Pashley said:
Evident to whom? Maybe to you, but you haven’t backed it up when asked to prove it. Then again, there are more than a few things you haven’t backed up recently, so maybe it’s a habit with you.
And as I indicated before, I have yet to see any indication that this is true.
You might want to try to think once in a while, rather than spending all your time making excuses and avoiding the issues at hand.
Main Entry: 1 ag·nos·tic
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the
existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
From www.m-w.com
Someone who believes that we never can know, or someone who is not committed to the either view.
By that second part, any apathetic person is an agnostic. But, by the first part, only people who don’t think we can ever know well enough to form an opinion are.
I don’t think it can ever be proved, but only because nobody religious can provide a test that would prove the existance of god.
But I’m just as likely to believe in a god as I am to believe I’ve got an intangible, invisible, pink gorilla, sitting on my head.
I couldn’t prove that there isn’t one, but it’s laughable to assume that because I can’t, there must be one.
And I would agree with Cooper that no rational, intelligent, and educated person can believe in god. If you’re intelligent enough to reason, rational enough to be able to, and educated enough to understand basic logic, you should realize that there is no proof of a god, just after-the-fact claims that certain things were caused by a god. Until testable claims about the existance of god were made, these people wouldn’t believe.
Why should they not hedge their bets? Because it’s insane.
Should someone go around wearing a spiky hat to keep invisible pink gorillas from sitting on them? There’s as much evidence of these creatures as there is for god, if you discount biased personal testimony and books which claim (without proof) to be written/dictated by god.
If you know someone who believes in god, it’s probably likely that they aren’t all three, rational, educated, or intelligent.
As has been proven here, I think both sides of the issue get equally pissed when the other brings it up.
Also, asking each other for proof either way is crap… You know no one will produce it because there is no way it can be produced. And never will be produced. If there is no God, there is no proof to produce. If there is a God, believing in God is based entirely on faith… Thus God will not provide any evidence thus rendering the faith part useless. It’s all about faith… To have proof would be pretty pointless. Everyone would believe out of fear, not faith.
Either way, atheism is always going to be arrogant and ignorant. Just because we’re the top of the food chain and the smartest creatures on this planet… Why does that mean there are not creatures smarter and much more powerful (technological and mindful) than we? How full of ourselves! And I’m not even talking about God(s), here. Just a ramble… (I’m not a UFO freak, trust me. Playing devil’s advocate here… Hah!)
I’ve met several atheists. Most are self-centered and completely full of themselves. They are the king of the hill. All attitude. And then I’ve met several very thoughtful, very ‘humble’ atheists that are genuinely intelligent people. Some of the posters here are the former… For a really smashing debate, you need the latter! It kicks ass when you get those together.
But don’t get me wrong… I’m completely arrogant in my beliefs, too! I do believe in God. And I know I’m right. And I have no interest in proving it. I’m content with my life and content with accepting yours. And you know, it’s not rational. Maybe it’s even crazy. But that’s just it… It’s all faith. It blows my mind sometimes but dammit, I believe. Other theists need to quit claiming that their system of belief is ‘rational’… It’s NOT! It’s something called faith, and that’s the point of the whole thing. So I’m just as snobbish as the moderator.
I can’t prove it to you. But I see the birth of my sister… The Hubble images… The atomic structure… You see nothing but science; I see God. And it is science… But it also shows me that there is something greater than you or I. And it doesn’t matter if you insult me verbally or make me re-take Physics 101. I love science, I love deep thought. But in the end, no matter what, I know I win. I know I’m right. And I know that’s arrogant.
Either way… This will never be settled (till the end, I guess), so think of it this way:
‘Believers’ have nothing to lose… Right or wrong, same end.
‘Non-believers’ have nothing to lose… But only if they are right.
Infamus
Sorry, but you’re wrong in those last two statements. See the thread on Pascal’s Wager for details.
This ‘no rational, educated, intelligent person would believe in a god’ thread is pretty conservative-republican of you, if you will. To denouce a religion is your belief, but to completely insult an entire body of people is totally ‘uneducated’ of you. In one swath, you group Catholics, Christians, Muslims, and others into an ‘irrational-uneducated-fool’ category. This kind of one-way thinking led to racial hate, segregation, and yes, the Crusades/Inquisition. And it completely contradicts your way of thinking. It seems to me more like a simple childish anger/insult post.
Example:
People who don’t believe in God must have deep inner conflicts / hate their parents / had a bad childhood / had a bad religious experience / hate their lives / had a loved one die early in their lives.
See what I mean. Obviously, I know that many of you fall into none of those categories and trying to put you in them would be irrational, uneducated, and unintelligent of me. Get the picture?
People of equal intelligence and education can disagree on faith and religion. Don’t be so hateful and self-obsessed as to ridicule and entire people or group. I don’t think the board (in the up-and-down state it has been in lately) can handle that kind of ego. Your commentary was pretty well handled up to those points, however. I hope that those were not your intentions.
Infamus
Good reading and debate. But since I’m arrogant and know I’m right, I know my ‘heaven’ will be paradise. 
And I know that I’m believing in a true God. Not for ‘prizes’ or gain… It’s faith again, David. I don’t live a fake, fearful life. The Pascal’s Wager arguements are fun, but BS to me.
You are in the mindset that everything can be decomposed rationally and scientifically… But like I said, faith is not rational or scientific. So I’m arrogant again in saying that yes, I was right in those two statements. They are oversimplified and much can be read into them, however. Good teaser, though.
I know… It’s tough to argue with me when I admit the truths of my beliefs. Just put up with me… In the end, years down the road, you might just see it my way. If not, I won’t hate you for it. I won’t even dislike you for it.
Infamus
I’m sorry, where is the debate? By your own admission belief in God is irrational and perhaps even crazy. So why can’t I say that? Its not an insult if its the truth.
Careful, this isn’t what I said. I don’t think you can claim that an intelligent person is necessarily rational, or that an educated person has been educated in basic principles of logic. I have known many intelligent, educated people who are not capable of independent rational thought, especially on matters of religion.
A truly rational person will not suspend reason on the subject of religion, just because they really want there to be a god - anymore than they would suspend reason on the subject of ice cream just because they want there to be some in their freezer (when they know there is not any). Nevertheless, there seem to be people who are ‘otherwise’ rational who are doing just that. To me there would be just as much lunacy in doing some sort of ice cream dance outside your freezer for an hour, and then announcing that you now have ice cream - as there is in going to church, and announcing that you are ‘saved’. Of course, the ice cream hypothesis is testable (though you’d be best keeping the freezer closed, to protect your cherished beliefs) - so I suppose it is actually less crazy than the ‘saved’ hypthosis. Oh well.
Faith is always going to be irrational because it usually flies in the face of most science, thought, etc. That’s just the way it is. What I was protesting was the basis of labelling a whole people ‘uneducated and foolish’ because of contrary beliefs. You can call me foolish if you think my exact points are off the map… But don’t label all ‘believers’ into one group as such because there are countless beliefs, theories, and Gods within each group. It’s too dangerous to classify groups in that sense, and I think you understand what I meant. Feel free to bash me personally, though, because I’ve laid out my thoughts to you. See what I mean? But blanket assault of a people or belief is too kin to racism and bigotry. One-on-one is fair. Nothing personal…
Infamus
One problem with racism or many other forms of bigotry (such as sexism) is that there characteristics attributed to the collection that are inappropriate and inaccurate. No group as large as say all Black people can be said to really exemplify any set of characteristics not basic to all people. However, in the case of a given set of people with specific beliefs, my attribution that their belief is irrational is not inappropriate or unwarranted. The mere fact of identifying yourself as a theist means you hold several beliefs that are meaningless, illogical and irrational. If you’ll look closely at what I’ve been saying you’ll see that I’ve always qualified it in terms of a specific set or sets of beliefs.
Mealworm said:
Actually, I completely agree. Even if Pascal’s Wager were 100% correct, it wouldn’t change anything for me. As I’ve noted in other threads, I cannot force myself to believe things that I don’t believe. You have faith. I don’t. I cannot force myself to have faith in something just because it might be better off for me to have said faith.
I often avoid these sort of debates, because they usually depress me. Yep, I was right again about that.
So am I getting this right - all the atheists are saying that anyone who believes in a God is irrational, etc.? And of course the atheists are the smart rational ones. Golly. This is an interesting tidbit, huh?
It’s ironic, I just saw the film “Contact” today, which addresses some of these same themes. I don’t know how to describe the film, but I assume many of you have seen it.
The bottom line is, in the end, all we have to go on is our own experiences, and we often base our beliefs on these experiences. Even if we have no proof to offer others that our experiences are valid. And even if our own experiences sound loopy to others. Just because someone cannot offer proof of something doesn’t always mean it isn’t true, or meaningful for them.
When someone claims to have an experience that seems wacky, you often will not be 100% sure know that it didn’t happen. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you have to believe the person who claims that it happened is telling the truth, or is being rational. But how do you prove that someone didn’t have some sort of epiphany, or profound experience? You can doubt it, but can you prove that it couldn’t have happened? Often, you cannot. You can doubt it, but you cannot 100% prove it didn’t happen. Just like someone cannot prove that there is a God.
