Sorry, I forgot - once people die they automatically become geniuses.
ETA: Why would you assume that was a cheap shot at you? Seems to me it was a cheap shot at Lynyrd Skynyrd. I don’t even know you. But apparently “You’re So Vain” was written about you.
Anyway, my post was meant to link the Skynyrd thing back to the original topic. It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. I mean, Skynyrd does suck, but that’s really neither here nor there.
Jesus loves you!
I think you’re making a clear distinction out of what is really a blurry line. There’s a continuum from “I am 100% certain there is no god possible ever ever I have proven it” through “I don’t believe in the Christian God or a deist god, but acknowledge that the latter would be more difficult to disprove via anything other than Occam’s razor” through total “beats me, I know nothing”. And I think very very few people, if any, are all the way at the beginning of that continuum. And even if they ARE, that’s still a much more reasonable position than a theist/religious position that’s anywhere near that extreme.
Dude, it was 32 years ago. Unless you knew them personally, you should probably go ahead and get over it.
I don’t see the big deal, it’s not like we KNOW they were killed in a plane-crash. For all we know they could still be alive and well.
No, but it’s certainly a bonus.
FWIW, I think they had some good music, and of course the death of so much of the band was tragic, as it would surely be even had they not been famous musicians. But c’mon, there’s something about the words “Lynyrd Skynyrd memorial thread” that’s just laughable.
I think agnoticism is a word that’s been misused by the populace at large and means different things to different people.
The first line on the wikipedia page says:
“Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.”
This is essentially just a skeptical position, which is what most atheism derives from. I think it’s a small minority of atheists who are convinced they understand everything there is to know about the universe, and that for the most part, they’re simply skeptics who see no evidence behind any particular supernatural being, and hence have no reason to make up explanations for things that don’t seem to exist.
As far as I can tell, the bulk of atheism and agnostism are essentially the same thing. In popular usage, the difference seems to be either that using “agnostic” is less likely to scare your bible thumping mother in law if you label yourself that way, or that you have some stupid kooky new agey beliefs but don’t want the hassle of religion, so you label yourself as agnostic.
Then I think you’re misunderstanding the position of most atheists. When someone says “there is no god”, it has to be taken in context. To almost everyone in western society, god isn’t some abstract supernatural being that we can’t understand no nothing about, it’s a specific bearded dude up in the sky who intervenes personally in our lives, who created us in his image. So most of the time when an atheist says “There is no god” they’re saying “there is no bearded dude in the sky that created you in his image”
A more reasonable position would be “there is no reason to think that there’s a bearded dude in the sky who created you in his image” - and lots of reasons to think there isn’t, like the psychological reasons people create religions in the first place.
You’re trying to play it both ways - defending the views of people who believe in a specific god that humans made up by saying “well, you disprove that there’s a creator of the universe that we may know nothing about, therefore any particular fairy tale that people created to explain the mysteries of life is valid”
You accused the atheists in this thread of playing stupid philosophical games, when we aren’t. We’re simply saying anything that should be obvious to a child - people make up shit to explain what they don’t know, and there’s no reason to think there’s actually any substance to their beliefs - and you’re coming up with “yeah well you can’t prove a negative! HAHA SILLY ATHEIST YOU LOSE!” pedantic bullshit.
Seriously? You’re saying that lack of belief due to lack of evidence is the “unimaginative” course of action, and that’s somehow a bad thing? I’m sure there are 5 year olds that can come up with imaginative reasons why the sun travels across the sky, but it isn’t pushed across by a magic pony flying behind it. Religions are a slightly more sophisticated version of that.
If the reasonable position is “I create my beliefs based on the evidence, and there’s no evidence for a supernatural being”, then that’s the vast majority position of atheism. You have an unrealistic view of atheism.
I’m starting from the default position of reason - in the absense of evidence, there’s no reason to form a belief.
I mean, for fucks sake, do you not realize how silly this whole thing is? Imagine if you were a child raised in some scientific experiment outside of normal human customs. And at age 20, you came back into the world, and found out that the vast majority of people believed in invisible beings who control their lives and have a grand plan. Your reaction would be “you’ve got to be kidding, right?”
I’m not prosetylizing, and I’m not closed minded.
I mean - even modern day religious people would probably look at old animism or polytheism as silly, right? Why? What they believe is only a slightly more sophisticated version of that, and I have enough perspective to see that it’s silly for the same reasons.
I’m not trying to make converts. I even said in the other thread about whether you’d give up your atheism to be a believer that I would. I’m not trying to destroy anyone’s silly belief systems. But in a thread like this, I can’t abide the nonsense.
So you and I are both rational people, because we are atheists. However, pretty much every elected official from Obama on down to Dog Catcher for the City of Bugtussle is irrational merely because they happen to be theists? For that matter, 80% of the country is irrational for the same reason? That makes no sense.
Rational people can reach different conclusions from the same observations.
Ah, so your position is that it’s reasonable to believe that there are elves living on the moon?
You can stop with that lame ass “gotcha” argument any old time now. I debunked it upthread.
Boy, you and I sure did, didn’t we?
What about that makes no sense? Have there never been times in human history when large portions of populations believed things that were irrational or just plain wrong?
Yes, and people can be rational about one thing while still being irrational about other things, and vice versa.
Doesn’t count. I’m a rational man. You are pond scum.
No you didn’t. You claimed that we can prove there aren’t elves on the Moon because we went there and didn’t see them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Failing to see elves on the moon is not proof of their nonexistence. (Although it is suggestive that they don’t exist.)
You’ve painted yourself into a nasty epistemological corner and you don’t even realize it. You’re making the claim that if we can’t be CERTAIN that something isn’t true, we can’t make any judgments about it. If we’re not SURE that God doesn’t exist, then we must simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.
But if that is the standard of proof that you hold, then we can’t make ANY claims EVER about the nature of reality. We can’t be absolutely certain that God doesn’t exist. We can’t be absolutely certain that there are not elves living on the moon. We can’t be absolutely certain that Barack Obama is not a space alien. In order to avoid hurting the feelings of the theists, you’ve constructed an epistemological system that makes rational discourse about the nature of reality impossible. It’s a bad case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
This is just silly. All conclusions are equally valid in your world?
Hmm, I accidentally cut myself and I’m bleeding. One school of thought is that a blood vessel carrying blood under pressure was punctured and therefore the pressurized fluid is now escaping, and the other school of thought says that I have angered the pixies that live in my skin and they are spewing red paint at me to show their displeasure.
The “blood vessel” believers reached one conclusion, and the pixie paint crowd reached another conclusion. We can’t judge! Everything should have equal merit!
We have no evidence to suspect that there is a supernatural being out there that could be called god. We certainly have no evidence that he is an interventional god who alters the world on a regular basis to impart his will. We can say that because everything that we’ve ever observed to happen conforms entirely with natural law and the nature of human psychology.
There is logical evidence to suspect that any particular religious views are flawed. They typically attempt to solve contemporary mysteries. Judeo-Christian religions believed that the sun revolved around the earth and that the world was created in 7 days because they didn’t know any better. If they claim that their god told them this, then this is valid reason to question their beliefs.
The more we learn about the universe, the fewer of these mysteries we need to invent religious explanations to resolve.
I mean, ffs - do we really need to play these games? Are we all not adults here? Are we arguing a hypothetical as an excercise in philosophical circle jerks? This is all silly.
The thing that makes no sense is claiming certainity about something that is inherently uncertain. The only way to put the God/No God thing to rest is for an individual to die. Said individual then either rots as per normal, or awakens somehow in an afterlife. He now knows for certain that there is a god, but he can’t communicate that knowledge to anyone else.
Any position taken on this issue, therefore, amounts to a bet on a Cosmic Coinflip. Heads-there is a god. Tails-there is no god. You just don’t get to see the result until you die, if ever.
ALL statements about the nature of reality are inherently uncertain.
That is not the standard I hold for issues capable of mundane resolution. We went to the moon, no evidence of anything alive there, no liquid water, no atmosphere, no elves. We can test Obama’s DNA to determine if he is human or alien. We can’t do that to resolve God/No God.
Actually, if he just rots, he won’t know if he was in a godless world or if he got passed over because he was a douche.
Why not? Why do you put religious claims in a separate category from other claims about the nature of reality?
If I say that invisible gods live on the moon instead of invisible elves, does that change things?
Because, barring Divine Intervention, it is not possible to verify or debunk claims of god in the real world. By definition, such an entity, if one exists, does so outside of what we perceive reality to be. The problem with the “Elves on the Moon” gotcha is that we did actually go there, and, in theory, we can go back there to resolve forever and all time whether there are or are not elves there. That doesn’t work for claims of god. I have no idea where to find Heaven/Valhalla/Elysium/The Nine Hells/The 666 Layers of the Abyss. I have been instructed to locate Hell and take up residence therein on more than one occassion, but efforts to locate that place have also failed. In theory, if such places exist, they do so somewhere not presently accessible by mere mortals.