The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation

[David Sklansky]

Since most smart people believe in God, it is a stretch to make too much of the fact that more smart people than dumb people disbelieve.

But there is a different idea that I am sure the vast majority of smart people DO disbelieve. Namely the idea that the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied.

I have brought up this issue before but it seems to get lost in other issues. The thing about most religions that cause the most problems, occurs because practitioners think not only that their religion is true, but that it is unreasonable to think otherwise. Without this unreasonable aspect they could not excuse some of their behavior.

If disbelief is not unreasonable they cannot ascribe to unbelievers, evilness, laziness, or ulterior motives. But if unbelieving atheists or members of other religions are in fact lazy, evil, selfish, or have ulterior motives, then it is OK for them to try to impose their position on these unbelievers and for God to send them to hell.

There are some religions that don't state that their beliefs are so self evident that unbelievers must have something wrong with them. I think they are in the minority. But there are also, I think, many members of all religions, who in spite of being a member of a specific religion, fully accept the idea that non members are not automatically unreasonable. Let's call those people Enlightened Theists.

It is my contention that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be either an atheist or an Enlightened Theist. And that above a certain level of intelligence, the great majority of people are one of the two. And if I'm right, that IS strong evidence for the truth of something (that something being that no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident.)

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident

[/ QUOTE ]

Most religions can lay claim to be logiclly self evidient. Proof that there is a God is not logically self evident, that is true. But most religions are based on the fact that they believe that there is a God. Consequently, the laws they follow are given to them by God (of whom they believe exists). It is therefore logically (self evident) that if one believes in God and accepts him that he religiously follows his laws or suffer the consequences. Nothing is more logical than that.

pokervintage

[hitch1978]

I enjoyed reading the OP, and pretty much agreed with it. I don't think there was anything new in it though, I mean nothing new for intelligent people.

What am I missing? The point?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
It is my contention that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be either an atheist or an Enlightened Theist. And that above a certain level of intelligence, the great majority of people are one of the two. And if I'm right, that IS strong evidence for the truth of something (that something being that no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's assume for the sake of this post that you are right. Biblically speaking, you cannot come to Christ through logic. You come to Christ through surrender.

That doesn't mean that Christian beliefs cannot be defended logically, so what does your post really prove? Only that a lot of Christians tend to relate to nonbelievers in an offensive manner.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is my contention that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be either an atheist or an Enlightened Theist. And that above a certain level of intelligence, the great majority of people are one of the two. And if I'm right, that IS strong evidence for the truth of something (that something being that no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's assume for the sake of this post that you are right. Biblically speaking, you cannot come to Christ through logic. You come to Christ through surrender.

That doesn't mean that Christian beliefs cannot be defended logically, so what does your post really prove? Only that a lot of Christians tend to relate to nonbelievers in an offensive manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take my previous post back, it appears that the OP is not generally accepted after all. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed reading the OP, and pretty much agreed with it. I don't think there was anything new in it though, I mean nothing new for intelligent people.

What am I missing? The point?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its correcting a prevailing mistake. Its not religon that is inherently stupid or dangerous its people who claim that their religon is self-evidently true. Many of these people are of low intelligence but there's also some who are just being politically dishonest.

chez

[David Sklansky]

Most highly intelligent people realize that it ridiculous to think that any religion's beliefs can be arrived at through rational thought. In other words intelligent people realize that no member of a religion can reaonably think that the evidence for their religion is so clear that anybody who believes any of the other religions or atheism (or simply that the truth lies in one of those possibilities) is not thiinking straight.

This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[FortunaMaximus]

Is there value in irrational thought and processes, though? They may sometimes yield different solutions to the same problems. Mostly unlikely but it does happen.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say this? Original Sin alone gives Christians ample room to damn you, they don't need anything more. Heck, "being unreasonable" isn't even on the radar compared to Original Sin. It's a case of speeding tickets and Murder 1st Degree.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
Most highly intelligent people realize that it ridiculous to think that any religion's beliefs can be arrived at through rational thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean highy intelligent people that have survived the brain washing of religion? Unfortnately, even for your premise to be correct one would have to assume that the development of religious tenets were based on irrational concepts made by less than or even by highly intelligent people.

I believe that the one of the most difficult relgious beliefs to accept is the Christian miracle of Easter. Yet it a totally rational and logical concept to believe that a God would have the power to resurrect a dead human. After all since he created them he must know how they work and has the power to make them again or even bring them back to life. Most concepts of religion are indeed logical and rational if one accepts that there is an all powerful being. I do not understand why you do not understand this. Belief is the key to religion and because they believe they do not question their beliefs. But usually what they believe has a rational and logical reason behind it. One reason usually is to govern behavior of the individual. Another is to show the power of God. These are perfectly rational and logical reasons.

pokervintage

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied.


[/ QUOTE ]
ie.
[ QUOTE ]

logically self evident.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason.

There's really not much point in Christians talking to you. You don't listen.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident

[/ QUOTE ]

Most religions can lay claim to be logiclly self evidient. Proof that there is a God is not logically self evident, that is true. But most religions are based on the fact that they believe that there is a God. Consequently, the laws they follow are given to them by God (of whom they believe exists). It is therefore logically (self evident) that if one believes in God and accepts him that he religiously follows his laws or suffer the consequences. Nothing is more logical than that.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

[madnak]

I completely agree, David.

The idea that some people will go to hell because they're too logical is absurd, and any belief system tossing atheists into hell suggests just that. Even when everyone "deserves" to go to hell and only some people "find salvation" (an absurd point in general IMO), if those who fail to find salvation fail only because they respect logical thinking, then it's their logical nature that results in their damnation. This can't be a sensible position. (It can be logical, but only given bizarre premises.)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied.


[/ QUOTE ]
ie.
[ QUOTE ]

logically self evident.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason.

There's really not much point in Christians talking to you. You don't listen.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Also not the point. It doesnt matter if he says "logically" self evident or "rasberry-flavored" self evident.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied.


[/ QUOTE ]
ie.
[ QUOTE ]

logically self evident.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason.

There's really not much point in Christians talking to you. You don't listen.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm I'm Christian yet I kinda think DS has a point. I haven't been around here long, but in what I've read thus far, I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. He seems to have great tolerance and understanding of the "Enlightened Theist," whereas others here seem to belittle even that position.

I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. Similarly though I don't like when my Christian friends seem to think that they have proof that Christianity is correct. I recognize that my stance requires faith, but that faith is not illogical as some claim. It may be illogical to believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary, and logical to believe when there is evidence. However, in the absence of evidence, it's pretty much a logically neutral position. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding this.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. Similarly though I don't like when my Christian friends seem to think that they have proof that Christianity is correct. I recognize that my stance requires faith, but that faith is not illogical as some claim. It may be illogical to believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary, and logical to believe when there is evidence. However, in the absence of evidence, it's pretty much a logically neutral position. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding this.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you believe is highly relevant here. Do you believe in hell? Do you believe that human nature is inherently wretched and shameful? No? Then I wouldn't call you a "Christian." Semantic maybe. But given that so many people (including at least 50% of my own country) believe that I, as an atheist, deserve to be tortured for eternity, and that my whole species is basically a spit-ball stuck to the bottom of God's desk, I can deal with a little "collateral damage."

If you can't understand why there's some hostility from atheists toward your religion, then you're missing something big. I'm fine with the Buddhists - and remarkably, none of them think I deserve to be tortured until the end of time for my beliefs.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Most concepts of religion are indeed logical and rational if one accepts that there is an all powerful being. I do not understand why you do not understand this. </font>

I think he does understand this, but that's not his point.

The point is that even an intelligent Christian who accepts what the bible says and therefore believes his religion is rational, should also accept that those who worship a different bible or set of beliefs are behaving in no less of a rationally manner than he is.

In other words, while he might not agree with his Muslim neighbor and might even pity him for believing in the wrong religion, an intelligent Christian would not say that his neighbor's beliefs are any less rational than his own. Only someone who is not very smart could think that.

This is also the reason why hard line fundamentalists of any religion are almost always the least intelligent. This has nothing to do with piety. Even the pope could recognize that Muslims are no less rational than he is. Even if he does think they are wrong and going to hell.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof could he possibly need? His position is correct, it's the same one you use for alien abductions and elves and people walking through walls ... "until you have proof, your claim is unproven and I have no reason to treat it as true."

Why would your claim be granted some special status and be accepted without evidence being presented.

If you make specific physical claims, such as age-of-earth etc, then an atheist may say he has evidence you are wrong.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

"You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?"

You are completely confused. I never said that this is most Christian's position. In fact the only regular Christian poster who takes that position is txaq. In fact my OP is saying that most intelligent believers of any religion don't take that position. And I neve mentioned Christianity specifically at all.


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason."

I didn't say it was. What I said was that those religious people who admit that their faith isn't clearly the most "reasonable" can't claim that non believers are automatically evil, lazy, or have ulterior motives. And if they can't claim that, most people would agree that it is wrong to ponounce others condemned.

There was a time when you agreed with all that.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. Similarly though I don't like when my Christian friends seem to think that they have proof that Christianity is correct. I recognize that my stance requires faith, but that faith is not illogical as some claim. It may be illogical to believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary, and logical to believe when there is evidence. However, in the absence of evidence, it's pretty much a logically neutral position. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding this.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you believe is highly relevant here. Do you believe in hell? Do you believe that human nature is inherently wretched and shameful? No? Then I wouldn't call you a "Christian." Semantic maybe. But given that so many people (including at least 50% of my own country) believe that I, as an atheist, deserve to be tortured for eternity, and that my whole species is basically a spit-ball stuck to the bottom of God's desk, I can deal with a little "collateral damage."

