Support NeoGAF

[Pollux]

Noooo, Patty, vanish, teleport away!





zmoney, let's split the gold 50/50.



Wait...you're the one with the gun....

You forget what you've seen here today, you can have the 50%...

 

[Log4Girlz]

You forget what you've seen here today, you can have the 50%...

I don't know where this gold in my pocket came from, but I'm buying a spaghetti dinner with garlic bread.

 

[Ashes]

Is god not an infinitely complex, powerful being capable of creating reality without itself needing to be created?

Perhaps it is. But that doesn't validate your reasoning for holding the two things to be of equal value, equally unlikely, or likely. You can't even equate to hold both things to the ransom of evidence of equal value.

I've thought about this teapot argument for years now, and read about it too (it is to be clear, not really a philosophical argument that I am addressing - only a popular example in the atheist vs theist debate). It's stupid (its dull too but that is beside the point]. But in philosophy, you can't just say something is stupid, You have to prove it. The idea that god's existence is held parallel/equal to a teapot in space is... bleh.

For one thing, what is the accountability of the evidence of a teapot in space? why would it be there? But still the hypothetical teapot is such strong evidence against the belief in the possibility of a god, that it is nearly always mentioned. Absurd-reductum thrown in there some where as well.


I suppose the evidence in question, is empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence of a teapot (or god for that matter) out in space. So we cannot prove it exists, but then we cannot prove that it doesn't exist now, can we? And since nobody believes there is a teapot out in space, therefore we do likewise with the God theory.

And the problem is evidence, to be clear here we are talking about empirical evidence. Can we not talk about things existing, in the absence of evidence?

Say we talk postboxes at the end of your street. You say there is one. I can't check your street, so I won't have evidence for it. Because I can't go look for it. But one day, I actually in person, go to where you live and look down your street. Oh, so there is a postbox.

Now, the problem is we can't go looking for a teapot out in space. But can a reasonable person, not assume, that in the absence of evidence, that a thing clearly does not exist?
I mean how would it even get there? Its stupid, and dull. The idea of a teapot existing outer space is far-fetched, totally unreasonable, in my opinion.

 

[Haly]

I've prayed, not to any religious god but to a personal god.

It's not something I do often but I've done it before, I must admit.

Even Dawkins doesn't go there.

Then he's just avoiding the term agnosticism because he's afraid it'll look "weak" in the eyes of his supporters and naysayers. If you want to add the possibility of doubt to atheism what is there to separate it from agnosticism? The degree of certainty? What, being 50% sure is agnosticism but 75% sure is atheism? Bullshit, now it's my turn to call atheists out on being weak-minded. Either go all in, or accept the label of agnosticism.

That is, if you even care about the actual positions rather than how you'll be judged by others.

Again, it's politics at this point, more than it is philosophy or science.

 

[KtSlime]

Leaving for class, just leaving some food for thought.

Science always leaves room for doubt. Always. When a new hypothesis is proposed that challenges established fact, that hypothesis is reviewed, rejected, improved and resubmitted until it has sufficient evidence to overturn the status quo.

Atheism leaves no room for doubt. It says, "there are no gods, this is so, because I say it is".

Agnosticism, however, embraces doubt.

But hey, I guess science just likes to revel in non-answers and pussy thinking.

Why do you propagate this false understanding of these terms?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Perhaps it is. But that doesn't validate your reasoning for holding the two things to be of equal value, equally unlikely, or likely. You can't even equate to hold both things to the ransom of evidence of equal value.

I've thought about this teapot argument for years now, and read about it too (it is to be clear, not really a philosophical argument that I am addressing - only a popular example in the atheist vs theist debate). It's stupid (its dull too but that is beside the point]. But in philosophy, you can't just say something is stupid, You have to prove it. The idea that god's existence is held parallel/equal to a teapot in space is... bleh.

For one thing, what is the accountability of the evidence of a teapot in space? why would it be there? But still the hypothetical teapot is such strong evidence against the belief in the possibility of a god, that it is nearly always mentioned. Absurd-reductum thrown in there some where as well.


I suppose the evidence in question, is empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence of a teapot (or god for that matter) out in space. So we cannot prove it exists, but then we cannot prove that it doesn't exist now, can we? And since nobody believes there is a teapot out in space, therefore we do likewise with the God theory.

And the problem is evidence, to be clear here we are talking about empirical evidence. Can we not talk about things existing, in the absence of evidence?

Say we talk postboxes at the end of your street. You say there is one. I can't check your street, so I won't have evidence for it. Because I can't go look for it. But one day, I actually in person, go to where you live and look down your street. Oh, so there is a postbox.

Now, the problem is we can't go looking for a teapot out in space. But can a reasonable person, not assume, that in the absence of evidence, that a thing clearly does not exist?
I mean how would it even get there? Its stupid, and dull. The idea of a teapot existing outer space is far-fetched, totally unreasonable, in my opinion.

From the teapot wiki

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Make a claim, then prove it. That's his point. Do not ask skeptics to prove that something does NOT exist.

For instance, if Bill Gates claims he placed a teapot into orbit between earth and mars, well that is possible. With today's technology that is absolutely perfectly possible. But if he asserts he actually did it, well if you wish for me to believe Bill Gates, I need to see proof, even if it is reasonable and possible for it to be so.

The greater the claim the more evidence you must provide.

