Atheism

[saskatchewanian]

OK I know there are a lot of threads dancing around the idea of atheism and I thought that we could get a few things strait.

First off I want to post a quote I read near the start of another discussion which surprisingly went unanswered.

If the point of the signs is to start discussion, isn't that kind of antithetical to atheism? Isn't a main point of atheism that God is irrelevant and so should not be talked about?

Fot those who don't know antithetical means directly opposed or contrasted; mutally incompatible, I had to look it up myself.

While I do not speak for all atheists (and nobody can) I have to say that this statement is backwards and false. While it is true that there must be some atheists who deny the possibility of a god existing on purely dogmatic grounds but I think that this is exactly the opposite of why most atheists do not subscribe to any of the various forms of theism.

The reason why most atheists are atheist is because we are unable to come to the conclusion that there is some sort of deity controlling matters or have no basis to continue in a belief that appears to be false. They do not have a philosophy of denying god, but of relying on reason and based on observed phenomena and testable hypotheses have realized that the chances of there being a god is infantisimaly small.

People like to know what is going on and find unanswered questions uncomfortable. The fact is that atheism (and science) leaves a lot of questions unanswered, for every question answered there are further complexities and more questions reviled. The easy way out is to attribute these unknowns to a god and there is satisfaction and comfort. Hence religion and superstition.


Theists do not want to give up their comfort in the belief that there is a god and atheists rarely turn their back on reason and logic so really the arguing between theists and atheists generally goes nowhere.

The fact that there are few who change their views does not mean that we should not try to make each-other see the truth in our statements. I argue atheism with some of my religious friends and am constantly frustrated with their lack of logic while they are frustrated with my lack of faith, I think both parties come out the wiser for knowing more thoroughly where the others beliefs come from.


phlegm I hope I didn't pull your question too much out of context, of course there is the handy little link arrow for people to go to your post and see what you were responding to.

[peleschramm]

yes.

[dudewithasock]

Did you know that God is an atheist?

[Axi]

Did you know that God is an atheist?

?

[Jeremy R]

He has some self doubt issues!!

[dudewithasock]

?

Are you trying to tell me that God believes in a higher power? :eek:

[Axi]

Are you trying to tell me that God believes in a higher power?

He believes in him self.

[dudewithasock]

He believes in him self.

He's not a higher power, or God-like, relative to himself. He's just him.

Or her, my bad.

[saskatchewanian]

dude, I was trying to get people to discuss atheism in a serious manner and to stop dancing around issues so people could get a better idea of what it actually means.

somehow I don't think you are helping.

I was hoping that this was not going to become another discussion about christianity but such are the ways of internet forums.

I even waited until Jesus and Satan were banned, ah well.

[dudewithasock]

Sorry. While I admit I was just having a bit of a jest, it's interesting thing to consider. If there is such a God (relative to us), is he himself an Atheist for not believing in a higher power? For that matter, is 'Godliness' all relative to the particular worshipper? Hmmm.

[saskatchewanian]

that is a good point, I don't often think from gods point of view but if there were such gods why would they themselves not be under yet more powerful gods? In other words, what created them?

It does sound unlikely that there is a god that created god doesn't it? That belief would also be completely impossible to be shown to be true (or false).

[dudewithasock]

Well, all religion is completely impossible to prove true or false, so that can be ignored. :p

And I'm mostly referring to the Christian 'God', and other similarly monotheistic religions, in my question. According to the biblical doctrine, no one created God, he was just always chilling here. I've always wondered if he even 'believes' anything, or is just overseeing.

[1-wheeled-grape]

I'm atheist. I don't disagree with Christianity, or think that it doesn't exist, I just don't believe it. I went to a Church if England controlled school and even then I didn't believe it, I just dont want to follow it.

[SHAY_CAM]

I'm atheist. I don't disagree with Christianity, or think that it doesn't exist, I just don't believe it. I went to a Church if England controlled school and even then I didn't believe it, I just dont want to follow it.

Weired way to look at it. if you dont disagree with it, and you dont think it doesnt exist, shouldnt you be agnostic?

[1-wheeled-grape]

what the hell is that?

[SHAY_CAM]

Look it up on wikipedia.

[1-wheeled-grape]

Naa, I cant be bothered. I don't follow a religion and thats enough for me.

[SHAY_CAM]

Good enough for me =) I dont either.

[1-wheeled-grape]

well done :D
I'd prefer to follow my own rules and beliefs. Maybe it's just how Christianity was put across to me as a child. It sounded as is there were strict rules to follow... I didn't see the point, Simple.

[dudewithasock]

1WG, agnosticism is essentially the view that I have, that God's existence can neither be proved or disproved. There are a few different schools of agnosticism, but I generally favor the idea that we just don't have proof of anything related to religion, and probably never will.

[1-wheeled-grape]

yeah, Pretty much the same, but I couldn't care less if there was proof or not. I know it's there, I cant stop that so I'll just live with it.
There's no point fighting it if you don't believe it exists, so why bother?

[dudewithasock]

Lol who here is fighting anything? I may not personally believe in the idea that there is or is not a god, but I still like to discuss others' ideas and opinions to keep my mind open and informed. And anyway, for me, I'd love for there to be some kind of proof of a God, that'd make me extremely happy, so that's probably part of why I continue to question.

[disgruntleddave]

In my opinion, the line between atheism and agnosticism is blurry, if there at all.

I consider myself an atheist, although I must also consider myself an agnostic. While I completely reject the idea of god, god was invented with such a definition that his existence can not be directly disproved.

Similarly, I must be agnostic towards a flying spaghetti monster and a celestial teacup, orbiting in the outer reaches of our solar system. While I know that both really don't exist, as they are constructs of humanity, I still must remain agnostic, in that there is effectively no way to PROVE that they do not exist.

Agnosticism in this fashion is just what some call 'weak' atheism. There are people who consider themselves agnostics to the point where they don't postulate whether a god exists or not, they simply say because they can not prove or disprove its existence, it is irrelevant and they won't bother themselves with such things.

I too have engaged in many arguments with theists. Some, usually on message boards, turn into each side yelling at the other without anything getting done. Usually the theists ignore atheist arguments or fire back with faith based arguments, and as you said, nothing gets done because they don't see simple logical arguments as valid, and we don't (obviously) see faith based arguments as valid. Unfortunately logic should exist both inside and outside of faith, yet it seems when talking to a theist about their faith, logic and faith are mutually exclusive.

I have also talked with some religious friends of mine. These never got far and every real sensible statement I've made to explain why something can be without god has been quickly discarded. I've long since given up with some friends (although I don't really see them anymore since I moved back 'home' after university), but later on in our relationships I'd just make witty jabs making fun of things playfully. Most of the time they were self deprecating sarcastic remarks, so my religious friends often laughed too.

Still, the whole atheism vs theism is a huge can of worms. It'll never be sorted out by argument or discussion (at least on a large scale). One can only hope that with time and scientific advance, as in the past, the credit to god will slowly and steadily decrease. Maybe one day when nearly everything is understood more people will realize how unnecessary it is to invoke the supernatural. I know though that I'll never see this day.

[SHAY_CAM]

My idea on atheism is; "just leave us alone, we dont want to join your freaking church, we dont beleive in a magical cloud, and we dont care." Basicly :cool:

[dudewithasock]

One can only hope that with time and scientific advance, as in the past, the credit to god will slowly and steadily decrease.

Just out of curiosity, why would one hope this? Wouldn't it better to eventually validate the existence of God and then all go to heaven together?

[disgruntleddave]

God is a crutch for many people.

I don't like the idea that a supreme being invented morals. I don't like the idea that we should act good just so we are rewarded in an afterlife. I like the idea of being responsible for yourself during this life, as this life is all you'll ever get.

Also, can't help but mention how religious differences (including religious vs non religious) has and will continue to spawn violence that is quite unnecessary.

In all though, I think a lot of people would be more responsible in their lives without looking to a supreme being for things. I also think that religion is very damaging for science and education in a lot of cases (but not all, obviously). People vote for a candidate because of faith too. There are a lot of problems I see because of religion. Obviously though, there will always be lots of problems, religion or no religion. An atheist world would not solve everyone's problems, but it would be a step in a good direction.


Also, who is to say that the existence of god means there is indeed a heaven, or that anything we read in the bible is correct? What if we prove the existence of god and it turns out that all he did was start some things and ignore everything else? Religious text is the word of humans, not god, even if there was a god.

[johnfoss]

Just out of curiosity, why would one hope this?For the same reason we would hope for astrology to lose its credit. So people would stop asking us 'what's our sign' and think that stuff on the horoscope page at the back of the newspaper is anything other than random, vague nonsense. Like fortune cookies. So people can pay more attention to what is known, or knowable.
Wouldn't it better to eventually validate the existence of God and then all go to heaven together?You make it sound real nice, but is this the same guy who flooded the whole Earth because he didn't like The World 1.0? I'd rather it be our own fault if we get "deleted" and not the whim of some higher power. Along with heaven you have to take hell, and eternal damnation, and a lot of the other associated baggage.

[wickedbob]

And anyway, for me, I'd love for there to be some kind of proof of a God, that'd make me extremely happy, so that's probably part of why I continue to question.

Why would such a thing make you happy? How would knowing somebody/ something created humans in anyway (either directly or a more round and about way) bring joy to you? That really confuses me.

[BillyTheMountain]

well done :D
I'd prefer to follow my own rules and beliefs. Maybe it's just how Christianity was put across to me as a child. It sounded as is there were strict rules to follow... I didn't see the point, Simple.

which rules do you object to?

[dudewithasock]

Why would such a thing make you happy? How would knowing somebody/ something created humans in anyway (either directly or a more round and about way) bring joy to you? That really confuses me.

It's not so much that learning there was a higher power would make me happy, just that we'd have an answer. Right now, both ends of the spectrum (religion <-> science) are completely faith-based, and if one end was to be "validated" (for lack of a better word), it would make everything easier, because we would know. And in this case, at least for me, that knowledge would make me simply ecstatic.

And as far as this God fella' not actually living up to my expectations, well, I'm always bombarded with stories of his love and whatnot, so I'd probably take my chances.

[johnfoss]

Spotted along the trail in Occidental, CA:

[Unisykolist]

What ever happened to the religion forum (debatingchristianity.com/)?

[1-wheeled-grape]

What ever happened to the religion forum (http://debatingchristianity.com/)?
What! An entire forum to debate Christianity, and I thought there were enough threads here doing that! :eek:

which rules do you object to?
To be honest I don't really know, at primary school they just made it sound as if God would punish you if you do something wrong, and I'd be stuffed if I believed that right now :D.
I think thats another reason why I won't follow a religion, Just not knowing for sure. Maybe again it's just because there is no proof.

I went for the hazmat effect with the quotes :D

[Gadge]

It's not so much that learning there was a higher power would make me happy, just that we'd have an answer. Right now, both ends of the spectrum (religion <-> science) are completely faith-based, and if one end was to be "validated" (for lack of a better word), it would make everything easier, because we would know.


So would you be happy if it was proved there wasn't a god? Or would you choose to ignore the proof and continue to believe?

Why would it make "everything easier" if we knew? I suspect if the answer went the wrong way for believers in god it would make a lot of people very unhappy. Probably the same if it was proved god did exist.

Also, I thought the science end was fact based not faith based?

Please note, I'm not trying to insult you personally here. I can understand how knowing for an individual may be important and I respect your view on this.

What about if it was proved that god(s) did exist but he/she/it didn't represent the Christian view of God?

[dan de man]

In my opinion, the line between atheism and agnosticism is blurry, if there at all.


i disagree
agnosticism=belief in a god or higher being but with belief that we won't know or cant figure out

atheism=belief in no god what so ever

i see a pretty big line there

[Gadge]

i disagree
agnosticism=belief in a god or higher being but with belief that we won't know or cant figure out

atheism=belief in no god what so ever

i see a pretty big line there

I disagree too ;)

Agnostic - believing that existence of deity is unknown or unknowable.

Atheism - believing that deities do not exist.

To be an agnostic you don't have to believe in god(s).

In terms of how an agnostic or athiest lives their life - not much difference.

[dudewithasock]

So would you be happy if it was proved there wasn't a god? Or would you choose to ignore the proof and continue to believe?

Why would it make "everything easier" if we knew? I suspect if the answer went the wrong way for believers in god it would make a lot of people very unhappy. Probably the same if it was proved god did exist.

It would make me happy either way, no matter the answer, as long as there was one. I may be an agnostic, but that doesn't mean I enjoy being one - I just don't see any reason to lean to a particular side. If I did, it'd be great news, because I would be able to stop pondering on it and focus more on other aspects of my life.

Also, I thought the science end was fact based not faith based?

Heh, I figured someone would bring that up. I've always had a problem with the idea of a 'fact'. It's inherently flawed. Anyone who trusts their own perception (or humanity's perception as a whole) 100% is a fool. There's no telling what the universe will do at any instant - the so-called 'laws of physics' could drastically change from what we've observed. The only reason we keep building bridges, powering our homes, and cooking our food the same way is because we have pretty solid faith that all of those things will continue to be done in the same manner that they did 5 minutes ago.

Please note, I'm not trying to insult you personally here. I can understand how knowing for an individual may be important and I respect your view on this.

Haha, none of this insulting. :p

What about if it was proved that god(s) did exist but he/she/it didn't represent the Christian view of God?

That'd be fine. I mean, it would kinda suck if this God dude turned out to be some monster who confined everyone to an eternity of soul-wrenching torment, but at that point, what am I gonna do about it? At least I'll be aware of what's going on.

[Gadge]

Hey sock dude - good answers. I'd forgotten you were answering from an agnostic point of view, hopefully we'll get some replies from other with different belief systems.

I think I understand where you are coming from with "facts" but personally I'm not going to worry about gravity reversing tomorrow any more than I'm going to worry about any god types appearing among us.

Maybe I'm just happier with uncertainty than others:)

[disgruntleddave]

There is a significant difference in having faith in physics and having faith in something like a god.

I have faith that things in the universe will go on working as they have. Why? because every single second of every single day in recorded history and a long time before that (based on observation), this is how it has worked. There is no reason to think things will change in any way. This isn't faith like religious faith at all. It's not a leap to assume the sun will come up tomorrow, although one could still say that it takes a level of faith in things to believe it.

Religious faith or faith in a god is completely different. One that isn't based on calculatable odds, one that isn't based on any observation or any evidence that what you are believing in is at all real.

[peleschramm]

I always think of agnostics as atheists who feel to intimidated by theists to admit they are atheists :p

[Gadge]

I always think of agnostics as atheists who feel to intimidated by theists to admit they are atheists :p

Don't worry, any differences between theists, atheists and agnostics are trivial compared to the war you've just started with the grammarists for your incorrect use of "to" instead of "too" :D

Bet I'll get grief for "grammarists" too ;)

[johnfoss]

So would you be happy if it was proved there wasn't a god? Or would you choose to ignore the proof and continue to believe? I don't think it's worth considering, since it's not going to happen. Even if it could, it's hard to know how people would react to an actual answer to one of our biggest questions. But I know most people would start by resisting the answer, claiming it to be false, attacking the messenger, etc. Standard human behavior.
Why would it make "everything easier" if we knew?Maybe not easier, but it would free up lots of time. Many people would lose their jobs. Many charitable organizations would suffer. Televangelists would have to find new ways to maintain their lavish lifestyles. New institutions would spring up to take the place of religion/churches. I suspect the bigger religions would encourage this and work on a transition.
I suspect if the answer went the wrong way for believers in god it would make a lot of people very unhappy.Probably start wars in multiple parts of the world. Nasty ones. But of course this would happen only when people were convinced of the truthfulness of the answer, which might never happen at all. Try getting an astrology or fortune-telling fan to notice that the results of predictions are accurate less than 50% of the time and notice they won't believe you.
Also, I thought the science end was fact based not faith based? Fact and theory. Facts are simple enough, but theories leave lots of room for argument. And lots of theories turn out to be wrong, or at least a little off, and have to be changed. That's a fact of science that some people can't be comfortable with as a substitute religious beliefs, which never have to be changed.
What about if it was proved that god(s) did exist but he/she/it didn't represent the Christian view of God?Which Christian God? There are so many. And why assume the Christians have it right, with so many other churches/religions out there?

--------------

My simple definitions:
Theist - Believing in one or more deities
Atheist - Believing that dieties do not exist
Agnostic - In the middle

I have to agree with Pele's assessment as well, of "atheists who feel too intimidated by theists to admit they are atheists." There's much to be said for that. Tell someone you're an atheist once, and they'll never forget, and may treat you differently from that point forward. This is my observation after growing up in the Midwest.

[UniBrier]

I ... am constantly frustrated with their lack of logic while they are frustrated with my lack of faith.There's the truth to the matter. Now can we all go out and ride unicycles and talk about something else!

Seems we unicyclists are drawn to on-line discussions of religious/atheist matters like insects to a bug zapper.

[1-wheeled-grape]

I know, the religion treads just don't go away. I don't think I've ever seen a day when they're not on the first page of new posts!

[disgruntleddave]

Pretty much every message board with a wide variety of people will get into the religion arguments.

[1-wheeled-grape]

yeah I suppose so... It's inevitable really. Some people base their life around religion, some don't, they're bound to clash eventually.

[dudewithasock]

There is a significant difference in having faith in physics and having faith in something like a god.

I have faith that things in the universe will go on working as they have. Why? because every single second of every single day in recorded history and a long time before that (based on observation), this is how it has worked. There is no reason to think things will change in any way. This isn't faith like religious faith at all. It's not a leap to assume the sun will come up tomorrow, although one could still say that it takes a level of faith in things to believe it.

Religious faith or faith in a god is completely different. One that isn't based on calculatable odds, one that isn't based on any observation or any evidence that what you are believing in is at all real.

You only say all of this because you have faith in your own perception of things. Who's to say there's not some other power/force of some type that's pulling the strings, making everything seem like it's working just fine and dandy?

I find it funny that people think they know so much about their environment. Human beings don't know a damn thing about anything, they just believe in things. Obviously there's nothing wrong with that, because we still exist (some might even say we flourish, but that's arguable). But realistically, there's nothing that anyone can be 'sure' of. It's all different degrees of faith.

[Spudman]

Dude, I think he's saying that our knowledge of science and physics gives us the ability to accurately and repeatedly certain things. Example: on an ordinary day, if I hold a ball up in the air and I let go it will fall towards the earth. Every single time. I don't think something like that requires faith, it is going to happen. If there were one reported case where someone let go of a ball and it flew into space, people would go berserk.

If someone were able to make these predictions about the world with a god, then they might have something... but of course they can never do such a thing.

[disgruntleddave]

You only say all of this because you have faith in your own perception of things. Who's to say there's not some other power/force of some type that's pulling the strings, making everything seem like it's working just fine and dandy?

LAWL, no.

It's not my perception. It's scientific instruments that make quantifiable measurements. So now it's the perception of a scientific measurement, which is called a measurement. Do you completely mistrust your ruler when you measure something?

There is no reason to postulate additional forces or powers pulling strings when there is nothing to suggest this is such.

I understand what you are trying to get at though. We are trapped within the confines of our observable universe, and who knows what goes on behind the scenes. Still though, it is as ridiculous for you to postulate new forces or things taking care of everything as it is for me to postulate that I am in control of everything, or that an invisible unicorn monster is actually pushing things down with his horn, and gravity does not exist.

You can't quite be 100% sure of things, but you can be sure of things to within a reasonable level. I am sure that if I sit down on the chair, I will not pass through it. Well, there might be a possibility that I'll pass through it, but based on everything we know, it is the most unlikely possible of things, so it need not be considered (until we have a real reason to consider it. not just your doubts about perception and belief).

[dudewithasock]

You guys can say that stuff all you want, and to an extent, I agree - when I sat down in my chair just a moment ago, I was fairly certain that it would hold me up, like it did earlier today. I don't go around postulating the alternatives to things - in part because there are an infinite number of alternatives, but mostly because, like you said, it'd be ridiculous. According to my observations and perceptions and memories (which I also have to put blind trust and faith in), the laws of physics that humans have defined will hold all the time. But in the grand scheme of things, I have to admit to myself that it's possible that they won't. I won't change my behavior based off this, but I'm still aware of it.

[kevinalexandersmith]

I know, the religion treads just don't go away. I don't think I've ever seen a day when they're not on the first page of new posts!I’m sad to say, I think the religious threads would disappear if the atheists stopped posting. I’ve little or no evidence of Christian’s communication with each other by these means. If it weren’t for you guys we’d have nothing to talk about. The reverse is true I suppose.

[saskatchewanian]

I’m sad to say, I think the religious threads would disappear if the atheists stopped posting. I’ve little or no evidence of Christian’s communication with each other by these means. If it weren’t for you guys we’d have nothing to talk about. The reverse is true I suppose.

yup, there is no point in conversation if everyone agrees.


As for the blurry line between agnostics and atheists I really completely agree. The line is so blurry that they are not mutually exclusive.

Agnostics question the world around them and realize that we will never know 100% that there is or is not a god or gods. Atheists do not believe in any god or believe in an absence of god(s)

Call me an atheistic agnostic. I came to an atheistic conclusion through agnostic thinking. I acknowledge that nothing is truly impossible but with the information that we have right now I can not come to the conclusion that there is a god, so the default null hypothesis (there is no god) must stand until further evidence suggests otherwise.

[BillyTheMountain]

I’m sad to say, I think the religious threads would disappear if the atheists stopped posting. I’ve little or no evidence of Christian’s communication with each other by these means. If it weren’t for you guys we’d have nothing to talk about. The reverse is true I suppose.

That's only true because you won't listen, so there's no way I can bring you to the True Jesus!

Too may so-called christians are actually idol worshippers, it's sad so many have gotten to the Gates of Heaven and have been surprised to get turned away. It's been in all the newspapers, but no one listens.

[mscalisi]

I consider Agnosticism to be more true to my beliefs.

Mainly because it acknowledges the limitations of what we can experience as humans. There is no knowing why anything exists. Understanding of the deepest mysteries of the universe is simply out of reach of the human experience.

In that, KNOWING that there is no God is almost as arrogant as KNOWING that God created man in his image.

...of course, I strongly suspect that what we think of as God just isn't out there. If there is a god, she certainly doesn't have anything to do with any book on God that exists on our planet.

yup, there is no point in conversation if everyone agrees.


As for the blurry line between agnostics and atheists I really completely agree. The line is so blurry that they are not mutually exclusive.

Agnostics question the world around them and realize that we will never know 100% that there is or is not a god or gods. Atheists do not believe in any god or believe in an absence of god(s)

Call me an atheistic agnostic. I came to an atheistic conclusion through agnostic thinking. I acknowledge that nothing is truly impossible but with the information that we have right now I can not come to the conclusion that there is a god, so the default null hypothesis (there is no god) must stand until further evidence suggests otherwise.

[phlegm]

As for the blurry line between agnostics and atheists I really completely agree. The line is so blurry that they are not mutually exclusive.

It's interesting to me that you say that because I tend to think of agnostics as theists who are holding out for more certainty than is attainable. If I were to believe that absolute certainity in discerning absolute truth is available, then I would have to call myself an agnostic. However, I call myself a theist because I believe the knowledge available to me about God is as certainly true as any other knowledge.

So where's the line now? :)

If there is a god, she certainly doesn't have anything to do with any book on God that exists on our planet.

We have to start from somewhere. If there are no words that attempt to articulate who or what God is, then how can we even talk about God?

[uni57]

Agnosticism is not some wishy-washy, fence-sitting place for those who can't or won't decide. It's the idea that the nature of God is inherently unknowable. Some take that further and say that whether or not God exists is also unknowable. But still you must decide. Whenever someone tells me that they are agnostic, I immediately ask them whether they believe in God.

An agnostic theist chooses to believe in this unknowable God. He may go further and acknowledge that the existence of God is also unknowable, yet he still chooses to believe.

An agnostic atheist, acknowledging that the existence of God is inherently unknowable, discards the notion of God. He may do this for various reasons, not just because existence cannot be proved. Could it be that weak atheism is compatible with agnosticism, but strong atheism is not? I'm thinking out loud here.

[uni57]

I've always had a problem with the idea of a 'fact'.Matt -- I'm way out of my league here, but I think given your comments about the nature of knowledge and knowing, you would be interested in epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology), which deals with how we know what we know. Metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) addresses the "ultimate nature of being and the world". So, epistemology deals with the mechanics of knowledge, while metaphysics addresses the content of that knowledge. Also, an absolutely magnificent book on atheism and critical thinking is Atheism: The Case Against God (http://tinyurl.com/6blzqb), which, among many other things, introduced me to those two branches of philosophy.

[Mikefule]

So many people want to lump all atheists together. Atheists are simply people who believe there are no gods. We are not identical.

No doubt some atheists reach their position as a matter of faith - or at least as an emotional or spiritual reaction, rather than a carefully thought out philosophical standpoint.

Other atheists reach their position by reasoned argument - with or without mistakes along the way.

Some atheists believe that religion is inherently a Bad Thing; others believe that it is "wrong but does a lot of good"; others that it is "wrong but mostly harmless"; and others that it really doesn't matter.

Agnosticism is technically the belief that it is impossible to prove the existence or non existence of God. An Agnostic can then be an atheist or a believer on the basis of faith.

In the less technical sense, "agnostic" is a lazy word for saying, "I'm not sure if there's a God, and I don't really think about it all that much."

From a purely logical point of view, it is difficult (maybe impossible) to disprove the existence of gods such as Zeus, Osiris or Wotan. However, a rational assessment of the evidence (or lack of it) would make most of us conclude that Zeus, Osiris and Wotan do not exist - at least as autonomous beings, rather than as social constructs.

However, it is in some ways easier to address the logical question of whether there is an "omni..." God.

Words like omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and so on all mean that God is "all... something". Omnipotent is "all powerful"; omnipresent is "everywhere at once"; omniscient is "knowing everything".

If the definition of God is that He is all powerful, everywhere at once, and knows everything, that raises some very special logical problems, and a lot of paradoxes.

However, the one real weakness of the "standard" definition of God is the idea that it is not possible to prove or disprove His existence.

It is possible to prove or disprove something only if it makes a difference. If every conceivable set of circumstances can be explained by "the actions or will of God" then there is no set of circumstances that cannot be explained by "the actions or will of God".

With no such set of circumstances to find, there is nothing to look for to prove the non-existence of God.

On the other hand, it is also true that every conceivable set of circumstances can be explained by the simple explanation: "it just is."

Until someone can produce a sound argument to demonstrate a conceivable set of circumstances that could only exist if there is a God, and could not exist if there were no God, then there is no proof available.

And if there is no set of circumstances that can prove the existence of God, then it means that the existence or otherwise of God is a meaningless question.

Put simply: a difference that makes no difference is no difference.


Which is the simpler of these:

Why does the universe exist? Because God made it. Why does God exist? He joes does.

Why does the universe exist? It just does.

What does the God bit in the middle of the first example add?

[BillyTheMountain]

So many people want to lump all atheists together. Atheists are simply people who believe there are no gods. We are not identical.

No doubt some atheists reach their position as a matter of faith - or at least as an emotional or spiritual reaction, rather than a carefully thought out philosophical standpoint.

Other atheists reach their position by reasoned argument - with or without mistakes along the way.

Some atheists believe that religion is inherently a Bad Thing; others believe that it is "wrong but does a lot of good"; others that it is "wrong but mostly harmless"; and others that it really doesn't matter.

Agnosticism is technically the belief that it is impossible to prove the existence or non existence of God. An Agnostic can then be an atheist or a believer on the basis of faith.

In the less technical sense, "agnostic" is a lazy word for saying, "I'm not sure if there's a God, and I don't really think about it all that much."

From a purely logical point of view, it is difficult (maybe impossible) to disprove the existence of gods such as Zeus, Osiris or Wotan. However, a rational assessment of the evidence (or lack of it) would make most of us conclude that Zeus, Osiris and Wotan do not exist - at least as autonomous beings, rather than as social constructs.

However, it is in some ways easier to address the logical question of whether there is an "omni..." God.

Words like omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and so on all mean that God is "all... something". Omnipotent is "all powerful"; omnipresent is "everywhere at once"; omniscient is "knowing everything".

If the definition of God is that He is all powerful, everywhere at once, and knows everything, that raises some very special logical problems, and a lot of paradoxes.

However, the one real weakness of the "standard" definition of God is the idea that it is not possible to prove or disprove His existence.

It is possible to prove or disprove something only if it makes a difference. If every conceivable set of circumstances can be explained by "the actions or will of God" then there is no set of circumstances that cannot be explained by "the actions or will of God".

With no such set of circumstances to find, there is nothing to look for to prove the non-existence of God.

On the other hand, it is also true that every conceivable set of circumstances can be explained by the simple explanation: "it just is."

Until someone can produce a sound argument to demonstrate a conceivable set of circumstances that could only exist if there is a God, and could not exist if there were no God, then there is no proof available.

And if there is no set of circumstances that can prove the existence of God, then it means that the existence or otherwise of God is a meaningless question.

Put simply: a difference that makes no difference is no difference.


Which is the simpler of these:

Why does the universe exist? Because God made it. Why does God exist? He joes does.

Why does the universe exist? It just does.

What does the God bit in the middle of the first example add?

Mike,

Based on what you write here, Atheists are just like people of other religions. Each one unique, lots of variety among Muslims and Hindus and the rest. They arrived at their membership the same way -- some by birth as well, just like Atheists.

Your take on agnosticism is out of the mainstream, though. YOu said: "Agnosticism is technically the belief that it is impossible to prove the existence or non existence of God. An Agnostic can then be an atheist or a believer on the basis of faith."

Some agnostics (coming from Atheism or other religions) are going through a crisis of faith, where they experience much doubt, and lack the faith of other members.

[monkeyman]

Dave and Mike - thank you for setting people straight about agnosticism. It's not just a cop-out philosophy.

Matt -- I'm way out of my league here, but I think given your comments about the nature of knowledge and knowing, you would be interested in epistemology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology), which deals with how we know what we know. Metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) addresses the "ultimate nature of being and the world". So, epistemology deals with the mechanics of knowledge, while metaphysics addresses the content of that knowledge. Also, an absolutely magnificent book on atheism and critical thinking is Atheism: The Case Against God (http://tinyurl.com/6blzqb), which, among many other things, introduced me to those two branches of philosophy.
For the program Matt and I were in in HS, we had to take a class called Theory of Knowledge, which was basically epistemology. It was a lot of fun, and a great experience.

[mscalisi]

Billy. Atheism is still not a religion. Not everybody has a religion despite your insistence that they do.

Mike,

Based on what you write here, Atheists are just like people of other religions. Each one unique, lots of variety among Muslims and Hindus and the rest. They arrived at their membership the same way -- some by birth as well, just like Atheists.

Your take on agnosticism is out of the mainstream, though. YOu said: "Agnosticism is technically the belief that it is impossible to prove the existence or non existence of God. An Agnostic can then be an atheist or a believer on the basis of faith."

Some agnostics (coming from Atheism or other religions) are going through a crisis of faith, where they experience much doubt, and lack the faith of other members.

[BillyTheMountain]

Billy. Atheism is still not a religion. Not everybody has a religion despite your insistence that they do.

Wiki: "The Soviet Union and other communist states promoted state atheism and opposed religion, often by violent means.[91]"

And I know you're not just saying that because you believe Atheists are murderous heathens and the Faithful have been kind.

Both groups have systematically killed millions, despite the fact that Atheists have killed more.

[Mikefule]

Your take on agnosticism is out of the mainstream, though. YOu said: "Agnosticism is technically the belief that it is impossible to prove the existence or non existence of God. An Agnostic can then be an atheist or a believer on the basis of faith."

Some agnostics (coming from Atheism or other religions) are going through a crisis of faith, where they experience much doubt, and lack the faith of other members.

I do not disagree with any of that.

Really, this is semantics: we have this label, "agnostic" and we can apply it with a greater or lesser degree of technical rigour to a category of our choosing. I think all the word demands etymologically is that the category it describes should have some connection with the concept of "absence of knowledge" (for those unfamiliar with the term: "a" = without, "gnosis" = knowledge).

I would never use, "The dictionary defines..." or "My dictionary says..." as the job of a dictionary is to describe, not to prescribe.

However, a glossary is a different thing: it is a list of words with meanings which are agreed between the reader and writer for the purposes of the piece of writing. Any glossary of something written by me would define agnosticism in this strict and very narrow technical sense: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.

That doesn't make someone else any more or less right if they use the word differently, as long as they use it consistently and transparently.

The difficulty with many of these discussions is that the definition drifts during the course of the argument, and the conclusions drawn from the use of one definition are then wrongly applied later when the definition of the same word has changed.

Religion lends itself very badly to this level of analysis because even "at its best" (writing as an atheist!;)) it has a basis in something that may be rationalised, but which is not entirely rational. But many things in the life of every atheist are equally irrational: love, hatred, greed, appreciation of beauty, enthusiasm for a football team, lust, and even the desire to continue to live.

[dudewithasock]

For the program Matt and I were in in HS, we had to take a class called Theory of Knowledge, which was basically epistemology. It was a lot of fun, and a great experience.

ToK is actually what led me to the belief in my previously posted comments. I am so grateful for having that class, and especially for having Lines as the teacher. I wish he didn't have such a low self-esteem concerning his teaching skills, he'd make an awesome physics professor AND philosophy professor.

[BillyTheMountain]

1. Any glossary of something written by me would define agnosticism in this strict and very narrow technical sense: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.

2. But many things in the life of every atheist are equally irrational: love, hatred, greed, appreciation of beauty, enthusiasm for a football team, lust, and even the desire to continue to live.

Mike,

It might seem that if your statement #1 above is true (and you have ANY confidence that agnostics are correct about this), then we can add "atheism" to the list of irrational things in the life of the Atheist, in your statement #2.

This is not a criticism of it, obviously, as it's in there with passion for life.

Thanks!

Billy

[phlegm]

If the point of the signs is to start discussion, isn't that kind of antithetical to atheism? Isn't a main point of atheism that God is irrelevant and so should not be talked about?

While I do not speak for all atheists (and nobody can) I have to say that this statement is backwards and false.

I don't understand why you think my question is "backwards and false." No matter the personal flavor of atheism, wouldn't all atheists agree that God is irrelevant? And, anything that is absolutely irrelevant should never be mentioned, right?

In this article the Methodist Church echoes my sentiment:
...the Methodist Church said it thanked Professor Dawkins for encouraging a "continued interest in God". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7681914.stm)

Why should an atheist encourage people to talk about God?

[Mikefule]

...wouldn't all atheists agree that God is irrelevant? And, anything that is absolutely irrelevant should never be mentioned, right?


Interesting bit of sophistry.

If God doesn't exist, then he is neither relevant nor irrelevant.

And it does not necessarily follow that something that is absolutely irrelevant should never be mentioned. Indeed, it would be a sad and empty world without the absolute irrelevance of absurd humour such as the Goons, Monty Python, Laurel and Hardy, A Brief History of Time Wasting, and so on.

However, the [belief in God] does exist in a large part of the world's population and is very relevant because of its direct and indirect effects on so many parts of society.

[saskatchewanian]

Thanks phlegm, I was hopping you would respond.

Why I think the statement is backwards: [God is irrelevant and so should not be talked about] This statement assumes there is a God, atheists assume that there is no god. An atheist would not say that god is irrelevant, how can something be irrelevant if it does not exist, even in a small way?

Why I think the statement is false: [If the point of the signs is to start discussion, isn't that kind of antithetical to atheism?] I think it is safe to say that most atheists believe that if people start discussing whether or not god really exists logical people will be likely to eventually come to the conclusion that god in fact probably does not exist.

Methodist on the other hand are also confident that they are correct and believe that with discussion more people will come to see things the way that they do.


Everyone believes they are right and start discussions/arguments to try to get other people to see things their way, atheists are no exception.

[johnfoss]

...wouldn't all atheists agree that God is irrelevant? And, anything that is absolutely irrelevant should never be mentioned, right?No and no. There's a big difference between God is irrelevant (to a minority of people) and the reality of our supposed religion-neutral government. So that keeps it relevant for everyone, including atheists who choose to argue about it.

And if irrelevant stuff should never be mentioned, should this forum even exist? :)

[kevinalexandersmith]

I think it is safe to say that most atheists believe that if people start discussing whether or not god really exists logical people will be likely to eventually come to the conclusion that god in fact probably does not exist.

Methodist on the other hand are also confident that they are correct and believe that with discussion more people will come to see things the way that they do.Good analysis. Some one should do some unbiased research on if discussion leads people to or away from a belief in God. Both sides would like to see those results I bet. Although I imagine the results would be inconclusive.

Experience tells us that discussion leads some people to a belief in God and leads some people away from a belief in God. This leads me to believe that it is something other than discussion that influences these beliefs.

I think once we fully understand what influences belief, the debate will be over.

[phlegm]

If God doesn't exist, then he is neither relevant nor irrelevant.

But the idea of God can be labeled relevant or irrelevant. So perhaps I should have asked if atheists could agree that the idea of God is irrelevant. Could they?

And it does not necessarily follow that something that is absolutely irrelevant should never be mentioned. Indeed, it would be a sad and empty world without the absolute irrelevance of absurd humour such as the Goons, Monty Python, Laurel and Hardy, A Brief History of Time Wasting, and so on.

But those things aren't irrelevant in the context of human enjoyment, and neither is this forum, sometimes. :p

So that keeps it relevant for everyone, including atheists who choose to argue about it.

We theists argue about God too. So, if we suppose that (the idea of) God is relevant, then why shouldn't every university education include theological training? Compare it to math: Every university degree requires some amount of mathematical education--isn't this because math is relevant to our society?

[BillyTheMountain]

Interesting bit of sophistry.

If God doesn't exist, then he is neither relevant nor irrelevant.

And it does not necessarily follow that something that is absolutely irrelevant should never be mentioned. Indeed, it would be a sad and empty world without the absolute irrelevance of absurd humour such as the Goons, Monty Python, Laurel and Hardy, A Brief History of Time Wasting, and so on.

However, the [belief in God] does exist in a large part of the world's population and is very relevant because of its direct and indirect effects on so many parts of society.

Monty Python and Laurel and Hardy exist!

Don't tell me you deny their existence as well!!

[BillyTheMountain]

Good analysis. Some one should do some unbiased research on if discussion leads people to or away from a belief in God. Both sides would like to see those results I bet. Although I imagine the results would be inconclusive.

Experience tells us that discussion leads some people to a belief in God and leads some people away from a belief in God. This leads me to believe that it is something other than discussion that influences these beliefs.

I think once we fully understand what influences belief, the debate will be over.

So for you there are "sides," huh?

You don't see GOD as all-encompassing?

[phlegm]

We theists argue about God too. So, if we suppose that (the idea of) God is relevant, then why shouldn't every university education include theological training? Compare it to math: Every university degree requires some amount of mathematical education--isn't this because math is relevant to our society?

The more I think about this, the less I understand atheists. If an atheist agrees that the idea of God is relevant, then isn't the prudent course of action for the sake of all humanity to inform people how to use the idea of God in constructive ways? That doesn't sound very atheistic. :confused:

Some alternatives are to claim that the idea of God is irrelevant (which I think is contrary to obvious evidence) or to generally despise humanity and live only for your own interests (which I doubt most people would admit to). Are there other reasonable choices for atheists?

[Mikefule]

Monty Python and Laurel and Hardy exist!

Don't tell me you deny their existence as well!!

Well, I've never seen them. Only ancient records purporting to be of them. They appear to be moving and talking images, but when you look closer, they are a series of still images. It is all an illusion.

But my point is that absurd humour is totally irrelevant - which is what makes it so valuable.

[disgruntleddave]

The idea of god and religion is relevant, in that it can dictate policies and events in the world. The course of action is not to use the idea of god in constructive ways. God is, in nearly all cases, coupled with religious dogma. For most people the two are inseparable. If an element of religious dogma is bad (ie, unequal rights, violence towards nonbelievers, etc) then how could you try to convince someone to use god in a constructive way? They believe strictly that god tells them to _____. If X = bad, and their religion says that god tells them to do X, then you can't just go to them and try to have them use god constructively.

I'm not writing this very eloquently, but hopefully you understand what I mean by it.


I also think it's a horrible to try to compare the ideas of god and religion with stuff like english or math in education. They are completely different types of things in so many ways, just like science and religion are different (although religious text often includes ideas about science).

Few atheists will argue that the idea of god is a relevant one in society, but probably for different reasons than theists will. The atheist will hold that they are relevant in that they influence other things. If 80% of people believed in an invisible unicorn controlling things, this idea would be relevant in that it's important to assess the influence that such an idea has on society.

[saskatchewanian]

The more I think about this, the less I understand atheists. If an atheist agrees that the idea of God is relevant, then isn't the prudent course of action for the sake of all humanity to inform people how to use the idea of God in constructive ways? That doesn't sound very atheistic. :confused:
The idea of god is relevant (to us) because it affects us through the actions of others. Using the idea of god in constructive ways hugh? Like the romans deciding that everyone should be baptized into the christian faith so they have records of everyone for tax purposes?

Some alternatives are to claim that the idea of God is irrelevant (which I think is contrary to obvious evidence) or to generally despise humanity and live only for your own interests (which I doubt most people would admit to). Are there other reasonable choices for atheists?
There are many many more alternatives, to each his own but I don't need to believe in a god to have compassion for others or want to do good in this world.

[BillyTheMountain]

God is, in nearly all cases, coupled with religious dogma. For most people the two are inseparable. If an element of religious dogma is bad (ie, unequal rights, violence towards nonbelievers, etc) then how could you try to convince someone to use god in a constructive way? They believe strictly that god tells them to _____. If X = bad, and their religion says that god tells them to do X, then you can't just go to them and try to have them use god constructively.

Few atheists will argue that the idea of god is a relevant one in society, but probably for different reasons than theists will. The atheist will hold that they are relevant in that they influence other things.

So you're saying that in China, where the national religion is Atheism, that element of religious dogma is bad (due to the violence towards those who don't believe in Atheism)?

I resent you putting down all Atheists just because a few Atheists have killed more people than all the other religions put together.

But I see your point that agnosticism seems much safer than Atheism.

Billy

[phlegm]

The idea of god and religion is relevant, in that it can dictate policies and events in the world. The course of action is not to use the idea of god in constructive ways. God is, in nearly all cases, coupled with religious dogma. For most people the two are inseparable. If an element of religious dogma is bad (ie, unequal rights, violence towards nonbelievers, etc) then how could you try to convince someone to use god in a constructive way? They believe strictly that god tells them to _____. If X = bad, and their religion says that god tells them to do X, then you can't just go to them and try to have them use god constructively.

I think you've unfairly characterized theists. I believe most theists can be reasoned with.

I also think it's a horrible to try to compare the ideas of god and religion with stuff like english or math in education. They are completely different types of things in so many ways, just like science and religion are different (although religious text often includes ideas about science).

I was specifically talking about theology. Perhaps if people were actually educated theologically as I proposed, then we wouldn't have so many ignorant religious fundamentalists ruining our world.

So, do you think all cultural and/or social studies are less valid for education than "stuff like english or math"?

Few atheists will argue that the idea of god is a relevant one in society, but probably for different reasons than theists will. The atheist will hold that they are relevant in that they influence other things. If 80% of people believed in an invisible unicorn controlling things, this idea would be relevant in that it's important to assess the influence that such an idea has on society.

Your example is irrelevant. 80% of people don't believe in an invisible unicorn, whereas, most people do believe in something higher than themselves.

The idea of god is relevant (to us) because it affects us through the actions of others. Using the idea of god in constructive ways hugh? Like the romans deciding that everyone should be baptized into the christian faith so they have records of everyone for tax purposes?

Do you consider that constructive? :confused:

There are many many more alternatives, to each his own but I don't need to believe in a god to have compassion for others or want to do good in this world.

Certainly you don't have to believe in God to have compassion for others, but I was just trying to figure out how you logically get there from rejecting the idea of God in spite of its relevance.

---

I think we all can agree that religious fundamentalism used destructively is a serious problem. I proposed that this problem could be solved by educating people how to use their religious beliefs constructively, and a requirement for educating people is being able to speak their religious language.

Do you atheists have a better solution to offer? Fighting against religion as whole is too simplistic because religion can certainly be used for good. Once we acknowledge the relevance of the idea of God in our world, what's your idea of a prudent course of action to prevent destructive religiously motivated activity?

[saskatchewanian]

Do you consider that constructive? :confused:
It was just the first and most obvious instance of religion being used I could think of, I am sure the government at the time found it an extremely valuable tool.

Who was it that said "some of the most horrible acts imaginable were done with the best intentions"?

In other words, the idea of god can be an extremely powerful tool and I would be perfectly happy if nobody could wield it (or its power was taken away)

So no I don't think that the idea of god should be used for "constructive purposes" as what is constructive for some is destructive for others.

Certainly you don't have to believe in God to have compassion for others, but I was just trying to figure out how you logically get there from rejecting the idea of God in spite of its relevance.

I am sorry, but I just don't see where you are coming from there. You need not be religious to have moral integrity. are you suggesting that people generally start with a negative view of the world and humanity but a belief in god(s) make them see beauty and goodness? I am probably way off the mark (as I was with kevinalexandersmith in the other thread) but that is how I am reading it.


I think we all can agree that religious fundamentalism used destructively is a serious problem. I proposed that this problem could be solved by educating people how to use their religious beliefs constructively, and a requirement for educating people is being able to speak their religious language.

Do you atheists have a better solution to offer? Fighting against religion as whole is too simplistic because religion can certainly be used for good. Once we acknowledge the relevance of the idea of God in our world, what's your idea of a prudent course of action to prevent destructive religiously motivated activity?

Sometimes the simple answer is the right answer.

[disgruntleddave]

So you're saying that in China, where the national religion is Atheism, that element of religious dogma is bad (due to the violence towards those who don't believe in Atheism)?

I was using examples where something COULD be bad, not saying that religious ideals are always bad, or even most of the time bad. Yes, there are some bad ideals, mostly from those who strictly abide by their religious text (which would have them stoning people to death, being violent to people who believe differently, etc). I was only using the negatives as examples in my post. Some religious text offers good lessons, however religion is not the source of many of these, and is unneeded to teach such things (ie, morality, be good to others, these positives come up in many religions, but are not a religious invention).

I resent you putting down all Atheists just because a few Atheists have killed more people than all the other religions put together.

uh.. I didn't put anyone down? I don't quite understand where you get this.

But I see your point that agnosticism seems much safer than Atheism.

I never made this point. Agnosticism can represent people with different schools of thought. If an idea is designed such that we could never know if it is correct or not (or exists or not), then one must be agnostic towards it, in my opinion. Thus, because I can not prove that invisible unicorns do or do not exist somewhere, I am agnostic to the idea. However, I am atheistic to it too because I think that there is no conceivable possibility that these invisible unicorns exist somewhere. Similarly, I am agnostic towards the idea of god because it is often defined in such a way where I can't make measurements to prove or disprove its existence, however I am atheistic towards the idea as well because I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that such a being exists, and like the unicorns, I firmly hold that god was invented by humans.

I think you've unfairly characterized theists. I believe most theists can be reasoned with.

Well, sort of. There are varying degrees of theists. In a case where a theist believes in god, they often do so for reasons that can't really be disputed. Some will say that they feel god, or god guides them, and it's not exactly possible for me to convince them that their conclusions about what they have felt are erroneous in all likelihood. Similarly, someone who is delusional and believes completely that something is so, can not be reasoned with on the subject of their delusion unless they are capable of stepping out of their view and looking at themselves objectively. This is usually something that most people don't do easily, especially when it's related to something as important to them as god or religion.

I was specifically talking about theology. Perhaps if people were actually educated theologically as I proposed, then we wouldn't have so many ignorant religious fundamentalists ruining our world.

Ah. Well, I think the problem is that theology is connected to religion. There are many religions, so to teach one, or two, or a reasonable of theologies is not realistic. I think, however, it does have some value just like studying literature has value, but studying it like literature may be risky. Because people have different views of the validity of theology (some believe that it is an accurate account of things, some believe it is fiction written into a historical setting), I think it would be very difficult to have it be studied in a way that gives different people the same learning experience. Think about an atheist and 2 theists studying theology side by side. Lets say one theist is a muslim, the other a christian, and the theology in that of islam. Where you discuss this, the muslim will interpret the learning like you are learning something *real*, like mathematics or science. When he reads about muhammad, he thinks differently about it than the christian, who thinks that the ideas presented in the theology are sacrilegious and could be very offended.

It's hard for me to express the problems I see in teaching theology, but think about the scenario presented and other possible ones and the challenges that are associated. It is certainly possible to have a group of people of different beliefs learn about world theologies and religions, however I would reserve teaching such things to an older crowd who elect to study it. If taught in something like elementary school, there would be huge problems, both with students and their parents.

So, do you think all cultural and/or social studies are less valid for education than "stuff like english or math"?

I see the point you are trying to get at, and I don't think that social studies or studying cultures is necessarily less valid in education. I would agree at what you are getting at, with theology being just as valid for studying, but the problems in teaching it at a level lower than post-secondary (where students choose what to study rather than having it in a curriculum) are not present in teaching social studies.

Also, you can learn about a different culture and understand that they are different. Many theists understand that other religions are different, however their belief in their own allows them to put themselves on the pedestal of being correct, knowing something about the world that people who believe something else, don't. This is one reason why I think social studies or cultural studies is more 'teachable' and more of a real subject when compared to theology.


Your example is irrelevant. 80% of people don't believe in an invisible unicorn, whereas, most people do believe in something higher than themselves.

I don't see how it is irrelevant. Most people believe in very different interpretations of a higher power. My invisible unicorns are a higher power, because they are giant and invisible and control everything. My 'god' is a giant invisible unicorn. Yes, it is a ridiculous example, but don't fool yourself into believing that they are all that different.

Certainly you don't have to believe in God to have compassion for others, but I was just trying to figure out how you logically get there from rejecting the idea of God in spite of its relevance.

I must be missing something here. Compassion, or other good things, are often found in religious texts, but religion is not the source of these things. Morality does not find its source in religion. These things are completely independent of a belief (or lack thereof) in god. Many people believe that morality has its source from religion, or god, and to reject god is to reject these ideals, which is a ridiculous notion.

---

I think we all can agree that religious fundamentalism used destructively is a serious problem. I proposed that this problem could be solved by educating people how to use their religious beliefs constructively, and a requirement for educating people is being able to speak their religious language.

The problem with this is that sometimes religious beliefs are inherently destructive. If your religion says kill all that don't agree, how can you use this belief constructively? You must reject such a thing. In this case, and many others, rejecting ideas and lessons presented in religion is the only way to maintain a positive and constructive religious belief.

I argue that the positives presented in religion are not founded in religion, thus it should be possible and encouraged to teach positive constructive things independent of the religion it may appear in. If the only way to have a wholly constructive belief system is to reject many elements of it, and to embrace many elements that aren't founded in religion anyway, why not get rid of the baggage? This is my argument - religion simply is not necessary.

Do you atheists have a better solution to offer? Fighting against religion as whole is too simplistic because religion can certainly be used for good. Once we acknowledge the relevance of the idea of God in our world, what's your idea of a prudent course of action to prevent destructive religiously motivated activity?

I say that the idea of god is important because of its influence on the world, not because of an intrinsic value of the idea. I do think that the most important front is to fight against extremism, and most theists agree. Once extremism is out of the picture, it's not really a fight against religion. It's simply a presentation that religion is not necessary to embrace all of the positives and ideals written into it. Discarding religion would only serve to help increase the rate of human development in many ways, as religion and beliefs often drive groups to resist things like certain facets of scientific advancement and understanding (evolution, anybody?).

phew, that was a long one. I gotta get back to homework ><

[phlegm]

So no I don't think that the idea of god should be used for "constructive purposes" as what is constructive for some is destructive for others.

I don't think your statement is universally valid. Are you implying that Mother Theresa was generally more destructive toward some people?

I am sorry, but I just don't see where you are coming from there. You need not be religious to have moral integrity. are you suggesting that people generally start with a negative view of the world and humanity but a belief in god(s) make them see beauty and goodness? I am probably way off the mark (as I was with kevinalexandersmith in the other thread) but that is how I am reading it.

I'm simply starting from what (I think) we agreed about: the idea of God is relevant in our world.

Do you agree that it is worth encouraging humanity toward living harmoniously?

Option A: If not, as I mentioned before, you could choose to simply live for yourself without regard for everyone else.

Option B: If so, then shouldn't we encourage constructive action and discourage destructive action in whatever humanity does? Now, because "the idea of God is relevant" we know that practicing religion and believing in God is a significant part of "what humanity does". This leads to the question of how to encourage contructive action and discourage destructive action when religion is concerned.

My answer is to promote constructive theological understandings. They don't all have to match or logically cohere among each other. They just have to allow humanity to live together without resorting to violence.

An atheist's answer is to tell most everyone that they are fundamentally wrong. How will that accomplish anything? Doesn't "most everyone" simply continue to ignore the atheist?

[kevinalexandersmith]

I was using examples where something COULD be bad, not saying that religious ideals are always bad, or even most of the time bad. Yes, there are some bad ideals, mostly from those who strictly abide by their religious text (which would have them stoning people to death, being violent to people who believe differently, etc). I was only using the negatives as examples in my post. Some religious text offers good lessons, however religion is not the source of many of these, and is unneeded to teach such things (ie, morality, be good to others, these positives come up in many religions, but are not a religious invention).



uh.. I didn't put anyone down? I don't quite understand where you get this.



I never made this point. Agnosticism can represent people with different schools of thought. If an idea is designed such that we could never know if it is correct or not (or exists or not), then one must be agnostic towards it, in my opinion. Thus, because I can not prove that invisible unicorns do or do not exist somewhere, I am agnostic to the idea. However, I am atheistic to it too because I think that there is no conceivable possibility that these invisible unicorns exist somewhere. Similarly, I am agnostic towards the idea of god because it is often defined in such a way where I can't make measurements to prove or disprove its existence, however I am atheistic towards the idea as well because I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that such a being exists, and like the unicorns, I firmly hold that god was invented by humans.



Well, sort of. There are varying degrees of theists. In a case where a theist believes in god, they often do so for reasons that can't really be disputed. Some will say that they feel god, or god guides them, and it's not exactly possible for me to convince them that their conclusions about what they have felt are erroneous in all likelihood. Similarly, someone who is delusional and believes completely that something is so, can not be reasoned with on the subject of their delusion unless they are capable of stepping out of their view and looking at themselves objectively. This is usually something that most people don't do easily, especially when it's related to something as important to them as god or religion.



Ah. Well, I think the problem is that theology is connected to religion. There are many religions, so to teach one, or two, or a reasonable of theologies is not realistic. I think, however, it does have some value just like studying literature has value, but studying it like literature may be risky. Because people have different views of the validity of theology (some believe that it is an accurate account of things, some believe it is fiction written into a historical setting), I think it would be very difficult to have it be studied in a way that gives different people the same learning experience. Think about an atheist and 2 theists studying theology side by side. Lets say one theist is a muslim, the other a christian, and the theology in that of islam. Where you discuss this, the muslim will interpret the learning like you are learning something *real*, like mathematics or science. When he reads about muhammad, he thinks differently about it than the christian, who thinks that the ideas presented in the theology are sacrilegious and could be very offended.

It's hard for me to express the problems I see in teaching theology, but think about the scenario presented and other possible ones and the challenges that are associated. It is certainly possible to have a group of people of different beliefs learn about world theologies and religions, however I would reserve teaching such things to an older crowd who elect to study it. If taught in something like elementary school, there would be huge problems, both with students and their parents.



I see the point you are trying to get at, and I don't think that social studies or studying cultures is necessarily less valid in education. I would agree at what you are getting at, with theology being just as valid for studying, but the problems in teaching it at a level lower than post-secondary (where students choose what to study rather than having it in a curriculum) are not present in teaching social studies.

Also, you can learn about a different culture and understand that they are different. Many theists understand that other religions are different, however their belief in their own allows them to put themselves on the pedestal of being correct, knowing something about the world that people who believe something else, don't. This is one reason why I think social studies or cultural studies is more 'teachable' and more of a real subject when compared to theology.




I don't see how it is irrelevant. Most people believe in very different interpretations of a higher power. My invisible unicorns are a higher power, because they are giant and invisible and control everything. My 'god' is a giant invisible unicorn. Yes, it is a ridiculous example, but don't fool yourself into believing that they are all that different.



I must be missing something here. Compassion, or other good things, are often found in religious texts, but religion is not the source of these things. Morality does not find its source in religion. These things are completely independent of a belief (or lack thereof) in god. Many people believe that morality has its source from religion, or god, and to reject god is to reject these ideals, which is a ridiculous notion.

---



The problem with this is that sometimes religious beliefs are inherently destructive. If your religion says kill all that don't agree, how can you use this belief constructively? You must reject such a thing. In this case, and many others, rejecting ideas and lessons presented in religion is the only way to maintain a positive and constructive religious belief.

I argue that the positives presented in religion are not founded in religion, thus it should be possible and encouraged to teach positive constructive things independent of the religion it may appear in. If the only way to have a wholly constructive belief system is to reject many elements of it, and to embrace many elements that aren't founded in religion anyway, why not get rid of the baggage? This is my argument - religion simply is not necessary.



I say that the idea of god is important because of its influence on the world, not because of an intrinsic value of the idea. I do think that the most important front is to fight against extremism, and most theists agree. Once extremism is out of the picture, it's not really a fight against religion. It's simply a presentation that religion is not necessary to embrace all of the positives and ideals written into it. Discarding religion would only serve to help increase the rate of human development in many ways, as religion and beliefs often drive groups to resist things like certain facets of scientific advancement and understanding (evolution, anybody?).

phew, that was a long one. I gotta get back to homework ><

and I thought my posts were too long.

[phlegm]

disgruntleddave,

Your post has some fundamental themes running through it that I disagree with.

1. Your assessment of theists is confined to a narrow view that many people seem to think is true of all theists (e.g, Christians can't study with Muslims, Christians don't believe in evolution).

2. You have a narrow view of theology. This is why I think everyone should be presented a broad variety of theologies as part of their education. People are ignorant about theology, so we have the ignorant leading the ignorant and the ignorant resisting it.

3. You think simply eliminating religion will solve problems even though religion is part of every culture. Discarding religion can only certainly solve problems if religion is only a source of problems and never a source of "good stuff". Also, it's much more practical to influence people from where they are than by shouting from afar.

[Mikefule]

An atheist's answer is to tell most everyone that they are fundamentally wrong. How will that accomplish anything? Doesn't "most everyone" simply continue to ignore the atheist?

I think you'll find that lots of people tell other people that they are fundamentally wrong.

Many Jehovah's Witnesses tell everyone who is not a JW they are fundamentally wrong and will burn in Hell. They base this on a book written hundreds of years ago.

Some Muslims, Roman Catholics and Protestants have gone so far in telling others that they are fundamentally wrong that they have bombed them to death, on the basis of their interpretation of the contents of a book - sometimes the same book that the "other lot" interpret differently.

There are many other examples.

Some atheists tell other people that they are fundamentally wrong, and generally do so by putting forward reasoned arguments which can then be engaged with and accepted, rejected or modified if the listener so chooses.

No atheist says, "I believe there is no God because that is what a bronze age desert tribe fromt he far side of the world believed." Very few religious believers say, "I believe in my version of God because I have sat down and thought all the arguments through, point by point."

[saskatchewanian]

I don't think your statement is universally valid. Are you implying that Mother Theresa was generally more destructive toward some people?

Nothing is black and white and nothing is totally good or evil. basically absolutes do not really exist. Mother Theresa did a lot of good in the world, she helped a lot of people and was a deeply compassionate person. Don't you think that some of the things she did might have unforeseen consequences? Perhaps helping someone who in turn hurt someone else?

I'm simply starting from what (I think) we agreed about: the idea of God is relevant in our world.

agreed

Do you agree that it is worth encouraging humanity toward living harmoniously?

agreed

Option A: If not, as I mentioned before, you could choose to simply live for yourself without regard for everyone else.

Option B: If so, then shouldn't we encourage constructive action and discourage destructive action in whatever humanity does? Now, because "the idea of God is relevant" we know that practicing religion and believing in God is a significant part of "what humanity does". This leads to the question of how to encourage contructive action and discourage destructive action when religion is concerned.

agreed

My answer is to promote constructive theological understandings. They don't all have to match or logically cohere among each other. They just have to allow humanity to live together without resorting to violence.

Disagree: I don't believe that all faith groups can truly live harmoniously together, despite their glaring similarities people tend to focus on differences. When different beliefs do not logically cohere there will be debate. Debate and disagreement is paramount to the advancement of human knowledge but how can we advance if both sides are arguing from faith which can neither be proven nor disproved? When logic and reasoning overrule faith we can move forward and be stronger as a people.

Logic is universal (at least to some degree) and through logic people can come to consensus on issues. Faith on the other hand has many flavors and it can be very hard to get them to mix. Universality breeds harmony.

I don't think we should promote theological understandings, but rather logical ones.

Promoting understanding of theologies on the other hand could do a whole lot of good.

An atheist's answer is to tell most everyone that they are fundamentally wrong. How will that accomplish anything? Doesn't "most everyone" simply continue to ignore the atheist?

Basically....... yes

While "most everyone" is ignoring us there are still some who are listening.

[disgruntleddave]

disgruntleddave,

Your post has some fundamental themes running through it that I disagree with.

1. Your assessment of theists is confined to a narrow view that many people seem to think is true of all theists (e.g, Christians can't study with Muslims, Christians don't believe in evolution).

2. You have a narrow view of theology. This is why I think everyone should be presented a broad variety of theologies as part of their education. People are ignorant about theology, so we have the ignorant leading the ignorant and the ignorant resisting it.

3. You think simply eliminating religion will solve problems even though religion is part of every culture. Discarding religion can only certainly solve problems if religion is only a source of problems and never a source of "good stuff". Also, it's much more practical to influence people from where they are than by shouting from afar.

1. I used a view of theists that certainly does not encompass all theists, but as it encompasses many, the points I brought up regarding this group are relevant to the discussion. While studying something may not cause any problems for many theists, it will for many, thus there are inherent problems in the proposition.

2. Again, I used specific examples to demonstrate my points, and the examples are valid, but by no means are they a complete representation of the picture. They represent parts, making the point I made still a valid and important one. When arguing your opinion in an essay, you present points that support it. I simply presented points that supported my argument. It doesn't mean there aren't points one can present that are valid and go against my thesis.

3. Eliminating religion would solve some problems that are associated with religion directly, which only applies to certain problems which often come from certain peoples' interpretations of certain religions. It will never solve all problems. There are tonnes of problems in this world that have nothing to do with religion in any way, obviously. The fact that religion contains some "good stuff" does not help its cause because the "good stuff" isn't a product of religion, it's more like a write-in that stands independently from religion.

[JJuggle]

uh.. I didn't put anyone down? I don't quite understand where you get this.
Dave, don't ever make the mistake of responding to Billy without the awareness that he is f*cking with your mind. Sometimes he does this with the best of intentions, but whether his intentions are good or not, he is almost always f*cking with your mind in one way or another.

And, yes, to anyone inclined to ask, I do believe that spelling it "f*cking" disguises it sufficiently.

[phlegm]

Disagree: I don't believe that all faith groups can truly live harmoniously together, despite their glaring similarities people tend to focus on differences. When different beliefs do not logically cohere there will be debate. Debate and disagreement is paramount to the advancement of human knowledge but how can we advance if both sides are arguing from faith which can neither be proven nor disproved? When logic and reasoning overrule faith we can move forward and be stronger as a people.

Logic is universal (at least to some degree) and through logic people can come to consensus on issues. Faith on the other hand has many flavors and it can be very hard to get them to mix. Universality breeds harmony.

(Civil) debate is acceptable disharmony to me. Agreeing to disagree is okay too. Theology is all about logic and reasoning. Proof for a paticular theological view could be found in history, (religious and secular) texts, and/or other sciences. Theologies have advanced throughout history just as other sciences have advanced. Lacking a singular homogenized theology is not reason to abandon theological pursuits any more than disparate political views are reason to become an anarchist.

I don't think we should promote theological understandings, but rather logical ones.

Promoting understanding of theologies on the other hand could do a whole lot of good.

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're trying to draw between theological understandings and understanding theologies. I guess "theologies" means the same thing to me as "theological understandings". So, I would say that it's good to promote understanding theological understandings. As noted above, logic and reason are vital to theology.

[saskatchewanian]

(Civil) debate is acceptable disharmony to me. Agreeing to disagree is okay too. Theology is all about logic and reasoning. Proof for a paticular theological view could be found in history, (religious and secular) texts, and/or other sciences. Theologies have advanced throughout history just as other sciences have advanced. Lacking a singular homogenized theology is not reason to abandon theological pursuits any more than disparate political views are reason to become an anarchist.

But theologies are not based on logic and reasoning, Proofs mean nothing if they can not be duplicated, who wrote the histories anyway and why? Theologies are not sciences, where is the new observations? Experiments?

Somehow I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this one for a while.

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're trying to draw between theological understandings and understanding theologies. I guess "theologies" means the same thing to me as "theological understandings". So, I would say that it's good to promote understanding theological understandings. As noted above, logic and reason are vital to theology.

What I mean is we should teach people about what and why theologists believe instead of teaching their beliefs.

Example:
We could teach about why christians believe in the creation of the earth by god in 6 days, and why the Iroquois believed that the earth was built by animals on the back of a giant turtle. We can teach why each group had their own belief without contradicting ourselves and without having to pick and choose what to teach. And the more that people know where other people are coming from the more they will understand and accept differences in view.


If we were to teach the theologies that God created earth and that the earth was created by the animals we are contradicting ourselves. We either have to teach contradicting "facts" or pick specific parts from the many theologies to teach. How do you choose which theology to teach so you are not contradicting yourself? Why you choose your own of course!

This does nothing to further peoples understanding of each-other like teaching about theologies does.

[phlegm]

But theologies are not based on logic and reasoning, Proofs mean nothing if they can not be duplicated, who wrote the histories anyway and why? Theologies are not sciences, where is the new observations? Experiments?

Somehow I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this one for a while.

"Theology is the study of a god or the gods from a religious perspective. It has been commonly defined as reasoned discourse concerning the existence of one or more gods, or more generally about religion or spirituality. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology)"

Theology can be duplicated. Everyone can read the sources a theologian cites.

You seem to be operating from a certain idea of what constitutes proof. Observations and experiments can provide proof, and so can "reasoned discourse". Atheistic philosophers rely on "reasoned discourse" too. Much of mathematics relies on absolutely no observation or experimentation, but I don't think you have any problem accepting it as true.

[saskatchewanian]

"Theology is the study of a god or the gods from a religious perspective. It has been commonly defined as reasoned discourse concerning the existence of one or more gods, or more generally about religion or spirituality. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology)"

Theology can be duplicated. Everyone can read the sources a theologian cites.

You seem to be operating from a certain idea of what constitutes proof. Observations and experiments can provide proof, and so can "reasoned discourse". Atheistic philosophers rely on "reasoned discourse" too. Much of mathematics relies on absolutely no observation or experimentation, but I don't think you have any problem accepting it as true.

You are right reading the same books and coming to the same conclusions is a type of duplication. My problem is not so much "How did the theologist come to that conclusion?" as "How did the theologist get his information to come to his/her conclusion?" The theologist may do mind experiments but they are not testing the claims themselves with a physical means. What if those books that the theologist is basing his/her theology on are not accurate? How would the theologist know?

Much of mathematics relies on absolutely no observation or experimentation, but I don't think you have any problem accepting it as true.
??? any examples? Mathematicians do not just pick variables out of a hat and arrange them into formulas. I have never been taught a formula that was not based on some type of physical system (usually physics but not always)






Theists do not want to give up their comfort in the belief that there is a god and atheists rarely turn their back on reason and logic so really the arguing between theists and atheists generally goes nowhere.

[glen]

Are you implying that Mother Theresa was generally more destructive toward some people?
Of course!!! Why the heck would anyone assume there is a consensus that Mother Theresa left a net positive effect on the world?

[disgruntleddave]

phlegm: Mathematical proofs are completely different. I'd be very surprised if you had any knowledge or experience with mathematical proofs and was still able to make such a remark comparing it to philosophy or theology.

Mathematics is self consistent, so is boolean logic. Mathematical proofs exist within a self consistent framework and are not open to interpretation, which is completely different from philosophy or theology.

Now, there are different definitions of theology. Sometimes you'll find it defined as if it's from a secular point of view. Sometimes you'll find it to be defined from the point of view of the religion you are studying. Most of the time, theology to theists means studying the word of god and interpreting it, which starts off with the pretense that what you are studying is indeed the word of god (at least when studying their own religion's theology).

To some, theology is looking in from outside and discussing elements of a religion without taking it as truth. In this interpretation, theology would be no different (in many ways) from studying fiction, like a book or play. Naturally, there are some differences in that people don't believe that the story they read in a novel is necessarily true (if fiction), while there are people (in current day religions' cases) that believe that the theology you're studying is true and/or the word of god.

It is the interpretation of theology that starts with a religious perspective that I am very against. Whenever taught in an educational setting, theology should be assessed from a purely secular view. A problem with teaching theology is that people with different starting points will interpret the teachings very differently, which is not quite the case for philosophy, and definitely not the case with mathematics or science.

Once you dive into the framework of religion and use that arbitrary, often self inconsistent framework to analyze or assess that religion/god (or others), you lose an objectivity and a neutrality to the subject and can't study it properly.

[BillyTheMountain]

I think you'll find that lots of people tell other people that they are fundamentally wrong.

Some atheists tell other people that they are fundamentally wrong, and generally do so by putting forward reasoned arguments which can then be engaged with and accepted, rejected or modified if the listener so chooses.

And that is the fundamental insanity of Atheism. They waste their breath telling other people they are wrong. And in too many cases, then they kill the people.

In that way, Atheists are just like many of the Faithful.

Agnostics cannot do this.

[BillyTheMountain]

Once you dive into the framework of religion and use that arbitrary, often self inconsistent framework to analyze or assess that religion/god (or others), you lose an objectivity and a neutrality to the subject and can't study it properly.

It's like with your wife. Never dive into HER framework, or you'll lose your objectivity. Wait! Isn't that what made you marry her?!!

[phlegm]

This leads to the question of how to encourage contructive action and discourage destructive action when religion is concerned.

My answer is to promote constructive theological understandings. They don't all have to match or logically cohere among each other. They just have to allow humanity to live together without resorting to violence.

An atheist's answer is to tell most everyone that they are fundamentally wrong. How will that accomplish anything? Doesn't "most everyone" simply continue to ignore the atheist?

Atheists promote theological ignorance. Public education is essentially an atheistic education because contemporary theologies are not part of the curriculum, yet people are still practicing theistic religion in spite of being educated as atheists. And because there is no requisite theological education, theistic fundamentalism runs rampant. Atheistic education is failing our world.

[phlegm]

phlegm: Mathematical proofs are completely different. I'd be very surprised if you had any knowledge or experience with mathematical proofs and was still able to make such a remark comparing it to philosophy or theology.

I didn't compare math to theology. I used math as a counterexample to the (false) idea that proof always contains observation and experimentation.

Now, there are different definitions of theology. Sometimes you'll find it defined as if it's from a secular point of view. Sometimes you'll find it to be defined from the point of view of the religion you are studying. Most of the time, theology to theists means studying the word of god and interpreting it, which starts off with the pretense that what you are studying is indeed the word of god (at least when studying their own religion's theology).

Yes, that is called "exegesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis)" and is a part of theology. Theology is much more though.

To some, theology is looking in from outside and discussing elements of a religion without taking it as truth. In this interpretation, theology would be no different (in many ways) from studying fiction, like a book or play. Naturally, there are some differences in that people don't believe that the story they read in a novel is necessarily true (if fiction), while there are people (in current day religions' cases) that believe that the theology you're studying is true and/or the word of god.

I never said that theology couldn't be studied without believing it as true. I think it should be taught but left to the individuals to decide for themselves what to make of it.

It is the interpretation of theology that starts with a religious perspective that I am very against. Whenever taught in an educational setting, theology should be assessed from a purely secular view. A problem with teaching theology is that people with different starting points will interpret the teachings very differently, which is not quite the case for philosophy, and definitely not the case with mathematics or science.

This is why I didn't say religion should be taught in schools. I said theology should be taught.

Once you dive into the framework of religion and use that arbitrary, often self inconsistent framework to analyze or assess that religion/god (or others), you lose an objectivity and a neutrality to the subject and can't study it properly.

Okay, everyone, stop teaching the humanities and the arts because their inherent subjectivity means they can't be studied properly. :confused:

[phlegm]

You are right reading the same books and coming to the same conclusions is a type of duplication. My problem is not so much "How did the theologist come to that conclusion?" as "How did the theologist get his information to come to his/her conclusion?" The theologist may do mind experiments but they are not testing the claims themselves with a physical means. What if those books that the theologist is basing his/her theology on are not accurate? How would the theologist know?

Why are you so concerned about "physical means"? Neither the mathematician nor the atheistic philosopher need physical experiments. What if the philosophers that inspire Richard Dawkins to be an atheist are wrong?

??? any examples? Mathematicians do not just pick variables out of a hat and arrange them into formulas. I have never been taught a formula that was not based on some type of physical system (usually physics but not always)

You're right--physicists are the ones who arrange mathematical formulas for application to physics. Pure mathematicians don't care about physical application. All they care about is logical proof based on abstract axioms (e.g., Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfc)).

[BillyTheMountain]

This is why I didn't say religion should be taught in schools. I said theology should be taught.

Would you object to teaching mythology?? Or does that exclude living theologies?

[phlegm]

Would you object to teaching mythology?? Or does that exclude living theologies?

No, mythologies can be taught too. Some living theologies depend highly on mythology.

[BillyTheMountain]

No, mythologies can be taught too. Some living theologies depend highly on mythology.

What is the mythology of our primate ancestors? Atheism?

[phlegm]

What is the mythology of our primate ancestors? Atheism?

I don't know. Do you?

[joejumps4fun]

I'm happy to be atheism free. Now let the insults and comments fly. :D

[BillyTheMountain]

What is the mythology of our primate ancestors? Atheism?

Primate experts, and other animal experts agree that animals lower than human do not believe in GOD, and are correctly classified as Atheists.

[phlegm]

Look, here's a summary of what I've been saying.

Even if you're an atheist, you have to recognize the fact that many people practice religion. As long as you're against forcing people to believe exactly as you do, then a good course of action is to encourage people to practice religion intelligently and constructively in order to counter destructive behavior. Theology is the way to reason about religion, and many religions are commonly practiced. So, a broad variety of living theologies should be taught. Furthermore, if you believe that reason and logic inevitably lead to atheism, then what is there to fear?

[Gadge]

Primate experts, and other animal experts agree that animals lower than human do not believe in GOD, and are correctly classified as Atheists.

Hmmm, turtles for atheism anyone? :rolleyes:

[JJuggle]

Hmmm, turtles for atheism anyone? :rolleyes:
I like turtles.

[saskatchewanian]

Atheists promote theological ignorance.

Once again, I didn't know that atheists were a coherent mass of people promoting certain things, I am sure that some promote theological ignorance, others don't. I for one don't as I have stated above. I am all for teaching about theologies.

Public education is essentially an atheistic education because contemporary theologies are not part of the curriculum, yet people are still practicing theistic religion in spite of being educated as atheists. And because there is no requisite theological education, theistic fundamentalism runs rampant. Atheistic education is failing our world.

Maybe it's different in the states but up here neither are important subjects like Phys Ed, Philosophy, Home Economics, Accounting Principals, Industrial Arts, Environmental Stewardship, Agriculture, etc. the basic curriculum is pretty much english or french, basic science, and basic math.

Just because they are not part of the curriculum does not mean that they can not or should not be taught. I took a few christian theology classes and anabaptist studies in high-school, and it really did help me understand where my friends were coming from in some of their views. The classes were informative but did not push the ideas being discussed, the way it should be.

Why are you so concerned about "physical means"? Neither the mathematician nor the atheistic philosopher need physical experiments. What if the philosophers that inspire Richard Dawkins to be an atheist are wrong?



You're right--physicists are the ones who arrange mathematical formulas for application to physics. Pure mathematicians don't care about physical application. All they care about is logical proof based on abstract axioms (e.g., Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfc)).

Philosophies can not be disproved, just discussed. You talked of theology as a science, I say it is a philosophy. You need a physical means to test a theory or theorem to carry out the scientific method.

If Richard Dawkins is wrong then we will eventually know about it as science advances. Science needs people like Richard Dawkins to present theorems which can be tested. When parts of a theorem gets disproved that part is rejected and replaced with another theorem which closely matches what is known in the world. When the fundamentals of the theorem stand sufficient testing over time it is elevated to the status of theory.

So, if Richard Dawkins is wrong his ideas will never be included in scientific theory and we will know another thing is not as we thought.

Perhaps you are correct about the pure mathematicians but others (like physicists put their work to use and test against the physical environment. If the math did not work using one method but did in another then the method (mathematic theorem/theory) is shown to be flawed. Mathematicians just have other people do their experiments.

Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory has been shown to be flawed when dealing with extremely small items. To explain this quantum theory was developed. So Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is not perfect, no theory is, but it works extremely well.

Look, here's a summary of what I've been saying.

Even if you're an atheist, you have to recognize the fact that many people practice religion. As long as you're against forcing people to believe exactly as you do, then a good course of action is to encourage people to practice religion intelligently and constructively in order to counter destructive behavior. Theology is the way to reason about religion, and many religions are commonly practiced. So, a broad variety of living theologies should be taught. Furthermore, if you believe that reason and logic inevitably lead to atheism, then what is there to fear?

Would it not be hypocritical to encourage something that you do not believe in? Would you want to take advice from a hypocrite?

[phlegm]

Just because they are not part of the curriculum does not mean that they can not or should not be taught. I took a few christian theology classes and anabaptist studies in high-school, and it really did help me understand where my friends were coming from in some of their views. The classes were informative but did not push the ideas being discussed, the way it should be.

That is the way it should be in public schools. Public education shouldn't force religious view on anyone, but we've gotten to the point (at least in the U.S.) where even talking about religious views in public schools is somewhat taboo.

Anyway, I don't think theology is taught widely. Otherwise I wouldn't encounter so many people who have no idea what it's about.

Philosophies can not be disproved, just discussed. You talked of theology as a science, I say it is a philosophy. You need a physical means to test a theory or theorem to carry out the scientific method.

I was using the broad meaning of "science". In previous discussions on this forum, people from the other side of the Atlantic didn't like that I used "science" in the way you are using it. I guess there's no consensus across the world as to what the word "science" means.

Ultimately, I don't care how you categorize theology. It is what it is: reasoned discourse about religious stuff.

Wikipedia knows about philosophy and proof:

"Proof may refer to a rigorous, compelling argument." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof)

"Broadly, analytic philosophy is characterised by its emphasis on clarity and argument, often achieved via modern formal logic and analysis of language, and a respect for the natural sciences." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy)

If Richard Dawkins is wrong then we will eventually know about it as science advances. Science needs people like Richard Dawkins to present theorems which can be tested. When parts of a theorem gets disproved that part is rejected and replaced with another theorem which closely matches what is known in the world. When the fundamentals of the theorem stand sufficient testing over time it is elevated to the status of theory.

So, if Richard Dawkins is wrong his ideas will never be included in scientific theory and we will know another thing is not as we thought.

Richard Dawkins' (and every atheist's) atheism is philosophical in nature, not scientific. If you think theology is suspect as philosophy, then atheism is just as suspect.

Perhaps you are correct about the pure mathematicians but others (like physicists put their work to use and test against the physical environment. If the math did not work using one method but did in another then the method (mathematic theorem/theory) is shown to be flawed. Mathematicians just have other people do their experiments.

Wow, you just crapped on every mathematician. :eek:

Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory has been shown to be flawed when dealing with extremely small items. To explain this quantum theory was developed. So Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is not perfect, no theory is, but it works extremely well.

Do you care to cite where you read that? ZFC is based on abstract mathematical objects, whereas quantum theory is concerned with physical stuff. I'm not sure how the two are related.

Would it not be hypocritical to encourage something that you do not believe in? Would you want to take advice from a hypocrite?

Don't you believe in discouraging people from practicing religion destructively? I do.

[BillyTheMountain]

Hmmm, turtles for atheism anyone? :rolleyes:

I like turtles.

Is this deja vu all over again??!!

[Gadge]

Is this deja vu all over again??!!

Well, you started it! :D

[BillyTheMountain]

Well, you started it! :D

I believe it was Raphael who first brought the Atheist turtles to JC, in another thread.

Can you find it?

[JJuggle]

I believe it was Raphael who first brought the Atheist turtles to JC, in another thread.

Can you find it?
My friends, it's turtles all the way down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down).

[Gadge]

I believe it was Raphael who first brought the Atheist turtles to JC, in another thread.

Can you find it?

I don't need to find it, I have faith in turtles. ;)

[BillyTheMountain]

http://books.google.com/books?id=2V_4eBK6klMC&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=We+join+the+animals+when+staring+into+the+light+we+think&source=web&ots=-XVttwacjK&sig=FFCjTtXLPFhlOZT78Z4gBh_jhP0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA262,M1

Here it is: We join the lower animals when we have no belief in GOD.
OMG! Raphael was RIGHT!!!

[JJuggle]

http://books.google.com/books?id=2V_4eBK6klMC&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=We+join+the+animals+when+staring+into+the+light+we+think&source=web&ots=-XVttwacjK&sig=FFCjTtXLPFhlOZT78Z4gBh_jhP0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA262,M1

Here it is: We join the lower animals when we have no belief in GOD.
OMG! Raphael was RIGHT!!!
Billy, maybe there's more there than meets my eye, but I think you're stretching to make a connection. Given the highlighted terms, though, it does look like you found what you were looking for.

[saskatchewanian]

I was using the broad meaning of "science". In previous discussions on this forum, people from the other side of the Atlantic didn't like that I used "science" in the way you are using it. I guess there's no consensus across the world as to what the word "science" means.

interesting, I had to look up science in a dictionary then Wikipedia to see if I could find an alternative definition, couldn't find one. I know that wiki is not an infallible source but it is great for alternate definitions.

Richard Dawkins' (and every atheist's) atheism is philosophical in nature, not scientific. If you think theology is suspect as philosophy, then atheism is just as suspect.

yes atheism is a philosophy, not a science. His works on evolutionary biology are strictly science, and therefore testable by the scientific method. His books on why there is no god are philosophical, I am sure he came to his conclusions through rigorous, compelling argument and reasoned discourse.

That he is something of an expert in the field of evolution I tend to think that his arguments against creationism is sound.

Wow, you just crapped on every mathematician. :eek:

Sorry to any mathematician I just crapped on. If anyone feels inclined to correct me please do.

Do you care to cite where you read that? ZFC is based on abstract mathematical objects, whereas quantum theory is concerned with physical stuff. I'm not sure how the two are related.

OK you are right, that is a big claim to make without backing it up, I just searched and couldn't find where I read that, I remember reading it around 1999 or 2000 in a science magazine, It was a long time ago so I could be completely wrong.

ZFC is on the other hand tested against the physical world every time we use it. It passes these tests time after time only breaking down in the most extreme examples.

Don't you believe in discouraging people from practicing religion destructively? I do.

Are you trying to make a straw man argument? Of-course I believe in discouraging people from practicing religion destructively. Why else would atheists argue with theists?

[phlegm]

interesting, I had to look up science in a dictionary then Wikipedia to see if I could find an alternative definition, couldn't find one. I know that wiki is not an infallible source but it is great for alternate definitions.

It's not all that clear, but here's some of what the science wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#History_of_usage_of_the_word_science) says:

"the word "science" in English was still used in the 17th century to refer to the Aristotelian concept of knowledge which was secure enough to be used as a sure prescription for exactly how to do something.
...
In many cases, science continued to stand for reliable knowledge about any topic, in the same way it is still used in the broad sense in modern terms such as library science, political science, and computer science."

yes atheism is a philosophy, not a science. His works on evolutionary biology are strictly science, and therefore testable by the scientific method. His books on why there is no god are philosophical, I am sure he came to his conclusions through rigorous, compelling argument and reasoned discourse.

That he is something of an expert in the field of evolution I tend to think that his arguments against creationism is sound.

Well, I don't personally subscribe to creationism as science, and I also don't really care what Dawkins has to say. But you're free to enjoy reading his works and weighing his arguments.

Sorry to any mathematician I just crapped on. If anyone feels inclined to correct me please do.

From the math wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Mathematics_and_physical_reality):

"Mathematical concepts and theorems need not correspond to anything in the physical world. Insofar as a correspondence does exist, while mathematicians and physicists may select axioms and postulates that seem reasonable and intuitive, it is not necessary for the basic assumptions within an axiomatic system to be true in an empirical or physical sense. Thus, while many axiom systems are derived from our perceptions and experiments, they are not dependent on them."

[disgruntleddave]

Did I miss the arguments about math?

As I posted before, Mathematics is SELF CONSISTENT. It is consistent without having to do with anything else. The world could be completely different. The universe could be nonexistant. Mathematics would be the same, because it is something that has consistency within it's self.

We apply mathematics to the real world, and lo and behold mathematics can be used to describe and predict things. A self consistent system of principles can be used to model the world accurately, but don't rely on the world or what it is quantifying to be true.

Hence, mathematics is a completely different field when compared to things like science, english, philosophy, and just about anything else. There aren't a lot of things you can study that can be separated completely from anything that exists in reality and still hold their meaning and consistency.

Fortumately, many people study applied mathematics. Only the crazies deal with pure math. Luckily, as an engineer (pending), I can apply mathematics in some wild ways to keep a bridge from collapsing, or keep an airplane in the air, or in general, convenience the general public with my designs and keep them safe from being killed by them.

[peleschramm]

My dog believes in god.

But I don't believe in my dog...

[phlegm]

Did I miss the arguments about math?

I don't think it was an argument. I think it was more me telling saskatchewanian how he was wrong about math.

As I posted before, Mathematics is SELF CONSISTENT. It is consistent without having to do with anything else. The world could be completely different. The universe could be nonexistant. Mathematics would be the same, because it is something that has consistency within it's self.

I have faith in math, but I don't know that I would go that far. If the universe didn't exist, then neither would mathematicians. And, if mathematicians didn't exist, who would do math? And, if no one can explain what is math, how can we say it exists?

Do you believe in the world of the forms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_forms) only without god(s)?

[BillyTheMountain]

His books on why there is no god are philosophical, I am sure he came to his conclusions through rigorous, compelling argument and reasoned discourse.?

But animals get to this same conclusion without reason

So why not just leave out the reason--it's unnecessary.

Anyone who believes in discouraging people from practicing religion destructively would not waste their time pushing Atheism.

[JJuggle]

But animals get to this same conclusion without reason
LOL!

So why not just leave out the reason--it's unnecessary.
WTF!

Anyone who believes in discouraging people from practicing religion destructively would not waste their time pushing Atheism.
Is the adverb "destructively" modifying "discouraging" or "practicing"?

[johnfoss]

My dog believes in god.

But I don't believe in my dog...That's so sad. I believe in your dog.

Wait. Does your dog exist? I only believe in real, live dogs. Uh, and some cartoon dogs. I definitely believe in our own dogs. In fact I believe I'm going to have to clean up after our youngest one before the day is out. The other day he ate a bookshelf. I thought our bookshelves were safe, but no.

And how do you know your dog isn't lying to you about beliving in God? Are you sure your dog isn't just letting on about this so you won't give him/her a hard time?

But animals get to this same conclusion without reasonSo does Rush Limbaugh (sorry, wrong thread!).

[BillyTheMountain]

LOL!


WTF!


Is the adverb "destructively" modifying "discouraging" or "practicing"?

practicing, as in"

Anyone who believes in
discouraging people from
practicing-religion-destructively
would not waste their time pushing Atheism.

And what's with the abbreviations?

You were the one who said animals were Atheists, it's no leap to suggest they became Atheists without reason.

[JJuggle]

You were the one who said animals were Atheists, it's no leap to suggest they became Atheists without reason.
It would not necessarily surprise me to hear that I said that, but I'll need a link for verification purposes.

[BillyTheMountain]

It would not necessarily surprise me to hear that I said that, but I'll need a link for verification purposes.

See my sig line.

[JJuggle]

See my sig line.
Wow, that doesn't look like a link to me.

[BillyTheMountain]

Wow, that doesn't look like a link to me.

You can't find my sig line without a link?

Look down there
|
|
|
v

|
|
|
v

[BillyTheMountain]

All the lower animals are Atheists, which proves reason actually has nothing to do with Atheism

Here is is again.....

[JJuggle]

Here is is again.....
Oh, yeah, now I see it.

I take other people's words and twist them. Usually to mean something other than they did. - BillyTheMountain

[BillyTheMountain]

Oh, yeah, now I see it.

I take other people's words and twist them. Usually to mean something other than they did. - BillyTheMountain

Threadjack!!! And you also pwnd me, shame on YOU!

Here you said, with regard to the comment about Atheism, animals, and reason: It would not necessarily surprise me to hear that I said that, but I'll need a link for verification purposes.

So here's YOUR chance to come clean: Was this something you once thought? Something you could have written without thinking? Or something you now, as you consider it, finally agree with?

Billy

[JJuggle]

So here's YOUR chance to come clean: Was this something you once thought? Something you could have written without thinking? Or something you now, as you consider it, finally agree with?
Honestly?

No, no, and no.

[BillyTheMountain]

Honestly?

No, no, and no.

All the lower animals are Atheist, which proves reason actually has nothing to do with Atheism.

I'm glad you finally thought the above statement through, to avoid prolonging the potentially misleading comment you made: it would not surprise me to hear I said that.

All the lower animals are Atheist, which proves reason actually has nothing to do with Atheism. Is this statement something you might like to debate the validity of as a statement in and of itself? Or perhaps too much of a challenge to take on?

Whatever your choice, I continue to hold you in high esteem and affection.

Billy

[JJuggle]

All the lower animals are Atheist
Billy, my cat, Sophistrina disagrees. Since she has threatened to suck the life out of me while I sleep if I do not agree with her at all times as well as to feed her within 10 minutes of when the urge to eat strikes her, I will have to disagree with you and decline to enter into a debate.

[disgruntleddave]

You can't classify an animal that does not have the mental capacity for advanced thinking like humans do into human classifications.

You can't classify an animal as a theist or an atheist. They are instinctual beings. Even the smartest animals, to our knowledge, do not have anywhere near the capacity for higher thought that would be required to assess things like religion or philosophy. You might as well say that rocks are atheists, or that air is an atheist, or that the planet venus is an atheist. It means nothing.

[BillyTheMountain]

Rocks are atheists, air is an atheist, and the planet venus is an atheist.

I agree. It does not take much to be an Atheist, since it's not a religion or a belief or a Faith.

Even cave men were Atheists, right?

Billy

[kevinalexandersmith]

You might as well say that rocks are atheistsLuke 19:40 (NIV)
"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

Rocks are Theists! LOL:eek::p:D

[kevinalexandersmith]

Even cave men were Atheists, right?Careful Billy you don’t want offend cavemen or get sued by a car insurance company for copyright infringement.

New slogans for Atheism:

“Atheism, so easy a caveman could do it.”
or
“I’ve got great news. I just saved 10% by switching to atheism!”
or
“You’re in good hands with.”… oh wait, never mind.

[glen]

“I’ve got great news. I just saved 10% by switching to atheism!”
Is that a reference to tithing? I like it!

[uni57]

It does not take much to be an Atheist, since it's not a religion or a belief or a Faith.Hallelujah! Welcome to reality, Billy. Atheism is not a religion. Can you say it again for me? Will you also stop capitalizing atheism?

[BillyTheMountain]

Hallelujah! Welcome to reality, Billy. Atheism is not a religion. Can you say it again for me? Will you also stop capitalizing atheism?

Dave,

YES!! Can you believe your success!!?? You have taught something to BTM!!! And I'm grateful. People were getting tired of the old BTM.

Since none of the lower animals believe in GOD, they are all atheists. It took Raphael to convince me, but you helped.

It takes no logic, reason, or intelligence to be an atheist.

Help me a bit more, though, with this one: Is that what makes some of the human atheists so defensive, attacking religions for not using reason??

Billy

[saskatchewanian]

“I’ve got great news. I just saved 10% by switching to atheism!”

This one made me laugh

[uni57]

Dave,

YES!! Can you believe your success!!?? You have taught something to BTM!!! And I'm grateful. People were getting tired of the old BTM.

Since none of the lower animals believe in GOD, they are all atheists. It took Raphael to convince me, but you helped.

It takes no logic, reason, or intelligence to be an atheist.

Help me a bit more, though, with this one: Is that what makes some of the human atheists so defensive, attacking religions for not using reason??

BillyYes, Billy. Can you say it for me again, please? Say "atheism is not a religion."

[phlegm]

I started reading The Gospel of Christian Atheism (http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=523) by Thomas J.J. Altizer. In it he proposes a radical Christian theology that regards as literal Nietzsche's declaration "God is dead." It dawned on me that I've never heard an atheist clarify what time constraints they place on the non-existence of God.

So, what do you atheists think? What would you say, why, and what are the implications?

A) God has never existed.
B) God might exist in another time or place, but God certainly does not exist in my life.
C) Altizer is right; Nietzsche's "God is dead" should be taken as a literal event.
D) Turtles!
E) Something else.

If you choose A, how you justify knowing for all history? Isn't that a much bigger leap of faith than the theist who claims they know God exists because they currently experience God in their life?

If you choose B, then isn't it possible that all of your fighting against religion perpetuates your own delusion that God is nonexistent?

[disgruntleddave]

Like unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, god is a human invention.

Like unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, god doesn't exist and his roots can be traced through recorded history through other cultures and belief systems, most of which are long since extinct. They are myths.

[phlegm]

god is a human invention... god doesn't exist and his roots can be traced through recorded history through other cultures and belief systems, most of which are long since extinct. They are myths.

Hey, my post presupposes your statements to be true. I think Altizer would agree with you, but you didn't answer my questions. What time constraints, if any, do you place on God's nonexistence, and how do you justify your position with reason?

Restating dogma just makes you sound like a religious fundamentalist.

[JJuggle]

A) God has never existed.

If you choose A, how you justify knowing for all history?
I choose A. I don't have to know for all history because part the definition of God is to have always existed. If God does not exist now, God can never have existed and be consistent with the definition of God.

My dog, Sophistrina, agrees.

[Spudman]

A) God has never existed.


That's how I see things. I have not seen any evidence to convince me otherwise.


If you choose A, how you justify knowing for all history? Isn't that a much bigger leap of faith than the theist who claims they know God exists because they currently experience God in their life?

So it takes faith to not believe in something that you don't see evidence for? This doesn't make any sense.

I'm curious, since it sounds like you think the above statement is true: If someone proposes something extraordinary, do you instantly believe them unless it is shown otherwise? Does not believing them require heaps of faith?

[disgruntleddave]

Hey, my post presupposes your statements to be true. I think Altizer would agree with you, but you didn't answer my questions. What time constraints, if any, do you place on God's nonexistence, and how do you justify your position with reason?

Restating dogma just makes you sound like a religious fundamentalist.

What time frame do you put on the nonexistence of unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters?

Time frame is not an issue when you're talking about something that was made up. Before the idea of a god was made up by humans, god didn't exist. After the idea of god was made up by humans, god didn't exist.

If you want to stretch the concept of god very far such that a physical being that might have once existed (or will exist, or currently exists) in our universe is close to what you want to call god, then so be it. I'm talking about current and past human interpretations of god/s, which have been made up by humans.

I can justify it just as you can justify believing that flying spaghetti monsters never have and don't currently exist. It's a preposterous idea made up by humans, so your position that ___ doesn't exist is already justified from the start, and no additional reasoning has to go into it.

[BillyTheMountain]

I choose A. I don't have to know for all history because part the definition of God is to have always existed. If God does not exist now, God can never have existed and be consistent with the definition of God.

My dog, Sophistrina, agrees.

Riiiggghhhttt! You're talking about the christian god, always existed.

Like unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, god is a human invention.

Riiiggghhhttt, but the lower animals were atheist before man was ever invented.

Dave,

YES!! Can you believe your success!!?? You have taught something to BTM!!! And I'm grateful. People were getting tired of the old BTM.

Since none of the lower animals believe in GOD, they are all atheists. It took Raphael to convince me, but you helped.

It takes no logic, reason, or intelligence to be an atheist.

Help me a bit more, though, with this one: Is that what makes some of the human atheists so defensive, attacking religions for not using reason??

Billy

Yes, Billy, to your last question.

And can you say it for me again, please? Say "atheism is not a religion."

atheism is not a religion!!!

and thanks for confirming why a few human atheists so defensive, attacking religions for not using reason.

Billy

[JJuggle]

Riiiggghhhttt! You're talking about the christian god, always existed.
My understanding is that that is the God phlegm was talking about.

But don't take that to mean I accept the existence of other gods.

[BillyTheMountain]

My understanding is that that is the God phlegm was talking about.

But don't take that to mean I accept the existence of other gods.

I don't, but when phlegm said he started reading The Gospel of Christian Atheism by Thomas J.J. Altizer, it made me realize that when you say that, you sound like a christian atheist, and you haven't taken a broader stance, suggesting you haven't established a broader atheism. Not that you can't. With a little work, you can truly join the lower animals, and toss out all those concepts you have about the GOD that does not exist.

[uni57]

Normal: I don't, but when phlegm said he started reading The Gospel of Christian Atheism by Thomas J.J. Altizer, it made me realize that when you say that, you sound like a christian atheist, and you haven't taken a broader stance, suggesting you haven't established a broader atheism. Not that you can't. Billy: With a little work, you can truly join the lower animals, and toss out all those concepts you have about the GOD that does not exist.Billy, as I read your above post, I was struck by how uncharacteristically normal it was. It was well-reasoned and thought-provoking. It was not meant to goad, rattle, rouse, agitate, tease, or torment. But then I got to the last part (which I marked "Billy" in the quote above). And everything was back to "normal". That is, the Billy-type of "normal" with quotation marks.

To what do we owe this momentary hiccup in the otherwise ceaseless flow of Billy-ness?

[phlegm]

What time frame do you put on the nonexistence of unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters?

Time frame is not an issue when you're talking about something that was made up. Before the idea of a god was made up by humans, god didn't exist. After the idea of god was made up by humans, god didn't exist.

If you want to stretch the concept of god very far such that a physical being that might have once existed (or will exist, or currently exists) in our universe is close to what you want to call god, then so be it. I'm talking about current and past human interpretations of god/s, which have been made up by humans.

I can justify it just as you can justify believing that flying spaghetti monsters never have and don't currently exist. It's a preposterous idea made up by humans, so your position that ___ doesn't exist is already justified from the start, and no additional reasoning has to go into it.

I don't agree with the premise to your argument that unicorns and the FSM are comparable to God. Unicorns and the FSM work to keep God out of physics and biology classes because they are all similarly unmeasurable concepts. However, in the context of society in general, I thought we already agreed that (the idea of) God is very relevant currently. Yet, presently, unicorns are only marginally relevant at best, and the FSM is clearly just an invention for parody.

If I'm reading you correctly, it sounds like you're a proponent of "God never existed," and you believe so because "God is an unnecessary hypothesis." The problems I see with this view are that modern science by nature only provides provisional knowledge, and that modern science does not span all of human history. So, it's not really possible to say scientifically that God has always been an unnecessary hypothesis.

[JJuggle]

I don't, but when phlegm said he started reading The Gospel of Christian Atheism by Thomas J.J. Altizer...toss out all those concepts you have about the GOD that does not exist.
Billy, that I am not very good at expressing the ecumenical nature of my atheism does not mean it isn't so.

[Mikefule]

You can't classify an animal that does not have the mental capacity for advanced thinking like humans do into human classifications.


Whoah! Name 10 humans who have the mental capacity for advanced thinking.

Not easy, is it?

[BillyTheMountain]

Billy, that I am not very good at expressing the ecumenical nature of my atheism does not mean it isn't so.

Of course that does not mean it isn't so. You know I love my dog, and if my dog could speak, I'm sure she'd say it just that way.

[JJuggle]

Of course that does not mean it isn't so. You know I love my dog, and if my dog could speak, I'm sure she'd say it just that way.
Smart dog.

[disgruntleddave]

BillyTheMountain, I don't appreciate my post being used and being taken completely out of context in your signature. Please remove it.

It's as if someone said "Well, if 1 = 2 then god exists" and you quoting just the last 2 words. It's not a responsible thing to do.

[JJuggle]

BillyTheMountain, I don't appreciate my post being used and being taken completely out of context in your signature. Please remove it.

It's as if someone said "Well, if 1 = 2 then god exists" and you quoting just the last 2 words. It's not a responsible thing to do.
Please note that I never even posted or said the thing Billy has quoted me as saying in his sig.

I have lost it at times with Billy and may yet again. But if I may offer a word of advice, get used to Billy misquoting you, making things up, and twisting your words into something they are not. If you do not want these things to happen, you have no choice but to ignore him.

Billy fashions himself Buddha, Socrates, Ambrose Pierce, Karl Rove, and each of our own personal therapists all at once. The four mean well. The one is evil. But in the end, he can not help himself and neither can we.

[BillyTheMountain]

god exists

Dave,

You'll never convince my dog of that one.

She seems to be a confirmed atheist, and no one or nothing can make her believe god exists!

Billy

[JJuggle]

Dave,

You'll never convince my dog of that one.

She seems to be a confirmed atheist, and no one or nothing can make her believe god exists!
Please say "woof" to her for me. She'll know what I mean.

[johnfoss]

She seems to be a confirmed atheist, and no one or nothing can make her believe god exists!Or doesn't exist. I think Billy needs a new argument in this thread. Dogs and other critters are obviously agnostics. They are somewhere in the middle until it can be proven they're on one side or the other of the belief thing.

And no, believing in humans doesn't count. That would be Humanism, I guess. :)

[Mikefule]

My understanding is that that is the God phlegm was talking about.


Ah, but for punctuation... Who would worship the great god, Phlegm? And of course his loyal sidekick, Bile (known in some languages of Ba'al).

[BillyTheMountain]

Dogs and other critters are obviously agnostics. They are somewhere in the middle until it can be proven they're on one side or the other of the belief thing.

Wow! I'm surprised no agnostics took issue with your controversial statement. Are you saying dogs and other critters MIGHT actually have faith in GOD??!!

Even Raphael's and DisgruntledDave's dog?

WOW!

Billy

[Biggestbtc]

A brief look at the history of Atheism in the "Enlightenment" Period back in the 18th century will reveal that during this time when men were throwing religion out of their self-defined realm of "reason," seeds of corruption were sown in the minds of many, many people. These "seeds" have grown into huge social problems as man trusted in his own abilities. One of the biggest errors in the new philosophy introduced in the 18th century was that man was now thought to be essentially good. We are still reaping the fruit of such wayward thinking. When man is not held accountable to a "higher power" (God), he is free to his own designs. Wall Street proves to us that such non-accountability, even to earthly powers, is not a good thing.:rolleyes:

[johnfoss]

Are you saying dogs and other critters MIGHT actually have faith in GOD??!!Precisely. Why not? It goes back to pre-history for people, so who knows how far back theism goes.

One of the biggest errors in the new philosophy introduced in the 18th century was that man was now thought to be essentially good.By "man" I assume you mean property-owning white males. Yes we're still learning to be "better", but I don't assume people to be good.
When man is not held accountable to a "higher power" (God), he is free to his own designs.Some people pay more attention to law as a higher power, though many listen to neither.

[BillyTheMountain]

Dogs and other critters are obviously agnostics.

Precisely. Why not? It goes back to pre-history for people, so who knows how far back theism goes.

It's unfortunate there are no advocates for agnosticism here.

Personally, I think you're going a bit too far.

Billy

[johnfoss]

Personally, I think you're going a bit too far.Not at all. I'm speaking up for my three dogs, because they can't. Giving them the benefit of the doubt. Neither you nor the Dog Whisperer really knows what a dog is thinking.

At least not beyond the obvious stuff, like:
- Got some food for me?
- What does that smell like?
- I see you're trying to clean the floor. I absolutely *must* loiter on it now!
- All vacuum cleaners are evil.

[BillyTheMountain]

Not at all. I'm speaking up for my three dogs, because they can't. Giving them the benefit of the doubt. Neither you nor the Dog Whisperer really knows what a dog is thinking.

At least not beyond the obvious stuff, like:
- Got some food for me?
- What does that smell like?
- I see you're trying to clean the floor. I absolutely *must* loiter on it now!
- All vacuum cleaners are evil.

atheists here have insisted atheism is the position of no faith, no religion, no belief.

you are truly suggesting your 3 dogs might be entertaining the possibility that there may be a GOD? Please elaborate.

while YOU may believe in a dog heaven, do you consider that your dogs do too?

[Biggestbtc]

By "man" I assume you mean property-owning white males. Yes we're still learning to be "better", but I don't assume people to be good.
By "man" I mean the prominent thinkers of the day who by their speech and writings influenced many other people, who could also be called my "men."

If man is not assumed to be good, then what is the atheistic way out of this predicament of imperfection?

[JJuggle]

A brief look at the history of Atheism in the "Enlightenment" Period back in the 18th century will reveal that during this time when men were throwing religion out of their self-defined realm of "reason," seeds of corruption were sown in the minds of many, many people. These "seeds" have grown into huge social problems as man trusted in his own abilities. One of the biggest errors in the new philosophy introduced in the 18th century was that man was now thought to be essentially good. We are still reaping the fruit of such wayward thinking. When man is not held accountable to a "higher power" (God), he is free to his own designs. Wall Street proves to us that such non-accountability, even to earthly powers, is not a good thing.:rolleyes:
I find your argument here to be utterly unconvincing. Corruption and social problems clearly predate the Enlightenment in every conceivable way. And if you want to talk about Wall Street and irrationality of financial markets historically, have a look at the pre-Enlightenment tulip mania in the Netherlands.

If man is not assumed to be good, then what is the atheistic way out of this predicament of imperfection?
Obedience to higher powers is and has always been enforced by people themselves. There are those who internalize it to such a degree that it does, in fact, appear to be divinely motivated. But its origin is strictly human. I realize that is a harsh assessment but it is, I assure you, not a criticism. My own behavior at times makes me cringe.

But, to the point, I don't see how the supposed nature of man has any bearing on whether or not God exists any more than the nature of clams does.

[johnfoss]

you are truly suggesting your 3 dogs might be entertaining the possibility that there may be a GOD? Please elaborate.I am suggesting that neither of us knows they aren't. That's the key point here. If we don't know what they're thinking, we cannot assume they are thinking something else. What if a dog believes in "The Great Food-Bringer" as a higher power? At least they can touch and smell Him. Not such a bad religion for dogs. But I'm not saying they think that way.

If man is not assumed to be good, then what is the atheistic way out of this predicament of imperfection? Imperfection is not a predicament, it's the natural way of things. We are imperfect and we always have been. We have the *capacity* for good, just as we have the capacity for evil. And, with rare exception, we have the capacity to make the choices. Go to a prison and survey the inmates. Having made their choices (to do the crimes), is there one religion or set of beliefs that stands out among the others as being underrepresented? Probably not.

[BillyTheMountain]

I am suggesting that neither of us knows they aren't. That's the key point here. If we don't know what they're thinking, we cannot assume they are thinking something else. What if a dog believes in "The Great Food-Bringer" as a higher power? At least they can touch and smell Him. Not such a bad religion for dogs. But I'm not saying they think that way.


John,

Would you say newborns are also agnostics? Most atheists would claim newborns as atheists, since they display no faith in the existence of GOD.

I also think agnosticism is a position the individual must affirm himself/itself. I's not something others can attribute to a creature just because WE aren't sure what the dog's position is. You go too far.

If you are correct, then you oppose DisgruntledDave who says rocks are atheist--and you might hold rocks are agnostic.

Do I read you accurately?

Billy

[Biggestbtc]

I find your argument here to be utterly unconvincing. Corruption and social problems clearly predate the Enlightenment in every conceivable way.
Thanks for the critique. I didn't think it was very convincing either:)

And if you want to talk about Wall Street and irrationality of financial markets historically, have a look at the pre-Enlightenment tulip mania in the Netherlands.
I was using Wall Street as an example, not a direct result of the Enlightenment.


Obedience to higher powers is and has always been enforced by people themselves. There are those who internalize it to such a degree that it does, in fact, appear to be divinely motivated. But its origin is strictly human.
I presume this view to be a Deistic one: God made the world, but currently does not influence our lives. Or is this saying that people are deluded into believing in higher powers that are actually non-existent?

But, to the point, I don't see how the supposed nature of man has any bearing on whether or not God exists any more than the nature of clams does.
Man is much more special then the clams. He is a rational being, and he has a soul, unlike dogs. Maybe some believe that man is no different than the rest of the creatures, but I find this to be a rather ignorant(uninformed) belief.

[JJuggle]

I was using Wall Street as an example, not a direct result of the Enlightenment.
Fair enough, but you did specifically identify the Wall Street culture as an example of non-accountability which you also traced back to the Enlightenment.

I presume this view to be a Deistic one: God made the world, but currently does not influence our lives. Or is this saying that people are deluded into believing in higher powers that are actually non-existent?
I would not use a word as strong as deluded, but the latter sums up my position.

Man is much more special then the clams. He is a rational being, and he has a soul, unlike dogs. Maybe some believe that man is no different than the rest of the creatures, but I find this to be a rather ignorant(uninformed) belief.
I certainly believe that man is special to man, but not in any grand scheme. Honestly, I will have to plead ignorance according to your world view.

[uni57]

while YOU may believe in a dog heaven, do you consider that your dogs do too?The Christian God denies dogs access to Heaven. Animals have no souls, thus they do not have eternal life. Why would your dog believe in such a God? A God who refuses to "deliver the goods."

No, Billy. Your dog is not a Christian dog. I'm sure your dog is a atheist. Just like you once were.

Do I read you accurately?Why the sudden shift?

[BillyTheMountain]

John,

Would you say newborns are also agnostics? Most atheists would claim newborns as atheists, since they display no faith in the existence of GOD.

I also think agnosticism is a position the individual must affirm himself/itself. I's not something others can attribute to a creature just because WE aren't sure what the dog's position is. You go too far.

If you are correct, then you oppose DisgruntledDave who says rocks are atheist--and you might hold rocks are agnostic.

Do I read you accurately?

Billy

The Christian God denies dogs access to Heaven. Animals have no souls, thus they do not have eternal life. Why would your dog believe in such a God? A God who refuses to "deliver the goods."

No, Billy. Your dog is not a Christian dog. I'm sure your dog is an atheist. Just like you once were.


Dave,

Very interesting! We so often see eye-to-eye, and of course you were the one who helped convince me that atheism is not a Faith, and that dogs and babies are atheists. Here it is again: We think just the same!! So often when I see your posts, I think: WOW! I could have written that, if I only had Dave's presence of mind.

It seems that JohnFoss is alone in classifying dogs and other critters as agnostics. That doesn't mean he's wrong. But I'd like to get HIS response to these questions.

You say the Christian God denies dogs access to Heaven. Would you happen to know if the Jewish G-D does too?

Billy

[kevinalexandersmith]

The Christian God denies dogs access to Heaven. Animals have no souls, thus they do not have eternal life. Why would your dog believe in such a God? A God who refuses to "deliver the goods."

The Bible makes no claims either way regarding animals’ spirits:

Elesiastes 3: 18-21 (NIV)
"18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?""

I’m sure you won’t be surprised to find that just because some Christian or church said something once doesn’t mean it’s in scripture.

[saskatchewanian]

The Bible makes no claims either way regarding animals’ spirits:

Elesiastes 3: 18-21 (NIV)
"18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?""

I’m sure you won’t be surprised to find that just because some Christian or church said something once doesn’t mean it’s in scripture.

Cool, Thanks Kevin for that bit of scripture. Personally I think that Genesis is the most destructive part of the bible. This helps bring people a bit closer to nature. I wish that there was more stuff about stewardship instead of subduction and dominion over nature in the bible.

If anyone cares about my opinions I say that Babies are born atheistic and are atheistic until they are exposed to the ideas of theism at which point they will become either theistic, agnostic, or start to have reasons to believe in their atheism.

Rocks do not think and therefore can not be theistic, atheistic, or agnostic.

Dogs on the other hand do think but we do not know what they think. they could in fact be theistic, atheistic, or if they are smart enough they could even to really question the subject be agnostic.

[Biggestbtc]

I certainly believe that man is special to man, but not in any grand scheme. Honestly, I will have to plead ignorance according to your world view.

So you think that man, although unique in the facts that he has a soul and is capable of not acting out of instinct, along with many other distinctions, is in the big picture of no more significance than the animals? If this is so, then I understand you to be coming from an evolutionary/atheistic world view. From your standpoint, it would make sense because we all came from the same primordial swamp, therefore all are equal. I, however, believe that man is over the animals, but not over them as a cruel overlord.

[unibikeling]

So you think that man, although unique in the facts that he has a soul and is capable of not acting out of instinct, along with many other distinctions, is in the big picture of no more significance than the animals? If this is so, then I understand you to be coming from an evolutionary/atheistic world view. From your standpoint, it would make sense because we all came from the same primordial swamp, therefore all are equal. I, however, believe that man is over the animals, but not over them as a cruel overlord.

well, were over animals in how much we've evolved, but really other than that i dont see it as being over animals. Idk, i dont we should use animals for food or anything either. Well, more so the cruelty and things that go into it, i dont believe in anything that requires anything to die really.

Chase.

[JJuggle]

So you think that man, although unique in the facts that he has a soul and is capable of not acting out of instinct,
I do not believe in souls except perhaps metaphorically. It seems to me that humans live in constant conflict with their instincts. I think it's pretty clear that this is both an advantage and disadvantage. I suspect the advantages outweigh the disadvantages but don't know the cost.

along with many other distinctions, is in the big picture of no more significance than the animals?[quote]
Correct.

[quote]If this is so, then I understand you to be coming from an evolutionary/atheistic world view. From your standpoint, it would make sense because we all came from the same primordial swamp, therefore all are equal.
Also correct.

I, however, believe that man is over the animals, but not over them as a cruel overlord.
How over the animals would you be if you found yourself naked and alone in the savanna surrounded by a pride of hungry lions? Or how over them are you when rabbits and moles are eating your garden? And by this I mean simply that humans by virtue of their intelligence and use of tools certainly have exhibited advantages and control over the other animals. But there are still many ways, significant and trivial, in which animals thwart human intentions and prove that we are in a constant struggle with them, not in full control of them.

[Biggestbtc]

How over the animals would you be if you found yourself naked and alone in the savanna surrounded by a pride of hungry lions? Or how over them are you when rabbits and moles are eating your garden? And by this I mean simply that humans by virtue of their intelligence and use of tools certainly have exhibited advantages and control over the other animals. But there are still many ways, significant and trivial, in which animals thwart human intentions and prove that we are in a constant struggle with them, not in full control of them.
Just because we are supposed to be over the animals, it doesn't mean that we are always found in such a position.:rolleyes: As for those nasty critters in the cabbages: There are ways to prevent such things, but under some circumstances, killing them would not be wrong. That's all for now.

[JJuggle]

That's all for now.
Do you find me tiresome?

[Biggestbtc]

Do you find me tiresome?

No,(lol) I had to go:):)

[uni57]

No,(lol) I had to go:):)You had to "go" (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74048)?

[BillyTheMountain]

I do not believe in souls



If you found yourself naked and alone in the savanna surrounded by a pride of hungry unicyclists?

My dog is with you on that first statement.

That second one sounds like the start of a great story.

[JJuggle]

That second one sounds like the start of a great story.
I recall a t-shirt that would illustrate, but can't find a link.

[JJuggle]

If you found yourself naked and alone in the savanna surrounded by a pride of hungry unicyclists?

...sounds like the start of a great story.
Got it. The story would start hereabouts:

[BillyTheMountain]

John,

Would you say newborns are also agnostics? Most atheists would claim newborns as atheists, since they display no faith in the existence of GOD.

I also think agnosticism is a position the individual must affirm himself/itself. I's not something others can attribute to a creature just because WE aren't sure what the dog's position is. You go too far.

If you are correct, then you oppose DisgruntledDave who says rocks are atheist--and you might hold rocks are agnostic.

Do I read you accurately?

Billy

John? Are you there?

I recall a t-shirt that would illustrate, but can't find a link.

Raphael,

Only a GODless heathen would put those 5 lovely ladies, navels and all, on a tee shirt. And none of them are atheists, and none would date an atheist, though they would LOVE my dog, despite her atheism.

Billy

[JJuggle]

Only a GODless heathen would put those 5 lovely ladies, navels and all, on a tee shirt. And none of them are atheists, and none would date an atheist, though they would LOVE my dog, despite her atheism.
Billy, there is at least one flagrant contradiction in the above. There may be more, but one is enough for me.

[Biggestbtc]

You had to "go" (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74048)?

Really now...Let's not be twisting each other's statements.:rolleyes:

I probably don't have any profitable insight to add to this thread since it now is caught up in the theisticness of dogs and rocks. I have neither a pet dog nor a pet rock, so my experience is limited in these matters.;)

[JJuggle]

Apropos of nothing, I happen to enjoy Sally Forth:

[johnfoss]

I, however, believe that man is over the animals, but not over them as a cruel overlord.I agree with the first part of your statement, but not the second. Not only do we act as cruel overlords over most of the animal kingdom, we do the same to each other.

I believe we are "over" the (other) animals by virtue of being at the top of the food chain. Beyond that, it's up to us to make responsible decisions. We have a long way to go on that, and the Bible doesn't necessarily have all the right answers for what to do about it in today's world.

For Billy:
You asked if I consider newborns to be agnostics, and claimed most atheists would claim newborns as atheists, since they display no faith in the existence of GOD.

Again you speak, out of turn, for atheists. Unless you have a group of atheists who do indeed make the above claim, and a way to show they are in the majority.
I also think agnosticism is a position the individual must affirm himself/itself.I think we're running into the blurry edges of our definitions. To me, an atheist is a person who decides he or she does not believe in the existence of deities. To make such a decision one must first be confronted with the idea that there may be (at least) one. For a baby, they start out without considering such a thing (unless someone can prove otherwise). I consider a new baby to be mostly a blank slate intellectually. Though they have experiences and memories from life in the womb, I think it's pretty basic and not very philosophical. To a baby, God is probably Mommy. In fact, a baby with good support, love and nurturing probably has no need for God, as long as they're a helpless baby who does relatively nothing for him/herself. It's not until you start to do stuff on your own that it starts to matter to the individual.

So you have to *decide* to be atheist, or theist. If you are raised theist, it is probably assumed you are theist from day one. If you are raised atheist you are probably assumed to be the opposite, or at least agnostic.

To me, agnostic means you're on the fence. It's the "default" position for someone who has not considered the question. In other words, if you've never thought about gods or deities, you haven't had a chance to be an atheist yet. To continue with that line of thinking, a dog is an agnostic because we give him the benefit of the doubt; we don't know what he's thinking. And a rock is neither theist, atheist or agnostic. Rocks don't think at all. They're just rocks.

[wobbling bear]

If anyone cares about my opinions I say that Babies are born atheistic and are atheistic until they are exposed to the ideas of theism at which point they will become either theistic, agnostic, or start to have reasons to believe in their atheism.

not so sure: one recent article in "scientific american" pointed to "patternicity". That is: humans try to make sense of mixed signals ... including when those are just noise. I am not sure the explanation is accurate but the article says that evolution favoured those who tried to read patterns because if you think you spotted a tiger and there is none no dire consequence ensue ... the reverse is not true.
So if spotting things and building patterns around is an ingrained ability then babies could draw "supernatural" causality fairly quickly. Afterward culture gets in the way and propose standard patterns such as god, goddesses and so on. Some sociologists pretend that religious people have in fact more causality needs than atheists (and even more than those who rely on science)

[phlegm]

Anne Rice on her break with atheism in podcast form. (http://radio.nationalreview.com/betweenthecovers/post/?q=Y2M2ZGE1OTZlYTU0YzExYjNlYTVhZjY2ZDVjZGI4YzM=)

Speaking of her Catholic faith, Anne Rice, author of Called Out of Darkness, says, “I broke with my faith in a tragic way, really, for me. It was a tragic and sad thing. And I was never happy until I went back thirty-eight years later.”

[BillyTheMountain]

In fact, a baby with good support, love and nurturing probably has no need for God, as long as they're a helpless baby who does relatively nothing for him/herself. It's not until you start to do stuff on your own that it starts to matter to the individual.


are you saying when you do nothing for yourself you have no need for GOD, but later you do?

what of those who have a need for NO-GOD, the atheists, as distinct from the agnostics and the Faithful who have no such need?

not so sure: one recent article in "scientific american" pointed to "patternicity". That is: humans try to make sense of mixed signals ... including when those are just noise. I am not sure the explanation is accurate but the article says that evolution favoured those who tried to read patterns because if you think you spotted a tiger and there is none no dire consequence ensue ... the reverse is not true.
So if spotting things and building patterns around is an ingrained ability then babies could draw "supernatural" causality fairly quickly. Afterward culture gets in the way and propose standard patterns such as god, goddesses and so on. Some sociologists pretend that religious people have in fact more causality needs than atheists (and even more than those who rely on science)

It's adaptive to detect patterns. The monkey that jumps away from anything that resembles a snake (curly green twigs, vines, etc) is more likely to detect a real snake and jump away from it.

Those monkeys are here, the others are extinct.

[JJuggle]

what of those who have a need for NO-GOD, the atheists, as distinct from the agnostics and the Faithful who have no such need?
Are you implying that agnostics and the Faithful are free from need?

[BillyTheMountain]

Are you implying that agnostics and the Faithful are free from need?

Not at all; I was just trying to speak John's language. I don't actually understand "need" as distinct from, say, want.

According to Wiki, to most psychologists, a need is as a psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a goal and the reason for the action, giving purpose and direction to behavior.

One of the problems with a psychological theory of needs is that conceptions of "need" may vary radically between different cultures or different parts of the same society. One person's view of need may easily be seen as paternalistic by another.

The second view of need is represented by the work by political economy professor Ian Gough. Their view goes beyond the emphasis on psychology: it might be said that an individual's needs are representative of the costs of being human within society. A person who does not have his or her sexual needs fulfilled -- i.e., a "needy" person -- will function poorly in society.

In the view of Gough and Doyal, each of us needs to have both physical health and personal autonomy.

