|
On August 17 2012 03:47 Kukaracha wrote:
But your disbelief is positive, unless you're implying that a neutral state is one where I don't have keys in my pocket.
It's a very simple grammatic fallacy. Because the english language doesn't usually use the term "disbelieving" (and even that word is not the exact opposite of "believing"), most automatically assume that believing is the only positive state and that negation is a negative claim by nature - which is nonsensical since they are two opposite answers to a neutral inquiry.
But since the original state is a state of neutral ignorance, then both claims are positive as they defend a new position.
The negation here is: "I believe there are no keys in your pocket".
I agree with you; that claim is a positive statement.
However, that negation is not disbelief. That negation is still belief in the negative.
Disbelief is something completely different: "I do not believe there are keys in your pocket". It is NOT the negation, and it is not a positive claim.
|
The english language has a negative bias, and the term "disbelief" is the only way to go throught that. 
|
On August 17 2012 23:26 Kukaracha wrote:The english language has a negative bias, and the term "disbelief" is the only way to go throught that.
I don't think I understand your point.
Are you trying to say that atheists use the "do not believe" instead of "believe not", even though that's not really what they think, just to make use of this "negative bias" that the English language has?
Or are you just arguing semantics here and saying that atheists should say they "disbelieve" instead of that the "do not believe"?
|
This is for fun don't take me seriously.
Hi, I'm a theist that wanted to keep and open mind to everything, and I challenged myself to study science in order to seek the truth of our world, the more I have learn,
the more science reinforces my belief that god has created everything within our solar neighbourhood.
As I understood, in christianiy, Jesus has performed some Unbelievable feats such as turning water into whine, summoning bread to feed ppl, and resurrection, that's a pretty impressive list. But my god preformed better feats.my god provides shelter, food, water, for all life since the begining of creation. it sacrificed itself and reincarnated likely 3 times in the process of the act of creation, and it also has the ability to destroy the earth and will use that ability when the time is right. would you agree something capable of such feats to be consider a god?
Well I consider such a being to be god, not only because of my god's amazing feats,
I'm a sun wordshiper,for Several other reasons. First of all, I can see the sun unlike some other gods i could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that, if I can see something, it kind of helps the credibility along. So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; Heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting ppl on fire simply because they don't agree with us.
Now you must be thinking wait a minute how did the sun do all those amazing feats you mention a minute ago?
well here is my argument in proving my god created everything in our solar neighbourhood including us.
let's take Human as an example:
Premise 1: All Naturally occuring elements besides Hydrogen and Helium are created in the center of a star via fusion reaction and supernova when the star reaches the end of its life.(theory of supernova)
premise 2: Heavy elements exist in our solar system.(empirical)
Premise 3: our sun is most likely a 3rd generation star in our solar neighbourhood given the amount of heavy elements exists in our solar system.(2)
Premise 4: planets also formed from the ashes of the last supernova along witht he current sun (Solar nebula theory)
Premise 5: Sun radiates just the right amount of energy in form of heat so earth exists in the habitable zone where liquid water can exist.(emperical)
Premise 6: Abiogenesis occured around 3 billion years ago.(Primordial soup theory, 5)
Premise 7: evolution takes place (theory of evolution, 5,6)
premise 8: Human is a product of evolution.(5,6,7)
therefore Human and all the solar system is a product of the original star that went supernova combine with the current sun's radiation of energy(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)
Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells you you are unworthy. Doesn't tell you you are a bad person, who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word, literally. and of course you shall not pray to the sun, because that would be delusional. The only doctrine in this thing is to survive and evolve and be technologically advanced enough to out live the sun when the sun burns out of fuel.
If you look at the closest genetic relative to human beings- the chimpanzees- we share like 98+% identical DNA, we are smarter than a chimpanzee. Let’s invent a measure of intelligence that make humans unique. Let’s say intelligence is your ability to compose poetry, symphonies, do art, math and science, let’s say. Let’s make that as the arbitrary definition of intelligence for the moment. Chimps can’t do any of that. Yet we share 98/99% identical DNA. The most brilliant chimp there ever was, maybe can do sign language. Well, our toddlers can do that. Everything that we are, that distinguishes us from chimps, emerges from that 1% difference in DNA. It has to because that’s the difference. We built the Hubble telescope, and that’s in that 1%. Maybe, everything that we are that is not the chimp is not as smart compared to the chimp as we tell ourselves it is. Maybe the difference between constructing and launching a Hubble telescope and a chimp combining two finger motions as sign language- maybe that difference is not all that great. We tell ourselves it is. Just the same way some of us we arrogantly think we have to save the planet, We tell ourselves it’s a lot. Maybe it’s almost nothing.
(by the way the planet doesn't need any saving, earth will be there for a long long time, the people, are fucked, difference)
Imagine another being. That’s 1% different from us. In the direction that we are different from the chimp. Think about that.
We have 1% difference and we are building the Hubble telescope. Go another 1%, 10% 100% What are we to it? We would be drooling, blithering idiots in its presence.
That’s what we would be. So, the notion that we’re gonna have a conversation with god? When was the last time you stopped to have a conversation with a worm? Or a bird? Well, you might have had a conversation but I don’t think you expected an answer, alright. and Would that same worm even know that we’re trying to communicate, much less that we’re intelligent. So, we don’t have conversations with any other species on earth with whom we have DNA in common. To believe that my god who created the solar system is gonna be interested in us, enough to have a conversation? Our arrogance knows no bounds.
Maybe, just maybe the day comes when our sun stop shining and shink after it finish burning all the hydrogen and helium and human still kicking without the sun's radiation energy.
