|
Poll: Is there such thing as God?
(Vote): No
(Vote): Yes
I know there have been topics like this, but I'd like to have this conversation, which is why I've made it a blog. I know this site is incredibly atheistic, but there are a few who have differing views.
I'm an atheist. There is no God. There hasn't been one anywhere that I know of, and word-of-mouth evidence has been lacking credibility. So it seems like, it must have been made up. When I've prayed it has been talking to myself aloud or in my head. That's my best guess. I don't think there is some force that makes miracles happen. There's no reason for me to take any holy text at anything more than face value. So that's it I guess. Pretty boring stuff.
Obviously I am thinking of various Christians as I write this. Ones that will insist that Jesus came back to life and that this was for us in some way, that he can hear us now or, well, whatever, I really don't care. It sounds like nonsense. Or they might say that a particular collection of old writings, translated, are God's perfect words handed to us. God made people write these, and now we got it. Maybe the book even says so inside. But why trust it. If this post said that I was a unicorn who never lies, would that make it true?
IDK. I am aware of all the attempts at proof out there. Or people who are going to say that I can't prove there's no God. You're right in a sense. Only certain things can be proven. If you get specific enough about what you mean by God I'm sure we can say there is as much evidence for him as many other things you don't believe in, and we can just leave it at that. We don't believe in everything that we can't utterly disprove. That's nonsense.
Maybe this blog seems to have no direction. Well here it is. I'm wondering what you smart non-atheists think about all this. Whether you've really tried to hear out the atheist answers. Or whether we are not hearing you and you're frustrated with us. Because it just seems like there's no deity or holy authority of teachings or texts like you seem to think there is. Is it just a kind of "act as if" plus faith, scenerio? Society needs some motivating, guiding authority?
How do you show an atheist like myself, that any part of your religion's claims jive with reality? I'm honestly interested, so let me know. My viewpoint is that we're both here in reality, and we are coming to radically different conclusions about what is and isn't really going on. So please share with me.
 
|
I was raised hardcore Christian. I became an atheist (soft position, also known as agnostic) at age 14. I very much advocated atheism for quite a few years, arguing with many religious people, and convincing a few.
Now I loosely identify as an atheist/agnostic.
I am also newly considering the label of Buddhist. Buddhism, for many, is a non-theistic religion.
ABout my views on the universe: I do believe in the importance of faith - faith that the universe will bring us what we need.. faith in the great mystery of it all (giving up the desire to understand and control everything is very important in my view.)
I believe the fundamental property of the universe is awareness - that everything in existence is part of awareness, and awareness takes many different forms. I believe the universe wills itself to exist, and it is dynamic.
I believe in multiplicity of truth, and the possibility for contradictory truths.
I believe in endless re-incarnation, but not in the sense that you have the same characteristics in a future life as you had in this one - but rather the notion that everything is constantly recycled, and that awareness will continually re-emerge in various forms.
It is unimportant to me that others see things the way I do, or that anyone agree with anyone else. All anyone has to go on (religious folks, scientists, you name it) is perception. Rather than force uniformity of perception, I appreciate variety of perception.
Despite my non-scientific outlook, I still identify as an atheist.
|
too bored to write anything of significance here, I just wanted to rant about the poll. your blog title reads "i'm an atheist. are you??" so i say cool, then click and see the poll with "yes" and "no" answers, so responding to the title i immediately click on "yes" since I'm an atheist, just to see that the real poll question is "is there god?" -_-
|
Its kind of confusing that you have a question in the title and a different question for the poll, each of which would have different answers. (ie, yes->no and no->yes)
|
Also, a clarification: atheism is not necessarily the claim that there is NO God. It is, in its broadest form, a LACK of belief in gods. In its broadest form, atheism is synonymous with agnosticism. There are "strong position" atheists that deny the possibility of God. This is sometimes called "strong atheism."
Your poll seems to assume strong atheism. As such, I cannot answer your question, as there is no "I don't know if there is a god" answer. It leaves no room for ignorance, just faith in God or faith that there is no God. You should add a 3rd option, at least.
|
I don't understand who or what you are clarifying for. I am aware of those who define the terminology that way, but I don't want this topic to be about that. We know what is thought when someone says "atheist"
inky, if the poll was "is there such thing as fairies" would you be unable to answer it?
I intentionally left out such an option because I don't want people bickering over whether they "know" or not. Come on people. Do staplers exist? How about magic staplers? Does three-headed manga George W. Bush exist? Do you really have to say "I don't know"?
Poll: Is there such a thing as The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
(Vote): No
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): I don't know if there is The Flying Spaghetti Monster
|
I was going to write a lengthy post, but I don't have the right words for it. Basically, I believe in God but who am I to force that belief upon others, or allow others to force their belief upon me?
|
On December 11 2007 04:32 ilovezil wrote:
I was going to write a lengthy post, but I don't have the right words for it. Basically, I believe in God but who am I to force that belief upon others, or allow others to force their belief upon me?
Do you think the right words are possible? I want to understand how you think God exists. What are you talking about when you say God, and what leads you to this belief? Can we retrace your steps and achieve it as well? etc.
|
Luggy: I was clarifying the definition for anyone who cares. I think it is a useful clarification as it gets us thinking past a black and white framework.
As to your question, if the poll was structured the same as this one, then I would be unable to answer it. I do not know whether there are fairies or not, so my answer to the question "are there such a thing as fairies?" is "I don't know."
|
I'm not an atheist, however I don't believe in christ...actually I don't have a firm set of beliefs.
I would call myself agnostic.
I also somewhat believe in re-incarnation and souls continuing from existence to existence.
|
Also, given the title of your post, my brief discussion of atheism is useful in order to clarify who technically can be considered an atheist or not, or at least allow for that discussion.
As I said, I consider myself an atheist (a = without. theism = godbelief. a-theism = without god belief), but given the way you set up your poll, I probably would not be considered an atheist.
|
If you can't say whether God is make-believe or not, or even whether fairies are, come on man... Is Santa Claus real too maybe?
|
Luggy, is it your intention to have a friendly, intelligent discussion, or to belittle and disrespect those who do not see things your way? If the latter, please let me know - I am only interested in the former.
Perhaps somewhere in the universe, there is a Santa Clause. And perhaps there are fairies too.
Keep in mind that your preconceptions of what is possible and not possible constitute a form of bias.
|
On December 11 2007 04:36 lugggy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 04:32 ilovezil wrote:
I was going to write a lengthy post, but I don't have the right words for it. Basically, I believe in God but who am I to force that belief upon others, or allow others to force their belief upon me?
Do you think the right words are possible? I want to understand how you think God exists. What are you talking about when you say God, and what leads you to this belief? Can we retrace your steps and achieve it as well? etc.
Well, I'll start by saying that I believe in an omnipotent and omniscient being that governs this universe.
What led me to this belief?
I'm sure my Christian upbringing had much to do with it, but that is not the sole reason why I believe. As I'd said before, I find it hard to come up with the proper words. In summary, the most damning evidence you can find to learn that God exists is by actually reaching for him, by actively seeking his presence. Too many times, I asked God "are you there?" and too many times, I failed. I suppose my faith can be best described as confused, but persistent. Even though I've been denied the truth I was seeking so many times when I tried to find God, I never quite gave up. I'm a stubborn guy, you see. Even now, I'm still searching for the whole truth; not just the question of "does God exist" anymore, but...the "big picture", if you will.
If I can come up with better words later, I'll edit my post accordingly. But as I stated, the most convincing evidence that God exists is by a one-on-one relationship. I never considered myself an eloquent and quick-to-thought person, so that's the best I can do currently. I've come to respect both religious and non-religious people earnestly; we each have our own stories. Sure, we can try to convince each other of our beliefs, but as you can see, the result so far is the everlasting religion vs science war. Those who can carry out such a seemingly impossible task of understandingly and patiently coming to accept the other's belief is a virtue humans have yet to learn...
That's all I have to say for now. I'll edit with a more substantiating(?) post later if I can come up with it. Oh, and what exactly are your intentions with this blog post, if I may ask?
|
|
|
Luggy, in the same way like Richard Dawkins, likes to look down upon people who don't believe PURELY in "scientific" reasoning, whatever that means.
It seems to me like these new "humanists" or whatever you call them are like a religion of their own, without actually believing in a god, but in science rather.
|
Jens, I won't be too quick to put Luggy in the category of atheists you mention (though I am starting to suspect...), but I will agree strongly that there is such a category. I am seeing much more intolerance from atheists lately, and to a degree it is understandable - many atheists feel under attack from religious folks, and historically much evil has been done to non-believers by the religious.
But intolerance is a problem regardless of what group holds the intolerant beliefs. And yes, I think many atheists do take their ideas to a religious extreme.
No matter what we believe, what is called for, especially today, is tolerance, compassion, and cooperation.
|
On December 11 2007 04:44 nA.Inky wrote:
Luggy, is it your intention to have a friendly, intelligent discussion, or to belittle and disrespect those who do not see things your way? If the latter, please let me know - I am only interested in the former.
