Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
[youtube]m15lVvspDXg&feature=feedu[/youtube]
Once again, epic.
Once again, epic.
Reasonably Certain
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
undertheice
Well-Known Member
the author of this bit of self-indulgence might be said to be guilty of the sin of pride and perhaps the error of ignorant simplicity. while everything said, even the endlessly arrogant narrative of his outwitting the screenwriter's devices, makes perfect sense, he misses the point entirely. he attempts to equate purposeful deception with the complicated entanglements of thousands of years of confused mythology and the power-plays of generations. he confuses assumption with fact and perception with reality. he, like all those who try to prove atheism, cannot admit that there is a point at which our logic breaks down. reason is of limited use where experience gives way to theoretical models and extrapolating past experience demands faith that the rules remain constant.
every time i see something like this, it seems so pointless. just as the definition of faith is the belief without proof, we atheists must accept that the lack of that faith is, in itself, a matter of faith. the very idea of proof in this matter is irrelevant, one side claiming it is not needed and the other claiming it does not exist. in the end, all we are left with is the choice of which faith to follow.
every time i see something like this, it seems so pointless. just as the definition of faith is the belief without proof, we atheists must accept that the lack of that faith is, in itself, a matter of faith. the very idea of proof in this matter is irrelevant, one side claiming it is not needed and the other claiming it does not exist. in the end, all we are left with is the choice of which faith to follow.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Of course the religionists think pride is a sin. Aristotle certainly didn't think pride was a sin. It's merely another device to help control what people think. Excessive pride such as in the form of vanity certainly can be considered a vice but here again, UTI attempts to shame those of us that prefer to use the virtue of reason in preference to bending to the 'complicated entaglements of thousands of years of confused mythology.'
No one here professes to prove atheism and if you actually listened to the beginning, he admitted that he cannot be sure there is no creator from another universe, all he is saying is that he is 'reasonably certain' as in the title of the video.
There is no faith required to not believe someone's claim. Atheism is not a belief, it is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Why you continue to use the religionist's terms for describing atheism when you claim to be one yourself? It makes it appear you are a POE. Most atheists reject that term because it does nothing to describe their beliefs but instead describes one and only one thing that they don't believe. Should we label most adults as a-Santa-ists or a-toothfairy-ists? Why do you continue to insist that people that don't buy into the god idea must have somehow made a choice based on faith? As you say, faith is belief without proof. If I don't believe in something because of lack of proof or evidence, that doesn't make my position one of faith.
No one here professes to prove atheism and if you actually listened to the beginning, he admitted that he cannot be sure there is no creator from another universe, all he is saying is that he is 'reasonably certain' as in the title of the video.
There is no faith required to not believe someone's claim. Atheism is not a belief, it is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Why you continue to use the religionist's terms for describing atheism when you claim to be one yourself? It makes it appear you are a POE. Most atheists reject that term because it does nothing to describe their beliefs but instead describes one and only one thing that they don't believe. Should we label most adults as a-Santa-ists or a-toothfairy-ists? Why do you continue to insist that people that don't buy into the god idea must have somehow made a choice based on faith? As you say, faith is belief without proof. If I don't believe in something because of lack of proof or evidence, that doesn't make my position one of faith.
karri0n
Well-Known Member
Ok - first off - "I figured out The Sixth Sense therefore atheism is obviously the correct stance" - Seriously?!
Now, all kiding aside,
Obviously this is not true of all spiritual people, but sometimes we're the ones sitting on the other side, seeing all of these minor details that prove our hypothesis. This is especially true in this day and age with emerging technology allowing greater and greater knowledge of themost basic forms of physics to be experienced and understood. We live in an age where science is starting to fundamentally understand the building blocks of the very fabric of existence, and the more we learn, the less and less it makes sense.
While some(mainly those developed before the scientific era) faiths seek to explain that which we don't understand by attributing it to deity or fantasy, many new age belief systems truly seek to understand the universe using both spiritual exploration and scientific discovery. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a believer(an experienced one, at least) of a modern polytheistic system who thinks that gods physically live somewhere in the clouds. On the other hand, you can find quite a few clinicians with observable, repeatable results on the affect of prayer on ailing patients. You can also find quite a few physicists who will admit that time and space exist as a singularity that, without consciousness, wouldn't even exist.