If someone wants to call me “irrational” because I have religious faith, I cannot stop them. But where do you draw the line? Shouldn’t all these “irrational” religious people who believe in something akin to Santa Claus be under professional supervision? We are all irrational, after all. Gotta watch out for us. Keep us away from sharp objects. I’d like to understand - what is to be done with all of us, anyway? Can we be left alone to happily believe in our silly gods, or do you feel compelled to talk “reason” to us?
Oh, I suppose this is pointless. The atheists think the theists are all irrational. The theists aren’t real flattered by being called irrational. And the debates seems endless, and futile.
Yosemitebabe, if you want to use a fictional story to prove a point, at least get the story right. In Contact, there was evidence she had made the trip, but it was suppressed. The 18 hours of blanked out video tape used up in a period of seconds, remember?
And if I hear that inane statement one more time,“Can you prove it didn’t happen?” one more time, I’m gonna scream. I really don’t think that quoting Plan 9 From Outer Space will help your cause, do you?
One more time, for those who haven’t gotten it yet. Incredible claims require incredible proof. It is not up to us to disprove your claim. It is up to you to prove it.
I’ve always considered religion to be the height of ego-centricism. Which is more arrogant, the belief that we are the center of Creation and that the physical universe exists for our benefit, or the belief that we evolved naturally on a small planet tucked in the corner of one of billions of galaxies? I consider the atheistic view to be far more humble.
As far as being ignorant, at least we take part in an honest pursuit of knowledge without relying on authority. Consider for a moment where we would be scientifically if mankind had never investigated any hypothesis that conflicted with prevailing religious thought…
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that atheism/agnosticism makes any claims about mankind being the most powerful creatures in the universe. I certainly acknowledge the possibility that intelligent life may exist outside of our planet. In fact, I consider it highly probable.
Paul Yeah
Some people just cannot accept a simple “no” for an answer. I am an atheist. I have no religion. I have never seen an argument for “atheism == religion” which did not extend naturally to cover all possible postions upon the statement “God exists”.
FTR, I do not believe that all theists are irrational. I do believe that all theists rely on non-rational methods to form some of their positions. So do I. This is irrational only where those non-rational methods arrive at a postion that is directly contradicted by rational thought. There are many areas which, at present, defy complete rational analysis. People may rely on other methods to deal with those areas without being irrational.
The existence of supernatural being who posesses the traits omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and complete immateriality is not one of those areas. IMO, of course.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
I think this is a bit much.
I hope I’ve shown through my limited time here on the board that I’m rational, intelligent and education. Do I believe in God? Frankly, I’m still working on that question (which is why I love Unitarian Universalism so much - it’s someplace I feel comfortable working on this question). Do I believe in something more than us, something deeply spiritual in the universe? Yes. Is that God? I don’t know. But I believe it is there.
Such is the nature of faith.
So now am I irrational, stupid and ignorant?
Esprix, who hopes not!
Cooper, bear in mind that the object of my post was not to attempt to convince theists that there is no god, but an attempt depict why atheisism is not a religion. I may be wrong, but IMO the premise that atheists do not have beliefs or rituals (as presented in my previous post) should be acceptable to both theists and atheists. If that premise is acceptable to both parties, then atheism is not a religion.
Pertaining to the issue of theist being rational or irrational beings, I recently read a tidbit of Freud’s writings (I’m sorry but I can’t provide a proper quote at the moment) where Freud compared his psychotic subjects with those of religious bent. They both felt a need to execute rituals and felt guilt if they did not perform those rituals. I found this to be quite amusing. I personally don’t find that theists must be irrational. Everyone has irrational tendencies, theists merely have a belief founded in the irrational.
Pashley, I may be new here, but a word to the wise: lay off David B, he’s a good guy and his contributions are highly valued by most. By all means, debate with him, but stay away from the flames which have no place in GD.
In response to the question back on the bottom of page 1:
Clarke’s Law
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is essentially indistinguishable from magic.”
-Arthur C. Clarke
(while I suppose it’s actually a postulate rather than a law . . .)
-andros-
(boy, can I contribute to a thread or what? :rolleyes 
paulyeah:
No, actually the person who believes in a higher power is not ego-centric; if he were, he believe HE is the highest power, like David B, Spirtus Mundi or Neutron Star
Uh, well, as much as you might hate to hear it, you better get used to the fact that David is a god here.
But has absolute power corrupted him? Hmmm…
Esprix, who loves playing Devil’s advocate…