Maybe then would god recognize our specie as worthy of communication.
|
On August 18 2012 00:59 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 23:26 Kukaracha wrote:The english language has a negative bias, and the term "disbelief" is the only way to go throught that. I don't think I understand your point. Are you trying to say that atheists use the "do not believe" instead of "believe not", even though that's not really what they think, just to make use of this "negative bias" that the English language has? Or are you just arguing semantics here and saying that atheists should say they "disbelieve" instead of that the "do not believe"?
To put it simply, while ideally we do perceive the concepts of "yes", "neutral" and "no", whenever those are applied in most languages they become "yes", "absence of yes", "disagreement with yes".
For example, you agree and "don't agree". Know and "don't know". Believe and "don't believe".
I believe this comes from the fact that language is not logically built but structured around millenia-old "common sense".
|
On August 18 2012 02:30 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 00:59 APurpleCow wrote:On August 17 2012 23:26 Kukaracha wrote:The english language has a negative bias, and the term "disbelief" is the only way to go throught that. I don't think I understand your point. Are you trying to say that atheists use the "do not believe" instead of "believe not", even though that's not really what they think, just to make use of this "negative bias" that the English language has? Or are you just arguing semantics here and saying that atheists should say they "disbelieve" instead of that the "do not believe"? To put it simply, while ideally we do perceive the concepts of "yes", "neutral" and "no", whenever those are applied in most languages they become "yes", "absence of yes", "disagreement with yes". For example, you agree and "don't agree". Know and "don't know". Believe and "don't believe". I believe this comes from the fact that language is not logically built but structured around millenia-old "common sense".
To go back to the thing that started this fight, the difference is the claim of the miraculous. The best example is believing in unicorns (or a famous one, a teacup in orbit).
If I asked you do unicorns exist, would you answer that you do not know if unicorns exist or not? It is quite unlike the key example since there is no reason to disbelieve you given the closeness of evidence. You could just show the keys. The answer to the claim of almost anything else is naturally negative.
Do you believe that the tooth fairy exists? No I do not believe the tooth fairy exists. However, to a theist, that is OBVIOUSLY a faulty line of reasoning. There is no way to disprove the tooth fairy. I am making a positive statement. If you want to define it as such, then yes, that is a positive statement, however I (and most atheists) believe that the neutral state is disbelief in things that have no evidence.
|
The problem is that you're not using logic. You're using common sense (which is really a terrible tool that made us once burn "witches" and believe in flying dinosaurs). There's no logical way to prove that things naturally "don't exist".
You're simply dissmissing what sounds "weird" and unlikely in your own experience (which is terribly small).
I could describe an okapi, and I'm sure that some people wouldn't believe me, simply because it's doesn't sound like a likely animal. But it is in no way a rational behaviour, it's actually part of our survival instinct (with many other shortcuts our brain uses daily to keep us focused on everyday life).
|
The beginning of this argument was "what is the natural state", atheism, theism, or agnosticism? The natural state, except when you're really really young and believe literally everything your parents say, is negative. People naturally disbelieve unless someone introduces and provides evidence for a concept.
And even though you can't disprove "God", you can disprove gods that claim anything. The only unassailable god at this point is the god that created the universe, however that god is absolutely useless. You start out assuming god existed and created the universe. Why not just start off with the assumption the universe existed. Much simpler idea. Unless, of course, you believe gods can do something in the universe. In that case, it should be testable. And it has been. Prayer doesn't do anything and the universe seems to always follow certain rules that never seem to be broken.
|
There are many possible "gods", especially from a deistic point of view, that are neither provable or unprovable, so this doesn't lead anywhere...
And the natural state is ignorance, not a negative or a positive one. And before you disagree, please read the previous posts, I've repeated myself quite a few times already.
|
The only possible "gods" that you can neither prove nor disprove are gods that are defined as such or gods that for some reason aren't intervening at this time but "have the capability". And again, what's the point of positing their existence? Pretending gods exist only leads to lack of questioning and strife.
|
As an atheist I don't think I can provide a good answer, but for many the existance of god is simply a part of their spirituality which consists essentially of metaphysical questions. You may say : "but it's bad to give definitive answers!" but really... who doesn't? I've come to find people equally stubborn on both sides of the fence. The USSR was a very good example of atheistic biggotry and dogmatism.
I've actually come to dislike even more the proselytistic fringe of atheism that considers that mankind has "achieved" something and that science is a perfect form of analysis; it's not even that hard to imagine an even more rigorous procedure (completely systematic and automatic analysis of complex data by future supercomputers?) and it is deeply ironic to mock your ancesters for their short view when they're really just as blind and full of themselves.
|
The internet is great for causing opinions to stray to one extreme or the other. I don't consider myself any smarter than my ancestors, just more priveleged. Originally religion seems to have been for trying to explain the world. Monasteries were centers of learinng. Some of the smartest were also the most religious. However, as society learned to explain more and more of the world, most faiths and religions stayed stagnant and had to try to discredit the things we were learning about the world such that their old explanations could still stay true. That is what I don't like.
|
It is true that a portion of every religion does this, and the more archaic the cult, the more immobile it will be, but there are many christian scientists for example. The reason for this is that christianity in the western sphere (or at least in some parts) has adapted and people have kept what they believe is the core of their faith (love, sacrifice, charity).
Also note that whether religions exist or not, there will always be a conflict between conservative and progressist people, which is a good thing in a certain way as it mantains a certain balance between immobility and constant revolutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
