Post #291,708
8/27/07 7:38:06 PM
|
Just saying it isn't doesn't make it not.
The atheist can no more prove his conviction than the theist can. He attempts to prove it by limiting the scope of possibility and the scope of a reality he cannot explain - or explain why there is any reality at all, or even if there really is one. \r\n\r\n Yet many atheists preach their conviction with a truly religious certainty, simply denying the existence of anything beyond the known borders of logic, science and observation, all of which are by their very nature severely limited in scope. \r\n\r\n Thus it is as much a religion as any of the others. \r\n\r\n Further, atheism can not be logically justified.\r\n \r\n- Let us suppose you live as a truly devout atheist - then die. Suppose you are right - what has atheism gained you? All reality is gone to you - non-existent - as if you'd never existed at all. So atheism has gained you nothing.
\r\n\r\n- So what if you're wrong? You end up in a situation for which you are \r\nentirely unprepared, and with full knowledge now that you were wrong. Of course I'm not saying adherents to other religions would be much better off - but still, you were so certain and now you are so wrong.
\r\n\r\n- Lets look at the period while you're alive then. You've probably been ridiculing people who chose to believe differently - so you've probably offended a whole lot of people. This is not very social. Other religions offer better social opportunities and more fun (if you pick the right ones). So here your unprovable conviction has worked to your disadvantage.
\r\n\r\n- "But", you say, "While I'm alive I take comfort in the certainty that I'm right!". Really? Are you sure you're more certain you're right than the born-again Jesus jumper down the street is ceertain he's right? I'd be willing to bet you have more uncertainty in your rightness than he does.
\r\n \r\n So there you have it. Athiesm cannot be proven, any more than any other religion, though you can pretend to yourself it is proven by limiting the scope of your arguments, much as adherents of some other religions do. \r\n\r\n Further, the atheist runs the risk of being wrong. While if you adhered to some other religion you might still be wrong, but if atheism proves correct you'd have lost nothing - you'd be just as non-existent as any atheist is so it doesn't matter - but in the meantime you'd probably have had a more rewarding social life. \r\n\r\n Atheism - it just doesn't make sense. \r\n [link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #291,711
8/27/07 8:13:53 PM
|
I think you're using too broad a brush.
Yet many atheists preach their conviction with a truly religious certainty, simply denying the existence of anything beyond the known borders of logic, science and observation, all of which are by their very nature severely limited in scope. There are a few atheists like that, but I think most of the ones I've come across (including yours truly) are closer to the [link|http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/31|Bertrand Russell] flavor: It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true. When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless. [link|http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/russell.htm|And]: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. There are many others, of course. :-) You're using a variation on [link|http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2007/01/pascals_wager_t.html|Pascal's Wager]. Richard Dawkin's [link|http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618680004/ref=pd_cp_b_title?ie=UTF8|book] addresses that very well, too, IMO. Have a look at [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=291631|Silverlock's latest .sig]. :-) My take (at the moment) is that Atheism addresses the question of whether there's evidence for a supernatural deity that demands our worship and will punish us if we don't give it. Atheism at a minimum comes down on the side that there is no evidence for such a deity. It doesn't address the question of whether our present understanding of physics and cosmology is sufficient to explain everything. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #291,713
8/27/07 9:14:00 PM
|
'There is no evidence for such a deity'