A modern spiritual person seeks to understand the fundamental forces at work that make up all of existence, as well as to live in harmony with them. This includes the underlying wave forms that not only make up all matter and energy, but also dictate the turn of events regarding everything from the creation of planets and stars, right down to global and local weather patterns, and even socio-economic and cultural events. When looked at from a distant enough viewpoint, everything that has happened and will happen can be seen as a trend that follows a repeatable and predictable waveform. This is demonstrated in the observed occurrence of "history repeating itself" - in the weather patterns that are so often debated, in popular fashion, and in the constant flux from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other. You can ask anyone over the age of 50 and they will tell you that they are watching the return of the 60's and 70's play out before their eyes.
The debate about intelligent design is an interesting one, but I'm "reasonably certain" it can be fairly simply solved by simply re-examining how we define "intelligence". While it's undeniable that there is some form of creator(whether you believe it to be a man in a white robe or a cloud of energetic gases, SOME creative force spurred all of this to happen), and at least to me that a form of intelligence is involved, the point of contention seems to not be intelligence but rather sentience. As a microcosm of the universe, the planet earth makes a pretty good example here. The planet itself and everything on it relies on an immeasurably complex system of opposing forces and patterns simply to prevent itself from exploding in a massive exothermic reaction, spinning wildly out of its orbit and away from the sun, being utterly obliterated by massive amounts of energy coming at it from all directions of the cosmos, or developing a completely toxic and volatile, combustible atmosphere incapable of harboring life. The most knowledgeable geologists, meteorologists, and cosmologists will admit on any given day of the weak that we as a species have nowhere near the complete understanding of how all of these things work together and keep the earth in a (relatively) stable state of homeostasis. If the brightest minds in the world with the most cutting edge knowledge and technology cannot begin to understand the inner workings and sheer number of connections involved in ourplanet, then to denounce it as "unintelligent is laughable. What COULD be debated here, however, is sentience, or self awareness. I truly don't believe that self awareness is a prerequisite - and certianly not a synonym - for intelligence.
Life, in and of itself, is, even in its most basic forms, intelligent.
In all but the most harsh of conditions, life will adapt, transform, and re-create itself against all odds. Whether it's a single celled organism seeking out the very faintest hint of sustenance that it can use to build proteins, a small population of amphibians seeking shelter inside of a cave and developing adaptations to survive in that environment over generations, or bipedal mammals learning to fashion tools and sustain themselves on the flesh of animals rather than roughage, fruits, and nuts in reaction to a major change in climate - to quote Jurrassic Park - "Life found a way".
The question, then, becomes why did life find a way? In the case of the single-celled organisms, it's fairly obvious that self awarness was nonexistent. Desire, and even instinct are also extremely advanced concepts that could not possibly exist within our simple single-celled organism model. Our single celled organism doesn't have a desire to eat, live and propagate, nor even an instinct to do so. What, then, is the driving force behind our single celled organism? Why does it become so prolific as to inhabit nearly all of the water supplies on the planet, if it has no desire, drive, or instinct to do so?
The driving force is life itself. The very same force that collapsed the original mass of charged particles into a singularity before exploding outwards and eventually creating the entire physical universe that we know and love today. The very same force that for some reason takes on the same spiral form, and follows the same mathematical sequence, that we see in all of existence both on our planet and off of it, right down to the very building blocks of life on earth - our DNA. When broken down this far, perhaps "life" becomes the wrong word and it can only be described as a "creative force" - but its existence is undoubtably proven right down to every single photon, molecule, and atom that you see in front of, inside of, and all around you. This, my friends, is what we call god.
It just becomes a whole lot easier to talk to when it looks (and speaks and understands language)like one of these:
View attachment 1442240View attachment 1442239View attachment 1442237View attachment 1442238
Now, all kiding aside,
Obviously this is not true of all spiritual people, but sometimes we're the ones sitting on the other side, seeing all of these minor details that prove our hypothesis. This is especially true in this day and age with emerging technology allowing greater and greater knowledge of themost basic forms of physics to be experienced and understood. We live in an age where science is starting to fundamentally understand the building blocks of the very fabric of existence, and the more we learn, the less and less it makes sense.
While some(mainly those developed before the scientific era) faiths seek to explain that which we don't understand by attributing it to deity or fantasy, many new age belief systems truly seek to understand the universe using both spiritual exploration and scientific discovery. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a believer(an experienced one, at least) of a modern polytheistic system who thinks that gods physically live somewhere in the clouds. On the other hand, you can find quite a few clinicians with observable, repeatable results on the affect of prayer on ailing patients. You can also find quite a few physicists who will admit that time and space exist as a singularity that, without consciousness, wouldn't even exist.
A modern spiritual person seeks to understand the fundamental forces at work that make up all of existence, as well as to live in harmony with them. This includes the underlying wave forms that not only make up all matter and energy, but also dictate the turn of events regarding everything from the creation of planets and stars, right down to global and local weather patterns, and even socio-economic and cultural events. When looked at from a distant enough viewpoint, everything that has happened and will happen can be seen as a trend that follows a repeatable and predictable waveform. This is demonstrated in the observed occurrence of "history repeating itself" - in the weather patterns that are so often debated, in popular fashion, and in the constant flux from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other. You can ask anyone over the age of 50 and they will tell you that they are watching the return of the 60's and 70's play out before their eyes.
The debate about intelligent design is an interesting one, but I'm "reasonably certain" it can be fairly simply solved by simply re-examining how we define "intelligence". While it's undeniable that there is some form of creator(whether you believe it to be a man in a white robe or a cloud of energetic gases, SOME creative force spurred all of this to happen), and at least to me that a form of intelligence is involved, the point of contention seems to not be intelligence but rather sentience. As a microcosm of the universe, the planet earth makes a pretty good example here. The planet itself and everything on it relies on an immeasurably complex system of opposing forces and patterns simply to prevent itself from exploding in a massive exothermic reaction, spinning wildly out of its orbit and away from the sun, being utterly obliterated by massive amounts of energy coming at it from all directions of the cosmos, or developing a completely toxic and volatile, combustible atmosphere incapable of harboring life. The most knowledgeable geologists, meteorologists, and cosmologists will admit on any given day of the weak that we as a species have nowhere near the complete understanding of how all of these things work together and keep the earth in a (relatively) stable state of homeostasis. If the brightest minds in the world with the most cutting edge knowledge and technology cannot begin to understand the inner workings and sheer number of connections involved in ourplanet, then to denounce it as "unintelligent is laughable. What COULD be debated here, however, is sentience, or self awareness. I truly don't believe that self awareness is a prerequisite - and certianly not a synonym - for intelligence.
Life, in and of itself, is, even in its most basic forms, intelligent.
In all but the most harsh of conditions, life will adapt, transform, and re-create itself against all odds. Whether it's a single celled organism seeking out the very faintest hint of sustenance that it can use to build proteins, a small population of amphibians seeking shelter inside of a cave and developing adaptations to survive in that environment over generations, or bipedal mammals learning to fashion tools and sustain themselves on the flesh of animals rather than roughage, fruits, and nuts in reaction to a major change in climate - to quote Jurrassic Park - "Life found a way".
The question, then, becomes why did life find a way? In the case of the single-celled organisms, it's fairly obvious that self awarness was nonexistent. Desire, and even instinct are also extremely advanced concepts that could not possibly exist within our simple single-celled organism model. Our single celled organism doesn't have a desire to eat, live and propagate, nor even an instinct to do so. What, then, is the driving force behind our single celled organism? Why does it become so prolific as to inhabit nearly all of the water supplies on the planet, if it has no desire, drive, or instinct to do so?
The driving force is life itself. The very same force that collapsed the original mass of charged particles into a singularity before exploding outwards and eventually creating the entire physical universe that we know and love today. The very same force that for some reason takes on the same spiral form, and follows the same mathematical sequence, that we see in all of existence both on our planet and off of it, right down to the very building blocks of life on earth - our DNA. When broken down this far, perhaps "life" becomes the wrong word and it can only be described as a "creative force" - but its existence is undoubtably proven right down to every single photon, molecule, and atom that you see in front of, inside of, and all around you. This, my friends, is what we call god.
It just becomes a whole lot easier to talk to when it looks (and speaks and understands language)like one of these:
View attachment 1442240View attachment 1442239View attachment 1442237View attachment 1442238
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Way to mangle the point of the video.
Yet every study that controls for the variables seems to find the exact opposite, that prayer does no better than chance.
link?
It's quite deniable as it is done every day since Darwin.
Natural selection has no intelligence, no goal or plan. You are redefining the debate to suit your beliefs.
No one claims a complete understanding of anything yet for the things you describe, we have pretty accurate idea of what is taking place.
Life in it's most simple form has zero intelligence and is merely chemistry. In fact, life in it's most grand and complex form is mostly just chemistry as well.
It took time to inhabit all of those places but natural selection can explain it all.
New-age hokum. Using the veneer of science to attempt to legitimize non-scientific ideas.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
so we come to the difference between mere doubt and outright denial. when you set yourself in opposition against the religious, declaring that their fairy tale does not exist, you become the active atheist and this requires faith.
the statement is made, "god(s) exists". it needs no proof because this is one of the most basic principles of faith, belief without concrete proof. do you simply doubt the veracity of their claim and leave it at that? no, you come here and rail against what you claim are the abuses of religion that are caused by this belief in their illusory "GOD". do you offer proof that their deities do not exist? no, you chip away around the edges. you point to the various fallacies of dogma, you expound on the unlikelihood of the fairy tale and you boldly declare that there is no "GOD". how could you know such a thing? granted, they have no more proof than you do, but you are basing your stance on reason and reason demands some identifiable proof. you set yourself against the consensus of the vast majority of your peers, but have nothing concrete to show when asked what your conclusions are based on. nothing but your belief that this unimaginable ruler of heaven and earth does not exist, nothing but faith.
it's a wonderful little catch 22, isn't it? i realize that you can pick it apart with the trickery of hard logic, but it is rooted in two truths that are inescapable. the first is that our gods are undefinable. it is the nature of an entity capable of creating everything that we are unable to comprehend it. the second is that reality really is a matter of perception and that our perceptions are verified through consensus. you may claim that there is a truth independent of what we are able to perceive and you may be correct, but without verification we are unable to know what that truth is. for centuries people believe the world to be flat and that the rest of the cosmos revolved around it. there were always those who claimed that it was a sphere and that it orbited the sun with the other planets, but they had no way to verify this and it remained an assumption. for all intents and purposes, the world lay flat at the center of the universe. those few were obviously correct, but the more they insisted on the correctness of their view, the more they relied on a faith in their models and assumptions. without any way to verify that truth it remained nothing more than a theory. once that assumption was verified and left the realm of the theoretical, it became fact. before that moment it was nothing more than an idea to be taken on faith or doubted as unverifiable. at that moment it could be recognized as reality.
so we have the unanswerable question. there are only three options, yes, no or undecided. there are the theists who claim that their faith provides an answer to the unanswerable, the atheists who simply refuse to go along with the popular consensus and those who, for one reason or another, cannot come to any conclusion. the last option would seem to be the most logical, but this is a question that has consumed mankind since our very beginning and few are really comfortable with such fence-sitting. you've used the rather inexact phrase "i don't believe", making it impossible to tell which of the latter two categories you belong in, but if you are one of those few, then fine. quit your bitching and enjoy the view from the cheap seats. how anyone may define the basis of atheism doesn't effect you in the least. but if you are one of those who have made the decision to the negative, fess up to the leap of faith that allowed you to claim an answer to the unanswerable question and don't try to paint it as a superior feat of logic. you may be satisfied, as am i, that your logic is no more faulty than that of the believers, but admit that it is no less faulty as well.
on considering the whole thing, i realized that you may very well have answered that unanswerable question. you might have cracked the code or gained some special insight that everyone else has been denied. if so, please share this wisdom with the rest of us. i really could use some proof of my belief next time i visit my mother.
karri0n
Well-Known Member
Ok, I'll concede that you're correct on this one - "I'm smarter than any religious person, and I will prove my grand mastery of intellect by picking out plotholes in a piece of media directed toward the mindless masses" is much more accurate.
No, not every study. Just like most studies, the interpreted results tend to lean towards the vested interests of whatever parties are sponsoring it.
Bell's Theorem shows that on an atomic level everything happens in the same place simultaneously.
See below re: defining intelligence. Plus, just because I deny something doesn't make it untrue.
Incorrect. The goal in its most basic form is to continue propagation.
Replace "life" with "living organisms" in the former and you are correct. As for the latter , "mostly" is really not specific enough to mean anything here.
Please, enlighten us. How exactly did organisms with traits making them better suited for survival win out over those with traits less suited for survival, before "traits" existed? Anything other than that specific process is not natural selection.
What caused this propagation if there was no driving energy behind it? Why adapt?
Please debunk the law of conservation of energy, the fibonacci sequence, and the existence of DNA. New age indeed, (maybe not the fibonacci sequence since even the most ancient of peoples understood this) since all of these came about as a result of the scientific enlightenment.
Are you saying the big bang, the very most energetic reaction to ever have occurred, happened without any energy input?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I deleted most of your post because you make too many assumptions. There is a difference between claiming a god exists and that a specific deity exists. It should be pretty clear that if a god exists it is nothing like Ganesh, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Shiva or YHWH. Those ARE fairy tales and there should be no problem in saying so. As for any god existing, I am saying that I doubt it because there is no evidence but that in no way makes my position one of faith nor does it require any special knowledge. The point is that no one can know for sure, at least in this lifetime. Most people that are accused of being atheists (yes, it is an accusatory label) are actually agnostic atheists, they know they cannot know but don't accept the claim of the theists that there is such a being. As a scientist, I have no problem saying I don't know the answer to some mystery, unlike some people here that think an answer is required whether or not we have the capacity to know it.
More lack of understanding on your part again. I have never declared there absolutely is no god. I have made specific claims to specific deities as described above but you apparently have a problem distinguishing between the idea of any god and that of specific ones.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Oh goody, more anti-science rhetoric.
Care to link to any of these studies that show prayer works? BTW, when a study is blinded, that means that the researchers themselves don't know which group is which, eliminating the bias that you claim exists.
And says absolutely nothing about consciousness being required for existence. More mangling of real science by the pseudo-intellectual new-age crowd.
That is the result, not a goal. Is it the 'goal' of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms to form water?
I said mostly because once a brain evolved that can apply conscious intent, it no longer is only chemistry. However, that consciousness did not arrive ex nihlo.
This sentence is gibberish. You're asking how an organism with specific traits were better than other organisms before they had these traits?
Adaptation isn't done as a purposeful endeavor. In fact many organisms adapted themselves into extinction. It sounds as if you need to read a book on evolution. May I suggest Origin of Species by C. Darwin?
There is no debunking necessary because those things do not necessarily lead to the conclusion you made. It is your use of these scientific ideas to support something beyond what they describe, a la Deepak Chopra.
We don't know what caused the BB. We do expect that the BB follows the conservation of energy and that the net energy was and still is zero. It is beyond the model of the BB to say what gave rise to the BB, although there are speculative theories, none of them can be realistically tested as of now. We do know that there is a force in the universe that exists all around us and causes the universe to continue to expand at a rapid rate. We call this dark energy and we still know very little about it.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
UTI, does it require faith for you not to believe in Allah? How do you know with reasonable certainty that Allah does not exist and control the universe?
What about Santa Clause?
I think you missed the point of the video. I wholeheartedly agree with mindphuk; just as you can be reasonably certain Santa Clause isn't delivering presents to all the good kids in the world on Christmas Eve, you can be just as reasonably certain that the god, as anybody on Earth has ever described it, does not exist. This requires no faith, only logic because it doesn't make sense. None of them do. The characteristics attributed to any and all gods ever thought up are impossible. Could God create a rock he couldn't lift? If he could, he's not all powerful, if he couldn't, he's not all powerful. That bit was thought up in ancient times and still proves true today. The existence of a god is logically inconsistent.
There might be a god, who knows? Nobody. That's why I'm an atheist. If there is one, or many, it is something we are completely unaware of at this point in time. We can't measure it, test it, see it, feel it, nothing. It might as well be non-existent because if it does exist, it is irrelevant to our lives.
Making the positive claim "there is a god" requires faith. Making the negative claim "there is no god" also requires faith. No atheist I know, including myself, has ever made that claim. The claim I make is "I don't know if there is a god, but I do know every god ever thought up by mankind does not exist", and it does not require faith to make it because the evidence brought forward to support that claim has been completely dismissed. You really need to realize the difference between the stances people take, what you do is apply a position to someone then argue against that, that which they don't believe in the first place... Red Herring, logical fallacy.
You and I probably have the exact same position and you don't even realize it because you're always too busy arguing against something I don't believe...
What about Santa Clause?
I think you missed the point of the video. I wholeheartedly agree with mindphuk; just as you can be reasonably certain Santa Clause isn't delivering presents to all the good kids in the world on Christmas Eve, you can be just as reasonably certain that the god, as anybody on Earth has ever described it, does not exist. This requires no faith, only logic because it doesn't make sense. None of them do. The characteristics attributed to any and all gods ever thought up are impossible. Could God create a rock he couldn't lift? If he could, he's not all powerful, if he couldn't, he's not all powerful. That bit was thought up in ancient times and still proves true today. The existence of a god is logically inconsistent.
There might be a god, who knows? Nobody. That's why I'm an atheist. If there is one, or many, it is something we are completely unaware of at this point in time. We can't measure it, test it, see it, feel it, nothing. It might as well be non-existent because if it does exist, it is irrelevant to our lives.
Making the positive claim "there is a god" requires faith. Making the negative claim "there is no god" also requires faith. No atheist I know, including myself, has ever made that claim. The claim I make is "I don't know if there is a god, but I do know every god ever thought up by mankind does not exist", and it does not require faith to make it because the evidence brought forward to support that claim has been completely dismissed. You really need to realize the difference between the stances people take, what you do is apply a position to someone then argue against that, that which they don't believe in the first place... Red Herring, logical fallacy.
You and I probably have the exact same position and you don't even realize it because you're always too busy arguing against something I don't believe...
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of people that make this claim. I happen to believe there is no god. I cannot present any evidence therefore I don't go around making this as a claim, but as a personally held belief. I see no problem with this position and I will agree that I hold this position on faith. The difference is that I won't impose this POV on anyone else. Unfortunately, there are others that do.
StonedPony
Well-Known Member
Im an athiest....I do not believe in god gods supreme being what ever ..........I was raised around Christians and went to church. So I watched an listened.........I came to my own descion by time I was 13. I dont go to meetings or belong to ny organization.....I dont get upset when ppl pray around me...its up to everyone to have thoughts on things. I admit Im not the brightest bulb in the world but I just cant go for this god thing..............I think IF there was a GOD there would only be one reliegeon..............also say there is a god...based on Chritian teachings that is....I dont know anything about other religeons and dont care but ...IF THER WAS AA GOD id tell him to suck my dick he was a piece of shit..............more ppl have been tortured in his name than Hitler could even dream of......He says he loves you but if you dont kiss his ass you will BURN for eternity...kinda spastic bastard huh......................I dont tell ppl how to run thier lives IM just an athiest and everyone can fight and belive how the want....but athiest is not a BELIEF....not FAith....Now go back to the big words I llike you guys good debate....
StonedPony
Well-Known Member
besides isnt everyone a athiest...........do you belive in thor....Zeus.....ALLAH......ppl reject other gods every day without even know what they are about........the differance between the relieous ppl and me is I believe in one less god than they do.
\
\
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Thank you for pointing out the distinction. I think that is what has gotten UTI a little confused about this position. You and I both agree believing there is no god can never be proven, which would make it a position of faith as he said. But there is a difference between saying "No gods exist" (faith) and "I don't believe any gods exist" (not faith). I don't believe the position I hold is faith based as I can present evidence against it, as you, me, mystiphuk, Heis, tons of people on these boards have already done - "I know none of he man-made gods people believe in exist" (not faith, clear evidence to defeat the claim).
Exactly.
karri0n
Well-Known Member
Then you are not an atheist and you don't know any. You are speaking of agnosticism.
If you believe that we currently have no way of proving that there is or is not a form of god, you are an agnostic.
MindPhuk, on the other hand, with his assertion that "there is no god", fits the definition of an atheist.
Making statements about atheists as a collective(which you don't explicitly do in this post due to your addiition of "that I know", but I have seen you make in the past) should be avoided, as it appears you don't even actually know the definition of the word.
You don't know That gods thought up by mankind don't exist - in fact you know that they do. They exist as concepts and archetypes. If they didn't exist, there would be no art, discussion, or philosophy centered around them. The entire atheist/theist debate wouldn't even be happening.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You can keep saying this all day long and it won't make it any more true.
We have pointed out many times in various threads that agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground between theism and atheism. They are responses to two very different ontological questions. Gnosticism is about knowledge, the ability to know; theism is about belief about a god or gods. The term agnostic simply means that one holds that it is not possible to KNOW whether or not something exists. Most atheists are also agnostics. Most theists are also agnostic. Only a few theists and probably even fewer atheists believe they can know for certain that a god does or does not exist. I myself, although I don't believe there is a god, am completely agnostic about the question. I don't believe ANYONE can know for certain.
Sort of true but replace proving with knowing and you are spot on!
I'm actually more than atheist, I'm an anti-theist. I not only believe there is no god, I believe that theism is harmful to society in general. I will not discount the many good things that religion has brought to mankind so please don't start referencing those, but as a whole, I think it is more harmful to delude ourselves into thinking there is more than we can demonstrate empirically, just because we are scared of death.
You're one to talk. Atheism merely means without theism. ANYONE, including those that are too young to have learned about a god are atheist by definition. Just like amoral is not the same as immoral.
You know damn well that isn't what people mean when they talk about the existence of a god. You are using equivocation to change the meaning of the word exist. Of course the gods exist as memes, no one has ever disputed that fact. An atheist doesn't believe any exist in reality.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I do not believe a god exists of any kind. That makes me an atheist. I don't have to prove it, or KNOW one doesn't exist to be an atheist, all I have to do is BELIEVE one does not exist, which I do.
That's all it is, the rejection of the claim that God exists.
Then what is a person who believes we can prove a god exists called?
One of the main tenets of organized religion is they are believed based on FAITH. Nobody has the ability to PROVE a god exists, therefore, according to your definition, everyone on Earth is agnostic.
Being agnostic just means you don't KNOW one way or the other. I KNOW none of the man-made gods exist, there isn't enough (any) evidence to definitively conclude one does, so, just like any other fact in existence, till there is, one doesn't, and the rational position to hold isn't theist, and it isn't even agnostic, it's atheist.
There is no God, I agree. As I've said before, it doesn't make any sense. The "God" as described by theists CAN'T exist. Proof THEY themselves don't even understand it and haven't thought enough about it.
I know the man-made gods thought up don't exist in the exact same sense that I know Santa Clause doesn't exist, or that I know gravity is a constant in our entire universe, even though I haven't been to every single available space.
Do you know the sun will rise tomorrow?
Do you know THC will get you high?...
There are certain things you know in life in an indirect kind of way. This doesn't mean the amount of certainty is any less reasonable.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
am i the only one who sees the massive amount of double-talk in the above posts? perhaps y'all are having a problem with the term atheist, so i'll break it down for you. "atheism", meaning without god. this is not merely a matter of doubt but of decision and certainty. maybe you're unsure of that other term you seem to think that i have confused, agnosticism, so i'll break that down for you as well. agnosticism, meaning without knowledge. while you can certainly have atheistic agnosticism, just as there is theistic agnosticism, this implies only a tendency in one direction or the other and excludes the certainty of being "without god". you may choose to quibble over what constitutes a god and to restrict your supposed atheism to the gods of man, but these are just devices to avoid the central issue.
mindphuk, you first claim to not declare there is no god and then, in your next post, clearly state that you believe there is no god. it seems you don't know your own mind or are incapable of making it up. equivocate all you want, it doesn't bother me in the least. whether you impose that belief on others or not, whether you even state it out loud or not, without proof it is a belief founded on faith. faith in science, faith in your own decisions or whatever else, it is still not based on any concrete evidence. you've even confessed that you "hold this position on faith", so why are you even bothering to try to refute my claim? perhaps you just object to the term "faith" and felt like being contrary.
pad, you're much more interesting. we'll pass by the nonsensical comparison of god to santa claus, it's a disingenuous tactic that i've used myself and really not worth the keystrokes to disassemble. i'll even be generous and try to ignore the rather inane statement "There might be a god, who knows? Nobody. That's why I'm an atheist.", a phrase which, when combined with your countless posts in the past, places you firmly in the atheistic agnostic camp. what interests me more is all this supposed evidence you cite to prove that none of man's gods exist. how do you propose to prove this ill-defined entity is pure fiction? the absence of proof of existence certainly isn't proof of nonexistence. has someone found an empty hole in the universe with the instructions "insert god here" printed plainly on it? did god visit you and say, "i'm leaving now and no one is taking my place"?
i entered into this thread with the statement, "we atheists must accept that the lack of that faith is, in itself, a matter of faith", for a very good reason. it lets the faint of heart and the all too rational off the hook. "GOD" is an absolute and many of us have felt the need to confront one absolute with another. though we may all, both believers and non-believers alike, be forced to admit that we are unable to gain any first-hand knowledge of its existence or non-existence, many hold so fast to the disbelief of atheism as to accept it as truth. there is no equivocation, no "well, maybe". it isn't scientific or entirely rational, but it is a decision. our very existence makes the claim every day, "there is no god". maybe pad has never met any of us, but we are everywhere.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I guess UTI still has trouble distinguishing between a personally held belief and a positive claim. There's a difference between saying that I believe that we have spiritual energy that goes on after we die as ghosts or spirits vs. stating that these things as fact. I believe that there is life on other planets and moons but I don't ever claim that there is definitely other life out there. There are many people that believe that extraterrestrials crashed in Roswell, NM and there are others still that INSIST it definitely occurred.
Yes, some things we believe are held on faith but rejection of the theistic claim that a god exists does not need faith.
You claim I'm equivocating but rather it seems that it is you that cannot understand nuance.
[video=youtube;qs3RKZjSzYg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs3RKZjSzYg[/video]
Yes, some things we believe are held on faith but rejection of the theistic claim that a god exists does not need faith.
You claim I'm equivocating but rather it seems that it is you that cannot understand nuance.
[video=youtube;qs3RKZjSzYg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs3RKZjSzYg[/video]
StonedPony
Well-Known Member
superstition" An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. Ill be the firsst to admit Im out of my league here. I dont have the education you have. Its very obvious in my gramar on the internet.....but my mind is not a blank nor am I stupid.........Im an athiest THER IS NO GOD OR GODS.....as is said alot is faith and stuff.....the burden of proof is not on me.....cause Im not makeing any claims......I DONT BELIEVE IN GOD........its the theist that must show the burdon of proof to show me there is a god.....how many times in history have we had VIrgin births and Raised from the dead.... Like in Egypt....I could go back several more virgin births 3 wise men stories...........I shouldnt say we had....I should of said How many times has it been claimed. So this is the best way I can put it out there. I dont read alot of books.......have a 9th grade educationi due to haveing raise a family when my dad died...........but I think I have intelligence enough not to live a dislutioinal life and enjoy what time I have here.......cause once your dead thats it..........some say well what does it hurt to say you accept jesus as your savior......there again its delutional............hedgeiing your bets dont count............There is no god and I wont go to a pizza oven for eternity.....thats the best way I can say it.......Im ready for the bashing due to my gramar but I hope my ideas did come through a bit so you can see how I see it. Thank you all in here cause Im enjoying the reading.