but that doesn't mean they are in any way better equipped to talk about what faith is or the mechanisms for faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

ok. Those are good points. They may even be decisive. I'm not sure though. Cancer can be studied objectively. Unlike cancer, Faith is by its nature a phenomenon of subjective experience only. Maybe it can be studied objectively. But it seems reasonable to me that someone who has first hand knowledge of the subjective experience on which Faith is based might have some advantage in its study. For example, most coaches have experience playing the game themselves. Maybe there are other corrolative factors. But it seems reasonable to think that experience playing the game gives him an advantage over someone who has only watched it.

Also, I did not start this thing. Notice the setup. An Atheist was talking to a Theist and claimed the Theist did not understand the difference between truth based on objective evidence and that which is arrived at by Faith. I merely opined the possibilty that maybe, just maybe it was the Atheist who didn't understand the difference. For that I was branded an "arrogant, condescending Theocentric".

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not dodging anything. You are not staying on point.

See if you can follow this logic:

Person A has experince with X but not Y.
Person B has experience with X and Y.
Person A claims Person B doesn't understand the difference between X and Y.

Do you not see a problem with that?

In this case,

A = A particular Atheist (Not Atheists in general)
B = A particular Theist (Not Theists in general)
X = Science
Y = Faith

If you don't think the logic applies in this case then make your argument on that point. I'm not going to discuss every off the wall insinuation you pull out of the woodwork that doesn't go to that point.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]


Define "Faith" in this context, distinguishing between natural and supernatural aspects.

Then explain how this "Faith" relates to knowing or learning what is actually true and real.

State what aspects of truth and reality are, according to you, missed out on by an atheist who categorically rejects the legitimacy of (religious) "Faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

You're still not talking to the point. If you want my thoughts on those things, read my other posts on this thread.

Look. What happened was this. An Atheist was talking to a Theist at the end of a long thread where many things were discusssed by both of them on this point. The Atheist concluded with a post claiming the Theist still did not understand the difference between truth arrived at from objective evidence and that which is arrived it through Faith. Considering all the discussion that had come before and all the attempts by both posters to explain their positions, I opined the possibility that maybe, just maybe it was the Atheist who didn't understand. You then jumped in out of nowhere and branded me an "arrogant, condescending, Theocentric".

Also, see my reply to vhawk. I don't see you bringing much to the table.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, theists are overwhelmingly flat out deluded, confusing various emotions and thoughts as evidence that Jesus Christ died for our sins, Mahomed was gods messenger, Demons hold them in bed at night, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]


What intrigues me is how all these experiences, some of which can already be induced in a lab on demand, no matter how varied or contradictory are all used by the ' your god may be a ham sandwich' crowd as subjective evidence for the same thing!

The Buddhist ‘one with the universe’ feeling is an example of a former spiritual experience that is understandable now and attributing it to external sources today would be like thinking Gabriel is delivering our orgasms. We can, even without lab technician help, bring on a variety of psychological/emotional/spiritual experiences, some even come and go out of fashion, swooning has died down of late. Near death experiences occur to atheists, deists, theists and plumbers and as we understand the various experiences that occur under that vague umbrella they become no more spiritual than seeing stars when you whack your head. Atheists simply don’t attach mysterian causes to something as their first choice, they prefer leaving it labeled “hmmmm, wonder what causes that, weird.”

[/ QUOTE ]

They have a long way to go in producing an ongoing continuous experience that is infinitly varied, adaptable, and applicable for every type of human response to everyday situations. Maybe someday with wireless hookup of chip implants and the perfect cocktail of drugs. I'll wait and see.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this sound? I have always thought of science as the process filling in the "gaps" of our understanding. The whole "God of the gaps" thinking of theism is borne from a tremendous misunderstanding of theism. God is boundless. He exists at infinity. He is the alpha and the omega, as those evil Christians would put it. Thus, the process of science is the process of understanding how God did it. Understanding evolution, for example, doesn't "fill in the gap" in such a way that it removes God. God did it, and a religious person claiming "that's the way it is because God made it so" is not incorrect if God exists. It simply is not a rigorous way of understanding things. A more precise way of understanding nature is through science. It reveals the "how God did it", but it doesn't replace God.

Religion and science are both ways of understanding reality. They should converge. I think a lot of people completely misunderstand how they converge however, thus the gross misunderstanding that modern scientific discovery disproves or is evidence against God. Science and religion should point to the same thing. Religion has a far greater scope, but it is much less precise. Science is very limited (by empirical observation), but it is far more precise. They are simply different ways of framing the question. If God exists, then religion is right when they claim "God did it", no matter what they are referring to -- because if God exists, then he is directly or indirectly the cause of everything. Also, science is right when they make a claim such as "photons did it" if they are looking at something like, say, the photoelectric effect. It is simply a different way of looking at things, neither one more or less valid than the other. Science just gives us a way of understanding the underlying mechanism, and a way of predicting future outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with your point that Science is in fact filling in gaps in our understanding - but no-one disputes this. The argument is simply that where people don't yet have a scientific answer then the answer is God. This should not be assumed.
Science is purely and simply looking at the natural universe. A person claiming "that's the way it is because God made it so" - without knowing for sure is doing so based on faith alone(lestat) and not through Science. This is why the two are separate and can't be used to support belief / non-belief in God.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. There have been some great posts in this thread. I think you'd do well to re-read vhawk's posts in particular and really try to understand his points. What you're employing is faith, which is fine. But I for one, would feel a great sense of accomplishment if you also understood exactly where your thinking enters the realm of faith and leaves logic behind. I don't think you yet understand the difference between having faith, and having logical reasons based on real evidence to believe something is true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]
I will re-read all of the posts - I think I understand what you describe as me embracing faith and leaving logic behind. It's where I make claims of existence that I can't see, feel, taste, hear or touch(in the physical sense).
I have faith that these 'encounters' are in fact not mis-firings in my brain but movements in a spiritual realm.

I also embrace faith for questions where science does not yet have answers - I have faith that the God I believe in is as he is described. Though, not blindly - I have good reason to believe that whatever I am following is trustworthy and good, so it helps me to give God the benefit of the doubt where I would otherwise not be able to know for sure.

[godBoy]

But you do have an opinion that God doesn't exist - your not 100% sure but that's what you believe to be true.

You didn't answer the question - you just gave a definition of agnosticism.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But you do have an opinion that God doesn't exist - your not 100% sure but that's what you believe to be true.

You didn't answer the question - you just gave a definition of agnosticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I addressed an area that certain theists have difficulty grasping.
"Do you believe godboy's keyboard is red?"
No.
"Aha, so you believe that godboy's keyboard is not-red."
No.

" Do you believe there's a wolf in the garden."
No.
"Aha, so you believe there is no wolf in the garden."
No.

It has nothing to do with agnosticism or with doubt, it's about belief. I'm 100% certain that I don't believe your god exists.

It's an interesting study in itself why theists struggle with it, but I suspect it's related to being a theist, perhaps somebody can expand on it.

again, hope that helps, sigh, luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you do have an opinion that God doesn't exist - your not 100% sure but that's what you believe to be true.

You didn't answer the question - you just gave a definition of agnosticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I addressed an area that certain theists have difficulty grasping.
"Do you believe godboy's keyboard is red?"
No.
"Aha, so you believe that godboy's keyboard is not-red."
No.

" Do you believe there's a wolf in the garden."
No.
"Aha, so you believe there is no wolf in the garden."
No.

It has nothing to do with agnosticism or with doubt, it's about belief. I'm 100% certain that I don't believe your god exists.

It's an interesting study in itself why theists struggle with it, but I suspect it's related to being a theist, perhaps somebody can expand on it.

again, hope that helps, sigh, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody has trouble with that. On the question of the redness of godboy's keyboard your position is, you don't know. You don't know whether there's a wolf in the garden. The Agnostic position of "I don't know" seems to apply perfectly fine for redness of keyboard or wolf in garden. It also seems to apply perfectly fine for the question of God. Except that in the case of God it no longer suffices to say it's an Agnostic Position. These days people are claiming it's an Atheist Position. That's a bit puzzling. I more or less accept the explanations people give for it, but in their explanations I think they end up saying more than just "I don't know".

PairTheBoard

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I will re-read all of the posts - I think I understand what you describe as me embracing faith and leaving logic behind. It's where I make claims of existence that I can't see, feel, taste, hear or touch(in the physical sense).
I have faith that these 'encounters' are in fact not mis-firings in my brain but movements in a spiritual realm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will re-read all of the posts - I think I understand what you describe as me embracing faith and leaving logic behind. It's where I make claims of existence that I can't see, feel, taste, hear or touch(in the physical sense).
I have faith that these 'encounters' are in fact not mis-firings in my brain but movements in a spiritual realm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an inappropriate question, DUCY?

