|
MindGorilla
Stranger
Registered: 10/27/06
Posts: 285
Loc: Detroit
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
|
Atheist welcome!
#10138465 - 04/09/09 06:57 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Define God and which sense of exist you're using. Exist in physical reality? Exist in the same sense as numbers exist? How about in the same sense as thoughts? Or do you mean God in some transcendent state of exists?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 26 minutes
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10138486 - 04/09/09 07:00 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I have a lot of respect for agnostics... atheists are waaaay too assertive
though if you define theism narrowly as a judeochristian monotheistic God etc... I can totally dig the leanings that way
but to assert that your sense organs are enough data feed to discredit the possibility of _any_ theological dimension to life... I dunno... way too assertive to me
--------------------
|
MindGorilla
Stranger
Registered: 10/27/06
Posts: 285
Loc: Detroit
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10138502 - 04/09/09 07:03 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
hmm good question, as something that is either real or not real in whatever context you choose.
and the question i must ask you deCypher, is existing in physical reality an actual trait, is there any difference of that which exist in mind?
Edited by MindGorilla (04/09/09 07:04 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Well, for "soft" atheism(lack of belief in God), they would simply point to the lack of physical evidence of God. They would say that if you can explain the universe without God, then God is not necessary, and therefore there is no reason to assume that God exists. Their position is that the burden of proof is on the believer.
"Hard" atheism(active disbelief in God) has a harder case to argue, and I think it tends to come more from a visceral reaction against religion than out of any reasoned arguments.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
MindGorilla said: hmm good question, as something that is either real or not real in whatever context you choose.
Then sure, God exists as an idea in my head. You allowed me to pick the easy way out.
Quote:
MindGorilla said: and the question i must ask you deCypher, is existing in physical reality an actual trait, is there any difference of that which exist in mind?
I'd say ultimately both physical and mental are merely different properties of the same fundamental substance, so any difference between that which exists in the one versus the other would merely be a matter of perspective.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Well, for "soft" atheism(lack of belief in God), they would simply point to the lack of physical evidence of God.
Possibly one of the silliest notions I have ever heard. Spirits aren't material.
Quote:
They would say that if you can explain the universe without God, then God is not necessary, and therefore there is no reason to assume that God exists.
A feat no one has mastered. Though some turn to evolution, the other creation story.
Quote:
Their position is that the burden of proof is on the believer.
A loaded question most of the time. If God is a spirit, the best evidence for His existence would likewise be spiritual.
Quote:
"Hard" atheism(active disbelief in God) has a harder case to argue, and I think it tends to come more from a visceral reaction against religion than out of any reasoned arguments.
Indeed. And the counter argument is found in scripture.
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." No one can provide evidence for a negative.
--------------------
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
So spiritual is not physical and you know this how? I rather suspect it is related to subatomic particles if it does exist.
-------------------- Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. "Chat your fraff Chat your fraff Just chat your fraff Chat your fraff"
|
Chronic7
Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 13,679
|
|
People don't think God exists because God is not a thought that is thinkable, you cant think about God, see God, touch God or know God, its beyond all comprehension & beyond all the senses, its indefinable
People who have come into realization of God say God is love, bliss, pure compassion etc... some people can't understand this as life is full of terrible horrific suffering so they say "where is God now?"
If your load of suffering fully burns it will bring you into union, people don't realize God because they are running from their suffering, as we all are to some extent, also the arrogance of the ego just recoils at the slightest mention of the G word. "Something superior to ME!!!???" Secretly, deep down, every ego thinks they are the highest, as the ego is the reflection of the highest!
Ignorance blocks the natural realization of God, theres no way round it, sorry!
--------------------
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Chronic7]
#10140819 - 04/10/09 05:23 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
There is no argument that can prove that god does not exist because God can be anything. You can show that the christian god does not exist though
--------------------
|
Jethro Tull
Oneness
Registered: 02/14/09
Posts: 467
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Chronic7]
#10141119 - 04/10/09 08:25 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chronic777 said: People don't think God exists because God is not a thought that is thinkable, you cant think about God, see God, touch God or know God, its beyond all comprehension & beyond all the senses, its indefinable
People who have come into realization of God say God is love, bliss, pure compassion etc... some people can't understand this as life is full of terrible horrific suffering so they say "where is God now?"
If your load of suffering fully burns it will bring you into union, people don't realize God because they are running from their suffering, as we all are to some extent, also the arrogance of the ego just recoils at the slightest mention of the G word. "Something superior to ME!!!???" Secretly, deep down, every ego thinks they are the highest, as the ego is the reflection of the highest!
Ignorance blocks the natural realization of God, theres no way round it, sorry!
"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It’s as simple as that." Joseph Campbell
-------------------- ..and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make. DC at: Oneness
|
Swyfty Swyf
Shrugsy Shrugs
Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 7,113
Loc: North Alabama
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Well, for "soft" atheism(lack of belief in God), they would simply point to the lack of physical evidence of God. They would say that if you can explain the universe without God, then God is not necessary, and therefore there is no reason to assume that God exists. Their position is that the burden of proof is on the believer.
"Hard" atheism(active disbelief in God) has a harder case to argue, and I think it tends to come more from a visceral reaction against religion than out of any reasoned arguments.
"Agnosticism" is the term refering to the belief system for "soft" atheists.
-------------------- If you build it they will shrug.
|
Swyfty Swyf
Shrugsy Shrugs
Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 7,113
Loc: North Alabama
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Chronic7]
#10141332 - 04/10/09 09:16 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
People don't think God exists because God is not a thought that is thinkable, you cant think about God, see God, touch God or know God, its beyond all comprehension & beyond all the senses, its indefinable
God is definable and takes on differnet subjective definitions, but God's existence is undeniably unproven.
Quote:
People who have come into realization of God say God is love, bliss, pure compassion etc... some people can't understand this as life is full of terrible horrific suffering so they say "where is God now?"
Has anyone really come into a realization of God? Prove it.
Quote:
If your load of suffering fully burns it will bring you into union, people don't realize God because they are running from their suffering, as we all are to some extent, also the arrogance of the ego just recoils at the slightest mention of the G word. "Something superior to ME!!!???" Secretly, deep down, every ego thinks they are the highest, as the ego is the reflection of the highest!
Everyone goes through suffering, regardless of whether they believe in something currently unproven or not. To suggest that atheists/ agnostics are running from our suffering is almost as absurd as your statement that we are unable to accept a power greater than ourselves.
I am an agnostic, and I might be egotistical at times, but I don't think I am higher or more superior than anyone else. There are plenty of powers greater than myself, and some of them have badges and guns. Agnostics are much more humble than you give credit. We just don't believe things "just because." It has nothing to do with our personal interior conflicts, if we happen to have them.
Quote:
Ignorance blocks the natural realization of God, theres no way round it, sorry!
I think admitting my own ignorance has actually opened my mind to the immense possibilty that there is no God, and maybe I should get to work in order make some substance out of the things for which I have prayed.
|
Kukaracha
Cat wannabe
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1,682
|
|
I don't believe in God since it seems like a bag labelled "GOD" where people put the unkown and their expectations, such as "God created me" and "God is love".
Like making a big concept out of everything we don't know... and call it divinity, actually moving the unknown from the inside of the human world to the outside, the unexplainable, and finally coloring this "unexplainable" with the colors you like.
Saying: "Humans can completely understand and control their world, what they can not understand and control is God"
Denial of the world's absurdity and the human powerlessness.
What I say anyway is made of beliefs, too.
|
LSDreamer
Materialist
Registered: 03/11/08
Posts: 10,059
Last seen: 16 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Kukaracha]
#10141482 - 04/10/09 09:52 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The Ultimate Boeing 747 argument is fairly sound IMO. The Problem of Evil is pretty damaging to the concept of an omnibenevolent god. Also, free will and omniscience aren't too compatible. Et al. Nothing you haven't heard before, I'm sure.
--------------------
|
Swyfty Swyf
Shrugsy Shrugs
Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 7,113
Loc: North Alabama
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Kukaracha]
#10141485 - 04/10/09 09:53 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kukaracha said: I don't believe in God since it seems like a bag labelled "GOD" where people put the unkown and their expectations, such as "God created me" and "God is love".
Like making a big concept out of everything we don't know... and call it divinity, actually moving the unknown from the inside of the human world to the outside, the unexplainable, and finally coloring this "unexplainable" with the colors you like.
Saying: "Humans can completely understand and control their world, what they can not understand and control is God"
Denial of the world's absurdity and the human powerlessness.
What I say anyway is made of beliefs, too.
That sounds pretty observational and logical to me.
-------------------- If you build it they will shrug.
|
Swyfty Swyf
Shrugsy Shrugs
Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 7,113
Loc: North Alabama
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: LSDreamer]
#10141510 - 04/10/09 10:01 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LSDreamer said: The Ultimate Boeing 747 argument is fairly sound IMO. The Problem of Evil is pretty damaging to the concept of an omnibenevolent god. Also, free will and omniscience aren't too compatible. Et al. Nothing you haven't heard before, I'm sure.
Richard Dawkins is the man! A crane is more probable than a skyhook!
BTW, glad to see you got your avatar back.
As soon as you changed it, a n00b swiped it!
-------------------- If you build it they will shrug.
|
LSDreamer
Materialist
Registered: 03/11/08
Posts: 10,059
Last seen: 16 days, 7 hours
|
|
Quote:
Swyfty Swyf said:
Quote:
LSDreamer said: The Ultimate Boeing 747 argument is fairly sound IMO. The Problem of Evil is pretty damaging to the concept of an omnibenevolent god. Also, free will and omniscience aren't too compatible. Et al. Nothing you haven't heard before, I'm sure.
Richard Dawkins is the man! A crane is more probable than a skyhook!
BTW, glad to see you got your avatar back.
As soon as you changed it, a n00b swiped it!
Eh? I don't think I've changed my avatar since I registered.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
They would say that if you can explain the universe without God, then God is not necessary, and therefore there is no reason to assume that God exists.
A feat no one has mastered. Though some turn to evolution, the other creation story.
I'm sorry, your comment makes no sense. What do you mean by mastered? I know people who have mastered it. Veritas your nemesis in fact and she can adequately defend her position to boot, and I'm pretty close myself.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
#10142091 - 04/10/09 12:20 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Veritas your nemesis in fact and she can adequately defend her position to boot
Does this tie into the 'Hatred' thread?
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: LSDreamer]
#10142438 - 04/10/09 01:25 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Swyfty Swyf said: "Agnosticism" is the term refering to the belief system for "soft" atheists.
Well, not quite. Agnostics say that we just can't know whether or not there is a God. They are essentially neutral on it. Soft atheist actually doubt the existence of God, and put the burden of proof on the believer.