My take (at the moment) is that Atheism addresses the question of whether there's evidence for a supernatural deity that demands our worship and will punish us if we don't give it. Atheism at a minimum comes down on the side that there is no evidence for such a deity. It doesn't address the question of whether our present understanding of physics and cosmology is sufficient to explain everything. Now that I'll pretty much agree with. The concept of "a supernatural deity that demands our worship" is nothing but a tool of authoritarianism and there is no evidence whatever for such a deity. Those who worship such a deity fare no better than those who don't - in fact they seem to fare rather worse - though that is partially attributable to those doing worse trying to find an easy way out. In some cases I think such worship is a major contributing factor to being worse off, and I point my finger at Islam. That a God would have any use for worship seems rather unlikely - unless that God is a consensus construct of human minds and requires that worship for sustenance - or even existence - but would such an entity be a true god? I think not. On the other hand such a God could serve well as a mascot and guide for the cohesion of the culture that created Him. In that way He could be useful, but to consider him all-powerful and unchangeable would be wrong. This is how I tend to view the God of the Christians, and other God focused religions. Is there a higher form of God, one (or more) to whom human worship is irrelevant? Some say there is, others say there isn't - it depends on what kind of evidence you want to accept. Certainly science cannot prove there is, nor can it prove there isn't. So with the vengeful God theory statistically eliminated, and any higher form unproven, what is a reasonable person to do? I say to to operate within the structure of the larger human society, but keep your mind open and an eye peeled for evidence. Human knowledge is constantly expanding and ascribing limits to it (or to reality) is counterproductive. Many atheists simply deny the possibility of anything beyond what is known to science today and think themselves superior to others for that denial - and do not shrink from saying so. Those atheists are annoying. And Silverlock's signature is wrong. One must operate within some cosmology, some conception of reality, and given the limited range of our knowledge and lack of anything resembling a proof, any such concept counts as a religion. [link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #291,733
8/28/07 3:01:21 AM
|
You keep saying "it must be a religion"
...when you clearly have a different definition of "religion" to the rest of us. The reason one needs faith to believe in a god is that there's no evidence. That's what faith is. I don't need faith to be an atheist, because it's not up to me to prove that there's no god. That's not how science works. Observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory. It made the computers we're using to argue with, the internet that is for porn, the [link|http://www.fonejacker.tv/|herd luckerderterv] in my living room, the car I drive around in, and, indeed, all the stuff that we use today. You are free to dismiss this as religion, but you'd be wrong. It's great fun to speculate about what sort of god there is or might be, but the entire evidence for the existence of same can be found between these square brackets [], and in that light discussing whether god might be a bastard or a nice guy is like wondering whether the Millennium Falcon would beat the Enterprise in a space fight. When the evidence for a god turns up, then that's a whole different barrel of lutefisk. Many atheists simply deny the possibility of anything beyond what is known to science today and think themselves superior to others for that denial - and do not shrink from saying so. Those atheists are annoying. Who denies the possibility of anything beyond what is known today? Not me, that's for sure. When ah were a lad, I would have been amazed by the herd luckerderterv and doovd in my living room, but I could have had its operation and construction explained to me in scientific terms, and not had to regard it as "magic". One concept that seems to pervade theist thinking is that it's somehow up to the scientists to prove the non-existence of god. It's not.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
|
Post #291,737
8/28/07 3:59:46 AM
|
And you keep say'n my concept of God . . .
. . has to correspond with the Christian good-guy / bad guy concept which you understand and despise - that my definition of religion is different from yours so it must be irrelevant. Heh!
The scientific evidence that there is anything at all is between these brackets []. The more scientists delve into the foundation of the universe the more they know about it and the less they find.
"I saw in my hand something the size of a pea. I asked God 'what is this' and he answered 'That is all that has ever been created'" - Hildegard von Bingen - Abbess, mystic, composer (music still performed) - died 1179. A tad ahead of the science boys, huh?
I understand and respect your science. I use it every day in many ways, probably in more ways than you do. I also understand it quite beyond BMWs and computers. I am also open to there being something in the vast gaps science leaves untouched - and that those realms should be examined to the best of our ability. You are not because you haven't read about it in Popular Mechanics.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #291,739
8/28/07 7:01:14 AM
|
Re: And you keep say'n my concept of God . . .
. . has to correspond with the Christian good-guy / bad guy concept which you understand and despise - that my definition of religion is different from yours so it must be irrelevant. Heh! Well, you keep giving it a capital G, and the word "God" in English has one very, very common meaning, so what is a chap to think? The scientific evidence that there is anything at all is between these brackets []. The more scientists delve into the foundation of the universe the more they know about it and the less they find. First sentence is meaningless. Fancy words, but ultimately sophistry. What you're basically saying is "we don't know jack", which is demonstrably not true. An assumption that there is an infinite amount of stuff to know will, naturally, bring the mathematical certainty that infinity - a finite amount = infinity, but this does not alter the obvious fact that we clearly know something. "I saw in my hand something the size of a pea. I asked God 'what is this' and he answered 'That is all that has ever been created'" - Hildegard von Bingen - Abbess, mystic, composer (music still performed) - died 1179. A tad ahead of the science boys, huh? I know who she is. I even bought her CD (Canticles of Ecstacy. It's OK, but one has to be in the mood for it). You don't have a monopoly on knowing who ancient religious nutters are. I understand and respect your science. I use it every day in many ways, probably in more ways than you do. I also understand it quite beyond BMWs and computers. I am also open to there being something in the vast gaps science leaves untouched - and that those realms should be examined to the best of our ability. You are not because you haven't read about it in Popular Mechanics. I don't read Popular Mechanics, and your assumption that you use science more than I do is just that - an assumption. I don't talk about my day job, because it's very specialised and crushingly dull to those outside the field. My scientific training includes chemistry, geography and information theory as well as the more humdrum computer programming and its ilk. You're assuming (it's that word again) that there must be something in the gaps, and your assumption leads you (and religionists and woo-woos of all stripes) to fill those gaps with products of the human imagination. The universe is more than wonderful enough as it stands to fill a chap with awe, without having to make shit up.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
|
Post #291,758
8/28/07 9:56:03 AM
|
herding drunks down the hiway is scientific?
sorry couldnt help meself
geography chemistry timing and traffic
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #291,762
8/28/07 10:30:03 AM
8/28/07 11:12:00 AM
|
Hey Pete!
Herein lies the rub. When you say, "Observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory" are the basis for scientific method, I absolutely agree and feel far too few people understand the importance of this body of knowledge and the idea that is open to constant revision - the best body of knowledge available at any given time. So, let's put the Big Bang Theory under this scrutiny. Any observers out there? Reproduceable? Etc... I think this is at the crux of the entire debate and the point that Andrew is trying to make. We (humans) can only observe "infinity" from our piss-ant crippled reference point (an electron spinning around the sun in an infinite universe) and our hubris won't allow many of us, even an atheist, to admit how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things (or one of the grand schemes of things, ad nauseum, ad infinitum).
Apparently, human beings have an innate need to try and understand. On this here planet, things are born and then die. They can only occupy so much space. And we limit our dimensions to what is observable. To pose a question such as "who created God" or where did the materials come from to make up "the Big Bang"? And how many Big Bangs have there been in infinite time (time without beginning and end, how could there be a "supreme" being in an infinite universe, etc. etc. etc.). It torks the brain. So we seek to find purpose through Philosophy, mythology/religion. To me, it is not about being "right" so much as it about feeling a universal connectedness. Some achieve it through notions of God or through logic, but at the end of the day, we're all full of shit and most of us feel that need. ;-)
I, for one, am equally offended by those who try to "sell me" their version of shit (with absolute conviction) than any other version. I am all for trying to find the connectedness we need (however) and try to be a bit empathetic towards those who are searching, be they religious pilgrims or physicists. YMMV. To answer your last question, is it up the scientist to prove the non-existence of God? Only if he is trying to "sell me" his or her distorted notion about Truth or Purpose, thank you very much. But, since I do like you, and I like Bertrand, here is his answer to your last question at [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot|http://en.wikipedia..../Russell's_teapot] .
YMMV
Just a few thoughts,
Danno - proving the fallacy of intelligent design daily...
Edited by danreck
Aug. 28, 2007, 10:52:37 AM EDT
Edited by danreck
Aug. 28, 2007, 11:12:00 AM EDT
|
Post #291,714
8/27/07 9:17:50 PM
|
There is a shocking under-use of the correct label,
agnostic - as good a general term as any I know of, to describe the Neutral position on *all* "human 'explained' material" purported to be.. of, from, about 'god', origins and Origins-of-origins.
I'd agree that:
a Boolean negative of [Any old belief, Belief, Assertion, Certainty (especially.. that last)]
IS no better-grounded in truthiness than the mechanical-Opposite being disembowelled.