The existence of post boxes is mundane. The existence of the supernatural is exceptional and thus, requires exceptional evidence to sway any skeptic into believing.

 

[Angry Fork]

Just to add: when atheists say 'there is no god' they mean the theist god of the monotheism's. That god completely contradicts all the rules of reality we know and logic/common sense. That's what they mean when they say there is no god. That's what's always being debated because that's the god most of the world follows in some form or another.

They understand they can't know if a deist god exists, but there's no evidence for that and the evidence needs to come from the people claiming that god exists. Atheism is the default position, everyone is born an atheist. Then people with claims infect them while they're young, impressionable and unable to defend themselves intellectually because they don't have the proper cognitive abilities yet. Some children are able to escape the leech but most don't and have to wait until they're older to get rid of it again.

Why do you propagate this false understanding of these terms?

Because it's the only way he can justify pretending he's on a high horse. I don't know why agnostics are so afraid of embracing the atheist term. It means exactly the same thing. I understand why Tyson doesn't do it because he wants to be able to appear open and warm towards theist people since he's a public figure but normal people I don't understand.

 

[JGS]

As Ashes' exit from the thread has illustrated, religious people hold their beliefs on a pedestal and expect others to respect its place in their heart and hold it to a different standard than other lesser supernatural beliefs, without merit, without any reasoning to support such a double standard. Since god is attributed by religious people to creating the universe, then it must be respected on equal grounds with other theories of the origination of the universe. This is not the case in my opinion.

This isn't true. Of course a religious person feels their beliefs are the correct one. However, you were the one not comprehending why Ashes has belief. You were the one minimizing the value of it. You were the one putting your nonsensical non-belief on the pedestal. You and yours are the one making up phony logic equations to dismiss a religious person's beliefs.

You can view beliefs with respect or disrespect. Lord knows I don't respect your view of religious people and that doesn't seem to stop you. What makes you think it matters on hoot to us? Because we reply? Then you try to make your case when we don't reply? Goofiness.

 

[Erigu]

Then he's just avoiding the term agnosticism because he's afraid it'll look "weak" in the eyes of his supporters and naysayers.

It's politics at this point, more than it is philosophy or science.

Can't say I agree... There's a difference between simply saying "I dunno lol" (as you summarized the agnostic position earlier) and saying "I can't be 100% affirmative that there is no god, but I see no reason to believe there is such a thing in the first place, so I live on the assumption that there isn't". How's that "politics"?

 

[Haly]

Just to add: when atheists say 'there is no god' they mean the theist god of the monotheism's. That god completely contradicts all the rules of reality we know and logic/common sense. That's what they mean when they say there is no god. That's what's always being debated because that's the god most of the world follows in some form or another.

That's the one always being debated because this debate is a front for people who have beef with Christians and Catholics, rather than actual proponents of atheism.

You use "atheism" as a convenient banner to rally behind, missing or misrepresenting the actual definition of the term in order to pretend to be a crusader of science against the scourge of ignorance that is religion.

You want to contribute to science? Take up a microscope or or telescope, whichever one is your preference. Or campaign for educational reform, that's another good way to fight ignorance, religious or otherwise. This debate is nothing more than a pleasant diversion/source of entertainment for you, don't pretend otherwise.

 

[Log4Girlz]

This isn't true. Of course a religious person feels their beliefs are the correct one. However, you were the one not comprehending why Ashes has belief. You were the one minimizing the value of it. You were the one putting your nonsensical non-belief on the pedestal. You and yours are the one making up phony logic equations to dismiss a religious person's beliefs.

How are the logic equations phony? I made a comparison between two supernatural entities, which both have absolutely equal amounts of evidence supporting them.

You can view beliefs with respect or disrespect. Lord knows I don't respect your view of religious people and that doesn't seem to stop you. What makes you think it matters on hoot to us? Because we reply? Then you try to make your case when we don't reply? Goofiness.

I do not respect certain beliefs, even if I respect the believer. They are not entwined in my opinion, no matter what one may say. Ashes seems like a great guy but ultimately he believes in an infinitely complex being that created all of reality but itself. Whatever the reason he may give, I believe it is ultimately due to wishful thinking.

If I had a magic wand (or other method of altering someone's mind) I would not wave it and make anyone who is a believer into an atheist, because ultimately none of these beliefs matter in the long run...we all cease to exist eventually.

 

[soul creator]

Leaving for class, just leaving some food for thought.

Science always leaves room for doubt. Always. When a new hypothesis is proposed that challenges established fact, that hypothesis is reviewed, rejected, improved and resubmitted until it has sufficient evidence to overturn the status quo.

Atheism leaves no room for doubt. It says, "there are no gods, this is so, because I say it is".

Agnosticism, however, embraces doubt.

But hey, I guess science just likes to revel in non-answers and pussy thinking.

As others have pointed out, this seems like a bit of a strawman. Or maybe this is just another semantic argument (as so often occurs).

It says "this so called 'flood' is bullshit", it also says "this video tape of aliens is bullshit, I can tell by some of the pixels and because I've seen a lot of bullshit in my time", it also says "this video of a leprechaun is bullshit, I can see the strings holding up the rainbow". It says, "your claim is bullshit until you have evidence backing it up", it doesn't say the claim is undeniably false.