Quote:
LSDreamer said: The Ultimate Boeing 747 argument is fairly sound IMO. The Problem of Evil is pretty damaging to the concept of an omnibenevolent god. Also, free will and omniscience aren't too compatible. Et al. Nothing you haven't heard before, I'm sure.
That's certainly a good argument against a common mythical understanding of God, but doesn't defeat some of the more sophisticated theologies like process theology. I would refer those who hold such a position to the book Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes by Charles Hartshorne.
--------------------
|
Swyfty Swyf
Shrugsy Shrugs
Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 7,113
Loc: North Alabama
|
|
Oh, OK.
I refer to myself as agnostic, since I don't totally discount the idea, as an atheist would.
I guess by those standards I am more of a "soft" atheist, since I doubt the existance of God.
Thanks for the link on that book. I'm interested.
-------------------- If you build it they will shrug.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
I guess by those standards I am more of a "soft" atheist
Try anabolic steroids + weights.
--------------------
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 26 minutes
|
|
maybe he's just bloated
--------------------
|
Trepiodos
Disgustipated
Registered: 06/30/06
Posts: 469
Loc: Los Angeles County Jail
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: Spirits aren't material.
That is (more or less) the nature of fantasy, it is only material to the extent that it is a thought pattern in the brain of a material being.
-------------------- And as things fell apart, Nobody paid much attention... - David Byrne, '(Nothing But) Flowers' from the Talking Heads' album, 'Naked'
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Trepiodos]
#10144791 - 04/10/09 08:16 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why God does not exist?
Because basically: get on with your life.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
MindGorilla said: So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.
It's very simple: lack of evidence. I don't think that unicorns exist, for the same reason.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 26 minutes
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10147324 - 04/11/09 11:32 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
do you think a sustaining force exists to impart existence onto itself?
--------------------
|
sandman_130
Neo-Classical Spiritualist
Registered: 08/17/04
Posts: 1,443
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
|
No connection to the network.
Therefore, without ever feeling God, it seems absurd and infallible that a God would exist.
Take in part, if an unbeliever thinks that if their was a God, this would be a much better place.
But to the believer, they know why things are as hard and brutal as they might be, God is not here to save us. We can only save ourselves.
Not to mention the corruptness and bloodshed or all organized religions since the dawn of time. Why would a God have such stupid followers? Why would a God not show himself and take control of this planet?
All the answers are simple, but some have experienced no connection with God, and therefor find it useless to look for an answer about something that they believe is stupid.
-------------------- "There is a world beyond ours, a world that is far away, nearby, and invisible. And there is where God lives, where the dead live, the spirits and the saints, a world where everything has already happened and everything is known. That world talks. It has a language of its own. I report what it says. The sacred mushroom takes me by the hand and brings me to the world where everything is known. It is they, the sacred mushrooms, that speak in a way I can understand." Maria Sabina
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
sandman_130 said: Why would a God have such stupid followers? Why would a God not show himself and take control of this planet?
This is akin to asking why a human doesn't care about the trials and tribulations of ants.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10148147 - 04/11/09 02:21 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You should see my ant farm. I have named all 8023 of them. They are just soooo cute!
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
#405 is Jesus and #3067 is Mohammed?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10148174 - 04/11/09 02:28 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Um, no. Ant #405 is aptly named 'Ant #405'. I was on a shroom trip when the clever, yet deceptively simple, naming scheme hit me.
--------------------
|
Swyfty Swyf
Shrugsy Shrugs
Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 7,113
Loc: North Alabama
|
|
Quote:
sandman_130 said: No connection to the network.
Therefore, without ever feeling God, it seems absurd and infallible that a God would exist.
Take in part, if an unbeliever thinks that if their was a God, this would be a much better place.
But to the believer, they know why things are as hard and brutal as they might be, God is not here to save us. We can only save ourselves.
Not to mention the corruptness and bloodshed or all organized religions since the dawn of time. Why would a God have such stupid followers? Why would a God not show himself and take control of this planet?
All the answers are simple, but some have experienced no connection with God, and therefor find it useless to look for an answer about something that they believe is stupid.
Why would this world be a better place if atheists believed in something unproven? Are you implying that all atheists are unethical?
You think that "believers know things" that non-believers don't? Believers in what? You have not specified what your belief is. What "things" about the world being hard and brutal do believers have the inside scoop on, by possibly believing in make-believe?
What answers are simple? What proof do you have that you have "made a connection with God?"
Edited by Swyfty Swyf (04/11/09 03:59 PM)
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 26 minutes
|
|
to think of God as a personal being implies he is discrete
being discrete implies he has boundaries
boundaries imply he has a supportive space
if God is the source of all; what is the source of this supportive space?
to me... God cannot be personal... as being personal means being confined... which imparts the existence of a higher structure
perhaps minor God(s)... but the Supreme Source... would transcend all forms (imo)
--------------------
|
sandman_130
Neo-Classical Spiritualist
Registered: 08/17/04
Posts: 1,443
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Swyfty Swyf said:
Quote:
sandman_130 said: No connection to the network.
Therefore, without ever feeling God, it seems absurd and infallible that a God would exist.
Take in part, if an unbeliever thinks that if their was a God, this would be a much better place.
But to the believer, they know why things are as hard and brutal as they might be, God is not here to save us. We can only save ourselves.
Not to mention the corruptness and bloodshed or all organized religions since the dawn of time. Why would a God have such stupid followers? Why would a God not show himself and take control of this planet?
All the answers are simple, but some have experienced no connection with God, and therefor find it useless to look for an answer about something that they believe is stupid.
Why would this world be a better place if atheists believed in something unproven? Are you implying that all atheists are unethical?
You think that "believers know things" that non-believers don't? Believers in what? You have not specified what your belief is. What "things" about the world being hard and brutal do believers have the inside scoop on, by possibly believing in make-believe?
What answers are simple? What proof do you have that you have "made a connection with God?"
I have no idea where you came up with your first to 2 sentences...
I did not say that non-believers don't know things, they know many things, none of which are about God. Why would you want to know? I was in no way saying atheist's are dumb, but why would you care to learn about something that is considered childish and foolish. In fact, every atheist I have met, or talked to on here has come off as more intelligent than the average human. That alone makes it harder for one to believe in something when their is no scientific proof.
But their is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist....
Going through Hell only builds character, it shows you just how strong you can be. A person who understands the motives behind our existence understands this concept. On the other hand, every atheist I have talked to has always asked me the same question....why would this happen to me if their was a God? Lot's of spiritual believers think like that too, only because they do not understand these motives.
We all have met the kid who was spoiled and given everything, and never disciplined.
As children of God, are lives must be hard. Only the strong will survive, their is no room for weakness or self pity.
What proof do I have that I have made a connection with God?
I have many examples in my life, present and past. None of which that will satisfy your answer. I could tell you that you can attain a level of consciousness that is close enough to the energy to communicate with it. Telling you this would only make you believe I was a nut, so let's just forget that...
I am not trying to get you to become a believer. I could care less, IMO it is impossible to make anyone believe anything, let alone the existence of an invisible, immortal, all powerful being.
My beliefs are my own, not of any organized religion.
-------------------- "There is a world beyond ours, a world that is far away, nearby, and invisible. And there is where God lives, where the dead live, the spirits and the saints, a world where everything has already happened and everything is known. That world talks. It has a language of its own. I report what it says. The sacred mushroom takes me by the hand and brings me to the world where everything is known. It is they, the sacred mushrooms, that speak in a way I can understand." Maria Sabina
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: You should see my ant farm. I have named all 8023 of them. They are just soooo cute!
Is that so? I'd love for you to start a thread about what you've learned from them.
|
Swyfty Swyf
Shrugsy Shrugs
Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 7,113
Loc: North Alabama
|
|
Quote:
sandman_130 said:
Quote:
Swyfty Swyf said:
Quote:
sandman_130 said:
Take in part, if an unbeliever thinks that if their was a God, this would be a much better place.
Why would this world be a better place if atheists believed in something unproven? Are you implying that all atheists are unethical?
I have no idea where you came up with your first to 2 sentences...
I came up with those first two sentences because you said that the world would be a better place if atheists believed in God. That seems unfair and closed-minded.
Quote:
I did not say that non-believers don't know things, they know many things, none of which are about God.
OK, but I was asking about the details. What are the things that you "know?" Why would you know more, from believing in something that is not proven to exist? By saying you know things that atheists don't, you sound very illogically presumptuous.
Quote:
Why would you want to know? I was in no way saying atheist's are dumb, but why would you care to learn about something that is considered childish and foolish.
Just because I am atheist doesn't mean I don't have a thirst for knowledge. I would want to know about God as much as anyone else would. I don't think it's childish or foolish to believe in God, it just seems that God's existence opens more questions than it answers.
Quote:
But their is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist....
You have now opened a bottomless can of worms. There is no scientific proof that Superman does not exist either.
Science isn't designed to disprove things that may or may not exist. It makes more sense to aim for reaching feasible explanations for things that do exist.
Quote:
Going through Hell only builds character, it shows you just how strong you can be. A person who understands the motives behind our existence understands this concept. On the other hand, every atheist I have talked to has always asked me the same question....why would this happen to me if their was a God? Lot's of spiritual believers think like that too, only because they do not understand these motives.
Are you implying that you understand God's motives?
Quote:
We all have met the kid who was spoiled and given everything, and never disciplined.
As children of God, are lives must be hard. Only the strong will survive, their is no room for weakness or self pity.
This sounds like a Go Army ad.
Quote:
What proof do I have that I have made a connection with God?
I have many examples in my life, present and past. None of which that will satisfy your answer. I could tell you that you can attain a level of consciousness that is close enough to the energy to communicate with it. Telling you this would only make you believe I was a nut, so let's just forget that...
I am not trying to get you to become a believer. I could care less, IMO it is impossible to make anyone believe anything, let alone the existence of an invisible, immortal, all powerful being.
My beliefs are my own, not of any organized religion.
Let me guess. You had a psychedelic trip and came to these unsupported conclusions?
-------------------- If you build it they will shrug.
|
igwna
The Cap'n
Registered: 06/19/07
Posts: 8,016
Loc: New England, USA
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: You should see my ant farm. I have named all 8023 of them. They are just soooo cute!
Is that so? I'd love for you to start a thread about what you've learned from them.
that being GOD often ends with most of your friends dead.
-------------------- I don't believe in cops, bosses, or politicians. Some call that anarchism. I call it having a fucking heart that beats.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10150191 - 04/12/09 12:39 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
MindGorilla said: So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.
It's very simple: lack of evidence. I don't think that unicorns exist, for the same reason.