If you can't understand why there's some hostility from atheists toward your religion, then you're missing something big. I'm fine with the Buddhists - and remarkably, none of them think I deserve to be tortured until the end of time for my beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are lumping all Christians together, seemingly assuming they all believe in the same stuff. While it's true that many Christians don't understand atheists, I think it's also true that many atheists don't understand Christianity. They know that they have serious problems with some beliefs of some Christians, but those beliefs are not universal.

I believe that humans have, in general, a tremendous capacity for good, but inevitably we will make mistakes. I'm not sure how that answers your second question. As for the question of Hell, in recent years I've been troubled by that notion and now think it's unlikely that it exists, at least in the form it's commonly portrayed. I can't reconcile the notion of an omni-benevolent God with the notion of eternal punishment. Personally I'm Catholic, but I don't know whether or not those beliefs (or any others I have) happen to directly violate any parts of Canon Law of the Church.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. </font>

There's a reason for that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="blue"> I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. </font>

We don't need proof. We're just saying there is no compelling reason to buy the fact that there's an invisible man upstairs that no one can see. If you want to convince rational people to believe that there is, then YOU'RE the one who's gonna need the proof. Not us.

If I tell you my dead aunt's ghost visits me every night and guides me through life, why would you accept that was true without any proof? More importantly, why should I become agitated with you just because you can't prove she doesn't visit me?

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof could he possibly need? His position is correct, it's the same one you use for alien abductions and elves and people walking through walls ... "until you have proof, your claim is unproven and I have no reason to treat it as true."

Why would your claim be granted some special status and be accepted without evidence being presented.

If you make specific physical claims, such as age-of-earth etc, then an atheist may say he has evidence you are wrong.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Earth is likely about 4.5 billion years old, though I'd be willing to modify that belief in light of new evidence. My religious beliefs do not contradict that. A lot of people don't know this, but Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

We do not have evidence that atheism is correct, nor do we have evidence that it is incorrect. As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. However, I choose to have faith in something that I do not have evidence for or against. Logically there is nothing wrong with that. Strong atheists are essentially doing the same thing; they have faith in nonexistence even though they have no proof.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. </font>

There's a reason for that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="blue"> I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. </font>

We don't need proof. We're just saying there is no compelling reason to buy the fact that there's an invisible man upstairs that no one can see. If you want to convince rational people to believe that there is, then YOU'RE the one who's gonna need the proof. Not us.

If I tell you my dead aunt's ghost visits me every night and guides me through life, why would you accept that was true without any proof? More importantly, why should I become agitated with you just because you can't prove she doesn't visit me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though. Clearly many do not believe they can prove that, so no hostility there.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
We do not have evidence that atheism is correct,

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you believe in thor? wow.
Atheism is correct because if you don't believe in thor or yahwah or whoever, you are an atheist, by definition .. it HAS to be correct.

Explain how it is incorrect.

I may be an atheist because I am an agnostic ( they are not contradictory positions they deal with different topics).

luckyme

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We do not have evidence that atheism is correct,

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you believe in thor? wow.
Atheism is correct because if you don't believe in thor or yahwah or whoever, you are an atheist, by definition .. it HAS to be correct.

Explain how it is incorrect.

I may be an atheist because I am an agnostic ( they are not contradictory positions they deal with different topics).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe in Thor, but I do not have evidence that Thor does not exist. I also don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even though I don't have any evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not create the universe. I cannot tell Pastaferians that I can prove that they are wrong, even though I'm pretty confident that they are wrong. Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What choice do I have. If I don't believe in a god, I'm an atheist. ( that's what my "by definition" pointed out). When someone hasn't proven their claim, my non-belief is the only place I can stand.
How can it not be correct?

luckyme

[Lestat]

I guess anyone can be a nut. But I don't know of any non-believers who claim they can prove there isn't a god. We might try to prove that it's more logical to hold the position there isn't one however. I for one, claim this and believe I can show it to be logically correct. I would never claim I could prove there isn't a god. Everyone should know you can't prove a negative.

[carlo]

What you believe is highly relevant here. Do you believe in hell?



[ QUOTE ]
To the extent the soul world is the abode of man immediately after death, it is called the region of desires. The various religious systems that have embodied in their doctrines a knowledge of these conditions are acquainted with this region of desire under the name “purgatory,” “cleansing fire,” and the like.

The lowest region of the soul world is that of Burning Desire. Everything in the soul that has to do with the coarsest, lowest, most selfish desires of the physical life is purged from the soul after death by it, because through such desires it is exposed to the effects of the forces of this soul region. The unsatisfied desires that have remained over from physical life furnish the points of attack. The sympathy of such souls only extends to what can nourish their selfish natures. It is greatly exceeded by the antipathy that floods everything else. Now the desires aim at physical enjoyments that cannot be satisfied in the soul world. The craving is intensified to the highest degree by the impossibility of satisfaction. Owing to this impossibility, at the same time it is forced to die out gradually. The burning lusts gradually exhaust themselves and the soul learns by experience that the only means of preventing the suffering that must come from such longings lies in extirpating them. During physical life satisfaction is ever and again attained. By this means the pain of the burning lusts is covered over by a kind of illusion. After death in the “cleansing fire” the pain comes into evidence quite unveiled. The corresponding experiences of privation are passed through. It is a dark, gloomy state indeed in which the soul thus finds itself. Of course, only those persons whose desires are directed during physical life to the coarsest things can fall into this condition. Natures with few lusts go through it without noticing it because they have no affinity with it. It must be stated that souls are the longer influenced by burning desire the more closely they have become related to that fire through their physical life. On that account there is more need for them to be purified in it. Such purification should not be described as suffering in the sense of this expression as it is used in the sense world. The soul after death demands its purification since an existing imperfection can only thus be purged away.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


Above excerpt is from Steiner's "Theosophy".



In Hindu parlance this is known as Kamaloca. Read the "Tibetian Book of the Dead" and the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and they offer hints as to the afterlife. The priest is speaking to the dead in order to help them in the way through the afterlife, prayer as speaking to the dead.The period in the "soul world" lasts about one third of a man's life on earth,i.e. Lives 72 years and travels through the "soul world" during a period of about 24 years. And yes there is more, much more, to the tune of about 900 years betweens incarnations. This of course is variable dependent upon the persons development.

This doesn't speak directly to "hell" but it can give some clarity to the present age's misrepresentation of the after life.

In consideration of "original sin" a perspective that it is our "heredity' which is this very first "original sin". All that passes from generation to generation via heredity is that very 'sin" in which man works in returning to the world from which he came which is the same world we return to in the after life. Only upon his "return" or "salvation" he is reborn anew into the spirit cleansed and purified and stands as a free spirit in that world. This is his work.

I will repeat the mantra that this can only be accomplished through reincarnation and karma.And yes, Christ is the Lord of Karma.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What choice do I have. If I don't believe in a god, I'm an atheist. ( that's what my "by definition" pointed out). When someone hasn't proven their claim, my non-belief is the only place I can stand.
How can it not be correct?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

One can choose to believe something in the absence of proof, as long as it has not been disproven. Not only are laypeople allowed to do this, but even professional mathematicians sometimes do this, and theirs happens to be the discipline MOST concerned with proof. For example, most mathematicians that I know choose to believe the Axiom of Choice, even though we have no proof for it. In fact, not only do we not have proof for it, but it has been proven that it is NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE IT. There happen to be a few troubling things about accepting the Axiom of Choice (like the Banach-Tarski paradox), but there are also some nice consequences (that every vector space has a basis, etc.). Actually that analogy worked much better than I expected it to...

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. </font>

Most atheists are indeed agnostics. I certainly don't claim to know for sure there isn't a god. But I think it's so unlikely that I feel very comfortable dismissing the notion altogether. Thus to you, I guess I'd be considered an atheist.

You should also understand that there shouldn't even be a term for someone who doesn't believe in something. There's no anumerologists, or atoothfairyists, and there shouldn't be atheists either. I presume you yourself are an atheist with respect to many of the ancient gods who have been put out to pasture such as Zeus, Thor, Wotan, etc. What you describe as an atheist, is merely someone who lumps the God of Abraham into this same mythological heap.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I cannot tell Pastaferians that I can prove that they are wrong, even though I'm pretty confident that they are wrong. </font>

You've just described an atheist. It's exactly how I feel when debating with the theists here. At least you can feel some sympathy for us given your views on Pastafarianism.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Since most smart people believe in God, it is a stretch to make too much of the fact that more smart people than dumb people disbelieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends what you are making of it.
It's certainly sociologically and psychologically very interesting if the ratio is out of whack and highly correlated with education and intelligence.

Assuming education and intelligence are factors in non-belief, then "why" comes to mind.
On a separate track, a bookie may want to set a price for one group or the other being correct, but that's another issue ..also interesting.

luckyme

[scorcher863]

[ QUOTE ]
On a separate track, a bookie may want to set a price for one group or the other being correct, but that's another issue ..also interesting.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a bookie set a price on an issue if the results could never be observed?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see... you claim you have an invisible friend. My position is " I don't think there is evidence to support that belief" ...and rest my case.

Proven.

What other evidence do I have to come up with... photographs of the invisible guy not being there?

luckyme

[mickeyg13]

Perhaps I should explain a bit how I arrived at my beliefs. I was raised in an Irish-Catholic household and didn't question the faith taught to me very much as a child. Although I believed, I wasn't really educated enough to have much opinion either way. When I received Confirmation, I did question myself to make sure I believed what I claimed, but again I feel I wasn't in a great position to do so (even though I was 18, much older than most when they receive Confirmation).