[johnfoss]

are you saying when you do nothing for yourself you have no need for GOD, but later you do?That is my theory. For the baby who is well taken-care of, Mommy and Daddy are God (effectively, not by the baby's definition), and until baby starts wondering about a larger world, such things probably don't occur to him/her.
what of those who have a need for NO-GOD, the atheists, as distinct from the agnostics and the Faithful who have no such need?Your assumed need for "no-God" is the equivalent of the theist's need for God. It's not necessarily a need, it's a belief or faith.

[BillyTheMountain]

That is my theory. For the baby who is well taken-care of, Mommy and Daddy are God (effectively, not by the baby's definition), and until baby starts wondering about a larger world, such things probably don't occur to him/her.
Your assumed need for "no-God" is the equivalent of the theist's need for God. It's not necessarily a need, it's a belief or faith.

If you're saying the atheist's need for "no-GOD" is a belief or Faith, you're gonna be in a lot of trouble from the atheists.

[saskatchewanian]

Not likely. Some might take issue with calling it a faith but atheism is definitely a belief.

I am not sure where you get the idea that we have a need for there to be no god. We need no "god", we do not need "no god"

[kevinalexandersmith]

Will this work for everybody:

Atheist:
“God isn’t real, so nobody needs Him.”

Theist:
“God is real, so everybody needs Him, if they know it or not.”

Agnostic:
“If God is real, I might need Him and I might not.”

Baby:
“gaa gaa gaa”

Dog:
“arrffh! arrffh!”

Rock:
" ”

[zogola]

Will this work for everybody:

Atheist:
“God isn’t real, so nobody needs Him.”

Theist:
“God is real, so everybody needs Him, if they know it or not.”

Agnostic:
“If God is real, I might need Him and I might not.”

Baby:
“gaa gaa gaa”

Dog:
“arrffh! arrffh!”

Rock:
" ”

Your post certainly works for this atheist. My dog, however, feels that his quote has been taken out of context.

Kurt

[Spudman]

Will this work for everybody:

Atheist:
“God isn’t real, so nobody needs Him.”

Theist:
“God is real, so everybody needs Him, if they know it or not.”

Agnostic:
“If God is real, I might need Him and I might not.”

Baby:
“gaa gaa gaa”

Dog:
“arrffh! arrffh!”

Rock:
" ”

Eh, maybe not exactly how I'd phrase it. An atheist certainly doesn't need god, but I don't think all atheists would suggest that nobody needs god. I think some people are better off believing in him.

[Jerrick]

Eh, maybe not exactly how I'd phrase it. An atheist certainly doesn't need god, but I don't think all atheists would suggest that nobody needs god. I think some people are better off believing in him.

An athiest would say people should need something that they themselves do not believe exist? Interesting.

[johnfoss]

An athiest would say people should need something that they themselves do not believe exist?Yes. God "works" for millions of people. Many people develop faith after life-threatening or life-changing experiences, and many become better people as a result.

[wobbling bear]

Yes. God "works" for millions of people. Many people develop faith after life-threatening or life-changing experiences, and many become better people as a result.
as a stubborn atheist myself I fully support this assertion!
you may even develop faith for other reasons (even pure intelectual ones).
I just wish that most "believers" could accept the reverse option: you can have no faith, no metaphysical angst and have a respectable path in life.

[LLAHDEG]

If there was no God there would be no classical music, beer or chocolate.

[johnfoss]

If there was no God there would be no classical music, beer or chocolate.You mean church, of course, not necessarily God. I know enough about the origins of classical music and beer to follow your logic, but the origins of chocolate are unknown to me. Now I'm curious! I remember taking a tour of a plantation in Jamaica, which included some cocoa bean plants, and an explanation of how you get from the slimy white beans to what we know as chocolate. What's the church connection?

[saskatchewanian]

If there was no God there would be no classical music, beer or chocolate.

Beer and chocolate without (before) the catholic church (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/11/071112-chocolate.html):)

[mscalisi]

To me, agnostic means you're on the fence. It's the "default" position for someone who has not considered the question. In other words, if you've never thought about gods or deities, you haven't had a chance to be an atheist yet. To continue with that line of thinking, a dog is an agnostic because we give him the benefit of the doubt; we don't know what he's thinking. And a rock is neither theist, atheist or agnostic. Rocks don't think at all. They're just rocks.

As someone who identifies as agnostic, my thoughts on what it means are a bit different than yours. I don't think of myself as being "on the fence" or of agnosticism as a "default" or neutral position. Indeed, I've put lots of thought into my position on faith.

To me, agnosticism means embracing the fact that given the limitations of the human experience, there are questions for which the answers are simply unknowable.

[johnfoss]

To me, agnosticism means embracing the fact that given the limitations of the human experience, there are questions for which the answers are simply unknowable.Okay, but then from a faith point of view, doesn't that put you on the fence? Not to imply this is a bad thing. My use of the fence just means you don't have strong convictions (or faith) in either direction. To me, an atheist is someone who believes (with or without claim of fact) that God is fiction, man-made, whatever. A theist believes (with or without claim of fact) in one or more non-human Gods. I'm sure other people will have differing ways to label all of this.

Saskatchewanian, thanks for the link! Like the development of chocolate as described on my tour, getting chocolate from those yukky seed pods must have required a lot of experimentation by a lot of people with a lot of time on their hands! :)

[GizmoDuck]

As someone who identifies as agnostic, my thoughts on what it means are a bit different than yours. I don't think of myself as being "on the fence" or of agnosticism as a "default" or neutral position. Indeed, I've put lots of thought into my position on faith.

To me, agnosticism means embracing the fact that given the limitations of the human experience, there are questions for which the answers are simply unknowable.

I agree with Mike. I'm agnostic too...and it's by no means sitting on the fence. As an Agnostic I do have strong convictions....and that is that there could potentially be a god. The Universe is an amazingly complex place and it may well have been created by some higher entity. But there is absolutely no way of knowing, and there is no way you do either. If you think you do, you're deluding yourself. That goes for Atheists as well as Theists.

To me, all religions...whether you worship Allah, God, Zeus or if you were a tribesman worshipping your local volcano....is entirely made up. None of the religious texts to me read more than fanciful fairytales of human imagination.

I'm not against the idea of there being a higher 'being' or deity if you like. But if there is a god, they did not make up the physical laws of the universe for, say, someone like Moses to part the sea. Have you seen any 'miracles' occur that goes against the laws of the physics? These are what humans have created to explain their reason for being, and to try and give an answer to the question: "why am I here and who made me?" Making something up doesn't mean it's true.

[unifreak7]

Have you seen any 'miracles' occur that goes against the laws of the physics?

9/11 being done by terrorists.

(Had to open that book)



On a different note. I'm currently working on a belief system, sub system of atheism. It involves answers to basically everything today, uses quantum mechanics and the collective unconscience as it's main tools, and allows for humans to not be capable of knowning everything. (Provides limits to the human brain.) It's picking up the dropped pieces of other religions and actually describing them. And to be honest, there is evidence of this, tests already done, and nothing controdicts anything else. Why not create a belief system?

[kevinalexandersmith]

I'm currently working on a belief system, sub system of atheism. It involves answers to basically everything today, uses quantum mechanics and the collective unconscience as it's main tools, and allows for humans to not be capable of knowning everything. (Provides limits to the human brain.) It's picking up the dropped pieces of other religions and actually describing them. And to be honest, there is evidence of this, tests already done, and nothing controdicts anything else. Why not create a belief system?hmmmMaking something up doesn't mean it's true.

[BillyTheMountain]

An atheist certainly doesn't need god.

atheists need no-GOD.

anything else would truly disturb their world view.

[wobbling bear]

I agree with Mike. I'm agnostic too....
it looks like there are different flavors of agnosticism ..
I think that many (most?) atheists think that many problems are "undecidable" (sometime we can even prove this!), plus they do not feel "concerned" by some questions that nag believers (life after death, purpose of "man", etc.).
So , to some extent, they are also agnostics.... except that their position towards deities or supernatural phenomenons is more definite (I mean , for example, that I am pretty sure that "miracles" do happen except that I do not try to map the same rationale as believers).

[GizmoDuck]

it looks like there are different flavors of agnosticism ..
I think that many (most?) atheists think that many problems are "undecidable" (sometime we can even prove this!), plus they do not feel "concerned" by some questions that nag believers (life after death, purpose of "man", etc.).
So , to some extent, they are also agnostics.... except that their position towards deities or supernatural phenomenons is more definite (I mean , for example, that I am pretty sure that "miracles" do happen except that I do not try to map the same rationale as believers).

I think that makes you Agnostic rather than Atheist. From what I understand, Atheists believe that there is definitely NO god or higher deity, and that they couldn't possibly exist.

There are different types of agnosticism, but what I described certainly can't be classified as Atheism.

[JJuggle]

atheists need no-GOD.

anything else would truly disturb their world view.
theists/deists need GOD.

anything else would truly disturb their world view.

[LLAHDEG]

getting chocolate from those yukky seed pods must have required a lot of experimentation by a lot of people with a lot of time on their hands!

Not really - they were guided by God.

[wobbling bear]

I think that makes you Agnostic rather than Atheist. From what I understand, Atheists believe that there is definitely NO god or higher deity, and that they couldn't possibly exist..
While not fearing a Labelling debate I still strongly qualify myself as Atheist. The reason for having NO deity in my vision is slightly different: I can't prove there is no deity but :
1) Occam's razor makes me lean towards this hypothesis (and after all nobody proved deity physically existed except in the mind of people)
2) I have sufficient reasons to figure why the deity thing makes sense for a lot of people (and many of these reasons I respect).
Hence I am a dyed-in-the-wool Atheist that does not fear attending various religious services (not for hypocritical reasons: I sincerely share with true believers).
Hey what's a "true" believer? someone whose faith is sufficiently solid not to feel menaced or challenged by the sheer existence of an atheist nearby!

[kevinalexandersmith]

Occam's razor makes me lean towards this hypothesisThe simplest explanation for creation is a creator.

However, I really like your “I’m ok, you’re ok” attitude towards theists.

[JJuggle]

The simplest explanation for creation is a creator.
At the risk of pointlessly coming full circle, one must ask what the simplest explanation for a creator is.

[phlegm]

I agree with Mike. I'm agnostic too...and it's by no means sitting on the fence. As an Agnostic I do have strong convictions....and that is that there could potentially be a god. The Universe is an amazingly complex place and it may well have been created by some higher entity. But there is absolutely no way of knowing, and there is no way you do either. If you think you do, you're deluding yourself. That goes for Atheists as well as Theists.

You and Mike are making me feel like an agnostic. I jump off the agnostic boat and dive into the sea of theism by placing my faith in humanity. All knowledge, if questioned enough, ultimately relies on human constructed ideas with indeterminate objective truth value. So, the possibility of a higher power and the fact that the concept exists in many, many diverse cultures is good enough for me, and I trust that humanity has done its best to construct knowledge about he/she/it.

Why not create a belief system?

Why not reinvent the wheel?

[kevinalexandersmith]

At the risk of pointlessly coming full circle, one must ask what the simplest explanation for a creator is.When I’m riding my 29er downtown and I see some graffiti tags, the simplest explanation is that an artist created the tag. I suppose some incredibly unlikely circumstances could have caused the wall to discolor in a way that indicates this is “Vatos Locos” territory, but it was probably created by an artist.

I don’t have to come up with an explanation for the existence of that artist, to realize that the artist is the simplest explanation for the art. The tag tells me that guy exists without explaining how that guy came to be. In the same way, creation tells us the Creator exists without explaining how He came to be.

Not having an explanation for the artist might make you say to yourself that the tag occurred naturally, but I wouldn’t flash any “Latin Kings” gang signs downtown if I were you.

Before you say it Billy, No I do not think God is a Cholo.

[BillyTheMountain]

theists/deists need GOD.

anything else would truly disturb their world view.

and your point?

[JJuggle]

and your point?
That you sometimes make serious statements that seem to be full of meaning, but are not.

[BillyTheMountain]

That you sometimes make serious statements that seem to be full of meaning, but are not.

OooO OoooO

You pwnd me!!

Ouch!

[JJuggle]

OooO OoooO

You pwnd me!!

Ouch!
Then my work is done.

[BillyTheMountain]

While not fearing a Labelling debate I still strongly qualify myself as Atheist. The reason for having NO deity in my vision is slightly different: I can't prove there is no deity but :
1) Occam's razor makes me lean towards this hypothesis (and after all nobody proved deity physically existed except in the mind of people)
2) I have sufficient reasons to figure why the deity thing makes sense for a lot of people (and many of these reasons I respect).
Hence I am a dyed-in-the-wool Atheist that does not fear attending various religious services (not for hypocritical reasons: I sincerely share with true believers).
Hey what's a "true" believer? someone whose faith is sufficiently solid not to feel menaced or challenged by the sheer existence of an atheist nearby!

Can you prove love exists?

Even to the person who has never experienced it?

If you never experienced love, would you insist it does not exist?

[JJuggle]

Can you prove love exists?

Even to the person who has never experienced it?

If you never experienced love, would you insist it does not exist?
I can not prove that love exists. However, since I have never claimed that matter or energy that did not previously exist ever sprung forth from or were created by love, I'm not sure what the relevance is.

I am not sure, however, that scientists in laboratories have not identified brain activity that is common to those experiencing love and published their findings. This would be evidence, if not out and out proof, that love exists.

[BillyTheMountain]

I can not prove that love exists. However, since I have never claimed that matter or energy that did not previously exist ever sprung forth from or were created by love, I'm not sure what the relevance is.

I am not sure, however, that scientists in laboratories have not identified brain activity that is common to those experiencing love and published their findings. This would be evidence, if not out and out proof, that love exists.

I never made any such claims either. Why bring up irrelevant stuff, you pwn?

I know you've been out of the loop, but the widely popular saying is "GOD is LOVE." http://www.kriyayoga.com/love/god.html

And brain activity is proof of nothing outside of brain activity. There are no consistent correlations with anything but ALIVE= brainwaves; DEAD= little or no brainwaves.

[JJuggle]

I know you've been out of the loop, but the widely popular saying is "GOD is LOVE." http://www.kriyayoga.com/love/god.html
Christ, is that what that's all about?

Well, then hell, I can prove via Ray Charles that both God and Love exist.

[BillyTheMountain]

Christ, is that what that's all about?

Well, then hell, I can prove via Ray Charles that both God and Love exist.

There you go!

Would you continue to believe in one and not the other?

The first requirement of atheism is to define GOD such that you cannot possibly believe in GOD. The Faithful each define GOD in a personal way which allows their faith to endure.

Just look at the gun-toting, war-monging, anti-gay, so-called christians, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, etc, who have created an idol in their own image, name it GOD, then claim to believe in GOD.

What do you call those people?

[JJuggle]

The first requirement of atheism is to define GOD such that you cannot possibly believe in GOD.
That sounds really deep but is completely meaningless.

The Faithful each define GOD in a personal way which allows their faith to endure.
I salute them.

Just look at the gun-toting, war-monging, anti-gay, so-called christians, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, etc, who have created an idol in their own image, name it GOD, then claim to believe in GOD.

What do you call those people?
I call them people.

[BillyTheMountain]

That sounds really deep but is completely meaningless.


I salute them.


I call them people.

Raphael,

So not only have you lost your imagination, you cannot find the meaning in simple things.

I'm glad you're still respectful of homophobic war mongers, many find it hard to be so compassionate.

Billy

[JJuggle]

So not only have you lost your imagination, you cannot find the meaning in simple things.

I'm glad you're still respectful of homophobic war mongers, many find it hard to be so compassionate.
Oh my poor, poor, twisted words. I weep for thee.

[BillyTheMountain]

Oh my poor, poor, twisted words. I weep for thee.

Raphael,

YOU call them people.

Many people are not that kind.

Thus, your words.

You are always welcome to correct us, GOD willing.

Billy

[JJuggle]

Raphael,

YOU call them people.

Many people are not that kind.

Thus, your words.

You are always welcome to correct us, GOD willing.

Billy
Oops. I meant the other words only. ;) :(

[BillyTheMountain]

Just look at the gun-toting, war-monging, anti-gay, so-called christians, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, etc, who have created an idol in their own image, name it GOD, then claim to believe in GOD.

What do you call those people?



I call them people.

Raphael,

So not only have you lost your imagination, you cannot find the meaning in simple things.

I'm glad you're still respectful of homophobic war mongers, many find it hard to be so compassionate.

Billy

Oh my poor, poor, twisted words. I weep for thee.

Raphael,

YOU call them people.

Many people are not that kind.

Thus, your words.

You are always welcome to correct us, GOD willing.

Billy

Oops. I meant the other words only. ;) :(

Raphael,

Wow!

After all you've pwnd me, this is refreshing!

Your epitaph could be:

Here lies Raphael Lazar.
"The Greatest Man On Earth: 1958-2060"

Billy

[JJuggle]

Raphael,

Wow!

After all you've pwnd me, this is refreshing!

Your epitaph could be:

Here lies Raphael Lazar.
"The Greatest Man On Earth: 1958-2060"

Billy
And Billy yours could read:

"Although he did, he couldn't let IT die"

[BillyTheMountain]

And Billy yours could read:

"Although he did, he couldn't let IT die"

OOooOO.

pwnd AGAIN!!!

[kevinalexandersmith]

Billy, Raphael, can’t you two see that you fight because, deep down, you’re really passionately in love with each other.

[JJuggle]

Bwahahaha!!!

Soon we will have Billy in chains. (And isn't that the point?)

Bwahahaha!!!

More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html)

[Biggestbtc]

Bwahahaha!!!

Soon we will have Billy in chains. (And isn't that the point?)

Bwahahaha!!!

More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html)
It took a while for that to come out...

[MuniAddict]

George Carlin Quotes:

"Atheism is a Non Prophet Organization".

“I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a whole lot more as they get older; then it dawned on me . . they're cramming for their final exam.”

“I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.”

"We created god in our own image and likeness!"

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you." :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: