Atheism is a faith-based system of belief

[Aaron]

Atheism is a faith-based system of belief. Faith in the validity of evidence and relationships is just the same at the elemental level of personal-thought as faith in a non-tangible deity, or group of deities.

Prove me wrong PNWI. I'm interested to see peoples opinions on this argument. Please try be polite.

[lukeskywalkertakingadump3]

No shi t. This is why being agnostic is the smartest choice, because it is an honest admittal of "I don't know if there is a god."

[Elitist Douche Bag]

Like I said, do you consider not believing in Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny to be a faith-based system of belief?

[1338 h4x0r]

I don't think you can really say that belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the same thing as empiricism

[Crudo]

the flying spaghetti monster is better reheated tbh

[Meatplow]

There is Russells Teapot and all that to try and counter arguments about us never being able to know if there is a god which teach us a thing or two about "shading" towards a truth.

Still, even Dawkin's wrote in the God Delusion some ridiculous "scale" which leans from 100% thiest to 100% athiest or something along those lines and he put himself at 80% or something. :/ He doesn't have full conviction he claims, yet he wants to get all militant about it.

Any negative socio-political implications of the church dabbling in other peoples lives (and these unfortunately do exist) should be a separate focus then trying to discredit their belief systems IMO. It's more a game of intellectual posturing then anything.

[1338 h4x0r]

People's private beliefs can in essence become public when they act on them

http://www.skepdic.com/faq.html#1

Q. What do you care what other people believe?

A. I care because what other people believe can be dangerous. I care because I want to live in a world where I am surrounded by rational, knowledgeable people who care about critical thinking. I care because the world would be a better place if it were not populated by powerful fantasy spirits designed to protect us from bogeymen and nature's indifference. I care because truth matters.

I care because it matters whether people lie to themselves or to others. I don't find it amusing to have a President who proclaims that "all human life is sacred" and "destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical," while vetoing a bill designed to save untold numbers of sentient creatures from suffering and an early death. This man is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, yet he claims that it is a matter of morality that embryonic stem cells not be used for medical purposes. The world is unsafe when such inconsistency passes for good logic. If human cells are sacred and that means that it is immoral to kill them, then it is immoral to send men to war or to execute criminals since, in both cases, many sacred human cells are destroyed. Believing that any cells are "sacred" and therefore should not be killed is arbitrary and harmful. It matters that such beliefs and others like them, which have no rational basis, be opposed.

I care because if I try to use my brain to separate what is worthy of belief from what is not, then others might correct me when I am wrong. I care because I value honesty and integrity, and I know that my life will be better if those around me also value honesty and integrity.

I care because it matters what people believe about fairies, quack medical remedies, psychics, spiritual gurus, alien abductions, astrology, gods, and the hundreds of other subjects I write about in The Skeptic's Dictionary. I care because it matters that many people do not understand the nature of confirmation bias, subjective validation, or the dozens of other affective, perceptual, and cognitive biases or illusions that lead to erroneous beliefs and delusions.

I care because I want to live in a pleasant, safe world where I can enjoy life with my family and friends. The more irrationality and delusion are encouraged, the less likely such a world becomes.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Still, even Dawkin's wrote in the God Delusion some ridiculous "scale" which leans from 100% thiest to 100% athiest or something along those lines and he put himself at 80% or something. :/ He doesn't have full conviction he claims, yet he wants to get all militant about it.
He wrote that there is no empirical proof that there is no God, therefore it would be unscientific to make that claim outright.

However, we can ascertain that the probability of there being a God is so small that there is no logical basis for believing in it.

You could call that a lack of conviction, but it's really just the most realistic judgement based on the evidence.

And he's not really that militant.

[Aaron]

I don't think you can really say that belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the same thing as empiricism
Can you think of any situation where you've performed testing and seen 100% results, and can completely say that if you tested it 100,000 more times than the results would be the same? If yes, then you've demonstrated the faith I'm alluding to.

[TheDarkHorse]

Atheism is a faith-based system of belief. Faith in the validity of evidence and relationships is just the same at the elemental level of personal-thought as faith in a non-tangible deity, or group of deities.

Prove me wrong PNWI. I'm interested to see peoples opinions on this argument. Please try be polite.

Of course its faith-based.

Otherwise, the atheist would be claiming that he contains understanding of all space, matter, and time to disprove God-something that would make him into a supernatural being himself.

[griftadan]

Atheism is a faith-based system of belief. Faith in the validity of evidence and relationships is just the same at the elemental level of personal-thought as faith in a non-tangible deity, or group of deities.

Prove me wrong PNWI. I'm interested to see peoples opinions on this argument. Please try be polite.

"i have faith that the desk in front of me is in fact painted black"

yeah no ****

[Dave de Sylvia]

"i have faith that the desk in front of me is in fact painted black"

yeah no ****
I have faith that the desk in front of me is in face the Messiah.

[Aaron]

"i have faith that the desk in front of me is in fact painted black"

yeah no ****
That's not what I said.

[Meatplow]

People's private beliefs can in essence become public when they act on them

http://www.skepdic.com/faq.html#1

Q. What do you care what other people believe?

A. I care because what other people believe can be dangerous. I care because I want to live in a world where I am surrounded by rational, knowledgeable people who care about critical thinking. I care because the world would be a better place if it were not populated by powerful fantasy spirits designed to protect us from bogeymen and nature's indifference. I care because truth matters.

I care because it matters whether people lie to themselves or to others. I don't find it amusing to have a President who proclaims that "all human life is sacred" and "destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical," while vetoing a bill designed to save untold numbers of sentient creatures from suffering and an early death. This man is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, yet he claims that it is a matter of morality that embryonic stem cells not be used for medical purposes. The world is unsafe when such inconsistency passes for good logic. If human cells are sacred and that means that it is immoral to kill them, then it is immoral to send men to war or to execute criminals since, in both cases, many sacred human cells are destroyed. Believing that any cells are "sacred" and therefore should not be killed is arbitrary and harmful. It matters that such beliefs and others like them, which have no rational basis, be opposed.

I care because if I try to use my brain to separate what is worthy of belief from what is not, then others might correct me when I am wrong. I care because I value honesty and integrity, and I know that my life will be better if those around me also value honesty and integrity.

I care because it matters what people believe about fairies, quack medical remedies, psychics, spiritual gurus, alien abductions, astrology, gods, and the hundreds of other subjects I write about in The Skeptic's Dictionary. I care because it matters that many people do not understand the nature of confirmation bias, subjective validation, or the dozens of other affective, perceptual, and cognitive biases or illusions that lead to erroneous beliefs and delusions.

I care because I want to live in a pleasant, safe world where I can enjoy life with my family and friends. The more irrationality and delusion are encouraged, the less likely such a world becomes.

I believe this utopian ideal is unachievable.

Rational, knowledgeable people who care about critical thinking are still very subjective creatures who will ultimately spend more time wanting to outsmart each other then working together for any common good. It's our flawed nature.

This ideal society would be as much as a bitchfest as ever, just with less freedom for any "alternative, dangerous" beliefs. We can gauge entry level religion as perhaps a "step" towards indoctrination, and ultimately some united retardation that could end up with people being murdered in the name of the lord granted.

Running by this logic I can gauge entry level athiesm as having the potential to turn someone into an equally dangerous authoritarian close-minded dimwit, a whole state run like this would be hell.

What other beliefs won't pass approval as being potentially "dangerous"? Humans are stupid creatures, we can always find something to **** up with our logic.

[1338 h4x0r]

There are logical arguments against God.

http://wallscometumblingdown.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/atheists.jpg

I believe this utopian ideal is unachievable.

Of course ... but ... you can try

[griftadan]

you said it required faith to trust the validity of hard evidence, and yes obviously we all have faith in that otherwise our own senses are worthless and this whole discussion is pointless

[Dave de Sylvia]

http://wallscometumblingdown.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/atheists.jpg



Of course ... but ... you can try
Is it still winning when they spell "atheists" wrong?

[Meatplow]

He wrote that there is no empirical proof that there is no God, therefore it would be unscientific to make that claim outright.

However, we can ascertain that the probability of there being a God is so small that there is no logical basis for believing in it.

You could call that a lack of conviction, but it's really just the most realistic judgement based on the evidence.

I appreciate this view, i've read the book and as an agnostic partially leaning towards athiesm I don't totally disagree with it. You are missing the specific chapter I am referring to though.

And he's not really that militant.

He wrote a whole book attempting to "raise consciousness" in people about the atheist belief and included a whole section of crisis centers you could get in contact with if you are "trapped" by religion, telling us athiests need to band together because there is no unity and a real threat exists in organised religion (i'm not saying there isn't, in a socio-political sense). His crusade of science against religion is very well publicised, and personally it always brings to mind an edit of him in his d0cumentary The Enemies of Reason standing in a windswept field with a tear in his eye talking about how beautiful science is and how religious fools are destroying it. If the guy is not about militant athiest propaganda I don't know what is.

[1338 h4x0r]

Is it still winning when they spell "atheists" wrong?

foad

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/927/motivatorf6b1b2f53978a5.jpg

Self-contradictory use of "A.D." edited out as well

His crusade of science against religion is very well publicised, and personally it always brings to mind an edit of him in his d0cumentary The Enemies of Reason standing in a windswept field with a tear in his eye talking about how beautiful science is and how religious fools are destroying it.

Yeah and he hit the nail right on the head too

[Meatplow]

partially but i'm more inclined to believe he is narrowing it down to a generalisation. the world of science progresses on even if some subsets of religious idealists have been holding it back

Of course ... but ... you can try

You can. I don't see why promoting tolerance for one anothers beliefs isn't a better thing then actively pissing all over one another, both sides should try working together for a change. You could argue dogmatic religion won't allow for that, but neither will the more stuck n their beliefs athiests who won't stop bitching until religious institutions are destroyed for the common good.

At least there are "progressive" religious ideas that try to update themselves for the modern world, as flawed as they may be they are generally harmless.

[pilumneer]

I like how every time I come here there is always a circle jerk of internet Atheism.

Why do people feel the need to judge others and remain intolerant to their religious convictions? Even if they do influence their political views (which is not always the case, you know not all religious people act on their faith the same way) who are we to judge them and all try and convince them otherwise? Who honestly wants to live in a society where all people think the same way?

Agreed 100$ with Meatplow

[Dave de Sylvia]

I appreciate this view, i've read the book and as an agnostic partially leaning towards athiesm I don't totally disagree with it. You are missing the specific chapter I am referring to though.
I know the chapter you're talking about, and it's based on how certain people feel they can be about the existence of a God or lack thereof. His argument is you can be 90%+ sure, iirc.

He wrote a whole book attempting to "raise consciousness" in people about the atheist belief and included a whole section of crisis centers you could get in contact with if you are "trapped" by religion, telling us athiests need to band together because there is no unity and a real threat exists in organised religion (i'm not saying there isn't, in a socio-political sense). His crusade of science against religion is very well publicised, and personally it always brings to mind an edit of him in his d0cumentary The Enemies of Reason standing in a windswept field with a tear in his eye talking about how beautiful science is and how religious fools are destroying it. If the guy is not about militant athiest propaganda I don't know what is.
Well it's not as if he goes around pissing on priests or anything. He's just reasonable in a forceful manner.

[1338 h4x0r]

You can. I don't see why promoting tolerance for one anothers beliefs isn't a better thing then actively pissing all over one another, both sides should try working together for a change. You could argue dogmatic religion won't allow for that, but neither will the more stuck n their beliefs athiests who won't stop bitching until religious institutions are destroyed for the common good.

At least there are "progressive" religious ideas that try to update themselves for the modern world, as flawed as they may be they are generally harmless.

True but like, generally speaking, you don't see atheists calling for believers to have the flesh scraped from their bones with abalone shells

At the very worst: they're rude. Is that so horrible?

[pilumneer]

I didn't say it did, there's nothing wrong with being an Atheist, but when an Atheist feels they need to force their views on to others or that people should succumb to their system of belief they lower themselves to the level of the evangelical christians they criticize so much.

[Meatplow]

I know the chapter you're talking about, and it's based on how certain people feel they can be about the existence of a God or lack thereof. His argument is you can be 90%+ sure, iirc.

Yep.

Well it's not as if he goes around pissing on priests or anything. He's just reasonable in a forceful manner.

Well, using militant in this sense wouldn't imply guerrilla warfare I suppose but if it was the equivalent in intellectual blatherings just maybe. :] Semantics.

Either way the guy hates religion a lot and often I can't blame him. Still, I am trying to defend a basic right to believe, and not be harassed for it because other people have taken your belief too far and offended somebody big time.

[pilumneer]

Ya, I'm just a general advocate for people being able to believe what they want without harassment from others, it's just you don't really see much in the way of Christians persecuting Atheists on the internet so I try and balance out the arguments even though I'm not a Christian.

[Meatplow]

True but like, generally speaking, you don't see atheists calling for believers to have the flesh scraped from their bones with abalone shells

At the very worst: they're rude. Is that so horrible?

How many religious people perform similar acts these days, though? :/ Probably not that many.

There is a long sordid history to dig up, and I find it completely fascinating.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well, using militant in this sense wouldn't imply guerrilla warfare I suppose but if it was the equivalent in intellectual blatherings just maybe. :] Semantics.

Either way the guy hates religion a lot and often I can't blame him. Still, I am trying to defend a basic right to believe, and not be harassed for it because other people have taken your belief too far and offended somebody big time.
I don't really see how what he does counts as harrasment either. He writes books and speaks at atheist conventions, both those are generally circle-jerks among people looking to confirm their own opinions, with the odd brave Christian thrown in.

That's completely separate from his public drive to get religion out of science and politics. If religious groups are attempting to impose their agenda in public, it's perfectly reasonable for non-religious people to take them on in that arena.

[Aaron]

We don't have a lot of Christians on this particular forum. That's why.
Shut up non-believer.

[Aaron]

I believe.

I believe there aren't a lot of Christians on this forum.
You have faith there aren't. My alts act like athiests, how you gonna act?

[1338 h4x0r]

I didn't say it did, there's nothing wrong with being an Atheist, but when an Atheist feels they need to force their views on to others.

:lol:

[die of starvation]

regardless of whether you assume god exists or not nothing changes so if god exists it's never done anything detectable so what's the point of pretending

[pilumneer]

:lol:

What? The call and desire for everyone to believe in the same system of non theism seems like trying to force your views on others. I see pseudo intellectual Atheists call out Christians randomly all the time for their beliefs, you don't think there's something wrong with that?

[die of starvation]

what's wrong with forcing people to have better views

[pilumneer]

What's wrong with letting people believe what they want free of discrimination?

I'm sure you don't like it when people try and force their views on you.

[Aaron]

Militant atheism that comes about as a response to charismatic theism is ironic.

[1338 h4x0r]

People's non-reality based beliefs can harm others

But no one is calling for religion to be outlawed, calm down

How many religious people perform similar acts these days, though? :/ Probably not that many.

Except for the ones blowing themselves up in the name of God

[die of starvation]

What's wrong with letting people believe what they want free of discrimination?

their views are worse
worse is bad

But no one is calling for religion to be outlawed, calm down
well in the relatively long run of course it should/will be

[pilumneer]

omg evil christians ruin my life, be more of a crybaby bitch please

People's non-reality based beliefs can harm others



Barely, it's a pretty big stretch to say so and could be directed towards political beliefs anyway, I doubt you are caused physical pain and trauma. Besides the church can do a lot of good as far as charities and helping others goes even if people don't carry out their beliefs in the perfect manner.

[die of starvation]

am i talking to a 14 year old foreigner

[pilumneer]

You're 8 years off, I'm 6. :rolleyes:

[Meatplow]

I don't really see how what he does counts as harrasment either. He writes books and speaks at atheist conventions, both those are generally circle-jerks among people looking to confirm their own opinions, with the odd brave Christian thrown in.

That's completely separate from his public drive to get religion out of science and politics. If religious groups are attempting to impose their agenda in public, it's perfectly reasonable for non-religious people to take them on in that arena.

Definitely. I didn't mean to imply his own actions are akin to harassment as such, I was using that term more for a select group of those who read his writings or dwell in other atheist propaganda and get their mind into an inescapable loop that its perfectly necessary to force their own personal belief on everyone else.

I would consider it harassment to be dogging someone who holds a particular belief with that they are wrong if they don't force their beliefs upon and pose no threat to you. (consider an earlier exchange I witnessed today with user asdemonsburn having a bitchfest with another user in the R&M community thread who is christian but manages to have sex all the time, maybe it is just jealousy for being a virgin idk). But he was being a bit of a tit.

[Meatplow]

Except for the ones blowing themselves up in the name of God

if every religious person blew themself up in the name of god there would be no religion be thankful for it and hope the trend continues if you are so inclined

[1338 h4x0r]

Barely, it's a pretty big stretch to say so and could be directed towards political beliefs anyway, I doubt you are caused physical pain and trauma.

Look at how Mother Teresa ****ed up Calcutta

if every religious person blew themself up in the name of god there would be no religion be thankful for it and hope the trend continues if you are so inclined

The thing is that they kill other people along with themselves

[die of starvation]

or if one out of every half million or w/e religious people blew themselves up a lot of innocent people would die and religion would just keep going

also a lot of women would be stored in bags

[pilumneer]

Using extremists is hardly a valid argument to reflect on the harm of the millions of peaceful religious people in the world. You haven't convinced me that people like my parents who live their lives as harmless Christian folk are harmful to others.

[Meatplow]

The thing is that they kill other people along with themselves

This is unfortunate but providing people with mandatory suicide bomber protection gear to wear 24/7 is probably a more effective, feasible solution to this problem then gradually attempting to eliminate the religious institution.

[1338 h4x0r]

Using extremists is hardly a valid argument to reflect on the harm of the millions of peaceful religious people in the world. You haven't convinced me that people like my parents who live their lives as harmless Christian folk are harmful to others.

I consider belief in creationism to be extremist, since it totally flies in the face of reason:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm

(There's lots of extremists)

And ya believing in stuff like cretinism is harmful in some sense because if you can let one out-and-out absurdity be a major part of your life, like believing the Earth is 6,000 years old, then why have any respect for evidence at all?

[die of starvation]

but it is a valid argument people die because of somebody else's religion constantly and millions of women and girls are stored in bags

your parents being allegedly harmless doesn't negate the harm caused by religion

[Dave de Sylvia]

Definitely. I didn't mean to imply his own actions are akin to harassment as such, I was using that term more for a select group of those who read his writings or dwell in other atheist propaganda and get their mind into an inescapable loop that its perfectly necessary to force their own personal belief on everyone else.

I would consider it harassment to be dogging someone who holds a particular belief with that they are wrong if they don't force their beliefs upon and pose no threat to you. (consider an earlier exchange I witnessed today with user asdemonsburn having a bitchfest with another user in the R&M community thread who is christian but manages to have sex all the time, maybe it is just jealousy for being a virgin idk). But he was being a bit of a tit.
Yeah but who cares about some 13 year old black metal fan on the internet? I mean atheists can be really annoying, but so are the most vocal people in any interest group.

[pilumneer]

I consider belief in creationism to be extremist, since it totally flies in the face of reason:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm

(There's lots of extremists)


Ok great, how does this hurt you though?

Look I know that trying to convince an Atheist to be tolerant of other peoples religious convictions is like trying to get a panda to stop eating bamboo but that doesn't mean I won't stop trying!

[Meatplow]

adb wasn't the sole example I just threw that in there for the lulz

its cool, I may have appeared to have blown it out of proportion somewhat. but no more then (edit: spelling is awful forgive me) atheists often do with religion

[1338 h4x0r]

Ok great, how does this hurt you though?

Because evolutionary theory plays a key role in many important applications of biology, creationism diminishes the number of people who could become useful in the biological sciences one day.

Every time Ken Ham suckers in a little kid in with his Flintstones-as-documentary creation museum, he is, in effect, committing an act of theft, plain and simple.

And, besides, if you already believe the Earth is six thousand years old, why believe evidence at all?

[Light Flantastic]

if you genuinely think people are wasting their entire lives with jesus and you dont say anything then you're kind of a dick

besides the fact that converting people to atheism or suppressing their religious opinions is good anyway makes it worth being unrelenting

[suspect device]

i am so not interested in thinking about if there is a god or not. what does it matter? i feel my life is so much better by not being bothered by those who think there is and those who think there isn't. i just don't think about it

[guitarded_chuck]

And, besides, if you already believe the Earth is six thousand years old, why believe evidence at all?

So, so true.

I love stumping my Christian friend when we start debating about shi with this sort of thing. I ask him things like "how does the light from those stars reach us if the universe was only created a few thousand years ago, considering some star's light takes 10 000+ years to each Earth?", and he's just like "uhhhhhhh... uh.. .. . cause God put them there."

Anyway, I'm fine with people believing whatever they believe. However, I am not okay with people trying to enforce their beliefs on other people. Let people decide for themselves what they believe. This means that I think it's wrong for parents and families to enforce their religion on their children and look down upon them if they wish not to partake. People going door-to-door promoting their beliefs is insane as well and I readily tell people that who come to my door trying to tell me abortion is wrong or something. Telling people that if they don't do something or they'll "go to hell" is just wrong and they have no right to do so.

Myself, I guess I am agnostic. I apparently use the same logic as Dawkin (never read his book) that there is no scientific proof for or against there being a God. I certainly do not believe in Christian beliefs or other religious beliefs and think they're often times absurd, but the simple fact of whether or not there is a supreme being or "something else", who knows? It is highly unlikely, but philosophical nonetheless.

[Light Flantastic]

force, not enforce

Telling people that if they don't do something or they'll "go to hell" is just wrong and they have no right to do so.ya they do its called free speech

[guitarded_chuck]

either one really

[Light Flantastic]

either one really

im afraid not

[Dave de Sylvia]

What? The call and desire for everyone to believe in the same system of non theism seems like trying to force your views on others. I see pseudo intellectual Atheists call out Christians randomly all the time for their beliefs, you don't think there's something wrong with that?
Why wouldn't an atheist (or religious person) try to convince other people that they are right?

[Noku]

My five cents for this would be that any belief system that makes one a better person is good. We all have responsibility to intervene when we see that one is being oppressed by ones belief system.

In that sense I think that being a passive member of a religious system or being atheist without strong philosophical standing is much worse than being active believer to any system that actually makes you better person.

I am pretty satisfied that quite many of todays youth are interested in religious matters from a philosophic point of view and not accepting the views of majority but instead making their mind by actually studying matters in depth.

[TheDarkHorse]

I consider belief in creationism to be extremist, since it totally flies in the face of reason:

Its not "unreasonable" to believe in a created universe.

If you're referencing young earth creationism (earth is 6,000 years old) then you're speaking of a minority of creationists. You do not have to believe the earth is 6,000 years old to believe in a created earth.

but it is a valid argument people die because of somebody else's religion
You can say the same about nationality, ideology, philosophy, etc. Does that mean they are harmful?

IF anything, you should arrive at the conclusion that a lack of intolerance is potentially harmful.

[Light Flantastic]

its unreasonable to believe in a created universe

[TheDarkHorse]

I know its easy to rehash what you read from your Richard Dawkins book, but you must provide reason if you are going to appeal to it.

[Light Flantastic]

no actually you're the one making a positive statement you have to provide the reasons

[TheDarkHorse]

no actually you're the one making a positive statement you have to provide the reasons

Me: its not "unreasonable" to believe in a created universe

negative statement

You: its unreasonable to believe in a created universe

positive statement

Now that you've unsuccessfully tried to deflect the argument (nice cop-out) perhaps you wouldn't mind providing reasons for your positive statement, why its unreasonable to believe in a created universe.

Don't worry, I'll give you enough time to google + copy&paste arguments from Dawkins.

[Light Flantastic]

Me: its not "unreasonable" to believe in a created universe

negative statement

You: its unreasonable to believe in a created universe

positive statement

the stupidity here is incredible

[TheDarkHorse]

You must think you look like such a scholar calling things "stupid" all the while providing NO reasons and deflecting the argument at hand.

[Light Flantastic]

no i just think there are better uses of my time than debating someone who doesnt understand the concept of double negatives or what makes a positive statement other than the lack of the word not

[Mr. Ron]

goat magic

[Light Flantastic]

its not unreasonable to believe that goats are magic

[TheDarkHorse]

no i just think there are better uses of my time than debating someone who doesnt understand the concept of double negatives or what makes a positive statement other than the lack of the word not

or you would rather make baseless statements, then ask someone else to provide reasons so you can apply what you've learned from your intro logic class to look oh so intelligent.

Evidently, its too hard for you to back up your claim, so you're better off not making it. You're just wasting everyone's time, and you don't look smart.

[Light Flantastic]

its not hard to look intelligent with you around bassrev thats why we make a good team come with me to my school reunion

[TheDarkHorse]

Oh cool now we're doing 6th grade insults.

Evidently petty insults are a better use of your time then backing up a baseless claim.

[Light Flantastic]

i called you useful if anything that is a compliment

[BridgeToSolace]

Myself, I guess I am agnostic. I apparently use the same logic as Dawkin (never read his book) that there is no scientific proof for or against there being a God. I certainly do not believe in Christian beliefs or other religious beliefs and think they're often times absurd, but the simple fact of whether or not there is a supreme being or "something else", who knows? It is highly unlikely, but philosophical nonetheless.

But claiming agnosticism implies an equal weight on both sides.

I'm not agnostic about there being a rhino in my front yard just because I can't tell from my current seat whether or not there is one. It's highly unlikely that there's a rhino, so I don't believe there is one. It would take more faith to think that there could be a rhino than to say that there isn't a rhino.

And really, if you're an atheist on the basis that there's a supreme being that doesn't influence anything, who gives a ****? It doesn't matter to anyone whether such a being exists. The important part of atheism in it's current form is that you don't believe in any established religion. You don't need to impress people with how deep your philosophical thinking is when saying your an atheist answers the same question: You a fan of jesus?

[Noku]

And really, if you're an atheist on the basis that there's a supreme being that doesn't influence anything, who gives a ****? It doesn't matter to anyone whether such a being exists. The important part of atheism in it's current form is that you don't believe in any established religion. You don't need to impress people with how deep your philosophical thinking is when saying your an atheist answers the same question: You a fan of jesus?

But philosophy is the only thing left for an atheist.

[McP3000]

you're all self indulgent and retarded if you think that religion has that much interference with science.

sure theres extremists protesting outside labs but then again they probably just close the windows and put on the death metal while they RESEARCH FOR SATAN o/o/o/o/

[Light Flantastic]

we all know it was a small number of extremists who got stem cell research funding cut

no wait it wasnt

[McP3000]

research for SATAN

[TheDarkHorse]

you're all self indulgent and retarded if you think that religion has that much interference with science.

You're absolutely right, but I don't think anyone made this claim.

[Dave de Sylvia]

its not hard to look intelligent with you around bassrev thats why we make a good team come with me to my school reunion
this is my favourite post

[Aaron]

Way to send my thread completely off topic guys.

Aren't you able to discuss religious concepts without it degrading into the usual SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE banter?

[McP3000]

SCIENCE for SATAN

[Light Flantastic]

science is inherently related because it disproves religion

the end

[TheDarkHorse]

science is inherently related because it disproves religion

the end

Science= The Study of nature

Religion= the philosophical explanation of the Supernatural

Any attempt by science to prove or disprove something that is literally above its nature is a logical fallacy.

/Your idiocy put on full blast


Now back to the thread.

[Smokey D]

I dunno if that's all religion is.

[TheDarkHorse]

Religion is by-and-large based on the foundation of a supernatural entity, while attempting to answer the philosophical questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.

[Smokey D]

Well, I think there are a lot of people who believe that religion can explain natural phenomena.

I also think that religion has a deep sociological foundation which shapes behaviours and ethics in a way that can't be explained by abstract academic inquiry into the supernatural.

And I'd say that most believers do not engage in that sort of abstract thinking when they practice their religion.

[gregulus]

But claiming agnosticism implies an equal weight on both sides.
No it doesn't.

[suspect device]

Well, I think there are a lot of people who believe that religion can explain natural phenomena.

I also think that religion has a deep sociological foundation which shapes behaviours and ethics in a way that can't be explained by abstract academic inquiry into the supernatural.

And I'd say that most believers do not engage in that sort of abstract thinking when they practice their religion.
you think and say a lot but whats your point?

[Smokey D]

Um, that opposition to religion isn't limited to opposition to philosophical inquiry of the supernatural?

[TheDarkHorse]

Well, I think there are a lot of people who believe that religion can explain natural phenomena.
Of course. This may be done with supernatural entities (rain gods, wind gods, etc) but its all done on the basis of the supernatural

I also think that religion has a deep sociological foundation which shapes behaviours and ethics in a way that can't be explained by abstract academic inquiry into the supernatural.
Again one who believes in a moral code believes it is derived from the supernatural entity, hence "on the foundation of the supernatural entity."

And I'd say that most believers do not engage in that sort of abstract thinking when they practice their religion.
Why would they? Someone's already thought for them.
Um, that opposition to religion isn't limited to opposition to philosophical inquiry of the supernatural?

If this is your point, then its clear that my point went right over your head (surprise?)

The Statement "Science disproves religion" obviously speaks of the Supernatural foundation as being fictitious. Why would one say science disproves the natural, sociological behaviours of religion?

[Smokey D]

Again one who believes in a moral code believes it is derived from the supernatural entity, hence "on the foundation of the supernatural entity."

No I don't.


Why would they? Someone's already thought for them.

Er, when I take communion (I don't, but let's pretend), I'm not engaging in philosophy. These superstitious parts of religion are vulnerable to critique.


The Statement "Science disproves religion" obviously speaks of the Supernatural foundation as being fictitious. Why would one say science disproves the natural, sociological behaviours of religion?

Well, when one says 'science disproves religion' you could presumably mean 'science disproves the claim that supernatural forces make the weather' or whatever. The point is that the definition of religion solely as philosophical inquiry of the supernatural is arbitrary and controversial and using it to rebut the claims of sceptics is a fallacious argument-by-definition.

[McP3000]

indeed.

[TheDarkHorse]

No I don't.
I don't see how its rational to believe in an absolute code of morals in-and-of itself while a supernatural being either didn't create it, or is bound by it (which would not make him supernatural)

Er, when I take communion (I don't, but let's pretend), I'm not engaging in philosophy. These superstitious parts of religion are vulnerable to critique.
Again you're only arguing with yourself. No one is addressing this.

Well, when one says 'science disproves religion' you could presumably mean 'science disproves the claim that supernatural forces make the weather' or whatever.
Which it cannot do. This is EXACTLY MY POINT


The point is that the definition of religion solely as philosophical inquiry of the supernatural is arbitrary and controversial
You can further define religion, but the basis is a supernatural entity. IF thats the case, Scientific inquiries cannot prove or disprove it.

and using it to rebut the claims of sceptics is a fallacious argument-by-definition.
What you fail to realize is that it has little to do with the definition. You've already admitted my point that its basis is the supernatural, but again you're arguing with yourself because you create points which you think I am making.

Do you enjoy being in the spin zone?

[Raayl]

atheism has nothing to do with science or an explanation of the cosmos

it just so happens a lot of prominent atheists like to suggest different criteria for the origin of life, the cosmos, and explanation of natural events than theists (namely science)

there is such a thing as philosophical atheism

im an atheist

i dont give a **** less about the origin of the universe

that said, atheism doesn't even have to suggest that god never existed. atheism could suggest he (or she, or they) died, quit, moved away, or that they just dont give a **** anymore. it is a lack of belief in a certain theistic perspective. how we arrive at this doesn't matter.

so no, aaron, atheism is not a faith based anything. it is a complete lack of faith at its purest level. lack of faith in the motivations of the origin of life and its processes as defined by theistic means. that in no way automatically equates atheism with science. it just so happens science is the largest counter to theism at this point in time.

[TheDarkHorse]

Raayl why do you sound so angry?

[Raayl]

Raayl why do you sound so angry?

if i sound angry it is at nobody in particular in this forum

but it is getting a little tired to constantly have to shield atheism from this retarded science vs. religion debate

[P13]

has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[burtonbassist_101]

atheism has nothing to do with science or an explanation of the cosmos

it just so happens a lot of prominent atheists like to suggest different criteria for the origin of life, the cosmos, and explanation of natural events than theists (namely science)...

...that said, atheism doesn't even have to suggest that god never existed. atheism could suggest he (or she, or they) died, quit, moved away, or that they just dont give a **** anymore. it is a lack of belief in a certain theistic perspective. how we arrive at this doesn't matter.

so no, aaron, atheism is not a faith based anything. it is a complete lack of faith at its purest level. lack of faith in the motivations of the origin of life and its processes as defined by theistic means. that in no way automatically equates atheism with science. it just so happens science is the largest counter to theism at this point in time.

this.

[die of starvation]

You can say the same about nationality, ideology, philosophy, etc. Does that mean they are harmful?

if they're a wrong ideology or philosophy then yah sure
all religions are wrong so it's unnecessary to include that caveat when referring to them


IF anything, you should arrive at the conclusion that a lack of intolerance is potentially harmful.
what

anyway i have a healthy amount of intolerance

[Aaron]

atheism has nothing to do with science or an explanation of the cosmos
Correct.

it just so happens a lot of prominent atheists like to suggest different criteria for the origin of life, the cosmos, and explanation of natural events than theists (namely science)I agree with this also.

there is such a thing as philosophical atheismErm, well religion and philosophy are pretty intertwined so I'm not sure this statement can be made on its own.

im an atheist

i dont give a **** less about the origin of the universe

that said, atheism doesn't even have to suggest that god never existed. atheism could suggest he (or she, or they) died, quit, moved away, or that they just dont give a **** anymore. it is a lack of belief in a certain theistic perspective. how we arrive at this doesn't matter.

so no, aaron, atheism is not a faith based anything. it is a complete lack of faith at its purest level. lack of faith in the motivations of the origin of life and its processes as defined by theistic means. that in no way automatically equates atheism with science. it just so happens science is the largest counter to theism at this point in time.Atheism is the belief that there is no God. But it's built on the sincere belief that this is the case, and deciding that belief takes faith.

---

I'd be interested to see neurological testing when people are asked questions around their beliefs, to see how the brain acts; ie, whether the same neurological patterns occur when someone confirms having faith in God, or confirms having faith that there is no God.

[Light Flantastic]

no science pretty much disproves the religious texts of most religions (see: the infallible word of god) stop trying to pretend that you can be religious without denouncing scientific fact because you cant despite how you want to think you are being reasonable you arent

[1338 h4x0r]

I love stumping my Christian friend when we start debating about shi with this sort of thing. I ask him things like "how does the light from those stars reach us if the universe was only created a few thousand years ago, considering some star's light takes 10 000+ years to each Earth?", and he's just like "uhhhhhhh... uh.. .. . cause God put them there."

Tell him that's not parsimonious.

Also I think it's easier to debate people in real life because they can't look on Google quick for answers. I ****ing pound people to dust in real-life debates where I would get stuck on the 'Net

Anyway, I'm fine with people believing whatever they believe. However, I am not okay with people trying to enforce their beliefs on other people. Let people decide for themselves what they believe. This means that I think it's wrong for parents and families to enforce their religion on their children and look down upon them if they wish not to partake. People going door-to-door promoting their beliefs is insane as well and I readily tell people that who come to my door trying to tell me abortion is wrong or something. Telling people that if they don't do something or they'll "go to hell" is just wrong and they have no right to do so.

Past a certain point, I am concerned about what other people believe.

i.e. "I believe in God", ok, that's disputable

"I believe the world is going to end soon", not so much

Myself, I guess I am agnostic. I apparently use the same logic as Dawkin (never read his book) that there is no scientific proof for or against there being a God.

Proof doesn't exist in science actually

If you're referencing young earth creationism (earth is 6,000 years old) then you're speaking of a minority of creationists. You do not have to believe the earth is 6,000 years old to believe in a created earth.

They're not really a minority

Also the Earth formed from a swirling disc of cosmic dust, js

you're all self indulgent and retarded if you think that religion has that much interference with science.

Creationism/ID in schools
Stem cell research
The Pope telling people that the HIV virus can pass through condoms
So-called "Christian Scientists" denying their children adequate health care
St Cyril and his mob killing Hypatia and sacking the Library of Alexandria (ok well that was a long time ago)

Those are just the first few I could think of off the top of my head

There's a pretty long history of the religious establishment getting all up in science's grill (although there is also some cases of it being supportive as well, like in the case of medieval Islam, but unfortunately that support has kind of gone by the wayside in modern times :mad:)


sure theres extremists protesting outside labs but then again they probably just close the windows and put on the death metal while they RESEARCH FOR SATAN o/o/o/o/

That would be so awesome

I actually want to blast dark electro everyday when I'm in grad school

I'd be interested to see neurological testing when people are asked questions around their beliefs, to see how the brain acts; ie, whether the same neurological patterns occur when someone confirms having faith in God, or confirms having faith that there is no God.

Temporal lobe stimulation can produce a feeling of otherworldly presence

[Light Flantastic]

its very possible that the world could end any moment

just

as a point

[1338 h4x0r]

Yeah but I'm talking about like Rapture people

[guitarded_chuck]

Proof doesn't exist in science actually

aww look at you getting all literal and technical

You know what I mean

you're all self indulgent and retarded if you think that religion has that much interference with science.

hahahalolha

No, you're just ignorant and have no idea what you're talking about.

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm not too picky and actually I see a lot of people here who don't get figures of speech, but connecting "proof" and "science" always gets me in a dick-punching mood

oh if only you could see my avatar on richarddawkins.net right now

[Light Flantastic]

connecting proof and science is fine stop being a pretentious fag

[1338 h4x0r]

connecting proof and science is fine stop being a pretentious fag

No because science ... doesn't prove things. It only strongly suggests them

[guitarded_chuck]

The scientific method does not allow something to be 100% proven or disproved, but something than continues to display the same results repeatedly time and time again is accepted by the whole community as either being proven or disproved.

So technically something can't be scientific proof, but it can be accepted as proof even by the scientific community itself. And so the term proof is fine to be used when talking about casual scientific arguments.

[Light Flantastic]

No because science ... doesn't prove things. It only strongly suggests them

yeah

if you're being pretentious

but some of us dont care to be

[1338 h4x0r]

Ok chuck if you say so but I'm gonna hafta punch a dick up in here

chad I don't think being clear on the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is pretentious

also http://richarddawkins.net/forum/download/file.php?avatar=80244_1247922236.gif

[guitarded_chuck]

im rdy 4 u bb

[Light Flantastic]

chad I don't think being clear on the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is pretentiousyeah it is when most people dont care

[1338 h4x0r]

"Most people" don't care about a lot of pretty important things

I hate pulling recyclable bottles out of the trash

Especially when the recycling can is right next to the trash

[Light Flantastic]

stop being a bitch and pulling bottles out of the trash then

[1338 h4x0r]

Ah **** off

I want them to be recycled

Why throw out a bottle if it can be recycled

That's a huge waste

[Light Flantastic]

if by huge you mean pretty insignificant then sure

[1338 h4x0r]

if by huge you mean pretty insignificant then sure

It adds up

And I've dug up a lot of bottles and cans out of the trash in my time

[Light Flantastic]

does it add up to something worth more than your self respect

[1338 h4x0r]

Yeah

Reuse of precious natural resources

[Light Flantastic]

all the bottles in all of your years wont compensate for the real damage done to the planet its quite pointless

unless you're doing it to feel good about thinking you are doing something good

[1338 h4x0r]

all the bottles in all of your years wont compensate for the real damage done to the planet its quite pointless


Yeah well no drop feels responsible for the flood

[TheDarkHorse]

if they're a wrong ideology or philosophy then yah sure
who determines what is a 'wrong' ideology? How can an ideology even be 'wrong?'

I don't believe you can be so simplistic in describing ideologies or beliefs

all religions are wrong so it's unnecessary to include that caveat when referring to them

So tell me why billions of people are wasting their time when you have the right answer

no science pretty much disproves the religious texts of most religions (see: the infallible word of god) stop trying to pretend that you can be religious without denouncing scientific fact because you cant despite how you want to think you are being reasonable you arent

again you won't demonstrate how, nor will you realize that science 1) Cannot "disprove" anything thats literally above its nature 2) It is not the job of science to disprove anything. Science is meant to record the natural, not to set precedent and rule out any unnatural occurrence.

But its clear you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Religion and Science, so Its best for you to stray from making baseless claims and become educated on the elementary matters

[TerranYouApart]

1 grain of rice can tip the scale

/mulan

[Light Flantastic]

bassrev so much wants to pretend he's at one with science but science doesnt think he's a very smart young boy

[TheDarkHorse]

bassrev so much wants to pretend he's at one with science but science doesnt think he's a very smart young boy

Surely then, you wouldn't mind taking me out of my ignorance.

Please tell me how science disproves religion. Just back up one claim and perhaps I'll become smart.

Hint: you don't even have to be original. Just google your favorite dawkins quote and maybe that will help

[1338 h4x0r]

So tell me why billions of people are wasting their time when you have the right answer

argumentum ad populum

Why are most scientists irreligious

huh

huh

[TheDarkHorse]

argumentum ad populum

No idiot.

I'm saying tell me why billions of people still believe in this religion stuff when the right answer is right under their noses.

[TerranYouApart]

cause their parents did

duh?

[Light Flantastic]

I'm saying tell me why billions of people still believe in this religion stuff when the right answer is right under their noses.

as you demonstrate so perfectly, people are stupid

[gregulus]

So tell me why billions of people are wasting their time when you have the right answer
Argumentum ad populum.

again you won't demonstrate how, nor will you realize that science 1) Cannot "disprove" anything thats literally above its nature 2) It is not the job of science to disprove anything. Science is meant to record the natural, not to set precedent and rule out any unnatural occurrence.

Ruling out the unnatural in a certain sense is a goal of science. Perhaps not in regards to whether or not there is a Creator, but certainly in the sense of determining how the natural world works and ruling out other unnatural (i.e. not naturally occurring) theories. Science also strongly suggests that unnatural occurrences such as miracles are highly unlikely, if not impossible.

[Light Flantastic]

science doesnt need to disprove a creator to disprove religion

[TheDarkHorse]

cause their parents did

duh?
See below.

Argumentum ad populum.

Again this was not an argument. If you raise someone to believe 2 + 2 = 5, it will be clear to demonstrate they are wrong. If it is so clear that "all religions are wrong" (in what respect he didnt make clear) you will be able to demonstrate so. Just saying "All religions are wrong" holds no weight, nor can "religion' be made so simplistic as to disprove it in the way you can disprove a statement.


Ruling out the unnatural in a certain sense is a goal of science.

Its as unlikely as disproving a negative. It won't happen, nor is it its goal.

You can rule out the unnatural in theory, as you can search 90% of a room and say there is no gold coin inside of the room. Does that rule out the actual possibility that a gold coin exists?

Thing is, science does not even know 90% of what their is to know, nor is it making an attempt to know everything.


Science also strongly suggests that unnatural occurrences such as miracles are highly unlikely, if not impossible.
This it cannot logically do.

[1338 h4x0r]

No idiot.

You're using an argumentum ad populum

[1338 h4x0r]

Again this was not an argument. If you raise someone to believe 2 + 2 = 5, it will be clear to demonstrate they are wrong.

No one desperately wants to believe that 2 + 2 = 5

Poor analogy

If it is so clear that "all religions are wrong" (in what respect he didnt make clear)

Burden of proof is on you to show that religions are right

[Light Flantastic]

pah, everyone knows the world is flat

who are you, scientist

[TheDarkHorse]

You're using an argumentum ad populum

It wasn't an argument. Stop being dense.

Burden of proof is on you to show that religions are right
Again its a silly deflection.

If you make the statement "All religions are wrong" then surely you know something that billions don't, and you are doing a disservice by not sharing it with everyone.

But you and Chad like to play this game of making baseless claims then telling someone else to prove them. You're too weak to assume your part of the burden.

[gregulus]

Its as unlikely as disproving a negative. It won't happen, nor is it its goal.

You can rule out the unnatural in theory, as you can search 90% of a room and say there is no gold coin inside of the room. Does that rule out the actual possibility that a gold coin exists?

Thing is, science does not even know 90% of what their is to know, nor is it making an attempt to know everything.
Unnatural doesn't necessarily mean supernatural, but rather "that which does not exist in the natural world." Differentiating between what does exist in the natural world and what does not exist in the natural world is a goal of science.

Edit: Your gold coin analogy isn't representative of science at all. Science doesn't operate by exploring a portion of a theory then whimsically declaring that the theory is wrong.

This it cannot logically do.
Since miracles are, by definition, a defiance of the laws governing nature, it seems that it can.

[TheDarkHorse]

Since miracles are, by definition, a defiance of the laws governing nature, it seems that it can.
You're confusing two things. Science, more specific the laws of nature, does not define, but it is descriptive of the events of nature. Science does not define or control nature, it only describes it.

Furthermore, Science cannot deal with something thats outside of its nature, logically speaking. Scientifically speaking, miracles are not verifiable or repeatable by experiment, leaving science unable to prove or disprove them.

[1338 h4x0r]

It wasn't an argument.

What is your definition of "argument"?

Whatever it is, it's probably wrong

If you make the statement "All religions are wrong" then surely you know something that billions don't, and you are doing a disservice by not sharing it with everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

AN ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM (LATIN: "APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE"), IN LOGIC, IS A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT THAT CONCLUDES A PROPOSITION TO BE TRUE BECAUSE MANY OR ALL PEOPLE BELIEVE IT; IT ALLEGES, "IF MANY BELIEVE SO, IT IS SO."

THIS IS THE CLAIM YOU ARE MAKING

[TheDarkHorse]

1338 h4x0r
This message is hidden because 1338 h4x0r is on your ignore list.

Thats more like it.

[gregulus]

You're confusing two things. Science, more specific the laws of nature, does not define, but it is descriptive of the events of nature. Science does not define or control nature, it only describes it.
Sure, but it is science that unravels what these events are and it is unlikely (nearly impossible, even) that such descriptions of nature will be defied in the sense that miracles require (such as turning water into wine).

Furthermore, Science cannot deal with something thats outside of its nature, logically speaking. Scientifically speaking, miracles are not verifiable or repeatable by experiment, leaving science unable to prove or disprove them.

Proof isn't what we are after. Rather the issue is having a good reason to believe in things such as miracles, which stand squarely in the face of highly verified scientific facts.

[1338 h4x0r]

1338 h4x0r
This message is hidden because 1338 h4x0r is on your ignore list.

Thats more like it.

BassFag admits he fails at argument

[TheDarkHorse]

Sure, but it is science that unravels what these events are and it is unlikely (nearly impossible, even) that such descriptions of nature will be defied in the sense that miracles require (such as turning water into wine).
unlikely, yes, because we know the order of nature. Impossible, absolutely not. To even say so is to go assume that science controls nature, and such a claim goes beyond the descriptive property of science.

Proof isn't what we are after. Rather the issue is having a good reason to believe in things such as miracles, which stand squarely in the face of highly verified scientific facts.
Same reason why you would believe anything: By observation, or recorded observation.

We have a conception of the natural order of things. We all believe the earth revolves around the sun, and is round, yet few of us have been to space and seen the very things we believe-rather we rely on what others have told us.

What you mean to say is "in the face of scientific description." Again, you must be careful not to assume that science controls nature. It is only descriptive, and records those things which happen in nature. If the laws of nature are suspended by a being which transcends those laws, it will, too, be observed as a departure from the regular order of things, but not proven or disproven by science.

[1338 h4x0r]

Ok give some evidence of miracles goat boy k go

[gregulus]

unlikely, yes, because we know the order of nature. Impossible, absolutely not. To even say so is to go assume that science controls nature, and such a claim goes beyond the descriptive property of science.

Same reason why you would believe anything: By observation, or recorded observation.

We have a conception of the natural order of things. We all believe the earth revolves around the sun, and is round, yet few of us have been to space and seen the very things we believe-rather we rely on what others have told us.

What you mean to say is "in the face of scientific description." Again, you must be careful not to assume that science controls nature. It is only descriptive, and records those things which happen in nature. If the laws of nature are suspended by a being which transcends those laws, it will, too, be observed as a departure from the regular order of things, but not proven or disproven by science.
I'm not assuming that science controls nature. Rather, I'm giving weight to the ability of science to provide unique insight into the workings of the universe and to verify its claims through empirical observation.

For all intents and purposes, the possibility of the natural order of things being suspended in the ways that miracles require might as well be impossible, as the probability of that happening is infinitesimal. There is also no reason to believe that the laws of nature are anything but natural.

[Light Flantastic]

Ok give some evidence of miracles goat boy k go

no you have to prove miracles dont happen ever

[gregulus]

Ok give some evidence of miracles goat boy k go

Quoting for 1338.

[TheDarkHorse]

I'm not assuming that science controls nature. Rather, I'm giving weight to the ability of science to provide unique insight into the workings of the universe and to verify its claims through empirical observation.
And I agree with you. However, science cannot provide insight to things such as miracles because they require a suspension of the natural order, which means it is out of the realm of science.

For all intents and purposes, the possibility of the natural order of things being suspended in the ways that miracles require might as well be impossible, as the probability of that happening is infinitesimal.
This is your assumption, not a scientific one.

This has no bearing on being (logically) impossible, however. The only way to say miracles are impossible is to prove that there is no reality outside of nature.

There is also no reason to believe that the laws of nature are anything but natural.
Yep.

[1338 h4x0r]

This has no bearing on being (logically) impossible, however. The only way to say miracles are impossible is to prove that there is no reality outside of nature.

Well the burden of proof is still on you goat boy

[wartomods]

this thread is a poop hole of thoughts, horrible premise

[Smokey D]

I don't see how its rational to believe in an absolute code of morals in-and-of itself while a supernatural being either didn't create it, or is bound by it (which would not make him supernatural)

I don't see why God has to make the rules. If the universe can come into existence without God, then presumably other things like morals can to.

PS I'm not saying it did come into existence without God rather that if for the sake of argument we accept that it did then what's to stop us from accepting that other things could?

Again you're only arguing with yourself. No one is addressing this.

Well, my point was that your definition was dumb


Which it cannot do. This is EXACTLY MY POINT


You can further define religion, but the basis is a supernatural entity. IF thats the case, Scientific inquiries cannot prove or disprove it.

If all of religion is reduced to 'well maybe God did it' then it's pretty useless.

What you fail to realize is that it has little to do with the definition. You've already admitted my point that its basis is the supernatural, but again you're arguing with yourself because you create points which you think I am making.

No. I said that opposition to religion does not entail opposition to 'philosophical inquiry into the supernatural'. PS, as if you could possibly speculate anything meaningful about the supernatural. What a pointless exercise.

Your definition is dumb. Therefore any argument you base on your definition is dumb.

[TheDarkHorse]

Well, my point was that your definition was dumb
Again you would like to choose the irrelevant matters to argue about. Why not point out the more relevant issues??

Your definition is dumb. Therefore any argument you base on your definition is dumb.
Bad logic. This is your silly opinion.

[Stig Caraveo]

Science doesn't disprove religion, if you accept as religion the belief that some kind of god/God had/has to do with the creation/nature of the universe. At least it doesn't yet, and isn't even close to being able to do so.

Science just disproves (or provides extremely strong evidence against, if you want to be pedantic about it) most of the most important claims made by every established religion in the world.


If all of religion is reduced to 'well maybe God did it' then it's pretty useless.


It is pretty useless, but that's irrelevant to how logically defensible that statement is.

[Raayl]

it still bothers me that atheism is synonymous with science.

j/s.

[TheDarkHorse]

There are possible realities outside of the physical one that we reside in that do not require or even posit the existence of miracles. The issue is with those non-physical realities that do posit the existence of miracles.

implicit in this post is the assumption that there exist no reality that allows for miracles.

Science may not be able to deal with the existence of all miracles outright (though science does have ability to render their existence highly improbable), but it can certainly deal with specific claims of miracles.
No, it really can't. For it to do so, the miracles must be repeatable for experimentation. If, as you said, they are highly improbable to occur, then science cannot possibly deal with them.

it still bothers me that atheism is synonymous with science.

j/s.
I feel ya bro

[mistersnitch]

No, it really can't. For it to do so, the miracles must be repeatable for experimentation. If, as you said, they are highly improbable to occur, then science cannot possibly deal with them.



that is kind of self-affirming logic

miracles are events that supposedly prove religions to be true. the observed events lying outside of what can be explained by science depends on the assumption that this realm outside of science exists, but there is no proof for this.

[Aaron]

Faith in a God =/= religion on individual level.

[gregulus]

implicit in this post is the assumption that there exist no reality that allows for miracles.
No, that's not implicit at all. My statement simply objected to your statement that implied that all non-physical realities allowed for miracles.

No, it really can't. For it to do so, the miracles must be repeatable for experimentation. If, as you said, they are highly improbable to occur, then science cannot possibly deal with them.
Yes it can. If someone who witnessed certain phenomena and was unaware of the natural causes of such a phenomena, they might be inclined to refer to such a thing as a miracle. That doesn't mean that there is no natural cause, however. This is the problem that all claims of miracles run into, or at least the ones that aren't simply made up.

[TheDarkHorse]

Faith in a God =/= religion on individual level.

Thanks for pointing this out. I can't stress it enough.
that is kind of self-affirming logic

miracles are events that supposedly prove religions to be true.
For starters, I wouldn't say that God's existence hinges on the reality of miracles.

However, you have raised an interesting point. The fundamental ground of Christianity is based on a miracle (Christ's resurrection). Science may not be able to explain His rise from the dead, but that is not to say it can be demonstrated that He was once dead, and that He raised from the dead.


the observed events lying outside of what can be explained by science depends on the assumption that this realm outside of science exists, but there is no proof for this.
But lets not assume that if science cannot explain it, it must not exist/be true. There are a number of things that we don't have "proofs" to, which science cannot answer, but we accept on other grounds.
No, that's not implicit at all. My statement simply objected to your statement that implied that all non-physical realities allowed for miracles.
oh no thats not what I meant at all. What I meant (I thought it was clear) was that to say miracles are logically impossible is to assume there is no reality outside of nature (This is the philosophical objection).


Yes it can. If someone who witnessed certain phenomena and was unaware of the natural causes of such a phenomena, they might be inclined to refer to such a thing as a miracle.
You just answered your question about a reason to believe in miracles. Surely this observation would be a "good enough reason."

[mistersnitch]

Faith in a God =/= religion on individual level.

okay yeah i was wrong actually. anyways for the question of whether or not atheism is a faith-based system of belief it would be more relevant to talk about atheism vs. theism than atheism vs. religion.


But lets not assume that if science cannot explain it, it must not exist/be true. There are a number of things that we don't have "proofs" to, which science cannot answer, but we accept on other grounds.


i'm not sure i'm following you here... what are some things that we have no scientific proof/evidence for and yet we accept as truths?

[Smokey D]

Again you would like to choose the irrelevant matters to argue about. Why not point out the more relevant issues??


Like what?

I never know what you're saying.


It is pretty useless, but that's irrelevant to how logically defensible that statement is.

The problem is 'maybe God did it' is completely unfalsifiable and any discussion we could possibly have would be meaningless.

[TheDarkHorse]

i'm not sure i'm following you here... what are some things that we have no scientific proof/evidence for and yet we accept as truths?
The very belief that the external world is real cannot be proven by science, nor can our belief that minds other than our own exist (These are metaphysical truths)

Reason cannot be proven by science. This is, but not limited to, non-contradiction, mathematics, logic, etc

Statements of meaning and value cannot be proven by science.

Morality/ethical principles cannot be proven by science

To name a few, without being unnecessarily specific or annoyingly repetitive.

[mistersnitch]

The problem is 'maybe God did it' is completely unfalsifiable and any discussion we could possibly have would be meaningless.

how about this:
science pretty much completely discredits religion
however,
science does not disprove or discredit basic theism

The very belief that the external world is real cannot be proven by science, nor can our belief that minds other than our own exist (These are metaphysical truths)

Reason cannot be proven by science. This is, but not limited to, non-contradiction, mathematics, logic, etc

Statements of meaning and value cannot be proven by science.

Morality/ethical principles cannot be proven by science

To name a few, without being unnecessarily specific or annoyingly repetitive.

absolute proofs don't exist, but we use empirical evidence to determine the nature of the world around us as best we can

if this evidence is consistent enough among a large enough group of people then we have what we call reality. even though it may very well be false there is nothing to go on but empiricism. nothing can be known if you question every piece of evidence you gather through your perceptions, but most people prefer not to live that way

so then starting with this possibly-real pool of empirical perceptions as the foundation of how we understand the universe, we have no choice (unless we are going to live in a never-ending existential fog) but to judge the "truth" of anything we see, such as miracles, based on their consistency with what we already have.

so you can say "miracles lie outside of the realm of human understanding" and all that, but if that is the case and we are expected to just believe that they are true without evidence then we could believe absolutely anything for no reason.

i'm pretty tired so hopefully that made sense.

[TheDarkHorse]

so you can say "miracles lie outside of the realm of human understanding" and all that, but if that is the case and we are expected to just believe that they are true without evidence then we could believe absolutely anything for no reason.

If it was observed (by you or another party) then evidence is present. Unfortunately, there is little to none that can be done with the evidence scientifically, since a miracle would mean there was a suspension of the scientific laws of nature.

If someone's ear, which was just cut off, has been completely restored, you can choose to believe or not believe what you just saw, using whatever rationalization, but science cannot explain it, for it is not its job.

It would be correct to say "This is highly improbable by science" or maybe even say "This is scientifically impossible," but that does not account for what is outside of nature.

i'm pretty tired so hopefully that made sense.
was very coherent

[mistersnitch]

If it was observed (by you or another party) then evidence is present. Unfortunately, there is little to none that can be done with the evidence scientifically, since a miracle would mean there was a suspension of the scientific laws of nature.

If someone's ear, which was just cut off, has been completely restored, you can choose to believe or not believe what you just saw, using whatever rationalization, but science cannot explain it, for it is not its job.

It would be correct to say "This is highly improbable by science" or maybe even say "This is scientifically impossible," but that does not account for what is outside of nature.


but you're pre-supposing that what you witnessed cannot be explained by science. if we don't understand how a miracle that we've witnessed could have occurred, then there are two conclusions we could come to-

1)this miracle cannot be explained by science, it is too spectacular, and therefore it lies outside the realm of science and empirical human understanding
2)this miracle can be explained by science, but we don't yet know how

believing either of those firmly takes a little leap of faith, but believing the 2nd one requires a much much smaller one as it's more consistent with what we've observed over thousands of years of scientific progress, during which "miraculous" natural processes were continuously found to be explainable.

[TheDarkHorse]

but you're pre-supposing that what you witnessed cannot be explained by science.
Of course I am. The scientific laws of nature were suspended in order for the miracles to happen. It wouldn't make sense for it to be explained by such.

It would be like putting blindfolds on the refs at a football match for a brief period, then asking them to make their call.

Of course, seeing how nature-minded we are, I would appeal to #2 and look for a natural rationalization, but would likely realize (depending on the miracle) that it happened when the natural order was not in effect.

[gregulus]

Of course I am. The scientific laws of nature were suspended in order for the miracles to happen. It wouldn't make sense for it to be explained by such.

That's only if the supposed miracle was actually a miracle. If we're talking about the validity of miracle claims, then the suspension of natural law is essentially what is in question. We can't make the assumption that natural law was suspended in answering the question of whether or not natural law was suspended.

[Raayl]

judging from the way most treat science as they debate people like TheDarkHorse, I'd most certainly say it is now to the level of religion. A materialistic religion, yeah - but a religion none the less.

It's like communism. Sure, the soviet union "said" they were atheists - but communism was the real religion. The way science is treated in this thread is much the same way - dogmatic.

Hence atheism has absolutely no connection to science especially in this context.

[gregulus]

judging from the way most treat science as they debate people like TheDarkHorse, I'd most certainly say it is now to the level of religion. A materialistic religion, yeah - but a religion none the less.

It's like communism. Sure, the soviet union "said" they were atheists - but communism was the real religion. The way science is treated in this thread is much the same way - dogmatic.

Hence atheism has absolutely no connection to science especially in this context.

Your argument seems to be something like this:
1. Science is religious.
2. Atheism is a rejection or at least a disbelief in religion.
3. Therefore, atheism has no connection whatsoever to science.

Your first premise is false. Religion is, by definition, concerned with spirituality. The way different religions approach this issue varies, but that is the ultimately the primary issue. I cannot think of any such requirement of spirituality in science. Perhaps you meant to say that science is dogmatic, but this isn't necessarily true either. Scientific theories are very susceptible to change.

[Dave de Sylvia]

The next time my doctor tries to prescribe me some medicine I shall have to tell him to peddle his religious voodoo to somebody else.

[Raayl]

Your argument seems to be something like this:
1. Science is religious.
2. Atheism is a rejection or at least a disbelief in religion.
3. Therefore, atheism has no connection whatsoever to science.

Your first premise is false. Religion is, by definition, concerned with spirituality. The way different religions approach this issue varies, but that is the ultimately the primary issue. I cannot think of any such requirement of spirituality in science. Perhaps you meant to say that science is dogmatic, but this isn't necessarily true either. Scientific theories are very susceptible to change.

nope i most certainly didnt suggest science is innately a religion

i said people in this thread are being incredibly dogmatic and treating it like one.

[Raayl]

The next time my doctor tries to prescribe me some medicine I shall have to tell him to peddle his religious voodoo to somebody else.

i appreciate your certainly brilliant, cutting satire however nothing in my observation suggests anything negative about the importance of science or the biomedical paradigm

i merely suggest that turning it into something just as dogmatic and theistic in principle as the religion which everybody detests so rigorously here is hypocritical

i do, too detest religion - by the way. i just don't fabricate another dogma to combat it.

[Light Flantastic]

how is the scientific process dogmatic

what

[Raayl]

how is the scientific process dogmatic

what

of course i forgot you can't read

nothing about the scientific method is dogmatic

doesn't seem to stop people who discuss it here from treating it like a dogma, yourself included of course, chad.

[Light Flantastic]

if i know something has gone through the scientific process then believing it isnt dogmatic

so again

what

[Raayl]

if i know something has gone through the scientific process then believing it isnt dogmatic

so again

what

believing it? no. that is perfectly reasonable, and i do as well.

crafting this belief into a spearhead and using it to eliminate a separate concept is the very definition of dogma. science is right, religion is wrong - if you don't believe this, you're an idiot. that is a dogma most certainly.

just so you know btw, i'm on your side about this debate, chad. i do think people who literally interpret mythological stories to be factually correct are of an inferior mindset.

I simply don't approve of militantly using a separate school of thought (such as the scientific method) to spearhead this war on theistic perspective. science isn't meant to be used in such a way.

[Raayl]

i also don't approve of automatically conflating atheism and science, as i've stated several times.

[Light Flantastic]

thats not what dogma means.

if something is demonstrably true and you dont believe it then you are an idiot

[Raayl]

thats not what dogma means.

if something is demonstrably true and you dont believe it then you are an idiot

really? am i really quoting websters for you chad?

something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

umm that is exactly what i said and its also exactly how you approach this discussion

[Dave de Sylvia]

i appreciate your certainly brilliant, cutting satire however nothing in my observation suggests anything negative about the importance of science or the biomedical paradigm

i merely suggest that turning it into something just as dogmatic and theistic in principle as the religion which everybody detests so rigorously here is hypocritical

i do, too detest religion - by the way. i just don't fabricate another dogma to combat it.
Dogma is, by definition, not scientific. People's adherence to scientific principles would only be dogmatic if they didn't understand why they were doing it, and clearly that's not the case here.

[Raayl]

A dogma is, by definition, not scientific. People's adherence to scientific principles would only be dogmatic if they didn't understand why they were doing it, and clearly that's not the case here.

I purposefully made note of just the people discussing it here, and no-one else. is this about the greater scientific community? no. this is about the PWNI forum doing what it always does.

anything can be dogmatic. anything.

so when you pride yourself on having a position that is anti-dogma and pro-truth/knowledge/experimentation/testability, it seems a little contradictory and silly to turn this perspective into a weapon to combat a separate, theistic, ideology.

[1338 h4x0r]

tbh evidence and blind faith are equal, isn't it obvious?

[Raayl]

tbh evidence and blind faith are equal, isn't it obvious?

once again, failure to read and/or comprehend isn't my problem.

[Light Flantastic]

failure to comprehend definitely appears to be your problem

[Dave de Sylvia]

I purposefully made note of just the people discussing it here, and no-one else. is this about the greater scientific community? no. this is about the PWNI forum doing what it always does.

anything can be dogmatic. anything.

so when you pride yourself on having a position that is anti-dogma and pro-truth/knowledge/experimentation/testability, it seems a little contradictory and silly to turn this perspective into a weapon to combat a separate, theistic, ideology.
No, you don't get it. If "science" becomes dogma then it is no longer science.

[mistersnitch]

I purposefully made note of just the people discussing it here, and no-one else. is this about the greater scientific community? no. this is about the PWNI forum doing what it always does.

anything can be dogmatic. anything.

so when you pride yourself on having a position that is anti-dogma and pro-truth/knowledge/experimentation/testability, it seems a little contradictory and silly to turn this perspective into a weapon to combat a separate, theistic, ideology.

what is your point? we were actually discussing something on the last page, you just sent this thread off on a flaming tangent. you think people are being disrespectful and hypocritical? fine. say something substantial. we are talking about atheism, not the flaws we see in each other. the PNWI forum does what it always does because people do what you are doing right now.

[mistersnitch]

but anyways, you bring up the interesting point that instead of arbitrarily believing in one or multiple deities we arbitrarily believe in empiricism (if that's what you meant). but i'd say empiricism is a more consistent and self-supporting system of belief than any religion.

[Aaron]

This was a triumph!
I'm making a note here:
"HUGE SUCCESS!!"

It's hard to overstate
my satisfaction.

Aperture Science:
We do what me must
because we can.

For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.

But there's no sense crying
over every mistake.
You just keep on trying
till you run out of cake.
And the science gets done.
And you make a neat gun
for the people who are
still alive.

I'm not even angry...
I'm being so sincere right now-
Even though you broke my heart,
and killed me.

And tore me to pieces.
And threw every piece into a fire.
As they burned it hurt because
I was so happy for you!

Now, these points of data
make a beautiful line.
And we're out of beta.
We're releasing on time!
So I'm glad I got burned-
Think of all the things we learned-
for the people who are
still alive.

Go ahead and leave me...
I think I'd prefer to stay inside...
Maybe you'll find someone else
to help you?
Maybe Black Mesa?
That was a joke! HAHA!! FAT CHANCE!!

Anyway this cake is great!
It's so delicious and moist!

Look at me: still talking
when there's science to do!
When I look out there,
it makes me glad I'm not you.

I've experiments to run.
There is research to be done.
On the people who are
still alive.
And believe me I am
still alive.
I'm doing science and I'm
still alive.
I feel fantastic and I'm
still alive.
While you're dying I'll be
still alive.
And when you're dead I will be
still alive.

Still alive.

Still alive.

[mistersnitch]

wt

[Kaleid]

Atheism is a faith-based system of belief.

No. Atheism is a term used to describe the absence of theistic beliefs. A-theism. That's it. Nothing else can be ascertained about a person describing themselves as an atheist. It is not a system.

Faith in the validity of evidence and relationships is just the same at the elemental level of personal-thought as faith in a non-tangible deity, or group of deities.

There is no 'faith in the validity of evidence'. Faith would only be required if there were no evidence at all. Faith, it seems, has a subtly different meaning to different people. The above quote attempts, through semantic gymnastics, to put the deployment of the scientific method, under rigourous, easily reproducible, peer-reviewed conditions to find evidence for the validity of hypotheses or postulates, on the same level of validity as believing in things with zero evidence whatsoever.

[Pop music sucks]

I believe he's describing the notion that athiesm is a belief sytem that works upon wholly committing oneself to that belief that there is no theistic deities based upon personal convictions. It's suggesting that scientific proof of a deity is, at this moment, completely nonexistant and thus there can be no emperical evidence that there isn't one. Ergo, it is up to the invidual to belive in atheism without scientific evidence that there is no deity.

[Kaleid]

In that case, it's a strawman. The definition of atheism is not the same as the notion that has been put forward. There are, undoubtedly, some atheists that declare a god or gods to be non-existent, but that same level of assurance is just as flawed in its reasoning; a god or gods cannot be said to definitely not exist. But then, there are tons of things that fit into that category, yet we pay them no heed because there is zero evidential support for them to merit consideration.

[gregulus]

In that case, it's a strawman. The definition of atheism is not the same as the notion that has been put forward. There are, undoubtedly, some atheists that declare a god or gods to be non-existent, but that same level of assurance is just as flawed in its reasoning; a god or gods cannot be said to definitely not exist. But then, there are tons of things that fit into that category, yet we pay them no heed because there is zero evidential support for them to merit consideration.

The strong sense of the word certainly is the same as the notion that has been put forward. It seems that you adhere to the weak sense of the term, which encompasses all non-theistic beliefs (like agnosticism).

Note: The strong versus weak distinction in no way comments on the strength of the term. It is merely an indicator of extremity.

[Kaleid]

Yes. Like I said, it's all semantics. I still stand by the definition of atheism being simply a lack of theistic belief, as in A-theism. It's perfectly possible to be an agnostic atheist, just as it's possible to be an atheist that says there is definitely no god/s; a stance that cannot be said to be 100% true, yet the agnostic atheist lives his or her life by that assumption, pending evidence to the contrary.

[mistersnitch]

I will stand by the definition of atheism that has more than one definition -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

obviously we are talking about the doctrine that there is no god or gods so there's no point in quarreling yes

[greentea89]

i think people should believe or not believe whatever they want. :]

[mistersnitch]

i think people should believe or not believe whatever they want. :]

me too but some beliefs are more likely than others to lead to bad things

[Odin88]

No. Atheism is a term used to describe the absence of theistic beliefs. A-theism. That's it. Nothing else can be ascertained about a person describing themselves as an atheist. It is not a system.

Any form of collected ideals, doctirines or beliefs is in fact a system.....so Athiesm is a system.


There is no 'faith in the validity of evidence'. Faith would only be required if there were no evidence at all. Faith, it seems, has a subtly different meaning to different people. The above quote attempts, through semantic gymnastics, to put the deployment of the scientific method, under rigourous, easily reproducible, peer-reviewed conditions to find evidence for the validity of hypotheses or postulates, on the same level of validity as believing in things with zero evidence whatsoever.

You seem to be implying that only Theistic people have can have faith, science and Atheism are not synonomous so it is possible for someone to not believe in god based on their faith in the non-existance of god(never met someone like this, however it is possible).

[Kaleid]

You seem to be implying that only Theistic people have can have faith, science and Atheism are not synonomous so it is possible for someone to not believe in god based on their faith in the non-existance of god(never met someone like this, however it is possible).

Not really. I don't believe in god/s. I'm not stating it as fact that they don't exist, I just have no belief in them. Someone who said there definitely isn't any god/s is technically stating a faith position, because they are claiming to know something that they can't possibly know for sure. The utter lack of evidential support for the position simply means that the idea is irrelevant to the agnostic atheist.

[Odin88]

Atheism doesn't have any "collected ideals, doctrines or beliefs" besides the disbelief in deities.

in the broadest sense of the word yes, but as Theism contains countless religions, beliefs, etc which all share the similarity of believing in dieties; Atheism contains different approaches to the disbelief of dietes. A strong or explicit Athiest and agnostic athiest share the disbelief in dieties, but would not however agree with each other on anything more than that unitary ideal. their ideals and doctrines are different, for example the strong Athiest would attempt to disprove god with empirical evidence whereas the agnostic athiest would state that god cannot be proven or disproved. yes the word Athiesm it self is defined as the disbelief in deities but within lay a vast collection of beliefs.

[Light Flantastic]

how's paganism, odin88

[Kaleid]

for example the strong Athiest would attempt to disprove god with empirical evidence

That person would be a bit silly, because the existence of deities is not demonstrably falsifiable. The concept of god/s is not even considered a hypothesis for this reason.

[Light Flantastic]

i dont think we'd try and disprove god with evidence

we'd disprove god with logic

[McP3000]

which doesnt really make sense either

[Light Flantastic]

sure it does the only way you can escape the illogicality of god is to say logic doesnt apply because hes magic

well god as in the all powerful all perfect being is illogical anyway

not that science doesnt disprove the scripture of almost every religion anyway

[McP3000]

okay how can you disprove the existence of God without saying that God is above logic

this interests me

[Light Flantastic]

a perfect being wouldnt create humans

perfect beings dont have needs or wants or desires

those are human qualities

[Odin88]

how's paganism, odin88

ehhhh.....i knew that would come up lol. Old name, don't feel like re-registering under a different name. I haven't been on here in a while.

[McP3000]

a perfect being wouldnt create humans

perfect beings dont have needs or wants or desires

those are human qualities
okay i was severely disappointed im sorry

[Light Flantastic]

you've already been convinced to believe dumb things over a number of years most likely of course you're going to ignore reasonable arguments

[McP3000]

it wasnt a very good argument at all but okay

[Light Flantastic]

thats why you havent countered it

[McP3000]

what am i supposed to counter with it with?

"uh this is the unnecessary assumption, this is a jump in logic, etc"

do you really want me to go through the motions, i mean the problem with your post is pretty self evident even to an atheist

[Light Flantastic]

you're the one ascribing desires to a being that wants for nothing

so you tell me how that works

[McP3000]

how do you know a perfect being wants nothing? Wouldn't the absence of something like want make it essentially imperfect? Want is different than a need.

[Against Miik!]

The only problem I have with the post is that any theoretical God isn't perfect. The only person who ever said, and who ever can know that God is perfect is God. That sounds like a narcissist more than anything.

It's been a while since I've been to church, so maybe I've forgotten, but I think the fact that man was created in Gods image is stressed more than God's perfection, although that would only be one of many contradictions.

O and a perfect being probably would have no desires. Or needs for that matter.

[Light Flantastic]

how do you know a perfect being wants nothing?

because thats the nature of being perfect and complete


Wouldn't the absence of something like want make it essentially imperfect?

that doesnt make sense

is a sphere imperfect because it has no bumps

[Bleak]

A perfect being sounds incredibly boring.

[Against Miik!]

So?

[Light Flantastic]

things are only boring when you cant step outside of or control time

[TheDarkHorse]

what am i supposed to counter with it with?

"uh this is the unnecessary assumption, this is a jump in logic, etc"

do you really want me to go through the motions, i mean the problem with your post is pretty self evident even to an atheist

dude God can't be all-powerful cause He can't make a rock so heavy He cannot lift DuDE ur soo wrong

[Smokey D]

The only problem I have with the post is that any theoretical God isn't perfect. The only person who ever said, and who ever can know that God is perfect is God. That sounds like a narcissist more than anything.

Narcissism presumably would not be a bad thing if he was in fact perfect.

Part of me wants to argue that perhaps creating humans is part of God's perfection. That is, he would not be perfect unless he made creation.

Another part of me wants to argue that trying to frame and understand God in the limited language of humanity is like trying to hold the ocean in a thimble.

Well, that's what I would say if I believed in God.

[DxRocker]

I didn't read the entire thread, but would like to leave a comment here...

I disagree that atheism is a faith based "believe system". Firstly for the simple reason that ahteism actually simply is "the absence of faith".

If one would say that "atheism" relies on faith, then there is nothing in this world wich doesn't rely on faith.

If being agnostic is the "best" or the most rational choice, then you should be agnostic about anything. The flying unicorn, bigfoot, loch ness, alien abduction, god, gods, the flying teapot, cinderella, snowhite, santa clause, spaghetti monster, thor, appollo, jupiter, quetzalcoatl or, as dawkins so brilliantly put it, "the great JuJu up the mountain".

I strongly disagree that the personal god of the bible can't be tested. We can't test its existance directly, but we can indirectly by what is said about him/attributed to him.

We can test the effects of prayers, we can test the accuracy of biblical stories,... All this has been done over and over again and not one expirements was in god's favor. That should lead to the logical conclusion.

The theist will then say "but god will only reveal himself when he wants to" and that god thus makes sure that your experiments fail because he demands "faith" of you.

Obviously, all that sounds pretty hollow and very baseless. The same could be said about absolutely anything.

Think about it this way... if you would start out today with a clean path (so your mind is not poluted by any religion whatsoever - and there are many) and look at the world with all the knowledge we have today...
Would you even consider a god? Would it even be an issue? No, it wouldn't. Just like we don't attribute anything to a flying unicorn, so wouldn't we attribute anything to an omnipotent god.

Yes, we can never prove directly that god doesn't exist. Just like we can never prove directly that he doesn't exist. But that is not a good enough argument to assume that god exist.

In fact, when you can't prove or disprove it directly, there is no rational reason whatsoever to even consider it one way or the other.

That's what I understand by being an atheist: being someone that doesn't even considers god to be part of the equation. Just like we don't consider unicorns or elves to be part of the equation. It simply doesn't matter. In fact, when we do consider god to be part of the equation, the world doesn't make as much sense as if he isn't part of the equation...

In literal interpretation of scriptures, evolution (and thus biology and bio-genetics), abiogenesis (and thus molecular biology and molecular genetics) and the big bang (and thus physics and quantum physics) don't make sense anymore...

Other then the bible, wich is proven to be a collection of ancient polytheistic mythical stories and just plain false information, there is absolutely NOTHING in our or our world's history that links a god with the natural world. Absolutely nothing.

So being agnostic in my eyes is also quite unnecessary. In my life, religion is not an issue. God is not an issue. All of it doesn't matter. It's not important. It's plain fictional crap taken far to seriously.

Fact of the matter is... throughout history, god(s) have been used to fill the gaps of human knowledge. The "god of the gaps" is a very accurate description of most religions out there. As science makes progress, the gaps thighten and god is pushed further and further towards being completely irrelavent. Not once in history was something encountered that pushed god to being relevant. Not once. As time goes further and as human knowledge expands... god is pushed towards being irellavent. Honestly, with the scientific knowledge of today, god is not even worthy of being used in any topic whatsoever. He has become thath irellavent.

Problem is that most people simply lack the scientific education to realise this.

[Odin88]

long post is long.

I disagree that atheism is a faith based "believe system". Firstly for the simple reason that ahteism actually simply is "the absence of faith".

Atheism is the absence of belief in dieties, not the absence of faith. Faith is a seperate subject in this sense, Athiest only have no faith in there being a god/s. I'm going to assume thats what you meant though.

I strongly disagree that the personal god of the bible can't be tested. We can't test its existance directly, but we can indirectly by what is said about him/attributed to him.

We can test the effects of prayers, we can test the accuracy of biblical stories,... All this has been done over and over again and not one expirements was in god's favor. That should lead to the logical conclusion.

The theist will then say "but god will only reveal himself when he wants to" and that god thus makes sure that your experiments fail because he demands "faith" of you. Christianity isnt the only thiest belief, so disproving the bible does not disprove theism; it only disproves christianity. God cannot be disproven or proven through human reason, religion can.


Yes, we can never prove directly that god doesn't exist. Just like we can never prove directly that he doesn't exist. But that is not a good enough argument to assume that god exist.

In fact, when you can't prove or disprove it directly, there is no rational reason whatsoever to even consider it one way or the other.
No its not a good enough argument, but there is nothing you or anyone can do about it unfortunately. There is however a rational reason, which is known as Pascal's Wager. Pascal stated that even though no human can prove or disprove god's existance, they should wager as if he exists as that person has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Of course this view is not used as proof just as simple probability. This wager also took heavy scrutiny from Dawkins stating that taking the wager would sacrifice your happiness, however believing in god does not nececarily mean you must serve him, agian this religion not theism. Anyways my point is you can through rational probability find reason to consider it one way or the other.


So being agnostic in my eyes is also quite unnecessary. In my life, religion is not an issue. God is not an issue. All of it doesn't matter. It's not important. It's plain fictional crap taken far to seriously. Well unfortunately there are millions of people who disagree with you, making it an issue that does matter. The fact that so many people are involved in theistic practice gravely shapes our society and world thus effecting your daily life.

[Kaleid]

Pascal's Wager urges you to believe, in a cynical, 'what have you got to lose' manner. The idea that one can force oneself to believe in something is ridiculous. You would also have thought that such a tactic would be wholly transparent to any apparently all-knowing deity demanding honest belief as a prerequisite for avoiding hell.

Anyway. I think the OP's been thoroughly debunked by now.

[Odin88]

Pascal's Wager urges you to believe, in a cynical, 'what have you got to lose' manner. The idea that one can force oneself to believe in something is ridiculous. You would also have thought that such a tactic would be wholly transparent to any apparently all-knowing deity demanding honest belief as a prerequisite for avoiding hell.

I was merely commenting on the probability of the concept. I was using it to show that god's existance can be considered one way or the other.

Anyway. I think the OP's been thoroughly debunked by now. yes.

[Berner]

Pascal's wager also never gets at which deity to believe in of the thousands that have been dreamed up.

[Odin88]

Pascal's wager also never gets at which deity to believe in of the thousands that have been dreamed up.


thats not really the point of it, i dont think it needs to adhere to any religion pers say, its really aplicable to all of them. Pascal never mention the concept of hell, or other religious concepts other than belief and existance in his wager therefore it can be assumed it was aimed towards general theism rather than a specific religion.

[Berner]

But he also posits that if you accept his argument (which I don't) that you should live a religious life and you'll be better for it.

Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, bless yourself with holy water, have Masses said, and so on; by a simple and natural process this will make you believe, and will dull you—will quiet your proudly critical intellect... Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful.


That seems like a bit of a leap. This type of thinking bothers me because it tells you to suspend your intellect. If everyone did such things then where would be as a civilization?

[Pastorius]

thats not really the point of it, i dont think it needs to adhere to any religion pers say, its really aplicable to all of them. Pascal never mention the concept of hell, or other religious concepts other than belief and existance in his wager therefore it can be assumed it was aimed towards general theism rather than a specific religion.

But pretty much every religion says "You will worship MY God"

What would be the point in subscribing to theism without picking a God? That's like going to a horse race and not putting any money on a horse.

EDIT: Also I feel that the problem with religion is not what it says in the various books (although lots of passages are abhorrent), but with the regarding of faith as being of higher value than reason.

[Odin88]

But he also posits that if you accept his argument (which I don't) that you should live a religious life and you'll be better for it.

i said his wager was applicible to all religions, i understand his other arguments regarding living as if god exists and yes if you are taking the wager then you must "appease" the god you choose however that may be. Again I was using the wager as a broad way to prove that there are rational ways to consider gods existance even without the hope of proof. I didn't bring it up to nit pick at the obvious holes and variables in his theory, in fact you could even say most of the scrutiny his theory recieved is just yet more ways to consider gods existance so my original point stands.

[Pastorius]

Pascal's wager has been destroyed completely though, many many many times, and exposed as being thoroughly irrational.

Is your point, "We can consider the existence of God so it's worth looking into?"

[Odin88]

Pascal's wager has been destroyed completely though, many many many times, and exposed as being thoroughly irrational.

Is your point, "We can consider the existence of God so it's worth looking into?"

basically yes, moreso that there is rational reason to look into it
becasue DxRocker stated
In fact, when you can't prove or disprove it directly, there is no rational reason whatsoever to even consider it one way or the other. which is total BS, i was merely using pascals wager as a means to prove there are reasons and ways to consider it. it is a very simple probability yes, but from it spawned a flood of creative and intellectual arguments for and against gods existance, as simple as you all want to make his wager it paved the way for a lot of philosophies, mathematics and critical thinking. Not to mention the societal impact of god's existance, that alone makes it worth considering. Im not saying that pascals wager is the end all of consideration for god (clearly to many holes an unacounted variable), its just a simple concept that backed up my original counter point.

if there was a god he would not let tangents like this happen haha.

[Pastorius]

Basically unfalsifiability renders an argument not worth considering. If your argument comes back to "You can't disprove it" then there is no rational reason to look at it.

Pascal's wager may have spawned many philosophical thinkings and whatnot, but just as with a lot of mathematical paradoxes, they can be worked around and disproved. It may take time and spawn arguments, but once it is disproved then it ceases to be relevant.

As for 'the societal impact of god's existence', whether something is true or not has no reliance on the impact it has had on society. The way I view it is as a lingering training wheel on the bicycle of humanity. Society has come far enough to fling off this ridiculous childish safety blanket and embrace the unknown.

[TheDarkHorse]

Pascal's wager has been destroyed completely though, many many many times, and exposed as being thoroughly irrational.

Thats because its purpose has been misconstrued over and over.


The point of Pascal's wager is to say the worst case scenario for the believer is the same as the best case for the non-believer. Provided everything is true (Whatever God it takes you to believe in to get a favorable afterlife) Pascal is right.

Of course it has the usual problems (Belief in God alone doesn't mean anything in Christianity, can't force yourself to believe) but he's not trying to make anyone believe. He's simply pointing out that from a pragmatic point of view the non-believer cannot have a better result than the believer in the afterlife.

[Pastorius]

It is riddled with assumptions though. What if God doesn't want you to mindlessly believe on the basis of a bet, and would refuse you entry for being a non-thinking sheep?

The non-believer could easily have a better result, he just sets up a set of conditions that seem to make it stupid to not believe.

[Odin88]

As for 'the societal impact of god's existence', whether something is true or not has no reliance on the impact it has had on society. The way I view it is as a lingering training wheel on the bicycle of humanity. Society has come far enough to fling off this ridiculous childish safety blanket and embrace the unknown.

riiiiggghhhhht your trying to tell me that gods existance being true or false has never impacted society.

[Pastorius]

No, I'm saying it's irrelevant to whether God exists or not.

[TheDarkHorse]

It is riddled with assumptions though. What if God doesn't want you to mindlessly believe on the basis of a bet, and would refuse you entry for being a non-thinking sheep?
Did I not say it had problems?

The conclusion stands

The non-believer could easily have a better result, he just sets up a set of conditions that seem to make it stupid to not believe.
This seriously doesn't make any sense.

No, I'm saying it's irrelevant to whether God exists or not.
Talk about assumptions.

[Pastorius]

Did I not say it had problems?

The conclusion stands

The conclusion stands, given you apply all of the conditions that must be applied to the situation. Again, what if God prefers people who came to the conclusion that he doesn't exist?

This seriously doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, the 'he' in the second half is Pascal, not the non-believer. My bad.

Talk about assumptions.

So if something impacts on society it effects whether it is true or not? That's ridiculous.

[TheDarkHorse]

The conclusion stands, given you apply all of the conditions that must be applied to the situation.

Thats exactly what I said.

Again, what if God prefers people who came to the conclusion that he doesn't exist?
In other words, God created people for the sole purpose of denying His existence, thereby nullifying His laws and requirements, then not accepting the very payment (His son) which is required for salvation.

This is irrational, at best.



Sorry, the 'he' in the second half is Pascal, not the non-believer. My bad.

Ok, but how can the non-believer have a better result, provided that he believes in no afterlife, and if he is right, there will be nothing for everyone?


So if something impacts on society it effects whether it is true or not? That's ridiculous.
Don't confuse me with Odin.

To say "God is irrelevant" is quite a weighty assumption.

[Odin88]

So if something impacts on society it effects whether it is true or not? That's ridiculous.

I think you mixing up your wording. im not (i cant speak for darkhorse, im assuming he'll agree) implying that the impacts themselves are what deams it true or false, i was originally stating the argument of whether god is true or false is what has an impact on society (wars, cultures, traditions etc.). I think you just misunderstood me.

Don't confuse me with Odin.
To say "God is irrelevant" is quite a weighty assumption.

did i miss something, when did i say god was irrelevant???

[Pastorius]

Thats exactly what I said.

Which is why it means nothing, I can change the conditions and come up with a different wager.

In other words, God created people for the sole purpose of denying His existence, thereby nullifying His laws and requirements, then not accepting the very payment (His son) which is required for salvation.

This is irrational, at best.

So is belief in the afterlife. Who the hell are we to presume we know what God wants, assuming God exists? You're assuming the laws in current religions are correct. Religion has no impact on whether God exists or not.

What if Islam had never been invented, but turns out God is the God described in the Koran? Would it make a difference that no human had written about him?

Ok, but how can the non-believer have a better result, provided that he believes in no afterlife, and if he is right, there will be nothing for everyone?

If the non-believer believes in no afterlife, and it turns out he is wrong, but God lets him in for critically thinking about his existence and kicks the believers to Hell for going along with the story, then not believing through critical thought would be a better result. You're assuming again that God wants you to believe in him. As does Pascal in fact.

Don't confuse me with Odin.

To say "God is irrelevant" is quite a weighty assumption.

I never did say God is irrelevant. I only ever said the impact that belief in God has had on society makes no difference to whether God exists or not.

[Pastorius]

I think you mixing up your wording. im not (i cant speak for darkhorse, im assuming he'll agree) implying that the impacts themselves are what deams it true or false, i was originally stately the argument of whether god is true or false is what has an impact on society (wars, cultures, traditions etc.). I think you just misunderstood me.


Oh OK, I did misunderstand you. I still disagree with that though.

I think the bigger social impact comes from people disagreeing over whose God is the true one. It's only recently that atheists have even begun to make a dent in the argument.

[TheDarkHorse]

Which is why it means nothing, I can change the conditions and come up with a different wager.
You'd be hard-pressed to come up with the exact opposite conclusion.

You guys honestly don't think Pascal thought this through?

So is belief in the afterlife. Who the hell are we to presume we know what God wants, assuming God exists?
Thats not irrational to believe a being who created you has given you a guideline of how He expects you to live (laws, conscience, etc). You can call it an assumption if you'd like, but its by no means irrational as it would be to believe a God created people just so they can deny Him.

Religion has no impact on whether God exists or not.
I agree with you, which is why I believe in a personal God through a relationship with Him, not a religion.

What if Islam had never been invented, but turns out God is the God described in the Koran? Would it make a difference that no human had written about him?
Um He'd be more or less the same God written about in the Torah/New Testament (See: Abrahamic religions).

Every religion has a bit of truth to it. I believe God is real, yet everyone has their interpretations of His revelation to us.

If the non-believer believes in no afterlife, and it turns out he is wrong, but God lets him in for critically thinking about his existence and kicks the believers to Hell for going along with the story, then not believing through critical thought would be a better result.
And your implicit assumption here is that believers don't use critical thinking in evaluating whether or not there is a God, and whether or not to believe in Him.
Furthermore, you're saying it doesn't matter how you think it through, but if one is a non-believer, he must have used critical thinking (and not just decided to not believe because of his friend).

This is an asinine assumption, and quite offensive reasoning.


You're assuming again that God wants you to believe in him. As does Pascal in fact.
Its a rational assumption, and provided it is true, the conclusion stands. To question whether or not He wants us to is for a separate matter.

I never did say God is irrelevant. I only ever said the impact that belief in God has had on society makes no difference to whether God exists or not.
ok, my bad.

[Pastorius]

OK, I wasn't meaning to imply that non-belief = critical thinking. It was just an example of how it might work out better to be a non-believer.

Poker beckons, in a bit dude :)