I went to a Catholic undergraduate university (Jesuit in fact), and we were required to take a bunch of philosophy and religious studies courses. I surprisingly enjoyed the PL courses and took a few more and minored in it (in addition to my double major in math/CS). I spent a fair amount of time pondering the origin of the universe. Either the universe has always existed, or it has not. The former seems to be a troublesome infinite regress, so consider the latter. If it has not always existed, either some Supreme Being(s) created it, or they did not. In the latter, I'm troubled by the idea that the universe suddenly came into being out of nothing. I can accept the Big Bang and all the stuff thereafter, it's getting to the Big Bang that is troublesome for me. However, the notion that some Supreme Being(s) lit the fuse for the Big Bang is also troublesome, as it leads to the question of where the Being(s) came from. The default answer is that God always has and always will exist, but again that is troubling. No matter which way you pick, it seems you must run into some rather troubling ideas. I am slightly less troubled by the idea that some sort of omnipotent being could have, in His omnipotence, somehow managed to have always existed than I am by the idea that the Big Bang could have spontaneously arisen from nothing. You could argue then I suppose that agnosticism is the correct path. However, the fact that we have something rather than nothing, that the universe exists at all, is very troubling. My troubles are slightly more eased with the belief in some sort of God.

Now how do I get from there to Catholicism? Well I won't deny that much of it has to do with the fact that that is how I was raised. However, I really do like Jesus' message and style. Many sects of Christianity believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which I believe (as do the atheists here) has some problems. That is not a problem for Catholics though. Several times on this forum I've read someone criticizing Christianity, but I've observed that that particular criticism does not apply to Catholicism.

I'd set the over/under on the number of posts before someone makes a Catholic joke at 1.5...

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see... you claim you have an invisible friend. My position is " I don't think there is evidence to support that belief" ...and rest my case.

Proven.

What other evidence do I have to come up with... photographs of the invisible guy not being there?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely correct that there is no evidence to support that belief. However, the conclusion is not that he does not exist. Something can be true even without there being evidence for it. Before the invention of the telescope, was there any evidence that Pluto existed? I think not. That does not mean that Pluto does not exist?

[scorcher863]

[ QUOTE ]
Dogma is the enemy of human freedom... The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with COMPLETE CERTAINTY that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice... To diminish the danger that ideology will deteriorate into dogma, and to protect the free, open ,questing, and creative mind of man, as well as to allow for change, no ideology should be more specific than that of America's founding fathers: "For the general welfare."
Niels Bohr, the great atomic physicist, admirably stated the civilized position on dogmatism: "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question."

[/ QUOTE ]
-Saul D. Alinsky

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Something can be true even without there being evidence for it. Before the invention of the telescope, was there any evidence that Pluto existed? I think not. That does not mean that Pluto does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

and in 1200 AD you'd be angry with someone who replied to claims about there being a Pluto with " there is no evidence for that, so I don't believe it exists" an a-plutoist. and you'd believe the correct position was to believe there is a pluto even though there was no evidence because there might be one.
I don't believe you would, or would you ...hmmmm.

You must be careful that you understand the atheist or aplutoist position ... it's purely reactionary to a positive claim by someone who claims that bread is flesh and wine is blood ( or worse). Regardless of their lack of direct evidence, they certainly haven't built up any credibility over the centuries, so we can't even say "well, gee, they've been right so much over the years maybe they're onto something."

luckyme

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Something can be true even without there being evidence for it. Before the invention of the telescope, was there any evidence that Pluto existed? I think not. That does not mean that Pluto does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

and in 1200 AD you'd be angry with someone who replied to claims about there being a Pluto with " there is no evidence for that, so I don't believe it exists" an a-plutoist. and you'd believe the correct position was to believe there is a pluto even though there was no evidence because there might be one.
I don't believe you would, or would you ...hmmmm.

You must be careful that you understand the atheist or aplutoist position ... it's purely reactionary to a positive claim by someone who claims that bread is flesh and wine is blood ( or worse). Regardless of their lack of direct evidence, they certainly haven't built up any credibility over the centuries, so we can't even say "well, gee, they've been right so much over the years maybe they're onto something."

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1200 AD, I'd would NOT be angry at someone who did not believe in Pluto due to lack of evidence. I WOULD be angry at someone that claimed they had a proof of the non-existence of Pluto. The most philosophically correct position would be that we could neither prove nor disprove Pluto's existence. Now if someone chose to believe in in Pluto despite no evidence for it, that'd be OK so long as they didn't purport to have proof.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I'm Catholic, but I don't know whether or not those beliefs (or any others I have) happen to directly violate any parts of Canon Law of the Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't you find out, given your belief that your eternal soul depends on it, and that the whole universe is based on it?

I won't go into specific Catholic beliefs because they're convoluted in the extreme. If we take it at face value, Catholic doctrine is both cruel and illogical. But few Catholics do take it at face value.

However, the Catholic Church does make a number of specific statements and take a number of specific actions supported by funds from its membership. Particularly if you grant the primacy of the Pope, I think it's perfectly fair to criticize you on the basis of those statements and actions (even if you don't know what they are). Even moreso if you've personally given money to the Catholic Church.

Going any further will get off-topic, and I'm not in the mood for a detailed criticism of the Catholics, and I'm angry enough about it that I'll have trouble staying reasonable, so I'll leave it at that.

[Lestat]

Our backgrounds are somewhat similar. I was also raised in a Catholic household and didn't question my beliefs until my late teens. However, unlike yourself, the problems I ran into led me to become a non-believer (I prefer this term to atheist).

So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or...

By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct?

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or...

By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is correct. I do find both positions troubling though.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]


"You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?"

You are completely confused. I never said that this is most Christian's position. In fact the only regular Christian poster who takes that position is txaq. In fact my OP is saying that most intelligent believers of any religion don't take that position. And I neve mentioned Christianity specifically at all.


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason."

I didn't say it was. What I said was that those religious people who admit that their faith isn't clearly the most "reasonable" can't claim that non believers are automatically evil, lazy, or have ulterior motives. And if they can't claim that, most people would agree that it is wrong to ponounce others condemned.

There was a time when you agreed with all that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your last paragraph is a slippery convolution of the logic.

[ QUOTE ]
What I said was that those religious people who admit that their faith isn't clearly the most "reasonable" ...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what you refer to above as the intelligent position. But it misrepresents that position. You then use that misrepresentation to infer what you want to later in the paragraph. The point of their position is that their faith is not arrived at by way of logic or by way of "reasonableness" of the objective evidence but by way of something beyond those concepts. Your hidden assumption is that your only responsibility in approaching their faith is to be reasonable. Their contention is that you are responsible for more than that. This is something you don't understand so you continue to ignore it and instead misrepresent their position as something you can understand and thereby apply sophmoric arguments to.

I've never agreed with you on this issue. I've always encouraged you to expand your insight beyond the box of logic in which you seem so comfortably confined. That's not to say I agree with them either. But my disagreement with them is one of the spirit. And on that level there is a sense of the word whereby there must be a reasonableness to the spirit of the faith which involves both our intellect and that aspect of faith which goes beyond reason. This in fact is the foundation for a great deal of theological development.

PairTheBoard

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some religions that don't state that their beliefs are so self evident that unbelievers must have something wrong with them. I think they are in the minority. But there are also, I think, many members of all religions, who in spite of being a member of a specific religion, fully accept the idea that non members are not automatically unreasonable. Let's call those people Enlightened Theists.

It is my contention that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be either an atheist or an Enlightened Theist. And that above a certain level of intelligence, the great majority of people are one of the two. And if I'm right, that IS strong evidence for the truth of something (that something being that no religion can lay claim to being logically self evident.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that even an intelligent Christian who accepts what the bible says and therefore believes his religion is rational, should also accept that those who worship a different bible or set of beliefs are behaving in no less of a rationally manner than he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I read his point as being that the more intelligent a person is the more likely he is enlightened theists (his term) or an atheist. Sklansky goes on to claim that because intelligent people believe one way that their way of thinking proves something. The fact is that no matter how intelligent a person is he has no known way of proving or disproving anything when it comes to religion. What they are good at is providing skepticism. Sklansky puts the horse before the cart when he makes his claim that something must be true because itelligent people say so. He does not consider the fact tht people not some God created religion and developed the laws of religion. Man attributed creation to a God and then created a religion to honor him. Which men of society did the developing? It certainly wasn't the dullards. It was the elite of society. It was the most intelligent. And what process did they use to develop their religious laws? They used logic. Religion was developed by the most intelligent of society and the more intelligent the scribe the better he was at developing religous beliefs. Some believe that the more intelligent a person the more they should be feared.

pokervintage

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the truth of their own beliefs is SELF EVIDENT, once the appropriate literature is studied.


[/ QUOTE ]
ie.
[ QUOTE ]

logically self evident.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have been corrected about this premise of yours repeatedly on this Forum by countless spokespeople for Christianity, yet you persist in your mistaken notion. They tell you that something more goes on than logical evalulation of evidence. Why do you insist on ignoring their response and persist in misrepresenting their position?


[ QUOTE ]
This is important because lots of religious thoughts and actions can only be justified if believers can claim non believers are unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, according to you. The rejection which they claim condemns the nonbeliever is not the rejection of reason.