[MidGe]

There is a way of proving the non existence of god beyond doubt.

First of all let me define some "god" qualities: I'll concentrate on three of them.

1) God is a personal god, meaning he has an interest in individuals,
2) he is omnipotent, and
3) he is benevolent.

If you are of the opinion that, at least, one of those three qualities are not essential to your concept of god, then I am not arguing with you. You simply need to accept that god is either: not personal, take no interest in you, personally and thus has nothing to do with the choices and moral decisions you make, or he is not omnipotent and therefore a rather limited and puny being albeit responsible for your existence, or he is not benevolent, or more rightly he is malevolent. If you subscribe to any of those statements then "god" is really a semantic issue. You call it god, I call it what I don't know, but neither of us is going to fall on its knees and idolize such a being (I'll disregard those that would try to side with a malevolent god on the basis that it may be +ve, as immoral beings that are being fooled by that malevolence, like some were by tyrants at various point of history in many cultures).

I am rational, am prepared to look at my experience objectively,indeed that is the only thing I can do, intelligently. Notwithstanding the complexity, beauty, awe-inspiring manifestations of the world, I cannot help notice that all sentience life experiences a non-trivial amount of suffering and pain. Life is so, for all sentient beings. To deny it is indeed being irrational or rather singularly myopic in our world outlook. First of all, we can see it in our own life, secondly we can observe it in other beings and even empathize with it. This experience of pain and suffering is definitely incompatible to me with the three qualities I ascribe to the god concept I so vehemently object to. Bear in mind I am not bringing in doctrinal evil like eternal damnation, punishment etc, neither am I bringing in self or even human inflicted suffering. I am observing and condemning the cruelty of "being" alive for all sentient beings, humans and animals, the cruelty of "mother nature". the cruelty of evolutionary processes.

I am saying that this cruelty and evil is incompatible with the notion of god brought forward by those, especially, that claim the god they believe in is a loving one, and, if any of those three qualities are denied, you may as well throw the whole god notion out the window as a totally useless concept.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will re-read all of the posts - I think I understand what you describe as me embracing faith and leaving logic behind. It's where I make claims of existence that I can't see, feel, taste, hear or touch(in the physical sense).
I have faith that these 'encounters' are in fact not mis-firings in my brain but movements in a spiritual realm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose because they are shared by billions of people across the world. The physical world and the spiritual world work together so harmoniously - and just as described in the bible. Also because trusting these encounters have consistently been beneficial to the quality of my life.

[godBoy]

I do claim to have reasons for my faith - so the question was appropriate. You want to say that the thing that makes faith faith - is belief without reason. I would call faith belief in the unseen.

[godBoy]

MidGe, I was hoping you would pop on over.

Your response is mostly irrelevant to this discussion.
In fact it's exactly the same point you were making a year ago. Start a new thread attacking a loving God - and I'll argue with you there.

[ QUOTE ]
I am rational, am prepared to look at my experience objectively,indeed that is the only thing I can do, intelligently. Notwithstanding the complexity, beauty, awe-inspiring manifestations of the world, I cannot help notice that all sentience life experiences a non-trivial amount of suffering and pain. Life is so, for all sentient beings. To deny it is indeed being irrational or rather singularly myopic in our world outlook. First of all, we can see it in our own life, secondly we can observe it in other beings and even empathize with it. This experience of pain and suffering is definitely incompatible to me with the three qualities I ascribe to the god concept I so vehemently object to. Bear in mind I am not bringing in doctrinal evil like eternal damnation, punishment etc, neither am I bringing in self or even human inflicted suffering. I am observing and condemning the cruelty of "being" alive for all sentient beings, humans and animals, the cruelty of "mother nature". the cruelty of evolutionary processes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose this could be seen as your rational analysis of a good God. So you could be saying 'This is what a Rational a-loving-god believes'.
I suppose it could be further said that your position is that as more and more Scientific evidence is found - then the history of human existence is found to be even further painful and cruel than we imagined.
The mortality rate on the planet is running at 100% - Humans dying is the most natural thing in the world.
I'll discuss suffering with you somewhere else..

[godBoy]

Why do enjoy playing with words so much?

There is absolutely no point in saying what you are saying. If making a statement - It doesn't tell the listener anything. Or if answering a question - isn't a meaningful response to the asker.

As I have said to you - "But you do have an opinion that God doesn't exist" - quit playing now, and say 'yes - I believe God does not exist.'
This - to me at least - is no different than saying
'I'm 100% certain that I don't believe your god exists.'

[ QUOTE ]
It's an interesting study in itself why theists struggle with it, but I suspect it's related to being a theist, perhaps somebody can expand on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
The interesting thing is that you believe(with 100% certainty) that you are making a point that is worth the effort.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Your response is mostly irrelevant to this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

In which ways is it irrelevant. Is it not atheist? Is it not rational? Are you the one to define the rational atheist mindset? LOL.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact it's exactly the same point you were making a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is, nothing about it has changed over the last twelve months. Your arguments or rationale, if they can be called that, haven't changed either. You are simply ignoring the most obvious proof that demonstrate that your god construct is an impossibility. But then, what's new... ? Better try to ignore it or pretend you have an answer, when you have none. It is bound to suck some people in your belief system.

I am replying to you OP, and presenting my rational atheist mindset. Does reality make you squirm? Can't you handle logical conclusions, based on observed facts, if they are at variance with your beliefs (not rationality)?

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your response is mostly irrelevant to this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
In which ways is it irrelevant. Is it not atheist? Is it not rational? Are you the one to define the rational atheist mindset? LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]
I always manage to get you laughing so easily, i'm glad.

You must not have read past the subject line nor delved into the discussion, for your 'loving God' bashing isn't related to anything yet discussed.

However - the part where you were in fact defining your own 'rational atheist' beliefs I included and responded to so stop your whining.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact it's exactly the same point you were making a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it is, nothing about it has changed over the last twelve months. Your arguments or rationale, if they can be called that, haven't changed either. You are simply ignoring the most obvious proof that demonstrate that your god construct is an impossibility. But then, what's new... ? Better try to ignore it or pretend you have an answer, when you have none. It is bound to suck some people in your belief system.

I am replying to you OP, and presenting my rational atheist mindset. Does reality make you squirm? Can't you handle logical conclusions, based on observed facts, if they are at variance with your beliefs (not rationality)?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's with the childish jibes MidGe, can't you handle it? well, can't ya? Hardly the intellectual response you claim it is. Also - the repeated warning to other readers of Christianity is one of your.. traits "It is bound to suck some people in your belief system.".

I'm not ignoring any evidence - I am working through the evidence one step at a time - through intellectual discussion with the fine people here at SMP. I really don't care to answer every one of quibbles with my beliefs. I do however take what I can salvage from your train-wrecks of posts - and give them second thought from time to time.

I knew the pleasantries would not last.

[MidGe]

godboy,

[ QUOTE ]
You must not have read past the subject line nor delved into the discussion, for your 'loving God' bashing isn't related to anything yet discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What's with the childish jibes MidGe, can't you handle it? well, can't ya? Hardly the intellectual response you claim it is. Also - the repeated warning to other readers of Christianity is one of your.. traits "It is bound to suck some people in your belief system.".

[/ QUOTE ]

I very much read your opening post. I thought you were purposefully avoiding christianity as an argument. So I did in my reply too, trying to address your post. I am sure I can ,like any other previous poster on this thread, reply to your opening post and add a view that except for a couple of posters to-date have been missed. Or is that not so? I would not have, if someone has said it as explicitly as I say it. (Lestat is one of the notable exception). I did wait for it though, because it was so obvious.

By the way, your last post, doesn't answer anything in my post, although it claims I didn't read or answer your opening post!! Ah well what good for the goose is not good for the xtian (or gander).

By the way, I specifically declined to get into a christianity debate because in my opinion it is one of the most incoherent theist religion and one of the easiest to prove false beyond doubts and you did not mention it in your opening post. At least the ancient Greeks, and the current indhus amongst others, don't attribute absolute benevolence to their gods. They were trying to rationalize real experiences rather than wishful thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not ignoring any evidence - I am working through the evidence one step at a time -

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am sure you won't run out oof steps in your lifetime, the way you are going. But, hey, what you said is admitting that you are not yet convinced of your beliefs and therefor there is hope. But that's another thread and doesn't reference your opening post, so I'll leave it at that.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I do claim to have reasons for my faith - so the question was appropriate. You want to say that the thing that makes faith faith - is belief without reason. I would call faith belief in the unseen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm....everything (or nothing) is unseen, depending on what you mean. I think atoms exist (or at least are a useful model of reality) and yet they are unseen...faith?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do enjoy playing with words so much?