Perhaps somewhere in the universe, there is a Santa Clause. And perhaps there are fairies too.
Keep in mind that your preconceptions of what is possible and not possible constitute a form of bias.
I think this is friendly, intelligent discussion. In common speech people are able to say what is make believe, what exists and doesn't. That doesn't mean they know 100% and can prove it. For instance we can all say right now there's no living gummy bear circuses on Mars. We can all do it. Doesn't mean it's a law, it's just what we say. But you're saying you can't, that you have to say "I don't know" to everything. Fine, we don't really know much. Do we really know that you exist? That your name is really yours? etc. In that sense sure "we don't know", but when people say that they know Santa Claus is made up, and they say they know what their name is, they aren't completely wrong either, and in that sense I think people can say whether God is real, or make believe. Sure no one "knows" 100% about claims about beings that by their very definition are impossible to "know." But what do you think? You have to say "I don't know" to all of them? and you don't find this a little bit ridiculous? "Maybe there is a Santa Claus", okay but do you believe there is one? Do you believe there isn't one? Are you perfectly in the middle? What if I asked you whether the Sun will rise tomorrow? Would you have to say "I don't know" too? Because we really don't know what will happen do we... Or let's say I flip a coin two million times. Will it be heads every single time? Is it wrong to say "no"?
|
Ilovezil - your answer strikes me as valid. I think many scientific thinkers and atheists wish to cram things into a particular category of knowing and thinking. But who is to say faith and intuition are not valid ways of approaching life? The problem is that faith and intuition cannot be reconciled with rational thought. BEcause so many atheists, and presumably all scientists, embrace rational thought as The One True Way, they often ridicule and dismiss knowledge and understanding that are arrived at by other means.
In my view, there is no need to reconcile faith and rational thought - both have their place. If you arrive at your position through faith, it is enough to say just that.
I think it is important for theists and non-theists to be open minded and continually seek wisdom and truth.
|
On December 11 2007 05:00 nA.Inky wrote:
Jens, I won't be too quick to put Luggy in the category of atheists you mention (though I am starting to suspect...), but I will agree strongly that there is such a category. I am seeing much more intolerance from atheists lately, and to a degree it is understandable - many atheists feel under attack from religious folks, and historically much evil has been done to non-believers by the religious.
But intolerance is a problem regardless of what group holds the intolerant beliefs. And yes, I think many atheists do take their ideas to a religious extreme.
No matter what we believe, what is called for, especially today, is tolerance, compassion, and cooperation.
Yea, I can see how non-religious people perhaps don't wanna be a part of religious activities and don't want their local church to sponsor whatever local happenings but like you say I think their intolerance is sometimes intolerable.
Many atheists seem to be more zealous than hardcore christians, and in a way atheists are merely trying to spread their "teachings" in a quite fundementalist(ic) way, just like any religion.
Anyways, I'm not too thrilled about church either, and even worse the people who believe in god often are overly nice which makes me suspicious.
Basically I wanna have my own beliefs (whatever those are) and not have anything forced down my throat.
|
On December 11 2007 05:04 nA.Inky wrote:
I think it is important for theists and non-theists to be open minded and continually seek wisdom and truth.
No shit. This seems to me to me the biggest problem with beliefs of any kind, people are too close-minded.
|
Luggy, I appreciate that you do not agree with me. I do not mind hearing statements of other people's positions. But to act as if someone else is crazy for their position, or to act as if they are silly for not embracing your position is disrespectful. I could be wrong, but I felt that is how you responded to me. I am sorry if I was wrong.
I'll state my thoughts positively: I believe all issues of truth boil down to perception. But we know that different people have different perceptions. I suspect other life and other awarenesses have very different perceptions from humans.
What determines how we perceive the world? Our hardware, for one, and our culture and preconceptions, secondly.
We can assume (whether it is wise to do so or not) that our hardware is roughly uniform, but it seems very unreliable to assume that people's culture and preconceptions are uniform. So, again, perception differs.
In dealing with perception of the universe, you have to deal with your own preconceptions and culture.
What I am getting at is that you will tend to see what you expect to see. If you take it for granted that fairies are probably an impossibility, then you probably wouldn't see a fairy even if it was in your environment.
On a somewhat related issue, people are far more likely to shoot a black man reaching for a cell phone than they are to shoot a white man in the same case (psychological studies have been done on this.) Why is this true? Because people have a preconception that black men are more likely to be thugs and to be reaching for a gun. What we expect to see is what we see.
The implications of this are very important. You expect the universe to be meaningless and devoid of magic and the like, and it is very likely that this will be your experience.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
I don't like discussing religion with my people IRL or teamliquid (...especially teamliquid lol). But i guess in the spirit of good conversation ill express my views here.
I consider myself a realist Christian. That being, I believe there is a god, I believe in jesus. However, I believe that the bible over the course of 2000 years has been warped and misconstrued through translation and through a period of about 500 years where Christianity had more political power than we have ever known. I think it is ridiculous that many Christians lock themselves to the bible and can't see beyond it - Evolution and Creationism can coexist and i believe in both. I guess i associate a lot more logic to my beliefs despite being Christian (that probably sounds like an oxymoron..oh well).
The bible says that the earth was created in 7 days. We'll thats nice except in the concept of eternity time does not equate - 7 days in eternity could be 30 billion years. It's also a bit ridiculous to say "oh the entire universe all of a sudden just exploded out of nothing". I find athiests try to portray themselves as realists but the fundamentals of the belief add up about as much as christian beliefs do.
No one has got it right yet, and i don't expect anyone ever will.
|
Really the only solid proof of God I have found convincing to any degree outside of an emotional experience (which I dont think is such a terrible thing) is consciousness itself.
Really consciousness is just unfathomable.
Otherwise the argument boils down to either the eternal nature of a creator being, the eternal nature of material matter or the cyclical pattern of time.
In more simplified terms, either there is a God that created everything outside of time, matter jumbles together to create everything in the infinite spans of time or time itself just repeats so we were never really created to begin with, things just are and always were.
|
Well, I can't really say I'm an atheist. I'm not a fanatic christian or a convinced atheist. I just didn't find an answer to the " Does God exist question ?" question. Honestly I don't think I will.
As pointed out before in this thread, seeking to know if God exists of not will always fail. First because our human nature is not objective enough to consider all aspects of the case and secondly because we need God to exist.
We need to have a higher level to evolve to, we need to feel we're not alone, that we are important in our own way. And that's why I see myself embracing a religion later on my lifetime, mostly because I'm not psychically strong enough to accept life might just end when I die.
So the only thing one can strongly affirm is the WE DON'T KNOW and probably we never will.
|
On December 11 2007 05:17 Kennigit wrote:
No one has got it right yet, and i don't expect anyone ever will.
This sentence sums up my views quite nicely.
|
On December 11 2007 05:16 nA.Inky wrote:
Luggy, I appreciate that you do not agree with me. I do not mind hearing statements of other people's positions. But to act as if someone else is crazy for their position, or to act as if they are silly for not embracing your position is disrespectful. I could be wrong, but I felt that is how you responded to me. I am sorry if I was wrong.
It was not personal, I just felt like you were putting out a position that you actually wouldn't agree with if you saw it applied in more cases. I thought if you thought about someone who seriously can't say "There is no Santa", you would have the same reaction I had, and that everyone else (presumably) would have. The question with God is no different. We can say in the same way, that they are all made up. It doesn't have to be positively provable. It's more basic than that. There are no squared circles, magic staplers, etc.
I'll state my thoughts positively: I believe all issues of truth boil down to perception. But we know that different people have different perceptions. I suspect other life and other awarenesses have very different perceptions from humans.
Not really. If you want to get technical and strict about it, we don't know that there even are different people, and especially that they even have perceptions. That anyone, or any thing "has" a perception. We don't have access to that. All we have are the perceptions. The ones we call "ours." That's it. And I can only speak for myself. I'm seeing this monitor, this text, maybe hearing some of these words as I think of them, maybe feeling my keyboard. But I do not know that you are parallel to this, that your monitor is seen in a similar way that mine is seen, or any of that. You are an object, an imagined thing, a grouping, a perception that is part of my making sense of perceptions, just as the monitor is a thing, I think of you as an identity tied to your name, tied to the idea of personhood, a source of your text, which correspond to thoughts etc. But in your super strict sense, I don't know any of that. Issues of truth don't boil down to "other people's perceptions", because the idea of otherness, and of people, boil down as well. And probably even more can be boiled down. But this should not take away from the common speech that we have learned, or what it means.
What determines how we perceive the world? Our hardware, for one, and our culture and preconceptions, secondly.