Really? I dont think unicorns exist because of evidence.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10150444 - 04/12/09 01:54 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But there's no evidence that unicorns don't exist. There's just a lack of evidence that they do. This is not the same thing.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10150551 - 04/12/09 02:35 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But in doing so you lose an important distinction. Lack of evidence from not investigating is not the same as lack of evidence after an investigation. Survey teams and bone diggers have covered most of the worlds continents and not found any sign of a horned horse - that is evidence of something. Thousands of years prior you would truly have no evidence as there wasn't any comprehensive surveys.
Similar for the old aether theory - there is evidence it doesn't exist and that's why we dont believe in it. Before the test was made, only then was there truly a lack of evidence. Consider an alien species, right now there is lack of evidence so perhaps you dont believe they exist. But certainly if a comprehensive search of the universe was made and none were found, that would be evidence of something.
So in that context, id say there certainly is evidence that unicorns dont exist.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10150561 - 04/12/09 02:43 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
How do you know unicorns have bones? Perhaps they don't fossilise? I can keep moving the goalposts, making it harder and harder for you to find evidence that they don't exist. Similarly, there's no way you could find evidence that God doesn't exist. The fact that there was no global flood, for example, is not enough.
I maintain that no evidence is required to disprove the existence of God, or unicorns. The default position is that they don't exist, until we find evidence to the contrary. There is no more evidence in favour of God's existence than there is for unicorns, so I remain skeptical about each.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zodd man
Stranger
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 12
Loc: uk
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
|
ive always know what i am and what my thoughts on existence and this colony we exist on, And I’ve always know why im different to everyone elts. for some strange reason 90 % percent of the human race needs an undeniable reason to get up in the morning. Weather that be god, the lack of god, or simply a herd to be moved powerlessly to and from without the blind bit of car as to weathered that direction is a good direction or not.
i my self dont need to have those things i never have.
I’ve never claimed that god doesn’t exist and punched some one in the face for thinking his own way.
ive never sat in a cherch preaching hypocritical nonsense, while wishing war on some one for something as simple as ideology
and I’ve never pissed in a letter box
and what of it you cant prove any of it.
all you can do is speculate
can you really verify that i exist, can i really verify that i exist. what is the point in trying. go have a bear and be your own god for a day its much more enlightening.
i suppose that what im really trying to say is that earthiest are just another form of religion with nothing more to say than join us you know were right or dam your religion dam your god (Sound familiar). And are usually made up of people foolishly wasting there time trying to convert people into one undeniable truth like religion, when they could be shagging there mum hypothetically.. who would want to join a religion when the leader shags there mum.
who knows
its all speculation and all a waste of perfectly good life
and remember its only your life your wasting
so to sumeries do what the fuck you want think what the fuck you like, but don’t disturb my jam on toast for it.
There is no such thing as truth. Just the ever defining kaleidoscope of reality as is understood by the proposed individual.
-------------------- good vibes to all who trpp
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deff]
#10151097 - 04/12/09 09:19 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deff said: to think of God as a personal being implies he is discrete
being discrete implies he has boundaries
boundaries imply he has a supportive space
if God is the source of all; what is the source of this supportive space?
to me... God cannot be personal... as being personal means being confined... which imparts the existence of a higher structure
perhaps minor God(s)... but the Supreme Source... would transcend all forms (imo)
First of all, could you explain what you mean by a personal being having to be discrete? Second, why does personal imply having boundaries? Also, what do we mean by "personal"?
I would also remind you that Hindus have a different word for God(Isvara) than they do for the supreme source(Brahman). It is the same in Kabbalistic Judaism, where Ein Sof precedes God. And it's found in Meister Eckhart's writing about God and Godhead. That is how I think about it. God is not the supreme source, but rather a necessary being who proceeds from the supreme source.
--------------------
Edited by Silversoul (04/12/09 09:26 AM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
Also, what do we mean by "personal"?
Something that fits in a shirt pocket.
--------------------
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 26 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deff said: to think of God as a personal being implies he is discrete
being discrete implies he has boundaries
boundaries imply he has a supportive space
if God is the source of all; what is the source of this supportive space?
to me... God cannot be personal... as being personal means being confined... which imparts the existence of a higher structure
perhaps minor God(s)... but the Supreme Source... would transcend all forms (imo)
First of all, could you explain what you mean by a personal being having to be discrete? Second, why does personal imply having boundaries? Also, what do we mean by "personal"?
I would also remind you that Hindus have a different word for God(Isvara) than they do for the supreme source(Brahman). It is the same in Kabbalistic Judaism, where Ein Sof precedes God. And it's found in Meister Eckhart's writing about God and Godhead. That is how I think about it. God is not the supreme source, but rather a necessary being who proceeds from the supreme source.
Yes I agree with all of that. The Supreme Source is what I meant originally by "God" - which is why I said lesser Gods could remain personal. What is a personality? A set of traits. You can only really define traits by setting boundaries - as in "this is A implies it is not B". The Supreme Source would be without any boundaries (as such boundaries would imply a higher source to encompass that which "is" the being and that which could have been but was not)
I'm all for other Gods and being personal (wherein they remain very close to the Supreme Source) much like Hinduism - with Brahman as you said. To seek union with Brahman - which is the goal of many - one has to transcend desires, attachments, and more importantly boundaries - it would be like dissolving into infinity. If instead you have specific discrete desires from life (i.e. a good career, finding the love of your life, etc.) then lesser Gods come more into play - as their abstraction from the Supreme Source (however slight) is enough to give them traits.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,009
|
|
would a compassionate god permit such atrocities of spelling and grammar.
-------------------- _ 🧠 _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deff]
#10151175 - 04/12/09 09:53 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Supreme Source is what I meant originally by "God"
Substituting one nebulous word with a vague phrase clarifies nothing.
God to me merely implies ignorance of a cause.
What created the universe? I don't know. What created the universe? God.
God = "I don't have a fucking clue."
--------------------
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 26 minutes
|
|
that's only the idea of a creator God... many different religions have plethora of Gods with varying traits (i.e. creation/preservation/destruction)
supreme source would be akin to infinite potential
but this kinda stuff is more right-brain than left-brain
--------------------
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 26 minutes
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deff]
#10151198 - 04/12/09 09:59 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
also - the "supreme source" in this regard would be akin to the Tao in which it is ultimately unknowable, you can only approach it (or live in harmony with it)
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10151509 - 04/12/09 11:22 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: How do you know unicorns have bones? Perhaps they don't fossilise? I can keep moving the goalposts, making it harder and harder for you to find evidence that they don't exist. Similarly, there's no way you could find evidence that God doesn't exist. The fact that there was no global flood, for example, is not enough.
Of course unicorns have bones, they are always depicted as mammals and are well defined. Now if you change the traits of a unicorn, then you are making a claim about some different creature of course different analysis is required.
There is evidence you can find that disproves many definitions of god. The greeks gods lived on mount olymups, we looked and didnt find them - thats evidence against them. The christian god caused a flood which evidence shows didnt happen - thats evidence against the christian god. If you move the goal posts further then of course its gonna be harder to say with certainty if that definition of god exists or not.
Im curious how a scientific person like yourself can willfully embrace absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Do you not believe in gravity waves since they have not been observed yet? Do you not believe in extra solar life since it has not been observed yet? Do you think the michelson-morley experiment was useless, since there was no evidence of the aether before or after it was conducted?
|
Ekstaza
stranger than most
Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 11 months, 11 days
|
|
Quote:
MindGorilla said: So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.
In my mind the burden of proof should rest on those stating the existence of god.
If you say that there are dog sized, orange and black poke-a-dotted elephants constantly floating just out of sight of everyone (but never-the-less there), then I say you should provide proof. And by proof, I mean more than anecdotes passed down from antiquity by our scientifically unsophisticated and superstitious ancestors. Just because they came before doesn't mean their every word should be worshiped as total truth.
While I don't go around proclaiming that god doesn't exist, I certainly haven't been presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary. So far as I can tell, the only proof offered up to date is the ever frustrating argument that the worlds holy books say it is so therefore it must be.
The other argument given to me is from people who claim to have felt the presence of god in their lives. I hardly see this as proof. At most it could be classified as the power of suggestion gone wild. People who have been told to believe in god all of their lives will USUALLY continue to do so for the remainder of the days, no matter how absurd the idea may seem. I personally have experienced this feeling. Shedding the thought patterns of belief in myth is very hard when those doctrines have been instilled into your mind from birth. It's very hard to come to grips with the idea that the people you love believe something false, that you can never be able to convince them otherwise. Even as I began to see the irrationality of religious beliefs, I still entertained the idea that if I was wrong I might be dooming myself to eternity in the burning fires of hell. I still use phrases such as, "Oh my god", "god bless you", "lord help me", etc., which are simply leftovers of from my previous religious education. No wonder people claim to feel the presence of god in their life. They've been told from birth that they should. SO they use that as proof? That's a symptom of the belief, not the cause of it.
Some people say that they came to god after a lifetime without religion. That god came to them and helped to turn their lives around. Most of these people USUALLY say that they suddenly felt a presence where before there was only a void. They say that something was missing in their life and that god and the church has filled that space for them. This is completely reasonable. Churches are by their very nature a place designed to accept people and give a sense of community. By joining a religious organization you suddenly have a huge base of support from which to draw strength from. You have positioned yourself in such a way as to make it virtually impossible to fail. You will see your life improve and you will inevitably believe that this was the work of god. I actually know people who go to church simply for the social networking that is available by being involved in church. Connections can be made in church between people of such differing social dynamics because at that place people are considered equal under god. Where I live it is quite profitable to be a member of the right congregation.
So back to the main question. Why do I not believe in god? Because I've been given insufficient data to support his/her existence and science has been able to sufficiently explain(to me) the questions that made people need a god in the first place.
There is a reason god didn't want Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge. It's because knowledge erodes belief. Understanding dispels superstitious beliefs. When we start to find the answers on our own we no longer need to give credit to our imaginary friend's magical abilities. Does understanding the universe and our place in it take away from the beauty of all things? NO!! There will always be questions. There will always be something unknown to keep life interesting. There's no reason to make things up to make things interesting.
-------------------- YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.
|
spyder
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/09
Posts: 444
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Ekstaza]
#10151782 - 04/12/09 12:21 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ekstaza said: In my mind the burden of proof should rest on those stating the existence of god.
Somethings can only be proven by experience.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Ekstaza]
#10151811 - 04/12/09 12:26 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The burden of proof lies on those making a claim, any claim - not just the claim you dont believe in.
Edited by Qubit (04/12/09 12:55 PM)
|
Ekstaza
stranger than most
Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 11 months, 11 days
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10151959 - 04/12/09 12:52 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spyder said:
Quote:
Ekstaza said: In my mind the burden of proof should rest on those stating the existence of god.
Somethings can only be proven by experience.