There is absolutely no point in saying what you are saying. If making a statement - It doesn't tell the listener anything. Or if answering a question - isn't a meaningful response to the asker.

As I have said to you - "But you do have an opinion that God doesn't exist" - quit playing now, and say 'yes - I believe God does not exist.'
This - to me at least - is no different than saying
'I'm 100% certain that I don't believe your god exists.'

[ QUOTE ]
It's an interesting study in itself why theists struggle with it, but I suspect it's related to being a theist, perhaps somebody can expand on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
The interesting thing is that you believe(with 100% certainty) that you are making a point that is worth the effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

His response makes perfect sense, and the fact that you don't see that is EXACTLY the point he was trying to make, I think.

[godBoy]

I think I understood luckyme's post. I wasn't saying it was nonsensical - just not worth saying, a moot point.

luckyme doesn't have reason to believe that godBoy's keyboard is red or not red - because he hasn't seen or heard anything about it - to give him any insight whatsoever.
He is a red-keyboard-agnostic - not a red-keyboard atheist - he just doesn't know.

You couldn't possibly get anything done if you were so caught up on the meaning of words - It reminds me of that great Monty Python skit - the game of soccer between the ancient philosophers /images/graemlins/smile.gif - I suppose I should expect this considering where I am writing..

When someone asks you a simple question like 'do you believe in God' - just answer the question! Don't say I don't believe in God, but I don't not believe in God. What is the point! Have you made it? Or I am just further EXACTLY proving your genius and my stupidity?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
When someone asks you a simple question like 'do you believe in God' - just answer the question! Don't say I don't believe in God, but I don't not believe in God. What is the point! Have you made it? Or I am just further EXACTLY proving your genius and my stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a philosophical play with words, it's a matter of clarity of concepts which so interests me since so many theists mangle it. Notice that you have given a 2nd out-of-nowhere derivative from this simple and straightforward response ( I'll stick to your orginal though)-

"do you believe gb has a red keyboard"
No.
Full stop. Do not add assumptions. Do not mix with prior expanded responses from former neighbors. Do not read while drinking.

Why do some theists think that "no" contains such things as-
a) doubt in the belief
b) other belief claims about other kb colors.
c) specific philosophical views on knowledge.
d) a random sprinkling of 'nots'.
it doesn't.

a dwindling hope that helps, luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
When someone asks you a simple question like 'do you believe in God' - just answer the question! Don't say I don't believe in God, but I don't not believe in God. What is the point! Have you made it? Or I am just further EXACTLY proving your genius and my stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]
We do just answer the question. No we don't believe in god.

The confusion is caused by many assuming that implies we believe there is no god. This happens so often that we try to clarify.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a way of proving the non existence of god beyond doubt.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think godboy's objection that your post is off-topic is correct. This "proof" of yours has been around for centuries. You didn't think of it. Sklansky didn't think of it. There have been books written in response to it. There are holocaust survivers who probably know a lot more about suffering than you do who don't buy it. You've seen numerous responses to it on this Forum over the years. So what your "proof" really means is controversial.

I suppose you could jump into any thread about god and claim the topic is vacuous because according to you, god is logically impossible to begin with. But I think godboy is right. If you want to discuss that point start a thread to discuss it. We can link it to what is now probably dozens of past threads that have discussed it before. See if you can settle the question of god that way. For those not satisfied that your "proof" settles the question of God, the discussion here can continue on the OP topic which was:


[ QUOTE ]
Are there any good reasons for believing that God should be testable by the scientific method? And why should that leave him out of the question?


[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When someone asks you a simple question like 'do you believe in God' - just answer the question! Don't say I don't believe in God, but I don't not believe in God. What is the point! Have you made it? Or I am just further EXACTLY proving your genius and my stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]
We do just answer the question. No we don't believe in god.

The confusion is caused by many assuming that implies we believe there is no god. This happens so often that we try to clarify.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the confusion comes when from that position you then classify yourself as an Atheist rather than an Agnostic.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When someone asks you a simple question like 'do you believe in God' - just answer the question! Don't say I don't believe in God, but I don't not believe in God. What is the point! Have you made it? Or I am just further EXACTLY proving your genius and my stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a philosophical play with words, it's a matter of clarity of concepts which so interests me since so many theists mangle it. Notice that you have given a 2nd out-of-nowhere derivative from this simple and straightforward response ( I'll stick to your orginal though)-

"do you believe gb has a red keyboard"
No.
Full stop. Do not add assumptions. Do not mix with prior expanded responses from former neighbors. Do not read while drinking.

Why do some theists think that "no" contains such things as-
a) doubt in the belief
b) other belief claims about other kb colors.
c) specific philosophical views on knowledge.
d) a random sprinkling of 'nots'.
it doesn't.

a dwindling hope that helps, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, I suspect you are not being fully honest about this, and that's what godboy is getting at.

We really need a special term to describe your "belief" position. Let's call it "Belief-Neutral". You are Belief-Neutral on the red-keyboard. Isn't it clear that in the case of the red-keyboard you are Belief-Neutral because you Don't Know?

An Agnostic is Belief-Neutral on God. The reason he is Belief-Neutral on God is because he Doesn't Know. You are Belief-Neutral on God. But you are not an Agnostic. You are an Atheist. What makes you different from the Agnostic? I think the answer is because you have a different reason for being Belief-Neutral on God than the Agnostic has. Your reason has something to do with the God Question being fundamentally different than the Red-Keyboard question.

Simply put, I think you consider the God-Question to be somewhat silly. The Red-Keyboard question is unusual but not silly. It has an answer. You just don't know what it is. The God Question is different for you. You consider it on a par with, "Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster Exist?".

So if you insist you are Belief-Neutral on God for different reasons than the Agnostic, are you also Belief-Neutral on the FSM for the same reasons? If so, that appears disingenuous. We strongly suspect that if you spoke honestly about what you truly "believe" you would say that you Believe the FSM Doesn't exist. Making you a full fledged Atheist as the Term has traditionally been understood.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When someone asks you a simple question like 'do you believe in God' - just answer the question! Don't say I don't believe in God, but I don't not believe in God. What is the point! Have you made it? Or I am just further EXACTLY proving your genius and my stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]
We do just answer the question. No we don't believe in god.

The confusion is caused by many assuming that implies we believe there is no god. This happens so often that we try to clarify.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the confusion comes when from that position you then classify yourself as an Atheist rather than an Agnostic.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Theism - belief in God.
Atheism - lacking a belief in God.

Whats the problem?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When someone asks you a simple question like 'do you believe in God' - just answer the question! Don't say I don't believe in God, but I don't not believe in God. What is the point! Have you made it? Or I am just further EXACTLY proving your genius and my stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]
We do just answer the question. No we don't believe in god.

The confusion is caused by many assuming that implies we believe there is no god. This happens so often that we try to clarify.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the confusion comes when from that position you then classify yourself as an Atheist rather than an Agnostic.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Theism - belief in God.
Atheism - lacking a belief in God.

Whats the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we need new termonology because of the confusion with the Traditional meaning of Atheist as one who believes there is no God. I would suggest these:

Theist: Believes God exists.
Atheist: Believes God does not exist.
Agnostic: Belief-Neutral on God because he doesn't know.
NullTheist: Belief-Neutral on God because he thinks that's the Null position from which he must be moved by objective evidence and he sees no such evidence available.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
We do just answer the question. No we don't believe in god.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it were that simple..
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would ask you then - Is evolutionary theory somewhat supportive of your belief that there is no God? Is Astronomy / Physics etc... supportive of you beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a belief there is no god.
I don't have a belief there is a god.
I realize that's somehow muddy to some.

hope that helps, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
If Science has moved luckyme away from a belief in a God, or at very least made it harder to believe in a God - then he should have answered - straightforwardly, yes.
[ QUOTE ]
The confusion is caused by many assuming that implies we believe there is no god. This happens so often that we try to clarify.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you would have such a beef with proving this point. Dawkins says it much clearer - He believes there almost certainly is no God. He doesn't have a dogmatic belief there is no god either(so he would say).

But, if you give God a .0000000001% chance of existence why not answer the easy question with.. 'It is my belief that God doesn't exist'. and quit parading about as if it's so drastically different to 'I don't have a belief there is a god.'.

To prove how ludicrous this is i'll look no further than chez' last post :

Saying both 'No we don't believe in god.' and 'many assume that implies we believe there is no god'.
When I say I believe in God - I am saying that I believe there is a God.

Is your emphasis be on the word 'in' - 'No we don't believe in god' - Is it your meaning of 'in' that you're squabbling over. It's simple, Belief in God - means nothing more than believe in God existence.
[ QUOTE ]
a dwindling hope that helps, luckyme[/.quote]
It doesn't seem to have helped one bit, though i'm impressed by the effort that went into it.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
"do you believe gb has a red keyboard"
No.
Full stop. Do not add assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, i'll work this through to see if there's anything in it.