Again, if we're being super strict and technical, pretty much zero atheists say gods are "undeniably false" in the general sense, since "undeniably false" only makes sense in a formal logic system. Of course, there are plenty of gods that are undeniably false in that sense as well...which is usually the point a believer usually starts redefining words to mean the opposite of what they normally mean). But I find it odd that it's acceptable to say:

Supernatural event A: "this flood is bullshit"
Supernatural event B: "this video of a leprechaun is bullshit, I can see the strings holding up the rainbow"

yet when it comes to

Supernatural event C: "god willed the universe into existence with special god powers that I have no evidence for"

we have to tiptoe around it and be cautious about how we speak about it, and invoke neutrality. Yet if I replaced the word god with Thanos in that statement, I guess it would be acceptable to call it bullshit again. (because comic book characters are silly things made up by humans, but theological concepts are serious business!)

This seems to be another example of a free ride

Then he's just avoiding the term agnosticism because he's afraid it'll look "weak" in the eyes of his supporters and naysayers. If you want to add the possibility of doubt to atheism what is there to separate it from agnosticism? The degree of certainty? What, being 50% sure is agnosticism but 75% sure is atheism? Bullshit, now it's my turn to call atheists out on being weak-minded. Either go all in, or accept the label of agnosticism.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/paula-kirby-on-dawkinss-agnoticism/

 

[Pollux]

I would not wave it and make anyone who is a believer into an atheist, because ultimately none of these beliefs matter in the long run...we all cease to exist eventually.

Respect...+1

 

[Erigu]

You use "atheism" as a convenient banner to rally behind, missing or misrepresenting the actual definition of the term

I think many would disagree with your definition of the term...

 

[Haly]

But I find it odd that it's acceptable to say:

Supernatural event A: "this flood is bullshit"
Supernatural event B: "this video of a leprechaun is bullshit, I can see the strings holding up the rainbow"

yet when it comes to

Supernatural event C: "god willed the universe into existence with special god powers that I have no evidence for"

This is a cultural problem and has nothing to do with philosophy. If you visited an isolated tribe and told them about a big man in the sky that burns you to death if you do anything bad, and a guy who flies around in red underwear, both would be met with equal incredulity.

 

[Angry Fork]

Then he's just avoiding the term agnosticism because he's afraid it'll look "weak" in the eyes of his supporters and naysayers. If you want to add the possibility of doubt to atheism what is there to separate it from agnosticism? The degree of certainty? What, being 50% sure is agnosticism but 75% sure is atheism? Bullshit, now it's my turn to call atheists out on being weak-minded. Either go all in, or accept the label of agnosticism.

That is, if you even care about the actual positions rather than how you'll be judged by others.

Again, it's politics at this point, more than it is philosophy or science.

Listen. There is either evidence, or there isn't.

Faith, and the monotheism's are belief in a god without evidence, that's the entire point. It's illogical and potentially dangerous.

Atheism is the understanding that if there is no evidence (which there isn't), then that monotheistic god does not exist and that hypothesis should be rejected. If there was evidence then they wouldn't be atheists would they?

Where does agnosticism show up there. The only possibly scenario where agnosticism would be okay is if you constantly live your life based on future what if's. What if god shows up at some point, what if evidence does come to light, and so on.

But if you do that for god then let's do that for everything else? 'What if we discover some ability to read minds in the future!!! Then surely it's not fair to discount mind reading as a legitimate theory! We should be agnostic about mind reading because hey future technology may come about that enables it!' That's not how things work in the real world. Breakthroughs and new theories/facts are on a slow as they come basis. People can hope that technology develops in the future, but that's about all they can do. And this isn't even a fair comparison because technology is actually able to be improved by humans in the real world, unlike the theory of god.

Atheists think like scientists here. They are open to future evidence. But if that evidence is not there right now, and the probability of a theist god is infinitesimally small, then it must be rejected for better, more consistent and rational real world theoretical frameworks.

 

[KtSlime]

This is a cultural problem and has nothing to do with philosophy. If you visited an isolated tribe and told them about a big man in the sky that burns you to death if you do anything bad, and a guy who flies around in red underwear, both would be met with equal incredulity.

As they should, and as should you.

 

[Log4Girlz]

This is a cultural problem and has nothing to do with philosophy. If you visited an isolated tribe and told them about a big man in the sky that burns you to death if you do anything bad, and a guy who flies around in red underwear, both would be met with equal incredulity.

Pardon me kind visitor to my tribe, but I do not believe in Santa Claus.

Well, that opinion is philosophical in nature.

 

[Haly]

I think many would disagree with your definition of the term...

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6][7] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

ag·nos·tic   [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
noun
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. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.

1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

Definition of AGNOSTIC

1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Of course, I'll be the first to admit that the definition of words change depending on how they're used, and in 3-4 years time atheism will basically mean the same thing as agnosticism, but leaning towards "not exist", and the entries in all those dictionaries and encyclopedias will be updated to reflect the change in times.

Until then, however, I will fight you on this.

If I'm reading the rest of you correctly, your stance (and therefore definition of atheism) is this:

"There might be a possibility that I'm wrong, but for the most part I don't believe there is a god or gods, because no convincing claims to their existence have been made."

Oh by the way, the "atheism is default" argument is flawed. I used to use it a long time ago in these very type of threads, but after thinking about it I realized it was wrong. I'll elaborate on it later.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Sounds reasonable. What does this logic allow you to conclude about the "source" (other than what you just said)?

Very little. All beyond that becomes further leaps of faith.