Again, hardware is only part of that perception, a specific idea applied to some of the objects we are seeing. How can you separate whether the world is being shaped by something, or whether it really is that way? Only by making several leaps about what you perceive. So if you can do that, why can't you know what people mean by "know" in the sense that it is used in this sentence and not some super strict sense?
What I am getting at is that you will tend to see what you expect to see. If you take it for granted that fairies are probably an impossibility, then you probably wouldn't see a fairy even if it was in your environment.
Stand up man! Admit that fairies are make-believe, please. Have you seen one? Do you believe anyone ever has seen one? Spoke to one? Do you believe that sometimes miracles happen? That sometimes gravity changes, when no one is looking?
On a somewhat related issue, people are far more likely to shoot a black man reaching for a cell phone than they are to shoot a white man in the same case (psychological studies have been done on this.) Why is this true? Because people have a preconception that black men are more likely to be thugs and to be reaching for a gun. What we expect to see is what we see.
Um, it is probably true that it is more likely they are reaching for a gun. The perception isn't necessarily wrong.
The implications of this are very important. You expect the universe to be meaningless and devoid of magic and the like, and it is very likely that this will be your experience.
Placebo effect works both ways. Do we get to the truth by wishful thinking? When has that ever worked? Makes me think of "Christian science"
|
Well I used to be Christian, but I won't label myself that. Because currently i'm trying to look at both sides (God/No God and Creation/Evolution) and decide for myself what I want to believe. The only reason why i'm leaning toward Christianity, is because you don't lose anything from believing in it. If Christianity was wrong, and Earth is all there ever was, what do you lose by being Christian? Nothing. BUt if Christianity was right, and you died not believing in God "and accept Him as your Savior," you lose everything. Well that's my rationale for now. I'm still "searching" for answers and what not, and hopefully I come to the right decision.
|
On December 11 2007 05:17 Kennigit wrote:
The bible says that the earth was created in 7 days. We'll thats nice except in the concept of eternity time does not equate - 7 days in eternity could be 30 billion years.
Genesis 1:3 - "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
Evening and morning = the first day... it seems to me like the author was thinking of literal 24 hour days.
It's also a bit ridiculous to say "oh the entire universe all of a sudden just exploded out of nothing". I find athiests try to portray themselves as realists but the fundamentals of the belief add up about as much as christian beliefs do.
That's a nice strawman that you've constructed.
|
On December 11 2007 04:28 nA.Inky wrote:
Also, a clarification: atheism is not necessarily the claim that there is NO God. It is, in its broadest form, a LACK of belief in gods. In its broadest form, atheism is synonymous with agnosticism. There are "strong position" atheists that deny the possibility of God. This is sometimes called "strong atheism."
Your poll seems to assume strong atheism. As such, I cannot answer your question, as there is no "I don't know if there is a god" answer. It leaves no room for ignorance, just faith in God or faith that there is no God. You should add a 3rd option, at least.
well of course, it would be utterly stupid to believe with 100% conviction that there is no god, just as it would be utterly stupid to believe with 100% conviction that there is a god.
"yes" or "no" in the poll means simply "are you more than 50% sure there is a god or not".
|
On December 11 2007 05:40 Meta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 04:28 nA.Inky wrote:
Also, a clarification: atheism is not necessarily the claim that there is NO God. It is, in its broadest form, a LACK of belief in gods. In its broadest form, atheism is synonymous with agnosticism. There are "strong position" atheists that deny the possibility of God. This is sometimes called "strong atheism."
Your poll seems to assume strong atheism. As such, I cannot answer your question, as there is no "I don't know if there is a god" answer. It leaves no room for ignorance, just faith in God or faith that there is no God. You should add a 3rd option, at least. well of course, it would be utterly stupid to believe with 100% conviction that there is no god, just as it would be utterly stupid to believe with 100% conviction that there is a god. "yes" or "no" in the poll means simply "are you more than 50% sure there is a god or not".
So what are your thoughts on the celestial teapot?
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On December 11 2007 05:38 Mindcrime wrote:
That's a nice strawman that you've constructed.
It's how i roll. Also why i don't discuss religion
|
On December 11 2007 05:17 Kennigit wrote:
I don't like discussing religion with my people IRL or teamliquid (...especially teamliquid lol). But i guess in the spirit of good conversation ill express my views here.
I consider myself a realist Christian. That being, I believe there is a god, I believe in jesus. However, I believe that the bible over the course of 2000 years has been warped and misconstrued through translation and through a period of about 500 years where Christianity had more political power than we have ever known. I think it is ridiculous that many Christians lock themselves to the bible and can't see beyond it - Evolution and Creationism can coexist and i believe in both. I guess i associate a lot more logic to my beliefs despite being Christian (that probably sounds like an oxymoron..oh well).
The bible says that the earth was created in 7 days. We'll thats nice except in the concept of eternity time does not equate - 7 days in eternity could be 30 billion years. It's also a bit ridiculous to say "oh the entire universe all of a sudden just exploded out of nothing". I find athiests try to portray themselves as realists but the fundamentals of the belief add up about as much as christian beliefs do.
No one has got it right yet, and i don't expect anyone ever will.
it's quite telling to sum up the big bang the way you did. the theory was derived from physics that we know through experiment to be possible. the earth being created in 7 days theory was derived from who knows where thousands of years ago. what seems more logical?
it's nice that you can try to live peacefully in the turmoil of this fight between reason and religion, though.
mindcrime: i'm what Richard Dawkins would describe as a 6th degree atheist, that is, I am very convinced that the idea of a god as humanity sees Him or It is very human in nature (with human emotions and image), and thus, is an impossibility. There indeed might be some great power that we've yet to discover that drives the universe, but, until we discover that power, I'd rather leave it up to speculation. That said, I don't think good speculation consists of suicide bombings and genocide, which is what this speculation has consisted of since the birth of religion as we know it.
|
Luggy: A lot of what you say in your argument above makes a lot of sense; it is why I believe in the importance of faith. When you realize that we are getting down just to perception, then all your conclusions come down to a kind of faith. I don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have faith that it will. I don't know for sure that there is any other awareness than my own (solipsism) but I have faith that there is. I think the difference between me and you, in this context, is that I am OKAY with not having absolute answers. I am ok living in a dynamic world full of radical possibilities.
Yes, quite literally I think gravity can change randomly, that there can be spirits and fairies and all kinds of alternate realities. I do not say this to be stubborn - I genuinely believe in these possibilities. I've heard PhD's in astronomy and physics say that they now think the laws of physics have seemingly spontaneously changed throughout the history of the universe.
The Universe is full of radical possibility. The Universe is far stranger than you or I can imagine. I like to be open to the immense variety of possibility.
|
Meta: do not put heinous crimes down to religion. Humanity in general has always been capable of barbaric behavior. Don't forget the millions that have died at the hands of those that embraced science and secularism. Intolerance is the problem, not Christianity or Islam or atheism.
Science and technology are now very dominant in the world today, and look where humanity sits... we are on the brink of unprecedented collapse.
|
I am not sure how you get, from what I wrote, that I am not okay with not having absolute answers. I am only defending the common language here. People can say that something is make-believe. People can say that unicorns aren't real! It's something we can do. And you will all know what they mean and don't mean by that. I believe it is you, who have been splitting hairs and creating a semantic problem where there shouldn't be one. You don't need to say "I don't know if there is a Santa Claus" or not. You simply don't. How can you not know that?
No where in this thread is there a hint that these questions apply for potentially non-existing, potentially hypothetical "alternate realities." It is pretty clear what we are talking about, by where we are talking. In reality. If someone says they don't have any children, you don't go "oh my god, you might, in other realities, or in the future." So you can't say "I don't know if I have any children" as much as you may feel the need. Because what they mean is plain and clear and what else the words can be construed as, is irrelevant to the conversation.
|
On December 11 2007 05:44 Kennigit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 05:38 Mindcrime wrote:
That's a nice strawman that you've constructed. It's how i roll. Also why i don't discuss religion
You don't discuss religion because you like using strawman arguments?
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On December 11 2007 06:00 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 05:44 Kennigit wrote:On December 11 2007 05:38 Mindcrime wrote:
That's a nice strawman that you've constructed. It's how i roll. Also why i don't discuss religion You don't discuss religion because you like using strawman arguments?
No because i dont like going into detail unless i can talk in person. Internet peoples are also very aggressive and snide.
|
On December 11 2007 04:53 ilovezil wrote:
Well, I'll start by saying that I believe in an omnipotent and omniscient being that governs this universe.
What led me to this belief?
I'm sure my Christian upbringing had much to do with it, but that is not the sole reason why I believe. As I'd said before, I find it hard to come up with the proper words. In summary, the most damning evidence you can find to learn that God exists is by actually reaching for him, by actively seeking his presence. Too many times, I asked God "are you there?" and too many times, I failed. I suppose my faith can be best described as confused, but persistent. Even though I've been denied the truth I was seeking so many times when I tried to find God, I never quite gave up. I'm a stubborn guy, you see. Even now, I'm still searching for the whole truth; not just the question of "does God exist" anymore, but...the "big picture", if you will.