From this question/answer the only things we can conclude - are that the person being asked either doesn't know the color of the keyboard(doesn't have a reason to believe either way), or knows it's a different color(has a reason).

[ QUOTE ]

"do you believe gb has a not-red keyboard"
No.


[/ QUOTE ]
Adding this answer cancels out the second option and it's clear what he believes - He doesn't know either way. I other words, He doesn't have reason for a belief either way.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When someone asks you a simple question like 'do you believe in God' - just answer the question! Don't say I don't believe in God, but I don't not believe in God. What is the point! Have you made it? Or I am just further EXACTLY proving your genius and my stupidity?

[/ QUOTE ]
We do just answer the question. No we don't believe in god.

The confusion is caused by many assuming that implies we believe there is no god. This happens so often that we try to clarify.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the confusion comes when from that position you then classify yourself as an Atheist rather than an Agnostic.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly no-one agrees what those words mean.

Its still true that many people can't understand that not believing god exists doesn't imply believing in god doesn't exist.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If Science has moved luckyme away from a belief in a God, or at very least made it harder to believe in a God - then he should have answered - straightforwardly, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]
He sure should if that's the case. Isn't true for me.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The confusion is caused by many assuming that implies we believe there is no god. This happens so often that we try to clarify.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't know why you would have such a beef with proving this point. Dawkins says it much clearer - He believes there almost certainly is no God. He doesn't have a dogmatic belief there is no god either(so he would say).

[/ QUOTE ]
Dawkins is saying something different. They are both clear and nothing's being proved.

[ QUOTE ]
But, if you give God a .0000000001% chance of existence why not answer the easy question with.. 'It is my belief that God doesn't exist'. and quit parading about as if it's so drastically different to 'I don't have a belief there is a god.'.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've no idea why you want me to lie about my beliefs. Its certaingly not the case that I believe there's a low probability of god existing. I think this is where you're completely confused about what is being told to you.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying both 'No we don't believe in god.' and 'many assume that implies we believe there is no god'.
When I say I believe in God - I am saying that I believe there is a God.

Is your emphasis be on the word 'in' - 'No we don't believe in god' - Is it your meaning of 'in' that you're squabbling over. It's simple, Belief in God - means nothing more than believe in God existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry mate you've got the wrong end of the stick again. 'in' is not the point being made, its about lack of belief that something exists not being a belief that something doesn't exist.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Theism - belief in God.
Atheism - lacking a belief in God.

Whats the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]
It lumps people who actively believe "there is no god" together with people who dont know if there is a god or not. How would you suggest distinguishing between them? (If someone wanted to)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theism - belief in God.
Atheism - lacking a belief in God.

Whats the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]
It lumps people who actively believe "there is no god" together with people who dont know if there is a god or not. How would you suggest distinguishing between them? (If someone wanted to)

[/ QUOTE ]
We have to clarify but when we do Godboy objects.

Its hard to know what to do when someone is so intent on confusing two different things.

chez

[luckyme]

I've pretty well given up hope but it's a slow news night -
[ QUOTE ]
We really need a special term to describe your "belief" position. Let's call it "Belief-Neutral". You are Belief-Neutral on the red-keyboard. Isn't it clear that in the case of the red-keyboard you are Belief-Neutral because you Don't Know?

[/ QUOTE ]

I - am - not - belief - neutral - on - red - kb's.

I do NOT believe gb has a red rb. I don't, I really don't, I really, really don't believe that. etc.

It is not because of x, y, or z, it is because I don't believe it.

"why don't you believe it" you may further probe.
possibly, I have no evidence that he has one.
or
I had his keyboard stolen last night so he doesn't have a keyboard.
or
I looked in his window and I saw it was green.
or
I don't have clue what a kb is.
or
I'm colorblind
or ......

There are many routes to not holding a belief. So, the discovery that one doesn't hold it isn't a reveal-all book.

We need a phrase to express when people don't have a specific belief. If " I don't believe X" is not being used for any other purpose, I propose that one.

luckyme

[Matt R.]

All,
What does agnosticism mean? Do you object to being called an agnostic?

If you "do not believe something exists" because you don't know whether or not that something exists, it would seem agnosticism would be a more accurate discriptor of your state of belief.

An example, borrowed from luckyme, "does gb have a red kb?"

If I don't know the answer, I would simply say "I dunno". I am an agnostic.

If I have proof one way or the other, I could say "yes" or "no". If I have personal evidence or a personal belief one way or the other, I could say "I believe so" (theism), or "I don't believe so" (atheism).

It appears that, if you do NOT believe that gb has a red keyboard because you have ZERO BELIEF one way or the other, saying "I dont know" (agnosticism) is a far more accurate portrayal of your belief that "I don't believe so" (atheism). If you have a belief leaning towards one side, then the more accurate word would be theism or atheism.

You could say "I don't believe gb has a red kb", but at that point it seems like you're just playing word games and intentionally leaving out WHY you don't believe it (you don't know due to lack of evidence). Saying "I don't know" gives the person a far better idea of what your state of belief is.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
We need a phrase to express when people don't have a specific belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was proposing. I proposed the phrase "belief-neutral". I don't know why you don't like it. But choose your own if you prefer. Let's settle on something so we can simplify the conversation.

[ QUOTE ]
"why don't you believe it" you may further probe.
possibly, I have no evidence that he has one.
or
I had his keyboard stolen last night so he doesn't have a keyboard.
or
I looked in his window and I saw it was green.
or
I don't have clue what a kb is.
or
I'm colorblind
or ......


[/ QUOTE ]

ok. Fair enough. We figured it was simply because you don't know what color his keyboard is, assuming he has one. But maybe we were being presumptous. Why don't you tell us why you have no belief about the redness of his keyboard. And let's assume he has one. ok?

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

'Atheists' object to being called an agnostic because they claim that no-one is absolutely sure that God doesn't exist - they just haven't found reason to. So there are not many if any fully fledged atheists. They also want people to know that they have put some thought into it - and they're not 50/50 on the issue.

When someone is asked 'do you believe in God' a person who doesn't have a belief in a higher power should just answer 'no' without the word-games. These people should call themselves atheists for they don't have a belief in a higher power.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
All,
What does agnosticism mean? Do you object to being called an agnostic?

If you "do not believe something exists" because you don't know whether or not that something exists, it would seem agnosticism would be a more accurate discriptor of your state of belief.

An example, borrowed from luckyme, "does gb have a red kb?"

If I don't know the answer, I would simply say "I dunno". I am an agnostic.

If I have proof one way or the other, I could say "yes" or "no". If I have personal evidence or a personal belief one way or the other, I could say "I believe so" (theism), or "I don't believe so" (atheism).

It appears that, if you do NOT believe that gb has a red keyboard because you have ZERO BELIEF one way or the other, saying "I dont know" (agnosticism) is a far more accurate portrayal of your belief that "I don't believe so" (atheism). If you have a belief leaning towards one side, then the more accurate word would be theism or atheism.

You could say "I don't believe gb has a red kb", but at that point it seems like you're just playing word games and intentionally leaving out WHY you don't believe it (you don't know due to lack of evidence).

[/ QUOTE ]
You say agnostic, others say atheist its really not helpful so best avoid it.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying "I don't know" gives the person a far better idea of what your state of belief is.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be worse. Telling you we don't know if p is true tells you nothing about our beliefs about p being true, for nearly all P.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
When someone is asked 'do you believe in God' a person who doesn't have a belief in a higher power should just answer 'no' without the word-games. These people should call themselves atheists for they don't have a belief in a higher power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid you're off base here godboy. An Agnostic would have to answer No to that. That doesn't make him an Atheist. My objection is to people who claim a similiar position as Agnostics but who insist on calling themselves Atheists.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
When someone is asked 'do you believe in God' a person who doesn't have a belief in a higher power should just answer 'no' without the word-games. These people should call themselves atheists for they don't have a belief in a higher power.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's what we do. have you now understood that doesn't imply 'we believe there is no higher power' or 'we believe there's a low probability of a higher power existing'.

chez

[Matt R.]

godboy,
Consider that we cannot be "absolutely sure" about anything. When we take a direct measurement, there is always an uncertainty present in the measurement. This is a fundamental property of experimental physics... the most basic science.

If "absolute certainty" is their criteria for believing in something, they aren't going to get very far. If that's the case, we are all a-everything.

I agree that this whole atheist/agnostic nonsense is a big word game. It's just a ploy to get people to think atheism is the default position, when agnosticism is clearly the default. Well, as most people think of the words anyway (who knows how they are defining it).

[godBoy]

You're right, But

Do you believe in God?