There's really not much point in Christians talking to you. You don't listen.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm I'm Christian yet I kinda think DS has a point. I haven't been around here long, but in what I've read thus far, I seem to agree with DS on a surprising number of points, considering he is an atheist and I am not. He seems to have great tolerance and understanding of the "Enlightened Theist," whereas others here seem to belittle even that position.

I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof. Similarly though I don't like when my Christian friends seem to think that they have proof that Christianity is correct. I recognize that my stance requires faith, but that faith is not illogical as some claim. It may be illogical to believe in something in spite of evidence to the contrary, and logical to believe when there is evidence. However, in the absence of evidence, it's pretty much a logically neutral position. I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not really that logical to believe 100% in the divinity of Christ and salvation through him "in the absence of evidence." Its arbitrary, not "logically neutral."

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not really that logical to believe 100% in the divinity of Christ and salvation through him "in the absence of evidence." Its arbitrary, not "logically neutral."


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not even logical, it is illogical, from its foundations onward!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I get angry when an atheist claims that he has some sort of proof that his position is correct, because it's not even possible to have such proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof could he possibly need? His position is correct, it's the same one you use for alien abductions and elves and people walking through walls ... "until you have proof, your claim is unproven and I have no reason to treat it as true."

Why would your claim be granted some special status and be accepted without evidence being presented.

If you make specific physical claims, such as age-of-earth etc, then an atheist may say he has evidence you are wrong.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Earth is likely about 4.5 billion years old, though I'd be willing to modify that belief in light of new evidence. My religious beliefs do not contradict that. A lot of people don't know this, but Catholicism and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

We do not have evidence that atheism is correct, nor do we have evidence that it is incorrect. As a result, some choose the route of agnosticism, and in some ways that is the most philosophically sound route to take. However, I choose to have faith in something that I do not have evidence for or against. Logically there is nothing wrong with that. Strong atheists are essentially doing the same thing; they have faith in nonexistence even though they have no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do not have evidence that unicorns DONT exist (well, we have tons of evidence if you count the fact I've never seen one, but certainly no proof) and yet taking a tentative (technically) stance that unicorns don't exist is still correct.

But ZOMG unicorns != God amirite?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your claim that atheism "has to be correct" doesn't make sense though, because you seem to be presupposing that you are correct in order to prove that you are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What choice do I have. If I don't believe in a god, I'm an atheist. ( that's what my "by definition" pointed out). When someone hasn't proven their claim, my non-belief is the only place I can stand.
How can it not be correct?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

One can choose to believe something in the absence of proof, as long as it has not been disproven. Not only are laypeople allowed to do this, but even professional mathematicians sometimes do this, and theirs happens to be the discipline MOST concerned with proof. For example, most mathematicians that I know choose to believe the Axiom of Choice, even though we have no proof for it. In fact, not only do we not have proof for it, but it has been proven that it is NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE IT. There happen to be a few troubling things about accepting the Axiom of Choice (like the Banach-Tarski paradox), but there are also some nice consequences (that every vector space has a basis, etc.). Actually that analogy worked much better than I expected it to...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do they Believe it or just believe it?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not angry because atheists can't prove their position; I get angry when an atheist thinks he CAN prove it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see... you claim you have an invisible friend. My position is " I don't think there is evidence to support that belief" ...and rest my case.

Proven.

What other evidence do I have to come up with... photographs of the invisible guy not being there?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely correct that there is no evidence to support that belief. However, the conclusion is not that he does not exist. Something can be true even without there being evidence for it. Before the invention of the telescope, was there any evidence that Pluto existed? I think not. That does not mean that Pluto does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

And it would have been illogical and arbitrary to simply imagine some possible planet and then believe in it. Even though you happened to turn out to be correct.

[dragonystic]

david, even though you are correct here, its really no problem for an unenlightened theist. especially since most religious texts have many admonishes about worldly knowledge, so much so that it almost seems like a vice. whatever the mind wants to believe, that stance can be reasonably supported by the bible.

[mickeyg13]

You can do a better job of attacking my position than mentioning unicorns. By the very nature of unicorns, we should expect there to be some sort of evidence of their existence if they were to exist. If they exist, presumably they are physical beings that, in existing, alter the world around them in some observable manner. However, many that believe in God believe that he does not interact with the world in a way that can be observed, thus not leaving evidence.

If you wanted to attack my position with unicorns, you probably should have mentioned the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Now the IPU would not, even if it existed, interact with the world in an observable manner, so we shouldn't expect any evidence of its existence either. Believing in the IPU would not then be "illogical" any more than it would be "logical."

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If you wanted to attack my position with unicorns, you probably should have mentioned the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Now the IPU would not, even if it existed, interact with the world in an observable manner, so we shouldn't expect any evidence of its existence either. Believing in the IPU would not then be "illogical" any more than it would be "logical."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, THAT type of logic.
The IPC is just as likely to exist as god. I think I've got it.

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you wanted to attack my position with unicorns, you probably should have mentioned the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Now the IPU would not, even if it existed, interact with the world in an observable manner, so we shouldn't expect any evidence of its existence either. Believing in the IPU would not then be "illogical" any more than it would be "logical."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, THAT type of logic.
The IPC is just as likely to exist as god. I think I've got it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]Not quite the fact that we can't see IPU is evidence of it's existence. The belief in God is only on par with the IPU in relation to if it is pink. As sure as IPU is pink, God exists.

You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink. So for david to make say that even smart people recognize that not everyone is a moron for taking issue with the pink part of IPU. There is a part of IPU the invisible part that only one with a character flaw would disagree with.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. THAT logic.

I can't prove that it's invisible therefore it's invisible, via logic.
I can't prove that it's pink, therefore it is pink, via faith.

that cleared it up.

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. THAT logic.

I can't prove that it's invisible therefore it's invisible, via logic.
I can't prove that it's pink, therefore it is pink, via faith.

that cleared it up.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Q. How do you know that IPU is invisible.
A. Because we can't see it.
Q. Well then how do you know that it's pink, if you can't see it.
A. We take that on faith.

Reason and Faith are both important to IPU.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. THAT logic.

I can't prove that it's invisible therefore it's invisible, via logic.
I can't prove that it's pink, therefore it is pink, via faith.

that cleared it up.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Q. How do you know that IPU is invisible.
A. Because we can't see it.
Q. Well then how do you know that it's pink, if you can't see it.
A. We take that on faith.

Reason and Faith are both important to IPU.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IPU's around here only come out when we're not looking. We can't see them, but we only take it on faith that they are also invisible. Since I take their word for their color, I take their word for their visibility. why not?

Similarly, if they claimed to be 50 pound weightless entities, I could take that on faith also, they look honest.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You can do a better job of attacking my position than mentioning unicorns. By the very nature of unicorns, we should expect there to be some sort of evidence of their existence if they were to exist. If they exist, presumably they are physical beings that, in existing, alter the world around them in some observable manner. However, many that believe in God believe that he does not interact with the world in a way that can be observed, thus not leaving evidence.

If you wanted to attack my position with unicorns, you probably should have mentioned the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Now the IPU would not, even if it existed, interact with the world in an observable manner, so we shouldn't expect any evidence of its existence either. Believing in the IPU would not then be "illogical" any more than it would be "logical."

[/ QUOTE ]

It would certainly be illogical. And even general unicorns are very difficult to observe. You should do more reading about unicorns before you post about them since your ignorance of unicornism is showing. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

But yes, it is clearly wrong to believe in IPU because there are an INFINITE number of things, like invisible BLUE unicorns, and you simply cannot believe in them all. And they are all equally legitimate. So it is illogical to believe in some and not others.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. THAT logic.

I can't prove that it's invisible therefore it's invisible, via logic.
I can't prove that it's pink, therefore it is pink, via faith.

that cleared it up.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Q. How do you know that IPU is invisible.
A. Because we can't see it.
Q. Well then how do you know that it's pink, if you can't see it.
A. We take that on faith.

Reason and Faith are both important to IPU.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IPU's around here only come out when we're not looking. We can't see them, but we only take it on faith that they are also invisible. Since I take their word for their color, I take their word for their visibility. why not?

Similarly, if they claimed to be 50 pound weightless entities, I could take that on faith also, they look honest.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they look honest, but more importantly, only a barbarous, shallow materialist would demonstrate the fundamental lack of faith necessary to DISBELIEVE in 50 lb weightless objects.

[cowboy2579]

I see the atheist, non-enlightened theist and enlightened theist on your scale of intellectual judgement but I don't see the agnostic. Where does the agnotstic fall in all of this?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I see the atheist, non-enlightened theist and enlightened theist on your scale of intellectual judgement but I don't see the agnostic. Where does the agnotstic fall in all of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

most atheists are agnostics.

luckyme

[cowboy2579]

No its not "Proven." How the f do you go from "I don't think there's evidence" to "I Have Proved That You Are Wrong". You haven't proven a damn thing.

[cowboy2579]

Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
No its not "Proven." How the f do you go from "I don't think there's evidence" to "I Have Proved That You Are Wrong". You haven't proven a damn thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?
Atheism is a state-of-being report, it's not an process statement. Knowing someone is an atheist gives you no information about how they arrived at that state ( the state not believing your god exists). One common route is via agnosticism. There are other routes.

luckyme

[cowboy2579]

you've proven nothing except that you hold the belief that no higher power exists. nobody cares.

now, show your work and tell me how simply asking for proof of statement x disproves statement x.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around.

Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You see there is the logical part, invisible. And the part not based on reason, faith that it is pink.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. THAT logic.