Thank you for expanding this a bit for me to try to understand. Do you think your method for finding out if God is there, is a reliable one? You say you tried to reach for him very hard. I assume you did not try this for other deities, or fake ones. Do you think this method could lead someone to believe in something that was fake? For instance, take 30 children, have 10 of them reach for the real God, 10 reach for Shiva, and 10 reach for Spaghetti monster, etc. That is what I mean by a reliable method. Does the method produce only true believes, or true and false beliefs equally?
If I can come up with better words later, I'll edit my post accordingly. But as I stated, the most convincing evidence that God exists is by a one-on-one relationship. I never considered myself an eloquent and quick-to-thought person, so that's the best I can do currently. I've come to respect both religious and non-religious people earnestly; we each have our own stories. Sure, we can try to convince each other of our beliefs, but as you can see, the result so far is the everlasting religion vs science war. Those who can carry out such a seemingly impossible task of understandingly and patiently coming to accept the other's belief is a virtue humans have yet to learn...
As an atheist my question remains, not whether the one-on-one relationship is something real and valuable, but whether, it is what you think it is. For instance, if we experimented, could we equally cultivate one-on-one relationships with made-up beings? If so, then that is no evidence for a real God, is there? Maybe God is real but we can never know him in any realms subject to evidence and testing. What do you think about that? Or should we all know God because of the evidence?
That's all I have to say for now. I'll edit with a more substantiating(?) post later if I can come up with it. Oh, and what exactly are your intentions with this blog post, if I may ask?
I'm just a bored atheist, who wants to talk out some of the differences between himself and others. I know plenty of people smarter than me have different views, so I want to see whether the conversation can be fruitful for any of us, especially myself. It isn't exactly a planned out thing, just a blog. I have been very interested so far in the conversations that have come about. So I consider my intentions already accomplished.
|
Luggy: You directly asked me a couple questions about fairies and gravity reversals and the like, and I answered them.
When we discuss conventional matters, I am more likely to use conventional language and ideas, and take things for granted. This thread is getting very much at deeper matters, and so I think a much more nuanced and simultaneously broad, open ended approach is called for. At least that is how I will approach this. It is not my intention to split hairs, but I do think my framework for considering these kinds of things is clearly a bit different from yours.
|
On December 11 2007 06:12 Kennigit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 06:00 Mindcrime wrote:On December 11 2007 05:44 Kennigit wrote:On December 11 2007 05:38 Mindcrime wrote:
That's a nice strawman that you've constructed. It's how i roll. Also why i don't discuss religion You don't discuss religion because you like using strawman arguments? No because i dont like going into detail unless i can talk in person. Internet peoples are also very aggressive and snide.
Then don't go into detail, but don't mischaracterize.
|
On December 11 2007 05:17 Kennigit wrote:
I consider myself a realist Christian. That being, I believe there is a god, I believe in jesus. However, I believe that the bible over the course of 2000 years has been warped and misconstrued through translation and through a period of about 500 years where Christianity had more political power than we have ever known. I think it is ridiculous that many Christians lock themselves to the bible and can't see beyond it - Evolution and Creationism can coexist and i believe in both. I guess i associate a lot more logic to my beliefs despite being Christian (that probably sounds like an oxymoron..oh well).
The bible says that the earth was created in 7 days. We'll thats nice except in the concept of eternity time does not equate - 7 days in eternity could be 30 billion years. It's also a bit ridiculous to say "oh the entire universe all of a sudden just exploded out of nothing". I find athiests try to portray themselves as realists but the fundamentals of the belief add up about as much as christian beliefs do.
No one has got it right yet, and i don't expect anyone ever will.
What is your source for your belief that there is a God? That's really the topic here. What caused you to gain this knowledge, and do you believe it is possible to share it with others (if not, do you expect them to think you are right?)
|
On December 11 2007 04:37 JensOfSweden wrote:
I'm not an atheist, however I don't believe in christ...actually I don't have a firm set of beliefs.
I would call myself agnostic.
I also somewhat believe in re-incarnation and souls continuing from existence to existence.
Simply sums up my views on this.
I don't beleive in the bible god by any means, do this or go to hell, be good or go to hell, get on your knees for god 3 times a day or go to hell.
I think the idea of existing for the inevitable point of non existence is dumb, why would we ever experience the existence point then? Why woldn't it just flash by in a heart beat? When i die will i fall into non existence? Or perhaps another world? Perhaps i will float on towards heaven, maybe i will sink to the depths of hell. Who knows? I sure don't. I had struggles witht his for a while like 2 months ago, for 2 weeks all i could think about was post death, whiether it's non existence or some form of afterlife.
The conclusion i came to after this 2 weeks of depressive thinking was good, it made me realzie that regardless of what happens i'm cool with it. At first i couldn't accept the idea or the possibility that this is it, it's here where it all happens, before and after this is non existence. I have this breif trip until i'm back to where i started, which is no where. That everything i am, everything i will be, everything i was, will just eventually be gone. No trace left anywhere. And that thought messed with me.
Then i took an opposing view, a "What if.." scenario. What if i oculd live forever? Would i want to? Would it be fun? Would knowing theres always going to be a tomorrow? Would sleep be a necessity as it is now? Or would i constantly be aware of everything without rest or relaxation. Would i always be thinking or never be thinking.
Then i thought about it some more and came to this conclusion, regardless of what happens i am content. If i die and theres a heaven or some form of afterlife, sweet, i will eventually adapt and know that theres always tomorrow and theres no endpoint on this line of existence.
However i thought of what non existence must feel like, which is kind of stupid if you tihnk about it, it's basically thinking about what it would be like to be incapable of thought. Which i think would be considered a paradox. Then my friend (Whose Aetheist) Said have i ever had a dream without sleep? I responded that i had, and that would essentially be what it would be like, and that is some of the best sleep i have ever gotten, so regardless i am happy and content.
But most importantly, i think putting too much thought into this is a complete waste of time, considering i won't know until i die, and when i die the answer to the question of life after death becomes irrelivent.
So heres to living life to it's fullest, and not rushing to a premature death.
|
wrote way more then i ment to upon originally quoting jens o_O
|
I liked reading your post, Mr. MonkeySpanker. Existential crises can be damn difficult, but I think we are stronger when we come out of them. Good for you!
|
I dont know how you can say "I know this site is incredibly atheistic" about TL.net. I come across far more christian loonies here than in my daily life.
|
The other thing that irks me about religion is, who's right? Islam? Christianity? Hinduism? I guess it would be hard to argue when they have their own version of the Bible for their religion (Koran, w/e book Hindu's use...Ramayana? iono) as their source of proof. I imagine a debate between a Muslim and a Christian:
Christian: How do you justify your beliefs?
Muslim: The Koran says so. Now how do YOU justify YOUR beliefs?
Christian: The Bible says so.
Both: ....
|
I think they are just more daring on the internet. Polling shows atheist to be a minority position in the U.S. for instance, but TL is def the opposite, even among only it's American posters.
|
On December 11 2007 05:53 nA.Inky wrote:
Meta: do not put heinous crimes down to religion. Humanity in general has always been capable of barbaric behavior. Don't forget the millions that have died at the hands of those that embraced science and secularism. Intolerance is the problem, not Christianity or Islam or atheism.
Science and technology are now very dominant in the world today, and look where humanity sits... we are on the brink of unprecedented collapse.
You should do some research into the nature of Islam before you completely discredit their influencs in the turmoil throughout the world. They are conquistadors of intolerance. They are as intolerant as the catholics of 12th century Europe. The punishment for losing your Islamic faith under an Islamic theocracy is death. Their morals are clearly obscured by their belief of paradise, on such a level as to actually threaten western civilization. Say what you might about the other religions, but Islam is truely the bane of modern man.
The major problem with the other religions is that their doctrine is just as unfounded as Islam's, and as such, we as reasonable human beings cannot ridicule Islam for what it is on a public level without being accused of intolerance, hate, and discrimination.
Sam Harris can do a much better job explaining where we stand than I can so I urge you to look into his books and speaches for the argument against yours.
|
Meta, this isn't an issue I am especially well read on, but I do believe the problems you mention are more the result of Islamic fundamentalism than Islam itself. Any ideas, when taken to a great extreme, can be dangerous. Am I wrong in this particular case? I am open to the possibility, as I haven't read much about Islam in a long time. Still, I don't think muslims in most of the world are a threat.
My feeling is that there are terrible examples of people from any background or ideology, but we can't generalize from them to everyone else. There are insane Christians, insane atheists, insane Muslims, insane capitalists, and insane socialists... You see?
I won't pretend to be an expert on this subject though. You've read books on it and I have not. My World Religions class didn't make Islam out to be a problem at all, though.
Personally, I don't fear Islam one bit. I am also one of those weird 9/11 conspiracy people, too, though. 
|
United States22883 Posts
[QUOTE]On December 11 2007 07:11 Meta wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 11 2007 05:53 nA.Inky wrote:
Sam Harris can do a much better job explaining where we stand than I can so I urge you to look into his books and speaches for the argument against yours.[/QUOTE]Inky doesn't submit to classical logic. I don't mean that as an insult, but Harris dismantles Christianity in a more specific and logical way than even Dawkins.
The reason these turn into hostile arguments is because the only justification for a belief in God is a "weak justification", that being personal, private, subjective and unprovable (not meant to be an insult, that's simply the philosophical term for that type of belief.) It's pretty much immune to scrutiny, since you can't disprove what someone felt. To an evidentialist, this is unethical and incorrect thinking. Even if the claim is true, it was arrived upon incorrectly (like guessing an answer in math, without doing the work correctly.) Anyways, since the religious person openly admits that the belief is irrational, the only thing left is to give up or attack the other foundations of their belief system (Ex: You may have felt God, but the Bible is wrong here, here, here and here so how do you know its the Christian God?)
You're left with a raging Atheist defending science and logic and a pissed off religious person who is either questioning their life or thinking the other people will burn in Hell or be reborn as a rock, etc. Occasionally you run into a religious pluralist and things turn out friendly, but most people are exclusivists. But you're right - the best way to convince someone is by giving them stuff to read, not by criticizing their beliefs.
If someone wants a bunch of religious philosophical arguments to read, just ask.
|
Well Jibba if people admit the belief is irrational and that they come to it personally, then fine. My impression is that most people out there with religious beliefs believe they have evidence and reason on their side. If God is telling people personally that the Bible is true, for instance, then they should not need to convert me because they can just know that, well, God hasn't told me yet. And I'm waiting.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 11 2007 04:54 JensOfSweden wrote:
It seems to me like these new "humanists" or whatever you call them are like a religion of their own, without actually believing in a god, but in science rather. They are similar, except the very crucial fact that one is testable and the other isn't.
Personally, I think Dawkins is a douche and I don't think a religiousless world is possible and maybe not even beneficial to a lot of people. But I don't have an answer for dealing with exclusivists who think only their way is right. If you do, PM me and we can save the world together.
Well Jibba if people admit the belief is irrational and that they come to it personally, then fine. My impression is that most people out there with religious beliefs believe they have evidence and reason on their side. I know a lot of people do but I think they just haven't spent enough time thinking about it. I'm pretty sure though that telling them they're wrong is one of the least likely ways to convince them.
|
Well we agree on a lot of things then, Dawkins included. What kinds of religious philosophical arguments do you have in mind btw?
|
I dont really know what i am anymore... Used to REALLY believe in God, and felt that im really on a right track untill this summer when i dont know what happened, i didn go to mass for like 2 months and i just lost that something. Started doubting everything.
Now im not sure God exists, or, perhaps its better to say, im not sure God cares.
However, i read the bible and everything, read even some books by the christian authors and they all inspired me in a way. Im totally for living in harmony with christian laws and everything, i really feel like i realize how the world works (so to say it.) Christianity is good, its really good.
I feel God made this place, gave us the book to help us find the right path, and then moved along. Im not sure he loves us as his own children. However, his words are right. Thats why i dont ignore them.
|
I don't believe in the bible, i dont believe in hell, i dont believe in heaven.
I think there is a low chance of a divine being. I think there is a lower chance of that divine being endorsing the christian faith. I believe there is even a lower chance of such divine being caring for people and listening to prayers.
I'm not really interested in the God debate so much anymore, I rather destroy people's points of views when they are based on dogma all but the belief of a supernatural God.
I'm an atheist just like Sam Harris is an atheist.
|
I find the whole atheist way of thinking kind of lacking. I much rather call myself a non-believer than an atheist.
I find that keeping the separation of church and state much more efficient in keeping fundamentalism away from society than to have a debate on religious dogma. It's dogma for a reason, you can't argue against it. Completely pointless. I much rather use the power organizations like the Secular Coalition for America to further eliminate dogma away from our educational system, our court system and our electorate system much more efficient than to debate with religious fundamentalists.They never listen to argument anyways...
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm not really interested in the God debate so much anymore, I rather destroy people's points of views when they are based on dogma all but the belief of a supernatural God.
But in a way, you're a fundamentalist non-believer. You're actively trying to force your beliefs upon other people. Logically, it's apparent that the existence of God or any religion for that matter cannot be proven but it can't be disproved either. Everyone, even the most righteous atheists like Dawkins and Harris, admit that God is possible thus I don't think you can enforce the fact that it's not possible.
The justification for doing so is that religion is a tremendous source of violence, but I think fundamentalism of any nature is, that is trying to enforce the way people think and what they think about. Granted, hardcore atheists are probably much less violent than hardcore religious people, because there is no ultimate consequence for them not being violent but it's a dangerous concept none the less.
Keeping the church and government secular is a wholly different issue than telling ordinary people what to think. Again, I have no clue what the solution is.
|
See my problem with people who say atheists try to 'force their beliefs' on others don't seem to understand that is the entire point of all civilized human discussions.
Outside of this religious context, if a teacher or a scientist comes to you and tells you something that you didn't know/believe before, or something that goes against a current belief you have, and then proceeds to show you evidence and have a discussion/debate with you, he is essentially 'forcing his beliefs' on you. If a math teacher came up to you and said 'holy crap, they just found out that pi has a pattern to it in base 26171, it might be hard to believe initially, but if they showed the proof to you, it would seem undeniable. If you were about to bite into a sandwich and your friend stopped you, warning you that it has mayonnaise on it when you didn't see it, even though you're very allergic to mayonnaise, he has just forced a belief on you, and it may have saved you a lot of grief. Yet they have just 'forced a belief' on you. How is this a bad thing?
And please, the more I hear about fairies the more my head hurts. Yes, we know it's not 100% impossible that fairies or Santa Claus exist, but in normal conversation, when there's absolutely no evidence of something you don't simply say you 'don't know,' you say you 'don't believe.' I *don't believe* in a god in the same way that you all *don't believe* because I have never seen, felt, heard, or otherwise sensed any evidence for the existence of a god or gods.
Religious extremists are dangerous, but I think some of you underestimate the number of people in the United States who most Europeans would deem 'religious extremists.' Faith is by definition
'a belief in a hypothesis with no evidence supporting it.' Whenever you say you 'have faith that the sun will come up' or something along those lines, you seem to neglect the fact that we have mathematical proofs and the theory of gravity and a fairly good grasp of atomic reactions and the nature of the sun supporting you when you say 'it will rise again tomorrow (this runs contrary to the American South, which most likely will not rise again). Thats not even mentioning the fact that the sun has risen every other day in recorded human history. These are all the body of evidence supporting the hypothesis that the sun will come up. The thing is a lot of what people call 'faith' in other applications outside religion is not faith at all. There is no similar evidence for a belief in a god of any kind, let alone the very specific JudeoChristian god.
Mainstream religion paves the way for irrational thought, and when faith (a belief in something based on no evidence) combines with irrational thought and fanaticism, it's very, very bad for civilization.
|
United States22883 Posts
But it's simply not possible to remove it entirely, and on an individual basis it can be beneficial and comforting. The best you can do is try and reduce its effects on civilization. Irrational thought is one of the primary defense mechanisms of the human mind.
If a math teacher came up to you and said 'holy crap, they just found out that pi has a pattern to it in base 26171, it might be hard to believe initially, but if they showed the proof to you Again, you're trying to play hockey on a basketball court.
|
You're not very clear on the word 'it' here, so I'm going to assume you were referring to either irrational thought or ignorance. If you want people to remain ignorant, so be it. Jumping off a skyscraper and not believing in gravity doesn't help you, and neither does believing you can fly.
I don't think we can completely elliminate irrational thought, but I think its worth doing all we can to reduce it to as low a rate as possible. To me its as important a 'societal indicator' as literacy rate, crime rate, or political awareness, all of which can act on one another.
And yeah, I know I'm trying to play hockey on a baseball court. When a scientist becomes famous because of a theory he made and then another scientist tries to convince him that his theory is wrong, of course he won't want to believe it, but if the body of evidence is there and his experiments explain the observations better and have more predictive power than the first scientist, he may give up his belief. In effect, by discussing and hearing argument from the newer scientist, he has had the other's beliefs 'forced upon him.'
But these examples still don't get to the heart of the matter. My point I'm trying to defend is that very, very subtlely we all use the scientific method in our day-to-day lives because it's hard-wired into our brains, and whenever someone propose a radical alternative hypothesis (maybe the reason your car won't start is because you're completely and utterly out of gas!) you may be surprised.
Suddenly, however, if the hypothesis has to do with religion, everyone says someone is trying to force their beliefs on them. It's these pitiful attempts to avoid discourse and discussion that get to the heart of the matter. Many Christians (I don't say all) will just not argue and simply try to ignore any reasoning against god, or any evidence for any theory that may go against their beliefs.
Evolution goes against my creationist beliefs, so I'll just ignore the mountains of evidence supporting evolution. Gay people are obviously sinners who make a lifestyle choice and there is no chance that it's a biological condition. Abortions are always wrong because fetus's are cognizant and can feel pain like anyone, and mothers just need to deal with it and have their choice taken away. See how crazy this sounds?
But one of my favorite things is just that almost all Christians work under the assumption that God even exists in the first place. This postulate and axiom is completely unprovable under the scientific method, at the moment, but it is exactly as likely as the existance of fairies, Santa Claus etc. The null hypothesis is disbelief, not belief. You don't have to 'disprove' the existence of fairies, you have to prove that they do exist for someone to believe you. No, we've never said "There is no chance there is a god," like "there is no chance there are fairies."
If all of humanity worked under this 'I don't know' style of uncertainty, we wouldn't know about laws of physics, the predictive power of mathematics and statistics, electricity, pharmaceuticals and vaccines. We KNOW these things. They are proven enough that we live by them. We can hold a ball in front of us and say "this ball will fall to the ground," and drop it. If it doesn't fall then, it will be the first observed time this has ever happened, and Science will be in for some big changes. Just like we can say the ball will fall, we're merely saying "There are no fairies, and in the exact same way, there is no god."
|
United States22883 Posts
By "it" I meant religion.
I'm not trying to remove discourse. If someone wants to have a logical debate, then by all means you should point to the inadequacies in their argument. But what can you possibly do when they say they've felt it? Tell them they're just making it up and infuriate them? You're only making it less likely that they'll try to see your view if you do this. That's why being hard line about it is a mistake. It may be satisfying to be right, but it's detrimental to your cause.
The best I can come up with is Clifford's argument, that making that irrational, "gut" decisions is an unethical way of thinking. Just as a ship captain would not set sail based on a gut feeling without having the proper evidence that his ship is capable for the voyage.
Just like we can say the ball will fall, we're merely saying "There are no fairies, and in the exact same way, there is no god."
Well, there's a difference. The scientific method is used to provide evidence, regarding God the best we can show at the moment is lack of evidence. It's subtle distinction.
|
I like Jibba's posts in this thread: they show respect and lack of judgment. Kudos.
It really doesn't matter what we believe in, so long as we are compassionate towards each other.
|
If it makes you feel any better, your posts show lack of judgment too. 
On December 11 2007 10:20 Jibba wrote:
But in a way, you're a fundamentalist non-believer. You're actively trying to force your beliefs upon other people. Logically, it's apparent that the existence of God or any religion for that matter cannot be proven but it can't be disproved either. Everyone, even the most righteous atheists like Dawkins and Harris, admit that God is possible thus I don't think you can enforce the fact that it's not possible.
I don't think anyone is trying to enforce that God is completely impossible, only that it's incredibly unlikely for most conceptions of the Christian God to be true, given what is apparent in history and reality.
Atheists don't try to inoculate the young from religion by dishonest means, but you can't say the same about the way religions generally work. They clearly use dishonest means to indoctrinate their members into believing claims that cannot be backed up, tested, or verified. Atheists simply want people to abstain from propagating beliefs that have no reason to stand up except that others spread them through dishonest trickery (primarily of children). So you see, both sides are not equally "forcing their beliefs on others" as you put it. Atheism is a lack of belief, almost always because the evidence is insufficient ("strong atheism" being a straw man if you ask me, to send us on a semantics ride).
|
On December 11 2007 10:20 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +I'm not really interested in the God debate so much anymore, I rather destroy people's points of views when they are based on dogma all but the belief of a supernatural God. But in a way, you're a fundamentalist non-believer. You're actively trying to force your beliefs upon other people. Logically, it's apparent that the existence of God or any religion for that matter cannot be proven but it can't be disproved either. Everyone, even the most righteous atheists like Dawkins and Harris, admit that God is possible thus I don't think you can enforce the fact that it's not possible. The justification for doing so is that religion is a tremendous source of violence, but I think fundamentalism of any nature is, that is trying to enforce the way people think and what they think about. Granted, hardcore atheists are probably much less violent than hardcore religious people, because there is no ultimate consequence for them not being violent but it's a dangerous concept none the less. Keeping the church and government secular is a wholly different issue than telling ordinary people what to think. Again, I have no clue what the solution is.
I think you misunderstood, I said I love to argue about topics which are based on dogma with the exception of the existence of god. If you want to believe that there are souls on petri dishes and therefore you are against stem-cell research. I'm gonna have to own your argument.
Same with same sex marriage and adoption.
|
buddhism is the religion of the future
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 12 2007 02:53 Rev0lution wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 10:20 Jibba wrote:I'm not really interested in the God debate so much anymore, I rather destroy people's points of views when they are based on dogma all but the belief of a supernatural God. But in a way, you're a fundamentalist non-believer. You're actively trying to force your beliefs upon other people. Logically, it's apparent that the existence of God or any religion for that matter cannot be proven but it can't be disproved either. Everyone, even the most righteous atheists like Dawkins and Harris, admit that God is possible thus I don't think you can enforce the fact that it's not possible. The justification for doing so is that religion is a tremendous source of violence, but I think fundamentalism of any nature is, that is trying to enforce the way people think and what they think about. Granted, hardcore atheists are probably much less violent than hardcore religious people, because there is no ultimate consequence for them not being violent but it's a dangerous concept none the less. Keeping the church and government secular is a wholly different issue than telling ordinary people what to think. Again, I have no clue what the solution is. I think you misunderstood, I said I love to argue about topics which are based on dogma with the exception of the existence of god. If you want to believe that there are souls on petri dishes and therefore you are against stem-cell research. I'm gonna have to own your argument. Same with same sex marriage and adoption. Alright, well then you're arguing religion and I've got no problem with that. There's a difference between arguing religious beliefs and arguing the belief in God.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
I was wondering when TL.net would finally argue if there was a god or not.. hopefully we can come to a conclusion!
|
On December 12 2007 07:01 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I was wondering when TL.net would finally argue if there was a god or not.. hopefully we can come to a conclusion!
This is the sort of behavior that got you banned.
|
On December 12 2007 07:01 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I was wondering when TL.net would finally argue if there was a god or not.. hopefully we can come to a conclusion!
We can agree to disagree ;d
|
On December 11 2007 07:32 nA.Inky wrote:Meta, this isn't an issue I am especially well read on, but I do believe the problems you mention are more the result of Islamic fundamentalism than Islam itself. Any ideas, when taken to a great extreme, can be dangerous. Am I wrong in this particular case? I am open to the possibility, as I haven't read much about Islam in a long time. Still, I don't think muslims in most of the world are a threat. My feeling is that there are terrible examples of people from any background or ideology, but we can't generalize from them to everyone else. There are insane Christians, insane atheists, insane Muslims, insane capitalists, and insane socialists... You see? I won't pretend to be an expert on this subject though. You've read books on it and I have not. My World Religions class didn't make Islam out to be a problem at all, though. Personally, I don't fear Islam one bit. I am also one of those weird 9/11 conspiracy people, too, though.
These kind of things discredit your arguments.
The second statement a bit less than the others, but if you've done ANY research AT ALL, you'll see that fundamental Islam is THE ONLY Islam.
|
Maybe this list will help. A Posteriori Argument.
* Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
* For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
* The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
* The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
* The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.
|
On December 12 2007 11:19 mel_ee wrote:
Maybe this list will help. A Posteriori Argument.
* Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
* For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
* The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
* The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
* The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.
A lot of this seems convoluted to me, but I'll try to provide an argument to the best of my ability.
As for the first point, it's talking about the motion of objects in the universe?
Motion with no acceleration requires no "mover", it just happens. Why should something that is moving with constant velocity need to stop if nothing is there to stop it? Motion with acceleration implies not a god, but a Force, which acted upon the object of motion. Whatever applied this force can be considered the "mover", but the object applies the same force upon the "mover". As such, there are indeed an infinite number of movers. physics 101 lzol
The second point is up in the air, I guess. It deals with the origin of the universe. I don't think there necesarrily needed to be a god to originate the universe, but that's opinion.
The third point has to do with consciousness. It's the nature of every living thing to avoid death, in general, and does that not mean that they are aware of it? In any case, this implies NOTHING about God.
The fourth point basically says because the universe is so vast and complex, only a "perfect"ly complex being can understand it. Who's to say we aren't as complex and "perfect" as the universe? Perhaps not at this moment in time, but someday, as our knowledge grows, we will understand every single aspect of the universe.
The fifth point is pure speculation at best
|
=_= I dont know if im atheist or not, i live in a christian-based community, parents are christian..
i just dont like.. how christians live, you know?
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On December 12 2007 07:13 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2007 07:01 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I was wondering when TL.net would finally argue if there was a god or not.. hopefully we can come to a conclusion! This is the sort of behavior that got you banned.