The theist would answer 'yes'
The agnostic would answer 'I don't know'
The atheist would answer 'no'

Why confuse things? I'm surely not objecting to clarification - it's those confusing this simple question.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
That would be worse. Telling you we don't know if p is true tells you nothing about our beliefs about p being true, for nearly all P.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would it be worse? It's okay to admit when you don't know something. In fact, it is often a good thing as it let's people know you have little evidence one way or the other.

Saying "I don't know if p is true" tells someone everything about my belief in p. Namely, that I don't know if it's true or not.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right, But

Do you believe in God?

The theist would answer 'yes'
The agnostic would answer 'I don't know'
The atheist would answer 'no'

Why confuse things? I'm surely not objecting to clarification - it's those confusing this simple question.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about the agnostic theists?

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theism - belief in God.
Atheism - lacking a belief in God.

Whats the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]
It lumps people who actively believe "there is no god" together with people who dont know if there is a god or not. How would you suggest distinguishing between them? (If someone wanted to)

[/ QUOTE ]
We have to clarify but when we do Godboy objects.

Its hard to know what to do when someone is so intent on confusing two different things.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, thats basically it. I suppose I'd classify them as 'atheists' in the latter case and idiots in the former, but I might be accused of poisoning the well.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying "I don't know" gives the person a far better idea of what your state of belief is.

[/ QUOTE ]


That would be worse. Telling you we don't know if p is true tells you nothing about our beliefs about p being true, for nearly all P.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]

What am I missing here?

"p being true, for nearly all P."

What does that mean? Maybe some examples would help.



Edit: When asked if godboy has a red keyboard you think saying "I don't know" is worse than going into a dissertation about not believing he does and not believing he doesn't?

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

That would be the default position right? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
All,
What does agnosticism mean? Do you object to being called an agnostic?

If you "do not believe something exists" because you don't know whether or not that something exists, it would seem agnosticism would be a more accurate discriptor of your state of belief.

An example, borrowed from luckyme, "does gb have a red kb?"

If I don't know the answer, I would simply say "I dunno". I am an agnostic.

If I have proof one way or the other, I could say "yes" or "no". If I have personal evidence or a personal belief one way or the other, I could say "I believe so" (theism), or "I don't believe so" (atheism).

It appears that, if you do NOT believe that gb has a red keyboard because you have ZERO BELIEF one way or the other, saying "I dont know" (agnosticism) is a far more accurate portrayal of your belief that "I don't believe so" (atheism). If you have a belief leaning towards one side, then the more accurate word would be theism or atheism.

You could say "I don't believe gb has a red kb", but at that point it seems like you're just playing word games and intentionally leaving out WHY you don't believe it (you don't know due to lack of evidence). Saying "I don't know" gives the person a far better idea of what your state of belief is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am agnostic wrt God. I am also an atheist. I tend to label myself as an atheist rather than an agnostic for a few reasons, some of them even legitimate! For one, agnostic is often ASSUMED to be in relation to theistic beliefs, but it isn't necessarily so. I am agnostic about leptin supplements in treating obesity. I am agnostic about who will win the World Series this year (screw that, its going to be the Twins). Therefore, I try to avoid the term agnostic for specificity issues.

More importantly, however, is I'm not much a fan of the connotation to calling yourself an agnostic. In my experience, agnosticism is offered as a conciliatory move for the benefit of the theists, and that is EXACTLY how most theists take it. To give a silly anecdotal example: I just went to see the movie Hot Fuzz. It was phenomenal, btw. Anyhow, there is a scene where the new police sergeant is meeting his small community and the priest asks him if he is a man of faith. The guy says that he is not. The priest reacts in alarm, "You are an atheist?!!?" to whiche the sergeant quickly replies "Oh no, nothing as bad as that, I'm an agnostic." This is the type of thing I (rightly or wrongly) associate with public agnosticism. Is this unfair to people who would prefer to call themselves agnostic? Of course, and its not like I chastise them for it. I just prefer not to do it personally in an effort to minimize what I see as a problem. I say I'm an atheist, and try to explain I'm also agnostic and ask why they are so uncomfortable with atheism.

Apparently there are hordes of these militant atheists out there who are absolutely certain no God could ever exist and are annoying about it. This seems to be the objection people raise whenever I say I'm an atheist, something like "Thats just as close-minded as theists, jerkface!" I usually take a second to chuckle that their best argument is that I am JUST AS close-minded as they are, but then I try to explain what atheism means TO ME, and that it is not the certain belief that God does not or cannot exist. I guess I'd call that dystheism or nontheism or something?

[Matt R.]

chez,
Since you were the one to reply:

What does agnosticism mean to you?

Also, if you ask me the question, "Does godboy have a red keyboard", what would be a more accurate description of my belief state? (given that I've never met godboy or had a discussion w/ him about his keyboard):

"I don't know if he has a red keyboard or not", or
"I do not believe he has a red keyboard"

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying "I don't know" gives the person a far better idea of what your state of belief is.

[/ QUOTE ]


That would be worse. Telling you we don't know if p is true tells you nothing about our beliefs about p being true, for nearly all P.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]

What am I missing here?

"p being true, for nearly all P."

What does that mean? Maybe some examples would help.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok example of stuff I don't know:

the sun will rise tomorrow
DS has ever played poker
godboy is australian
England hold the ashes
There is a god
I'm a millionaire
You're &lt; 6ft tall
pi is irrational
NotReady believes in god
NotReady is Dawkins

Now what have you learnt about my belief about any of these being true.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right, But

Do you believe in God?

The theist would answer 'yes'
The agnostic would answer 'I don't know'
The atheist would answer 'no'

Why confuse things? I'm surely not objecting to clarification - it's those confusing this simple question.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about the agnostic theists?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Honestly, what % of theists and atheists would you guess are ALSO agnostic? I would bet its very high in both camps. I think that almost all the theists on this board have admitted they do not KNOW that God exists, but that they believe He does. This is agnostic theism, although they probably aren't extremely agnostic. I think most atheists here (with the exception of Midge, maybe?) would say the same. I do not KNOW God does not exist, but I do not have a belief that He does. This is yet another reason the term agnostic is so misleading. MOST people are agnostics...it doesn't tell us much. Agnosticism might even be more prevalent in the theist group, for all I know. Apparently atheists are close-minded pricks.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right, But

Do you believe in God?

The theist would answer 'yes'
The agnostic would answer 'I don't know'
The atheist would answer 'no'

Why confuse things? I'm surely not objecting to clarification - it's those confusing this simple question.

[/ QUOTE ]


I disagree. If asked, "Do you believe in God" the Agnostic would answer No. He would then be straightforward and say the reason he does not believe in God is because he does not know. He would not answer the question, "Do you believe in God" with "I don't know". He certainly Knows he does not believe in God.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
chez,
Since you were the one to reply:

What does agnosticism mean to you?

Also, if you ask me the question, "Does godboy have a red keyboard", what would be a more accurate description of my belief state? (given that I've never met godboy or had a discussion w/ him about his keyboard):

"I don't know if he has a red keyboard or not", or
"I do not believe he has a red keyboard"

[/ QUOTE ]

I replied! You gotta wait for the really good stuff. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Matt R.]

chez,
Good point with the whole agnosticism and theism/atheism potentially being exclusive.

vhawk,
Good post explaining why you call yourself an atheist rather than agnostic.

BTW, I think the most accurate way to describe my belief would be an agnostic theist (with a leaning towards deism). This is because I don't have empirical evidence for God, and there are other potential valid explanations for the state of the universe and religious experiences.

Basically, I'm objecting to the thought that saying you "lack the belief in something" should be the default response if you have no leanings one way or the other (seems far less accurate to me).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
chez,
Good point with the whole agnosticism and theism/atheism potentially being exclusive.

vhawk,
Good post explaining why you call yourself an atheist rather than agnostic.

BTW, I think the most accurate way to describe my belief would be an agnostic theist (with a leaning towards deism). This is because I don't have empirical evidence for God, and there are other potential valid explanations for the state of the universe and religious experiences.

Basically, I'm objecting to the thought that saying you "lack the belief in something" should be the default response if you have no leanings one way or the other (seems far less accurate to me).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I agree with you on this last part. That is luckyme's hobbyhorse, not anything intrinsic to the atheism/agnosticism debate, and while I often think he makes good points and raises important issues, his specific paradigm seems confusing and misleading to me, and doesn't quite model the way I experience my beliefs (and lack thereof).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chez,
Good point with the whole agnosticism and theism/atheism potentially being exclusive.

vhawk,
Good post explaining why you call yourself an atheist rather than agnostic.

BTW, I think the most accurate way to describe my belief would be an agnostic theist (with a leaning towards deism). This is because I don't have empirical evidence for God, and there are other potential valid explanations for the state of the universe and religious experiences.

Basically, I'm objecting to the thought that saying you "lack the belief in something" should be the default response if you have no leanings one way or the other (seems far less accurate to me).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I agree with you on this last part. That is luckyme's hobbyhorse, not anything intrinsic to the atheism/agnosticism debate, and while I often think he makes good points and raises important issues, his specific paradigm seems confusing and misleading to me, and doesn't quite model the way I experience my beliefs (and lack thereof).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm in the luckyme camp but its a bit besides the point as the two real problem are:

1) we all keep using the same words to mean different things

2) some think there's a common agreement about what these words mean. The rest of us believe (some may even venture 'know') that that is incorrect.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying "I don't know" gives the person a far better idea of what your state of belief is.

[/ QUOTE ]


That would be worse. Telling you we don't know if p is true tells you nothing about our beliefs about p being true, for nearly all P.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]

What am I missing here?

"p being true, for nearly all P."

What does that mean? Maybe some examples would help.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok example of stuff I don't know:

the sun will rise tomorrow
DS has ever played poker
godboy is australian
England hold the ashes
There is a god
I'm a millionaire
You're &lt; 6ft tall
pi is irrational
NotReady believes in god
NotReady is Dawkins

Now what have you learnt about my belief about any of these being true.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

yea, but the question you responded to in Matt's post was one that assumed you had already stated your belief. He was then asking about the "why" for your lack of belief one way or the other. Do you have a lack of belief one way or the other about any of those examples?

Can you give an example of a proposition p for which you have a lack of belief one way or the other where you think the reason for that lack of belief of "I don't know" would be worse than .... worse than what really in the case of "Do you believe god exists"?

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently there are hordes of these militant atheists out there who are absolutely certain no God could ever exist and are annoying about it. This seems to be the objection people raise whenever I say I'm an atheist, something like "Thats just as close-minded as theists, jerkface!" I usually take a second to chuckle that their best argument is that I am JUST AS close-minded as they are, but then I try to explain what atheism means TO ME, and that it is not the certain belief that God does not or cannot exist. I guess I'd call that dystheism or nontheism or something?


[/ QUOTE ]

Right. So why create that confusion? Why not adopt my term "Nulltheist"? Indicating you take what you consider to be the Null position on God. You avoid the connotations of Agnostic and also avoid the confusion with the radical Atheists.

C'mon guys. Start calling yourselves "Nulltheists". You can say you got in on the ground floor. And 2+2 can take credit for the new meme.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez,
Since you were the one to reply:

What does agnosticism mean to you?

Also, if you ask me the question, "Does godboy have a red keyboard", what would be a more accurate description of my belief state? (given that I've never met godboy or had a discussion w/ him about his keyboard):

"I don't know if he has a red keyboard or not", or
"I do not believe he has a red keyboard"

[/ QUOTE ]
I used to think I was agnostic now I'm more inclined to believe I'm an atheist. There's been no change in my beliefs about god. I did learn something about what other people mean by those words.

I have defined atheism before to try to be clear but confusion reigns. An atheist (weak atheist preferred by some) is someone who:

1) believes there is no reason to believe god exists
2) believes its possible god exists
3) doesn't believe in god

A rational theist is the same except for 3) which they support with faith not reason.

I didn't read all the keyboard stuff so a bit reluctant to leap in there but I currently believe it's unlikely he has a red keyboard and I don't even know whether he has a keyboard let alone its colour.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently there are hordes of these militant atheists out there who are absolutely certain no God could ever exist and are annoying about it. This seems to be the objection people raise whenever I say I'm an atheist, something like "Thats just as close-minded as theists, jerkface!" I usually take a second to chuckle that their best argument is that I am JUST AS close-minded as they are, but then I try to explain what atheism means TO ME, and that it is not the certain belief that God does not or cannot exist. I guess I'd call that dystheism or nontheism or something?


[/ QUOTE ]

Right. So why create that confusion? Why not adopt my term "Nulltheist"? Indicating you take what you consider to be the Null position on God. You avoid the connotations of Agnostic and also avoid the confusion with the radical Atheists.

C'mon guys. Start calling yourselves "Nulltheists". You can say you got in on the ground floor. And 2+2 can take credit for the new meme.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine. If you want, when discussing with you on SMP, I will use Nulltheist, and you can do the same. In the real world, however, I think I'll try to communicate my ideas in ways that have a chance of being understood. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It lumps people who actively believe "there is no god" together with people who dont know if there is a god or not. How would you suggest distinguishing between them? (If someone wanted to)

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose I'd classify them as 'atheists' in the latter case and idiots in the former.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems harsh to me - I cant really help what I believe can I? Why am I an idiot just because I believe there is no God?

Irrespective, isnt it generally accepted terminology to claim that an atheist says "there is no god" and an agnostic says "there's no way to know?" I dont think GodBoy is making any outlandish demand in suggesting these interpretations. Of course, if nobody here shares his interpretations, that's another matter - but it hardly seems he's adopting some far-out position.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently there are hordes of these militant atheists out there who are absolutely certain no God could ever exist and are annoying about it. This seems to be the objection people raise whenever I say I'm an atheist, something like "Thats just as close-minded as theists, jerkface!" I usually take a second to chuckle that their best argument is that I am JUST AS close-minded as they are, but then I try to explain what atheism means TO ME, and that it is not the certain belief that God does not or cannot exist. I guess I'd call that dystheism or nontheism or something?


[/ QUOTE ]

Right. So why create that confusion? Why not adopt my term "Nulltheist"? Indicating you take what you consider to be the Null position on God. You avoid the connotations of Agnostic and also avoid the confusion with the radical Atheists.

C'mon guys. Start calling yourselves "Nulltheists". You can say you got in on the ground floor. And 2+2 can take credit for the new meme.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine. If you want, when discussing with you on SMP, I will use Nulltheist, and you can do the same. In the real world, however, I think I'll try to communicate my ideas in ways that have a chance of being understood. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. If we all start using "Nulltheist" I bet it won't take long for it to show up on Google. Then watch it take off. Next thing you know you'll be hearing it on Saturday Night Live.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It lumps people who actively believe "there is no god" together with people who dont know if there is a god or not. How would you suggest distinguishing between them? (If someone wanted to)

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose I'd classify them as 'atheists' in the latter case and idiots in the former.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems harsh to me - I cant really help what I believe can I? Why am I an idiot just because I believe there is no God?

Irrespective, isnt it generally accepted terminology to claim that an atheist says "there is no god" and an agnostic says "there's no way to know?" I dont think GodBoy is making any outlandish demand in suggesting these interpretations. Of course, if nobody here shares his interpretations, that's another matter - but it hardly seems he's adopting some far-out position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I guess I misread what you asked as the first group saying "I am certain there is no God."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently there are hordes of these militant atheists out there who are absolutely certain no God could ever exist and are annoying about it. This seems to be the objection people raise whenever I say I'm an atheist, something like "Thats just as close-minded as theists, jerkface!" I usually take a second to chuckle that their best argument is that I am JUST AS close-minded as they are, but then I try to explain what atheism means TO ME, and that it is not the certain belief that God does not or cannot exist. I guess I'd call that dystheism or nontheism or something?


[/ QUOTE ]

Right. So why create that confusion? Why not adopt my term "Nulltheist"? Indicating you take what you consider to be the Null position on God. You avoid the connotations of Agnostic and also avoid the confusion with the radical Atheists.

C'mon guys. Start calling yourselves "Nulltheists". You can say you got in on the ground floor. And 2+2 can take credit for the new meme.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine. If you want, when discussing with you on SMP, I will use Nulltheist, and you can do the same. In the real world, however, I think I'll try to communicate my ideas in ways that have a chance of being understood. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. If we all start using "Nulltheist" I bet it won't take long for it to show up on Google. Then watch it take off. Next thing you know you'll be hearing it on Saturday Night Live.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Always the optimist.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It lumps people who actively believe "there is no god" together with people who dont know if there is a god or not. How would you suggest distinguishing between them? (If someone wanted to)

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose I'd classify them as 'atheists' in the latter case and idiots in the former.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems harsh to me - I cant really help what I believe can I? Why am I an idiot just because I believe there is no God?

Irrespective, isnt it generally accepted terminology to claim that an atheist says "there is no god" and an agnostic says "there's no way to know?" I dont think GodBoy is making any outlandish demand in suggesting these interpretations. Of course, if nobody here shares his interpretations, that's another matter - but it hardly seems he's adopting some far-out position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually that's my position. It looks like godboy wants to lump all the Agnostics in with the Atheists.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I agree with you on this last part. That is luckyme's hobbyhorse, not anything intrinsic to the atheism/agnosticism debate, and while I often think he makes good points and raises important issues, his specific paradigm seems confusing and misleading to me, and doesn't quite model the way I experience my beliefs (and lack thereof).