Ottoman, this talk of god is fine and dandy, and very similar to various conversations had in this thread and other venues, but ultimately, this god you speak of strikes me as a hypothetical construct. If some being was all powerful and created the universe then it can do anything, plant false memories, bury dinosaur bones to confuse the faithful, etc. Nothing in science, no amount of deductive reasoning points to this god or supports any religious dogmas or religious claims.

The first bit is fine, the second not so much. Pretty clear I just laid out some deductive reasoning for you.

The whole "It doesn't make sense because god is totally different from you so comparing yourself to god is nonsense and don't ask why a god which is totally different from you is making you different from itself".

That is an inaccurate paraphrasing of what I said. Maybe don't paraphrase me in the future? Responding to what I say, rather than what you put on me will make discussion much more fruitful.

I don't agree, at least, it's not a "deity" in any form of the word that I recognize.

Deities are inherently human-like, as in, they possess knowledge, motives, goals, purpose, etc. Ottoman is talking about something more ethereal.

I am talking about Allah. I agree, the Islamic idea of God is not at all human-like.

If your interpretation of his stance is correct, then he's saying God is everything we don't understand or cannot understand, because it lies outside our universe/multiverse and therefore precludes any possibility of understanding it. Which, again, is a tautology.

We are limited in our understanding of it in totality, but we can understand the relationship of God to ourselves and the universe around us.

 

[V_Arnold]

Log4Girlz, while you are right on some religious debater being too prideful, but with all due respect, you are representing the EXACT OPPOSITE: being as close-minded and sometimes downright agressive with the intent of arguments that it makes nearly impossible to have a straight conversation with you on this matter.

I have yet to see you look the whole concept of the "supernatural belief systems" as something that is actually possible. I have yet to see you ponder around with multiverses, law of attraction, concept of free will, holographic universe, quantum entanglement, and a lot more in a way that MIGHT make all this possible - and more.

Until some of the most hardcore atheists decide to just, for the sake of hypothesis, ponder in whether is it possible that EVERYONE is right to some degree or is there just one single reality where the consensus has to match their views...well, until then, no debates will bear any fruit, imho.

 

[Lothar]

I've prayed, not to any religious god but to a personal god.

It's not something I do often but I've done it before, I must admit.

Then he's just avoiding the term agnosticism because he's afraid it'll look "weak" in the eyes of his supporters and naysayers. If you want to add the possibility of doubt to atheism what is there to separate it from agnosticism? The degree of certainty? What, being 50% sure is agnosticism but 75% sure is atheism? Bullshit, now it's my turn to call atheists out on being weak-minded. Either go all in, or accept the label of agnosticism.

That is, if you even care about the actual positions rather than how you'll be judged by others.

Again, it's politics at this point, more than it is philosophy or science.

In your very stupid definition of atheism, there would be almost no atheists. Lol at you considering Dawkins an agnostic just because he happens to have an open mind about his no gods exist view.

 

[Pandaman]

Why do you propagate this false understanding of these terms?

he's the guy who insists the correct name is 'brontosaurus' and quotes Marsh to prove it.

 

[Angry Fork]

Of course, I'll be the first to admit that the definition of words change depending on how they're used, and in 3-4 years time atheism will basically mean the same thing as agnosticism, but leaning towards "not exist", and the entries in all those dictionaries and encyclopedias will be updated to reflect the change in times.

Until then, however, I will fight you on this.

If I'm reading the rest of you correctly, your stance (and therefore definition of atheism) is this:

"There might be a possibility that I'm wrong, but for the most part I don't believe there is a god or gods, because no convincing claims to their existence have been made."

Like I said before: non-answer and pussy thinking. "It's unknowable because like, some evidence might come in the future okay! let's all hold hands come on I don't want us to fight!!! =( =( =("

By the way you've said you've prayed to your own personal god, that means you're a theist. If you believe in an intervening god, then you're no longer "agnostic" or an atheist. A deist is someone who believes a god exists but he doesn't interfere with the natural order. He just made things and then left.

Theist's believe that god intervenes and breaks the natural order of things in order to help people here and there. Atheists believe there are no god's because there is no evidence for any god's existence (truth). That's it. Agnosticism is completely unnecessary. Atheists don't say there never will be evidence, they say there hasn't been for 100,000 years and there is slim probability there ever will be.

 

[The Technomancer]

Log4Girlz, while you are right on some religious debater being too prideful, but with all due respect, you are representing the EXACT OPPOSITE: being as close-minded and sometimes downright agressive with the intent of arguments that it makes nearly impossible to have a straight conversation with you on this matter.

I have yet to see you look the whole concept of the "supernatural belief systems" as something that is actually possible. I have yet to see you ponder around with multiverses, law of attraction, concept of free will, holographic universe, quantum entanglement, and a lot more in a way that MIGHT make all this possible - and more.

Until some of the most hardcore atheists decide to just, for the sake of hypothesis, ponder in whether is it possible that EVERYONE is right to some degree or is there just one single reality where the consensus has to match their views...well, until then, no debates will bear any fruit, imho.

Uh....we do acknowledge the possibility. We just don't acknowledge the probability any more then any other supernatural belief that people easily discount every day.

 

[Erigu]

Of course, I'll be the first to admit that the definition of words change depending on how they're used, and in 3-4 years time atheism will basically mean the same thing as agnosticism, but leaning towards "not exist", and the entries in all those dictionaries and encyclopedias will be updated to reflect the change in times.
Until then, however, I will fight you on this.