I can't prove that it's invisible therefore it's invisible, via logic.
I can't prove that it's pink, therefore it is pink, via faith.

that cleared it up.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Q. How do you know that IPU is invisible.
A. Because we can't see it.
Q. Well then how do you know that it's pink, if you can't see it.
A. We take that on faith.

Reason and Faith are both important to IPU.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IPU's around here only come out when we're not looking. We can't see them, but we only take it on faith that they are also invisible. Since I take their word for their color, I take their word for their visibility. why not?

Similarly, if they claimed to be 50 pound weightless entities, I could take that on faith also, they look honest.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they look honest, but more importantly, only a barbarous, shallow materialist would demonstrate the fundamental lack of faith necessary to DISBELIEVE in 50 lb weightless objects.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may quote
""Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." — Steve Eley Chief Advocate and Spokesguy of IPU"

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion.
The others lack such evidence so some never take them on.

luckyme

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around.

Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hold that one cannot know whether statement x is true or not, how is it reasonable to then posit as to the validity of statement x?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]This is a common confusion. I won't go into details, but you are wrong. You can find the answer on your own with minimal ammount of research into people who call themselves athiest, agnostics, athiest-agnositcs, or theists agnostics.

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion.
The others lack such evidence so some never take them on.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for assuming to know stuff about my educational background chief. you've proven that i am homeschooled.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around.

Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hold that one cannot know whether statement x is true or not, how is it reasonable to then posit as to the validity of statement x?

[/ QUOTE ]Because agnostic is about knowledge and atheist is about belief. You can hold that anyone who proclaims to have knowledge of God cannot actually have that knowledge. That's agnostism. And also be without the belief in any Gods. Atheism.

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion.
The others lack such evidence so some never take them on.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your petigree since your speculating into mine? High School Grad? Part of a Liberal Arts Major in college? Ivy League professor?

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around.

Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hold that one cannot know whether statement x is true or not, how is it reasonable to then posit as to the validity of statement x?

[/ QUOTE ]Because agnostic is about knowledge and atheist is about belief. You can hold that anyone who proclaims to have knowledge of God cannot actually have that knowledge. That's agnostism. And also be without the belief in any Gods. Atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion.
The others lack such evidence so some never take them on.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your petigree since your speculating into mine? High School Grad? Part of a Liberal Arts Major in college? Ivy League professor?

[/ QUOTE ]I am your daddy.

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion.
The others lack such evidence so some never take them on.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your petigree since your speculating into mine? High School Grad? Part of a Liberal Arts Major in college? Ivy League professor?

[/ QUOTE ]I am your daddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

High level response.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not mutually exclusive until you start twisting definitions around.

Even as written, they are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can believe there is no higher power and still believe I cannot know or PROVE this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you hold that one cannot know whether statement x is true or not, how is it reasonable to then posit as to the validity of statement x?

[/ QUOTE ]Because agnostic is about knowledge and atheist is about belief. You can hold that anyone who proclaims to have knowledge of God cannot actually have that knowledge. That's agnostism. And also be without the belief in any Gods. Atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and have beliefs about it? Here is an example of a agnostic theist, man all this god stuff is so confusing, it';s just impossible to know about GOD, but I should believe he exists anyway just in case. Pascals wager you know. Why are you so addamnant about agnostic and atheism being mutually exclusive?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly -
A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion.
The others lack such evidence so some never take them on.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your petigree since your speculating into mine? High School Grad? Part of a Liberal Arts Major in college? Ivy League professor?

[/ QUOTE ]I am your daddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

High level response.

[/ QUOTE ]You have done zero research on agnostism or atheism. And you are trying to instruct people, that have done lots of study, on semantics. You might actually deserve a better response then "I am your daddy", i do doubt it.

[tame_deuces]

Cowboy: Agnostic atheism is a well-known philosophical direction.

Do some research.

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound home schooled so you may not have been exposed to some outside concepts - consider that you were born an atheist ( you didn't believe in Thor, Allah, Yawah, toothfairy ...) and it had nothing to do with you proving they didn't exist. You simply started out not believing and then changed over time as evidence arose .. tooth fairy being your first conversion.
The others lack such evidence so some never take them on.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your petigree since your speculating into mine? High School Grad? Part of a Liberal Arts Major in college? Ivy League professor?

[/ QUOTE ]I am your daddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

High level response.

[/ QUOTE ]You have done zero research on agnostism or atheism. And you are trying to instruct people, that have done lots of study, on semantics. You might actually deserve a better response then "I am your daddy", i do doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

what study? when? or are you just gonna fiat that crap?

you ain't my daddy chief. my daddy can hold a conversation without being a condesending prick.

[cowboy2579]

ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]Those aren't the two statements

I cannot know whether X is true or flase
I have/ do not have y belief about x.

Agnostic
I cannot know whether god exists or not.
Atheist
I am without the belief an any gods.

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly -
A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say this so that you can understand: 'slowly' has no bearing on an internet forum except to be condescending.

What is your education? You appear to be confortable assuming you know mine, so..?

[tame_deuces]

This is just semantics and trying to debate on definitions, and semantics is usually uninteresting in debate.

Atheism and agnosticism are both more than the terms you have outlined.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or...

By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is correct. I do find both positions troubling though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But why do you suppose an omnipotent, omniscient being is more likely? In other words, complicated things don't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Complicated things must evolve.

I'm genuinely curious, because just from your few posts I gather you are obviously a thinking person who is intelligent AND reasonable. You seem to accept evolution and logic in general. I'd like to know how we came to two different conclusions.

I agree first cause is a very perplexing issue and we may never know the answer. There might not even have been a first cause such as the big bang. Nevertheless, anything from a buildup of atoms, to multi-verses and extra dimensions seems much more reasonable to me than a supreme invisible being. So how did you arrive at a god is more likely, and me thinking almost anything else is more likely than a god (but only after seriously thinking about it)?

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]Those aren't the two statements

I cannot know whether X is true or flase
I have/ do not have y belief about x.

Agnostic
I cannot know whether god exists or not.
Atheist
I am without the belief an any gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your second statement:
I have/do not have y belief about x.

that can sprial out of control. can we say instead:
I do/do not believe statement x?

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you are less troubled by having a god who always existed than by a universe that always existed. Or...

By a god that sprang into being out of nowhere, than a universe which did so. Is this correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is correct. I do find both positions troubling though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But why do you suppose an omnipotent, omniscient being is more likely? In other words, complicated things don't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Complicated things must evolve.

I'm genuinely curious, because just from your few posts I gather you are obviously a thinking person who is intelligent AND reasonable. You seem to accept evolution and logic in general. I'd like to know how we came to two different conclusions.

I agree first cause is a very perplexing issue and we may never know the answer. There might not even have been a first cause such as the big bang. Nevertheless, anything from a buildup of atoms, to multi-verses and extra dimensions seems much more reasonable to me than a supreme invisible being. So how did you arrive at a god is more likely, and me thinking almost anything else is more likely than a god (but only after seriously thinking about it)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well first of all, I think that anyone (atheist, theist, agnostic, whatever) that spends enough time thinking about the subject should be very confused about the origin of the universe, first cause, or whatever you want to call it. I feel any answer any side provides is very inadequate and likely leads to more questions than answers. It seems so much more likely to me that nothing would exist than that something would exist. If I weren't so certain of my own existence, I would have concluded that the universe does not exist /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I think it's pretty clear that science does not yet have a satisfying answer to this. However, I believe that this is fundamentally different from the types of questions science didn't have answers to in previous centuries. It seems to me that not only does science not presently have an explanation, but it is not possible for science to ever have an answer. Now many natural phenomena that were once explained merely by God have since been explained through science. One could criticize me by saying that this is another example, and that one day it will be explained. However, as I understand the problem and the limits of science, it seems it is fundamentally outside the reach of science. Maybe that's a bit naive of me to think, and maybe you think it's no different from a "God of the Gaps" argument used hundreds of years ago by someone who couldn't explain how the sun worked, I don't know.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism and Agnostism are mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief: a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is a belief: a belief that a person cannot know if there is a higher power or not. You can't both definitively state that x does or does not exist and then say that it is impossible to know whether x exists or not. The two statements are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an atheist, would you accept my testimony that this is 100% incorrect? Would you accept maybe like the dictionaries or wikipedias testimony? Is there ANYONE who could convince you?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is the second one. The guy whose beliefs you are arguing with sounds like a tool, I wonder if he actually exists.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok, i believe you guys. it should be simple to explain how it is reasonable for a person to hold these two statements simultaneously:

I cannot know whether X is true or false.
I know that X is true/false.

[/ QUOTE ]Those aren't the two statements

I cannot know whether X is true or flase
I have/ do not have y belief about x.

Agnostic
I cannot know whether god exists or not.
Atheist
I am without the belief an any gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your second statement:
I have/do not have y belief about x.

that can sprial out of control. can we say instead:
I do/do not believe statement x?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, why not just say "I have a default position of disbelief for things which cannot impact reality or things which cannot give evidence." Then you dont have any of these problems you seem to be struggling with.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, a person can both believe that it is not possible to know something and believe that they do know it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly -
A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), therefore they find it impossible to believe, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say this so that you can understand: 'slowly' has no bearing on an internet forum except to be condescending.


[/ QUOTE ]

Slowly means -- actually take the time to read the words AND the message they contain ... then respond. Rather than typing the reply while reading.
The condescending connotation was just a lucky coincidence.

luckyme

[cowboy2579]

Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]I guess that would be OK, but what is wrong with this? A person believes it's not possible to know (agnostic), they have a default position about things that cannot be known and that is to not believe in them, therefore they are non-believers ..aka atheists ( when the topic is god/s ).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not "I have no belief in god." That covers the atheism part. Is it even possible to find out if God exists? Depends on what kind of God. That covers the agnostic part. Atheism is a LACK of belief in God, and actually, its just a lack of belief in any particular God, usually Allah because the major monotheists are egotistical/lack imagination.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cliffs: There wouldn't be an ultimate power, but an infinite regression of power.

Well, yes and no.

The concept is that there is no ultimate God, but a succession of intelligences without end. So omnipotence would be illogical.

The agnostic atheist who understands the infinite would see there is no God, but a hierarchial progression. It's not a simple concept, and in this day and age, people are beginning to grasp quantum mechanics. There isn't a complete solution yet. The thing is, there will never be.

That's my personal take on it anyway. I assume there already or will be a type Omega civilization (see Kardashev Scale) and that such an intelligence exists or will exist. And the power and talent set of such is limitless. The universe itself is just a closed mathematical set in their understanding.

And that perception of time isn't linear but an expanding solution set with interconnections appproaching infinity but never getting there.

I see basic deity-based religion as a panacea for individuals that have not come to terms with their own individual death and need to grasp at that to allay their fears of such.

Just thoughts from an agnostic atheist. Felines have it simpler.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Most concepts of religion are indeed logical and rational if one accepts that there is an all powerful being. I do not understand why you do not understand this. </font>

I think he does understand this, but that's not his point.

The point is that even an intelligent Christian who accepts what the bible says and therefore believes his religion is rational, should also accept that those who worship a different bible or set of beliefs are behaving in no less of a rationally manner than he is.

In other words, while he might not agree with his Muslim neighbor and might even pity him for believing in the wrong religion, an intelligent Christian would not say that his neighbor's beliefs are any less rational than his own. Only someone who is not very smart could think that.

This is also the reason why hard line fundamentalists of any religion are almost always the least intelligent. This has nothing to do with piety. Even the pope could recognize that Muslims are no less rational than he is. Even if he does think they are wrong and going to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll buy that Lestat, but what's the point?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Well first of all, I think that anyone (atheist, theist, agnostic, whatever) that spends enough time thinking about the subject should be very confused about the origin of the universe, first cause, or whatever you want to call it. I feel any answer any side provides is very inadequate and likely leads to more questions than answers. It seems so much more likely to me that nothing would exist than that something would exist. If I weren't so certain of my own existence, I would have concluded that the universe does not exist /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I think it's pretty clear that science does not yet have a satisfying answer to this. However, I believe that this is fundamentally different from the types of questions science didn't have answers to in previous centuries. It seems to me that not only does science not presently have an explanation, but it is not possible for science to ever have an answer. Now many natural phenomena that were once explained merely by God have since been explained through science. One could criticize me by saying that this is another example, and that one day it will be explained. However, as I understand the problem and the limits of science, it seems it is fundamentally outside the reach of science. Maybe that's a bit naive of me to think, and maybe you think it's no different from a "God of the Gaps" argument used hundreds of years ago by someone who couldn't explain how the sun worked, I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all correct, but it doesn't answer the question. What does any of it have to do with God?

God doesn't present an answer to the dilemma of why there is something rather than nothing. The existence or nonexistence of God is completely irrelevant to that dilemma.

The idea that God exists without cause may seem more palatable to you than the idea that the universe exists without cause, but this is hardly a good argument. You're basically saying that you believe in God because it's comfortable - I view that as a form of intellectual dishonesty.

I also believe the argument that introduces unnecessary elements is always inferior to the argument that does not. The variable of God's existence has no bearing on the question of why there is something rather than nothing - thus, introducing this variable into the consideration of that fundamental question is illogical.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, would this be esentially what the agnostic athiest would think:

I do not know if there is any higher power or not, but in my opinion, there is not.

?

[/ QUOTE ]

We think different things. We tend to oppose organized groups with specific beliefs, and authoritative pretensions to knowledge. So our ideas vary considerably from person to person.

Personally? I think there probably are gods of some kind. However, I think it's impossible for human beings to learn anything about them, and therefore I proceed based on the practical assumption that they don't exist. That is, for all intents and purposes there is no God.

In terms of the "atheist" label, belief is important. While I consider the probability of a god or gods existing to be relatively high, I do not believe in God. This is a strange position, and I'd have to get into a massive tangle of semantics and philosophy to justify it, but the fact that I don't believe in God makes me an atheist (even though I think it's likely that there is a god).

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]

I also believe the argument that introduces unnecessary elements is always inferior to the argument that does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone living hundreds/thousands of years ago, which of the following is inferior based upon your own criteria?
1) People get sick because God is punishing them for their sins
2) People get sick because there are these tiny microscopic organisms that swim around their body. These organisms, too small to see with the naked eye, jump from person to person spreading the disease.

It would have seemed like #2 included unnecessary elements, so by your criteria it would have been deemed inferior, even though we know it to be correct with a great deal of certainty.

[vhawk01]

Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

But #2 introduces a bunch of "unnecessary elements." To accept #2, one needs to accept the belief in microscopic organisms, accept that they can be transmitted from person to person, and accept that they can cause illness. That makes it "inferior" by your proposed criteria to the answer that does not involve introducing unnecessary elements...or perhaps there is a flaw with your criteria?

[einbert]

But even today, as was true 10000 years ago, people don't mind understanding the structure of what's going on while still interpreting the intention behind that in extremely different ways. If I want to interpret someone getting sick as a punishment from God, it's not really that hard to slip into doing so, is it?
Well for me it would be because I don't believe in God, but back when I did believe I had some interesting thoughts about what caused what.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I also believe the argument that introduces unnecessary elements is always inferior to the argument that does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone living hundreds/thousands of years ago, which of the following is inferior based upon your own criteria?
1) People get sick because God is punishing them for their sins
2) People get sick because there are these tiny microscopic organisms that swim around their body. These organisms, too small to see with the naked eye, jump from person to person spreading the disease.

It would have seemed like #2 included unnecessary elements, so by your criteria it would have been deemed inferior, even though we know it to be correct with a great deal of certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

#2 was inferior for people living thousands of years ago. I don't think #1 was great, either, but #2 was worse. #2 is better now because we have more information - information that supports #2.

If someone shuffles a deck of cards and chooses one at random, I'm correct in saying "that card is unlikely to be the ace of spades." If the card happens to be the ace of spades, that doesn't make me any less correct. And if I proceed to look at all of the other cards, finding every card except the ace of spades, then I am now justified in concluding that the mystery card is the ace of spades (because I have more information).

But I don't think we need to get deep into the philosophy of science here. This is a much simpler case. Let's call a the fact that something (rather than nothing) exists, let's call b the existence of God, and let's call c the existence of the universe. Our goal is to explain c. Let's say that the &gt; operator means "to explain."

Here are two methods of explaining c.

1) a&gt;c
2) a&gt;b&gt;c

These explanations are logically identical. We're not considering the question of b at all. We're trying to find the ultimate explanation for c, which is a in either case. Introducing b into the logic is inefficient. We can actually simplify b out algebraically.

In fact, algebra makes a good analogy. You're basically saying, "x - 4 = -2," and I'm saying that it's better to say "x = 2." That's all there is to it. No matter how much you like the term "-2," that term is not useful in considering this particular equation. And this equation has no bearing on the question "is y equal to -2?", regardless of whether you represent the equation with a -2 or not. Neither -2 nor y matter, because our task is to solve for x.

(A similar example is that x+y=2+y is uninteresting and, since we're solving for x and not y, we should eliminate the ys. Even if we have x=-y, y=-2, we should still simplify down to x=2 if we're solving for x.)

That there is something other than nothing has no bearing on the question of whether God exists. I agree it's an interesting mystery, but it has no bearing on God. If I say "the universe exists because there's something rather than nothing," and you say "the universe exists because God created it, and God exists because there's something rather than nothing," you have said by extension that the universe exists because there's something rather than nothing.

Now instead of having the question of why there's something rather than nothing, we also have the questions of why and how God created the universe. Far from solving the basic question of the universe, we have just introduced greater complexity. God gives no answers, but adds more questions. Thus, the dilemma of the universe isn't a logical justification for belief in God.

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
God gives no answers, but adds more questions. Thus, the dilemma of the universe isn't a logical justification for belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that God gives no answers, it's more that He answers questions that in turn lead to related questions. The questions are essentially shifted. The difficult questions about how the universe began can be answered more easily by accepting the existence of God, but that then leads to similarly difficult questions about how God came to exist. I don't purport to think that accepting the existence of God is a completely comfortable way to answer these questions, but I feel it's a little more comfortable than the alternative. I don't mean to imply that I have solved the dilemma.

[Justin A]

mickey,

You're basically using the argument from incredulity to make your point. I probably can't give the definition justice here but you can google it if you're interested in what I'm saying.

[madnak]

The question of how God came into existence in your scenario and the original question of how the universe came into existence are the same questionl, unless you can ascribe some attribute to God that makes is "easier" for him to exist.

But I don't think you can. And since God introduces elements of complexity, if the God idea doesn't provide some inherent benefit then it's a mistake. How you feel doesn't bear on the question of whether your belief is rational.

(And to go on from there to belief in a specific God is even more fallacious.)

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he would be. He would trend towards the very simple and elegant. Just look at the laws of science for an example.

It's the process of results and the possible complexity of the tasks that might seem unthinkable to humans, at least thinking ones.

I disagree with you, madnak, in that such higher powers can't be known. Reasonable, logical speculations can be made. Like quantum weirdness and the lack of randomness, they cannot be proven.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he would be. He would trend towards the very simple and elegant. Just look at the laws of science for an example.
...


[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the laws of science, as you understanding of them deepens, they become more and more complex, messy in fact. Hey wait that is a god attribute... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he would be. He would trend towards the very simple and elegant. Just look at the laws of science for an example.
...


[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the laws of science, as you understanding of them deepens, they become more and more complex, messy in fact. Hey wait that is a god attribute... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Messy only to these who don't take the time and have the patience. Already covered in my second sentence though.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Messy only to these who don't take the time and have the patience. Already covered in my second sentence though.


[/ QUOTE ]

If so, then a god notion is even more unthinkable to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Surely the source/s of consequences of unthinkable complexities is/are more unthinkable and therefore less plausible.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Messy only to these who don't take the time and have the patience. Already covered in my second sentence though.


[/ QUOTE ]

If so, then a god notion is even more unthinkable to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Surely the source/s of consequences of unthinkable complexities is/are more unthinkable and therefore less plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are very difficult to discern, yes. But that doesn't mean it's not ripe territory for speculation. It's why I tend towards a hierarchial structure of intelligences. Seems quite logical to me. And there's no end to the complexity, and it's an infinite series. &lt;shrugs&gt; I'm willing to tackle the issue, at least, in a rational fashion. What's for certain is that we probably agree that the plausibility of a final god of sorts is illogical.

[MidGe]

FortunaMaximus, we seem to be on the same track, even if not in the same place on that track! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

ps The smiley was added for those that notice them!

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
FortunaMaximus, we seem to be on the same track, even if not in the same place on that track! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

ps The smiley was added for those that notice them!

[/ QUOTE ]

Very much so. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
What's for certain is that we probably agree that the plausibility of a final god of sorts is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The plausability of a final god of sorts is as logical as it gets. The fact is that man is not intelligent enough to disprove God. It might also be true that the constraints of physics may never allow even the most intelligent physical creature that one can imagine the abilty to disprove the existence of God.

pokervintage

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's for certain is that we probably agree that the plausibility of a final god of sorts is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The plausability of a final god of sorts is as logical as it gets. The fact is that man is not intelligent enough to disprove God. It might also be true that the constraints of physics may never allow even the most intelligent physical creature that one can imagine the abilty to disprove the existence of God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disproving the existence of a Omega-type intelligence. Such should exist. Their evolution, or his if you will, would never be final due to infinite evolution/regression. There's always a next question, next answer, growth.

As those intelligences progress, they grow. There's no such thing as a final eschaton. Look at the Biblical kingdom of God as the universe itself, and you realize humanity's only just started to grow and spread life and intelligence through the universe.

We haven't solved Fermi's Paradox yet, and there's a good chance we mightn't for eons, but you can hypothesize a resolution in which life elsewhere is going through the same stages in different levels of development.

And such a concept is staggeringly large, because it is a growing infinity. And this universe is only 13.7 billion years old and there are only a hundred odd elements (which should logically allow for the properties of life's emergence elsewhere since the elements are finite and so are the possible combinations in a finite set) and we've yet to colonize a single solar system. As far as we know, the Solar System is ours to grow into, and we'll progress beyond. I'm optimistic about that.

A top-level intelligence would never be individual, but likely collective. As for the question of how things came into being, it's simple. Mathematics and logic go beyond a single universe, at least on paper, and there are laws. There was a single big bang. It may not have been the first, but one in a sequence of them. Perhaps there were previous universes. That's also unanswerable.

And that's the crux. There's always an unanswerable question, and the succession is perpetual. The question is whether it's for us to evolve and get there, or others have already and are observing our development as redundancy.

By computing and biological standards, we have yet begun to start directing our own development consciously. But we have modified our planet to meet our needs, not necessarily in the best ways.

There's a lot of time for all these things. Even if the universe is finite, mathematics shows infinity is a provable logical concept. It's no coincidence as we grow, we discover these things.

[Mendacious]

I pretty much agree with DS premise here as it applies to RELIGEON, but not the existence of GOD.

To me, Religion is man's attempt to quantify God and codify his/her values and will.

Even assuming that such a thing were remotely possible, and Human rational thought could be applied to the problem, I think you would quickly run into what I will call the SUPREME COURT PARADOX. By that, I mean that the 9 supposedly most qualified legal minds often disagree most on issues of the most basic interpretion of our own man-made laws.

Take Abortion for instance: Putting aside precedent, the status of abortion-- an inalienable right of all women, or MURDER-- is never more than a single vote or two from switching, from these polar extremes.

It is completely understandable that the brightest minds would be the least likely to adhere to any religeon and would choose to examine these question for themselves. What is surprising to me is how many people (including bright people) are willing to accept any particular religion as the "correct" one.

But not of this has any bearing to me on the issue of the existence of God.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disproving the existence of a Omega-type intelligence. Such should exist. Their evolution, or his his if you will, would never be final

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's final. God is omniscient. Omniscience makes his intelligence final.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the Biblical kingdom of God as the universe itself

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the kingdom of god as the "universe itself" is much, much too limiting. God's Kingdom is not restricted to what you might view as the universe.

[ QUOTE ]
since the elements are finite

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says so? Show me the proof that elements are finite. Only god can show this to be true. In the words of DS "Do you see why?"

[ QUOTE ]
A top-level intelligence would never be individual, but likely collective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? God is!

[ QUOTE ]
There was a single big bang. It may not have been the first, but one in a sequence of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or one of many occurring at the same time in differnt locations of space? So what. What is your point?

[ QUOTE ]
And that's the crux. There's always an unanswerable question

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it that you do not understand about omniscience? Religious folks made up this term a long long time ago to answer skeptics like you.

pokervintage

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Religious folks made up this term a long long time ago to answer skeptics like you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really. I'm a skeptic because I want to know more and find infinity and quantum theory more to my liking.

I stand by my statement that the concept of a final God is illogical and unnecessary.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
the concept of a final God is illogical and unnecessary

[/ QUOTE ]

Unneccesary for who? For what? Even if the concept of God is illogical show me how that proves there is no God. Which, I'm sure you understand, is much more important than the logic of there being a God.

pokervintage

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the concept of a final God is illogical and unnecessary

[/ QUOTE ]

Unneccesary for who? For what? Even if the concept of God is illogical show me how that proves there is no God. Which, I'm sure you understand, is much more important than the logic of there being a God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, I'm not denying the existence of beings with potentially omnipotent powers from the view of individuals. It's just that for some intelligent people, the answer is obvious that because everything is evolving, God cannot exist or he would already have resolved the question of life and existence. I'm not trying to disprove God ultimately, but redefine the concept.

Say he exists. Is he done with his work and knows everything? That's the part I find illogical, because there is yet more to be known, to be found. Perhaps there exists a scenario in where the answers are already there and we are progressing along towards finding them. It's merely my opinion that such near-omnipotent beings are doing the same thing still. So a final God is illogical in my view. Such intelligences would seem omnipotent in a human outlook, of course, so that makes my statement on "unnecessary" incorrect for the majority.

Most people find solace in religion and place their faith in that there already is one. They need that, and I've said in other threads that this concept is not a bad thing, it's just unnecessary for me, personally.

I am first and foremost an agnostic and until proven wrong on this, I take this stand to speculate and perhaps learn more. So I concede the point of it being unnecessary, but I remain agnostic for reasons stated.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as we know, the Solar System is ours to grow into, and we'll progress beyond. I'm optimistic about that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you're an optimistic. If we're lucky the moon would make a good dump site.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as we know, the Solar System is ours to grow into, and we'll progress beyond. I'm optimistic about that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, you're an optimistic. If we're lucky the moon would make a good dump site.

[/ QUOTE ]

And not unjustly so, given history's lessons. Dark Ages-Renaissance correlation.

But I agree that the current geopol/enviroment problems make this a dire era in some ways. There'll always be trash and I'm sure we'll fill a few craters or use it as energy (incineration's easy to do with letting the pollutants escape into vacuum, for instance)...

Keith Richards and the cockroach, basically. I tend to think the next renaissance, although the evolution of man is more complex than it was in the middle ages... Would be into space.

I make no predictions, only speculations. This species has that ability, there just hasn't been the motivation to expand outward yet. There's still an awful lot of planet to fill.

But make no mistake, space is the next logical step for man.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
But make no mistake, space is the next logical step for man.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly hope so, because:

1. Space is cool.
2. We didn't watch all that scifi just so our descendants could live in extra big skyscrapers.
3. Exploration!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

But #2 introduces a bunch of "unnecessary elements." To accept #2, one needs to accept the belief in microscopic organisms, accept that they can be transmitted from person to person, and accept that they can cause illness. That makes it "inferior" by your proposed criteria to the answer that does not involve introducing unnecessary elements...or perhaps there is a flaw with your criteria?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many unnecessary elements does it introduce? 2 or 3, maybe 5? God has to be at least a couple hundred, right? I mean, even the most simple God, we know he at LEAST intervenes in our health, so he has to have some magical powers, he has to have an interest in the human race, in you specifically, disease has to be within his purview, even if he isnt omnipotent, thats just a quick list I came up with off the top of my head. Surely this is more unnecessary and complicated than a bunch of crazy little monsters running around in my blood stream right?

God is sort of the ultimate complex thing. Even NotReady would admit this, he would just dispute that while infinitely complex and complicated, it is nonetheless NECESSARY, and so doesnt fail Occam's test. You are saying the opposite, that it passes Occam's test through its simplicity. This seems way wrong.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God gives no answers, but adds more questions. Thus, the dilemma of the universe isn't a logical justification for belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that God gives no answers, it's more that He answers questions that in turn lead to related questions. The questions are essentially shifted. The difficult questions about how the universe began can be answered more easily by accepting the existence of God, but that then leads to similarly difficult questions about how God came to exist. I don't purport to think that accepting the existence of God is a completely comfortable way to answer these questions, but I feel it's a little more comfortable than the alternative. I don't mean to imply that I have solved the dilemma.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question isn't so much "why does the universe exist" its "why is there something rather than nothing." We just call it the universe because we think that might be everything. God doesnt answer this question in ANY way, and it doesnt pose another question, it poses the exact same question. Why does something exist rather than nothing? God. Ok, why does God exist rather than nothing? Its the exact same question.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's for certain is that we probably agree that the plausibility of a final god of sorts is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The plausability of a final god of sorts is as logical as it gets. The fact is that man is not intelligent enough to disprove God. It might also be true that the constraints of physics may never allow even the most intelligent physical creature that one can imagine the abilty to disprove the existence of God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Man isnt smart enough to be able to disprove an infinite number of things. And it isnt just man! Nothing is smart enough to disprove an infinite number of things because they cannot be disproven.

This is seriously an excellent litmus test, IMO. If you cant grasp the inherent flaw in talking about disproving God, you probably need some work.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the concept of a final God is illogical and unnecessary

[/ QUOTE ]

Unneccesary for who? For what? Even if the concept of God is illogical show me how that proves there is no God. Which, I'm sure you understand, is much more important than the logic of there being a God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me this isnt leading to Pascal...?

[Lestat]

Like I said, because you're so logical mickey, I'm very surprised you don't subscribe to Occam's Razor.

It's clear that plugging in a god to answer one question creates many more problematic questions. I'm sure you see that, but for some reason it's out of your comfort zone I guess.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
This is seriously an excellent litmus test, IMO. If you cant grasp the inherent flaw in talking about disproving God, you probably need some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most certainly do understand the problem with talking about disproving God. So why is it that there are so many that emphaticaly claim that there is no God?

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is smart enough to disprove an infinite number of things because they cannot be disproven

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So you believe that you are smart enough to make this claim and prove it?

pokervintage

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

God is sort of the ultimate complex thing. Even NotReady would admit this,


[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldn't. Read about the theological doctrine of God's simplicity.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Even NotReady would admit this, he would just dispute that while infinitely complex and complicated, it is nonetheless NECESSARY, and so doesnt fail Occam's test. You are saying the opposite, that it passes Occam's test through its simplicity. This seems way wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's arguing against Occam's criterion in general.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I most certainly do understand the problem with talking about disproving God. So why is it that there are so many that emphaticaly claim that there is no God?

[/ QUOTE ]

There aren't. There are plenty who say it's unreasonable to believe in God. This is a very different claim.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
There aren't. There are plenty who say it's unreasonable to believe in God. This is a very different claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

pokervintage

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are very few people who emphatically deny the existence of God.

If you believe people are making the claim that God doesn't exist, then you are misinterpreting.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe people are making the claim that God doesn't exist, then you are misinterpreting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So all of these folks that respond that they are atheists are in reality misrepresenting themselves and their belief. Atheists emphatically deny the existence of God.

pokervintage

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists emphatically deny the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we don't. I point you to the dozens of threads already on the topic, or you can google it, or see refutations by atheist thinkers and organization, or hell, try the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism).

You're the one who's misrepresenting.

[pokervintage]

atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Come on give me a break. We now have atheists that do not deny the existence of god. Wow!

pokervintage

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Come on give me a break. We now have atheists that do not deny the existence of god. Wow!

[/ QUOTE ]

Disbelief in the existence of God isn't the same as belief in the nonexistence of God. Few atheists outright deny the existence of God - this has been true since people started describing themselves as atheists, it's nothing new.

[pokervintage]

disbelieve - 1. The act of not believing.

2. Actively denying a statement, opinion or perception.

I have heard this argument of yours before. The "weak" vs the strong" atheist usually acompanies the explanation. Disbelieving is denying plain and simple. Some guy making claims about how they don't mean the same thing doesnt change the fact that when you ask an atheist if there is a God or if God exists or if they believe in God, they say "no". They deny there is a God. They do not say I don't know. Disbelief is the same as denying when an atheist speaks of God.

pokervintage

[FortunaMaximus]

So pedantic.

There are degrees of atheism/agnosticism, just as there are different degrees of Christian belief.

Christianity has divides, different faiths, slightly different rules to follow and is not a static thing.

The same is true of atheism. There is no hard and fast black and white about it. You'll find some atheists disagree about certain points.

Shades of gray.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is seriously an excellent litmus test, IMO. If you cant grasp the inherent flaw in talking about disproving God, you probably need some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most certainly do understand the problem with talking about disproving God. So why is it that there are so many that emphaticaly claim that there is no God?

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is smart enough to disprove an infinite number of things because they cannot be disproven

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So you believe that you are smart enough to make this claim and prove it?

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, God could. Thats it. You'd have to be infinite, and even then, I'm not sure how the math works out. Can an infinite being test an infinite number of cases?

And you misunderstand. When people say there is no God, they mean there is absolutely no reason to suspect there is a God. Same as when people say there are no ghosts or that we didnt cuddle last night.

You dont think we might have cuddled last night do you?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Come on give me a break. We now have atheists that do not deny the existence of god. Wow!

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Where'd you find that definition? I'd say its more aptly "lack of a belief in God." Especially since theism is defined as having a belief in God, only makes sense that a-theism should be the lack of that belief.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Come on give me a break. We now have atheists that do not deny the existence of god. Wow!

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Where'd you find that definition? I'd say its more aptly "lack of a belief in God." Especially since theism is defined as having a belief in God, only makes sense that a-theism should be the lack of that belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is comical to me how these debates go though. You have an incorrect definition of what atheism is and what atheists believe, we point this out to you and explain what we actually believe, and you tell us we are lying. LOL. I mean, I get it, if you dont persist in misrepresenting our beliefs, its MUCH easier to find fault with them.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God is sort of the ultimate complex thing. Even NotReady would admit this,


[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldn't. Read about the theological doctrine of God's simplicity.

[/ QUOTE ]
So something complex came from something simple? UH OH!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
disbelieve - 1. The act of not believing.

2. Actively denying a statement, opinion or perception.

I have heard this argument of yours before. The "weak" vs the strong" atheist usually acompanies the explanation. Disbelieving is denying plain and simple. Some guy making claims about how they don't mean the same thing doesnt change the fact that when you ask an atheist if there is a God or if God exists or if they believe in God, they say "no". They deny there is a God. They do not say I don't know. Disbelief is the same as denying when an atheist speaks of God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, ok. So the fact that you are discussing this with two atheists who are flat out contradicting everything you are saying has no impact on your ability to assert what atheists believe hmmm? Talk about hubris.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
disbelieve - 1. The act of not believing.

2. Actively denying a statement, opinion or perception.

I have heard this argument of yours before. The "weak" vs the strong" atheist usually acompanies the explanation. Disbelieving is denying plain and simple. Some guy making claims about how they don't mean the same thing doesnt change the fact that when you ask an atheist if there is a God or if God exists or if they believe in God, they say "no". They deny there is a God. They do not say I don't know. Disbelief is the same as denying when an atheist speaks of God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

So you post two definitions, the first one being the one atheists use, but you say we have to use the second one because... Oh yeah, there is no "because."

Anyhow, you find me a group of atheists who agree with your claim. Go on, get out there and find them. Since all the "popular" atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett), all the atheists organizations (http://www.4atheists.com/atheist-organizations.cfm), and all the regular atheist posters on this forum agree with my view, I'm not too concerned with your claims of expertise on the matter.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally? I think there probably are gods of some kind. However, I think it's impossible for human beings to learn anything about them, and therefore I proceed based on the practical assumption that they don't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the "atheist" label, belief is important. While I consider the probability of a god or gods existing to be relatively high, I do not believe in God. This is a strange position, and I'd have to get into a massive tangle of semantics and philosophy to justify it, but the fact that I don't believe in God makes me an atheist (even though I think it's likely that there is a god).

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think this is a rational position? What makes you think the probability of a god or gods existing is relatively high?

[madnak]

I have to run, I'll get to this.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God is sort of the ultimate complex thing. Even NotReady would admit this,


[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldn't. Read about the theological doctrine of God's simplicity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is equivocation. When philosophers and theologians say "simple", they mean: "undifferentiated; undivided." Thus the "I" of the Self is simple, even though phenomenally the "I" refers to consciousness. And consciousness is an incredibly complex phenomenon---ask any linguist, neuroscientist, psychologist, cognitive scientist, AI researcher, etc.

I think Plantinga equivocated precisely like this in his review of God Delusion that NR posted a while back. Very embarrassing, just the absolute worst sort of pedantry.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think this is a rational position? What makes you think the probability of a god or gods existing is relatively high?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short answer: no. I think it's rationally consistent, but not logically demonstrable. It's arbitrary and intuitive to a large degree.

I'm combining my "sense of God" and the chance that it's valid, our sheer lack of knowledge about the universe (and the potential for god that exists as a result of that), the chance of a physical being reaching a level of power akin to godhood, the cluster of claims that are vast in scope but unfalsfiable, and the "odds-and-ends" arguments that aren't individually convincing but collectively deserve some consideration (the usual suspects go here - ontological argument, teleological argument, etc).

[bunny]

Makes sense to me - I'm just surprised it does to you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif