NationStates Jolt Archive


Can the position of Atheism be objectively attacked?

Pages : [1] 2
Kefren
15-12-2005, 11:49
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?
Compulsive Depression
15-12-2005, 11:52
If you have evidence to support a contrary position, yes.
Raharna
15-12-2005, 11:52
Do you think that theism can be objectively critisised/attacked?
Kefren
15-12-2005, 11:56
Do you think that theism can be objectively critisised/attacked?

Yes i do, if you look at religion & mankinds history objectively one might conclude that it's a human consept & construct originating of mankinds unability of explaining his own existance (self conscience is a bugger eh? :p )
Kefren
15-12-2005, 11:56
If you have evidence to support a contrary position, yes.

Evidence is the only thing you can't use because it's basicly unexistant eighter way
Flaming Queermos
15-12-2005, 11:57
Damn right atheism can be objectively attacked. It's a position taken without proof, and although there's been a lot of sound arguments made by atheists against the tenets of individual religions, there hasn't been much in the way of convincing arguments by atheists that _no_ gods can exist, or that the universe is fundamentally lacking in purpose.

If you want a position that's beyond the reach of objective attacks, it's Agnosticism. Seriously, I challenge anyone to come up with a logical or empirical challenge to that belief system :)
Kefren
15-12-2005, 11:58
Damn right atheism can be objectively attacked. It's a position taken without proof, and although there's been a lot of sound arguments made by atheists against the tenets of individual religions, there hasn't been much in the way of convincing arguments by atheists that _no_ gods can exist, or that the universe is fundamentally lacking in purpose.

If you want a position that's beyond the reach of objective attacks, it's Agnosticism. Seriously, I challenge anyone to come up with a logical or empirical challenge to that belief system :)

What are the basic conceptions of agnosticism?
Also, if you use logic to assume there are gods to explain our own existance, then you must also logicly accept that they too have to have an origin, and a source of their existance
BackwoodsSquatches
15-12-2005, 12:20
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?


Yes.

But to immediately demand proof of God isnt going to get you far.

I prefer to attack the source of Christianity, and question its doctrines, date of origin, historical accuracy, conficting themes, innacurate data, ouright make-believe, lies, inconsistancies, etc.

The question is : why?

To make people athiest, like myself?
No.
People aere stupid and stubborn, and will not change what they believe, even if they know its not true.
They find security in God, like a mental placebo, or more often, they love the community that religions and churches bring.
Its that piece of mind, that keeps people christian, and really, there isnt much wrong with that.

For those Christians reading this, who wonder what in the hell Im talking about, think of this:

What happened the last time someone who went to your church died?

Many people consoled the family of the deceased, and probably made a bunch of food, and sent it over to the home of the family.
Likely, many peopple did what they could to help the family of the deceased
They did this out of a sense of community.
They wanted to help out friends, who were mourning, and needed support.

THAT is what Jesus was talking about, and its nice to know not all christians miss the point.
Valdania
15-12-2005, 12:24
Damn right atheism can be objectively attacked. It's a position taken without proof, and although there's been a lot of sound arguments made by atheists against the tenets of individual religions, there hasn't been much in the way of convincing arguments by atheists that _no_ gods can exist, or that the universe is fundamentally lacking in purpose.

If you want a position that's beyond the reach of objective attacks, it's Agnosticism. Seriously, I challenge anyone to come up with a logical or empirical challenge to that belief system :)


Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God(s) - that does not equate to a statement that no God(s) exist.

Consequently your argument is flawed. Whilst you can attack someone for arrogantly stating that 'God does not exist - fact!' you can't challenge the typical athiest in the ways you have suggested.

Athiesm is simply a position taken in the absense of any evidence to suggest otherwise - in effect a null hypothesis.
Kamsaki
15-12-2005, 13:03
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?
I generally believe it can. Atheism, as I understand it and as Douglas Adams pointed out in the Salmon of Doubt, is the explicit belief that no God exists, as opposed to simply "I don't subscribe to any particular belief structure so I'll label myself an Atheist so I can fit in somewhere".

Is this a logical fallousy, incidentally? I'm not entirely convinced that this is a false simplification, since I've had the idea of Implicit/Explicit Atheism noted at me several times by professed "Atheists"...

Anyway, I think the objective difficulty of both kinds of Atheism is that they rely completely upon the ideas of other humans as the only possible ways in which God could exist. This is obviously so with the Implicits, though perhaps slightly less with the Explicits. Yet when you believe in No God, you do of course restrict the idea of God to the commonly perceived understanding of the word. Couldn't God exist in a way no human has yet grasped or explained? Or, even more interestingly, couldn't God have been correctly understood by some individuals then shunned by popular religion?

To completely reject God relies on a firm definition of what God is. And to fulfil that, you depend upon other religions.

Humanity builds a Strawman God, Atheism attacks it. Objectively, there's something wrong there.
Reformentia
15-12-2005, 13:04
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?

Only with objective evidence of the existence of a deity.
Flaming Queermos
15-12-2005, 13:05
What are the basic conceptions of agnosticism?
Also, if you use logic to assume there are gods to explain our own existance, then you must also logicly accept that they too have to have an origin, and a source of their existance

It's the assumption that in the lack of concrete proof for or against the existence of any gods, it would be foolish to believe one way or the other on the matter. Logically it's unassailable, even if an awful lot of religious folks and hardcore atheists feel that it leaves a lot to be desired :)
Valdania
15-12-2005, 13:12
I generally believe it can. Atheism, as I understand it and as Douglas Adams pointed out in the Salmon of Doubt, is the explicit belief that no God exists, as opposed to simply "I don't subscribe to any particular belief structure so I'll label myself an Atheist so I can fit in somewhere".

Is this a logical fallousy, incidentally? I'm not entirely convinced that this is a false simplification, since I've had the idea of Implicit/Explicit Atheism noted at me several times by professed "Atheists"...

Anyway, I think the objective difficulty of both kinds of Atheism is that they rely completely upon the ideas of other humans as the only possible ways in which God could exist. This is obviously so with the Implicits, though perhaps slightly less with the Explicits. Yet when you believe in No God, you do of course restrict the idea of God to the commonly perceived understanding of the word. Couldn't God exist in a way no human has yet grasped or explained? Or, even more interestingly, couldn't God have been correctly understood by some individuals then shunned by popular religion?




I don't agree with your definition of atheism - it's a more assertive position than an agnostic would take but it's not typically an assertion that God does not exist.
Lazy Otakus
15-12-2005, 13:13
I generally believe it can. Atheism, as I understand it and as Douglas Adams pointed out in the Salmon of Doubt, is the explicit belief that no God exists, as opposed to simply "I don't subscribe to any particular belief structure so I'll label myself an Atheist so I can fit in somewhere".

Is this a logical fallousy, incidentally? I'm not entirely convinced that this is a false simplification, since I've had the idea of Implicit/Explicit Atheism noted at me several times by professed "Atheists"...

Anyway, I think the objective difficulty of both kinds of Atheism is that they rely completely upon the ideas of other humans as the only possible ways in which God could exist. This is obviously so with the Implicits, though perhaps slightly less with the Explicits. Yet when you believe in No God, you do of course restrict the idea of God to the commonly perceived understanding of the word. Couldn't God exist in a way no human has yet grasped or explained? Or, even more interestingly, couldn't God have been correctly understood by some individuals then shunned by popular religion?

To completely reject God relies on a firm definition of what God is. And to fulfil that, you depend upon other religions.

Humanity builds a Strawman God, Atheism attacks it. Objectively, there's something wrong there.

That's more or less what I think.

Agnosticism or Implicit Atheism says "I dunno", while Explicit Atheism says "no" without proof, or only proof against certain points of specific religions.

I personally say "I dunno" and "the whole supernatural being thing seems fairly unlikely to me, especially those god concepts of the major world religions".
Zero Six Three
15-12-2005, 13:15
Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God(s) - that does not equate to a statement that no God(s) exist.

Consequently your argument is flawed. Whilst you can attack someone for arrogantly stating that 'God does not exist - fact!' you can't challenge the typical athiest in the ways you have suggested.

Athiesm is simply a position taken in the absense of any evidence to suggest otherwise - in effect a null hypothesis.
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, right?
Jushakian
15-12-2005, 13:16
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?

I'd say no. As there is no REAL evidence that there is/are a god/s there is nothing to use againts atheism. Real evidence being something that could make anyone believe in god/s.

Having said that I'm not really an atheist. I really don't care about the whole deal, but I love to debate over it. You usually get really good laughs.
The Squeaky Rat
15-12-2005, 13:17
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?

Atheism itself ? No.

Atheisms efficiency in running human civilisation ? Yes. Most humans seem to need to "know" there is some big omnipotent being looking over their shoulder to prevent them from doing bad things.
Lazy Otakus
15-12-2005, 13:24
Atheism itself ? No.

Atheisms efficiency in running human civilisation ? Yes. Most humans seem to need to "know" there is some big omnipotent being looking over their shoulder to prevent them from doing bad things.

Is it really "most humans"? The idea of a benevolent saviour god is fairly new - Greek or Roman gods did not really watch over people and I guess that the same can be said about Hinduism, Buddhism and other religion.

Wikipedia says:

Christian 2.1 billion
Muslim 1.3
Atheist 1.1
Hindu 0.9
trad. Chinese 0.394
Buddhism 0.376

So we have 3.4 billion people who need a omnipotent, benevolent god and 2.77 (maybe more - I didn't add all the small religions) who do not. I would say it's relatively balanced.
The Squeaky Rat
15-12-2005, 13:25
So we have 3.4 billion people who need a omnipotent, benevolent god and 2.77 (maybe more - I didn't add all the small religions) who do not. I would say it's relatively balanced.

But they do need something - considering only 1% (which I think should be 0,1%) seems to be a true "unbeliever".
Lazy Otakus
15-12-2005, 13:28
But they do need something - considering only 1% (which I think should be 0,1%) seems to be a true "unbeliever".

That would be interesting to know. The Wikipedia figure of 1.1 billion Secular/Irreligious/Agnostic/Atheist seemed surpisingly high to me.
Zero Six Three
15-12-2005, 13:30
Atheism is a logically unsound position. An arguement from disbelief is still a fallacy. Argueing that there is no evidence is an arguement from ignorance. Most of the arguements against God(s) tend to be on the basis of logical paradoxes. That itself is a logical fallacy. Arguement from lack of imagination.
BackwoodsSquatches
15-12-2005, 13:37
Atheism is a logically unsound position. An arguement from disbelief is still a fallacy. Argueing that there is no evidence is an arguement from ignorance. Most of the arguements against God(s) tend to be on the basis of logical paradoxes. That itself is a logical fallacy. Arguement from lack of imagination.


Wow.

Thats so wrong, it makes me want to catch the crabs.

Arguing that there is no evidence is an argument of ignorance?

Well then, oh supremely wise being, enlighten us wretched sinners, and reveal one tiny shred of the abundance of proof you have, and save us!
Zero Six Three
15-12-2005, 13:43
Wow.

Thats so wrong, it makes me want to catch the crabs.

Arguing that there is no evidence is an argument of ignorance?

Well then, oh supremely wise being, enlighten us wretched sinners, and reveal one tiny shred of the abundance of proof you have, and save us!
I'll say it again, shall I? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there is no evidence for a God it is a logically untenable position to declare God doesn't exist. Can you prove a God doesn't exist?
Cdm014
15-12-2005, 13:50
Atheism = No Theism = No God by definition Atheism isn't simply lack of belief in a particular God but is the positive assertion that there is no God. To do this the atheist must define God then assert that the previously defined God does not exist.

this then runs into two problems 1. The atheist must have an accurate definition of God - good luck with that one, entire civilizations who do believe in God/gods have tried and failed so how do you propose to find evidence that defines something in which you do not believe.

2. for the assertion to have weight the atheist must prove his/her definition of God is accurate, and then must not simply prove God isn't around at that time but must prove the impossibility of God having ever been around. If God exits then why... questions simply don't pass muster. These questions only try to define God in as much as they ask about limits of His will or power.

Positive atheists eventually always retreat to occam's razor claiming that it is simpler to believe God didn't have a hand in event X usually creation of the universe. But again this is only as much as asking the question of If God exists why didn't God create the universe through another method.

So proper atheism involves three steps roughly
1. Creating a religion
2. proving that religion right
3. Proving same religion wrong

Agnosticism/Implicit atheism - is saying there might be a God but it's not your God. It is actually a much weaker intellectual position than positive atheism. Because the agnostic does not propose an alternative assertion which can then be tested against the assertion of God they claim is wrong. In fact this position must lose all its associations with science and religion because both science and religion as a study would obligate the agnostic to find the correct assertion at which point the agnostic must either examine another religion or make the same assertions as the positive atheist.

So we may at least admire the industry of the atheist who will work to disprove himself, while the agnostic we must simply dismiss as lazy.
Willamena
15-12-2005, 13:54
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?
Any subject can be examined and criticized objectively.
BackwoodsSquatches
15-12-2005, 13:56
I'll say it again, shall I? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


You've been watching too many cartoons.
That particular quote was from Boondocks.

Dont debate philosophy with anything you watch on Adult Swim.

You believe a pink bunny lives in a 12x 12 room, with a red door.
If enter the room, searching for the bunny, and do not find one....it is fallacy to insist he is there.

You can use catchphrases all you like, but to effectively attack the ideals of athiesm, you must prove God exists.

Your insistance of an arguement that comes from the basis of insisting on proof being ignorant, must surely indicate that you have such proof.

Excellent!

6 billion people are waiting to hear it!
Willamena
15-12-2005, 13:59
Humanity builds a Strawman God, Atheism attacks it. Objectively, there's something wrong there.
*mutters*consistently*mutters*
Kefren
15-12-2005, 14:02
Atheism is a logically unsound position. An arguement from disbelief is still a fallacy. Argueing that there is no evidence is an arguement from ignorance. Most of the arguements against God(s) tend to be on the basis of logical paradoxes. That itself is a logical fallacy. Arguement from lack of imagination.

I find your post somehow insulting, but i'm willing to let it slide (it might be a language barrier)

The belief that the concept of god, and the concept of religion are human constructs is rather solid if you ask me. Certainly if you look at history & the various religions that are & have been it seems logical to conclude that both concepts come from the human mind to awnser questions they couldn't understand, and to maintain a soceity.
Zero Six Three
15-12-2005, 14:02
You've been watching too many cartoons.
That particular quote was from Boondocks.

Dont debate philosophy with anything you watch on Adult Swim.

You believe a pink bunny lives in a 12x 12 room, with a red door.
If enter the room, searching for the bunny, and do not find one....it is fallacy to insist he is there.

You can use catchphrases all you like, but to effectively attack the ideals of athiesm, you must prove God exists.

Your insistance of an arguement that comes from the basis of insisting on proof being ignorant, must surely indicate that you have such proof.

Excellent!

6 billion people are waiting to hear it!
I'm not a theist because I have no proof that God exists. I'm not an athiest because I have no proof that God doesn't exist. I'm agnostic because I don't know either way. I haven't said I have proof. I haven't said that there is proof. I've said there might be proof. I've said just because you belive there is no God doesn't make it so. I have objectively attacked the position of atheism. What more do you want from me?
Lazy Otakus
15-12-2005, 14:05
Atheism = No Theism = No God by definition Atheism isn't simply lack of belief in a particular God but is the positive assertion that there is no God. To do this the atheist must define God then assert that the previously defined God does not exist.

this then runs into two problems 1. The atheist must have an accurate definition of God - good luck with that one, entire civilizations who do believe in God/gods have tried and failed so how do you propose to find evidence that defines something in which you do not believe.

2. for the assertion to have weight the atheist must prove his/her definition of God is accurate, and then must not simply prove God isn't around at that time but must prove the impossibility of God having ever been around. If God exits then why... questions simply don't pass muster. These questions only try to define God in as much as they ask about limits of His will or power.

Positive atheists eventually always retreat to occam's razor claiming that it is simpler to believe God didn't have a hand in event X usually creation of the universe. But again this is only as much as asking the question of If God exists why didn't God create the universe through another method.

So proper atheism involves three steps roughly
1. Creating a religion
2. proving that religion right
3. Proving same religion wrong

Actually, an atheist does not have to do any of those things. People are born as atheists.


Agnosticism/Implicit atheism - is saying there might be a God but it's not your God. It is actually a much weaker intellectual position than positive atheism. Because the agnostic does not propose an alternative assertion which can then be tested against the assertion of God they claim is wrong. In fact this position must lose all its associations with science and religion because both science and religion as a study would obligate the agnostic to find the correct assertion at which point the agnostic must either examine another religion or make the same assertions as the positive atheist.

So we may at least admire the industry of the atheist who will work to disprove himself, while the agnostic we must simply dismiss as lazy.

