David
I thought that was the Jewish God, or am I cornfused?
This is not intended as a flame, simply and observation…
I don’t see Gaudere’s view on religion as a “religion thing”. I see it as an ego thing. If I’m censored for saying so then so be it. Just my humble opinion.
Needs2know
Huh? I believe that hell would freeze over before that would happen. Even David wouldn’t do that.
Is Atheism a religion?
So you’ve got this little game called “God” that you like to play. In fact, you are SO enthused about this game, you want me to play it too. When I refuse, you get upset with me and tell me I have to play this game or terrible things will happen. You start calling me names and you threaten to harm me. In fact, there are people who play this game who DO harm others if they don’t play.
Still, I refuse to play.
Now you insist that I have started a [inew* game called “Not god”. I don’t recall starting any such game, I don’t recall playing any such game.
And as far as I’m concerned, there ain’t no such game.
…slythe says, hiding dice behind his back…
DavidB:
The things you are suggesting I partially agree with. I do believe that science has demonstrated that the dogmatic tennets of organized religions are unnecessary. For instance if you have a religion which suggests “Appollo rides his sun chariot across the sky” you now have a falsifyable question (believe it or not) which has been demonstrated false via science. This does not however suggest that a god is unnecessary for the world to be as it is. Science does contradict many tennets of ancient organized religions, but this only tells us that our view of god needs updating, and should incorporate scientific truths. thus your points come no closer to suggesting that science renders god unnecessary. I would suggest that science and religion are compatible, so long as they work together. Even Stephen Hawking, who’s about as rigid a logical positivist as they come, suggests that by understanding the laws of physics we may come one step closer to understanding the mind of god.
Yes! A perfect word, and perfect for the disctinction I was trying to illustrate.
Someone asked what faith an atheist would have. I would say the following mught illustrate that:
Is there any proof for God? There are some philosophic takes on it, but those can easily be debated and are not “proofs” in the empirical sense.
A believer could say, “There is God. I have faith that there is.” Similarly, an atheist would say, “There is no God,” but they need faith that there is not.
(Waiting for David B’s head to explode at that one, thinking I switched sides…)
I know the argument that one does not need faith to accept something which is NOT there. But you cannot say that God is not there, only that He is not testable. Not testable means that you’ll NEVER know for sure. It’s like testing for radiation with a device not designed to pick up radiation - it proves NOTHING as to whether there is radiation present. And we don’t have a device set to test for God, and likely never will.
Now, an atheist might hear this and finally say, “Okay, I’m an agnostic, now leave me alone!” Which is fine. That’s another whole different kettle of fish, and one could say that we’re ALL agnostics in the logical sense of the word, whether we are Mary Magdalene or Madalyn Murray! Ultimately, NOBODY really “knows.”
Of maybe I am mixing up my philosophy with my science here, eh?
Maybe I should stop posting stream-of-consciousness, huh? shrugs
Yer putz,
Satan :wally
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, five days, 12 hours, 15 minutes and 16 seconds.
3220 cigarettes not smoked, saving $402.55.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 4 hours, 20 minutes.
Avalongod:
The point you tell me you have gotten is nevertheless seemingly absent in your posts. I beliee you are confusing “lack of necessity” with “demonstration of absence”.
If I give you a recipe for a cake, and that recipe does not include the ingredient beef, then I have made a statement that beef is unnecessary for that cake. It is not required for me to explicitly write “there is no beef in this cake” in bold letters across the top of the page.
Now, lest you misinterpret this analogy, I am by no means claiming that science has fully explicated the Universe and found no place for God(s). I am also not saying that science has made any statements about whether God(s) can exist. I am saying that science has given us a large collection of recipes and none of the require the ingredient God.
No, I am not. Organized religion has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of God(s).
You are incorrect. I have not claimed that science proves that God(s) do not exist. I have not claimed that my atheism is wrapped in the mantle of science. My mention of science was quite focused; it dealt with your misunderstanding of the statement, “What science has done is shown that we do not need God to explain how we got here, how species came about, or any number of other problems.” You are ascribing opinions to me which I have never claimed for myself. It annoys me when people do this. I ask you to not do so again.
For the record, I will explain once more the actual basis of my atheism (in somewhat simplified terms).
- I see no evidence for God(s).
- Lacking evidence, it is possible to believe in something only through faith.
- I have no faith in the existence of God(s).
- I, and many others, have searched for evidence of God(s) without success.
- Therefore, I am confident that God(s) does not exist.
Substitute Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the next Michal Jordan into the above and you have exactly the same reasoning.
Apply the process in other areas and it explains why I awake each morning confident that the atmosphere hasn’t spontaneously transmuted to chlorine, the Earth’s gravity will still attract me, and it hasn’t really been nine minutes since I hit the snooze button.
I repeat, my atheism is not based upon science. Science is simply the most reliable tool mankind has developed for explicating the material world. As such, it is quite valuable in the “searching for evidence” step. I also repeat, conclusion of absence in teh ansence of evidence requires no more faith than it takes for you to raise a glass of water to your lips confident that it will be wet. If you wish to reduce religious faith to the level of mundane habit, you are welcome to try. Personally, I reject such a diminishment of a trait that to which so many people attach deep siignificance.
You are incorrect. You confuse the falsification of a hypothesis with the demonstration of existence. I can quite easily demonstrate that any number of material objects exist. I cannot prove that no Invisible Pink Unicorns exists.
If Hawking meant this stateent in any sense other than metaphorical, then I submit that he is not “as rigid a logical positivist as they come”.
Satan:
Repeating this many times does not make it true. If I need to break eggs to make an omelet, it does not follow that I need to break eggs to not make an omelet.
I can say God(s) does not exist. I can also say this is not a testable hypothesis. Do you have FAITH that the air in your next breath will not be pure nitrogen? Do you have FAITH that when you reach for the keyboard your fingers will not pass immaterially through the surface? Do you have FAITH that you did not spontaneously spring into existence with the illusion of personal history as you read this sentence?
I say again, it is possible to apply the word faith to these types of questions, but to argue that such “faith” is indistinguishable from the deep personal convictions that lie behind religious beliefs cheapens those beliefs terribly. It might surprise some, but I have many close friends whose faith I find beautiful, even admirable. To equate the depth of their devotion with the simple acknowledgement of empriricism in my statement, “there is no God,” cheapens a their belief.
So, have we established whether I am a Religious Evangelical Atheist yet? I feel I should find out, since if I am a Evangelical Atheist, I am sucking terribly at it. 
The theists I have had one-on-one (or one-on-two, or one-on-three) debates with–Polycarp, Libertarian, RTFirefly, StarTrkr77, Twin, FriendofGod, etc.–often express their appreciation for my questions, and tell me that my questioning has given them greater understanding of their faith. Poly and RT even tell me that they think God is working through me to help explain things to theists! It’s not surprising I haven’t had even one convert; I seem to be making people better theists!
Well, there’s only one thing to do if I want to help my UnHoly Cause of Atheism–I must become a Christian. Then I will debate atheists and by doing so strengthen their arguments and beliefs!
Spiritus Mundi:
Again it is my contention that as science and empiricism takes no stand on the nature of God, it is not appropriate to use this as the “mantle” for atheism. The same logic that you are using would have been used by scientists 500 years ago to state there is no electricity, and there are no atoms. Science hasn’t shown me them therefor I know that they do not exist. As you might see from this example, it is actually an inappropriate leap, and thus a misuse of science.
quote
A very poor metaphor. Again, in this case the chef (science) does not know whether beef is needed or not. Let's try this metaphor...Doctor has a patient,, but does not have all the information about that patient's disease. Doctor has 2 medications. One might help, the other might kill her. Now there is no empirical evidence to tell him which medicine to use, any choice he makes is an opinion, a belief, and thus not a matter for empirical science. And science, I might note, works at "levels of analysis" and for each level we uncover we end up only with more questions, so I might suggest science has not, indeed, negated the necessity of a god (but I for one, acknowledge that last statement as my opinion)
quote:
~~~I have not claimed that science proves that God(s) do not exist.
It seems to me that you are coming as close to this wire as you possibly can so that you can still claim to be reasonable.
quote:
~~~You are ascribing opinions to me which I have never claimed for myself. It annoys me when people do this. I ask you to not do so again.
If I have done this I appologize, and assure you that it is only an attempt on my part to understand your position, and not to annoy you. I would submit that miscommunications are common, and hope you will be patient.
quote:
~~~I see no evidence for God(s).
But neither do you have evidence that there is no God. I would suggest to that the neat and precise way in which the universe works is, in and of itself, at least suggestive of the possibility. Also given the complexities of human consciousness which surpass the physical world, we further have at least the question in mind. However, as you have no evidence to support your position, your position is thus not empirical, and is a matter of faith.
quote:
~~~I repeat, my atheism is not based upon science.
~~~To equate the depth of their devotion with the simple acknowledgement of empriricism in my statement, "there is no God," cheapens a their belief.
you might see my confusion in the contrast of these two statements. In #1 you suggest your position is not based on scientific empiricism. In #2 you equate your position with empiricism.
quote:
~~~I also repeat, conclusion of absence in teh ansence of evidence requires no more faith than it takes for you to raise a glass of water to your lips confident that it will be wet.
This is not a correct statement. Many scientists have been careful to note this. For instance Sagan's famous quote "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
quote:
~~~You confuse the falsification of a hypothesis with the demonstration of existence.
No, you are the one who is confused. Demonstrate that an atom exists for me, if you will please. Perhaps you would care to demonstrate that black holes exist. Such things have not been demonstrated NOT to exist, thus we can assume for the moment that they do.
I wonder sometimes if atheism should be held to the standards of organized religions. I have seem many atheists insist that religious folk demonstrate conclusively for them that god exists. I shall happily entertain an atheist who can demonstrate empirically that god does not exist. Given the principles of falsificationism, this should actually be easeir.Spiritus:
Any reason you avoided my analogy about radiation? Let me clarify, hopefully:
If I said there was radiation in your house, and you challenged me on it, and I brought out a thermometer and proclaimed it to show there was a ton of harmful and deadly radiation in your house, what would you think?
Well, knowing you, you would probably say, “that is not the correct device to measure for radiation! Get the correct device for radiation detection - or heck, maybe I will - and I’ll find out for sure. Until then, the issue of radiation in my house is unclear.”
Now, change radiation above for God.
Now, find a device to measure and detect God.
Please tell me how I am mistaken here.
Yer putz,
Satan :wally
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, five days, 17 hours, 20 minutes and 10 seconds.
3228 cigarettes not smoked, saving $403.61.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 5 hours, 0 minutes.
**
By this logic, if someone claims that they are covered in invisible spiders that are biting them, but only they can see and feel the bites, you would have to take them at face value. Black holes are very different from GOD. Black holes, while not conclusively determined to exist, are something that is used to explain why certain things happen. It could be that we are wrong about them, but they are the best theory we have. The same goes for atoms, sure they may find out more about atoms or that certain atoms behave in new ways. But, the theory and knowledge of atoms has been used to explain all sorts of physical process. If at some point we run into a process that runs counter to our knowledge, we will have to revise our theories.
God doesn’t work that way. You do not need a theory of God to explain anything. Like invisble spiders or leprechauns he is entirely extraneous. I do not need evidence of him not existing.
How about this Satan. We’ll replace radiation with Intergalactic Space Spiders who raped my wife and turned my Dog into that Chevy Impala over there.
If I said there was Intergalactic Space Spiders who raped my wife and turned my Dog into that Chevy Impala over there in your house, and you challenged me on it, and I brought out a thermometer and proclaimed it to show there was a ton of harmful and deadly Intergalactic Space Spiders who raped my wife and turned my Dog into that Chevy Impala over there in your house, what would you think?
