To the atheists of mx

[siva_chair]

Now your arguming semantics... one is a postive statement, one is a negative statement, but they both amount to the same general thing, and both are supported by the lack of proof...

No, there is a fundamental difference in not believing in God and believing in the non-existence of God. One does not believe in the affirmative, and the other believes in the non-existence. Saying "I do not believe in God" is not saying one believes God does not exist.

An agnostic cannot say "I believe God doesn't exist," as then they would be considered and athiest and not an agnostic.

Materially, we are infinitely better off than at any other point in human history.

Materialism is half our problem. I reject many of the basic assumptions of civilization, especially the importance of materiel possessions.

Yes we have.

I know, I never said we haven't always been social creatures.

Yes, there's a reason early man died at 25.

Well, that is just an educated guess, but ok.

We make beauty and culture that was impossible to pre-civilised society.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It's a trade off that I'm more than willing to make.

Well that is fine for you. I was simply saying that if I were capable and were able to, I would much rather live in simpler times than ones so ripe with global conflict and division. I would much rather live in small societal groups providing for my family and those I love.

Also, I never said technology/material progress was inherently bad. I do not believe conflict and division are neccessary for creativity. In fact, I believe creativity flourishes where conflict and division are at a minimal or not present at all.

This is the funniest thing any Christian ever said.

Well, let us look at the scenario here:

First, we have the theist, whose beliefs can either be justified logically or is completely an act of faith.

Second, we have the agnostic, who is always going to be justified logically as the plea of ignorance (i.e. saying "I do not know") is never going to be irrational and illogical as it is not an assuming into the unknown.

Third, we have the atheist, who assumes the non-existence of God/gods. That is always going to be an assumption into the unknown, and is never going to be rational, as the lack of evidence is not evidence for the non-existence of something.


The only way one can hold atheism as a logical stance is by knowing everything/all variables/ect. whereas theists could have logical grounds/justification via personal experience. Keep in mind we aren't discussing whether one can prove the existence of God to another, we are talking about the logical grounds for personal belief.

He's saying that a lack of proof supports agnosticism, not atheism.

Exactly.

No. It supports both. If you want to prove something exists... how do you do that? You provide proof of its existence. If there is non, you can't provide proof, and therefor the logical deduction is that it doesn't exist. A athiest would say that proves his point. An Agnostic would say yep, but ya' never know, proof may arise in the future.

No, you see the correct logical deduction would be that there is no present proof for the existence of something. Assuming anything past that is an act of faith.

To deduce something does not exist, one must possess all knowlege, as just because there is not evidence for unicorns here on earth, it does not mean there isn't elsewhere in the universe. This is why athiesm is an assumption into the unknown.

[Der Übermensch]

No, you see the correct logical deduction would be that there is no present proof for the existence of something. Assuming anything past that is an act of faith.
I don't know what you call logic, or what kind of logic you mean, but I am, for the record, arguing along the same lines as a court of law. Innocent Until Proven Guilty would be a good comparison.

To deduce something does not exist, one must possess all knowlege, as just because there is not evidence for unicorns here on earth, it does not mean there isn't elsewhere in the universe. This is why athiesm is an assumption into the unknown.
So... its impossible to be logical unless you know everything?

Atheism is an assumption that we don't know something because that something doesn't exist, and therefor can't be known.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well, let us look at the scenario here:

First, we have the theist, whose beliefs can either be justified logically or is completely an act of faith.

Second, we have the agnostic, who is always going to be justified logically as the plea of ignorance (i.e. saying "I do not know") is never going to be irrational and illogical as it is not an assuming into the unknown.

Third, we have the atheist, who assumes the non-existence of God/gods. That is always going to be an assumption into the unknown, and is never going to be rational, as the lack of evidence is not evidence for the non-existence of something.


The only way one can hold atheism as a logical stance is by knowing everything/all variables/ect. whereas theists could have logical grounds/justification via personal experience. Keep in mind we aren't discussing whether one can prove the existence of God to another, we are talking about the logical grounds for personal belief.


You know just because you substitute the words "logical conclusion" with "assumption into the unknown" it doesn't mean that your stance is any less stupid.

[RockAndRoll]

No. It supports both. If you want to prove something exists... how do you do that? You provide proof of its existence. If there is non, you can't provide proof, and therefor the logical deduction is that it doesn't exist. A athiest would say that proves his point. An Agnostic would say yep, but ya' never know, proof may arise in the future.
Argument from ignorance is actually a logical fallacy, not the logical deduction. I've said this time and time again on this forums, yet you guys never listen, maybe you'll take it from someone else...

The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. He adds, A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. (Copi 1953)

[RockAndRoll]

I don't know what you call logic, or what kind of logic you mean, but I am, for the record, arguing along the same lines as a court of law. Innocent Until Proven Guilty would be a good comparison.

Courts of law are hardly some great beacon of logical deduction, they've got other things at the table. You might take your logic instead from somewhere else. Perhaps, oh I don't know, a logician, possibly even one named Irving Copi.

As for all the big bang the theory isn't really that the universe was created by gases, and interestingly enough some (maybe many or most, I don't know) cosmoligists believe that the net energy (and thus matter) which created the universe may actually be close to 0.

[sexymuffin]

I dunno, I don't think it really matters that much what we believe in or if we're right or wrong.

None of us really know the answer so everything in this thread is kind of pointless.

I'd much rather hear people talk about their own orginal ideas about religion and the afterlife then listen to them argue someone else's ideas from thousands of years ago. All of these arguements just inevitably run in neat little circles until they tire themselves out becuase it really is a pointless topic.

Whether you claim to be christian or bhuddist or athiest I think you're wasting time. Sure, I think the idea of a God is unlikely, but becuase nobody really knows I just figure I'll just do what I think is right when I feel obligated to do it. Living life like that is fairly simple. I don't plaster names like "athiest" or "agnostic" on myself even if that's what the word means becuase I don't really see spirituality as something that's that important in my life.

I enjoy things like intimacy, comfort, conversation. All of which can be found within religion, but not exclusively. I just let my five senses tell me what feels good and go with that. That's my God i suppose, my intuition.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Not caring seems more logical, hence agnosticism. If that makes sense.Apatheism*

[Futue te Ipsum]

He cares so much that he had get our attention through the death of Jesus Christ.As evidence goes, a 2000 year old man whose actions were largely un-reported by anybody until a long time after his death is piss poor.

[EJinCho]

As evidence goes, a 2000 year old man whose actions were largely un-reported by anybody until a long time after his death is piss poor.

Actually he was frequently reported. He had to have been, he claimed to be "the messiah". so A LOT of eyes must have been on him. He also traveled and performed healings and taught about the bible. Even till this day there is a lot of info about him. Simple facts like how he was a carpenter and how he died at age 33. Who his human parents were and all that..

[Futue te Ipsum]

Actually he was frequently reported. He had to have been, he claimed to be "the messiah". so A LOT of eyes must have been on him. He also traveled and performed healings and taught about the bible. Even till this day there is a lot of info about him. Simple facts like how he was a carpenter and how he died at age 33. Who his human parents were and all that..Them reporting that he thought he was the messiah or that he was nailed to a cross =/= them reporting that he turned water into wine or cured a leper.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Fair enough. Now all that remains is for you to prove that a belief in God is illogical. Which, frankly, you failed to in your above post.Proof is for alcohol, mathematics, and Fundamentalists.

[PerpetualBurn]

Argument from ignorance is actually a logical fallacy, not the logical deduction. I've said this time and time again on this forums, yet you guys never listen, maybe you'll take it from someone else...

As I've pointed out, the argument from ignorance does not have to apply in a situation where a conclusion needs to be made. The most common example of this is the legal system - innocent till proven guilty.

Withholding judgement on God is a practical impossibility as his existence would affect the way in which I live my life. I must decide.

An example I have used before is to assume that you receive a call on your mobile phone. The person on the other end tells you that there is a vortex on the other side of your bedroom door, and if you open it to leave, you will surely die. Withholding judgement is not an option, as you cannot remain in your room forever. Surely, in the absence of evidence for this vortex, you would conclude the call to be nonsense and open the door.

[Smokey D]

Materialism is half our problem. I reject many of the basic assumptions of civilization, especially the importance of materiel possessions.

By materially, I mean in terms of standards of living. If you think improving standards of living is a bad thing, then this is a pointless argument.


I know, I never said we haven't always been social creatures.

Hrm, there may have been a misunderstanding.


Well, that is just an educated guess, but ok.

Well, the correlation between increasing measures of civilisation and higher life expectency seems absolutely stupid to ignore.



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And we've made a lot of it to behold. Not that we have a monopoly on it or anything.


Well that is fine for you. I was simply saying that if I were capable and were able to, I would much rather live in simpler times than ones so ripe with global conflict and division. I would much rather live in small societal groups providing for my family and those I love.

What times would those be? The times when only 3/10 children reached adulthood? Or maybe when we killed our neighbours for not believing in our God or liturgy? Perhaps when even the wealthy suffered malnutrition and famine was a constant threat?

If you want to embrace some primitivist sort of existence, go join the Montana Milita or something. But I don't know what you're doing on a computer, or why you're studying audio engineering.

Also, I never said technology/material progress was inherently bad. I do not believe conflict and division are neccessary for creativity. In fact, I believe creativity flourishes where conflict and division are at a minimal or not present at all.

In a world with no competition, there is no impetus to improve.

[Der Übermensch]

Courts of law are hardly some great beacon of logical deduction, they've got other things at the table. You might take your logic instead from somewhere else. Perhaps, oh I don't know, a logician, possibly even one named Irving Copi
I merely brought it up to point out the analogy... you did get what I meant, no?

Argument from ignorance is actually a logical fallacy, not the logical deduction. I've said this time and time again on this forums, yet you guys never listen, maybe you'll take it from someone else...
I am not talking at all about making the correct choice, only the logical one for the information given. In the big picture, yes, it may be illogical, but if you are ignorant of a fact, and use what you know to make a guess, that guess is logical, even if illogical if all facts were to be known.

[coheneran]

Actually he was frequently reported. He had to have been, he claimed to be "the messiah". so A LOT of eyes must have been on him. He also traveled and performed healings and taught about the bible. Even till this day there is a lot of info about him. Simple facts like how he was a carpenter and how he died at age 33. Who his human parents were and all that..

All that stuff is written in the BIBLE. They're hardly archaeological proof.

[RockAndRoll]

As I've pointed out, the argument from ignorance does not have to apply in a situation where a conclusion needs to be made. The most common example of this is the legal system - innocent till proven guilty.

Withholding judgement on God is a practical impossibility as his existence would affect the way in which I live my life. I must decide.

An example I have used before is to assume that you receive a call on your mobile phone. The person on the other end tells you that there is a vortex on the other side of your bedroom door, and if you open it to leave, you will surely die. Withholding judgement is not an option, as you cannot remain in your room forever. Surely, in the absence of evidence for this vortex, you would conclude the call to be nonsense and open the door.
Practicality is an entirely different issue though. In practical terms there is next to nothing seperating an agnostic from an atheist. Agnostic isn't really a grouping of practical beliefs but of philosophical ones, it's more about reserved contemplation than it is about how to live ones life. As I've already said in my agnosticism thread (along with pretty much every other point that's been brough up, which is why I wish you guys would've at least gone and read it ya bastards) from a practical standpoint I am an atheist as with no proof it is the logical practical standpoint. But I'm not talking practically, I'm speaking philosophically. If you're only concerned with the practical, that's fine, but realise that on a philosophical level your point is wrong.

[Sun Ray™]

My problem with the Big Bang is this:

If the Universe was created by floating gasses, what created the gasses?

The real answer is probably something like: Odin farted.

What created Odin?

Turtles all the way down, my friend.

[RockAndRoll]

As I've pointed out, the argument from ignorance does not have to apply in a situation where a conclusion needs to be made. The most common example of this is the legal system - innocent till proven guilty.

Withholding judgement on God is a practical impossibility as his existence would affect the way in which I live my life. I must decide.

An example I have used before is to assume that you receive a call on your mobile phone. The person on the other end tells you that there is a vortex on the other side of your bedroom door, and if you open it to leave, you will surely die. Withholding judgement is not an option, as you cannot remain in your room forever. Surely, in the absence of evidence for this vortex, you would conclude the call to be nonsense and open the door.
Practicality is an entirely different issue though. In practical terms there is next to nothing seperating an agnostic from an atheist. Agnostic isn't really a grouping of practical beliefs but of philosophical ones, it's more about reserved contemplation than it is about how to live ones life. As I've already said in my agnosticism thread (along with pretty much every other point that's been brough up, which is why I wish you guys would've at least gone and read it ya bastards) from a practical standpoint I am an atheist as with no proof it is the logical practical standpoint. But I'm not talking practically, I'm speaking philosophically. If you're only concerned with the practical, that's fine, but realise that on a philosophical level your point is wrong.

EDIT:
I merely brought it up to point out the analogy... you did get what I meant, no?
I am not talking at all about making the correct choice, only the logical one for the information given. In the big picture, yes, it may be illogical, but if you are ignorant of a fact, and use what you know to make a guess, that guess is logical, even if illogical if all facts were to be known.
I think I see the problem now. Once again you're speaking in terms of practicality, as opposed to myself (and also Siva *I think*). Hence you're taking your reasoning from places dealing with present day concerns and practical matters on which a choice must be made. Which is fine, but I think it's confused us all as it's got us all arguing about slightly different things.

Damnit people this is why you should take the time to read my thread!

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I enjoy things like intimacy, comfort, conversation. All of which can be found within religion, but not exclusively. I just let my five senses tell me what feels good and go with that. That's my God i suppose, my intuition.

To quote a Himalayan monk from Futurama, "Oooh, how convenient! An excuse for God that doesn't involve pointing a telescope into space for the next thousand years! Get back to work."

:p

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

My problem with the Big Bang is this:

If the Universe was created by floating gasses, what created the gasses?

The real answer is probably something like: Odin farted.

Given infinite time and non-zero possibilities it's quite plauable that the big band just existed one day. It was bound to happen eventually.

[PerpetualBurn]

Practicality is an entirely different issue though. In practical terms there is next to nothing seperating an agnostic from an atheist. Agnostic isn't really a grouping of practical beliefs but of philosophical ones, it's more about reserved contemplation than it is about how to live ones life. As I've already said in my agnosticism thread (along with pretty much every other point that's been brough up, which is why I wish you guys would've at least gone and read it ya bastards) from a practical standpoint I am an atheist as with no proof it is the logical practical standpoint. But I'm not talking practically, I'm speaking philosophically. If you're only concerned with the practical, that's fine, but realise that on a philosophical level your point is wrong.


Perhaps if we were going to be completely strict then maybe I'd accept agnosticism, but then you would never be able to argue against the existence of anything, which would be too irritating for me to reduce myself to.

My problem with the Big Bang is this:

If the Universe was created by floating gasses, what created the gasses?

The real answer is probably something like: Odin farted.

Your problem with the Big Bang is that you clearly have no comprehension of the theory.

[SubtleDagger]

Perhaps if we were going to be completely strict then maybe I'd accept agnosticism, but then you would never be able to argue against the existence of anything, which would be too irritating for me to reduce myself to.

I'm agnostic and I am usually more concerned with people claiming that something exists with no actual evidence to back it up. I don't see the point in arguing against the existence of something trivial because it puts you in the same position as those arguing for it.

[Ben Hur]

I'm agnostic and I am usually more concerned with people claiming that something exists with no actual evidence to back it up. I don't see the point in arguing against the existence of something trivial because it puts you in the same position as those arguing for it.

Cheese graders talk.

[SubtleDagger]

Thanks for the completely random and irrelevant post.

[RockAndRoll]

Perhaps if we were going to be completely strict then maybe I'd accept agnosticism, but then you would never be able to argue against the existence of anything, which would be too irritating for me to reduce myself to.
You can still argue against the existence of things, there are other methods.
Besides there are many things where people stick to practicality instead of philosophy, God just happens to be an issue that falls on both turfs.

I agree that you're right in terms of practicality, it's just I've usually taken the argument from a philosophical stand point.

[siva_chair]

As I've pointed out, the argument from ignorance does not have to apply in a situation where a conclusion needs to be made. The most common example of this is the legal system - innocent till proven guilty.

Withholding judgement on God is a practical impossibility as his existence would affect the way in which I live my life. I must decide.

No you don't have to.

An example I have used before is to assume that you receive a call on your mobile phone. The person on the other end tells you that there is a vortex on the other side of your bedroom door, and if you open it to leave, you will surely die. Withholding judgement is not an option, as you cannot remain in your room forever. Surely, in the absence of evidence for this vortex, you would conclude the call to be nonsense and open the door.

You certainly do not have to leave your room, nor do you have to leave your room with the belief or disbelief of the vortex on the other side. Witholding judgement is always an option. Staying in your room based on ignorance may not be practical, but it is most certainly logically sound, while assuming there is no vortex is faith. Human beings utilize it all the time whether they realize it or not. There is no shame in that.

By materially, I mean in terms of standards of living. If you think improving standards of living is a bad thing, then this is a pointless argument.

That is fine. You also have to realize that not all people have the same perception of what improving the standard of living entails.


Hrm, there may have been a misunderstanding.

I believe there was. I think you may have misread what I posted. Happens to me all the time, so no worries.:thumb:


Well, the correlation between increasing measures of civilisation and higher life expectency seems absolutely stupid to ignore.

And the raise in the threat of global extermination seems even sillier to me to ignore.

I don't need to live to be really old to enjoy life.



And we've made a lot of it to behold. Not that we have a monopoly on it or anything.

Sure, but once again creativity is not a by-product of civilization.


What times would those be?

I'm thinking I would like to have lived an Amerindian way of life before the white man came.

The times when only 3/10 children reached adulthood?

It may be. I don't know the infant death rates off the top of my head.

Or maybe when we killed our neighbours for not believing in our God or liturgy?

Hey we still do that. We still bicker over whose interpretation of God is correct, and for some reason, people still feel the need to resort to violence and hatred over the difference in opinion.

Perhaps when even the wealthy suffered malnutrition and famine was a constant threat?

No, as I don't think most Amerindian tribes had "the wealthy," and most didn't suffer from malnutrition and famine.

If you want to embrace some primitivist sort of existence, go join the Montana Milita or something.

Except I would still have to deal with all the problems of modern society, and thus would completely defeat the point.

But I don't know what you're doing on a computer, or why you're studying audio engineering.

Because I am a being that is in an environment, and I must adapt to survive. People will always try and find/create things that bring them joy, regardless of the environment they are forced to live in. Why wouldn't I?

In a world with no competition, there is no impetus to improve.

That is untrue. Just because "improvement" has come within competetive areas, doesn't mean it is impossible without it. I certainly don't write music or paint or draw to create something better than another, yet I still create. There is no competition, yet these things come to be. Competition is not a prerequisite for creation.

I am not talking at all about making the correct choice, only the logical one for the information given. In the big picture, yes, it may be illogical, but if you are ignorant of a fact, and use what you know to make a guess, that guess is logical, even if illogical if all facts were to be known.

No, you see assuming the non-existence based on the given facts would still be an argument from ignorance and would be a logical fallacy.

I think I see the problem now. Once again you're speaking in terms of practicality, as opposed to myself (and also Siva *I think*). Hence you're taking your reasoning from places dealing with present day concerns and practical matters on which a choice must be made. Which is fine, but I think it's confused us all as it's got us all arguing about slightly different things.

You are correct.

The only thing I would add is that a choice never HAS to be made. Perhaps a choice must be made if one wishes to continue to live/exist/ect., but if one wishes to be completely logical and not rely on any faith whatsoever, than a choice does not have to be made (at least in a positive/negative sense).

^I hope that made sense, as I don't know if I worded that very well.:p

Damnit people this is why you should take the time to read my thread!

I read it, and really, you did a great job, so I have nothing that I feel I can add.

Perhaps if we were going to be completely strict then maybe I'd accept agnosticism, but then you would never be able to argue against the existence of anything, which would be too irritating for me to reduce myself to.

Then you fail to be completely logical in your beliefs and instead shape your worldview/perception on personal likes and dislikes (which may or may not be logical).

You can still argue against the existence of things, there are other methods.

Just not really with the issue of God, as we cannot really control every variable there.

I agree that you're right in terms of practicality, it's just I've usually taken the argument from a philosophical stand point.

Which is what this discussion was about, as we were discussing the logical merits of theism/agnosticism/atheism, not how they determine what actions we take in our life.

[RockAndRoll]

You are correct.

The only thing I would add is that a choice never HAS to be made. Perhaps a choice must be made if one wishes to continue to live/exist/ect., but if one wishes to be completely logical and not rely on any faith whatsoever, than a choice does not have to be made (at least in a positive/negative sense).

^I hope that made sense, as I don't know if I worded that very well.:p
I caught your meaning. :thumb:

I read it, and really, you did a great job, so I have nothing that I feel I can add.
Damn, I guess I'm just too good for my own good. :p




Just not really with the issue of God, as we cannot really control every variable there.
Yes, as I've pointed out in my other thread there are arguments against specific conceptions of God, but no one has been able to succesfully prove that no God exists. Partly due to the nature of the concept and partly due to the extreme variety of people's conceptions disproving God would be a formidable task to say the least.


Which is what this discussion was about, as we were discussing the logical merits of theism/agnosticism/atheism, not how they determine what actions we take in our life.
Well then there you go :thumb:

[siva_chair]

I caught your meaning. :thumb:

Damn, I guess I'm just too good for my own good. :p


Yes, as I've pointed out in my other thread there are arguments against specific conceptions of God, but no one has been able to succesfully prove that no God exists. Partly due to the nature of the concept and partly due to the extreme variety of people's conceptions disproving God would be a formidable task to say the least.



Well then there you go :thumb:

All I have to say about that is: :thumb:

[RockAndRoll]

:lol: Oh siva, if only all of our discussions could end this way. :p

[Iskandar]

My problem with the Big Bang is this:

If the Universe was created by floating gasses, what created the gasses?
Science believes that matter has always existed and cannot be destroyed.
In a world with no competition, there is no impetus to improve.
Not true at all. What about the need to improve in order to adapt to new circumstances?

[lunchforthesky]

My problem with the Big Bang is this:

If the Universe was created by floating gasses, what created the gasses

who created god???
or was he just there :rolleyes:

[siva_chair]

:lol: Oh siva, if only all of our discussions could end this way. :p

They can, once a sense of mutual agreement or understanding is reached.:thumb:

Not true at all. What about the need to improve in order to adapt to new circumstances?

Well, that could be competition, as you are competing with a new circumstance in which you have to adapt.

But, like I have said, I personally do not believe that competition or conflict is neccessary for creativity.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

On first glance, competition is the end of creativity; man cannot paint when he is too busy fighting for food, land, democracy, freedom, oil, and whatever else our leaders fight over nowadays. However, just as gas does not behave in an ideal way, neither do people. True communism could never work and likewise, creativity would be crushed by a complete removal of competition. Perhaps the biggest motivation for any artist is people enjoying their work; a musician lives for the applause at the end of a show, an artist thrives on the sale of a piece of their work to someone who will hang it in their house and enjoy it. The artist must compete for the attention of the people; even the artist with the very most of integrity sees no problem with advertising what they do, even though someone more pedantic than i might see this as looking for profit and this "selling out". But this is not the reason for advertising. It is because the artist thrives on the enjoyment of others.

The idea of a world without competition implies to me man is sat on his unbreakable chair with a dumb waiter lifting him his food and his wine and his cigars without a person in sight in any direction. and at first, man might paint or sing or dance to amuse himself, but soon he would get frustrated and tired of his exploits. There would be no encouragement to continue.

What would your idea of a world without competition or comflict look like, siva?

[siva_chair]

On first glance, competition is the end of creativity; man cannot paint when he is too busy fighting for food, land, democracy, freedom, oil, and whatever else our leaders fight over nowadays. However, just as gas does not behave in an ideal way, neither do people. True communism could never work and likewise, creativity would be crushed by a complete removal of competition. Perhaps the biggest motivation for any artist is people enjoying their work; a musician lives for the applause at the end of a show, an artist thrives on the sale of a piece of their work to someone who will hang it in their house and enjoy it. The artist must compete for the attention of the people; even the artist with the very most of integrity sees no problem with advertising what they do, even though someone more pedantic than i might see this as looking for profit and this "selling out". But this is not the reason for advertising. It is because the artist thrives on the enjoyment of others.

The idea of a world without competition implies to me man is sat on his unbreakable chair with a dumb waiter lifting him his food and his wine and his cigars without a person in sight in any direction. and at first, man might paint or sing or dance to amuse himself, but soon he would get frustrated and tired of his exploits. There would be no encouragement to continue.

What would your idea of a world without competition or comflict look like, siva?


Well, for this to take place, there would first have to be a radical change in the psychology of man. Some say this is impossible, but I don't, as if one person has the capability to do it, than everyone does. It would mean the end of conflict within the psychology of man. I feel this is where real creativity is spawned. I do not have time to go into detail on this now, but I would be more than happy to discuss it with you some other time (perhaps not in this thread as it would sidetrack the general topic far too much I feel). Perhaps on an IM service or something.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Well, for this to take place, there would first have to be a radical change in the psychology of man. Some say this is impossible, but I don't, as if one person has the capability to do it, than everyone does. It would mean the end of conflict within the psychology of man. I feel this is where real creativity is spawned. I do not have time to go into detail on this now, but I would be more than happy to discuss it with you some other time (perhaps not in this thread as it would sidetrack the general topic far too much I feel). Perhaps on an IM service or something.

email is cool.

moaningchris (at) gmail (dot) com

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

OK guys, new question...

Being the god sports we are, we volunteer for placeofwork/school's "experience another religion for a day" day. Having enjoyed a fun day of helping wasps or praying 5 times a day...

What do we show?

[coheneran]

That ALL religion is a waste of time, not just Christianity?

[siva_chair]

That ALL religion is a waste of time, not just Christianity?

Or that athiests are missing out of much cultural enrichment as their disbelief in something higher than themselves leaves their views smug, arrogant, monotonous, and boring, and that they reflect this outwardly to everyone they meet? :cool:

[Joey Hoser]

Or that athiests are missing out of much cultural enrichment as their disbelief in something higher than themselves leaves their views smug, arrogant, monotonous, and boring, and that they reflect this outwardly to everyone they meet? :cool:

If that's the case, I'd rather be smug and arrogant than think I'm a douche who is worthy of nothing but eternal damnation.

[coheneran]

Or that athiests are missing out of much cultural enrichment as their disbelief in something higher than themselves leaves their views smug, arrogant, monotonous, and boring, and that they reflect this outwardly to everyone they meet? :cool:

Hey, I like Arabs, just not their religion. I happen to be a big fan of Jewish folk culture, just keep that rabbi away from me!

[ashman]

My problem with the Big Bang is this:

If the Universe was created by floating gasses, what created the gasses?

The real answer is probably something like: Odin farted.

So, you want to know what created the big bang or what started those chain of events. Modern Understanding states that when the Big Bang happened, there was no before, because time didn't exist. So trying to figure out where everything came from and what came before is irrelevent.

If you want to think about the pre-big bang universe, you'll have to 'learn' a different 'logic' (as in 1 + 1 = infinity, which strangly enough, leaves a possibility for God to exist :p ).

[coheneran]

Alternatively, one could use the ever-helpful algebraic technique of "simplification" and just say that the Universe has always existed and that nothing created it.

[Smokey D]

That is fine. You also have to realize that not all people have the same perception of what improving the standard of living entails.

No, standard of living is an economic term with a set definition refering to material conditons.


And the raise in the threat of global extermination seems even sillier to me to ignore.

The world could be wiped out by a comet tomorrow and we wouldn't know about it until after it happened. While we should not trivialise the dangers of modern weaponry, living in fear of worldwide destruction is pointless.

I don't need to live to be really old to enjoy life.

Seeing your children live past their infancy might be nice.



Sure, but once again creativity is not a by-product of civilization.

I disagree. Without civilisation, however limited, there would be no time to do anything other than subsist. One of the markers of a highly developed society is its ability to produce a surplus of food on smaller plots of land with less people involved in its production. This allows for greater specialisation and therefore enables more people to take more time to create.


I'm thinking I would like to have lived an Amerindian way of life before the white man came.

American Indian societies self-destructed or terminated another with appalling regularity.

Hey we still do that. We still bicker over whose interpretation of God is correct, and for some reason, people still feel the need to resort to violence and hatred over the difference in opinion.

Bickering is different to killing.

And yes, it still exists in some places and its horrible. But that doesn't mean advances haven't been made.


No, as I don't think most Amerindian tribes had "the wealthy," and most didn't suffer from malnutrition and famine.

Most tribes did have divisions of wealth, but they weren't nearly as obvious or entrenched as in our society. But their good nutrition and abundant food supply was dependent on climatic factors -- if the weather was particuarly harsh one year or generally bad successive years, their society would collapse. In fact, this happened with horrifying regularity over the course of human habitation in the Americas and to think it didn't is to buy into a 19th Century myth that native peoples the world ever were inherently more noble and in better communion with their surroundings when modern anthropology has demonstrated this to be, at best, selective fact taking, or, at worse, utterly false.

Because I am a being that is in an environment, and I must adapt to survive. People will always try and find/create things that bring them joy, regardless of the environment they are forced to live in. Why wouldn't I?

Because you'd starve if you weren't looking for food.

That is untrue. Just because "improvement" has come within competetive areas, doesn't mean it is impossible without it. I certainly don't write music or paint or draw to create something better than another, yet I still create. There is no competition, yet these things come to be. Competition is not a prerequisite for creation.

Conflict =/=competition.

Conflict in this context is any adversity that one must overcome, be it a lack in food or an enemy who burns your farms.

[Iskandar]

Well, that could be competition, as you are competing with a new circumstance in which you have to adapt.
I think the 'D meant inter-human competition.
Alternatively, one could use the ever-helpful algebraic technique of "simplification" and just say that the Universe has always existed and that nothing created it.
Occam's Razor.:thumb:

I'm a fan of that theory.

[Smokey D]

No no, Seth got it right, but I should have used conflict, not competition.

Of course, in evolutionary terms, competition is necessary as well.

[ashman]

Alternatively, one could use the ever-helpful algebraic technique of "simplification" and just say that the Universe has always existed and that nothing created it.

Again, that's using logic that uses our laws of Physics.

[chimp_spanner]

The paradox of a Universe without beggining or end is purely a human phenomena IMO. We only view time as a linear thing. Things start, and then end. But when you consider alot of the theories and ideas floating around regarding quantum mechanics, additional dimensions, block time, etc., then time ceases to become something that needs to have a before and after, or function in a way we're familiar with. We already know that the perception of time is relative to the individual, so it is not a universal constant. I guess it's equally possible that it can work in even stranger ways on a bigger scale.

Either way I try not to think about it too much. Makes my brain really um....throb ;)

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

That throbbing? It's called hard thought. You should try it more, it's fun ;)

[PerpetualBurn]

Or that athiests are missing out of much cultural enrichment as their disbelief in something higher than themselves leaves their views smug, arrogant, monotonous, and boring, and that they reflect this outwardly to everyone they meet? :cool:

Haha. It's rather strange that you would say that when you categorically believe that one way of life is better than all others.

[Iskandar]

No no, Seth got it right, but I should have used conflict, not competition.

Of course, in evolutionary terms, competition is necessary as well.
Hmmpf ... not necessarily. A lot of it happens because of conflict with the species' environment.

Caucasians became hairier because of their cold environment.

[Smokey D]

Isn't that what I said?

[The Sludge]

Well my understanding is that the universe isnt perfect itself. Stars do burn out and fade. The sun isnt perfect cause of its spots or whatnot. So the universe itself cant sustain itself. So it takes something perfect to create it. I am saying the possibility of God.

To me there is no other logic, although I'm well aware of other logic.

[Smokey D]

Why can't the universe sustain itself?

[PerpetualBurn]

It really is a huge non-sequitur to say that something imperfect must have a perfect creator.

By this token, every shoddily made thing must have a perfect creator behind it. Hey, since my music isn't perfect, I must be!

[coheneran]

Well my understanding is that the universe isnt perfect itself. Stars do burn out and fade. The sun isnt perfect cause of its spots or whatnot. So the universe itself cant sustain itself. So it takes something perfect to create it. I am saying the possibility of God.

To me there is no other logic, although I'm well aware of other logic.

But who says immortality is perfect? Stars are born, stars sustain life for a time (short or long, depending on how one looks at it), stars die, new stars are born, and the cycle begins again. What's the problem exactly? We see this cycle happening everywhere, hence the name Cycle of Life, and actually it is a form of self-sustenance.

And I take offence to your remark about the sun's spots, I happen to have a very beautiful mole...:p

[croniun]

George Carlin was raised in a catholic home. I think he knows what he's talking about.

Do you honestly believe comedians believe in what they say? :rolleyes:

Ever notice how tons of people who grow up in Roman Catholic churches end up being devout atheists with a strong hatred towards Christianity? Kind of saying something about Roman Catholicism if you ask me.

[Smokey D]

You don't think apostasy happens in all Churches?

The fact that there's about 1 billion Catholics also counts against your point.

[coheneran]

Maybe ex-Catholics are just more vociferous.

/Eran's Word Of The Day

[croniun]

You don't think apostasy happens in all Churches?

The fact that there's about 1 billion Catholics also counts against your point.

I'm not saying other churches don't have their problems. Believe me, I'm too well aware of them. I'm just saying that to me, it seems like the percentage of ex-Catholics who are angry with the church seems to be much higher then that of Protestants...at least from my own experience.

[Spoonful of Shame]

Count me on that ex-Catholic list

[RockAndRoll]

I was catholic, but I definitely don't hate the church. In fact I quite like the church, I love the community, my only divergence with them is that I don't actually believe in catholocisms tenet's. :p But seriously, I like my church, the parish, the parish leaders and priests. Unfortunately I'm not such a fan of the dioces and bishop, as my church is now being chut down and our parish is merging with one we've been clustered with for a while. Though they say it's a logistical necessity. :(

[Smokey D]

I'm not saying other churches don't have their problems. Believe me, I'm too well aware of them. I'm just saying that to me, it seems like the percentage of ex-Catholics who are angry with the church seems to be much higher then that of Protestants...at least from my own experience.

Could it be that there are far more Catholics to begin with, so even if apostasy rates are about the same, there will be far more ex-Catholics than ex-Protestants.

Or perhaps it's related to the encouragement of theosophical thinking amongst most western Catholic churches.

[coheneran]

When/How did Catholicism arise from Roman Christianity?

[Smokey D]

One of the founding doctrines of Roman Orthodoxy is that the line 'we believe in the one, holy apostolic catholic Church'. When Protestants split from Rome in the 16th Century, the distinction became meaningful and the term Roman Catholicism thus likewise.

Interestingly, there are non-Roman Catholics both in and out of communion with the Holy See.

[TheRevenant]

Well. Loosely interpreted.. There is no proof OR logic ..

How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself?

[croniun]

Could it be that there are far more Catholics to begin with, so even if apostasy rates are about the same, there will be far more ex-Catholics than ex-Protestants.

Or perhaps it's related to the encouragement of theosophical thinking amongst most western Catholic churches.

Maybe, but I know just as many Protestants as I do Catholics.

[coheneran]

How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself?

Oh, that's an easy one, I've been thinking about it loads lately. It's to do with convention and conformity. If your logical conclusions appear to be in line with others' logical conclusions, then you are sane. Or, just as equally valid, everyone is insane. It's a pretty damning conclusion, since it follows that all logic is objective and therefore contains no real universal truth, and so makes logic just as true as faith is, except in this case the faith is in society and one's sanity, not in a vague being in the sky.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Oh, that's an easy one, I've been thinking about it loads lately. It's to do with convention and conformity. If your logical conclusions appear to be in line with others' logical conclusions, then you are sane. Or, just as equally valid, everyone is insane. It's a pretty damning conclusion, since it follows that all logic is objective(subjective) and therefore contains no real universal truth, and so makes logic just as true as faith is, except in this case the faith is in society and one's sanity, not in a vague being in the sky.

Sorry if I havn't read enough to comment on this but... I didn't know that you could compare your logic with everyone else's logic with a grounding in faith when faith is subjective also? Faith is not a universal truth by which you can judge your sanity so it does nothing to appropriately convince you of it, amirite?

[TheRevenant]

Oh, that's an easy one,

It is eh?


It's to do with convention and conformity.

Actually it has to do with paradox.


If your logical conclusions appear to be in line with others' logical conclusions, then you are sane. Or, just as equally valid, everyone is insane. It's a pretty damning conclusion, since it follows that all logic is objective and therefore contains no real universal truth, and so makes logic just as true as faith is, except in this case the faith is in society and one's sanity, not in a vague being in the sky.

Not all societies agree with one another. Not all members of society agree with one another. Who is sane and who isn't?

Member X believes in a God.
Member Y does not believe in a God
Member Z is not sure what to believe

is X sane or insane?
is Y sane or insane?
is Z sane or insane?

don't approach the obvious; The question is more about belief (or lack of). How can one really know themselves and be sure there belief structure is true or not?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

It's pretty simple. X is insane according to Y, Y is insane according to X, and both X and Y think Z is just a bit dull.

Sanity is as relative as velocity, time, or anything else.

[TheRevenant]

It's pretty simple. X is insane according to Y, Y is insane according to X, and both X and Y think Z is just a bit dull.

Sanity is as relative as velocity, time, or anything else.

X->Y
Y->X

is infinite regression.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

X->Y
Y->X

is infinite regression.

Sure.

They're both crazy for being so closed-minded as to think that those that don't agree iwth them must be mentally ill.

[coheneran]

Sorry if I havn't read enough to comment on this but... I didn't know that you could compare your logic with everyone else's logic with a grounding in faith when faith is subjective also? Faith is not a universal truth by which you can judge your sanity so it does nothing to appropriately convince you of it, amirite?

Oh yes, subjective, good call.

That's another aspect I haven't thought of, everything is subjective. That's pretty depressing, there's no such thing as abstract truth.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1397350536479335516&q=atheist

lawl

creationist, atheist; we're all as bad as eachother, but this is PAINFUL to watch.

There's something about evil music playing over communist atrocities followed by a picture of darwin with the same music is just eww

plus the line "Scientists realised that the universe did have a beginning; in other words, it was created" makes me realise the video will provide nothing worthwhile.

[coheneran]

I stopped watching at the end of the fiery montage. It's like this thing, it's irrepressibly funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mebuDbe-4Is

[TheRevenant]

Sure.

They're both crazy for being so closed-minded as to think that those that don't agree iwth them must be mentally ill.

ad hominem?

Interesting response.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

ad hominem?

Interesting response.

maybe. But I'm not entirely sure. I don't know the intricacies of philosophical fallacies.

[Joey Hoser]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1397350536479335516&q=atheist

lawl

creationist, atheist; we're all as bad as eachother, but this is PAINFUL to watch.

There's something about evil music playing over communist atrocities followed by a picture of darwin with the same music is just eww

plus the line "Scientists realised that the universe did have a beginning; in other words, it was created" makes me realise the video will provide nothing worthwhile.

I made it about twenty minutes in. It was hilarious. Basically.... "Life? What are the odds of that!?"

[Futue te Ipsum]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1397350536479335516&q=atheist

lawl

creationist, atheist; we're all as bad as eachother, but this is PAINFUL to watch.

There's something about evil music playing over communist atrocities followed by a picture of darwin with the same music is just eww

plus the line "Scientists realised that the universe did have a beginning; in other words, it was created" makes me realise the video will provide nothing worthwhile.It being done by creationists should've been enough.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's pretty simple. X is insane according to Y, Y is insane according to X, and both X and Y think Z is just a bit dull.

Sanity is as relative as velocity, time, or anything else.

Insanity is a very complex thing to argue. I am an atheist, but I certainly wouldn't consider theists insane. Insanity would be a complete inability to grasp a concept, a fundamental incapability to comprehend as a function of the limitations of your mind. NOT simply an alternative belief.

[Foreskin Fondler]

I'm not sure if I'm posting in the correct thread, but its pointless to try and think about the beggining of the universe or what will happen to us once we die. I think that all this is beyond our puny logic and something we will never be able to understand.

Many religions would like to believe that the truth is in a book that was written thousands of years ago, but lets face it no one knows for sure (although am pretty sure those books and the are wrong).

people have always tried to find the meaning behind everything. Maybe the problem is that we keep trying to understand something (life) that has no meaning.

....but whatever as long as you are tolerent of other peoples beliefs you can believe what ever the hell you want.

[gazzareth]

Nothing i've ever seen has given me reason to believe in god.
yeah, me too. I think that everything in existence can be explained by science. we're just not advanced enough to have reached this stage yet (and we most probably never will be). religion is too quick to underestimate the power of the natural world we live in.

[OnDesolationRow]

....but whatever as long as you are tolerent of other peoples beliefs you can believe what ever the hell you want.

Some beliefs preclude tolerance.

[griftadan]

It's pretty simple. X is insane according to Y, Y is insane according to X, and both X and Y think Z is just a bit dull.

Sanity is as relative as velocity, time, or anything else.

no its not. sanity is based on comprehension of facts and logic, neither of which are relative.

[Futue te Ipsum]

....but whatever as long as you are tolerent of other peoples beliefs you can believe what ever the hell you want.There was a poll on BBC news where people were asked "should the beliefs of religious people always be respected?" and I was shocked at the stupidity of the voters. 80% said yes, but I wonder, would they be tplerent of somebodies beliefs if they intended to blow up a cafe for the greater glory of the one true god?

You appear to fall into the yes camp. I'm curious, have you ever stopped to think about just how absurd, stupid or cruel some religious beliefs actually are?

[Foreskin Fondler]

Some beliefs preclude tolerance.
can you read. I said as long as you are tolerent of others beliefs.That means that its ok to believe what you want so long as those beliefs don't preclude tolerence.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

There was a poll on BBC news where people were asked "should the beliefs of religious people always be respected?" and I was shocked at the stupidity of the voters. 80% said yes, but I wonder, would they be tplerent of somebodies beliefs if they intended to blow up a cafe for the greater glory of the one true god?

You appear to fall into the yes camp. I'm curious, have you ever stopped to think about just how absurd, stupid or cruel some religious beliefs actually are?

example; genital mutilation

[Foreskin Fondler]

You appear to fall into the yes camp. I'm curious, have you ever stopped to think about just how absurd, stupid or cruel some religious beliefs actually are?
holy f****ing s***. you people just love to pick on the stupidest things and start arguments.
I obviously I f-ing meant you can believe what you want as long as you don't hurt yourself or anyone else and are completely tolerent of someones beliefs, and the color of their skin

I guess I was forced to say that, seeings how I have to be extremely specific inorder to not start an argument.

[PerpetualBurn]

That's absolutely stupid though. Some people have beliefs which are intolerant, and you must be intolerant to them.

To avoid arguments:

a) Post something smarter
b) Post it in a forum that isn't specifically intended for serious debate.

Thank you.

[coheneran]

example; genital mutilation

I like being circumcised, thank you very much. But I wouldn't do it when I was 13, mental scarring hurts:(. However, I can't remember anything from when I was 3 days old, so it's cool.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Plus hygienically, it makes sense. Not everybody who isn't circumcized ends up with a diseased wang, but if you imagine a civilization whose history mainly involves fleeing people who were trying to kill them, it makes sense to try to minimize the damage of going half a generation without being able to take a hot bath.

[coheneran]

Plus hygienically, it makes sense. Not everybody who isn't circumcized ends up with a diseased wang, but if you imagine a civilization whose history mainly involves fleeing people who were trying to kill them, it makes sense to try to minimize the damage of going half a generation without being able to take a hot bath.

To be fair, biblically, the Jews did as much killing as getting killed. We're not pussies you know.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I like being circumcised, thank you very much. But I wouldn't do it when I was 13, mental scarring hurts:(. However, I can't remember anything from when I was 3 days old, so it's cool.

I was thinking of the rather more barbaric muslim version, the thing they do to their ladyfolk

[coheneran]

I was thinking of the rather more barbaric muslim version, the thing they do to their ladyfolk

Oh, clitorral circumcision. They say it's to stop their women having affairs. Insecurity or what?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Oh, clitorral circumcision. They say it's to stop their women having affairs. Insecurity or what?

8-o
Actual size?

[coheneran]

You've confuzzled me.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

To be fair, biblically, the Jews did as much killing as getting killed. We're not pussies you know.

Yeah, but then you spent the next 1500 years running around Europe and stuff :p.

[coheneran]

Yeah, but then you spent the next 1500 years running around Europe and stuff :p.

Give us time man, we're making up for it!

[bleep_bloop]

When I was 12 or so I heard George Carlin, and I thought he was hilarious, but now that I listen to him years later, he sounds like some cheap, Mencia-esque comic who "tells it like it is," and "says what I'm thinking!" etc.



dont be talking no shiit about ma man carlin or i might have to bust out ma tech and bust a mother fukkin cap in yo @ss

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

You've confuzzled me.

It was a penis joke.

[Give me Beer]

I was thinking of the rather more barbaric muslim version, the thing they do to their ladyfolk

It's not muslim, it's an african tribal tradition or some such thing.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

It's not muslim, it's an african tribal tradition or some such thing.

It's widely practised in the Islamic culture, and the culture and religion of islamic socity is inseperably linked.

[bleep_bloop]

i dont think so. ive only heard of it occuring in african countries and culture, never in islamic socities.

[Give me Beer]

It's widely practised in the Islamic culture, and the culture and religion of islamic socity is inseperably linked.

Not really and there isn't anything in the Koran that justifies the practice either.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Not really and there isn't anything in the Koran that justifies the practice either.

Ok then. Conceded.

[coheneran]

i dont think so. ive only heard of it occuring in african countries and culture, never in islamic socities.

There are lots of Islamic African countries. The only accounts I've read of it (though I know it happens in many sexist patriarchal societies) happening are in Niger and Sudan.