[/ QUOTE ]

Gf asks, "wanna go to "spiderman with me" ?"
"no"
"oh, you don't like being with me." "teacher always loved you best." "you're back with Sarah."

My reply to her question was direct and honest. She decided it had all sorts of other meanings and conclusions. I had already been to spiderman .. cheeesh.

I want people to be able to answer state questions with state answers. "do you believe there is a xtrian god"
"no". There are times that answer may be needed and all that is wanted.
If some young, intelligent, inquisitive person wants to find out about how a person arrives at certain states they need to ask a 'why' question.

This part of the thread ( unrelated to the usual agnostic red-herring which is not a response to the state question) dealt with not tacking on a bunch of false assumptions to a straightforward answer to a question, just as my gf did.

There is nothing unclear or wishy-washy about clear answers to clear questions. If you were to ask that question and I answered 'no' ... what assumptions would you like to tack on? What is confusing about insisting that I don't want somebody's brother-in-laws reasons crazy-glued to my 'no'. Or their neice's other beliefs bubble-gummed to me just because we both happen to not have that one.

Ok, tell me how I misunderstood you :-))
I know I must have, luckyme

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It lumps people who actively believe "there is no god" together with people who dont know if there is a god or not. How would you suggest distinguishing between them? (If someone wanted to)

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose I'd classify them as 'atheists' in the latter case and idiots in the former.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems harsh to me - I cant really help what I believe can I? Why am I an idiot just because I believe there is no God?

Irrespective, isnt it generally accepted terminology to claim that an atheist says "there is no god" and an agnostic says "there's no way to know?" I dont think GodBoy is making any outlandish demand in suggesting these interpretations. Of course, if nobody here shares his interpretations, that's another matter - but it hardly seems he's adopting some far-out position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually that's my position. It looks like godboy wants to lump all the Agnostics in with the Atheists.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
ooh how targeted PTB.

If the question is as it has always been do you believe in God? Then yes I would lump the atheist in with the agnostic. For people who hold these two views do not believe in God.

However my brain has melted in an attempt to understand the riddle. I'm not sure there's as much to it as people are making out - so i'll just leave that one right where it is. Sorry luckyme, i'm off for a cheeseburger.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It looks like godboy wants to lump all the Agnostics in with the Atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]

ooh how targeted PTB.

If the question is as it has always been do you believe in God? Then yes I would lump the atheist in with the agnostic. For people who hold these two views do not believe in God.

However my brain has melted in an attempt to understand the riddle. I'm not sure there's as much to it as people are making out - so i'll just leave that one right where it is. Sorry luckyme.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can we rephrase the question to avoid confusion?

Q: Do you believe that God exists?

The space saved in reducing that phrase's length by one word is not worth the confusion. Can we keep it in this form?

Can you not see the difference between these two positions?

Q: Do you believe that God exists?
A1: No. I have no belief that God exists. Neither do I have a belief that God does not exist.

and

Q: Do you believe that God exists?
A2: No. I have no belief that God exists. In fact I have the belief that God does not exist.

Can you not see the difference between A1 and A2? Do you really think that A1 people are all misrepresenting their positions with respect to what they believe and are all really A2 people?

I guess if that's your view so be it. Doesn't make sense to me though.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

No, my point is that there are not-many (if any) A2's in the world - if they understand what you are on about.

A1 seems like a riddle - because someone who hadn't heard it before would double-take.

If your aim is to avoid confusion then I would stay clear of both of these answers.

- - - -

Q: Do you believe that God exists?

A1 No. But I don't know whether God exists or not.
This would tell me this person is most likely an agnostic.

A2 No. I don't believe God exists.
This person is an atheist.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a way of proving the non existence of god beyond doubt.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think godboy's objection that your post is off-topic is correct. This "proof" of yours has been around for centuries. You didn't think of it. Sklansky didn't think of it. There have been books written in response to it. There are holocaust survivers who probably know a lot more about suffering than you do who don't buy it. You've seen numerous responses to it on this Forum over the years. So what your "proof" really means is controversial.

I suppose you could jump into any thread about god and claim the topic is vacuous because according to you, god is logically impossible to begin with. But I think godboy is right. If you want to discuss that point start a thread to discuss it. We can link it to what is now probably dozens of past threads that have discussed it before. See if you can settle the question of god that way. For those not satisfied that your "proof" settles the question of God, the discussion here can continue on the OP topic which was:


[ QUOTE ]
Are there any good reasons for believing that God should be testable by the scientific method? And why should that leave him out of the question?


[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy way to dismiss any question you cannot answer, neither has it been by any one else since it has been around for centuries.

I am presenting an atheist rational mindeset how can that not be of relevance to the OP?

As far as theist vs atheists, this topic also have had numerous threads as well, with no new answers from the theists except an avoidance of dealing with, or worse, a denial of, reality to simply rationalize obviously incoherent beliefs. It that was all, I wold not mind. However, it is the very pernicious effect that such beliefs have on the capacity to really act morally that motivates me to keep up with my efforts.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I agree with you on this last part. That is luckyme's hobbyhorse, not anything intrinsic to the atheism/agnosticism debate, and while I often think he makes good points and raises important issues, his specific paradigm seems confusing and misleading to me, and doesn't quite model the way I experience my beliefs (and lack thereof).

[/ QUOTE ]

Gf asks, "wanna go to "spiderman with me" ?"
"no"
"oh, you don't like being with me." "teacher always loved you best." "you're back with Sarah."

My reply to her question was direct and honest. She decided it had all sorts of other meanings and conclusions. I had already been to spiderman .. cheeesh.

I want people to be able to answer state questions with state answers. "do you believe there is a xtrian god"
"no". There are times that answer may be needed and all that is wanted.
If some young, intelligent, inquisitive person wants to find out about how a person arrives at certain states they need to ask a 'why' question.

This part of the thread ( unrelated to the usual agnostic red-herring which is not a response to the state question) dealt with not tacking on a bunch of false assumptions to a straightforward answer to a question, just as my gf did.

There is nothing unclear or wishy-washy about clear answers to clear questions. If you were to ask that question and I answered 'no' ... what assumptions would you like to tack on? What is confusing about insisting that I don't want somebody's brother-in-laws reasons crazy-glued to my 'no'. Or their neice's other beliefs bubble-gummed to me just because we both happen to not have that one.

Ok, tell me how I misunderstood you :-))
I know I must have, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Its far more likely that I've misunderstood you. You've explained your paradigm several times, and, if I recall correctly, the sticking points for me are when you talk about the belief states of people who have never contemplated the thing in question, or people who would have no way of contemplating such a thing (like, do isolated islanders believe in Seinfeld?) The difference between their beliefs about my keyboard and your beliefs about my keyboard seem different, but your paradigm seems to treat them the same. This is just an example of the type of problem I have with your idea.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
No, my point is that there are not-many (if any) A2's in the world - if they understand what you are on about.

A1 seems like a riddle - because someone who hadn't heard it before would double-take.

If your aim is to avoid confusion then I would stay clear of both of these answers.

- - - -

Q: Do you believe that God exists?

A1 No. But I don't know whether God exists or not.
This would tell me this person is most likely an agnostic.

A2 No. I don't believe God exists.
This person is an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. I think the phrasing, "I don't believe God exists" is also a confusing one. For example, when people say something like, "I don't believe my girlfriend was telling the truth", they really mean that they think she was lying.

In fact, I can't think of an example of common usage where a person says, "I don't believe that p" and doesn't really mean, "I think the case is Not p". Can you?

Let me try a few:

I don't believe that was a good movie.
Translation: I thought that was a less than good movie.

I don't believe I will go to the beach today.
Translation: I think I will not go to the beach today.

I don't believe the square root of 2 is a rational number.
Translation: I think SQRT(2) is irrational.

I don't believe the Jets will win the Superbowl in 2008.
Translation: I think the Jets will not win the Superbowl.

Isn't this the common usage of the phrase, "I don't believe that ...".

So why this insistence on a specialized meaning for the case of "..." = "God exists"? If you mean something else than what the phrase "I don't believe that ..." intends in everyday usage, why confuse everybody with the heavy connotation of the phrase that everyday usage infuses it with?

If you do intend the everyday meaning then your,

I don't believe God exists.
Translates: I think God does not exist.
or, My opinion is that God does not exist.
or, My belief is that God does not exist.

That's the connotation from everyday usage.

And considering that connotation, why not allow Agnostics and Nulltheists to make the statement, "I don't have the belief God exists nor the belief that God doesn't exist". or, "I haven't formed a belief about whether God exists". Some kind of reasonable statement about his relationship to "belief" anyway. Why is that such a riddle? Why limit the Null position on belief to a phrase that carries such a heavy connotation which is not intended?