Well, knowing you, you would probably say, “that is not the correct device to measure for Intergalactic Space Spiders who raped my wife and turned my Dog into that Chevy Impala over there! Get the correct device for Intergalactic Space Spiders who raped my wife and turned my Dog into that Chevy Impala over there detection - or heck, maybe I will - and I’ll find out for sure. Until then, the issue of Intergalactic Space Spiders who raped my wife and turned my Dog into that Chevy Impala over there in my house is unclear.”
I would think that you were a looney if you started proclaiming that. Of course, we tend to give peoplewith a belief in God more leeway. But, only because it’s a socially accepted delusion.
Avalongod:
You counsel me to patience. I shall try. I ask you to try and read my posts more carefully. I do not deny that I rely on the methods of reason, including science, to draw conclusions about the Universe. Atheis represents one of my conclusions about the Universe. It therefore follows that my atheism takes as some part of its input my understanding of science. It does not follow that science in itself is suficient to generate my atheism or that I have somehow “wrapped the mantle of science” around my atheism. I am certain that your own belief manages to coexist with your own understanding of science. I do not therefore accuse you of wrapping the mantle of science around your belief.
Again, you demonstrate a lack of comprehension of the posts to which you reply. Was I not explicit enough in the following:
“Now, lest you misinterpret this analogy, I am by no means claiming that science has fully explicated the Universe and found no place for God(s). I am also not saying that science has made any statements about whether God(s) can exist. I am saying that science has given us a large collection of recipes and none of the require the ingredient God.”
Which, exactly, of the major theories of any branch of science do you feel might require the existence of God to explain the phenomena with which they are concerned?
I have never said that it has. I have said that science has demonstrated that God(s) is not necessary to explain a large number of phenomenon. I might also add that science has found no area in which God(s) is necessary to explain a phenomenon. Neither to these statements are equivalent to “science has negated the necessity for God”.
As to the recipe metaphor, it works fine if you do not misread it. But it is just a metaphor. If it does not help you understand the concepts then it serves no purpose. If you insist on the Dr variation, thoough, I would argue that your dual medication model is not fitting. Reason is a model which is well tested in mapping the Universe. Faith is non-testable. Imagine your doctor has a sick patient whom he must diagnose. He can either use the tools and tests of his profession, and trust the results they give, or he can turn away from the patient and diagnose through intuition. Assuming he then prescribes some course of action, I know which treatment plan I would prefer ot follow.
To be blunt, so what? “Science has explained many things without finding a necessty for God(s),” is an accurate statement. That you seem unable to differentiate this from “science proves that God(s) does not exist,” is rapidly becoming a subject in which I have linterest.
(a) Again, I have never claimed any.
(b) This is suggestive only of your subjective views of nature and God respectively.
© Please demonstrate that human consciousness is more complex than teh physical world
Please rpovide me with empirical evidence that invisible, intangible gremlins are not living inside your left nostril.
You are correct. I oversimplified the situation in order to make the point more immediate. I had hoped that my earlier explication of my atheism (which iteself was a simplification) would be sufficient fo impart the understanding that empiricism was not the sole basis of my position. However, taking those two statements and ignoring the additional contextual information I can see where confusion could arise.
True. However, there is a subtle yet significant difference between contexts with which these two statements are given. To be frank, I would prefer to return to this after (if) we can resolve our failure to communicate on much more fundamental issues.
This grows tiresome. Why atoms and black holes? How about if I demonstrate that tables and dogs and human stupidity exist instead? As to your last sentence, it is one of the most absurd propositions that I have ever encountered. May we also assume that nose gremlins, Olympian gods, and the proverbial free lunch exist, since these things have not been demonstrated not to exist.
Your grasp of the principles behind the scientific method is imperfect. BTW – I still await your proof that no Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.
(note: there is a philosophical school you might turn to to help you argue that no object can be demonstrated to exist or to not exist. Nothing particularly interesting can develop from that proposition, but let me know if that is what you wish to argue.)
[munching popcorn… pulling up lawn chair…]
Plus, I can’t believe I missed this:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
What you seem to be saying is that the belief in a higher power which created you is so darn ludicrous that it is on par with the admittedly very witty analogy you made is to be believed in.
Please don’t tell any of the animals we’ve cloned that. I would so hate for them to lose the faith…
Yer putz,
Satan :wally
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, five days, 18 hours, 23 minutes and 0 seconds.
3230 cigarettes not smoked, saving $403.83.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 5 hours, 10 minutes.
I’ve spent a lot of time around the mentally ill. The analogy I made wasn’t too far from the truth. NOw being not only an atheist, but a profoundly anti-religous atheist, maybe I’m a wee wee bit biased.
But, it irritates me that someone is allowed to stand on steps screeching that I’m going to hell, and that there is a supernatural being that is going to send me their, sometimes these people even claim God talks to them. Everyone thinks it’s ok.
Yet go around saying that Giant Spiders have talked to you and you get locked up and pumped full of meds.
Fair? I don’t think so.
A lot of my friends are religious (God, will you listen to me. I sound like an anti-semite. “It’s ok a lot of my friends are jewish”, anyway…)
I don’t have that much of a problem with people believing in God. I also don’t have a problem with people who are schizophrinic, or who think they are the messiah. Sometimes, I try to point out that they are incorrect. Most of the time I just humor them.
**
The day you hear me saying it’s okay to tell people they’re going to hell is the day you can lock me up with the mentally ill people.
As for God talking to them, well, before my little spiritual awakening, I called that voice my “conscience,” and lest you start saying that Jimminy Cricket is God, allow me to say that you may not have any voices or thoughts entering your head. I don’t know, I ain’t you.
And I ain’t trying you to see anything my way.
I ain’t seen a UFO. Some people claim they have. I don’t think they are “delusional” just because they saw something I never did.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I am pretty fucking arrogant about a lot of things, but telling people they are on par with mentally ill people just because they experience things I have not is farther in the opposite direction of the campus preachers than I care to travel.
Yer putz,
Satan :wally
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, five days, 19 hours, 14 minutes and 13 seconds.
3232 cigarettes not smoked, saving $404.01.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 5 hours, 20 minutes.
**
Well, here is why I don’t have a problem with it. I’ve done a lot of volunteer work at Langley-Porter (a mental hospital). I’ve met and talked to a lot of “mentally-ill” people. Most of them are ok peole. They just percieve reallity a little different. You can say the same for the religious people. They happen to think God is controlling everything. I know someone who thought his father was God. A harmless fellow, really quite nice. And yet, here he was locked up and on a heavy dose of Olanzapine, while other religious people are allowed to walk free. I have a problem with that. It seems unfair.
What sets apart the delusions of someone who thinks they are the messiah from someone who thinks the messiah is a Jew who died 2000 years ago and is coming back?
And I just have to include a cartoon tht while not essential to the debate, always cracks me up when it comes to religion.
Cartoon
Satan said:
I agree with you (of course I do), but the distinction is this: theists and atheists believe they do* know. Maybe they have some questions or doubts–and both sides can cite examples of the enemy who “saw the light” and stopped believing that silly nonsense they used to spout–but they have come to a conclusion, however shaky or firm. Agnostics–the sort I identify myself with, at least–don’t think they know. We sort of shrug, say “How the hell should I know?” and go on about our business. Agnostics tend to be quieter than either religious people or atheists–many theists have a vested emotional interest in converting the unholy, and (as this thread refers to) there are atheists who seem to have a vested interest in uncoverting the holy, but agnostics don’t really care. This is why some people use the term “agnostic” to denote some sort of fence-sitting on the subject, but that’s not really the case. Christians and atheists have more in common with each other than either do with agnostics–the Cs and As both think they can figure out what agnosticism defines as unfigureoutable.
Needs2know said:
Censored? What planet are you on? Corrected? Hell, yes. Where do you get this “ego thing” from? I’d like to see some evidence for this bizarre claim, please.
Libertarian: Christian God, Jewish God – whatever.
Satan: Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? If not, does that mean you have faith that She doesn’t exist? Do you believe in a one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater living inside of Pluto? If not, does that mean you have faith that he doesn’t exist? If have no apples, does that mean I have apples? If we have been through this discussion a million times, does that mean I have faith that we will be through it another million?