A. I havent been banned.
B. If you are referring to the "temp ban" you are completely wrong. Rekrul banned me for an inside joke of which was later revoked. You have no basis for this statement and are completely wrong anyways.
My "behavior" was a sarcastic comment in a relgion blog, OH NO!
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 12 2007 13:20 Meta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2007 11:19 mel_ee wrote:
Maybe this list will help. A Posteriori Argument.
* Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
* For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
* The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
* The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
* The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.
A lot of this seems convoluted to me, but I'll try to provide an argument to the best of my ability. As for the first point, it's talking about the motion of objects in the universe? Motion with no acceleration requires no "mover", it just happens. Why should something that is moving with constant velocity need to stop if nothing is there to stop it? Motion with acceleration implies not a god, but a Force, which acted upon the object of motion. Whatever applied this force can be considered the "mover", but the object applies the same force upon the "mover". As such, there are indeed an infinite number of movers. physics 101 lzol The second point is up in the air, I guess. It deals with the origin of the universe. I don't think there necesarrily needed to be a god to originate the universe, but that's opinion. The third point has to do with consciousness. It's the nature of every living thing to avoid death, in general, and does that not mean that they are aware of it? In any case, this implies NOTHING about God. The fourth point basically says because the universe is so vast and complex, only a "perfect"ly complex being can understand it. Who's to say we aren't as complex and "perfect" as the universe? Perhaps not at this moment in time, but someday, as our knowledge grows, we will understand every single aspect of the universe. The fifth point is pure speculation at best It's actually talking about creation rather than motion (although I guess they could be interchangeable.) The main premises are everything that exists is either self sufficient or dependent on something else for creation, and an infinite regression of dependent objects is impossible, and therefore there needs to exist a necessary, non-dependent creator to cause everything, who presumably has always existed.
The main criticism is on premise 2, that an infinite amount of dependent creators is impossible. You can sort that out for yourself.
|
First of all, thank you for taking the time to give us this argument. Was this written from your memory or pasted from somewhere? I assume the latter because you didn't provide a source.
I will give you my honest response to the argument below, doing no research to try to address it. Hopefully this gives the below argument a good chance at convincing me, since I am going to face it in a completely vulnerable, "naked" state.
On December 12 2007 11:19 mel_ee wrote:
Maybe this list will help. A Posteriori Argument.
* Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
Do you believe this argument, and if not, why did you post it? This doesn't seem to follow to me, so I will be interested in your response. Acts could go on ad infinitum. If not, any one act could be the first one.
* For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
This seems to have the same problem as the above.
* The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
I think this needs to be explained a little more. Something is missing here before I can really see why this is supposed to follow. How do contingent beings imply the existence of a necessary being? There seem to be other explanations for contingent beings (they seem to be always made by manipulating real things in our minds, for instance, like a golden mountain. gold + mountain = contingent being golden mountain).
* The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
Again, I think I need more elaboration to know what you're talking about here. What are the graduated perfections of being. What's the evidence for them actually existing in the universe? And then why do we need a perfect being because those exist? This seems to have to do with the above proof, but both seem missing some details.
* The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.
One alternative explanation would be evolution (which is quite strong). Even if we had no theory of evolution, I do not think so-called evidence of design would imply a designer. Accidental cause of it all seems no more miraculous than a God designing it all.
|
On December 12 2007 15:46 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2007 07:13 Mindcrime wrote:On December 12 2007 07:01 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I was wondering when TL.net would finally argue if there was a god or not.. hopefully we can come to a conclusion! This is the sort of behavior that got you banned. A. I havent been banned. B. If you are referring to the "temp ban" you are completely wrong. Rekrul banned me for an inside joke of which was later revoked. You have no basis for this statement and are completely wrong anyways. My "behavior" was a sarcastic comment in a relgion blog, OH NO!
A. Did I saw you were given a permanent ban? No, I didn't. A temp ban is called a temp ban because it's a fucking temp ban
B. To quote Rekrul: "Sarcasm is okay but when you do it every day and make yourself sound like an annoying bitch: you get banned."
|
When someone says, "I believe in God" i think..."ok and out of the thousands of gods created, which one do you believe in again?"
Many civilisations throughout time have their own collections of gods. If they haven't created their own, then they probably worship a batch that has been introduced to them by a different nation.
All of these gods have their own stories of how they came about, what they can do and such, and i rate all of these stories, just because the sheer amount of them, to be all on the same level, even as modern religions such as christianity. You might think a monkey king helping out a blue person is insane, but to me i rate that just as insane as jesus coming back to life. I'm not saying they are 100% false, but are just as likely to be wrong as each other, no matter how jazzed up it is.
I don't believe in God or gods. I think it's extremely childish when:
"so...how is it that God can create worlds and people?"
"he's omnipotent"
"and how did he create the universe?"
"he's omnipotent, he can do ANYTHING"
I just think it's not even an arguement worth being called an arguement. It's just being asked a question and pointing the question into a brick wall, which seems to be allowed many times.
That's not to say i don't believe in anything like that though. It's the same with people that are certain that there is no afterlife, no gods, no soul no nothing. If we don't exactly know how we got here or what the universe is, then i think it's pretty stupid to rule absolutely anything that you can't see as false.
That being said, you could use that to argue the case of God, but i believe that for endless amount of anything that is entwined with life, i think it's pretty stupid to limit that thing as to one entity such as God. It could be so much more than God (no matter how all powerful you say he is) or it could be so much less.
|
United States22883 Posts
lugggy, he's combining the Cosmological argument with Intelligent Design mumbo jumbo.
The Cosmological argument is one of the oldest arguments for the existence of a "god", but it makes no distinction as to what type of god, besides an uncreated creator.
Then he makes a completely disjointed jump to a perfect God and a perfect, harmonious universe, neither of which has any place in the Cosmological argument but Intelligent Design supporters like to do it none the less. I have no idea if he actually believes in it, but if he does he'll point to some minute, but extremely complex coincidence and say the only explanation is that God designed it, even though in 50-100 years science will probably have the answer to it.
|
Interesting responses.
I believe in evolution, doesnt mean that im not a christian.
(catholics believe in evolution)
note: there is a HUGE difference from catholics and other christian religions, catholics are realist.
sry cant post more right now- busy
oh and the design thing. Why is it that birds make the same nest over and over, yet humans dont (houses)?
-this again is to the design-
Well there has to be something different in our bodies correct? So what is that difference?
|
Your right there is no real proof that God exists, but do you know why this is? Perhaps our mentality on God is like a mentality of a dog. A dog does not know global history or literature or math problems. Same way we cant comprehend how 7 days could be 30 billion years or if there is a heaven or hell. For me I became a Christian when I experienced a crazy crazy feeling at a so called "revival". This feeling is impossible to understand unless you are a true Christian and have accepted the beliefs of it.
|
On December 11 2007 04:53 ilovezil wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 04:36 lugggy wrote:On December 11 2007 04:32 ilovezil wrote:
I was going to write a lengthy post, but I don't have the right words for it. Basically, I believe in God but who am I to force that belief upon others, or allow others to force their belief upon me?
Do you think the right words are possible? I want to understand how you think God exists. What are you talking about when you say God, and what leads you to this belief? Can we retrace your steps and achieve it as well? etc. Well, I'll start by saying that I believe in an omnipotent and omniscient being that governs this universe. What led me to this belief? I'm sure my Christian upbringing had much to do with it, but that is not the sole reason why I believe. As I'd said before, I find it hard to come up with the proper words. In summary, the most damning evidence you can find to learn that God exists is by actually reaching for him, by actively seeking his presence. Too many times, I asked God "are you there?" and too many times, I failed. I suppose my faith can be best described as confused, but persistent. Even though I've been denied the truth I was seeking so many times when I tried to find God, I never quite gave up. I'm a stubborn guy, you see. Even now, I'm still searching for the whole truth; not just the question of "does God exist" anymore, but...the "big picture", if you will. If I can come up with better words later, I'll edit my post accordingly. But as I stated, the most convincing evidence that God exists is by a one-on-one relationship. I never considered myself an eloquent and quick-to-thought person, so that's the best I can do currently. I've come to respect both religious and non-religious people earnestly; we each have our own stories. Sure, we can try to convince each other of our beliefs, but as you can see, the result so far is the everlasting religion vs science war. Those who can carry out such a seemingly impossible task of understandingly and patiently coming to accept the other's belief is a virtue humans have yet to learn... That's all I have to say for now. I'll edit with a more substantiating(?) post later if I can come up with it. Oh, and what exactly are your intentions with this blog post, if I may ask?
ok... why in the hell does it have to be with "God" and not a one on one relationship with yourself? Oh I know! because then people would think you are crazy for "talking to yourself". Well guess what all you praying people: your talking to yourself so why not put your trust of "God" into yourself and live like that?