It seems to me that everybody around here who is enamored with the phrase, "I don't believe that God exists" is confusing the heck out of things, unless they really intend the connotation from everyday usage of, "I Believe that God does not exist."

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Its far more likely that I've misunderstood you. You've explained your paradigm several times, and, if I recall correctly, the sticking points for me are when you talk about the belief states of people who have never contemplated the thing in question, or people who would have no way of contemplating such a thing (like, do isolated islanders believe in Seinfeld?) The difference between their beliefs about my keyboard and your beliefs about my keyboard seem different, but your paradigm seems to treat them the same. This is just an example of the type of problem I have with your idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, I've tackled this 'same only different' problem a few times. I claim that people who answer a belief probe the same does not mean they have the same belief, including an "I believe John is in the room" one with chez and bunny. ( I also don't think we 'have' much in the way of beliefs..we construct most in response to probes).
Here, I'm merely arguing to not overread simple answers to simple questions. I see no problem with asking,
" Do you believe there's a 9 ft Alaskan wombat?"
to anyone on the planet. and when they answer 'no', I'd like to be able to take it to mean they don't believe that.
If I want to know 'why', I can ask a 'why' question. I don't want people thinking they know the 'why' from a simple honest answer to a 'state' question.

I caught your misconception on my position on 'same only different' but is that the only confusion, or do you see a problem with my "please answer the friggin question I asked" approach to exchanges.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

I caught your misconception on my position on 'same only different' but is that the only confusion, or do you see a problem with my "please answer the friggin question I asked" approach to exchanges.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I think you are being foolishly optimistic, but of course its what I would prefer as well.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a way of proving the non existence of god beyond doubt.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think godboy's objection that your post is off-topic is correct. This "proof" of yours has been around for centuries. You didn't think of it. Sklansky didn't think of it. There have been books written in response to it. There are holocaust survivers who probably know a lot more about suffering than you do who don't buy it. You've seen numerous responses to it on this Forum over the years. So what your "proof" really means is controversial.

I suppose you could jump into any thread about god and claim the topic is vacuous because according to you, god is logically impossible to begin with. But I think godboy is right. If you want to discuss that point start a thread to discuss it. We can link it to what is now probably dozens of past threads that have discussed it before. See if you can settle the question of god that way. For those not satisfied that your "proof" settles the question of God, the discussion here can continue on the OP topic which was:


[ QUOTE ]
Are there any good reasons for believing that God should be testable by the scientific method? And why should that leave him out of the question?


[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy way to dismiss any question you cannot answer, neither has it been by any one else since it has been around for centuries.

I am presenting an atheist rational mindeset how can that not be of relevance to the OP?

As far as theist vs atheists, this topic also have had numerous threads as well, with no new answers from the theists except an avoidance of dealing with, or worse, a denial of, reality to simply rationalize obviously incoherent beliefs. It that was all, I wold not mind. However, it is the very pernicious effect that such beliefs have on the capacity to really act morally that motivates me to keep up with my efforts.

[/ QUOTE ]

The topic here is about the following particular aspect of the rational Atheist Mindset:

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any good reasons for believing that God should be testable by the scientific method? And why should that leave him out of the question?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's the topic. If you want a discussion about the age old "proof" that God is logically impossible then start a thread on it. We would like to discuss the OP's topic. Although that's a little hard to tell right now with this confusion over terms we're trying to figure out.

PairTheBoard

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the topic. If you want a discussion about the age old "proof" that God is logically impossible then start a thread on it. We would like to discuss the OP's topic. Although that's a little hard to tell right now with this confusion over terms we're trying to figure out.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post was an answer to the topic. It is a resounding yes, it is provable that god does NOT exist as per definition and I have even done so: from direct observations I can logically come to the conclusion that the god as per definition does not exist, and so can everyone else. Of course they may not agree with the definition (omnipotent, personal and benevolent), or they may be in denial of reality, but that is a different story from a rational atheist mindset. I don't think my argument is post is that ambiguous. The fact that you fail to see it as clearly as I do, doesn't make it less a valid answer to the original question. Which part don't you understand, or is somewhat unclear to you?

If I knew there was no way to make a plastic red, I would know that the plastic keyboard could not be red! [ok weak analogy, I am just trying to show the gist of my argument]

[godBoy]

Sorry, i'm bored with this one - David Slansky has started a new thread for this so now that you have assumed the luckyme baton... it's just over there.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
do you see a problem with my "please answer the friggin question I asked" approach to exchanges.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is just using words differently. When many people say "Are you an atheist?" they are NOT saying "Do you lack the belief in God?" they are asking "Do you have a belief that God doesnt exist?".

Personally I dont care which view should be "the default", but I think GodBoy's position is essentially that he asks "Do you have a belief that God doesnt exist?" and you answer "No I do not have a belief that God exists." which is not what he asked. The words you both use though mean the conversation goes something like:

Godboy: Are you an atheist?
Luckyme: Yes I am an atheist.

and then proceeds onwards to misunderstandings.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you see a problem with my "please answer the friggin question I asked" approach to exchanges.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is just using words differently. When many people say "Are you an atheist?" they are NOT saying "Do you lack the belief in God?" they are asking "Do you have a belief that God doesnt exist?".

Personally I dont care which view should be "the default", but I think GodBoy's position is essentially that he asks "Do you have a belief that God doesnt exist?" and you answer "No I do not have a belief that God exists." which is not what he asked. The words you both use though mean the conversation goes something like:

Godboy: Are you an atheist?
Luckyme: Yes I am an atheist.

and then proceeds onwards to misunderstandings.

[/ QUOTE ]
but there's been a rejected attempt to clarify and its not clear why as it seems pretty straightforward.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between their beliefs about my keyboard and your beliefs about my keyboard seem different, but your paradigm seems to treat them the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Harry has no clothes. Hortense has no clothes. Can we compare their non-clothes?

You and the islanders don't have different beliefs about keyboards any more than H and H have different style of non-clothes.
In order to compare something we need to have something, not not-have something. I mean, how many ways can we 'be' broke, regardless of the reasons we are broke. His non-money is different than my non-money?
"I don't have any money."
"Me either, but it's different for me because, because mines all gone, ...er, because... uh.., me either."

I suspect the confusion arises because we think in terms of "having" a non-belief, which is bizarre. We don't. We're both naked and broke. My non-clothes aren't prettier than your non-clothes.

luckyme

[godBoy]

well said bunny,

I surely wasn't expecting to set the beast in motion by asking:

[ QUOTE ]
Is evolutionary theory somewhat supportive of your belief that there is no God?

[/ QUOTE ]

[MidGe]

well said luckyme,

I think not seeing this this is simply a mental block necessary for theistic beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
Harry has no clothes. Hortense has no clothes. Can we compare their non-clothes?

You and the islanders don't have different beliefs about keyboards any more than H and H have different style of non-clothes.
In order to compare something we need to have something, not not-have something. I mean, how many ways can we 'be' broke, regardless of the reasons we are broke. His non-money is different than my non-money?
"I don't have any money."
"Me either, but it's different for me because, because mines all gone, ...er, because... uh.., me either."

I suspect the confusion arises because we think in terms of "having" a non-belief, which is bizarre. We don't. We're both naked and broke. My non-clothes aren't prettier than your non-clothes.


[/ QUOTE ]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
there's been a rejected attempt to clarify and its not clear why as it seems pretty straightforward.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the reason is people believing their terminology is better. It seems to me that conversations of this sort end up with
"no no - that's not atheism THIS is atheism"
"No it isnt"
"yes it is" etc etc

Either participant can adopt the other's definition of atheism and still say whatever they mean - although it takes much more effort.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
well said luckyme,

I think not seeing this this is simply a mental block necessary for theistic beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
Harry has no clothes. Hortense has no clothes. Can we compare their non-clothes?

You and the islanders don't have different beliefs about keyboards any more than H and H have different style of non-clothes.
In order to compare something we need to have something, not not-have something. I mean, how many ways can we 'be' broke, regardless of the reasons we are broke. His non-money is different than my non-money?
"I don't have any money."
"Me either, but it's different for me because, because mines all gone, ...er, because... uh.., me either."

I suspect the confusion arises because we think in terms of "having" a non-belief, which is bizarre. We don't. We're both naked and broke. My non-clothes aren't prettier than your non-clothes.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Necessary but not sufficient, then.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, i'm bored with this one - David Slansky has started a new thread for this so now that you have assumed the luckyme baton... it's just over there.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a side issue to the OP here anyway. So if you're done with it so am I. Looks like we were pretty talked out on the OP as well for that matter.

PairTheBoard