Oh, I'm sure you'd have better things to do! ^_^;

But I'd argue that when you live on the assumption that God doesn't exist (Dawkins' "6"), that definition you quoted:

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

... would fit. You believe there is no God. You might not be 100% affirmative that's how it is, but you believe there is no God.

I don't know that limiting atheism to the absolute certainty that there is no God and agnosticism to "I dunno lol" (exactly 50/50??) is all that helpful...

 

[Haly]

In your very stupid definition of atheism, there would be almost no atheists. Lol at you considering Dawkins an agnostic just because he happens to have an open mind about his no gods exist view.

I consider Dawkins the head of a cult of personality. The only reason I don't vilify him like I do other similar cult heroes is because I tangentially support his stance against religion, even if I don't approve of his methods.

Do you know what's really dangerous? Putting all your faith and support in one man rather than coming to your own conclusions about what's right and what's wrong. Do you think I always played devil's advocate in this debate? No, I used to troll religion just as hard as some of you, possibly even more so. But after frequent reflection I realized that I was being dishonest with myself.

I suggest you do the same, rather than being so staunchly convinced of your righteousness and the stupidity of everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint. Because, you know, that reminds me very strongly of some people we're all familiar with.

 

[Log4Girlz]

That is an inaccurate paraphrasing of what I said. Maybe don't paraphrase me in the future? Responding to what I say, rather than what you put on me will make discussion much more fruitful.

This does not make sense. As I previously said, God is absolutely dissimilar to creation, thus your knowledge of your own contingency (reliance on time/resources) is in contrast to His lack of contingency.

You certainly give the impression that comparing ourselves to god is a fruitless excercise because we are inherently dissimilar with no real good reason as to why we would be. My point is, there is no point. It makes absolutely no sense for a god to have a creation be completely dissimilar to its own self

Log4Girlz, while you are right on some religious debater being too prideful, but with all due respect, you are representing the EXACT OPPOSITE: being as close-minded and sometimes downright agressive with the intent of arguments that it makes nearly impossible to have a straight conversation with you on this matter.

If presented evidence or proof of any supernatural deity that can stand up to scrutiny and is as exceptional in nature as the claim itself, I would be open minded in considering it. Otherwise yes, I am closed minded about it. Ultimately, all religions are founded on assumption, wishful thinking and cultural bias and not much else. Naturally, religious people may disagree with that assessment.

I have yet to see you look the whole concept of the "supernatural belief systems" as something that is actually possible. I have yet to see you ponder around with multiverses, law of attraction, concept of free will, holographic universe, quantum entanglement, and a lot more in a way that MIGHT make all this possible - and more.

I've mentioned that the brain in the vat theory is equally as likely as the concept of god. Much like the movie the Matrix, which is based on a similar concept, we could conceivably be inhabitants of a simulation. But assuming such is irresponsible of me without evidence.

Until some of the most hardcore atheists decide to just, for the sake of hypothesis, ponder in whether is it possible that EVERYONE is right to some degree or is there just one single reality where the consensus has to match their views...well, until then, no debates will bear any fruit, imho.

No, these debates almost never bear fruit. Sure, some may be swayed to one side or another, but its ultimately just mindless discussion to pass time in my opinion...like any other topic on the boards.

For the sake of hypothesis, we may be the experiments of an alien race.

 

[soul creator]

Log4Girlz, while you are right on some religious debater being too prideful, but with all due respect, you are representing the EXACT OPPOSITE: being as close-minded and sometimes downright agressive with the intent of arguments that it makes nearly impossible to have a straight conversation with you on this matter.

I have yet to see you look the whole concept of the "supernatural belief systems" as something that is actually possible. I have yet to see you ponder around with multiverses, law of attraction, concept of free will, holographic universe, quantum entanglement, and a lot more in a way that MIGHT make all this possible - and more.

Until some of the most hardcore atheists decide to just, for the sake of hypothesis, ponder in whether is it possible that EVERYONE is right to some degree or is there just one single reality where the consensus has to match their views...well, until then, no debates will bear any fruit, imho.

"supernatural" is kind of a nonsensical term anyway. If it happens, and we could observe it in some way, doesn't that make it inherently "natural"?

Someone posted an article here a while back that better explained how that term is kind of useless, but I don't remember the specifics.

It seems to be intended as a catch-all term for "shit we might not understand yet". But I guess I prefer to just say "shit we might not understand yet", as opposed to "supernatural".

And of course, I always find it odd when people look down on atheists for being "close-minded", when I'm sure they have millions of things they feel is equally "bullshit", and they disbelieve in. Unless you literally believe in and take seriously every single random idea a human being has ever come up with. And if you do, you have larger problems, lol

 

[Ashes]

Make a claim, then prove it. That's his point. Do not ask skeptics to prove that something does NOT exist.
For instance, if Bill Gates claims he placed a teapot into orbit between earth and mars, well that is possible. With today's technology that is absolutely perfectly possible. But if he asserts he actually did it, well if you wish for me to believe Bill Gates, I need to see proof, even if it is reasonable and possible for it to be so.
The greater the claim the more evidence you must provide.
The existence of post boxes is mundane. The existence of the supernatural is exceptional and thus, requires exceptional evidence to sway any skeptic into believing.

His point is to make a claim and prove it? Then why address that to me? I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm not leading a revolt, or establishing a religion.

This sounds like moving the goal post. I thought the whole teapot thing was, you can't prove a negative, thus etc etc you know how it goes...

 

[The Technomancer]

And of course, I always find it odd when people look down on atheists for being "close-minded", when I'm sure they have millions of things they feel is equally "bullshit", and they disbelieve in. Unless you literally believe in and take seriously every single random idea a human being has ever come up with. And if you do, you have larger problems, lol

I used to post very long explanations in this thread that revolved around basically that idea: if you have a billion ideas, all equally without evidence, is it more logical to assume that all of them are implausible until evidence arises for them or to assume all of them are plausible until evidence for their nonexistence springs up?

And if a person doesn't agree that all ideas without evidence have to stand on the same footing, what other criteria besides evidence do they use to decide why one or two ideas could be true but all the many others aren't?
I have never gotten an answer to that second question, to what the discretionary criteria is that separates belief in God from belief in...the Greek pantheon or the existence of alien ruins on Pluto. Nothing better then "God feels different" or something like that.

 

[Aeris130]

Very little. All beyond that becomes further leaps of faith.

Then how does it lead you to classify existance itself as evidence of (a) god?

Because the jump from "things have a beginning (or not)" to "a god must've done it" is fairly big, unless your definition of god is "anything" (i.e useless).

 

[Log4Girlz]

His point is to make a claim and prove it? Then why address that to me? I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm not leading a revolt, or establishing a religion.

This sounds like moving the goal post. I thought the whole teapot thing was, you can't prove a negative, thus etc etc you know how it goes...

What I meant to say by that point, is that if a person makes a claim, it is their responsibility to provide proof, the burden of proof is on them.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake."

Orthodox people, religious people who make supernatural claims speak as if it were the business of non-believers, the skeptics, to provide proof that something

does not exist.

This is a very common argument in support for the possibility of god "Hey, you can't PROVE it doesn't exist!!". Its thrown about constantly.

Rather, its the dogmatist that needs to provide proof.

 

[Angry Fork]

Do you know what's really dangerous? Putting all your faith and support in one man rather than coming to your own conclusions about what's right and what's wrong. Do you think I always played devil's advocate in this debate? No, I used to troll religion just as hard as some of you, possibly even more so. But after frequent reflection I realized that I was being dishonest with myself.

I suggest you do the same, rather than being so staunchly convinced of your righteousness and the stupidity of everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint. Because, you know, that reminds me very strongly of some people we're all familiar with.

I AM GOING TO BURST.

This false equivalence and absolute non sequitur's make my blood boil.

How in the world do you go from 'I"m an atheist and agree with Dawkins' to "ISN'T IT DANGEROUS TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING DAWKINS SAYS LIKE HE'S YOUR PERSONAL GOD!?!?!? IT'S JUST LIKE THE RELIGIONS YOU'RE SO AGAINST!!!!"

And let's completely equalize atheists in favor of using your brain to reject supernaturalism with people who propose thinking WITHOUT that brain capacity, and relying only on faith. They're both the same of course. They both yell and are 'fanatical' therefore they're the same. Let's ignore the motivations and pretend Dawkins is just as herp derp evil as Jerry Falwell was.

 

[Pollux]

For the sake of hypothesis, we may be the experiments of an alien race.

Not a hypothesis...

 

[Log4Girlz]

Not a hypothesis...

Don't tell anyone this...but I've been butt probed by them...several times.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Then how does it lead you to classify existance itself as evidence of (a) god?

Because the jump from "things have a beginning (or not)" to "a god must've done it" is fairly big, unless your definition of god is "anything" (i.e useless).

This is not about beginnings, this is about the absolute source of reality. God is merely the word I give to that absolute source. Beginnings in this respect become a meaningless question.

 

[OttomanScribe]

You certainly give the impression that comparing ourselves to god is a fruitless excercise because we are inherently dissimilar with no real good reason as to why we would be. My point is, there is no point. It makes absolutely no sense for a god to have a creation be completely dissimilar to its own self

Why are we comparing ourselves to God? Why does it make no sense? Naturally if God is one thing, then what God creates is another thing, which is defined as much by being 'not God' as anything else.

 

[Aeris130]

This is not about beginnings, this is about the absolute source of reality. God is merely the word I give to that absolute source. Beginnings in this respect become a meaningless question.

Alright, is that all that you ascribe to the word god? Because most religions tend to go a bit further than that.

And if it is, why would you choose a loaded word like "god" in the first place, when the word is used in religious context?

 

[Ashes]

What I meant to say by that point, is that if a person makes a claim, it is their responsibility to provide proof, the burden of proof is on them.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake."

Orthodox people, religious people who make supernatural claims speak as if it were the business of non-believers, the skeptics, to provide proof that something

does not exist.

This is a very common argument in support for the possibility of god "Hey, you can't PROVE it doesn't exist!!". Its thrown about constantly.

Rather, its the dogmatist that needs to provide proof.

You're saying that the example is citing the burden of proof argument? No, its really not, at least I don't think so. Dawkins uses the same example and talks about agnostic conciliation.

 

[V_Arnold]

"supernatural" is kind of a nonsensical term anyway. If it happens, and we could observe it in some way, doesn't that make it inherently "natural"?

Someone posted an article here a while back that better explained how that term is kind of useless, but I don't remember the specifics.

It seems to be intended as a catch-all term for "shit we might not understand yet". But I guess I prefer to just say "shit we might not understand yet", as opposed to "supernatural".