Implicit Atheism does not claim to be scientific, but it might be be the most scientific position of all three. Since there is no evidence for or against supernatural beings, it would not be clever to make assertions that there are those beings or that there can't be any. Implicit Atheists don't have to do the work for Explicit Atheists or religious people to find evidence.

You say it's lazy - I say it's clever. :)
Compulsive Depression
15-12-2005, 14:08
Well, you could say the same about unicorns. I have no evidence to say they don't exist. However, they've yet to be sighted, and we've not found any fossilised unicorns either. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that unicorns don't exist and never have, until some evidence suggests they do.

I don't see people claiming unicorns exist because we've yet to conclusively prove they don't.
BackwoodsSquatches
15-12-2005, 14:09
[It was you who said:

Argueing that there is no evidence is an arguement from ignorance.

Now you say this: I'm not a theist because I have no proof that God exists. I'm not an athiest because I have no proof that God doesn't exist

Hmm..contradicting yourself already?

Thanks for playing.
Skibereen
15-12-2005, 14:10
Yes i do, if you look at religion & mankinds history objectively one might conclude that it's a human consept & construct originating of mankinds unability of explaining his own existance (self conscience is a bugger eh? :p )
That is not objective--

It is a subjective opinion.

Because might well onclude it is a pervasive racial memory or instinctive perception as to the nature of the universe.

One might also conclude it is man's why of hiding from himself that he is inferior to the great alien masters which reside on the dark side of the moon.


One might conclude that from that the meaning of life is cheese.


One might conclude any number of things---coming to a conclusion, no matter how rationale it seems to the one who is reaching it is not objective.


Atheism and Theism can only be approached objectively if the observer concludes he has insuffucuent data to make a genuine conclusion.

Anything else leaves objective far behind.

Atheism is based on a BELIEF in that the lack of proof is proof there is no God, deity, higher power, greater blah-

Theism is the opposite--neither system has proofs--if they offer no observable data you can not reasonably and objectably conclude anything.

That is why everyone on this board who screams how wrong the opposition to them is on this issue is so completely stupid, obnoxious, and bigoted.

The mindless slackjaws who propagate this site--go ahead and include me in my own statement, let there be no exception--------sputter forth half-assed intelletualisms and fallicious arguements with healthy dose of backwards or just plain anti-logic and firmly beleive they have answers to the greatest philosophical and theological questions in the history of mankind.

The virtue which is in short supply here on NS is humility---nobody here wants to admit they just dont know, and that the other guy might be right.
Willamena
15-12-2005, 14:19
Actually, an atheist does not have to do any of those things. People are born as atheists.
Atheism is not a state of being, it is a philosophical position.
Reformentia
15-12-2005, 14:20
Atheism = No Theism = No God by definition.

Theism = BELIEF in God.

Atheism = no BELIEF in God.

How difficult a concept is this for people to grasp?

Atheism isn't simply lack of belief in a particular God but is the positive assertion that there is no God.

No it isn't.
Kefren
15-12-2005, 14:22
That is not objective--

It is a subjective opinion.

Because might well onclude it is a pervasive racial memory or instinctive perception as to the nature of the universe.

One might also conclude it is man's why of hiding from himself that he is inferior to the great alien masters which reside on the dark side of the moon.


One might conclude that from that the meaning of life is cheese.


One might conclude any number of things---coming to a conclusion, no matter how rationale it seems to the one who is reaching it is not objective.


Atheism and Theism can only be approached objectively if the observer concludes he has insuffucuent data to make a genuine conclusion.

Anything else leaves objective far behind.

Atheism is based on a BELIEF in that the lack of proof is proof there is no God, deity, higher power, greater blah-

Theism is the opposite--neither system has proofs--if they offer no observable data you can not reasonably and objectably conclude anything.

That is why everyone on this board who screams how wrong the opposition to them is on this issue is so completely stupid, obnoxious, and bigoted.

The mindless slackjaws who propagate this site--go ahead and include me in my own statement, let there be no exception--------sputter forth half-assed intelletualisms and fallicious arguements with healthy dose of backwards or just plain anti-logic and firmly beleive they have answers to the greatest philosophical and theological questions in the history of mankind.

The virtue which is in short supply here on NS is humility---nobody here wants to admit they just dont know, and that the other guy might be right.

It's an opinion based on the observation of history & the human mind (more precisely my own, since i have no test subjects to explore/abuse ;) ), it's as objective as i can get, it's the closest i can come to explain why i disbelieve in a deity or in religion. I don't believe precisely because i reached that conclusion when i was faced with my own (religious) upbringing, the more i thought about the concepts the more i came to believe they are human constructs.
Reformentia
15-12-2005, 14:23
Atheism is not a state of being, it is a philosophical position.

It is thr lack of adoption of a specific philosophical position (deity belief). That hardly constitutes a philosophical position in and of itself.
Kefren
15-12-2005, 14:23
Atheism is not a state of being, it is a philosophical position.

Technicly, he's correct, at birth we're all atheists, because well, i've never seen a newborn quote the bible or pray, the only thing a newborn cares about is sucking on mom's tit :p
Willamena
15-12-2005, 14:25
Atheism = No Theism = No God by definition Atheism isn't simply lack of belief in a particular God but is the positive assertion that there is no God. To do this the atheist must define God then assert that the previously defined God does not exist.
No; atheism is a lack of commitment that there IS a god.
Lazy Otakus
15-12-2005, 14:26
Atheism is not a state of being, it is a philosophical position.

Are people born religious? I think not - people normally are tought about religion by others, have a religious experiences or invent religion to explain the world around them - but they are not inherently religious. How would you call the state of mind before becoming religious?

You could say that people are born as atheists, but they don't know what it means yet.
Willamena
15-12-2005, 14:26
It is thr lack of adoption of a specific philosophical position (deity belief). That hardly constitutes a philosophical position in and of itself.
Atheism is a lack of commitment that there IS a god, not a lack of philosophical stance.
Zero Six Three
15-12-2005, 14:27
[It was you who said:



Now you say this:

Hmm..contradicting yourself already?

Thanks for playing.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is true (or false depending on the circumstance) because it hasn't been proven false (or true depending on the circumstance).

Now, would you care to show me how that is anyway contradictory? Like I said, I never claimed to have evidence of God's existance I said you don't have evidence of his inexistance.
Willamena
15-12-2005, 14:29
Are people born religious? I think not - people normally are tought about religion by others, have a religious experiences or invent religion to explain the world around them - but they are not inherently religious. How would you call the state of mind before becoming religious?

You could say that people are born as atheists, but they don't know what it means yet.
So your claim is that atheism is all that is 'not religious'?
Reformentia
15-12-2005, 14:33
I'm not a theist because I have no proof that God exists. I'm not an athiest because I have no proof that God doesn't exist. I'm agnostic because I don't know either way.

I swear one day I'm going to stumble across an online discussion board where this topic is discussed where at least a decent percentage of the participants have the faintest fucking clue what "agnostic" actually means and I'll then be able to die a happy man.

Agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism or atheism. It is a seperate position that can be adopted in addition to either theism or atheism, it cannot replace them. You are one or the other. You either possess a belief in a deity and are a theist or you do not possess that belief in a deity and are an atheist. There's no third side to this coin. It's a binary solution set.

Saying you don't know if there's a God or not doesn't make you a damn agnostic. Agnosticism is the position that true knowledge of God is unattainable due to the nature of God. That the concept God represents is inherently unknowable.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe God exists.
Lazy Otakus
15-12-2005, 14:35
So your claim is that atheism is all that is 'not religious'?

Depends. You could say, that atheism is defined by it's contrast to theism, since it already uses the concept of supernatural beings. But I would also include the position of "not believing" without the knowledge of religious concepts as atheism. Is there a better word for that?
Zero Six Three
15-12-2005, 14:45
I swear one day I'm going to stumble across an online discussion board where this topic is discussed where at least a decent percentage of the participants have the faintest fucking clue what "agnostic" actually means and I'll then be able to die a happy man.

Agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism or atheism. It is a seperate position that can be adopted in addition to either theism or atheism, it cannot replace them. You are one or the other. You either possess a belief in a deity and are a theist or you do not possess that belief in a deity and are an atheist. There's no third side to this coin. It's a binary solution set.

Saying you don't know if there's a God or not doesn't make you a damn agnostic. Agnosticism is the position that true knowledge of God is unattainable due to the nature of God. That the concept God represents is inherently unknowable.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe God exists.
If it makes you feel better I actually meant to type "can't know" rather than "don't know". I'm actually a agnostic atheist. You can die happy now.
Kamsaki
15-12-2005, 14:48
-snip-
This isn't a bipartite problem. It's not just a case of saying "I am Theist" or "I am Atheist". There are a whole range of interpretations of Theos that would yield varying positive and negative responses for a given world view. Depending on your interpretation of what is necessary to be a God, the Gaia idea could be considered a theology, though others would contest that universal force is not sufficient to be considered Deity.
Neo Danube
15-12-2005, 15:23
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?

Well they do have a difficult time explaining away the events in the Bible
Evenrue
15-12-2005, 15:28
What are the basic conceptions of agnosticism?
Also, if you use logic to assume there are gods to explain our own existance, then you must also logicly accept that they too have to have an origin, and a source of their existance

agnosticism is pretty much a non-standard belief in a higher power.
Valdania
15-12-2005, 15:31
Atheism = No Theism = No God; by definition Atheism isn't simply lack of belief in a particular God but is the positive assertion that there is no God........

......while the agnostic we must simply dismiss as lazy.


And we can dismiss you as being a bit simple?

I suggest you look up what atheism actually means.
Valdania
15-12-2005, 15:33
Well they do have a difficult time explaining away the events in the Bible


I would ask you to elaborate but I don't think I can be bothered
Kefren
15-12-2005, 15:35
Well they do have a difficult time explaining away the events in the Bible

Which events did you have in mind? I'm willing to have a crack at them ;)
Skibereen
15-12-2005, 15:36
Theism = BELIEF in God.

Atheism = no BELIEF in God.

How difficult a concept is this for people to grasp?



No it isn't.
Atheism is precisely the beleif that there is NO GOD--not that there is not eneough data to draw a conclusion--that is agnosticism---Atheism is the direct antithesis of Theism.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Datheism

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/
• noun the belief that God does not exist
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk



Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Atheism

atheist
noun [C]
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
Compare agnostic.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD

It suggests comparing to agnostic, lets do that.

agnostic
noun [C]
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists:



Agnostics are the ones who are waiting for more data.
So whoever you are saying that Atheism is not the direct disbeleif in a Deity, stop it. Until you a re reputable source for the definition of words used in everyday vocabulary stop telling people the WRONG thing about a paticular philosophy---your opinion is not fact.
Skibereen
15-12-2005, 15:43
It's an opinion based on the observation of history & the human mind (more precisely my own, since i have no test subjects to explore/abuse ;) ), it's as objective as i can get, it's the closest i can come to explain why i disbelieve in a deity or in religion. I don't believe precisely because i reached that conclusion when i was faced with my own (religious) upbringing, the more i thought about the concepts the more i came to believe they are human constructs.
I just offered you four more alternative conclusions based off of the same data---

You are not even attempting objectivity.

You are deliberately coloring it with your own opinion and veiw point and simply claiming you can do no better.

When examining other peoples world veiws you must first practiced "Detached Empathy" you must attempt to perceive the circumstance of the other and then see as they would see so as to better understand the subject you are attempting to investigate--in an objective manner--since the subject in question is never objective in and of itself because it will change at least a little bit from each person.

You are not attempting to empathize, mainly because you perceive the conclusion YOU have come to, so you are being subjective.

Nothing wrong with that.

It just isnt what you posted the thread for, in soeaking objectively try a little harder--use you imagination. Cheese.
Neo Danube
15-12-2005, 16:06
Which events did you have in mind? I'm willing to have a crack at them ;)

Well Jesus rising from the dead for a start. He was medically dead (IE the blood and water comming from his side proves that) so the "swoon" theory is out of the window. The longest someone has been clinicly dead for and risen again for is a couple of hours, and thats using modern medical science technology. And by the way "It didnt happen" doesnt count as an explanation
Jester III
15-12-2005, 16:07
I swear one day I'm going to stumble across an online discussion board where this topic is discussed where at least a decent percentage of the participants have the faintest fucking clue what "agnostic" actually means and I'll then be able to die a happy man.

Agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism or atheism. It is a seperate position that can be adopted in addition to either theism or atheism, it cannot replace them. You are one or the other. You either possess a belief in a deity and are a theist or you do not possess that belief in a deity and are an atheist. There's no third side to this coin. It's a binary solution set.

Saying you don't know if there's a God or not doesn't make you a damn agnostic. Agnosticism is the position that true knowledge of God is unattainable due to the nature of God. That the concept God represents is inherently unknowable.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe God exists.

Hey, since you know it all, would you mind giving me the lotto numbers for the next draw? :rolleyes:
What you so eloquently said is bullshit. Complete and utter. There is no natural law or golden rule that forces you to chose a side. You can remain neutral. A jury does not decide before all evidence is presented and all witnesses heard. As an agnostic i feel there is a lot of evidence missing and thus i decided to not care. What now, are you going to send the religion police after me, for not chosing a side? I dont give a damn either. It simply has no impact whatsoever on my life. Thats Apathetic Agnostic for you.

The coin is still spinning and there is no indication of it stopping. Which is exactly my position, i say it will keep spinning, neither head nor tails ever coming up. In the meantime i got better things to do than watch it turn around forever.
San haiti
15-12-2005, 16:08
Well Jesus rising from the dead for a start. He was medically dead (IE the blood and water comming from his side proves that) so the "swoon" theory is out of the window. The longest someone has been clinicly dead for and risen again for is a couple of hours, and thats using modern medical science technology. And by the way "It didnt happen" doesnt count as an explanation

Oh, i think it does. You make the claim that it happened, so you have to provide the evidence of it happening. Got any?
Candelar
15-12-2005, 16:09
atheism
/aythi-iz’m/
• noun the belief that God does not exist
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk
It's not unusual for general dictionaries to over-simplify and get fairly specialised terms wrong. The meaning of atheism can be derived from the word itself :

A (lack of) - THEISM (belief in god(s)).

Just as Christians define "Christian", so atheists define "atheism", and many atheists are of the "weak" or "negative" variety, i.e. lacking a belief in god, but not necessarily denying the possibility of god.
Lazy Otakus
15-12-2005, 16:09
Well Jesus rising from the dead for a start. He was medically dead (IE the blood and water comming from his side proves that) so the "swoon" theory is out of the window. The longest someone has been clinicly dead for and risen again for is a couple of hours, and thats using modern medical science technology. And by the way "It didnt happen" doesnt count as an explanation

It was his long lost twin brother.

Next.
Candelar
15-12-2005, 16:16
Well Jesus rising from the dead for a start. He was medically dead (IE the blood and water comming from his side proves that) so the "swoon" theory is out of the window. The longest someone has been clinicly dead for and risen again for is a couple of hours, and thats using modern medical science technology. And by the way "It didnt happen" doesnt count as an explanation
"It didn't happen" isn't necessary as an explanation - the onus is on those who claim it did happen to prove it, and words written in a book decades after the supposed event do not constitute proof. Most myths get written down eventually - we need something more to demonstrate that this was an actual event and not just another of the many myths which prevailed at the time. After 2000 years of trying, no one has yet come up with the goods.
Valdania
15-12-2005, 16:18
Well Jesus rising from the dead for a start. He was medically dead (IE the blood and water comming from his side proves that) so the "swoon" theory is out of the window. The longest someone has been clinicly dead for and risen again for is a couple of hours, and thats using modern medical science technology. And by the way "It didnt happen" doesnt count as an explanation


And your source for this incident is ....guess what?
Jester III
15-12-2005, 16:32
You've been watching too many cartoons.
That particular quote was from Boondocks.
What the fuck are you talking about? If one day Barney the happy dinosaur explains to the kids that a=b and b=c means a=c, would you dismiss it as well, because it was on a kids show? Where ever you heard it, it is one of the basic principles of logic, even if the environment it was presented in doesnt seem a likely place to find it. Same goes for "absence of...", it is ultimately true, no matter where you find it.

You believe a pink bunny lives in a 12x 12 room, with a red door.
If enter the room, searching for the bunny, and do not find one....it is fallacy to insist he is there.
There is an infinite number of rooms and the bunny is (possibly) only in one. If you enter one room or ten or thousands, it is no proof there is no bunny. You may have looked in the wrong rooms.
Zolworld
15-12-2005, 16:44
[QUOTE=

If you want a position that's beyond the reach of objective attacks, it's Agnosticism. Seriously, I challenge anyone to come up with a logical or empirical challenge to that belief system :)[/QUOTE]

Agnosticism. Basically saying "duh, I dunno..." Or worse, dont care. Does God exist? Dunno. do unicorns? dunno. does santa? dunno.
While I understand that it is impossible to know anything for sure, just sitting on the fence because your not absolutely 100% seems like a cop out. You could make up any ridiculous thing and an agnostic would be unable to say for sure that it wasnt true, even if theres no reason to think it is.
Ashmoria
15-12-2005, 16:51
I'll say it again, shall I? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there is no evidence for a God it is a logically untenable position to declare God doesn't exist. Can you prove a God doesn't exist?

hmmmm seems to me that if there is no evidence that god exists then it is perfectly logical to believe that he doesnt exist until some evidence is brought forth.

do i have to believe every possible assertion made by anyone as long as it cant be proven wrong? including "my aunt was abducted by space aliens" and "intravenous hydrogen peroxide can cure MS"?
Economic Associates
15-12-2005, 16:51
Agnosticism. Basically saying "duh, I dunno..." Or worse, dont care. Does God exist? Dunno. do unicorns? dunno. does santa? dunno.
While I understand that it is impossible to know anything for sure, just sitting on the fence because your not absolutely 100% seems like a cop out. You could make up any ridiculous thing and an agnostic would be unable to say for sure that it wasnt true, even if theres no reason to think it is.

Uhh no not really. Can we objectively prove if santa exists based on the stories we have been given from him, no we can't. No home in the north pole, no sleigh with flying reindeer which visits homes, and no fat jolly man in a red suit who can go down a chimney. Agnostics tend to take the position that we can't know if there is or is not a "god" not if we can or can not know a ficticious caracter used by parents to give their little kids joy when they give them presents.
Ashmoria
15-12-2005, 16:55
Well Jesus rising from the dead for a start. He was medically dead (IE the blood and water comming from his side proves that) so the "swoon" theory is out of the window. The longest someone has been clinicly dead for and risen again for is a couple of hours, and thats using modern medical science technology. And by the way "It didnt happen" doesnt count as an explanation
how does blood coming from his side indicate he was dead? i thought only living people bleed.

i see no reason to doubt he was dead if you have found a reason to accept the bible as fact.
Zolworld
15-12-2005, 16:59
Uhh no not really. Can we objectively prove if santa exists based on the stories we have been given from him, no we can't. No home in the north pole, no sleigh with flying reindeer which visits homes, and no fat jolly man in a red suit who can go down a chimney. Agnostics tend to take the position that we can't know if there is or is not a "god" not if we can or can not know a ficticious caracter used by parents to give their little kids joy when they give them presents.

My point is that essentially gods and santa are just made up things. No reindeers or home in the north pole doesnt prove santa doesnt exist, any more than the presents and eaten mince pies prove that he does exist. But we still know that he is just made up. How is God any different?
Caelcorma
15-12-2005, 17:01
Yes with simple logic - as demonstrated by a bored Mediaeval monk some 1000 years ago..


So here goes:
A - if you believe in God, and he exists... yeah for you
B - if you believe in God, and he doesn't exist... meh, oh well
C - if you don't believe in God, and he doesn't exist... yeah for you
D - if you don't believe in God, and he does exist... your fucked

So by looking at the above the safest and most logical choice is to believe in God :D
Discendenza
15-12-2005, 17:02
*sigh*
i hope people do realize that threads like this are pointless...all the ones i have seen start off with a question...then quickly transform into a cacophony of bashing and put downs...and Barney?...:confused:...you're not going to change each others minds...you are just going to piss each other off....do i believe in a God? Yes i do...but i'm not going to get in a fight with someone who doesn't because i think they are wrong...they are entitled to their beliefs just as i am entitled to mine....what right do we have to try and disprove someones beliefs...

i say if you believe in something...then believe in it......if you don't believe in something...well then don't!

*this is just for fun------>*:gundge:
San haiti
15-12-2005, 17:02
how does blood coming from his side indicate he was dead? i thought only living people bleed.

i see no reason to doubt he was dead if you have found a reason to accept the bible as fact.

I could be wrong but in the bible I think when his side was pierced that some rather dark blood as well as a clear liquid flowed out of him. This is what hsppens to your blood when you've been dead for a while. Still we only have their word for it.
Willamena
15-12-2005, 17:03
Yes with simple logic - as demonstrated by a bored Mediaeval monk some 1000 years ago..


So here goes:
A - if you believe in God, and he exists... yeah for you
B - if you believe in God, and he doesn't exist... meh, oh well
C - if you don't believe in God, and he doesn't exist... yeah for you
D - if you don't believe in God, and he does exist... your fucked

So by looking at the above the safest and most logical choice is to believe in God :D
...provided God means you harm.
Economic Associates
15-12-2005, 17:04
My point is that essentially gods and santa are just made up things. No reindeers or home in the north pole doesnt prove santa doesnt exist, any more than the presents and eaten mince pies prove that he does exist. But we still know that he is just made up. How is God any different?

Santa you can prove is made up, God not so much. And yes the fact that there are no reindeers or home in the north pole does prove that he doesn't exist along with the fact that parents are the ones who give the presents and eat the pies. Your really comparing apples to oranges here.
Lazy Otakus
15-12-2005, 17:04
Yes with simple logic - as demonstrated by a bored Mediaeval monk some 1000 years ago..


So here goes:
A - if you believe in God, and he exists... yeah for you
B - if you believe in God, and he doesn't exist... meh, oh well
C - if you don't believe in God, and he doesn't exist... yeah for you
D - if you don't believe in God, and he does exist... your fucked

So by looking at the above the safest and most logical choice is to believe in God :D

Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#Criticisms_of_Pascal.27s_wager) has been refuted to death already. I'm sorry for you. :(
Valdania
15-12-2005, 17:06
Yes with simple logic - as demonstrated by a bored Mediaeval monk some 1000 years ago..


So here goes:
A - if you believe in God, and he exists... yeah for you
B - if you believe in God, and he doesn't exist... meh, oh well
C - if you don't believe in God, and he doesn't exist... yeah for you
D - if you don't believe in God, and he does exist... your fucked

So by looking at the above the safest and most logical choice is to believe in God :D


Please don't bother us with Pascal's Wager
Jester III
15-12-2005, 17:08
Agnosticism. Basically saying "duh, I dunno..." Or worse, dont care. Does God exist? Dunno. do unicorns? dunno. does santa? dunno.
While I understand that it is impossible to know anything for sure, just sitting on the fence because your not absolutely 100% seems like a cop out. You could make up any ridiculous thing and an agnostic would be unable to say for sure that it wasnt true, even if theres no reason to think it is.
The key word was objective attack. Thinking its a cop-out isnt exactly a "logical or empirical challenge". ;)
Ashmoria
15-12-2005, 17:11
I could be wrong but in the bible I think when his side was pierced that some rather dark blood as well as a clear liquid flowed out of him. This is what hsppens to your blood when you've been dead for a while. Still we only have their word for it.
hmmm i thought his side was pierced while he was still alive in order to speed the whole things up. he died much faster than usual for a crucifixion.

gimme a min. ill try looking it up.
Ashmoria
15-12-2005, 17:24
oh i see i was wrong.

from john

31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"[b] 37and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."[c]
Vladimir Illich
15-12-2005, 19:13
When they told me about Santa, I was shaken, but kept on going.

But when I found out about the Tooth Fairy, I just stopped believing in all supernatural stuff.

Alas, recently I have found a dragon in my garage, and nobody has been able to prove it isn't there.
The Squeaky Rat
15-12-2005, 19:21
Alas, recently I have found a dragon in my garage, and nobody has been able to prove it isn't there.

Lets try the scientific method:
1. How was the dragon observed ?
Revasser
15-12-2005, 19:25
When they told me about Santa, I was shaken, but kept on going.

But when I found out about the Tooth Fairy, I just stopped believing in all supernatural stuff.

Alas, recently I have found a dragon in my garage, and nobody has been able to prove it isn't there.

I read that book. That book kicks ass.
Santa Barbara
15-12-2005, 19:25
As usual, people love to redefine atheism so it doesn't mean just a lack of belief in God, but a hardcore stance that God does not exist. *sigh*

This is how it goes:

"Do you believe in God?"

"No."

"Then you're an atheist."

And then if you want to get specific:

"Do you believe there IS NO GOD?"

"Yes"

"Then you're an explicit/strong atheist."

"How about you, do you believe there IS NO GOD?"

"No."

"Then you're an implicit/weak atheist."

That's it. People trying to define all atheism as one or the other is just oversimplifying.

And I see Pascal's Wager has already been brought up. No thread about atheism can possibly go without that coming up..
Vladimir Illich
15-12-2005, 19:32
With all senses. By me. Everytime I try to show him to other people he vanishes, but I know he's there.
Willamena
15-12-2005, 19:40
Actually, "explicit" and "implicit" are poor terms to define the two types of atheism. "Strong" and "weak" are better.

"Explicit" means you come right out and say something, clearly, with no ambiguity. "Implicit" means you imply the same thing without saying it. Both terms have inherent the same expressed belief, whatever you believe that to mean.
Santa Barbara
15-12-2005, 19:44
Actually, "explicit" and "implicit" are poor terms to define the two types of atheism. "Strong" and "weak" are better.

"Explicit" means you come right out and say something, clearly, with no ambiguity. "Implicit" means you imply the same thing without saying it. Both terms have inherent the same expressed belief, whatever you believe that to mean.

Yeah, I use the strong/weak definitions myself, but someone else said explicit/implicit and I thought I'd just do as the Romans do in Rome. :p
Vladimir Illich
15-12-2005, 19:49
Someone else from the Church of The Invisible Dragon please take over, I'm going to collect some.... "donations".
Melkor Unchained
15-12-2005, 20:49
Unsurprisingly, I can't see that anyone has offered the real answer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10100599&postcount=82), but then again I've come to expect that from this forum.

"God," by definition is beyond the realm of human reason, therefore any stipulations as to his existence or nonexistence is an intellectually futile excersize. As the post explains, such issues invariably need to be taken on faith; which is an emotional response that not all of us share.

So, to answer the question, no, atheism cannot be objectively [i.e. rationally] attacked. By the same token, neither can religion, broadly speaking.
UpwardThrust
15-12-2005, 21:00
I generally believe it can. Atheism, as I understand it and as Douglas Adams pointed out in the Salmon of Doubt, is the explicit belief that no God exists, as opposed to simply "I don't subscribe to any particular belief structure so I'll label myself an Atheist so I can fit in somewhere".

Is this a logical fallousy, incidentally? I'm not entirely convinced that this is a false simplification, since I've had the idea of Implicit/Explicit Atheism noted at me several times by professed "Atheists"...

Anyway, I think the objective difficulty of both kinds of Atheism is that they rely completely upon the ideas of other humans as the only possible ways in which God could exist. This is obviously so with the Implicits, though perhaps slightly less with the Explicits. Yet when you believe in No God, you do of course restrict the idea of God to the commonly perceived understanding of the word. Couldn't God exist in a way no human has yet grasped or explained? Or, even more interestingly, couldn't God have been correctly understood by some individuals then shunned by popular religion?

To completely reject God relies on a firm definition of what God is. And to fulfil that, you depend upon other religions.

Humanity builds a Strawman God, Atheism attacks it. Objectively, there's something wrong there.
If the concept of god is beyond understanding of mere humans what makes the strawmans used to suport god any better then thoes used to argue against ?
Kamsaki
15-12-2005, 21:33
If the concept of god is beyond understanding of mere humans what makes the strawmans used to suport god any better then thoes used to argue against ?
Nothing in the slightest. Both Explicit Atheists and Christians subconsciously believe that God must be the omnipotent and benevolent creator of all things. The only difference is that the Atheists don't think he exists. Which, no matter what either side tells you, really isn't that big a deal by comparison.
Sinuhue
15-12-2005, 21:39
Unsurprisingly, I can't see that anyone has offered the real answer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10100599&postcount=82), but then again I've come to expect that from this forum.

Why should anyone else put in the effort to give the 'real reason' when you are so willing to do so?

MU you are deliciously arrogant...:fluffle:
Melkor Unchained
15-12-2005, 21:40
Why should anyone else put in the effort to give the 'real reason' when you are so willing to do so?

MU you are deliciously arrogant...:fluffle:
Damn straight!
Jello Biafra
15-12-2005, 21:48
Subjectively, yes, objectively, no.
Reformentia
15-12-2005, 22:18
Hey, since you know it all, would you mind giving me the lotto numbers for the next draw? :rolleyes:
What you so eloquently said is bullshit. Complete and utter. There is no natural law or golden rule that forces you to chose a side. You can remain neutral.

Really?

Let me ask you a different question. Do you have a name? Do you have an answer for that other than "yes" or "no"?

Some questions are yes or no propositions. "Do you have a belief in a diety?" is one of them. You either have it or you do not. Answering "I don't know" to that question is not saying you don't know if God exists, it's saying you don't know the content of your own thoughts. If that condition persists for more than a relatively short period of time seek psychiatric help, don't call it a philosophical position.
Reformentia
15-12-2005, 22:33
Atheism is precisely the beleif that there is NO GOD--not that there is not eneough data to draw a conclusion--that is agnosticism---Atheism is the direct antithesis of Theism.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Datheism

Your own provided definition bolded for your enjoyment and education since you seemed not to have read it while you were cutting and pasting it.

It suggests comparing to agnostic, lets do that.

agnostic
noun [C]
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists:

The first half of that sentence is a very recent bastardization of the meaning of the word. It's extremely disheartening to see it actually managed to gather sufficiently wide usage to make it's way into a dictionary.

Of course most dictionaries haven't caved on that score yet, and since you want to play dictionary tag:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861584207

ag·nos·tic [ ag nóstik ] (plural ag·nos·tics)
noun
Definitions:
1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/agnostic?view=uk

agnostic
/agnostik/

• noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=agnostic&matchtype=exact

Syllables: ag-nos-tic
1. one who believes it is impossible to know anything about the existence of God or the essential nature of anything.

http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/agnostic

Pronunciation: (ag-nos'tik), —n.
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=agnostic*1+0&dict=A


agnostic
noun [C]
someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

Get it yet?

Agnostics are the ones who are waiting for more data.

Agnostics are the ones who believe it is impossible to have the data. They're not waiting for anything.

Until you a re reputable source for the definition of words used in everyday vocabulary

Careful what you wish for...
Kefren
15-12-2005, 22:34
You are not attempting to empathize, mainly because you perceive the conclusion YOU have come to, so you are being subjective.

Nothing wrong with that.

It just isnt what you posted the thread for, in soeaking objectively try a little harder--use you imagination. Cheese.

I think i misinterprated your original post then, sorry, my reply was to clarify my personal opinion on the matter
Kefren
15-12-2005, 23:06
Well Jesus rising from the dead for a start. He was medically dead (IE the blood and water comming from his side proves that) so the "swoon" theory is out of the window. The longest someone has been clinicly dead for and risen again for is a couple of hours, and thats using modern medical science technology. And by the way "It didnt happen" doesnt count as an explanation

For starters, it's can't be proven wether or not Jesus was effectively crucified, thus the following discussion will be pointless, if i were to try & logicly disprove his ressurrection, i must do it by not attacking the ressurection, but the source of the story.

The bible as we know it wasn't written by people who actually witnessed said crucifixion. I'm also not a coroner, so i don't know the medical significance of the water & blood bit you mention. Not only that, but you have posted your interpretion of that section of the bible, instead of an actual quote (and no, i don't own a bible, i have no need nor use for it), thus i have very little to actually go on. Also, the Romans didn't use nails to cruxify people according to the history teacher i had back in high school.

The only possible means of explaining away the events of the bible therefor, for me, is to go after the bible itself, with this i mean to question it's accuracy, wich is something you aren't willing to do, since you aren't open to the possibility that, indeed, the ressurection might not have happened at all.

You will most likely also discart any mentioning that i might make of the simularities of Jesus with pagan figures. Basicly, you can't be convinced because you aren't open to the possibility of your holy book (that was written by mere humans) could be wrong, or a copy of or based on previous pagan and other religions
Vladimir Illich
15-12-2005, 23:27
You will most likely also discart any mentioning that i might make of the simularities of Jesus with pagan figures. Basicly, you can't be convinced because you aren't open to the possibility of your holy book (that was written by mere humans) could be wrong, or a copy of or based on previous pagan and other religions

Not to mention that it was copied by "mere humans" for at least a thousand years. When the Eastern Roman Empire fell, the diferences between the (much older) bibles that came from there and the bibles in (the dark age) Europe were so great that it led to some protesting and counter-reforming. Which Bible to believe? Well, for me, when in doubt, none.

But this is not the point of this thread. The point is: who can prove I don't have a dragon in my garage? It's pink, BTW.
Desperate Measures
15-12-2005, 23:31
I'm agnostic because I refuse to be taken by surprise by that which I believe does not exist.
Kefren
15-12-2005, 23:34
Not to mention that it was copied by "mere humans" for at least a thousand years. When the Eastern Roman Empire fell, the diferences between the (much older) bibles that came from there and the bibles in (the dark age) Europe were so great that it led to some protesting and counter-reforming. Which Bible to believe? Well, for me, when in doubt, none.

But this is not the point of this thread. The point is: who can prove I don't have a dragon in my garage? It's pink, BTW.

You can prove it.
And no, that's not the thread i started :p
Kamsaki
15-12-2005, 23:35
Some questions are yes or no propositions. "Do you have a belief in a diety?" is one of them.
No it's not. What do you mean by a deity? I can give you a yes or no answer that depends on your definition, but my answer to that question will vary depending on how you choose to define a deity, as I feel is the case with a good many other people.
Reformentia
15-12-2005, 23:49
No it's not. What do you mean by a deity? I can give you a yes or no answer that depends on your definition, but my answer to that question will vary depending on how you choose to define a deity, as I feel is the case with a good many other people.

Whatever you consider to be a deity either you possess a belief in one and are a theist are you do not and are an atheist. Which definition of "deity" you decide to adopt is immaterial to that fact.
Lazy Otakus
16-12-2005, 01:07
Nothing in the slightest. Both Explicit Atheists and Christians subconsciously believe that God must be the omnipotent and benevolent creator of all things. The only difference is that the Atheists don't think he exists. Which, no matter what either side tells you, really isn't that big a deal by comparison.

Not really, no. I don't believe "subconsciouly" that the christian god must be omnipotent and benevolent.

First, I don't believe in the christian god at all, and from what I read in the Bible, the christian god doesn't behave like it/he/she would be either benevolent or omnipotent. The christian god claims to be so. That is all.

It all depends on if you buy those claims. If you do, you will end up with stuff like: god is benevolent, thus his order to commit a genocide is good, because he is benevolent. Circular reasoning.

If you don't buy those claims, the christian god is rather frightening.
Vladimir Illich
16-12-2005, 01:40
I especially like the episode in which he orders the hebrews (I think the guys with moses) and tells them to slaughter all the people in the village. They kill almost everyone but feel sorry for someone (children maybe) and don't kill them. Then god kills those hebrews.

Acording to the Bible, God's a psyco.
Straughn
16-12-2005, 11:04
*bump*ie
It'll take me a while to read this.
Valdania
16-12-2005, 11:11
Unsurprisingly, I can't see that anyone has offered the real answer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10100599&postcount=82), but then again I've come to expect that from this forum.

"God," by definition is beyond the realm of human reason, therefore any stipulations as to his existence or nonexistence is an intellectually futile excersize. As the post explains, such issues invariably need to be taken on faith; which is an emotional response that not all of us share.

So, to answer the question, no, atheism cannot be objectively [i.e. rationally] attacked. By the same token, neither can religion, broadly speaking.


With all due respect, this is a bit patronising.
Baran-Duine
16-12-2005, 11:20
Well, you could say the same about unicorns. I have no evidence to say they don't exist. However, they've yet to be sighted, and we've not found any fossilised unicorns either. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that unicorns don't exist and never have, until some evidence suggests they do.

I don't see people claiming unicorns exist because we've yet to conclusively prove they don't.
Unicorns exist because we've yet to conclusively prove they don't. :D
Baran-Duine
16-12-2005, 11:24
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?
Well they do have a difficult time explaining away the events in the Bible
And what events in the bible cannot be explained away?
Baran-Duine
16-12-2005, 11:26
Well Jesus rising from the dead for a start. He was medically dead (IE the blood and water comming from his side proves that) so the "swoon" theory is out of the window. The longest someone has been clinicly dead for and risen again for is a couple of hours, and thats using modern medical science technology. And by the way "It didnt happen" doesnt count as an explanation
Yes it does, unless you can prove without referring to the bible that it did happen.
BackwoodsSquatches
16-12-2005, 12:32
Originally Posted by Neo Danube
Well Jesus rising from the dead for a start.

How many actual witnesses were there, and who of these, has any actual historical references outside of the bible?


He was medically dead (IE the blood and water comming from his side proves that)

When was the last time you saw water coming out of a persons side?


so the "swoon" theory is out of the window. The longest someone has been clinicly dead for and risen again for is a couple of hours, and thats using modern medical science technology. And by the way "It didnt happen" doesnt count as an explanation

Why are there no offical records of this person coming back to life?
Surely, the Romans would have heard the commotion over this, and looked into it, if only to see of anyone was graverobbing.
Victonia
16-12-2005, 12:44
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?


Depends on your arguement.

I'm not starting a debate, so don't even respond to this post trying to, but my objection to Atheism is how can everything be so perfect and complex by an accident?

I believe that is a good objection.
The Squeaky Rat
16-12-2005, 12:47
I'm not starting a debate, so don't even respond to this post trying to, but my objection to Atheism is how can everything be so perfect and complex by an accident?

I believe that is a good objection.

Why ? You are assuming everything actually is complex and perfect - which is obviously not true - and implying it always was. But starting with something simple you can also get complexity...

Unless I misunderstood your objection ?
Kefren
16-12-2005, 12:55
Depends on your arguement.

I'm not starting a debate, so don't even respond to this post trying to, but my objection to Atheism is how can everything be so perfect and complex by an accident?

I believe that is a good objection.

That would assume everything to be perfect, mankind sure isn't :p
Jello Biafra
16-12-2005, 13:43
Depends on your arguement.

I'm not starting a debate, so don't even respond to this post trying to, but my objection to Atheism is how can everything be so perfect and complex by an accident?

I believe that is a good objection.It's a good objection, but it isn't an objective objection, it's a subjective objection. The objection is based upon your opinion of what "perfect and complex" means.
Kamsaki
16-12-2005, 13:51
Not really, no. I don't believe "subconsciouly" that the christian god must be omnipotent and benevolent.
But you do, unless you have a specific definition for what God is of your own that you might like to share with everyone.

The reasoning goes like this.

God is omnipotent and benevolent. He must be. Everyone who talks about God says he is.
But that's stupid. That's unbelievably contradictory in the context of this existence. There's no way an omnipotent, benevolent being could be around at the minute.
Thus, they're wrong. And since they're the only source of information about God, God must be a fabrication.

... or am I missing something here?
Manx Island
16-12-2005, 15:04
Can we attack atheism? Well, what's atheism first? It's to believe that no god exists. To prove that atheism is wrong, you have to prove the existence of God.

How can we attack religion in general? Proving God doesn't exist. Or, for each religion, showing that their beliefs are false and erroneous, and are not based on historical facts.

My position is that God's existance cannot be proven or revulsed. The arguments about God's existence are weak, and the arguments against God are also.

Here's my position on some points:

"God created the universe": Yeah right! Then there's a problem about it... How to prove this crap? There's no way you can do it, because nobody saw it, and that we can only make theories about such a far away past. This argument does not rely on proof. God might've created the universe, but it also could've been a pink elephant. These two positions have as much credibility.

Long live to the pink elephant!

"God doesn't exist": Again... how do you prove it? The pink elephant's theory is pretty tempting, compared to God.... But it doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. There still remains a chance that God did exist.

But anyways, is God that important?

I think animals caught something we didn't. They get fed by a hand they don't know. But they get fed, and that's all that matters to them. It doesn't matter which hand feeds you, as long as you don't have an empty stomach.

What I'm trying to say is that God's existance is not an important issue in the world. You can live your life with ou without believing in it, it makes no real difference in your life (except for some nuts who pretend that they saw a pink elephant). What's important is to focus on mankind, about your choices, because it's the only thing you can really focus on. God's question must never be more important than questions about mankind.

End of my part (sorry, I could make more developped arguments... it's the pink elephant's fault. He created me like that...) .
Candelar
16-12-2005, 15:25
What's important is to focus on mankind, about your choices, because it's the only thing you can really focus on. God's question must never be more important than questions about mankind.
And there lies the problem - in the eyes of some, the unproven will of God is more important than humanity, and, in extreme cases, is used to justify the killing, abuse and oppression of human beings.

If he exists, God is a grown-up and can look after himself. Our priority should always be mankind and the material world we live in and depend on.
Zolworld
16-12-2005, 15:29
Depends on your arguement.

I'm not starting a debate, so don't even respond to this post trying to, but my objection to Atheism is how can everything be so perfect and complex by an accident?

I believe that is a good objection.

In what way is everything perfect? Some organisms are perfect in the sense that they are perfectly suited to their environment, like sharks, but evolution explains that. And everything may seem perfect to humans, but only because we are adapted to live here, not because it was made this way for us.

Besides, everything is not the earth. although there may be life elsewhere, as far as we know this is the only place in the universe that is 'perfect'. so it doesnt matter how unlikely it is, cos it only happened once.
Candelar
16-12-2005, 15:33
I'm not starting a debate, so don't even respond to this post trying to, but my objection to Atheism is how can everything be so perfect and complex by an accident?
I wonder how many people who raise this objection have actually read and understood a good book on cosmology or evolution?
Candelar
16-12-2005, 15:41
And everything may seem perfect to humans, but only because we are adapted to live here, not because it was made this way for us.
Desease, famine, death, conflict, rape, misery, usesless appendices which can kill when inflamed, backs which are prone to problems because they weren't designed for our upright stance, 50% of fertilised eggs spontaneously aborting, painful childbirth etc etc ... it seems like a very funny sort of perfection to me!

If God designed all this, he should be fired for gross incompetence!
Skibereen
16-12-2005, 15:51
Desease, famine, death, conflict, rape, misery, usesless appendices which can kill when inflamed, backs which are prone to problems because they weren't designed for our upright stance, 50% of fertilised eggs spontaneously aborting, painful childbirth etc etc ... it seems like a very funny sort of perfection to me!

If God designed all this, he should be fired for gross incompetence!

Are you an Ape? The human biology is designed precisely for 'upright' stance, please do not create another wave of stupid n00bs runing around quoting you as a source for bizzare opinion on our phisiology. You gave plenty of fine examples then you had to go amke up some ridiculous thing like that.

The Human back is injured from any number of things---common in computer geeks? Piss poor posture (not keeping it straight)---with lumbar problems compounded by weak abdominal muscles---hence when ou straighten it hurts, the problem is made worse by not straightening and so you back is ruined hunched over your PC.

I hate this fecking forum, people just make shyt up for no reason--like Man isnt suppose to be upright.
Jester III
16-12-2005, 15:52
Really?

Let me ask you a different question. Do you have a name? Do you have an answer for that other than "yes" or "no"?

Some questions are yes or no propositions. "Do you have a belief in a diety?" is one of them. You either have it or you do not. Answering "I don't know" to that question is not saying you don't know if God exists, it's saying you don't know the content of your own thoughts. If that condition persists for more than a relatively short period of time seek psychiatric help, don't call it a philosophical position.
Like i obviously implied, no one can force you to answer that question. I know that i cant answer it, so why should i? People who hold the steadfast belief that this question cannot be answered are agnostics. I simply dont have to have a belief, which is why i cannot answer the question. Ask a blind man is a ball is blue or red, he cannot answer it due to insufficient data, not because he isnt right in his mind. This extends to variations of the question like "Do you believe that this ball is red?".
Lazy Otakus
16-12-2005, 16:11
But you do, unless you have a specific definition for what God is of your own that you might like to share with everyone.

The reasoning goes like this.

God is omnipotent and benevolent. He must be. Everyone who talks about God says he is.
But that's stupid. That's unbelievably contradictory in the context of this existence. There's no way an omnipotent, benevolent being could be around at the minute.
Thus, they're wrong. And since they're the only source of information about God, God must be a fabrication.

... or am I missing something here?

Maybe I'm misunderstandng you, but I wouldn't call it "believing subconsciously". I call that memory. Someone tells you something and you store that information. I don't "subconsciously believe" in the Hindu gods or Allah or any other supernatural being either - I have stored information about the concepts of those beings them in my memory.

Using terms like "subconsciously believing" is a bit misleading here.
Zolworld
16-12-2005, 16:22
Are you an Ape? The human biology is designed precisely for 'upright' stance, please do not create another wave of stupid n00bs runing around quoting you as a source for bizzare opinion on our phisiology. You gave plenty of fine examples then you had to go amke up some ridiculous thing like that.

The Human back is injured from any number of things---common in computer geeks? Piss poor posture (not keeping it straight)---with lumbar problems compounded by weak abdominal muscles---hence when ou straighten it hurts, the problem is made worse by not straightening and so you back is ruined hunched over your PC.

I hate this fecking forum, people just make shyt up for no reason--like Man isnt suppose to be upright.

We are 'designed' to be upright, but not ideally. The spine has an almost right angled curve at the bottom and our hips are tilted, both of which cause problems.
Cannot think of a name
16-12-2005, 16:36
I get irratated by the 'you can't prove he doesn't exist so you have to accept the possibility' angle. I can't prove a teacup isn't orbiting Pluto or that my friend doesn't have a giant invisible rabbit friend either, do I have to accept both of those? No, dammit. It's on you. A whole bunch of people believing in a sky wizard doesn't mean I have to accept didly squat. It's not on me to disprove you, it's on you to prove your shit. If you can't than I'm going to call bullshit until you can. It's possible in the same way the teacup and the invisible rabbit are possible, just not fucking likely. Why do I have to accept the possibility of whatever shit falls out of a guy in a robes mouth? Bullshit. Pony up or I'm going to catagorize you like anyone else with an imaginary friend. You want one, cool. If you want me to believe in him, no-sorry. I'm not burdoned by having to accept you might be right because a whole bunch of other people have the same imaginary friend.
Zolworld
16-12-2005, 16:48
I get irratated by the 'you can't prove he doesn't exist so you have to accept the possibility' angle. I can't prove a teacup isn't orbiting Pluto or that my friend doesn't have a giant invisible rabbit friend either, do I have to accept both of those? No, dammit. It's on you. A whole bunch of people believing in a sky wizard doesn't mean I have to accept didly squat. It's not on me to disprove you, it's on you to prove your shit. If you can't than I'm going to call bullshit until you can. It's possible in the same way the teacup and the invisible rabbit are possible, just not fucking likely. Why do I have to accept the possibility of whatever shit falls out of a guy in a robes mouth? Bullshit. Pony up or I'm going to catagorize you like anyone else with an imaginary friend. You want one, cool. If you want me to believe in him, no-sorry. I'm not burdoned by having to accept you might be right because a whole bunch of other people have the same imaginary friend.

That was my favourite post ever.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 16:54
But you do, unless you have a specific definition for what God is of your own that you might like to share with everyone.

The reasoning goes like this.

God is omnipotent and benevolent. He must be. Everyone who talks about God says he is.
But that's stupid. That's unbelievably contradictory in the context of this existence. There's no way an omnipotent, benevolent being could be around at the minute.
Thus, they're wrong. And since they're the only source of information about God, God must be a fabrication.

... or am I missing something here?
Um, what makes "Everyone who talks about God" the only source of information? I think you need to look a bit harder, if you're actually interested in knowing anything about god.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 16:58
If the concept of god is beyond understanding of mere humans what makes the strawmans used to suport god any better then thoes used to argue against ?
Strawmen are not used to support. The purpose of building the "man of straw" is to tear or burn it down; that's why it's made of straw, so that it can easily burn.
Candelar
16-12-2005, 17:01
Are you an Ape?
Yes I am. And so are you.

The human biology is designed precisely for 'upright' stance, please do not create another wave of stupid n00bs runing around quoting you as a source for bizzare opinion on our phisiology. You gave plenty of fine examples then you had to go amke up some ridiculous thing like that.
The human back is an adaptation of a back which originally evolved for creatures which walked on all fours. If it was originally designed for upright stance, it wouldn't be the way it is. This is not a bizarre idea - it is standard scientific opinion.

The Human back is injured from any number of things
Yes it is, most commonly from various forms of physical activity. And it is more prone to injury than the backs of four-legged species because it is not an ideal design for two legs.

I hate this fecking forum, people just make shyt up for no reason--like Man isnt suppose to be upright.
I didn't say that man isn't supposed to walk upright. There's no law saying what man is and isn't supposed to do. Evolution produced an upright species, but could only do so out of the species which preceded it, and that didn't provide the "raw material" for an ideal biped.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 17:02
For starters, it's can't be proven wether or not Jesus was effectively crucified, thus the following discussion will be pointless, if i were to try & logicly disprove his ressurrection, i must do it by not attacking the ressurection, but the source of the story.
Well, you could also attack it mythologically, through the symbolism.

For instance, the symbolism of the Christ is of the one who suffers for the sins of the world. He takes and carries the burden of all on this frail human shoulders, for all time. He is the saviour.

What is the purpose of ressurection in this context? Doesn't it negate the value of his death, of his sacrifice, if he never really suffers?
Kefren
16-12-2005, 17:05
Well, you could also attack it mythologically, through the symbolism.

For instance, the symbolism of the Christ is of the one who suffers for the sins of the world. He takes and carries the burden of all on this frail human shoulders, for all time. He is the saviour.

What is the purpose of ressurection in this context? Doesn't it negate the value of his death, of his sacrifice, if he never really suffers?

Great point *bows*
Willamena
16-12-2005, 17:22
Can we attack atheism? Well, what's atheism first? It's to believe that no god exists. To prove that atheism is wrong, you have to prove the existence of God.
I have thought about the thread topic for a day. This is the approach that I would take of making an "attack" on atheism: the atheist places themselves in contrast to a literal interpretation of "God", when in fact the language used to express understanding of god is meant to be taken non-literally. The study of Mythology demonstrates this.

Therefore, both the person who takes a literal interpretation of god as fact and the person who places themselves in opposition to that position are in the wrong.

There are very few atheists with arguments to contrast a non-literal understanding of the religious scripture (I don't know of any, but allowing for some); in fact, most are happy to let it slide.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 17:26
But anyways, is God that important?

I think animals caught something we didn't. They get fed by a hand they don't know. But they get fed, and that's all that matters to them. It doesn't matter which hand feeds you, as long as you don't have an empty stomach.

What I'm trying to say is that God's existance is not an important issue in the world. You can live your life with ou without believing in it, it makes no real difference in your life (except for some nuts who pretend that they saw a pink elephant). What's important is to focus on mankind, about your choices, because it's the only thing you can really focus on. God's question must never be more important than questions about mankind.

End of my part (sorry, I could make more developped arguments... it's the pink elephant's fault. He created me like that...) .
Religion is not about god, it is about mankind.
San haiti
16-12-2005, 17:29
I have thought about the thread topic for a day. This is the approach that I would take of making an "attack" on atheism: the atheist places themselves in contrast to a literal interpretation of "God", when in fact the language used to express understanding of god is meant to be taken non-literally. The study of Mythology demonstrates this.

Therefore, both the person who takes a literal interpretation of god as fact and the person who places themselves in opposition to that position are in the wrong.

There are very few atheists with arguments to contrast a non-literal understanding of the religious scripture (I don't know of any, but allowing for some); in fact, most are happy to let it slide.

Is it actually possible to attack non-literal interpretations of any scripture? I mean, some priest claims he knows what it mean. Someone proves him wrong, but some other priest claims it means something else etc.

And what about the atheists who dont care about scripture in the first place, dont think a book is evidence of anything and ignore it?
Willamena
16-12-2005, 17:31
I get irratated by the 'you can't prove he doesn't exist so you have to accept the possibility' angle. I can't prove a teacup isn't orbiting Pluto or that my friend doesn't have a giant invisible rabbit friend either, do I have to accept both of those? No, dammit. It's on you.
"Accepting a possibility" is not the same as "providing proof." It is possible a tea cup is orbiting Pluto.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 17:37
Is it actually possible to attack non-literal interpretations of any scripture? I mean, some priest claims he knows what it mean. Someone proves him wrong, but some other priest claims it means something else etc.

And what about the atheists who dont care about scripture in the first place, dont think a book is evidence of anything and ignore it?
I would say no, but I'm sure someone much smarter will come up with ways.

The atheist is the person putting themselves in contrast to the religious person. If they are taking no philosophical stance on religion, then they are not atheist --they are not anything philosophical in that regard.
Cannot think of a name
16-12-2005, 17:38
"Accepting a possibility" is not the same as "providing proof." It is possible a tea cup is orbiting Pluto.
But the likelyhood is remote enough that I can say with confidence that there isn't, and just because someone claims there is I don't have to believe him for a second until he can give me a reason to believe there is one other than he thinks it's there. I'm not accepting the possiblity of orbiting tea cups or imaginary friends until you can give me a reason to that doesn't involve you believing either exist.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 17:41
But the likelyhood is remote enough that I can say with confidence that there isn't, and just because someone claims there is I don't have to believe him for a second until he can give me a reason to believe there is one other than he thinks it's there. I'm not accepting the possiblity of orbiting tea cups or imaginary friends until you can give me a reason to that doesn't involve you believing either exist.
Yes; the likelihood varies with individuals, but until the negative claim is proven, the possibility remains.
Kamsaki
16-12-2005, 17:43
Um, what makes "Everyone who talks about God" the only source of information? I think you need to look a bit harder, if you're actually interested in knowing anything about god.
Was that directed at me? If so, my point was precisely that; that Atheism, by and large, takes that "Everyone" as the only source of info, and that it could do with some research into what they're refuting.
Lazy Otakus
16-12-2005, 17:45
I would say no, but I'm sure someone much smarter will come up with ways.

The atheist is the person putting themselves in contrast to the religious person. If they are taking no philosophical stance on religion, then they are not atheist --they are not anything philosophical in that regard.

You came up with this before and I wouldn't agree with you, but maybe I simply have a different definition of atheism. To be honest I never even checked what the "official" definition of atheism says.

However, how would you call those non-atheist non-believers? Wouldn't it be helpful to have a term for those people?
Cannot think of a name
16-12-2005, 17:47
Yes; the likelihood varies with individuals, but until the negative claim is proven, the possibility remains.
No. I'm not buying this bullshit. I don't have to accept any nonsense anyone says without the burdon being on them to prove why I should accept the possibility. "It could happen" isn't enough. You want me to accept your imaginary friend, give me a reason-otherwise your just another nutter.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 17:50
You came up with this before and I wouldn't agree with you, but maybe I simply have a different definition of atheism. To be honest I never even checked what the "official" definition of atheism says.

However, how would you call those non-atheist non-believers? Wouldn't it be helpful to have a term for those people?
Why? Why add unnecessary terms? Not everyone need have a stance on all issues regarding humanity.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 17:51
No. I'm not buying this bullshit. I don't have to accept any nonsense anyone says without the burdon being on them to prove why I should accept the possibility. "It could happen" isn't enough. You want me to accept your imaginary friend, give me a reason-otherwise your just another nutter.
That's right, you don't have to accept the possibility. But the possibility remains whether you accept it or not.
Lazy Otakus
16-12-2005, 17:56
Why? Why add unnecessary terms? Not everyone need have a stance on all issues regarding humanity.

How would finding a term to label people who don't believe and are doing so without a philosophical stance somehow produce a stance for them?

Why? Mostly because "people who do not believe and do so without a philosophical stance" is not a very handy phrase.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 17:57
Was that directed at me? If so, my point was precisely that; that Atheism, by and large, takes that "Everyone" as the only source of info, and that it could do with some research into what they're refuting.
My bad, I read it wrong.
Kamsaki
16-12-2005, 17:58
Maybe I'm misunderstandng you, but I wouldn't call it "believing subconsciously". I call that memory. Someone tells you something and you store that information. I don't "subconsciously believe" in the Hindu gods or Allah or any other supernatural being either - I have stored information about the concepts of those beings them in my memory.

Using terms like "subconsciously believing" is a bit misleading here.
Well, okay, fair enough. The term is a bit obscure. But, to put it another way, you don't question the details of an individual deity. For example, you don't question that the Christian God sends people to hell because they haven't repented. It's just seems like an inherent part of what their God is. You just think the whole thing is complete nonsense due to an excessive string of things like this that have been added on by its representatives.

Couldn't, say, the God that Christianity aspires to exist, but the church have been horrendously misrepresentative with this whole afterlife/salvation-damnation/monotheistic devotion thing? Atheists don't question that; the Christian God is whatever Christianity says it is. And that's why I used the "Subconscious belief" phrase. Whatever ridiculous rubbish might be attributed to the God of Christianity is merely accepted. Sure, you don't believe in the God itself, but you do, at some level, believe what the person is saying about their own God.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 17:59
How would finding a term to label people who don't believe and are doing so without a philosophical stance somehow produce a stance for them?
What I meant was, only those who have a stance need a term.

Why? Mostly because "people who do not believe and do so without a philosophical stance" is not a very handy phrase.
LoL. True. It would be a term for people inside the debate to use.

Hm...
Cannot think of a name
16-12-2005, 18:09
That's right, you don't have to accept the possibility. But the possibility remains whether you accept it or not.
This is a ridiculous position. Even in the 'anything's possible' assumption advancing any possibility without evidence is still ridiculous and thus doesn't require anyone to entertain it. If god is no more possible than a orbiting teacup then why pick one? It's all just random bullshit, King Kong is a documentary of things that might happen, why not? No, see-if anything is possible that doesn't mean that I have to accept anything-you still need a reason-anything maybe possible but it isn't very likely.

In reality, not everything is possible, so we can start narrowing down shit. We'll start with the things that have absolutely nothing to back it up. It'll save time.
The Squeaky Rat
16-12-2005, 18:16
That's right, you don't have to accept the possibility. But the possibility remains whether you accept it or not.

But unless you give me a reason to even consider the possibility - why should I ?
It is possible that I am not human, but a butterfly who is deluding himself into thinking he is human. It is possible the room I am in is filled with invisible goblins. It is also possible it is instead filled with invisible kobolds, reindeer, crab people or aliens from the planet Zog. There is an infinite amount of things which are possible - doesn't mean one should explore them all without good reason.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 18:17
That's right, you don't have to accept the possibility. But the possibility remains whether you accept it or not.Possibility of what? And on which basis? Where's your evidence? Infact, why do you choose to believe in the possibility?

How would finding a term to label people who don't believe and are doing so without a philosophical stance somehow produce a stance for them?

Why? Mostly because "people who do not believe and do so without a philosophical stance" is not a very handy phrase
Atheism, as a direct denial, is very much a philosopical standpoint.
Kamsaki
16-12-2005, 18:18
In reality, not everything is possible, so we can start narrowing down shit. We'll start with the things that have absolutely nothing to back it up. It'll save time.
Hmm... God as a concept would last a while then. It's an observable sociological phenomenon, regardless of its status as a physical explanation. And since we have people the world over coming up with unsupported crap quicker than the global birth-rate, it could take a while to get anywhere...
Cannot think of a name
16-12-2005, 18:21
Hmm... God as a concept would last a while then. It's an observable sociological phenomenon, regardless of its status as a physical explanation. And since we have people the world over coming up with unsupported crap quicker than the global birth-rate, it could take a while to get anywhere...
God as a concept can exist as long as it likes. So can Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. I don't have to believe in any of them or entertain them as 'possibilities'. No more than I have to believe in Superman. At best it means we have a talent for making shit up.
Candelar
16-12-2005, 18:24
The atheist is the person putting themselves in contrast to the religious person. If they are taking no philosophical stance on religion, then they are not atheist.
I disgaree. You're either a theist or you're not theist. "Not theist" = "a-theist".
Willamena
16-12-2005, 18:35
I disgaree. You're either a theist or you're not theist. "Not theist" = "a-theist".
And what is a theist? Someone who has committed to a belief in God or god. They have taken a philosophical stance that says, 'There is a god and it informs my life'. So an atheist is someone who has not committed to a belief in God or god. They have also taken a philosophical stance, one that says, 'I don't believe there is a God or god, so it does not inform my life'.

But what of the person who has no stance on god at all? Who has never even heard of a god, or doesn't care to associate themselves with either position?
Willamena
16-12-2005, 18:41
This is a ridiculous position. Even in the 'anything's possible' assumption advancing any possibility without evidence is still ridiculous and thus doesn't require anyone to entertain it. If god is no more possible than a orbiting teacup then why pick one? It's all just random bullshit, King Kong is a documentary of things that might happen, why not? No, see-if anything is possible that doesn't mean that I have to accept anything-you still need a reason-anything maybe possible but it isn't very likely.

In reality, not everything is possible, so we can start narrowing down shit. We'll start with the things that have absolutely nothing to back it up. It'll save time.
Right; the possibility doesn't require anyone else to entertain it.

Possibility isn't like probability that it has "more" or "less" figures associated with it. It is a simple absolute: things are either possible, or they are not. It is more probable that a tea cup exists orbiting Pluto than that god exists, but god is still possible.

None of this means you have to accept anything.
Moantha
16-12-2005, 18:41
I would like to submit that through the nature of the human mind, nothing can be attacked objectively. For example, I submit to you that I am not an actual human being, but an Artificial Intelligence, who has submitted this view. I invite you to attempt to attack this objectively.
Kamsaki
16-12-2005, 18:42
A convenient time to address an earlier point.
I disgaree. You're either a theist or you're not theist. "Not theist" = "a-theist".
Whatever you consider to be a deity either you possess a belief in one and are a theist are you do not and are an atheist. Which definition of "deity" you decide to adopt is immaterial to that fact.
People don't pick their beliefs based on whether or not something is a Deity. Example. Assume for a minute that some people are being honest when they put their religion down as Jedi on their national Census. That the universe is governed by an impersonal Force within nature.

Is this Force a deity?

Now suppose that an offshoot of that supposes that the Force, though entirely natural, has a conscious sense of self, and controls its own actions.

It could be suggested that, by this definition, the Force is a higher sense of consciousness that influences our own existence while being beyond the perception of mere humans.

Is this Force a deity?

Are Jedis therefore Theists?
Candelar
16-12-2005, 18:43
But what of the person who has no stance on god at all? Who has never even heard of a god, or doesn't care to associate themselves with either position?
They're all atheists. Atheism, in its broadest sense, is simply the absence of a belief in god(s). I guess the word for a positive disbelief in god should be "imtheist", by analogy with "amoral" and "immoral" :)
Willamena
16-12-2005, 18:46
But unless you give me a reason to even consider the possibility - why should I ?
Excellent question!

The answer is of course that you shouldn't, unless you have some sort of evidence that satisfies you.

It is possible that I am not human, but a butterfly who is deluding himself into thinking he is human. It is possible the room I am in is filled with invisible goblins. It is also possible it is instead filled with invisible kobolds, reindeer, crab people or aliens from the planet Zog. There is an infinite amount of things which are possible - doesn't mean one should explore them all without good reason.
Well, possibility usually means a thing has the potential to be actualized, so those things with a lower probability to be actualized are discarded or dismissed. But they are still possible.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 18:49
Possibility of what? And on which basis? Where's your evidence? Infact, why do you choose to believe in the possibility?
Because god is a supernatural being, and supernatural is defined in contrast to the natural, and we, by our nature, are limited to only knowledge of the natural, there is a possibility that god exists.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 18:55
They're all atheists.
Not in my book. :)
Kamsaki
16-12-2005, 18:56
Because god is a supernatural being, and supernatural is defined in contrast to the natural, and we, by our nature, are limited to only knowledge of the natural, there is a possibility that god exists.
What makes you think God is supernatural? God could be as natural as Human consciousness, which many (including myself) would argue is entirely explainable by natural processes.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 18:58
What makes you think God is supernatural? God could be as natural as Human consciousness, which many (including myself) would argue is entirely explainable by natural processes.
That's just how god is defined in our language. ..Or perhaps you meant something else by your question?
The Squeaky Rat
16-12-2005, 19:02
Not in my book. :)

Intruiging. Then I assume you use different names to distinguish between people who have chosen not to believe in a or multiple deities, and people who just do not believe because the concept never even crossed their mind ? If so - what are they ?

If you already posted that, I apologize.
Ashmoria
16-12-2005, 19:13
"Accepting a possibility" is not the same as "providing proof." It is possible a tea cup is orbiting Pluto.
which is why i am an atheist "beyond a reasonable doubt"

sure its possible that when they sent one-a-them deep-space-probe-thingies flying past pluto, some scientist snuck on a teacup shooter that tossed it into plutonian orbit on its way by. how would i know? but the possibility is so remote and the evidence of it is so lacking that i am quite confident that there is no tea cup orbiting pluto.

same with "god". there may be a one-in-a-quadrillion chance that some allpowerful being created the universe (with us in mind), still lives today, and demands from us a level of belief and ritual (without making them clear to us) that will, if followed, cause us to live forever in paradise and will, if not followed, cause us to live forever in torment.

but the possibility is so remote and the evidence so lacking that i am quite confident that there is no such "god".
Kamsaki
16-12-2005, 19:14
That's just how god is defined in our language. ..Or perhaps you meant something else by your question?
0_o

It might be benevolent, it might be able to influence the cosmos, it might be capable of talking to mankind and guiding it morally, it might be the cause of religions across the world, it might even have been present for as long as the universe itself, but unless it's supernatural, it's not god?

Interesting...
Willamena
16-12-2005, 19:19
Intruiging. Then I assume you use different names to distinguish between people who have chosen not to believe in a or multiple deities, and people who just do not believe because the concept never even crossed their mind ? If so - what are they ?
A 'choice' of belief is setting a belief based on whatever information. The theist and the atheist are such a person.

The latter people are included in the ones discussed earlier, for which I have no term (and didn't think one necessary). I used to be one.

If you already posted that, I apologize.
No worries.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 19:26
0_o

It might be benevolent, it might be able to influence the cosmos, it might be capable of talking to mankind and guiding it morally, it might be the cause of religions across the world, it might even have been present for as long as the universe itself, but unless it's supernatural, it's not god?

Interesting...
But all those things are part of the mythology, the "story" that surrounds god. If we limit ourselves to the question of existence, then it is possible that a supernatural thing exists.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 20:07
But all those things are part of the mythology, the "story" that surrounds god. If we limit ourselves to the question of existence, then it is possible that a supernatural thing exists.
But there's no evidence of supernatural.

Or any need for supernatural to explain any phenomena.

Except...possibly...everything, but that's just a metaphysical question anyways.
Reformentia
16-12-2005, 20:16
Like i obviously implied, no one can force you to answer that question. I know that i cant answer it, so why should i?

What the hell do you mean you can't answer it?

People who hold the steadfast belief that this question cannot be answered are agnostics.

No they aren't. Please pay attention. I did not ask you "does God exist?". Agnostics believe THAT question can't be definitively answered.

I asked you if you possess a belief in a deity.

I simply dont have to have a belief,

Good for you, you just answered the question. Apparently, since you're insisting you don't have to have a belief the answer is no,you don't have such a belief.

Congratulations. You're AN ATHEIST.

which is why i cannot answer the question.

You just did.

Ask a blind man is a ball is blue or red, he cannot answer it due to insufficient data, not because he isnt right in his mind.

1. This doesn't extend to the question of if he believes the ball is red. It doesn't matter if he's blind or not, he doesn't need to be able to see to know whether or not he possess a specific belief.

2. The question we're talking about is asking what your state of mind is. Just as not being able to answer if something is blue or red suggests vision problems guess what not being able to know the content of your own thoughts is strongly indicative of?
Willamena
16-12-2005, 20:20
But there's no evidence of supernatural.

Or any need for supernatural to explain any phenomena.

Except...possibly...everything, but that's just a metaphysical question anyways.
And there never will be "evidence of supernatural" simply because the only evidence we can be exposed to is natural.

We define supernatural as that which is not natural; if evidence is empirical, and empirical is limited to nature, then we will never have evidence of the supernatural.

And yes, there is no need for the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. That's why it's usually limited as an explanation to supernatural phenomena (spirit, ghost, miracle, god, demon, etc.).
G3N13
16-12-2005, 20:29
Good for you, you just answered the question. Apparently, since you're insisting you don't have to have a belief the answer is no,you don't have such a belief.

Congratulations. You're AN ATHEIST.
Dictionary.com on atheist:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Therefore the concept itself most certainly a belief, a religion even.

Science cannot prove the non-existence of a G/god(s) so no scientist can have a scientific opinion on the existence of the aforementioned entity/s - and, ultimately, in a certain way there is a god, the concept most certainly exists, even if it were misguided: "Perhaps God isn't out there but simply within the human heart"

It's also important to notice that to a scientist believing in god or disbelieving in god are of equal value.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 20:32
And there never will be "evidence of supernatural" simply because the only evidence we can be exposed to is natural.Possibly, possibly not.

The boundary of supernatural is moving though.

We define supernatural as that which is not natural; if evidence is empirical, and empirical is limited to nature, then we will never have evidence of the supernatural.So you're willing to admit that god doesn't exist in a normal sense of the word?

And yes, there is no need for the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. That's why it's usually limited as an explanation to supernatural phenomena (spirit, ghost, miracle, god, demon, etc.).Which of those is supernatural?

While you claim that there is no evidence of such you must be implying that there is evidence of their actions, no? Which of these actions would have to have a supernatural origin when all of them are readily accountable within the realms of natural?
Willamena
16-12-2005, 20:36
Dictionary.com on atheist:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Therefore the concept itself most certainly a belief, a religion even.
A belief alone does not make a religion.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 20:39
A belief alone does not make a religion.Is it not the beginning of a religion?

Did not even christianity begin with the belief in God?
The Similized world
16-12-2005, 20:45
Dictionary.com on atheist:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Therefore the concept itself most certainly a belief, a religion even.

Science cannot prove the non-existence of a G/god(s) so no scientist can have a scientific opinion on the existence of the aforementioned entity/s - and, ultimately, in a certain way there is a god, the concept most certainly exists, even if it were misguided: "Perhaps God isn't out there but simply within the human heart"

It's also important to notice that to a scientist believing in god or disbelieving in god are of equal value.I don't believe Bush has an IQ of 120+. I disbelieve all such claims, in fact.

But I do not exclude the possibility, since I do not know the man personally, and I have no direct evidence either way (like IQ test scores etc.).

Atheism isn't solely denial of the possibility of divinity. It is an all-encompassing term for people who do not profess a belief in divinity. Your dictionary quote contradicts your own interpretation mate.I simply dont have to have a belief,Good for you, you just answered the question. Apparently, since you're insisting you don't have to have a belief the answer is no,you don't have such a belief.

Congratulations. You're AN ATHEIST.This is entirely accurate.
Trust me, I'd love if there were three or more labels for our beliefs & the lack of them. I'd hate for people to peg me as someone who doesn't exclude all possibility of divinity.
Lazy Otakus
16-12-2005, 20:45
Is it not the beginning of a religion?

Did not even christianity begin with the belief in God?

It most likely started with believing in several gods and then scrapping all except one. If I remember correctly, the christian god might be based on some kind of Babylonian fertility deity.

I think religion in general starts with searching for an explanation. First you assume that there are supernatural beings and after some time you start believing in them.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 20:45
Possibly, possibly not.

The boundary of supernatural is moving though.
What does that mean? Is its definition changing?

So you're willing to admit that god doesn't exist in a normal sense of the word?

Which of those is supernatural?

While you claim that there is no evidence of such you must be implying that there is evidence of their actions, no? Which of these actions would have to have a supernatural origin when all of them are readily accountable within the realms of natural?
What is the "normal sense of the word"? I made no claims here about whether or not god exists. We were discussing the possibility of god's existence.

All of those (spirit, ghost, miracle, god, demon) are deemed supernatural things, with a supernatural origin.

Aye; the only "evidence" to these things is witness testamony (although television shows purporting to provide evidence are entertaining enough).

Spirit, ghost, god and demon are objects, not events; "miracle" could apply to the result of an event. These things are not accountable within "the realms of nature"; if they were, they would be natural phenomena, not supernatural.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 20:51
What does that mean? Is its definition changing?No. Just the things we can measure, observe, predict - Ultimately what we know.

What is the "normal sense of the word"? I made no claims here about whether or not god exists. We were discussing the possibility of god's existence.Existence = something that can be measured, observed.

Supernatural, according to you, is something that cannot be measured or observed.

All of those (spirit, ghost, miracle, god, demon) are deemed supernatural things, with a supernatural origin.Why? While I haven't seen any evidence any of those exist there's no reason why they should be supernatural if they can be shown to exist.

"miracle" could apply to the result of an event. These things are not accountable within "the realms of nature"; if they were, they would be natural phenomena, not supernatural.They can be explained thru natural phenomena - at the very worst thru an unknown 3rd party.

There is no miracle yet witnessed that needs a supernatural agent.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 20:55
Atheism isn't solely denial of the possibility of divinity. It is an all-encompassing term for people who do not profess a belief in divinity. Your dictionary quote contradicts your own interpretation mate.This is entirely accurate.No. If you actively disbelieve or refute the existence of god then you're committing an act of belief.

Disbelieving a non-existent entity is different from disbelieving all descriptions of it.
Grave_n_idle
16-12-2005, 20:56
I generally believe it can. Atheism, as I understand it and as Douglas Adams pointed out in the Salmon of Doubt, is the explicit belief that no God exists, as opposed to simply "I don't subscribe to any particular belief structure so I'll label myself an Atheist so I can fit in somewhere".

Is this a logical fallousy, incidentally? I'm not entirely convinced that this is a false simplification, since I've had the idea of Implicit/Explicit Atheism noted at me several times by professed "Atheists"...

Anyway, I think the objective difficulty of both kinds of Atheism is that they rely completely upon the ideas of other humans as the only possible ways in which God could exist. This is obviously so with the Implicits, though perhaps slightly less with the Explicits. Yet when you believe in No God, you do of course restrict the idea of God to the commonly perceived understanding of the word. Couldn't God exist in a way no human has yet grasped or explained? Or, even more interestingly, couldn't God have been correctly understood by some individuals then shunned by popular religion?

To completely reject God relies on a firm definition of what God is. And to fulfil that, you depend upon other religions.

Humanity builds a Strawman God, Atheism attacks it. Objectively, there's something wrong there.

Actually, in the case of the Implicit Atheist:

Humanity builds a Strawman God, the Implicit Atheists looks at it and says "Oooh, very nice", then proceeds to ignore it. In fact, he (or she) just continues ignoring the strawman, right up until it is used as leverage for who he (or she) can (cannot) marry, etc.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 20:57
Is it not the beginning of a religion?
I don't know. The only real religions we have today have been handed down and adapted since before writing was invented.

Did not even christianity begin with the belief in God?
Christianity had a foundation in Judaism. The belief in God was there already.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 20:59
Christianity had a foundation in Judaism. The belief in God was there already.But the schism was because of differing believes in the same God, were they not? So in the end it was all about belief - Belief is why we have religions.
Kamsaki
16-12-2005, 21:00
But all those things are part of the mythology, the "story" that surrounds god. If we limit ourselves to the question of existence, then it is possible that a supernatural thing exists.
It's not all Mythos. Communication with mankind is the known factor. I, like those of the religious persuasion, can testify to an instance of this communication, despite the fact that by the "definition" of God I am apparantly more definately an atheist after it.

If the natural explanation encompasses all of the necessary aspects, why bother with the supernatural explanation? Occam's Razor might only be true in light of itself, but it's certainly a reasonable way to approach things. The model of your universe only needs to be complex enough to encompass things you experience.

Is it not the beginning of a religion?

Did not even christianity begin with the belief in God?
Nope. Christianity began as a subsect of Judaism. Were it not for their political manoevring, it would probably have remained a small cult in the vast sea of theological pontification.
The Similized world
16-12-2005, 21:05
No. If you actively disbelieve or refute the existence of god then you're committing an act of belief.

Disbelieving a non-existent entity is different from disbelieving all descriptions of it.I take it you don't believe I'm correct then?

Think about that question for a while.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 21:08
I take it you don't believe I'm correct then?I don't believe.

I also don't disbelieve.

Think about that for a while then.
Candelar
16-12-2005, 21:10
Dictionary.com on atheist:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Therefore the concept itself most certainly a belief, a religion even.
Dictionary.com on disbelieve:
v. tr. - To refuse to believe in; reject.
v. intr. - To withhold or reject belief.

To refuse to believe in, or withhold belief from something does not mean to believe in something else.

A-theism is no more a religion or belief than A-TeacupOrbitingPlutoism.

Science cannot prove the non-existence of a G/god(s) so no scientist can have a scientific opinion on the existence of the aforementioned entity/s
Science cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns either, but that does not mean that there can be no scientific opinion on the question. Science demonstrates existence, not non-existence, and where there is no evidence for the existence of something where one might expect to find it, it is a valid scientific conclusion to assume that it isn't there (unless and until such evidence is forthcoming).

This is especially true where there is alternative evidence to explain the same phenomena. We see this in investigations of the origins of the universe, where Stephen Hawking, for example, has hypothesized (from evidence) that the universe is finte but has no beginning and no end, and therefore nothing for a creator to do. It's also true of evolution, where the process can be explained by entirely natural phenomena and so requires no divine guiding hand. It is, therefore, perfectly valid for a scientist to conclude, on scientific grounds, that there is probably no god, at least in the Christian sense of the word (and many scientists do so).

and, ultimately, in a certain way there is a god, the concept most certainly exists, even if it were misguided: "Perhaps God isn't out there but simply within the human heart"
The concept certainly exists, but what the concept claims is that God is not merely a concept, but an external reality.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 21:11
No. Just the things we can measure, observe, predict - Ultimately what we know.
Those things are natural.

Existence = something that can be measured, observed.

Supernatural, according to you, is something that cannot be measured or observed.

Why? While I haven't seen any evidence any of those exist there's no reason why they should be supernatural if they can be shown to exist.

They can be explained thru natural phenomena - at the very worst thru an unknown 3rd party.

There is no miracle yet witnessed that needs a supernatural agent.
Right; existence, for us natural beings, is in the physical world. The supernatural cannot be measured or observed empirically; it is more often experienced subjectively, in the mind, or by divining clues. Miracles, for instance, are a type of omen that associates incredibly good fortune with a supernatural origin.

The reason they are supernatural is not that they cannot be shown to exist. They fall under the term "supernatural" because they are spiritual in nature, and the spirit is supernatural. God speaks to our spirit, and we put our spirit in relationship to him; demons play tricks on our spirit; miracles happen to move our spirit; and ghosts are a disemodied, discombobulated form of (you guessed it) our spirit.

The spiritual is in the realm of the supernatural. Religion is spiritual.

Weren't you the one who said, "But there's no evidence of supernatural"? There is no miracle yet evidenced, not that I know of. Do you have any examples? If you refer to things like the Virgin's face on an oil-stained cement block, then I would point out that the miracle is not its presence there but the effect it has on the people who see and make use of it.
Vittos Ordination
16-12-2005, 21:14
Atheism can neither be attacked nor supported objectively. Atheism does not deal with the senses or the reasonable capacities of the human mind.
The Similized world
16-12-2005, 21:14
I don't believe.

I also don't disbelieve.

Think about that for a while then.I don't have to. There's only one conclusion, given your explicitness; you aren't that good at english.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 21:15
But the schism was because of differing believes in the same God, were they not? So in the end it was all about belief - Belief is why we have religions.
I thought it was divergent beliefs in the Messiah.

But belief alone is not enough to call "a religion."
G3N13
16-12-2005, 21:15
Those things are natural.Which is why the border of supernatural, the inexplicable, continues its retreat.
God speaks to our spirit, and we put our spirit in relationship to him; demons play tricks on our spirit; miracles happen to move our spirit; and ghosts are a disemodied, discombobulated form of (you guessed it) our spirit.So they don't exist in a normal sense - They can be said to stem from a person, not from a physical entity.
I would point out that the miracle is not its presence there but the effect it has on the people who see and make use of it.So god is in you, not out there.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 21:18
It's not all Mythos. Communication with mankind is the known factor. I, like those of the religious persuasion, can testify to an instance of this communication, despite the fact that by the "definition" of God I am apparantly more definately an atheist after it.

If the natural explanation encompasses all of the necessary aspects, why bother with the supernatural explanation? Occam's Razor might only be true in light of itself, but it's certainly a reasonable way to approach things. The model of your universe only needs to be complex enough to encompass things you experience.
Communion, not communication. And "Mythos" isn't actually a word. Sorry to be pedantic, but nothing you say here disputes anything I said, so I'll just nod.

*nods*
Melkor Unchained
16-12-2005, 21:18
With all due respect, this is a bit patronising.
Of course it is, but can anyone really say it's wrong? From what I've read in this thread, no one has even paid any attention to it, which is slightly irritating given how much time it took me to write that post.
Hall of Heroes
16-12-2005, 21:19
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, right?

Right. However, this test can be applied to many other absurd things. For example, you can't disprove scientology. There's no way to prove that an alien named Xenu didn't exist 75000 years ago. There is no way to prove that this isn't some absurdly complex version of civilization being played out on a galactic computer. Just because I can't disprove that doesn't make it very likely.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 21:22
I don't have to. There's only one conclusion, given your explicitness; you aren't that good at english.Disbelieving carries within it the shadow of belief - It gives the believers the benefit of the doubt, that there is something worth disbelieving: It's the difference between denying a lie and ignoring it.

In the end though, it's a matter of semantics, like most philosophical debates: Is denying something that's purely a belief a belief in itself?

But belief alone is not enough to call "a religion."I agree.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 21:26
Which is why the border of supernatural, the inexplicable, continues its retreat.

So they don't exist in a normal sense - They can be said to stem from a person, not from a physical entity.

So god is in you, not out there.
The definition of supernatural is not changed at all by the discovery of natural phenomena. What is uncovered of nature, using scientific method, is natural, not supernatural.

Yes, supernatural can be said to stem from a person. I wouldn't say that, but you can.

God is in here *taps her heart; not the physical organ, the other heart*.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 21:27
Of course it is, but can anyone really say it's wrong? From what I've read in this thread, no one has even paid any attention to it, which is slightly irritating given how much time it took me to write that post.
I did read it, and find things to dispute in it, but am so put-off by that grinning skull that I just cringe away.

:p
The Squeaky Rat
16-12-2005, 21:27
In the end though, it's a matter of semantics, like most philosophical debates: Is denying something that's purely a belief a belief in itself?

Depends if you consider "nothing" or "zero" to be a quantity.
Vittos Ordination
16-12-2005, 21:30
Atheism can neither be attacked nor supported objectively. Atheism does not deal with the senses or the reasonable capacities of the human mind.

I was about seven pages too slow on that one.

And yes, I thought that was a perfectly good reason to quote myself.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 21:31
The definition of supernatural is not changed at all by the discovery of natural phenomena. What is uncovered of nature, using scientific method, is natural, not supernatural.What we can see we can measure. What we can measure exists. It is not the term itself that changes, it's the scope of the term - In the days of yesteryear each eclipse, weather pattern, etc.. was considered to be of supernatural origin, while this as we know now was not the case.

In time we can measure more things, does this not mean that the border of observed reality is progressing - That there's less inexplicable things, less supernatural?
God is in here *taps her heart; not the physical organ, the other heart*.Would you agree on that god doesn't exist as an observable outside entity?

And I can hearthily agree with your definition: He is within us.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 21:32
Depends if you consider "nothing" or "zero" to be a quantity.To safely say that there's nothing there requires measuring. And no measurement is accurate enough when it's about existence of god ;)
Candelar
16-12-2005, 21:35
Right; existence, for us natural beings, is in the physical world. The supernatural cannot be measured or observed empirically; it is more often experienced subjectively, in the mind, or by divining clues.
If something is experienced in the mind and there is no empirical evidence that it was stimulated from outside the mind, then there is no reason to conclude that it is anything other than a mental (physical brain) activity.

Scientists are getting better and better at empirically observing what goes on in the mind. They can't see a person's thoughts and feelings directly, but they can see the activity which accompanies them and make deductions from that, similarly to the way in which the existence of the outer planets was deduced before they were actually found.

What exactly is "divining clues", as opposed to analysing (correctly or incorrectly; consciously or subconsciously) empirical evidence?

The reason they are supernatural is not that they cannot be shown to exist. They fall under the term "supernatural" because they are spiritual in nature, and the spirit is supernatural. God speaks to our spirit, and we put our spirit in relationship to him; demons play tricks on our spirit; miracles happen to move our spirit; and ghosts are a disemodied, discombobulated form of (you guessed it) our spirit.
This sounds to me like a primitive attempt to explain mental activity which was beyond the ken of ancient peoples. Scientific evidence is beginning to show otherwise, and when solid scientific evidence comes into conflict with religion, the science invariably wins (except amongst those, such as creationists, who point-blank refuse to accept anything which contradicts their religion).

Weren't you the one who said, "But there's no evidence of supernatural"? There is no miracle yet evidenced, not that I know of. Do you have any examples? If you refer to things like the Virgin's face on an oil-stained cement block, then I would point out that the miracle is not its presence there but the effect it has on the people who see and make use of it.
That effect, too, is almost certainly a neurological phenomenum.
Reformentia
16-12-2005, 21:36
Dictionary.com on atheist:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Oh joy, another fan of dictionary tag.

Dictionary.com on disbelieves:

To withhold or reject belief

Thank you for playing. Collect your consolation parting gift on the way out.

Edit: Dang, someone else beat me to it I see...
Willamena
16-12-2005, 21:38
What we can see we can measure. What we can measure exists. It is not the term itself that changes, it's the scope of the term - In the days of yesteryear each eclipse, weather pattern, etc.. was considered to be of supernatural origin, while this as we know now was not the case.

In time we can measure more things, does this not mean that the border of observed reality is progressing - That there's less inexplicable things, less supernatural?
In the "days of yesteryear" (Go, Captain Thirties!) eclipses and weather patterns were not deemed of supernatural origin, that's just incorrect. Whoever told you that is wrong.

It is true that some weather was associated with gods, but it is the gods, not the weather, that are supernatural. The gods are not "the supernatural origin" of the weather; rather, the weather symbolises (as an omen) the mood that moves the spirit of the god. In other instances, the weather symbolised the mood of the observer, as in weather divination.

The supernatural is not what is "not yet explained," it is what can never be explained; inexplicable. If it is explainable, it is not supernatural.

Would you agree on that god doesn't exist as an observable outside entity?
The supernatural is not empirically observable, right.
The Similized world
16-12-2005, 21:45
Of course it is, but can anyone really say it's wrong? From what I've read in this thread, no one has even paid any attention to it, which is slightly irritating given how much time it took me to write that post.Hehe, well what did you expect.

If you'd instead said that this argument can't affect people's positions, I'd be willing to bite.. But as it is, I agree with everything you wrote, so I can't really criticise.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 21:49
If something is experienced in the mind and there is no empirical evidence that it was stimulated from outside the mind, then there is no reason to conclude that it is anything other than a mental (physical brain) activity.
No reason for the materialist, right. Fortunately, there aren't many of those.

Scientists are getting better and better at empirically observing what goes on in the mind. They can't see a person's thoughts and feelings directly, but they can see the activity which accompanies them and make deductions from that, similarly to the way in which the existence of the outer planets was deduced before they were actually found.
No, they are empirically observing electron bursts and graphical blips in the brain. They are not observing "what goes on in the mind" at all. Their deductions, while valid, still require the input of the individual being tested in order to know what it is they are looking at. That is the only place they can "see" into the mind. They can map the whole brain this way --probably will someday --but it's not really relevant to this discussion.

What exactly is "divining clues", as opposed to analysing (correctly or incorrectly; consciously or subconsciously) empirical evidence?
Divining clues involves unpredictable and often illogical associations made between unrelated objects. A far cry from analysis.

This sounds to me like a primitive attempt to explain mental activity which was beyond the ken of ancient peoples. Scientific evidence is beginning to show otherwise, and when solid scientific evidence comes into conflict with religion, the science invariably wins (except amongst those, such as creationists, who point-blank refuse to accept anything which contradicts their religion).
Actually, modern analysis is a scientific attempt to explain mental activity that has been apparent to everyone since the dawn of time.

:)

What is it that scientific evidence is "showing otherwise"?

That effect, too, is almost certainly a neurological phenomenum.
Actually, an artistic one.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 21:50
In the "days of yesteryear" (Go, Captain Thirties!) eclipses and weather patterns were not deemed of supernatural origin, that's just incorrect. Whoever told you that is wrong.There were weather gods and eclipses were signs from the god.
It is true that some weather was associated with gods, but it is the gods, not the weather, that are supernatural. The gods are not "the supernatural origin" of the weather; rather, the weather symbolises (as an omen) the mood that moves the spirit of the god. In other instances, the weather symbolised the mood of the observer, as in weather divination.Back then they didn't quite see it like that. What they saw in, say, a storm was explained by god throwing thunderbolts at them - It was very much of supernatural origin to them.
The supernatural is not what is "not yet explained," it is what can never be explained; inexplicable. If it is explainable, it is not supernatural.And that border is also constantly moving: We imagine new things we can (could) explain each day.

We cannot answer the question: What will remain inexplicable? today, as we can explain/predict the answer better tomorrow.
The supernatural is not empirically observable, right.So it can be said to *exist* only within humans - The God is in (all of) you, not out there.
Tekania
16-12-2005, 21:56
Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?

Explicit atheism? yes.....

Implicit? No...

Reason being is Explicit makes an assertion with no fact... Implicit reserves judgement from lack of evidence.... An explicit atheist; which affirms no [G/g]od(s) in existance operates from a position of blind faith as much as a theist.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 22:06
There were weather gods and eclipses were signs from the god.

Back then they didn't quite see it like that. What they saw in, say, a storm was explained by god throwing thunderbolts at them - It was very much of supernatural origin to them.
Yeah, I saw that on "Hercules", too. :)

Have you heard of a metaphor? :)

It is easy to think "primitive man" was an ignoramous. It's just not so.

And that border is also constantly moving: We imagine new things we can (could) explain each day.

We cannot answer the question: What will remain inexplicable? today, as we can explain/predict the answer better tomorrow.

So it can be said to *exist* only within humans - The God is in (all of) you, not out there.
The only "border" to the supernatural is its definition, which has not changed.

Many things were hyped as supernatural in the 19th Century (mesmerism, magnetism, spiritualism, etc.); that doesn't make them so. That doesn't rightly include them in the definition of what is "really" supernatural, and doesn't change its "border". It's like "New Age" these days; we are oh-so willing to lump anything we don't like, that even remotely stinks of something spiritually enlightening, as "New Age". Whatever "New Age" originally meant, it now means these ever-broadening subjects. It doesn't mean they actually belong there.

"Supernatural" similarly underwent a broadening in the 19th Century. But the context we are talking about, pertaining to religion, is entirely its original context, that which stands in contrast to "natural".
G3N13
16-12-2005, 22:41
The only "border" to the supernatural is its definition, which has not changed.Wrong. The definition has remained the same...well, similar. But the concept of it being the completely inexplicable, out of the realm of experience, has not.

And no, the explanation they could come up was best they could come up with with their tools and concepts: For them a storm very well could've been the thundergod farting lightnings and black clouds.
"Supernatural" similarly underwent a broadening in the 19th Century. But the context we are talking about, pertaining to religion, is entirely its original context, that which stands in contrast to "natural".While you are correct those terms have...suffered...from the advance of technology, and of imagination.

Let's say creation of universe...It's currently remotely conceivable that a sufficiently advanced technological race could create their own universe based on the knowledge of physics today.
Jester III
16-12-2005, 23:18
Good for you, you just answered the question. Apparently, since you're insisting you don't have to have a belief the answer is no,you don't have such a belief.

Congratulations. You're AN ATHEIST.

Bla, bla, bla. Thanks for reading my mind, but nowhere did i state i have either (a) no belief in the existence of God or (b) no belief in the nonexistence of God. Since neither can be proven both sides are an act of faith. I dont care, simple as that. Might be there is a divine being, i dont mind. Or there isnt anything, well, so be it. As i dont believe, as stated before, i can claim knowledge instead of belief. Knowledge as in knowing the lack of sufficient data. Schroedingers cat can either be alive or dead. Ok, but i dont open the box anyway.
I could believe that there is a man in central China who goes by the name of Tsa Lao and can juggle live dogs, but i am completely apathetic to the issue. Why should i make up my mind about it?
This isnt two-sided, sorry. If someone asks me if i would prefer boiled or scrambled eggs when i dont want any eggs at all my answer to this binary question can be: "Whatever you like, i dont want any." While this doesnt answer the original question about what kind of egg, it is fully sufficient for planning the breakfast as far as eggs for me are concerned. Am i any less sane for not answering the question or not wanting eggs? Or, to make the analogy better suited for you, the question could be "Do you believe my scrambled eggs are better than my boiled ones?" when i never tasted them. To which a fully satisfactional answer would be: "I wouldnt know, but i am not in the mood for eggs right now. In fact, i dont like them at all."
Reformentia
16-12-2005, 23:33
Bla, bla, bla. Thanks for reading my mind, but nowhere did i state i have either (a) no belief in the existence of God or (b) no belief in the nonexistence of God.

Look, let's try this one more time.
"(a)" is "belief in a deity"
"(b)" in "no belief in a deity"

You DO fall into one of those categories. Guaranteed. Because there isn't a third one, those two categories cover the full range of possible positions on the subject of deity belief.

You are either N or ~N. And that's all there is to it.

Since neither can be proven both sides are an act of faith. I dont care, simple as that. Might be there is a divine being, i dont mind. Or there isnt anything, well, so be it.

And let's try THIS one more time as well. Nodody asked you if there was a divine being so stop answering the wrong question. What was asked is if you possessed a belief in such a being. You are being asked if the BELIEF exists, not the damn being.

If you have it you're a theist and if you don't have it you're an atheist, and there isn't a third option.

As i dont believe, as stated before,

Therefore as you are an atheist, as stated before...

<snip rambling about eggs, which completely missed the entire point and misrepresented the nature of the question being asked...>
G3N13
16-12-2005, 23:36
Bla, bla, bla. Thanks for reading my mind, but nowhere did i state i have either (a) no belief in the existence of God or (b) no belief in the nonexistence of God. Since neither can be proven both sides are an act of faith. I dont care, simple as that. Might be there is a divine being, i dont mind. Or there isnt anything, well, so be it. As i dont believe, as stated before, i can claim knowledge instead of belief. Knowledge as in knowing the lack of sufficient data. Schroedingers cat can either be alive or dead. Ok, but i dont open the box anyway.
I could believe that there is a man in central China who goes by the name of Tsa Lao and can juggle live dogs, but i am completely apathetic to the issue. Why should i make up my mind about it?
This isnt two-sided, sorry. If someone asks me if i would prefer boiled or scrambled eggs when i dont want any eggs at all my answer to this binary question can be: "Whatever you like, i dont want any." While this doesnt answer the original question about what kind of egg, it is fully sufficient for planning the breakfast as far as eggs for me are concerned. Am i any less sane for not answering the question or not wanting eggs? Or, to make the analogy better suited for you, the question could be "Do you believe my scrambled eggs are better than my boiled ones?" when i never tasted them. To which a fully satisfactional answer would be: "I wouldnt know, but i am not in the mood for eggs right now. In fact, i dont like them at all."
And this, my friends, is a complete - if sarcastic - answer to the question.
Reformentia
16-12-2005, 23:39
And this, my friends, is a complete - if sarcastic - answer to the question.

Unfortunately "the question" was not the one that was asked.
Willamena
16-12-2005, 23:47
Wrong. The definition has remained the same...well, similar. But the concept of it being the completely inexplicable, out of the realm of experience, has not.
Wasn't it you who said, "But there's no evidence of supernatural"? You were correct. What is supernatural cannot be evidenced, examined, tested or found natural. If it is, it is natural, not supernatural (never was supernatural).

And no, the explanation they could come up was best they could come up with with their tools and concepts: For them a storm very well could've been the thundergod farting lightnings and black clouds.
There is a scientific field of study called Comparative Mythology that might hold some interest for you.

"Ugh, grunt! Caveman see lightening, god is angry!"

:)

Now contrast that to the following:
Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Who laid the foundation of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
~Psalm 104

While you are correct those terms have...suffered...from the advance of technology, and of imagination.
They suffered from being mislabelled "supernatural."

Let's say creation of universe...It's currently remotely conceivable that a sufficiently advanced technological race could create their own universe based on the knowledge of physics today.
*nods* (none the wiser for how this is supposed to follow)
Willamena
16-12-2005, 23:52
Look, let's try this one more time.
"(a)" is "belief in a deity"
"(b)" in "no belief in a deity"

You DO fall into one of those categories. Guaranteed. Because there isn't a third one, those two categories cover the full range of possible positions on the subject of deity belief.

You are either N or ~N. And that's all there is to it.
The problem is that most people do not simplify it that much. It is more:
"(a)" is "a philosophical commitment to belief in a deity"
"(b)" in "a philosophical commitment to no belief in a deity"

Then there are the people who do not make a philosophical commitment one way or another. By labelling them "atheist" you assume on their behalf a philosophical commitment that they did not make.
Jester III
16-12-2005, 23:53
Ok, once again.
You can ask that question and i can refuse to answer it, right? Not only to you, but to myself as well.
I can say, sane that i am: "I cannot answer that one, because i have not decided on this issue and i dont plan on doing it." Now please make me chose sides.
You cannot force belief. Do you felt compelled to chose to believe or disbelieve in the existence of Tsa Lao, just because i mentioned him? Or did you disregard the matter completely?
"I dont care" is a fully functional answer to a lot of binary question based on belief. Do i believe that team A or team B will win the next polo match? Why should i think about that, i dont like polo, dont know about the teams and it has no effect whatsoever on my life.
A question to you, do you hold a belief to any possible question where the two answer are not objectively measurable or logically derived? Where faith, random choosing or "think so" comes into play? If not, what makes the one about God special? If so, does team A or team B win?
Vladimir Illich
16-12-2005, 23:55
Existence originaly meant "to be to the outside". It's either latin or greek: 'Ex' - as in exterior (funny coincidence there) and 'istence' the "to be" part. If you are putting forward a God which isn't anywhere to be sensed by the 5 senses we have, it can't exist, by definition of existence. Sorry.
G3N13
16-12-2005, 23:58
Unfortunately "the question" was not the one that was asked.
Can't have everything... ;)

Wasn't it you who said, "But there's no evidence of supernatural"? You were correct. What is supernatural cannot be evidenced, examined, tested or found natural. If it is, it is natural, not supernatural (never was supernatural).And thus the whole concept is under temporal change.

We learn more, we push much of the previous supernatural to the books of natural.
"Ugh, grunt! Caveman see lightening, god is angry!"

:)Well, at least I can relate to them ;)

Now contrast that to the following:
Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Who laid the foundation of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
~Psalm 104
They suffered from being mislabelled "supernatural."Yes. In a way you could say so.

What they/we can't understand, what is incomprehensible, is often labelled as supernatural - Even if it absolutely isn't so.

Our, your, definition of supernatural is in a state of near constant change: You yourself said: "They suffered from being mislabelled "supernatural."" - That mislabel is because we don't know what will ultimately be unmeasurable/studiable.
*nods* (none the wiser for how this is supposed to follow)What previously could have been considered as supernatural - Is beginning to be within the grasp of natural.
G3N13
17-12-2005, 00:01
Existence originaly meant "to be to the outside". It's either latin or greek: 'Ex' - as in exterior (funny coincidence there) and 'istence' the "to be" part. If you are putting forward a God which isn't anywhere to be sensed by the 5 senses we have, it can't exist, by definition of existence. Sorry.
Wrong - Things can exist as a concept only.

Like morals.
Willamena
17-12-2005, 00:01
Existence originaly meant "to be to the outside". It's either latin or greek: 'Ex' - as in exterior (funny coincidence there) and 'istence' the "to be" part. If you are putting forward a God which isn't anywhere to be sensed by the 5 senses we have, it can't exist, by definition of existence. Sorry.
And that's fine: god's "existence" is thought to be apart from existence as we know it.

But this discussion was really about the possibility of existence.
Reformentia
17-12-2005, 00:02
The problem is that most people do not simplify it that much.

Every atheist I know does... along with most dictionaries. Who are you talking to to come up with your "most people" reference point?
Willamena
17-12-2005, 00:09
Can't have everything... ;)

And thus the whole concept is under temporal change.

We learn more, we push much of the previous supernatural to the books of natural.
Nope; it doesn't change "supernatural" one single bit by discovering that natural things were never supernatural.

What they/we can't understand, what is incomprehensible, is often labelled as supernatural - Even if it absolutely isn't so.

Our, your, definition of supernatural is in a state of near constant change: You yourself said: "They suffered from being mislabelled "supernatural."" - That mislabel is because we don't know what will ultimately be unmeasurable/studiable.
No, they suffered from being "parlour tricks" instead of serious studies. The mislabelling in the 19th Century was because of pop culture that seeks to mystify things, and looks for excitement in such. Today we have scary movies of the "supernatural" for the same reason.

I hope I have at least been consistent in insisting that those things are not supernatural, and never were.

What previously could have been considered as supernatural - Is beginning to be within the grasp of natural.
What previously was considered supernatural was spiritual things (gods, demons, spirits, ghosts, etc.). Those things are not "within the grasp" of the natural (nice metaphor, though).
Vladimir Illich
17-12-2005, 00:10
Every atheist I know does... along with most dictionaries. Who are you talking to to come up with your "most people" reference point?

en.wikipedia.org/Atheism
Willamena
17-12-2005, 00:10
Every atheist I know does... along with most dictionaries. Who are you talking to to come up with your "most people" reference point?
A rough estimate from responses to people such as yourself defining atheism on boards such as this, and people I know.
Willamena
17-12-2005, 00:16
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Cool... new word... "nontheism".
Reformentia
17-12-2005, 00:18
en.wikipedia.org/Atheism

You mean the one that starts "Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods."?

A rough estimate from responses to people such as yourself defining atheism on boards such as this, and people I know.

Surely not from people such as myself, as people such as myself use the term as I do.

Correctly. :)
Vladimir Illich
17-12-2005, 00:24
I don't care how it starts, read it. I personally don't push atheism anymore, just anti-clericalism. Believe all you want. Just don't use people's insecurities to make money. It's the basis of marketing, BTW.
Vladimir Illich
17-12-2005, 00:26
But I'm getting off-topic.

When they told me about Santa, I was shaken, but kept on going.

But when I found out about the Tooth Fairy, I just stopped believing in all supernatural stuff.

Alas, recently I have found a dragon in my garage, and nobody has been able to prove it isn't there.
Reformentia
17-12-2005, 00:29
I don't care how it starts, read it.

I have read it. Quite a while ago actually. Much elaborating on all the various flavors and subsets of atheism, nothing that changes what atheism as a whole refers to.
G3N13
17-12-2005, 01:43
Nope; it doesn't change "supernatural" one single bit by discovering that natural things were never supernatural.Not the 'ideal' supernatural, no.


No, they suffered from being "parlour tricks" instead of serious studies. The mislabelling in the 19th Century was because of pop culture that seeks to mystify things, and looks for excitement in such. Today we have scary movies of the "supernatural" for the same reason.The parlour tricks were "real" at some point of time - There was 'more supernatural' back then.

I hope I have at least been consistent in insisting that those things are not supernatural, and never were.Yes. You have been. And it's a rarity, I must sincerely congratulate you.

In the absolute sense you...might...be right. However, we can't know it now - If ever: The limit of the normal concept is still ever not quite in our grasp: We can't define that what is, will be, super-natural to us, ever.

What previously was considered supernatural was spiritual things (gods, demons, spirits, ghosts, etc.). Those things are not "within the grasp" of the natural (nice metaphor, though).We can simply dismiss them as personal experiences. Heck, I personally believe in...personal god.

While I propose that all these effects stem from our, forever, incomplete understanding of ourselves - It doesn't mean that they wouldn't exist.
Amandeus
17-12-2005, 02:00
As an apologist would argue the question:

If there is no god, how come you have such an idea?

Who gave you the ability to distinguish from good and evil?

Who gave you the ability to decide what is right and wrong?

Why do we seek answers?

Just to dispell the whole myth that "thinking men are atheists." One should have the intelligence to know that there has been a great number of scientists, artists, inventors and writers who hold some kind of belief on organized religion.

I'm personally a border line Christian. And, I like to think that atheism is not unlike any other belief. In todays world you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. Until any evidence is shown otherwise, I'm obliged to believe in Christ.
G3N13
17-12-2005, 02:17
I'm personally a border line Christian. And, I like to think that atheism is not unlike any other belief. In todays world you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. Until any evidence is shown otherwise, I'm obliged to believe in Christ.
I believe in G/god(s) within man - I also acknowledge that it/he/she/they cannot exist in the real meaning of the word
Zolworld
17-12-2005, 02:42
As an apologist would argue the question:

If there is no god, how come you have such an idea?

Who gave you the ability to distinguish from good and evil?

Who gave you the ability to decide what is right and wrong?

Why do we seek answers?

Just to dispell the whole myth that "thinking men are atheists." One should have the intelligence to know that there has been a great number of scientists, artists, inventors and writers who hold some kind of belief on organized religion.

I'm personally a border line Christian. And, I like to think that atheism is not unlike any other belief. In todays world you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. Until any evidence is shown otherwise, I'm obliged to believe in Christ.


If there is no santa, how come you can have such an idea?

Who gave you all the presents?

Who decides when youve been good or bad?

Who ate the mince pies?

Your Obliged to believe in christ? why? why not allah? or vishnu? or thor or zeus? Atheism IS unlike any other belief. It is the abscence of belief. You think atheists don't believe in God, but thats not true. God just doesnt exist.
Ashmoria
17-12-2005, 02:51
Of course it is, but can anyone really say it's wrong? From what I've read in this thread, no one has even paid any attention to it, which is slightly irritating given how much time it took me to write that post.
well um yeah. you did give the definitive answer. there wasnt anything to say about it but "what melkor said" so why respond. the thread really should have ended right then.

i just assumed that everyone accepted that post as correct but went on to discuss other aspects of "attacking atheism" that might not have been covered by what you wrote.
Candelar
17-12-2005, 02:55
Then there are the people who do not make a philosophical commitment one way or another. By labelling them "atheist" you assume on their behalf a philosophical commitment that they did not make.
You might assume that, but I and many others don't. By labelling them "atheist" we are saying only that they lack a philosophical belief in god(s), and nothing more. We're saying nothing about what philosophical commitments they do have, or even whether they have any at all.
Candelar
17-12-2005, 03:02
Just to dispell the whole myth that "thinking men are atheists." One should have the intelligence to know that there has been a great number of scientists, artists, inventors and writers who hold some kind of belief on organized religion.
We do, but we also have the intelligence to realise that a great number of scientists, artists, inventors and writers hold no belief in any religion or god, and that is especially true in our own age, when the understanding of the world is far greater than that of people in past centuries.

More importantly, we also have the intelligence to realise that an argument from authority is a fallacy. The validity or non-validity of a religion depends upon its own merits, not upon the number of people who might have believed in it.

I'm personally a border line Christian. And, I like to think that atheism is not unlike any other belief. In todays world you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. Until any evidence is shown otherwise, I'm obliged to believe in Christ.
Why?
Melkor Unchained
17-12-2005, 03:53
well um yeah. you did give the definitive answer. there wasnt anything to say about it but "what melkor said" so why respond. the thread really should have ended right then.

i just assumed that everyone accepted that post as correct but went on to discuss other aspects of "attacking atheism" that might not have been covered by what you wrote.
Heh. I suppose you've got a point. I guess I just like to argue too much :p
Santa Barbara
17-12-2005, 03:55
Well, one thing I know for certain... it is possible to irrationally attack atheism! Generally speaking, in a non-atheist world, that's the far more likely outcome anyway.
Fraternity and Liberty
17-12-2005, 04:36
Mmm. Atheism can't really be attacked if applied in its literal sense:an absence of religion. Sure, you can play the whole "Pascal's Wager" and dangle hell and heaven over athiests, but that is subjective. Objectivly, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with being athiest. The moment we go into "they're godless,dirty people etc." we're talking subjective not objective.

Ironically though, it is often atheists who preach and spew the dogma they accuse the Church of doing. In those cases, one could objectivly attack the athiests in question for their hypocritical position and thier often senseless attacks against religion. Ex: The Crusades (OMG we killed the Muslims...O NO). Nevermind that the Vatican realized it was a mistake and apologized for it decades ago...it still is a favorite for our preaching athiests.
Amandeus
17-12-2005, 11:58
We do, but we also have the intelligence to realise that a great number of scientists, artists, inventors and writers hold no belief in any religion or god, and that is especially true in our own age, when the understanding of the world is far greater than that of people in past centuries.

More importantly, we also have the intelligence to realise that an argument from authority is a fallacy. The validity or non-validity of a religion depends upon its own merits, not upon the number of people who might have believed in it.


Why?

Why not?

The idea and probability that the universe just appeared by chance is just as insane as the idea of a higher power.

Your point about a great number of inventors/ artists/ scientists being atheist is not a valid point of arguement. That in the sense that I can merely respond with "well hey, there's a lot of scientists/ intentors/ etc who do believe in religion." And what's this about there being more today? Atheists have existed long before our era.

God just doesnt exist.
In your opinion.
Oh, and I would rather believe in Christ over any other power as, I merely find Christ more believable. That, and I don't like religions which support blowing people to bits, messing about with people's genetils, worshiping a fat fucker of a guy that never did anything, supports carrying a dagger around with you, or has a god of war.
BackwoodsSquatches
17-12-2005, 12:12
In your opinion.
Oh, and I would rather believe in Christ over any other power as, I merely find Christ more believable.

Oh, you believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale?
You believe Jesus fed 5000 people with a couple of fish?
You believe Noah packed up two of every animal on the planet, and floated around for 40 days, in a great big boat?

You believe Ham was outcast into slavery, becuase he saw his father naked and drunk?

What exactly is so much easier to believe than any other religions myths?


That, and I don't like religions which support blowing people to bits,

See : The Crusades.

messing about with people's genetils,

woah.


worshiping a fat fucker of a guy that never did anything,

except propagate a religion of peace, and inner reflection.

supports carrying a dagger around with you, or has a god of war.

Maybe you should do some reading about Archangel Michael.....He is reputedly nearly god-like in his omnipotence, and is supposed God's right hanf man, and the General of his army.

Michael in hebrew, means "Like the Lord Himself".

Micheal IS God's "God of War".

When Lucifer rose against Heaven, who job was it to kick his red ass out?
Zolworld
17-12-2005, 13:10
Why not?

"God just doesnt exist"

In your opinion.


By stating it as a fact rather than a belief I was attempting to illustrate the atheist perspective. Christians Believe, they have faith. Atheists Know, we have facts. You believe that God exists, but you dont know for sure. Atheists (at least me) do know for sure. Thats why these arguments go nowhere, because we are arguing from different perspectives. Its like arguing that the sky is blue, but the guy your arguing with is on mars looking at the pink sky thinking your an idiot.
Kefren
17-12-2005, 13:12
Well, okay, fair enough. The term is a bit obscure. But, to put it another way, you don't question the details of an individual deity. For example, you don't question that the Christian God sends people to hell because they haven't repented. It's just seems like an inherent part of what their God is. You just think the whole thing is complete nonsense due to an excessive string of things like this that have been added on by its representatives.

When discussing thee matters with christians it's best to use their own conception of god, using a different definition then the person(s) you are argueing with just adds further confusion & conflicts to the debate.
Unless offcourse, the discussion leads to comparing their perception of god with the perception of other religions.

Couldn't, say, the God that Christianity aspires to exist, but the church have been horrendously misrepresentative with this whole afterlife/salvation-damnation/monotheistic devotion thing? Atheists don't question that; the Christian God is whatever Christianity says it is. And that's why I used the "Subconscious belief" phrase. Whatever ridiculous rubbish might be attributed to the God of Christianity is merely accepted. Sure, you don't believe in the God itself, but you do, at some level, believe what the person is saying about their own God.

I question every definition of a sentient god, or a creator, no matter what that thing's supposed to be called or do. And the religions that view god as some sort of force of nature, well, i wouldn't even consider that to be a god, it's merely another force of nature, like gravity or whatnot.
Kefren
17-12-2005, 13:16
And what is a theist? Someone who has committed to a belief in God or god. They have taken a philosophical stance that says, 'There is a god and it informs my life'. So an atheist is someone who has not committed to a belief in God or god. They have also taken a philosophical stance, one that says, 'I don't believe there is a God or god, so it does not inform my life'.

But what of the person who has no stance on god at all? Who has never even heard of a god, or doesn't care to associate themselves with either position?

Err.... God or god? What's the difference between the two words except the capitalisation? Both mean the same crap
The Lightning Star
17-12-2005, 13:26
Atheism can, but Agnosticism can't!

Weee for agnosticism!
Kefren
17-12-2005, 13:45
Dictionary.com on atheist:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Therefore the concept itself most certainly a belief, a religion even.

Science cannot prove the non-existence of a G/god(s) so no scientist can have a scientific opinion on the existence of the aforementioned entity/s - and, ultimately, in a certain way there is a god, the concept most certainly exists, even if it were misguided: "Perhaps God isn't out there but simply within the human heart"

It's also important to notice that to a scientist believing in god or disbelieving in god are of equal value.

Science can't prove god, nor disprove god, however, we can reason about it.
Athiesm isn't a religion, calling it a religion is even insulting to me, since i'm a person who rejects religion in *every* form. i've posted this before, but here goes:

Faith, religion & the believe in a deity stem forth from the human mind/psyche, and dates back to the first conscient humans trying to explain the world arround them to themselves. It later evolved as the most primal form of law known to man, with the concept of keeping society in a stable state. Think about it, it does make sense if you look at man's history & the history behind various beliefs. Since i've been here i've also learned alot about various religions even collaborating my theory of the origins of religion.

Also, if you can accept the idea of an omnipotent supernatural being popping into existance (or always have existing) surely it's far less fetched to assume the matter/energy that created the universe also to have always existed?

According to some other religions god is just that, that matter/energy that always existed, and as such isn't a sentient being, or an intelligent being, but just a force if you will.
Kefren
17-12-2005, 13:49
No. If you actively disbelieve or refute the existence of god then you're committing an act of belief.

Disbelieving a non-existent entity is different from disbelieving all descriptions of it.

So not believing in non-existing, fictious beings is a belief?:confused:
Kefren
17-12-2005, 13:52
It's not all Mythos. Communication with mankind is the known factor. I, like those of the religious persuasion, can testify to an instance of this communication, despite the fact that by the "definition" of God I am apparantly more definately an atheist after it.

But couldn't this event of communication be the result of your own mind, because you *wanted* to believe?
Kefren
17-12-2005, 13:56
God is in here *taps her heart; not the physical organ, the other heart*.

You have 2 hearts? :eek: :D
Kefren
17-12-2005, 14:02
Explicit atheism? yes.....

Implicit? No...

Reason being is Explicit makes an assertion with no fact... Implicit reserves judgement from lack of evidence.... An explicit atheist; which affirms no [G/g]od(s) in existance operates from a position of blind faith as much as a theist.

I'm explicit, and i've bloody well demonstrated enough times how i reached that conclusion.