<--------------- atheist
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On December 13 2007 03:16 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2007 15:46 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On December 12 2007 07:13 Mindcrime wrote:On December 12 2007 07:01 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I was wondering when TL.net would finally argue if there was a god or not.. hopefully we can come to a conclusion! This is the sort of behavior that got you banned. A. I havent been banned. B. If you are referring to the "temp ban" you are completely wrong. Rekrul banned me for an inside joke of which was later revoked. You have no basis for this statement and are completely wrong anyways. My "behavior" was a sarcastic comment in a relgion blog, OH NO! A. Did I saw you were given a permanent ban? No, I didn't. A temp ban is called a temp ban because it's a fucking temp banB. To quote Rekrul: "Sarcasm is okay but when you do it every day and make yourself sound like an annoying bitch: you get banned."
haha chill out fucktard.
And like I said, the actual temp ban was for an inside joke. Any dig you read was him just name calling. And did you happen to notice the 2 week ban lasted a day? Guess not. Head up the ass syndrome I think! Anyways, dont defend something you are outside of the "know" on lil man!
|
On December 13 2007 10:20 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2007 03:16 Mindcrime wrote:On December 12 2007 15:46 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On December 12 2007 07:13 Mindcrime wrote:On December 12 2007 07:01 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I was wondering when TL.net would finally argue if there was a god or not.. hopefully we can come to a conclusion! This is the sort of behavior that got you banned. A. I havent been banned. B. If you are referring to the "temp ban" you are completely wrong. Rekrul banned me for an inside joke of which was later revoked. You have no basis for this statement and are completely wrong anyways. My "behavior" was a sarcastic comment in a relgion blog, OH NO! A. Did I saw you were given a permanent ban? No, I didn't. A temp ban is called a temp ban because it's a fucking temp banB. To quote Rekrul: "Sarcasm is okay but when you do it every day and make yourself sound like an annoying bitch: you get banned." haha chill out fucktard. And like I said, the actual temp ban was for an inside joke. Any dig you read was him just name calling. And did you happen to notice the 2 week ban lasted a day? Guess not. Head up the ass syndrome I think! Anyways, dont defend something you are outside of the "know" on lil man!
Okay, keep posting the same arrogant, sarcasm-laden bullshit in every thread! You're really amusing!
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 13 2007 08:13 mel_ee wrote:
oh and the design thing. Why is it that birds make the same nest over and over, yet humans dont (houses)?
-this again is to the design-
Well there has to be something different in our bodies correct? So what is that difference? What? Because humans have a brain that's far more developed than anything else in the animal kingdom? If that's the best reason to believe in design, I suggest you study the anatomy of the brain and psychology. We have foresight because of our large frontal lobe, something that no other animal has, and this leads to many, many more important things. You could also ask "how do humans learn to breathe" but you don't because it's so instinctive that we just write it off. That is what millions of years of evolution does, and anyone who doesn't learn to breathe is ended pretty quickly just like any bird who doesn't figure out how to make a nest.
And birds hardly make the same nest over and over. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
|
On December 13 2007 08:13 mel_ee wrote:
Interesting responses.
I believe in evolution, doesnt mean that im not a christian.
(catholics believe in evolution)
note: there is a HUGE difference from catholics and other christian religions, catholics are realist.
sry cant post more right now- busy
oh and the design thing. Why is it that birds make the same nest over and over, yet humans dont (houses)?
-this again is to the design-
Well there has to be something different in our bodies correct? So what is that difference?
It seems odd to call catholics realists considering their traditions in comparison with the orthodox siblings.
Nothing is more real than demonic possession, exorcism, and consuming the body and blood of the savior week after week.
|
yea i know our brains are far more developed...
I suggest you read what you just wrote. ^__^
birds make the same nest over and over and us humans become friggin architects.
Why did the humans get so advanced, who designed us to be like this? If you dont say god and you say "evolution" then why dont other animals evolve to where we are? Do they evolve slower and we evolve faster?
Oh and Catholic to the realist thing is simply a stab at other denominations of christianity.
|
Just because we design houses differently does not = advanced
Houses were just as good 2000 years ago as they are now, the only thing that has changed would be, i guess, the materials used.
And if you say that birds make the same nests over and over again, then seeing as how thats all they need to do to house their eggs, then humans make the same houses over and over again, for shelter.
Birds can use many different materials, just because it looks the same doesn't = the same.
I'm sure Jibba can put the above in a better format
|
On December 11 2007 06:49 nA.Inky wrote:
I liked reading your post, Mr. MonkeySpanker. Existential crises can be damn difficult, but I think we are stronger when we come out of them. Good for you!
I agree it does make you stronger after you overcome that mental obstacle.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 13 2007 17:35 mel_ee wrote:
yea i know our brains are far more developed...
I suggest you read what you just wrote. ^__^
birds make the same nest over and over and us humans become friggin architects.
Why did the humans get so advanced, who designed us to be like this? If you dont say god and you say "evolution" then why dont other animals evolve to where we are? Do they evolve slower and we evolve faster?
Oh and Catholic to the realist thing is simply a stab at other denominations of christianity. Evolution is not something that animals actively do. A single creature does not evolve, a species slowly does by making extremely minute genetic changes in its offspring and the changes that work survive, the changes that don't die off.
You're making the assumption that humans are a perfect animal, and you're not arguing intelligent design anymore - you're arguing creationism. I can't tell you where and why birds and humans differentiated because I'm a poli sci student with an interest in philosophy, not an evolutionary biologist.
There are two problems with going that route though. Eventually you will ask a question that science cannot answer, thus "proving" your belief in God, however in 50, 100, 500 years science may very well be able to answer the question. It's no different than 1,000 years ago claiming God makes the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth.
Second, assuming you're right and God is the force behind evolution, does that mean we should stop studying it and then where do we stop? Classical principles like Newtonian physics and other sciences appear to be natural law, but they too might just be the work of God. There is no possible way to make a distinction between a natural law and what is an act of God (even if you say God made the laws), but it seems to be far more beneficial to our lives to explore these things as if they were sciences rather than the work of God. If we just resign that God is responsible for them, then we'd become stagnant because we already "have" the answer. If we treat them as sciences, then we constantly strive to find better, more accurate answers that somehow correlate together, and we get rid of nasty things like the bubonic plague and maybe cancer and invent nifty things like computers and the internet and Starcraft.
|
I'm not sure if anyone was really arguing against this, but just to clear something up: human behavior, and the brain, in no way have provided any contradiction to evolutionary theory. In fact nothing has.
As for other arguments for God ("what if we're dogs"), try using your argument to prove something knowingly fictitious. If your method can affirm something you know is false (because you made it up), then your method does not provide any weight in favor of the existence of God because the method is garbage.
|
On December 13 2007 21:44 Jibba wrote:
[ I can't tell you where and why birds and humans differentiated because I'm a poli sci student with an interest in philosophy, not an evolutionary biologist.
Where = Earth.
Why = natrual selection.
|
On December 13 2007 17:35 mel_ee wrote:
yea i know our brains are far more developed...
I suggest you read what you just wrote. ^__^
birds make the same nest over and over and us humans become friggin architects.
Why did the humans get so advanced, who designed us to be like this? If you dont say god and you say "evolution" then why dont other animals evolve to where we are? Do they evolve slower and we evolve faster?
Oh and Catholic to the realist thing is simply a stab at other denominations of christianity.
When species evolve, they don't necessarily become more advanced, they just become better suited to the environment in which they live. A species might remain morphologically unchanged for millions of years if there is no selective pressures. I suggest you research human evolution if you think that we were designed. The fossil record alone shows that we weren't.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 06 2008 09:53 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2007 21:44 Jibba wrote:
[ I can't tell you where and why birds and humans differentiated because I'm a poli sci student with an interest in philosophy, not an evolutionary biologist.
Where = Earth. Why = natrual selection.
First, you bumped a 2 month old thread for no reason. Second, that response answers nothing. How is the answer just "natural selection" when both species are clearly alive today? Do you understand how natural selection works?
BTW, you never responded in that other thread where I pointed out your inability to debate and properly comprehend my posts.
|
I can't believe a lot of people on TL are atheists. Damn 71% not believing in God.
I do though. I was Catholic since birth and although I can't be sure, I hope there is one.
|
On February 06 2008 10:43 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2008 09:53 rei wrote:On December 13 2007 21:44 Jibba wrote:
[ I can't tell you where and why birds and humans differentiated because I'm a poli sci student with an interest in philosophy, not an evolutionary biologist.
Where = Earth. Why = natrual selection. First, you bumped a 2 month old thread for no reason. Second, that response answers nothing. How is the answer just "natural selection" when both species are clearly alive today? Do you understand how natural selection works? BTW, you never responded in that other thread where I pointed out your inability to debate and properly comprehend my posts.
Natural selection doesn't mean a species has to become extinct, it just means that there are selective pressures that favor certain traits over others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