Welcome to the World of Opposites - our daily illusion, donchaknow?
A-theism is as often perfused with religio-fervor from the Emotional brain as is ... say, the crack baby, grown up to be a Marketer?
I've also maintained throughout these \ufffdmany oft fervid promulgations:
Most [most-Definitely 'most'] Westerners, aside from not knowing {shit} about their own claimed fav sects' peculiar takes on All and Everything -- are pig-ignorant of WTF any idea like metaphysics might be about; are as determinedly anti-clueful about ever investigating That -- as they are, about finding out why it is a Bad idea to dump your dead motor oil in the backyard.
\ufffd many, that is - from the InfoWorld origins of this improbable still-collective (!) as in other venues == they are all Western. I don't frequent any Eastern digital hangouts, having preferred to eschew biped mangling of Their game, quite as much as any other biped imagineering. Some matters you Have to do yourself - and that is an idea which is anathema to the Comfort Society in which we dwell.
'Argue' this stuff?
It Is To Laugh.
As requoted in these parts (recently?)
What men really want is not knowledge but certainty.
-- Bertrand Russell
He clarified that a bit, with
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
(He got Patriots right, too)
Patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their country.
But Bertie is just one.. of a few, known to some %small of the Western hordes. Most you will meet next will have No Idea WTF BR was. Or was On about. We've been around this ripped-off continent, swaggering - for a mere 200+ years and we still elect assholes who are Certain..! about what godwantsdonenext.
|
Post #291,759
8/28/07 9:56:54 AM
|
One more quote for Scott...
I'm staying out of this one for now but... terms are important and as Russell was used to justify an atheist position:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
\ufffd Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91 Natch for me... Just a few thoughts,
Danno
|
Post #291,766
8/28/07 11:07:37 AM
|
Russell wrote a *lot* about religion.
Part of the problem with the discussion of Agnosticism versus Atheism is that the terms morph over time, as Matthew illustrated below. (It becomes easier if one considers the roots of the words: [link|http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=CBN&defl=en&q=define:Gnosis&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title|Gnosis] and [link|http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=yV2&q=define%3Atheism&btnG=Search|Theism], but meanings change over time.) In Seckel's collection, [link|http://www.amazon.com/Bertrand-Russell-Religion-Great-Philosophy/dp/0879753234/|Bertrand Russell on God and Religion], Chapter 4 is a reprint of an interview in Look from 1953: Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God: the atheist, that we can know there is not*. The agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold that it is so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have toward the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An agnostic may think that the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists. IOW, Bertie was generally very careful in expressing his opinions, but for all practical purposes he was an Atheist, especially considering his hostility to Christianity (which is the most-commonly used contrast to Atheism, at least in the West). Cheers, Scott. * Many freethinkers do not accept this definition. For them atheism means without theism or without a belief in god or gods - Ed.
|
Post #291,769
8/28/07 11:28:52 AM
|
Understood
and thanks... I put a link in above (post to Pete) to point to Russell's Teapot ([link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot|http://en.wikipedia..../Russell's_teapot]). I do like Dawkin's summary at the bottom as a primer for why so many folks do not want view organized religion as just another shelf in the market of ideas. Given its history, it would be folly not to be extremely skeptical about other's motivations when getting into the "my God's bigger than your God" types of debates. It has been a few generations since the holocaust, however; and to many who casually look at the "be-attitudes" without the historical tyranny of the Crusades and the Dark Ages, find it just another plausible explanation. When I defend "a person's" right to be left alone with their quest for connectedness, I guess that I sort of assume that the person understands the skeletons in their deist's closets. This is probably a naive assumption on my part. In the historical context of Russell's time, he probably still was taking a huge risk by taking a position against societal norms. If I am to believe that 90% of Americans "believe in God" (which I don't - I understand that we could probably shave about 20-30% off that number depending on how the surveys are phrased), then this board and our posts would label us as "traitors" and lost sheep. We can only hope that during the next inquisition that the mob has read the parables...
;-)
Just a few thoughts,
Danno
|
Post #291,771
8/28/07 11:53:13 AM
8/28/07 11:58:23 AM
|
Thanks. :-) Don't let months pass between posts, ya hear?
Beating up on only beep gets boring after a while.
[image|http://www.sondrak.com/archive/hhg.jpg|0|HHG|171|241]
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #291,781
8/28/07 1:52:53 PM
|
On religious surveys...
Danno writes: If I am to believe that 90% of Americans "believe in God" (which I don't - I understand that we could probably shave about 20-30% off that number depending on how the surveys are phrased)... It's difficult to do a meaningful social survey. You have to do it in a way that accounts for socio-economic differences (telephone v.s personal interview; time of day; what to do about people who don't want to participate?; etc.). The [link|http://www.norc.org/homepage.htm|National Opinion Research Center] is very good in doing meaningful surveys (e.g. if they pick you for a respondent, they'll work very hard to get you to answer their questions). They're best known for the [link|http://www.norc.org/projects/General+Social+Survey.htm|General Social Survey]. In a 2004 [link|http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040819/protestants.shtml|story]: The increasing secularization of American society has taken a particular toll on Protestant identity, presenting the prospect that after more than 200 years of history, the United States may soon no longer be a majority Protestant country, according to a new study by the National Opinion Research Center.
The percentage of the population that is Protestant has been falling and will likely fall below 50 percent by mid-decade or may already be there, the study showed.
Between 1972 and 1993, the Protestant share of the population remained stable, but then a decline set in. In 1993, 63 percent of Americans were Protestant, but by 2002, the number was 52 percent, the NORC research found. During the same time, the number of people who said they had no religion went up from 9 percent to nearly 14 percent. The survey listed people as Protestant if they indicated they were members of a particular Protestant denomination, such as Baptist, United Methodist or Episcopalian. Membership in many of the Protestant denominations has been declining.
[...] Some results of the 2006 GSS are discussed by Kim at [link|http://atbozzo.blogspot.com/2007/06/science-and-religion-2006-gss.html|Tom Bozzo] and other blogs linked there. Some of the graphs are disturbing, to say the least, if you are worried about the state of basic scientific knowledge in the US. While professed religion doesn't correlate strongly with wrong answers to many questions, it does to others and the amount of education doesn't seem to matter in changing the percent correct in those cases. As a commenter on Pharyngula [link|http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/lies_your_religion_told_you.php|notes]: With a little college education, a Catholic becomes about as smart as your average unbeliever. ;-) Another thing to keep in mind is that the answers to the questions can be contradictory: [link|http://publicdata.norc.org:41000/gssbeta/GSSVariables_subject.html|General Social Survey (Beta)]: Variable GODRIGHT : GOD'S LAWS SHOULD DECIDE RIGHT AND WRONG\nPreQuestion Text\nHow successful do you think the government in America is nowadays in each of the following areas?\n\nLiteral Question\nA. Right and wrong should be based on God's laws.\n\nValues \tCategories \t N \tNW\n1 \tSTRONGLY AGREE \t 358 \t365\t 28.8%\n2 \tAGREE \t 361 \t359 \t 28.3%\n3 \tNEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE \t269 \t277\t 21.8%\n4 \tDISAGREE \t 155 \t158\t 12.5%\n5 \tSTRONGLY DISAGREE \t 115 \t109\t 8.5%\n0 \tNAP \t49661 \t49660\n8 \tDK \t60 \t55\n9 \tNA \t41 \t38\nSummary Statistics\nValid cases \t1258\nMissing cases \t49762\nThis variable is numeric So 57.1% Agree that Right and Wrong should be based on God's Laws (whatever they are). Variable SOCRIGHT : SOCIETY'S LAWS SHOULD DECIDE RIGHT AND WRONG\nPreQuestion Text\nHow successful do you think the government in America is nowadays in each of the following areas?\n\nLiteral Question\nB. Right and wrong should be decided by society.\n\nValues \tCategories \t N \tNW\n1 \tSTRONGLY AGREE \t 113 \t109 \t 8.8%\n2 \tAGREE \t418 \t424 \t34.6%\n3 \tNEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE \t309 \t309 \t25.1%\n4 \tDISAGREE \t 241 \t238 \t19.4%\n5 \tSTRONGLY DISAGREE \t142 \t150 \t12.1%\n0 \tNAP \t49661 \t49660\n8 \tDK \t59 \t58\n9 \tNA \t77 \t72\nSummary Statistics\nValid cases \t1223\nMissing cases \t49797\nThis variable is numeric But only 31.5% disagree when asked whether right and wrong should be decided by society. As you note, the answers depend on how the questions are asked. ;-) The GSS does have ~ 88% Agreement on a question asking about belief in God (Variable GODCHNGE), but the percentages are lower if you look at the questions in more detail (e.g., (Variable THEISM - which asks if God is concerned about every human being personally. Only 74% agree.). Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #291,780
8/28/07 1:50:03 PM
|
Just a thought about labels
If we are going by those definitions, then you can call me those. I can't prove anything either. The difference is that I believe, have faith, in the power of the universe: which I choose to call God.