If this is your argument supporting the existence of god, it is weak. You're basically saying that once I believe I will have proof from the experience. Therefore proof is only available to believers. Funny thing is, believers shouldn't need proof. Religion is designed to negate the need for proof.
"Welcome everyone, please come inside, sit down and turn off your mind. For the next hour god will tell you what to believe, how to feel, and who to love".
-------------------- YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.
|
spyder
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/09
Posts: 444
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Ekstaza]
#10152422 - 04/12/09 02:22 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You have twisted what I said into it's opposite. No book, no person, no words can prove the existence of God. The only thing that can prove the existence of God is for you to have a direct personal experience. Everything you have posted seems to be some sort of Christian bashing exercise. I am not Christian or religious. I am not even talking about me. I do not know if there is a God.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: spyder]
#10152452 - 04/12/09 02:27 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Are you talking about proof or belief?
Proof is measured according to a system. It's checked for correctness; it's reviewed. Who reviews your proof of God if you're the only one who knows?
|
spyder
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/09
Posts: 444
|
|
You are operating under the rules of science, proof in a court room is different. At this time you cannot prove God under the rules of science, you don't have the tools. Just because you do not have the tools to prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think it is up to each person to decide how much evidence is enough.
|
MindGorilla
Stranger
Registered: 10/27/06
Posts: 285
Loc: Detroit
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
|
|
I was brought up my whole life as a Catholic. Never believed in God primarily because of Catholicism and the fact that science is pounded into your head as truth, from early elementary. Only until a few months ago could I ever realize how brainwashed I was. The only truth you can have is subjective, yet man continues to try and make the subjective, objective. Time into numbers, music with lyrics.
If you can understand in your mind the idea of a God being something that none greater can be thought of.
By not believing it exist in reality creates a contradiction. For if your idea of nothing greater than god still remains, you have created something greater. A being that exist in your mind, and in reality.
The Big Bang created everything in this universe that is physical. So to say that something that created everything is physical is impossible, which means it must have been personal.
True relationship with God does not begin with experiencing, rather understanding. By understanding god, things like evolving or being created in some fashion become irrelevant to the infinite itself.
With the matter of having a relationship, those who don't believe in God can not understand. God is personal, which also makes it subjective, as something that can only be subjectively understood. And like our relationship with the external world which we never truly know, their is no uncertainty in god. If you could reach out and grasp god, would you believe?
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10153797 - 04/12/09 06:48 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said: The christian god caused a flood which evidence shows didnt happen - thats evidence against the christian god. If you move the goal posts further then of course its gonna be harder to say with certainty if that definition of god exists or not.
But that's precisely what Christians do - especially the young earth proponents. "God put fossils there and made them look old" etc.
Quote:
Im curious how a scientific person like yourself can willfully embrace absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Do you not believe in gravity waves since they have not been observed yet? Do you not believe in extra solar life since it has not been observed yet? Do you think the michelson-morley experiment was useless, since there was no evidence of the aether before or after it was conducted?
But there's far more evidence for gravity waves or extrasolar life than there is for a god. In the case of gravity waves, even if they haven't been observed yet, they're still predicted by theories which have successfully predicted other things - which is more than we can say about God.
And there was reason to believe in the luminiferous aether before the Mitchelson-Morley experiment, because there was precedent in the case of sound waves. The experiment quite successfully disproved it, though, which is why no one believes in the aether today.
The reason God is different from the examples above is that he's so ill-defined that it's acceptable for proponents to keep 'moving the goal posts', making it impossible for him to be disproved. You're absolutely correct about the Greek gods. But modern religions tend to avoid mistakes like declaring their god to live on a specific mountain.
I think trying to disprove the existence of God by pointing out the evidence against him is noble but futile. It's also not necessary. Without any evidence to support his existence, there's no reason to believe in him.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
ganjababy
Stranger
Registered: 01/13/09
Posts: 443
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
MindGorilla said: So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.
- If god created adam and eve was created from adam, wouldn't all of their children be inbred due tot the fact that they are related?
I'm not too familiar with the bible but the earth is 4,000 years old right? Does that mean Adam and Eve populated the earth in 2,000 years?
Not even that but radiocarbon dating can accurately date back 50,000 years. Doesn't that alone disprove that god created the earth 4,000 years ago?
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10153841 - 04/12/09 06:56 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Without any evidence to support his existence, there's no reason to believe in him.
Of course. Why would you believe anything without evidence? I think you missed my point...
(btw, if you really do have evidence of extra solar life you should publish that shit!)
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10154011 - 04/12/09 07:28 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
Without any evidence to support his existence, there's no reason to believe in him.
Of course. Why would you believe anything without evidence? I think you missed my point...
This is the fundamental problem with people who have a positive belief that god does not exist- its just as much a faith as believing god exists.
These discussions seemed forever doomed to a back and forth between people who:
a) use different, seemingly novel, definnitions for atheist (no, I just believe there's no evidence of god, the dictionary says that's a fine definition) b) Don't understand burden of proof (the fallacy that because christians posit that their is a god in an illogical manner that it must be logicaly sound to conclude that there isn't a christian god), and c) don't distinguish between a positive belief that god doesn't exist and disbelief in the existance of god
I don't know if zouden's doing c, but the null hypothesis would be to disbelieve in the existance of god, which is much different than believeing god doesn't exist. EDIT: striek that, its wrong. The null hypothesis would be that god doesn't exist, and failing to show that god does exist would not be to establish the null hypothesis but rather failing to exclude it from possibility. In other words- its different to believe god has not been shown to exist than to believe god does not exist.
Quote:
Quote:
MindGorilla said: So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.
It's very simple: lack of evidence. I don't think that unicorns exist, for the same reason.
If zouden is really saying that he thinks god doesn't exist, it seems that his reasons aren't supportive of this belief. I don't believe in unicorns because their is no evidence to support their existance. That doesn't mean I can believe they don't exist.
If we were to imagine unicorns must exist in populations similar to horses only on earth if they exist, these presumptions might allow some reasoned refutation, but the similar presumptions about god are obviously silly.
There is litterally no reasoned way you can believe god doesn't exist without making all sorts of presumptions- changing the definition of god. People have done this in this thread, because they presumably recognize the impossibility of justfiying their claim that it is logical to believe god doesn't exist- especially in any scientific manner.
Examples are: "there is no evidence of a flood like noah's ark encountered, and the strong possibility that we would have such if it happened, so god doesn't exist". Even presuming this is valid evidence that the christian god doesn't exist, it is irrrelevant to the question of whether god exists because it is not inherent in the definition of god that a flood would occur that we would have knowledge of if god existed.
I must say it is a bit tireing to see the same arguments thrown out repeatedly in these forums- suggesting that showing the unlikliness of the biblical god has anything whatsoever at all to do with the liklihood of god existing. If this logic made any sense i'm confident one of the many people who've advanced it so many times would have come up with some reason why by now.
Edited by johnm214 (04/12/09 08:03 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
#10154097 - 04/12/09 07:45 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think the statement "I believe there is no god" is nonsensical. You don't need to believe in the absence of something.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Swyfty Swyf
Shrugsy Shrugs
Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 7,113
Loc: North Alabama
|
|
Quote:
MindGorilla said: I was brought up my whole life as a Catholic. Never believed in God primarily because of Catholicism and the fact that science is pounded into your head as truth, from early elementary. Only until a few months ago could I ever realize how brainwashed I was. The only truth you can have is subjective, yet man continues to try and make the subjective, objective. Time into numbers, music with lyrics.
You can throw away all your clocks and listen to instrumental music, but it doesn't make God real.
Quote:
If you can understand in your mind the idea of a God being something that none greater can be thought of.
By not believing it exist in reality creates a contradiction. For if your idea of nothing greater than god still remains, you have created something greater. A being that exist in your mind, and in reality.
What if I imagine an all powerful purple ostrich? That doesn't make it come to pass.
Quote:
The Big Bang created everything in this universe that is physical. So to say that something that created everything is physical is impossible, which means it must have been personal.
By implying that the Big Bang was put in motion by a personal touch from God, you create more questions than answers. From where did God come? If God is all powerful, why would he even need to show an effort in the matter? Are you suggesting that he bent the rules of physics up until the moment of the Big Bang?
Quote:
True relationship with God does not begin with experiencing, rather understanding. By understanding god, things like evolving or being created in some fashion become irrelevant to the infinite itself.
What is it you think you understand about something that is not proven to exist?
Quote:
With the matter of having a relationship, those who don't believe in God can not understand. God is personal, which also makes it subjective, as something that can only be subjectively understood. And like our relationship with the external world which we never truly know, their is no uncertainty in god. If you could reach out and grasp god, would you believe?
Why would God want me to believe something that he would agree was totally illogical, if he did exist, and created the "illusion" of his absence? I believed in God once, now I don't. What makes your belief more valid than my previous belief?
-------------------- If you build it they will shrug.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10154274 - 04/12/09 08:11 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: I think the statement "I believe there is no god" is nonsensical. You don't need to believe in the absence of something.
So what? You don't need to believe wool is scratchy, but you may, and you may be right.
I don't understand the difficulty.
Saying you believe god does not exist is a quite clear statement.
In the relevant distinction, the statement that you find it logically held that god does not exist is quite different than saying it is illogical to hold that god logically exists.
It is the distinction that underpins scientific experimentation- Just cuz you fail to establish your hypothesis does not mean that you've established the null hypothesis. If the hypothesis was good exists and the null hypothesis was god does not exist and the results show that the hypothesis was not established it would not establish the null hypothesis. It would only show that it could not be shown to whatever degree of certainty that god exists. If these were the definitive results then, you could logically say that you find it illogical to hold that god exists, but you could not go so far as to adopt the null hypothesis and say you find it logically held that god does not exist.
The failure to establish the hypothesis does not establish the null hypothesis.
This is the distinction that is being drawn here, and it is quite relevant to the burden of proof and establishment of what someone is actually claiming.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
#10154387 - 04/12/09 08:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>The failure to establish the hypothesis does not establish the null hypothesis.
In other words, just because God hasn't been proven to exist, it doesn't mean he's been proven to not exist. And I completely agree.
What I'm trying to argue, though, is that you don't need to prove he doesn't exist in order to believe that he doesn't. This is because the default position is (or should be) that there is no god unless proven otherwise.
It's exactly the same with unicorns. We don't need to prove they don't exist in order to say that they don't. The default position is that they don't exist.
That's precisely the definition of the null hypothesis, isn't it?
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10154534 - 04/12/09 09:01 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
This is because the default position is (or should be) that there is no god unless proven otherwise.
Thats a type of confirmation bias, appealing to your preconceived notions in lieu of evidence. In a binary system, with no evidence associated with it, there is no reason to assume either state. If there is no evidence in such a system, then the default position is 50% probability of T or F. It doesnt matter what the system is, only what evidence you have.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10154608 - 04/12/09 09:17 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It may be a 50/50 split between "there is no God" and "there is a God" - but in the latter case, we have to consider all the different Gods that people believe in. So it's not a 50/50 split between the Christian god and no god.
If you're going to argue that the Christian god is real, you'd have to first argue for the existence of a deity, and then argue that Jehovah is real while Brahma isn't. And even then, what are the chances that God is just as he's described in the bible?
There's no way that's a 50/50 split.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10154625 - 04/12/09 09:19 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: It may be a 50/50 split between "there is no God" and "there is a God" - but in the latter case, we have to consider all the different Gods that people believe in. So it's not a 50/50 split between the Christian god and no god.
If you're going to argue that the Christian god is real, you'd have to first argue for the existence of a deity, and then argue that Jehovah is real while Brahma isn't. And even then, what are the chances that God is just as he's described in the bible?
There's no way that's a 50/50 split.
More broadly, we can include all religions by giving 50/50 odds on materialism being true.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10154626 - 04/12/09 09:19 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, evidence against the christian god has long been had. I dont know why people always focus on the christian god... I guess its cause there atheism is a reaction against christians.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10154698 - 04/12/09 09:29 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I'd say it's because most attacks on atheism come from Christian groups. I don't remember any Muslims complaining about the "there's probably no God" adverts.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10154732 - 04/12/09 09:35 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: I'd say it's because most attacks on atheism come from Christian groups. I don't remember any Muslims complaining about the "there's probably no God" adverts.
Nah, they just riot when someone draws an image of Mohammed.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10154743 - 04/12/09 09:37 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: >The failure to establish the hypothesis does not establish the null hypothesis.
In other words, just because God hasn't been proven to exist, it doesn't mean he's been proven to not exist. And I completely agree.
What I'm trying to argue, though, is that you don't need to prove he doesn't exist in order to believe that he doesn't. This is because the default position is (or should be) that there is no god unless proven otherwise.
It's exactly the same with unicorns. We don't need to prove they don't exist in order to say that they don't. The default position is that they don't exist.
That's precisely the definition of the null hypothesis, isn't it?
I agree with qubit. This is confirmation bias. (it isn't like you know its a 50% chance, I'm sure qubit didn't mean that, its just that for all you know, nothing untill you do your experiment, you have a 50/50 chance)
The default position is making no presumptions that aren't proven- percisely the distinction I and i believe qubit are making. You don't say there are no unicorns you say you don't believe in them. (again, it may be logical to think they don't exist if you presume things like nobody's seen one and we would have if the unicorn hypothesis were true, however; none of these are relevant to the god thing so they can be ignored- there's no reason god may be presumed anything at all).
The null hypothesis may be considered valid or not, I don't know, but it isn't really relevant as its an assumption for the purpose of the stats/experiment. The fact is, the failure to demonstrate the experimental hypothesis doesn't prove the null hypothesis. You could have a 1% certainty that the experimental hypothesis was true and it wouldn't establish the null hypothesis (unless you make presumptions that aren't relevant, like other data).
This is the difference between asserting that god doesn't exist (null hypothesis) and not believing in god's existance (unlikely or inconclusive experimental hypothesis). In this example it would be as if all the inromation on the matter was rolled into one experiment. You have a complete failure to establish the existance of god. This may be because the experiment was punching a rock and seeing if god intervense. God not intervening doesn't establish anything. All it shows is you cannot be confident the experimental hypothesis is true- it says nothing about the null except it cannot be excluded.
Maybe you should check out some quick stats definitions and such? This is exactly what we are talking about, and its the basis for stats and proper scientific conclusions. another example: If null is the rock is not red and the exp. hypothesis is the rock is red and your experiment is to ask someone what the color is, cuz your blind or something, if that person doesn't talk that doesn't establish the null to be correct. And this is obvious- it establishes nothing. And yet it would show a very low liklihood (0 or whatever you interpret it as) that you can exclude the null hypothesis when you do your stats. This is like your assertion that you'd presume the null to be correct if you can't establish the experimental. While it may be a choice between the two, you are not saying it is one or the other by your experiment, you are saying the probability that you can exclude the null or not, which is quite different. Just like the god thingy- in you don't have evidence that god exists it is just like asking a blind guy what color rock you have. The fact that you have no data doesn't mean shit, it only means you cannot exclude your null hypothesis (that god doesn't exist).
|
TODAY
Battletoad
Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,218
Loc: Metropolis City, USA
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
#10154772 - 04/12/09 09:43 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
i don't believe in god and i don't believe in no god. i don't believe in anything and i don't give a shit.
-------------------- ca'rouse (k-rouz) intr.v. To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
#10154854 - 04/12/09 09:55 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
another example: If null is the rock is not red and the exp. hypothesis is the rock is red and your experiment is to ask someone what the color is, cuz your blind or something, if that person doesn't talk that doesn't establish the null to be correct.
No, it doesn't establish it to be correct, but it leaves the status of the rock as "probably not red". There's usually a reason why you set H0 to be "the rock is not red", rather than the other way around. Let's say it's because most rocks aren't red. So for this particular rock, you assume it is not red unless proven otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Quote:
In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis (H0) formally describes some aspect of the statistical behaviour of a set of data; this description is treated as valid unless the actual behaviour of the data contradicts this assumption.
A lack of evidence disproving the null hypothesis doesn't prove the null hypothesis to be true, but it makes it reasonable, and rational, to believe the null hypothesis to be true.
Most rocks aren't red. I don't have evidence that this particular rock is red, so it's reasonable to assume it isn't.
Most gods aren't real. I don't have evidence that the Christian god is real, so it's reasonable to assume he isn't. (Substitute with Allah or Brahma as appropriate).
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10155396 - 04/12/09 11:42 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What's interesting is that a true believer has no need to prove the existence of God because it's self-evident. A rational person who has not experienced the presence of God will naturally be skeptical, and rightfully so. We should not accept claims that are not supported by present evidence; unfortunately, a fair amount of atheists live their lives without ever experiencing substantiation.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: LSDreamer]
#10155671 - 04/13/09 12:47 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LSDreamer said: The Ultimate Boeing 747 argument is fairly sound IMO. The Problem of Evil is pretty damaging to the concept of an omnibenevolent god. Also, free will and omniscience aren't too compatible. Et al. Nothing you haven't heard before, I'm sure.
Who said God was omnibenevolent? God's attributes are omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Consciousness cannot be created without the possibility of evil.
The criticisms as well as the argument for the airplane are found in the link below. It is hardly sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
#10155689 - 04/13/09 12:52 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: They would say that if you can explain the universe without God, then God is not necessary, and therefore there is no reason to assume that God exists.
A feat no one has mastered. Though some turn to evolution, the other creation story.
I'm sorry, your comment makes no sense. What do you mean by mastered? I know people who have mastered it. Veritas your nemesis in fact and she can adequately defend her position to boot, and I'm pretty close myself.
No one here, or anywhere, can explain the nature of consciousness without positing an immaterial entity as the mind. All V could state after our conversation was the materialist position was default. I don't call that much of an explanation. And for the record, I have no nemesis'.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Trepiodos]
#10155703 - 04/13/09 12:55 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Trepiodos said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: Spirits aren't material.
That is (more or less) the nature of fantasy, it is only material to the extent that it is a thought pattern in the brain of a material being.
Please explain the nature of consciousness using only material terms. A universe made only of matter is the ultimate fantasy.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10155728 - 04/13/09 01:00 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
MindGorilla said: So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.
It's very simple: lack of evidence. I don't think that unicorns exist, for the same reason.
There is no evidence that a human mind evolved--none. All we have is supposition. There is nothing like the human mind, for all we know, in the universe--nothing. If we interpret all we see as material, hamstrung by methodological naturalism, that is all we will perceive. If we look to philosophical evidence for immaterial existence, there is plenty to be had. You can start with the mind.
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
MindGorilla said: So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.
It's very simple: lack of evidence. I don't think that unicorns exist, for the same reason.
There is no evidence that a human mind evolved--none. All we have is supposition. There is nothing like the human mind, for all we know, in the universe--nothing. If we interpret all we see as material, hamstrung by methodological naturalism, that is all we will perceive. If we look to philosophical evidence for immaterial existence, there is plenty to be had. You can start with the mind.
In excavating sites of early hominids, we find the complexity of the tools advances with each new species. Granted, our own technology has advanced immensely over the last 5,000 years, the changes in tools we see in early hominids correspond roughly to changes in cranial capacity. Thus, we can see a gradual development of the human intellect over time. You seem to be big on assertions and short on arguments.
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence:
Quote:
Brain size is a rudimentary indicator of the intelligence of a brain, and many other factors affect the intelligence of a brain.
Brain size does not necessarily indicate intelligence. Parrots are known for being intelligent creatures, whereas a walruses aren't.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
MindGorilla said: So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.
It's very simple: lack of evidence. I don't think that unicorns exist, for the same reason.
There is no evidence that a human mind evolved--none. All we have is supposition. There is nothing like the human mind, for all we know, in the universe--nothing. If we interpret all we see as material, hamstrung by methodological naturalism, that is all we will perceive. If we look to philosophical evidence for immaterial existence, there is plenty to be had. You can start with the mind.
In excavating sites of early hominids, we find the complexity of the tools advances with each new species. Granted, our own technology has advanced immensely over the last 5,000 years, the changes in tools we see in early hominids correspond roughly to changes in cranial capacity. Thus, we can see a gradual development of the human intellect over time. You seem to be big on assertions and short on arguments.
Please leave what I seem to be out of the argument. It has nothing to do with it.
>In excavating sites of early hominids...
This relies on more than a few hypotheses:
1) The geologic record as interpreted by Uniformitarianism, criticized by evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould:
Stephen Jay Gould's first scientific paper, Is uniformitarianism necessary? (1965), reduced these four interpretations to two, substantive and methodological uniformitarianism[7]. He rejected the first as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present. He dismissed the second principle, which asserted spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws, as no longer an issue of debate.
As the certainty and connection between some fossils have not been completely worked out, the issue relies more on one's metaphysical convictions than anything to do with objectivity.
>we find the complexity of the tools advances with each new species.
That relies on the definition of complexity. There is a radical difference between a monkey using a twig that it found in nature to fish out some termites and ancient man making a tool with other tools. This is a distinction that cannot be overcome by appealing to the evolutionary paradigm. From the beginning, man has been radically distinct from other animals.
>the changes in tools we see in early hominids correspond roughly to changes in cranial capacity.
There is evidence that the data was fudged.
>Thus, we can see a gradual development of the human intellect over time.
No, we can interpret the data that way if we do not understand the radical difference between perceptual abstraction and conceptual abstraction. We can do it, and we'd be wrong.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: There is nothing like the human mind, for all we know, in the universe--nothing.
Not Cro-Magnon Man? Neanderthal? Australopithecus? Chimpanzee? Dog? Rat? These things are all like the human mind, with varying degrees of similarity.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Poid]
#10155960 - 04/13/09 02:10 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence:
Quote:
Brain size is a rudimentary indicator of the intelligence of a brain, and many other factors affect the intelligence of a brain.
Brain size does not necessarily indicate intelligence. Parrots are known for being intelligent creatures, whereas a walruses aren't.
An excellent point, Poid. Send my best to your bird.
Yes, many are used to pointing out the termite-fishing monkeys, but few are aware of that ravens also fish with twigs. Again, this is the difference between perceptual abstraction (that any animal can have, even with small brains) and conceptual abstraction that man has had since the beginning.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10155963 - 04/13/09 02:12 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: There is nothing like the human mind, for all we know, in the universe--nothing.
Not Cro-Magnon Man? Neanderthal? Australopithecus? Chimpanzee? Dog? Rat? These things are all like the human mind, with varying degrees of similarity.
Nope. We have two types of minds, man's and the others. The difference is radical in kind. Someday, when I get a moment, I'll create a thread on it. There seems to be a lot of philosophical confusion surrounding the topic.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
So humans are smarter than other animals. We know that. How does that prove the existence of God?
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10155971 - 04/13/09 02:15 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: An excellent point, Poid. Send my best to your bird.
He's been gone for almost three years now, but thanks!
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: There is nothing like the human mind, for all we know, in the universe--nothing.
Not Cro-Magnon Man? Neanderthal? Australopithecus? Chimpanzee? Dog? Rat? These things are all like the human mind, with varying degrees of similarity.
That just forces us to go back and ask, "What is the mind?".
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10155977 - 04/13/09 02:17 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: So humans are smarter than other animals. We know that. How does that prove the existence of God?
Mathematics speaks of proof(s); we're talking about evidence. If mind is immaterial, mind could be something other; the something other could be God.
This is pure philosophical evidence. and clever at that
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
But what if neither the mind or God are immaterial? As far as I know, there is no convincing evidence that they either are or aren't.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
Indeed, who said the mind is immaterial?
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: spyder]
#10156009 - 04/13/09 02:37 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spyder said: You are operating under the rules of science, proof in a court room is different. At this time you cannot prove God under the rules of science, you don't have the tools. Just because you do not have the tools to prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think it is up to each person to decide how much evidence is enough.
We're not in a court room (unless you think your theological postulates are in some way legal?). In any case, court room proof is judged by peers and professionals. Where's the proof when you experience God?
Also We're discussing this as theology and science. Reread what you've written in the thread.
The rest of your post has no bearing on what I said and seems more like a parroting of some widely accepted truisms in lack of anything worthwhile to say yet feigned as an attempt to corral me into some position I haven't identified myself with.
If each person decides how much evidence is enough, what is the point of evidence?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Some need less evidence to be entirely convinced about things than others, and it's not necessarily a good or a bad thing.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Poid]
#10156043 - 04/13/09 02:47 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: But what if neither the mind or God are immaterial? As far as I know, there is no convincing evidence that they either are or aren't.
Whether something is convincing or not has little to do with the argument itself. Evolutionists and Creationists alike are bombarded with contrary evidence that is anomalous, yet it rolls off their backs like water.
See Argument from Personal Incredulity.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10156054 - 04/13/09 02:50 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: Indeed, who said the mind is immaterial?
Mortimer Adler. I've posted his video with Bill Buckley a half a dozen times in this forum.
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
My point is that there is no common consensus on what the mind, and God for that matter, is.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Poid]
#10156059 - 04/13/09 02:52 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
A good point as long as one remembers argumentum ad populam, i.e. consensus, can be a logical fallacy.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
I don't understand your statement "If mind is immaterial, mind could be something other; the something other could be God." because by that reasoning, music could be God too. Or love could be God. Or L'esprit de l'escalier could be God.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Good point, but when there is no common consensus, you're basically forced to either come up with the answer on your own, or "choose a side".
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10156106 - 04/13/09 03:07 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: I don't understand your statement "If mind is immaterial, mind could be something other; the something other could be God." because by that reasoning, music could be God too. Or love could be God. Or L'esprit de l'escalier could be God.
The link is a red herring. And yes, some say God is love. Therefore, the inverse would be true as well. God cannot be music because music is material. Sound waves are produced in matter. Without matter, no sound.
Mind, alone, is different.
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
So since music, which is material, is produced by the mind, which is most likely immaterial, that means that immateriality gives birth to materiality. Interesting...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Poid]
#10156129 - 04/13/09 03:13 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah Poid, think of all the things the mind has created! It is an amazing source. Look at your monitor.
Mind did that.
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Come to think of it, what didn't mind do?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: The link is a red herring. And yes, some say God is love. Therefore, the inverse would be true as well. God cannot be music because music is material. Sound waves are produced in matter. Without matter, no sound.
I am glad I am not suffering from this dualistic misconception of reality.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Poid]
#10156151 - 04/13/09 03:18 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Some need less evidence to be entirely convinced about things than others, and it's not necessarily a good or a bad thing.
What is "less evidence"? Is that like having seen a guy deliver a package to your house and knowing your wife's screwing him?
No, it's not a good or bad thing. It doesn't even matter here, because we're not discussing moral and value issues. We're talking about arguments and evidence for/against God.
Evidence is something that supports the correctness of a proposition. The most widely appreciated and accepted evidence is empirical.
The thread started with a request: give me arguments about why God does not exist. Sure, arguments, there are plenty. Evidence isn't needed. Actually the question is backwards: it's up to the theists to argue, explain and provide evidence for why God exists as God is an unnecessary hypothesis.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Zanthius]
#10156161 - 04/13/09 03:20 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: The link is a red herring. And yes, some say God is love. Therefore, the inverse would be true as well. God cannot be music because music is material. Sound waves are produced in matter. Without matter, no sound.
I am glad I am not suffering from this dualistic misconception of reality.
Dualism is the devil.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said: ...argue, explain and provide evidence for why God exists as God is an unnecessary hypothesis.
I wholeheartedly agree.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
zouden said: I don't understand your statement "If mind is immaterial, mind could be something other; the something other could be God." because by that reasoning, music could be God too. Or love could be God. Or L'esprit de l'escalier could be God.
The link is a red herring. And yes, some say God is love. Therefore, the inverse would be true as well. God cannot be music because music is material. Sound waves are produced in matter. Without matter, no sound.
Mind, alone, is different.
Not as much of a red herring as your whole argument about the mind being immaterial is. Are you able to provide a cogent argument for the existence (or lack thereof) of God, or are you just going to spout more meaningless metaphysical drivel?
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 5 hours, 26 minutes
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10156485 - 04/13/09 06:55 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
i don't see how the mind can be material
material configurations of neuron activity can give rise to thoughts
but the fact that we have an internal -experience- and are not just cause-and-effect machines without....
the fact that the universe has self-experience through observation!
evolution alone can make sense if you forget we are sentient of our own existence... consciousness is more than just a processing control room... it's an experience of existence
and... if you TRULY 100% accept materialism only - I see no room left for free will. If we arose purely from random chance and are basically complex interactions of matter... that's pure determinism. If this is your view, why do you -live- as if it isn't? Why do you pretend in self individuality if you feel materialism has -solved- existence (such a ridiculously inadequate proof for me). Why would experience have to occur, when our programmed AI can make rational decisions without internal consciousness.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deff]
#10156576 - 04/13/09 07:33 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deff said: i don't see how the mind can be material
Well, you probably don't know everything about what matter is. It is also better to say that your consciousness is physical than to say that it is material, as everything physical isn't necessarily made of matter.
I don't see how my consciousness can be non-physical, as my consciousness can be altered by physical molecules like ethanol, psilocybin, tetrahydrocannabinol, etc.
Quote:
deff said: and... if you TRULY 100% accept materialism only - I see no room left for free will.
Perhaps you should study quantum mechanics. I also don't understand what you mean by "free will". Do you mean "random will" or do you mean "a will freed from the restrains of cultural conditioning and instinctive influences"?
Edited by Zanthius (04/13/09 07:50 AM)
|
BlimeyGrimey
Collector of Spores
Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 3,792
Loc: Puget Sound
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Zanthius]
#10156932 - 04/13/09 09:58 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
deff said: and... if you TRULY 100% accept materialism only - I see no room left for free will.
Perhaps you should study quantum mechanics. I also don't understand what you mean by "free will". Do you mean "random will" or do you mean "a will freed from the restrains of cultural conditioning and instinctive influences"?
I too believe "free will" is a result of quantum mechanics.
-------------------- Message me for free microscopy services on Psilocybe, Panaeolus, and Gymnopilus species. Looking for wild Panaeolus cinctulus and Panaeolus olivaceus prints.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10156983 - 04/13/09 10:14 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Not as much of a red herring as your whole argument about the mind being immaterial is.
Hardly a red herring as the existence of one immaterial entity, i.e. the mind, suggests other immaterial entities. We have solid, philosophical evidence that the mind is immaterial.
Quote:
zouden said: Are you able to provide a cogent argument for the existence (or lack thereof) of God, or are you just going to spout more meaningless metaphysical drivel?
Cogency, or lack thereof, has its correlation in the argument from personal incredulity. Not only is that a logical fallacy, it has zero bearing on the discussion as does the subjective opinion that philosophical discourse is meaningless drivel.
Nevertheless, at your request, here is one argument for the existence of God (from Adler, of course ):
1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause.
2. The Cosmos as a whole exists.
3. The existence of the Cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing).
4. If the Cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God.
Quote:
The Universe as we know it today is not the only Universe that can ever exist in time. We can infer it from the fact that the arrangement and disarray, the order and disorder, of the present Cosmos might have been otherwise. That it might have been different from what it is. That which cannot be otherwise also cannot not exist; and conversely, what necessarily exists can not be otherwise than it is. Therefore, a Cosmos which can be otherwise is one that also cannot be; and conversely, a Cosmos that is capable of not existing at all is one that can be otherwise than it now is. Applying this insight to the fact that the existing Cosmos is merely one of a plurality of possible universes, we come to the conclusion that the Cosmos, radically contingent in existence, would not exist at all were its existence not caused. A merely possible Cosmos cannot be an uncaused Cosmos. A Cosmos that is radically contingent in existence, and needs a cause of that existence, needs a supernatural cause, one that exists and acts to exnihilate this merely possible Cosmos, thus preventing the realization of what is always possible for merely a possible Cosmos, namely, its absolute non-existence or reduction to nothingness.
M.J. Adler
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
would not exist at all were its existence not caused.
How is this proof of God? Does cause imply God?
I stubbed my toe and it throbbed. This implies God? Not likely IMO.
I would never argue against the possibility of a God or Creator consciousness but that is a far cry from seeing any evidence of it.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10157625 - 04/13/09 12:22 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
another example: If null is the rock is not red and the exp. hypothesis is the rock is red and your experiment is to ask someone what the color is, cuz your blind or something, if that person doesn't talk that doesn't establish the null to be correct.
No, it doesn't establish it to be correct, but it leaves the status of the rock as "probably not red". There's usually a reason why you set H0 to be "the rock is not red", rather than the other way around. Let's say it's because most rocks aren't red. So for this particular rock, you assume it is not red unless proven otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Quote:
In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis (H0) formally describes some aspect of the statistical behaviour of a set of data; this description is treated as valid unless the actual behaviour of the data contradicts this assumption.
A lack of evidence disproving the null hypothesis doesn't prove the null hypothesis to be true, but it makes it reasonable, and rational, to believe the null hypothesis to be true.
Most rocks aren't red. I don't have evidence that this particular rock is red, so it's reasonable to assume it isn't.
Most gods aren't real. I don't have evidence that the Christian god is real, so it's reasonable to assume he isn't. (Substitute with Allah or Brahma as appropriate).
In my example it was presumed, as i stated, that the only data we had was wrapped up in that experimental result. So how do you choose the null hypothesis when you have no data to do so?
You are not defending your posited conclusion, you are simply saying "yeah but other evidence would make us presume the null (god does not exist) to be correct". This is meaningless when we assume that our experimental data is representative of the entirety of knowledge on the subject.
You are just appealing to the unknown. There's something that supports this.....
Anyways, are we on the same page that it is not the same thing to conclude a hypothesis is wrong as to conclude it is unsupported, logically?
I don't see the big problem here: it is different to say that logically god doesn't exist then it is to say logically l reject the purported logic demonstrating god's existance. If we wrap up the entirety of the evidence and arguments into these two cases, it describes exactly the difference. The experimental treatment we've discussed shows plainly why you cannot accept the null just because the experimental hypothesis was not supported. The only answer you have to this is that *something* would support that conclusion- which is meaningless when the whole point is we are subsuming the entirety of the evidence into this example/experiment.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
#10158775 - 04/13/09 03:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I dont understand how you guys are treating the null hypothesis here. AFAIK, the null hypothesis is just the hypothesis that there will be no statistical difference between your control group and experimental group. How does that apply to this discussion?
|
Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am
Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10158845 - 04/13/09 03:32 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That is the first time I've seen as far as I know turned into an acronym.
You learn something every day.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10158862 - 04/13/09 03:34 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The null hypothesis idea works for a scenario about red rocks, because you can take preexisting data ("most rocks aren't red") and assume that's the control group, the base case, then check to see if other rocks are different.
I think it also works in the scenario we are discussing, because most people, especially Christians, would agree that most Gods aren't real. This means each God can then be tested against that null hypothesis.
If Christians can't provide any more evidence that Jehovah is real compared to, say, Brahma, I'm going to presume the null hypothesis.
As we've already established (and this touches on John's post above) we still can't say for certain that Jehovah doesn't exist, but it's reasonable, and rational, to say that he probably doesn't.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: the existence of one immaterial entity, i.e. the mind, suggests other immaterial entities. We have solid, philosophical evidence that the mind is immaterial.
And we have solid, physical evidence that the mind is not immaterial. But in any case, I don't see how that argument would be particularly useful, as it doesn't prove the existence of God any more than, say, ghosts, or faeries.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10159034 - 04/13/09 03:56 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The null can be many things and it depends upon the investigation. I'll look for more info to be sure as I should know this stuff. But this is fine.
The point is that yoru observations are the data and god is the subject of the study in the example used.
Failing to find data that establishes god's presence does not mean god doesn't exist anymore then looking in a room and seeing no apple means apples don't exist.
It applies because the null is a hypothesis that is not established in the investigation even if your experimental is not supported (failed to exclude the null). In your verbiage: You may not say their is no difference between the groups if you cannot support yoru experimental hypothesis that says their is. This is of course difference then saying their is no difference between the data, which may be correct.
In this case, the subject will be god and the data your observations. Not finding data to establish god's existance will not establish he exists but cannot establish that he doesn't any more then failing to find a difference between your data establishes that the subjects from which your data were derived have no differences.
Hope that made sense- basically the null is not established by finding a very low chance that it is excluded just as not finding evidence of god doesn't establish god does not exist.
You can't deduce that god doesn't exist without limiting the definition of god or making some other presumption that changes this discussion.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10159084 - 04/13/09 04:02 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I dont think thats a proper application of the null hypothesis. You are begging to Christians beliefs that most gods arnt real as the control group? That doesn't make sense to me.
The null hypothesis relates the statistical significance of two groups. We would need a universe known to have no god or a god, and then compare that to our universe and do statistics on the difference. The null hypothesis is what we would operate under, where we would assume there will be no statistical significance between the other universe with a known god state and ours with an unknown god state. Obviously we cant do that experiment... so thats why im unsure of the null hypothesis' relevance here.
I kind of view the null hypothesis as a trite formality pushed on students in lower education and embraced by social sciences as a means to add rigor to their analysis.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10159112 - 04/13/09 04:05 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: The null hypothesis idea works for a scenario about red rocks, because you can take preexisting data ("most rocks aren't red") and assume that's the control group, the base case, then check to see if other rocks are different.
I think it also works in the scenario we are discussing, because most people, especially Christians, would agree that most Gods aren't real. This means each God can then be tested against that null hypothesis.
If Christians can't provide any more evidence that Jehovah is real compared to, say, Brahma, I'm going to presume the null hypothesis.
As we've already established (and this touches on John's post above) we still can't say for certain that Jehovah doesn't exist, but it's reasonable, and rational, to say that he probably doesn't.
Why are you believing the null hypothesis? you did this before with teh concept of god, which is much more difficult.
I agree with you that you can conclude he doesn't exist based on measurements that are neccesary to his existance- so i agree with you on that one.
I disagree with your invokation of some unknown data, however; to explain why youd adopt the null in the god example. The experimental results would fail to exclude the null, they wouldn't establish it. So the experiment is irrelevant- why even mention it? Lets go to the real source of data that you said would make the presumption reasonable and look at that. I happen to think since the concept is inherently untestable it is impossible to find sufficient data and it is therefore not even a scientific concept.
Because of this it seems equally silly to say as mr mushrooms had that some supernatural thing is suggested by his claimed data as it is to say god does not exist or that you have a reasoned belief that he does not exist.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10159152 - 04/13/09 04:11 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
How does 'the grassy knull' fit into all of this?
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
#10159164 - 04/13/09 04:13 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If God does exist boy will I be surprised. Pleasantly I hope.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
#10159199 - 04/13/09 04:17 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
>Since there is no data that may be had to establish god does not exist there is no way that we can say he doesn't.
But you keep changing what I'm saying. I didn't say that he doesn't exist, just that he probably doesn't. Given the complete lack of evidence revealing his existence, it seems pretty unlikely that he's real at all, wouldn't you say?
Quote:
Qubit said: I dont think thats a proper application of the null hypothesis. You are begging to Christians beliefs that most gods arnt real as the control group? That doesn't make sense to me.
Well, alright, I guess there are two possible null hypotheses. One is that "no God is real" and the other is that "all Gods are real". Actually, forget the null hypothesis thing - it's causing more confusion that it solves. But I'll continue.
I'm trying to point out that we have no evidence that separates Jehovah from Brahma. So if Jehovah is real, then it's quite likely that Brahma is real too. We have no reason to suspect otherwise.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10159213 - 04/13/09 04:19 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
And the Flying Spaghetti Monster God is real too.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
#10159253 - 04/13/09 04:23 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I have the marinara stains to prove it!
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
#10159269 - 04/13/09 04:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Precisely. They're all just as real as each other. Most religious people can't tolerate that idea, yet they're unable to explain why their particular God is more real than any other.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Are those stains on the front or back of your pants?
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10159288 - 04/13/09 04:25 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: Precisely. They're all just as real as each other. Most religious people can't tolerate that idea, yet they're unable to explain why their particular God is more real than any other.
IMO very few are educated and emotionally balanced enough even to explore the issue in depth.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
#10159293 - 04/13/09 04:26 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Now you are getting a mite personal.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10159295 - 04/13/09 04:27 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I dont see why you keep appealing to historic, culturally specific deities. Most of them are defined with traits that are easily falsifiable. Your arguments seem very tuned to be aimed at a christian opponent, which I dont think you really have here.
Im defining god here to be an intelligent designer basically. We have shown from evidence there is no intelligent designer of life within the universe; but we have not shown there is no intelligent designer of the universe. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasnt, but I have no evidence of that at all. Brahma and Jehovah are irrelevant.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10159328 - 04/13/09 04:31 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Brahma and Jehovah are irrelevant.
You can say that again.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10159340 - 04/13/09 04:33 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, really? Have you been arguing that position all along? In that case, then there's absolutely no way you can say either way. The deist/pantheist, non-personal God of Spinoza kind of thing is fine with me. I say, "he may as well be real" since it makes no difference
I don't have a problem with people saying that there's a non-personal God who created the universe. I do have a problem with people saying that Jehovah created all the plants and animals and if we don't worship him we'll go to hell.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10159357 - 04/13/09 04:35 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
since it makes no difference
This is an excellent point.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
#10159371 - 04/13/09 04:37 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Brahma and Jehovah are ear elephant.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10159396 - 04/13/09 04:40 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: I don't have a problem with people saying that there's a non-personal God who created the universe.
You should, thats a claim without evidence. Doesn't matter that there isnt a historic institution associated with it like traditional regions, its still baseless faith. Why would somebody get a free pass with faith just because they arnt religious?
I keep getting the sense that you (and others) are arguing against religious institutions when you claim to be an atheist, and not against the philosophy/science of a god hypothesis in general.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10159411 - 04/13/09 04:42 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I agree but this concept of God does not stir humans fear based or aggressive emotions so easily.
It's just a basic balm to death anxiety.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
#10159430 - 04/13/09 04:45 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It's just a basic balm to death anxiety.
Put it is a hockey puck-sized tin with a fancy label and some good marketing and make beaucoup bux.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10159450 - 04/13/09 04:48 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But it's a claim that makes no difference. You can't derive anything from it. A non-personal God who created the universe, but nothing inside the universe, cannot have any other features ascribed to it. There'd be no point giving it a name, worshipping it, or getting other people to worship it.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10159473 - 04/13/09 04:53 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There'd be no point giving it a name, worshipping it, or getting other people to worship it.
What about money, sex and control?
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10159483 - 04/13/09 04:54 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
We dont study the nature of the universe or multiverse looking for intelligence or design of any form to find something to worship. We do it because we are curious. Worship is irrelevant here, unless this is a discussion on religion.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10160363 - 04/13/09 07:40 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
We do it because we hate when a giant green hand grabs our starships!
--------------------
|
Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am
Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
|
Nick Cave is God. End of discusion.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10161905 - 04/14/09 12:38 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said: We dont study the nature of the universe or multiverse looking for intelligence or design of any form to find something to worship. We do it because we are curious. Worship is irrelevant here, unless this is a discussion on religion.
The title of the thread certainly made me think it was
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10162281 - 04/14/09 03:23 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: But it's a claim that makes no difference. You can't derive anything from it. A non-personal God who created the universe, but nothing inside the universe, cannot have any other features ascribed to it. There'd be no point giving it a name, worshipping it, or getting other people to worship it.
I don't know about worshiping, but I think teleology is at least as important as technology. Technology can make our lives more comfortable, but teleology can give our lives more meaning.
I think our society is too focused upon technology, and too little focused upon teleology. Doesn't really matter how much technology you have, if your life doesn't have any meaning.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Zanthius]
#10162347 - 04/14/09 03:47 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Fair enough, but an impersonal God who doesn't interact with the universe can't provide much in the way of purpose, can it?
And in anycase, any purpose we ascribe to the universe can only have come from us. We can't really know what God's purpose is (if any), so religions just make it up as we go along.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10162371 - 04/14/09 03:57 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: And in anycase, any purpose we ascribe to the universe can only have come from us. We can't really know what God's purpose is (if any), so religions just make it up as we go along.
Perhaps, but we could have a topic called "teleology" in school, where students learn that they shouldn't pollute their environment, they shouldn't eat unhealthy food, and they should work for the betterment of mankind.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
#10163073 - 04/14/09 09:16 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: would not exist at all were its existence not caused.
How is this proof of God? Does cause imply God?
The argument taken in toto gives evidence for the existence of God.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
#10163100 - 04/14/09 09:25 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: And the Flying Spaghetti Monster God is real too.
And so is the rebuttal.
Quote:
The logical rebuttal to FSM is simple. FSM fans want to cast ID as an arbitrary explanation that has no logical force behind it, i.e. they argue that invoking ID is no better than invoking something as silly as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The problem for their logic is that ID is not an arbitrary explanation, because we have much experience with intelligent agents producing the type of informational complexity we see in nature. Stephen C. Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Science from Cambridge, explains this point clearly:
[W]e have repeated experience of rational and conscious agents-in particular ourselves-generating or causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of sequence-specific lines of code and in the form of hierarchically arranged systems of parts. … Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent.
(Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004).)
Elsewhere, Meyer and microbiologist Scott Minnich explain that invoking intelligent causes is not arbitrary because "[i ]n all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system," and therefore, "[a]lthough some may argue [ID] is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation, given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes."
To invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to invoke an arbitrary, silly, and unscientific cause. But in science, to invoke intelligent causation is not to invoke an arbitrary explanation. We have observation-based experience with intelligent agents which shows that they are the only known causes of high levels of specified complexity — the very type of specified complexity we find in natural structures. Using uniformitarian reasoning, a common form of scientific reasoning which invokes causes that we observe in nature that are sufficient to account for the observed data, we can use our observations about the power of intelligent agents to infer the prior action of intelligent causes. There’s nothing arbitrary about it.
Full article: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/the_proper_rebuttal_to_the_fly.html
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10163122 - 04/14/09 09:31 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: Oh, really? Have you been arguing that position all along? In that case, then there's absolutely no way you can say either way. The deist/pantheist, non-personal God of Spinoza kind of thing is fine with me. I say, "he may as well be real" since it makes no difference
I don't have a problem with people saying that there's a non-personal God who created the universe. I do have a problem with people saying that Jehovah created all the plants and animals and if we don't worship him we'll go to hell.
I understand this, but it is of relatively no concern to me. I consider it equal when some Bible thumper comes in here railing about how everyone that doesn't follow "his" way is going to hell as much as atheists mocking others' religious beliefs for no apparent reason. Both are an affront to civility, the decorum on which all rational discussion is built.
You and I may disagree on various points but I always enjoy our conversations immensely. I can say the same about most regulars here.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Gee I wasn't convinced. At all.
The idea of intelligent design seems based to me on the belief that we are some direct reflection of God.
But honestly it's not a question that can be answered and is of relatively no importance to how we live, if we are mentally or emotionally healthy or anything of real value other than the fun of speculation or the fear of dying and being part of something that bears no resemblance to the human emotional landscape and in no way "cares" about us.
For me it's an unnecessary encumbrance and no more than a balm to my personal anxieties.
Edited by Icelander (04/14/09 09:40 AM)
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Zanthius]
#10163281 - 04/14/09 10:33 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
zouden said: And in anycase, any purpose we ascribe to the universe can only have come from us. We can't really know what God's purpose is (if any), so religions just make it up as we go along.
Perhaps, but we could have a topic called "teleology" in school, where students learn that they shouldn't pollute their environment, they shouldn't eat unhealthy food, and they should work for the betterment of mankind.
Sounds like the type of class I'd ditch to go smoke marijuana in the parking lot.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10163304 - 04/14/09 10:38 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: Sounds like the type of class I'd ditch to go smoke marijuana in the parking lot.
I wonder how you got far enough to learn calculus if you did that at school.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Zanthius]
#10163309 - 04/14/09 10:39 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I was homeschooled for the majority of my pre-college education; can't really ditch class if you live with your teachers.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10163337 - 04/14/09 10:47 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: I was homeschooled for the majority of my pre-college education; can't really ditch class if you live with your teachers.
Homeschooled? Are people still doing that in the united states? From a rich family then?
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Zanthius]
#10163352 - 04/14/09 10:50 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
My family's middle-class, and there are plenty of active homeschooling communities all over the US. Unfortunately most of these tend to be either Fundamentalist Christian or comprised mainly of unschoolers (which is different from traditional homeschooling in that all impetus and motivation is left up to the kids as opposed to parents setting up educational guidelines).
I personally feel as if the benefits of homeschooling far outweigh the benefits of attending public/private school, and I'll probably end up homeschooling my own kids if I ever have any.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10163392 - 04/14/09 11:00 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: I personally feel as if the benefits of homeschooling far outweigh the benefits of attending public/private school, and I'll probably end up homeschooling my own kids if I ever have any.
In Norway homeschooling is illegal, but of course I would be able to give my own children a far better education than what they give at public schools in Norway.
That is one of the reasons why I am going to move away from Norway before I get my own family.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Zanthius]
#10163398 - 04/14/09 11:02 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said: In Norway homeschooling is illegal
Did not know that, thanks for the info!
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10163413 - 04/14/09 11:06 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10163507 - 04/14/09 11:29 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: Sounds like the type of class I'd ditch to go smoke marijuana in the parking lot.
Shit, you just described every class.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
#10163511 - 04/14/09 11:30 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: Gee I wasn't convinced. At all.
The idea of intelligent design seems based to me on the belief that we are some direct reflection of God.
But honestly it's not a question that can be answered and is of relatively no importance to how we live, if we are mentally or emotionally healthy or anything of real value other than the fun of speculation or the fear of dying and being part of something that bears no resemblance to the human emotional landscape and in no way "cares" about us.
For me it's an unnecessary encumbrance and no more than a balm to my personal anxieties.
I don't post anything with the intention of convincing anyone of anything. I'm just offering the alternative view. The argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy. I'm not sure which question you don't think can be answered. If it is whether we can detect design, the answer is obviously, "Yes, we can." If not, the science of forensics would have no bearing on judicial cases.
I think the idea of a personal God, given the nature of "person," implies something each of us has to decide on our own for ourselves. People take solace in a number of things; sometimes reason plays no small part, at other times no part at all.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10163517 - 04/14/09 11:30 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qubit said:
Quote:
deCypher said: Sounds like the type of class I'd ditch to go smoke marijuana in the parking lot.
Shit, you just described every class.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10163535 - 04/14/09 11:33 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
I personally feel as if the benefits of homeschooling far outweigh the benefits of attending public/private school, and I'll probably end up homeschooling my own kids if I ever have any.
Our idea here is parallel. Mine is based on this hierarchy.
Individual. Family. Government.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
Icelander said: And the Flying Spaghetti Monster God is real too.
And so is the rebuttal.
That's not a very good rebuttal. It's saying that the FSM could not be the driving force behind intelligent design because it's not intelligent. Where do they get that idea? Everything I know about the FSM is quite intelligent. Consider the way He places old fossils in the ground with His Noodly Appendage. That's not only clever, it's deceitful. A being capable of that is certainly capable of creating life on earth.
Quote:
We have observation-based experience with intelligent agents which shows that they are the only known causes of high levels of specified complexity
By that reasoning, slime mould has the required level of intelligence to form complexity. A flying spaghetti monster surely does too.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10166111 - 04/14/09 06:23 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
That's not a very good rebuttal. It's saying that the FSM could not be the driving force behind intelligent design because it's not intelligent. Where do they get that idea? Everything I know about the FSM is quite intelligent. Consider the way He places old fossils in the ground with His Noodly Appendage. That's not only clever, it's deceitful. A being capable of that is certainly capable of creating life on earth.
No, it's not saying that. It is saying, "To invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to invoke an arbitrary, silly, and unscientific cause. But in science, to invoke intelligent causation is not to invoke an arbitrary explanation. We have observation-based experience with intelligent agents which shows that they are the only known causes of high levels of specified complexity — the very type of specified complexity we find in natural structures. Using uniformitarian reasoning, a common form of scientific reasoning which invokes causes that we observe in nature that are sufficient to account for the observed data, we can use our observations about the power of intelligent agents to infer the prior action of intelligent causes. There’s nothing arbitrary about it."
Neat as a pin and clear as a bell. The fact that some aren't convinced is back to the fallacy of personal incredulity.
Quote:
We have observation-based experience with intelligent agents which shows that they are the only known causes of high levels of specified complexity
By that reasoning, slime mould has the required level of intelligence to form complexity. A flying spaghetti monster surely does too.
Your use of the term complexity in this case amounts to equivocation, another logical fallacy.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: Individual. Family. Government.
A+. I feel the exact same way.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
Our idea here is parallel. Mine is based on this hierarchy.
Individual. Family. Government.
Individual. Family. Government. Alien Overlords.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deCypher]
#10166470 - 04/14/09 07:06 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: Individual. Family. Government.
A+. I feel the exact same way.
See? I knew you were a genius.
--------------------
|
|