And of course, I always find it odd when people look down on atheists for being "close-minded", when I'm sure they have millions of things they feel is equally "bullshit", and they disbelieve in. Unless you literally believe in and take seriously every single random idea a human being has ever come up with. And if you do, you have larger problems, lol

To the first half of your post: yes, I use the term that is relevant to the discussion. Ultimately, nothing is supernatural. Everything has to be part of the system, even the seeming anomalies of it, that just sign that there are rules that are currently not yet apparent to the observers.

To the second part, notice that there is a difference between saying "atheists are close-minded" and saying "the close-minded atheists". Personally, I have seen every kind of behavior out there: i have seen close-minded religious people, close-minded atheists and neither of them was really bright because one believed in proof, other in faith, when ultimately these perceived notions of being right were only used in stomping on others opinion. Which is a bad thing to do.

Personally, I have been expressing a worldview where I think it is perfectly reasonable and also believable that both the atheists and the religious people are right - to the extent necessary. This belief system includes an ever-changing and reflective personal reality for every single window of consciousness (that can mean a human body, a computer interface, an animal, an expression, almost anything), and there is also current consensus realities that one is aligning himself with based on what he/she currently believes to be true about themselves.

In this system, there is also a Veil of Forgetting in place, which allows everyone to experience their own bodies as something that is seemingly separate from every single being "out there", and it allows to filter the "out there" and the "inside me" as two different things - when it is ultimately not.

And in this worldview, yes, there are infinite paralell realities all containing but a snapshot, an infinitely complex matrix that describes the current states of every being in existence, and simple movements, breathing, all passing moment is our consciousness moving through one reality to other - depending on where we "are headed". It is a bit more complex than that, of course, and there are rules to this. A simple consequence to this view is that everyone IS perfectly right in their own world, and the encounters in one's life will always bring up situations that are reflective of one's belief systems and possible additional - contractual - situations.

Am I crazy? I am quite sure for many of you, I am. But I did not come up with this in a moment of crazy lifetime. It is thanks to empirical feedbacks, both from my problems and the problems of those around me, the way things are seemingly handed to me or were taken away from me and those around me, the way encounters, chance meeting, sudden rekindlings are taking place based on solely whether how I felt and how those that were arranged to meet with me felt - it is all empirical and it is all self-reinforcing. How could it be anything else? Of course, I understand if an atheist's worldview is perfectly reasonable and self-reinforcing too. There would be no true justice and fairness in a world where one is not allowed to live in a world like that.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Why are we comparing ourselves to God? Why does it make no sense? Naturally if God is one thing, then what God creates is another thing, which is defined as much by being 'not God' as anything else.

I don't see why God simply doesn't make more Gods, why make things which cannot create themselves (meaning things which continue to make other things creatively)? If God created us, why not compare ourselves to it? Why create anything to begin with? Why not be content with its own existence?

No point or purpose to man, why a being able to create everything bothered is beyond me.

 

[Angry Fork]

I don't see why God simply doesn't make more Gods, why make things which cannot create themselves (meaning things which continue to make other things creatively)? If God created us, why not compare ourselves to it? Why create anything to begin with? Why not be content with its own existence?

No point or purpose to man, why a being able to create everything bothered is beyond me.

"God is mysterious."

'But make sure you don't eat meat, God thought that was a much more important thing to tell people.'

 

[OttomanScribe]

No point or purpose to man, why a being able to create everything bothered is beyond me.

Well who said there needs to be a purpose? Though I would argue there is, that being the reflection of the attributes of God. However if we are talking about a simple justification of any theism, then why does there need to be a purpose?

Alright, is that all that you ascribe to the word god? Because most religions tend to go a bit further than that.

And if it is, why would you choose a loaded word like "god" in the first place, when the word is used in religious context?

I am also using a religious context... like I said, my idea of God is that of Islamic theology, specifically the Ashari school.

 

[Log4Girlz]

You're saying that the example is citing the burden of proof argument? No, its really not, at least I don't think so. Dawkins uses the same example and talks about agnostic conciliation.

"In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them *Log edit: he is specifically talking about who the burden of proof should fall on, specifically orthodox people[/b]. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. *Log edit: Now he is constructing a thought exercise involving an unreasonable assertion* But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense *Log edit: And what he is saying here that since what he claims cannot be unproven and he said that it was intolerable that someone does not assume what he says is true based on its unprovability, then he be all crazy and such*. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time*Log edit: He then goes on to say if this exact example were taught in like, religious books and indoctrinated into young people's heads at school when they were young, the it would be ridiculous not to believe it"

Yeah, I would say he's talking about burden of proof.

 

[Haly]

Enough of semantics, let's make this fun with a thought experiment:

A man (or woman) with amnesia is dropped in the middle of the desert. They don't remember their past, although they still retain language, don't ask me how this works, it's a thought experiment!

So as he (or she, and you should assume I'm adding this every time I use a gender pronoun) is walking through the desert, he passes other people now and then. Sometimes he hears mention of trees. Whenever this happens, he takes a looks around and sees nothing but sand.

"I can't see any trees here, so there must be no trees."

And he walks and walks and eventually dies of dehydration.

However, just outside of the desert there is a forest, trees for days. Can't see the trees because the other trees are blocking the way.

The metaphor here should be painfully obvious.