Smile,
Amy
|
Post #291,807
8/28/07 5:14:11 PM
8/28/07 10:57:57 PM
|
I happen to agree
Mrs. Animal/Critter (Happy Anniversary!), :-)
At various points in my life I have been labeled a Presbyterian, a Protestant, and a lot of other secular "things". Both of my children were baptized as Roman Catholics (it means much more to my wife than me). I have my own connection with God (yes, I do believe in God as a notion or an ideal. But just like in the quote by Russell, I have always been very guarded in how I respond in a philosophical debate versus to a common interaction. What I mean is that if a stranger asks me, "are you a Christian?" I will answer no, that I am agnostic. Perhaps it is lazy on my part, but I don't wish to explain in painful detail how I believe in a kind and loving god, etc. etc. etc. I basically assume I am speaking to a fundamentalist and do not bother mentioning notions or distinctions about Gehenna, the dinosaurs on Noah's Ark or other nuances that I believe have been misinterpreted/abused for centuries. So, in my own brand of Christianity, there is no literal Hell and room for dinosaurs and billions of years in between.
I am still stuck with the Golden Rule and the Kantian moral imperative to act appropriately, but I do not fear a "beast". And I could go on and on. To wit, I believe that God does "whatever it takes" to reveal himself in a way people can understand and in this narrow rubric, it is possible to me that he inspired most of the major religions - or not. I'm not really sure. And life is too short to debate this stuff over and over as I am fairly confident that there is no truly "enlightened one" but we are all enlightened as God is part of everyone and everything. And those, I come back to notion that "I do not know". This is one iteration.
On another iteration, I might start with the premise that it is impossible for there to be a supreme anything in an infinite universe. It is painfully obvious that Darwin, the Geological record, et al are absolutely correct and that religion/mythology is just a construct of men to rule with the ultimate "eye in the sky" (notice that even Santa sees you when you're sleeping?) to control our primal actions when others aren't present. And I wonder where the kind and loving God was during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc. And I absolutely believe there is no possible way for God to exists - or not. Then I loop back.
And on and on. And I surmise that most people cherry pick aspects of religion they choose to accept and as you say, by an agnostic definition, you may well be agnostic too. In my case, I feel it is intellectual honesty to admit my doubts to those who care to listen. At the same time, I no longer spend much thought on trying to find the "right" answer as I believe there isn't one to be found, not in Aquinos, Locke, Dante, Augustine, Darwin, Marx, Vonnegut - or, maybe there is. Loop. And so on.
As such, I look now for connectedness with my fellow human beings (and animals too) and use my power of language to compare notes, gain insights, etc. We are biologically wired to be social and I try to make connections with people and try to lead a decent life and make others around me happy. In many regards, I lead a Christian life and am proud of it. Jesus was a non-violent revolutionary and a model for all the others that followed. One can do a lot worse than adopt his philosophies - or not.
And, I believe that I share your feelings about feeling connected with "a power in the universe", which I also choose to call God. At the end of the day, I couldn't care less what others label me.
:-)
Just a few thoughts,
Danno
Edited by danreck
Aug. 28, 2007, 10:57:57 PM EDT
|
Post #291,761
8/28/07 10:25:51 AM
|
Agnostic is often a copout and/or as irrational as Atheism
If you raise the standards of evidence and logic you will accept to absolute, then being agnostic is the only reasonable position. But at that point you have to be agnostic about everything and end up in a solipsistic hole.
Many Agnostics are perfectly reasonable about most things, but when it comes to god suddenly raise the bar of evidence to 100%. If they don't have an absolute proof that no form of god can exist then they refuse to reject it. But have no problem rejecting other legendary figures like Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and competent Bush appointee.
Jay
|
Post #291,772
8/28/07 12:18:41 PM
|
How about ...
Brights
[link|http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights/|http://www.csicop.or...andabout/brights/]
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #291,750
8/28/07 9:12:25 AM
|
Please don't rehash Pascal's Wager
I thought Pascal's Wager was thrown out a long time ago. Apart from the problems of which religion, lack of total commitment to the belief and dodgy uses of infinity to break the maths, it assumes that a supernatural being wants to spend eternity with a bunch of sheep. Those that simply believe, rather than believe based on the balance of evidence. If the biblical god exists, I envisage a scenario like this. God: "I see the Athenians have created a system of government called democracy. It seems more equitable than other systems. How does someone choose a representative?"
Faithful: "Only God may judge men."
G: "Umm.. okay. I noticed the use of public statues. At first, I thought it was idolatory but they can inspire virtue and good deeds."
F: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
G: "Thanks for that. The Bible has been a roaring success and a brilliant guide. Mankind is now ready for a follow up. I'd love to hear your ideas!"
F: "You are the source of knowledge and wisdom. If it is your will, then it will be so."
G: "They're all ****ing sheep! What was I thinking? That's it, no more divine inspiration! I'm erasing all evidence that I exist. Anybody who believes in my existence based on no evidence is clearly an idiot and gets wiped. Hopefully, I might be left with someone with a brain!" I'd say that if a supernatural being exists with an eternal afterlife, theism would exist as a trap. Also, where did this come from? You've probably been ridiculing people who chose to believe differently - so you've probably offended a whole lot of people. This is not very social. Few people even talk about religion, or at least in my country. I'm an atheist and no one cares, let alone be offended. If atheists want social opportunities, there are plenty of gatherings besides churches and you don't have to read a ludicrous book. You seem to be under the impression that atheists are fanatics. Never met a fanatic atheist myself but I think we need to import some definitions from elsewhere.
- Strong atheist
- Asserts that there can be no gods or supernatural forces.
- Weak atheist
- Concludes there are no gods or supernatural forces due to insufficient evidence.
- Agnostic
- Claims knowing the existence of gods or supernatural forces is unknowable.
I come under weak atheist but I regard it as an annoying term as it suggests a lack of intellectual vigour. I haven't seen any strong atheists on this board either. So there you have it, atheists have the same social life as anybody else but don't have to employ doublethink about a book with daft stories and out-of-date morality. And if they're wrong, can explore the afterlife with an open mind. Matthew Greet
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
|
Post #291,768
8/28/07 11:19:35 AM
|
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with . . .
. . Hard Atheist and Soft Atheist - at least it doesn't imply you are weak.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #291,774
8/28/07 1:03:13 PM
|
Strong atheists
> I haven't seen any strong atheists on this board either.
Sure you have: btilly.
Read a bit of his postings in this forum.
|
Post #291,776
8/28/07 1:16:37 PM
|
sturdy more than strong, nick was a strong before he convert
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #291,864
8/29/07 7:25:33 AM
|
Funny,
in the argument I had re: omnipotence vs. omniscience (not w/btilly), he seemed quite aware that you couldn't PROVE the non-existence of an omnipotent creator god from within the creation... Not saying he believed in a creator god, y'understand, but he understood the logic - and I believe he understood that the very argument was a logical exercise.
'Strong' and 'weak' as logical terms are fine, but they press the wrong psychological buttons.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
| |
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