My question to you is if the man was right for thinking that there were no trees around even though trees did exist. As an outside observer, you have knowledge that the man does not. You know for a fact that the trees exist, because I said so, but does this somehow invalidate what he's saying?

I think it can be argued both ways.
1) The man is wrong, because there were trees.
2) The man might've been wrong, but for all practical intents and purposes, there were no trees.

The implication of 2), of course, is that we live our lives according to what we can perceive. Anything outside of it has no practical value, and should be discarded. However, this does not make the man factually correct. Effectively, there are two types of truths, ones that are intrinsic to the universe he exists in, these are objective, and ones that are unique to his worldview, subjective. Which one has more merit I will not comment on :3

 

[Ashes]

"In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them *Log edit: he is specifically talking about who the burden of proof should fall on, specifically orthodox people[/b]. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. *Log edit: Now he is constructing a thought exercise involving an unreasonable assertion* But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense *Log edit: And what he is saying here that since what he claims cannot be unproven and he said that it was intolerable that someone does not assume what he says is true based on its unprovability, then he be all crazy and such*. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time*Log edit: He then goes on to say if this exact example were taught in like, religious books and indoctrinated into young people's heads at school when they were young, the it would be ridiculous not to believe it"

Yeah, I would say he's talking about burden of proof.

Dawkins reiterates this argument more than once:
A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of
cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not
call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative.
But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he thought God’s existence
or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about God,
he considers God’s existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy’s. . . .
Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same
didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn’t
mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its
non-existence.3
Agnostic conciliation, which is the decent liberal bending over backward to
concede as much as possible to anybody who shouts loud enough, reaches
ludicrous lengths in the following common piece of sloppy thinking. It goes
roughly like this: You can’t prove a negative (so far so good). Science has
no way to disprove the existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true).
Therefore, belief or disbelief in a supreme being is a matter of pure, individual
inclination, and both are therefore equally deserving of respectful attention!
When you say it like that, the fallacy is almost self-evident; we hardly need
spell out the reductio ad absurdum. As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter
Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a
teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto.We can’t disprove it. But that doesn’t
mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that
there isn’t.

Two people can play the quoting game.

Edit: In fact I'll quote my self:

Is god not an infinitely complex, powerful being capable of creating reality without itself needing to be created?

Perhaps it is. But that doesn't validate your reasoning for holding the two things to be of equal value, equally unlikely, or likely. You can't even equate to hold both things to the ransom of evidence of equal value.

I've thought about this teapot argument for years now, and read about it too (it is to be clear, not really a philosophical argument that I am addressing - only a popular example in the atheist vs theist debate). It's stupid (its dull too but that is beside the point]. But in philosophy, you can't just say something is stupid, You have to prove it. The idea that god's existence is held parallel/equal to a teapot in space is... bleh.

For one thing, what is the accountability of the evidence of a teapot in space? why would it be there? But still the hypothetical teapot is such strong evidence against the belief in the possibility of a god, that it is nearly always mentioned. Absurd-reductum thrown in there some where as well.


I suppose the evidence in question, is empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence of a teapot (or god for that matter) out in space. So we cannot prove it exists, but then we cannot prove that it doesn't exist now, can we? And since nobody believes there is a teapot out in space, therefore we do likewise with the God theory.

And the problem is evidence, to be clear here we are talking about empirical evidence. Can we not talk about things existing, in the absence of evidence?

Say we talk postboxes at the end of your street. You say there is one. I can't check your street, so I won't have evidence for it. Because I can't go look for it. But one day, I actually in person, go to where you live and look down your street. Oh, so there is a postbox.

Now, the problem is we can't go looking for a teapot out in space. But can a reasonable person, not assume, that in the absence of evidence, that a thing clearly does not exist?
I mean how would it even get there? Its stupid, and dull. The idea of a teapot existing outer space is far-fetched, totally unreasonable, in my opinion.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Well who said there needs to be a purpose? Though I would argue there is, that being the reflection of the attributes of God. However if we are talking about a simple justification of any theism, then why does there need to be a purpose?

No purpose, no sense. Clouds just float along because of the laws of nature, they just are. I type here with purpose, so one could make the argument I'm not typing random nonsense, because I have a purpose. A god just doing things...just 'cuz, no reason, no purpose, no plan, no design equates it to being random. If things just spring forth just because why not, then its random.

I do not mind if you think god is random and just does things without planning, purpose or need, but to me it defeats the notion or necessity of a god. I may as well just believe in a universe that has existed in one form or another for eternity without purpose, planning, or necessity (which is what I believe).

 

[The Technomancer]

Haly: Its 2. But you're jumping the gun by moving from "there could be trees even if I don't have evidence of them" to "therefore I will treat the existence of trees as a plausible possibility that I will account for in my life"

Could God or a god exist? Yes. Without evidence though there's no reason to behave as if there could be though, any more then there's reason to behave as if the other millions of supernatural claims "could" be true.

Speculation about intrinsic truth is literally useless. Intrinsic truth can only be approximated through observation and accumulation of evidence.

 

[Ashes]

Haly: Its 2. But you're jumping the gun by moving from "there could be trees even if I don't have evidence of them" to "therefore I will treat the existence of trees as a plausible possibility that I will account for in my life"

Could God or a god exist? Yes. Without evidence though there's no reason to behave as if there could be though, any more then there's reason to behave as if the other millions of supernatural claims "could" be true.

But is it the same thing as the teapot out in space?