Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 14
Atheistic fundamentalism
Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,629 Views)
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Jack Frost
Dec 22 2007, 07:25 PM
TomK
Dec 22 2007, 02:53 PM
An agnostic is someone who doesn't know for certain if there is a God or not--a reasonable defalt position, if I do say so myself.

And atheist is someone with a "faith" that God doesn't exist, because in atheism is a positive belief in (this case) the nonexistance of a thing.

Yes, exactly. There is a huge difference.

jf

What we know is that the universe is here. Of that we are pretty certain (unless all of this is im my mind--and best we don't go in there :P :rolleyes: )

There are only two choices for all this--either someone put the universe here or it got here all by itself. The empirical evidence doesn't lend itself to either side of the argument. If God created everything outside of "time" we can't see hwo wany what and why he did from our senses. If it started somehow without God--the evidence is again outside the relm of what we know at this time.

At this time I would just like all claims to the existance of God to be rational. (Unlike Jeffery's little rant! :lol: )

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Maybe so. But it won't hurt to define what we really mean when we bandy words around.

And Moon you're are going in to the semantics of the words--not my meaning at all. You can't "know" there is no God. Just because your senses don't "report" to you some supreme creature does or doesn't is in no way a sign that he exists or doesn't exist.

You can't honestly take a real position of the existance of God without any clear evidence one way or other. The fact that you have no sensory data tells you nothing--and I mean "nothing." To be completely rational you would have to withhold judgment untill you had proof one way or the other.

That would put you as an agnostic (correct?--don't mean to put words in your mouth.  ) And realisticly--you have no more information about God's existance than I do. I just "choose" on a 50-50 wager to go one way and you another.

You are as right in you "belief" about the existance of God as I am.


Well i was going into what the words are taken to mean but that's because you made a statement using those words and you meant something quite different by them than what most people who call themselves "atheists" (including all the big names) mean. Hence i thought it was worth explaining that very few people are atheists using your definition of the term. It's worth bearing that in mind so that one avoids making straw-man style arguments.

You are right that one cannot know with certainty one way or another, but you are mistaken to think that that the odds are 50-50. The case you are making is that there is no evidence for a hypothesis, but that there is no evidence against it therefore the chances of it being right are 50-50 that is perhaps intuitive but it is completely wrong. Consider the following hypothesis:

Tomorrow gigantic wolves will materialise in your house and devour you. Now clearly there is no evidence that such a hypothesis is actually true, however nor is there any evidence that it won't occur since non-existent wolves don't tend to leave evidence of their own non-existence. Likewise non-existent dieties don't tend to leave evidence of their own non-existence.

Actually one can do better than merely provide an example, one can understand _why_ if there really is no evidence for some particular statement nor evidence 'against it' that equates to a miniscule probability that the statement is infact true. Suppose you consider layed out in front of you every possible statement that could ever be made written on parchment that stretches to the stars. Now ask yourself what proportion of these statements are actually true. To show what the answer is take any true statement, now consider all the statements are false one quickly sees that there for every true statement there are truly vast numbers of false statements. Thus as a proprtion of all possible statements those that true makes a tiny tiny minority.

Now consider just picking a statement out a random, you know nothing about the support or lack of support for this statement. You have nothing suggesting it is true, nothing suggesting it false you have no information about it at all. What are the odds that the statement is true? Well virtually zero.

The statement about the wolves is precisely the same and a statement about God existing if one truly accepts that nothing suggests it's true nothing suggests it's false, i.e. no information about it's veracity is available, then that is also the same. Thus true agnosticism in the sense of lacking knowledge is de facto atheism, that's why one is safe completley ignoring the possibility of the flying spagetti monster or of gigantic wolves materialising out of thin air or tea pots orbitting Mars or any other statement that lacks a basis.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
That's just because you don't understand what I said, Jack. I'm saying the same thing. An agnostic is tolerant of those who believe because he acknowledges they might be right. He just doesn't know himself. An atheist is not tolerant of the notion they might be wrong. They are completely convinced they're not, and have faith in that belief. They are, in other words, extremist fundamentalists for the faith based religion of atheism. Agnostics on the other hand, having no opinion one way of the other, and being open to any evidence to support either conclusion, do not feel the need to attack religion. Atheists are consumed by that need, as evidenced by the atheist religious fundamentalists who have posted in this thread.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Moonie, you atheists really seem to enjoy coming up with asinine arguments like flying spaghetti monsters and wolves in peoples' living rooms - but they are silly and weak arguments. Reality *is*. The universe *is*. How it evolved *is*. We're dealing with real stuff, things that *are here*. Now the question is not just how, but why.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Larry: "asinine arguments like flying spaghetti monsters and wolves in peoples' living rooms "

Don't forget elves and tree sprites.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
The use of wolves and flying spaghetti monsters is utterly inapplicable. No one believes in, worships or venerates imaginary wolves or flying pasta creatures.

Literally billions of people DO believe in God, such as they will. Throughout the centuries countless intelligent people have examined the sum of man's knowledge and found it wanting, empty and ultimately childish in its incompletion. It does not - can not - address many facets of our experience.

I am one of those. I don't believe in God as a man on a golden throne - I believe that, like the garden of Eden, is allegorical. It does not jibe. But just as man's understanding of science grows over time, so man's faith and concept of God has grown and changed.

Science, such as it is, and God are as inextricably linked. God is in the details.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism. Some agnostics are termed agnostic theists since, while they do not claim to know any deity exists, they do believe (with varying degrees on skepticism) in, at least, one."

Now Moonie, unless you would like to confess to some sort of recent epiphany in regards to your own personal views on God where you have come to the realization that God *may* exist, you just don't know, absent of that revelation on your part you have consistently made it quite clear that you do not doubt God's existence, you know for a *fact* God doesn't exist.


I've never claimed to have absolute certainty in the non-existence of God. I've always accepted God(s) "may" exist, indeed I accept invisible ninjas "may" exist, likewise I accept we "may" be in the matrix, hell i even accept that you "may"be intelligent (though that one really is a stretch).

Quote:
 

Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims, in particular the existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this. There are contrasting views of the term."


Yes it's true agnostic theism is a category people refer to, i thought about mentioning it in my original post to Tom but then I took it out because it's not a coherent position. Still i suppose one should accept that there are people who say such things.

Quote:
 

Then Moonie, one can be an agnostic atheist by saying (once again quotiing from your favored source for research:

"Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, and do not believe in them. An agnostic atheist would say "I don't know, but I don't think so."

Now Moonie, you don't say "I don't know, but I don't think so." You say "I know, and there is no God." That makes you an atheist, Moonie. Not an agnostic theist, not an agnostic atheist, just an atheist. And atheism is a faith based belief, Moonie. It is a belief in nothing, based on faith, not facts. You cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than I can prove he does.


I don't say i know there is no God, i say there is no evidence for God(s), just as there is no evidence for fairies or invisible unicorns on Mars or dragons in people's garages. If there is no evidence for something that's same as saying there is nothing that suggests it's true. As i said to Tom above i think because there is no evidence it becomes exceedingly improbable that God or fairies or invisible ninjas are in fact true descriptions of the world. Of course because i focus on evidence tomorrow i might change my mind, tomorrow evidence might emerge, perhaps tomorrow we will find a message in the background radiation, perhaps tomorrow we will find a message in the genome or God will descend and big booming voices will be heard the world over. I'm not holding my breath though.

Quote:
 

That makes you a fundamentalist, Moonie. It makes you a follower of a religion.


:lol: try again Larry.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Dec 22 2007, 07:44 PM

Tomorrow gigantic wolves will materialise in your house and devour you. Now clearly there is no evidence that such a hypothesis is actually true, however nor is there any evidence that it won't occur since non-existent wolves don't tend to leave evidence of their own non-existence. Likewise non-existent don't tend to leave evidence of their own non-existence.

Actually one can do better than merely provide an example, one can understand _why_ if there really is no evidence for some particular statement nor evidence 'against it' that equates to a miniscule probability that the statement is infact true. Suppose  you consider layed out in front of you every possible statement that could ever be made written on parchment that stretches to the stars. Now ask yourself what proportion of these statements are actually true. To show what the answer is take any true statement, now consider all the statements are false one quickly sees that there for every true statement there are truly vast numbers of false statements. Thus as a proprtion of all possible statements those that true makes a tiny tiny minority.

Now consider just picking a statement out a random, you know nothing about the support or lack of support for this statement. You have nothing suggesting it is true, nothing suggesting it false you have no information about it at all. What are the odds that the statement is true? Well virtually zero.

The statement about the wolves is precisely the same and a statement about God existing if one truly accepts that nothing suggests it's true nothing suggests it's false, i.e. no information about it's veracity is available, then that is also the same. Thus true agnosticism in the sense of lacking knowledge is de facto atheism, that's why one is safe completley ignoring the possibility of the flying spagetti monster or of gigantic wolves materialising out of thin air or tea pots orbitting Mars or any other statement that lacks a basis.


Good let's take that statement.

Wolves are finite creatures that exist in real time with real expectations. We KNOW wolves--we understand their biology and their function. We know where they come from and where they go. There is no expectation of them beyond what we already know they do.

On the other hand: we don't know what caused the universe. One way or another we have no sensory data to say that one reason or guess at causation is better than any other guess. Rationally we can only surmise that something either caused the beginning of the universe or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.

If you have the answer to what caused the universe outside of those two alternatives--I'd be glad to hear it. Now, to be honest, from our sensory experience here in this existence, you might have noticed the rule of causation. Aristotle noticed it--First Cause, the Unmoved Mover. I'm not saying that this is a universal principal throughout the universe, but within the defined world of our senses--it is ALWAYS applied. To say that the universe itself was originated without a causal agent, does seem to fly in the face of real life physics.

Moon, if you would but explain what DID cause the universe's existence--I would sleep happy in my bed tonight knowing there is no God--but till then, I have my pro-religious doubts.

(Going out, Moon, if you post I'll be back at you tomorrow--have a lovely evening, and as always, it's a pleasure chatting. :smile: )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

The use of wolves and flying spaghetti monsters is utterly inapplicable. No one believes in, worships or venerates imaginary wolves or flying pasta creatures.


It's applicable to the argument that no evidence one way or another equals 50:50. If there really is no evidence one way or another then God really is the same as flying spagetti monsters or materialising wolves.

What you are doing is claiming that the fact that there are lots of people who believe in God or Gods today and in the past is infact evidence that there is something to it.

On first examination that doesn't sound so unreasonable, that's an intuitive kind of argument, it's just that it doesn't work.

The reason it doesn't work is that simply learning about the properties of human beings and looking at what kind of knowledge our ancestors had available to them and looking at how cultural ideas spread, and thinking about concepts like memes one realises that whether not there is a God or there isn't we would expect to find people believeing in that kind of thing anyway.

Quote:
 

Literally billions of people DO believe in God, such as they will. Throughout the centuries countless intelligent people have examined the sum of man's knowledge and found it wanting, empty and ultimately childish in its incompletion. It does not - can not - address many facets of our experience.


I agree with everything you say here.

Quote:
 

I am one of those. I don't believe in God as a man on a golden throne - I believe that, like the garden of Eden, is allegorical. It does not jibe. But just as man's understanding of science grows over time, so man's faith and concept of God has grown and changed.


Well in a sense you can say our concept of God has grown and changed, and that now the most correct view given what we know today the view that fits the world best but keeps the spiritual or emotionally nourishing aspects of the earlier views of "God" is God as the natural universe. Einsteinian pantheism, reverence and awe of nature. Seeing reality as a kind of whole that we are both a part of but by virtue of our minds are in a sense also seperate from.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Good let's take that statement.

Wolves are finite creatures that exist in real time with real expectations. We KNOW wolves--we understand their biology and their function. We know where they come from and where they go. There is no expectation of them beyond what we already know they do.


Ah but you only know about the non-materialising kinds of wolves. Suppose there is a completely different kind of wolf, a kind of wolf that we don't understand that we don't know about, a kind of wolf for which our ideas of biology and physics are totally inappropritate (since they are based on studying our normal kinds of wovles and our normal kinds of matter). How do you know there is no such creature?

You see you can't know. In principle evidence for such a creature might emerge tomorrow, i wouldn't bet on it, but it's impossible to dimiss the possibility, just as it is impossible to dismiss the possibility of the tradditional monotheist God.

Quote:
 

On the other hand: we don't know what caused the universe. One way or another we have no sensory data to say that one reason or guess at causation is better than any other guess. Rationally we can only surmise that something either caused the beginning of the universe or nothing caused the beginning of the universe.


I agree completely with that but it has no consequences for monotheist ideas of God. The universe might have a cause but that doesn't mean that cause was the Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or Hindu, etc.) idea of God. There are an infinite number of hypothetical causes - suppose i put forward the hypothesis that there was a giant pillar that collapsed and the collapose of this cosmic pillar caused the universe to come into being. That's a possible cause - i don't consider it worth much attention because nothing suggests it's true, likewise i don't consider monotheist ideas of God worth much attention because nothing suggests they are true.

Quote:
 

If you have the answer to what caused the universe outside of those two alternatives--I'd be glad to hear it. Now, to be honest, from our sensory experience here in this existence, you might have noticed the rule of causation. Aristotle noticed it--First Cause, the Unmoved Mover. I'm not saying that this is a universal principal throughout the universe, but within the defined world of our senses--it is ALWAYS applied. To say that the universe itself was originated without a causal agent, does seem to fly in the face of real life physics.

Moon, if you would but explain what DID cause the universe's existence--I would sleep happy in my bed tonight knowing there is no God--but till then, I have my religious doubts.


I don't know whether or not the universe we know has a cause but what i do know is that that ignorance is in no sense an argument for the existence of God in the usual monotheist sense of the word.

You mention the first cause argument and even if that argument worked it wouldn't actually imply tradditional monotheist ideas, in any case there is something horribly wrong with it - it formally contradicts itself. If you say everything must have a cause then there can never be a _first_ cause, because anything you put forward as a possible candidate for "first cause" status must have a cause!

The strangeness that you are getting at is unsolveable (what one realises however is that it isn't infact a problem). I remeber being struck by it when i was quite young infact it's the first time i recall wondering about the universe and in retrospect it was the beginning of my quest or drive to understand the world and why and how it is the way it is. I found no solution as a child, and i find no solution now except that reality is amazingly strange.

If you think about reality that is the whole of everything then you immediately realise there is this major problem. You want to say that there must be a beginning to it all, that it can't go back forever there has to be a first step however one also wants to say that all steps are caused, everything happens because something else triggers it, but if that's true, if everything happens because something else causes it then by definition there cannot be any first uncaused steps!

The strangeness is that either reality as a whole has no beginning and it goes back forever, or it has an ultimate beginning for which there is no cause. Both of these ideas are totally crazy, clearly the only sensible thing is for nothing to exist. However clearly stuff does exist. So one is left simply realising that the universe is wonderfully strange. This doesn't support God or deny God, or cosmic pillars or any other possible explanation for our observable universe and as such the 'problem' of existence cannot be used as an argument or evidence for tradditional monotheist ideas.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I would like to thank Moonbat for offering up such a stunning example of an atheist fundamentalist practicing his religion.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
:spit:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
The strangeness is that either reality as a whole has no beginning and it goes back forever, or it has an ultimate beginning for which there is no cause. Both of these ideas are totally crazy, clearly the only sensible thing is for nothing to exist. However clearly stuff does exist. So one is left simply realising that the universe is wonderfully strange. This doesn't support God or deny God, or cosmic pillars or any other possible explanation for our observable universe and as such the 'problem' of existence cannot be used as an argument or evidence for tradditional monotheist ideas.


But you arrive at that conclusion because to go any further would require you to give up your grip on your religion. So you purposely place blinders on yourself, and then tell yourself that it's others who are wearing the blinders.

The universe exists. Regardless of how that universe came to exist, the space it exists in had to exist for it to have a place to exist. And because it is literally impossible to create something out of nothing, whatever that "something" was, even if you say it was just a single little microscopic speck - it had to come from somewhere. It is, and it had to come from somewhere. But to simply cease to look for an answer to that question by dismissing it all as a "strangely wonderful place" is you hiding from the obvious.

However it happened, it happened. The amount of material that exists in the universe is so massive there is no way to even comprehend its scope. It was made out of something, Moonie, and that something had to come from somewhere or something, and that had to come from something, and on and on. Somewhere as you move backward looking for the beginning, you have to finally hit the first "something" that it all is made from, and then you are left with the question - where did *that* come from? Where did the space it exists in come from?

You have no answers for that. Neither do I. But it is impossible for all that exists to come from nothing. Getting down to as tiny a speck of "something" as you can get, there *is* a beginning point that you cannot avoid. The Bible says God created that out of nothing. Accidents can't develop from nothing.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Quote:
 

The strangeness is that either reality as a whole has no beginning and it goes back forever, or it has an ultimate beginning for which there is no cause. Both of these ideas are totally crazy, clearly the only sensible thing is for nothing to exist. However clearly stuff does exist. So one is left simply realising that the universe is wonderfully strange. This doesn't support God or deny God, or cosmic pillars or any other possible explanation for our observable universe and as such the 'problem' of existence cannot be used as an argument or evidence for tradditional monotheist ideas.

But you arrive at that conclusion because to go any further would require you to give up your grip on your religion. So you purposely place blinders on yourself, and then tell yourself that it's others who are wearing the blinders.


The conclusion is logically inevitable and completely inescapable, it doesn't matter whether you invoke God or cosmic pillars or collisions between branes to explain our observeable universe. When considering the totality of existence one still has the same conclusion.

Suppose your magic mind created the universe that we know, one is the left with precisely the same problem - where did the magic mind come from? Does it have a beginning or does it go back forever? If it has a beginning and it was caused by something then we look at that something and we get the same problem, if it wasn't caused by anything then you have your acausal entity.

The inescapable conclusion is that either the reality as a whole goes back forever or it begins with no cause. There is no other option.

Quote:
 

The universe exists. Regardless of how that universe came to exist, the space it exists in had to exist for it to have a place to exist. And because it is literally impossible to create something out of nothing, whatever that "something" was, even if you say it was just a single little microscopic speck - it had to come from somewhere. It is, and it had to come from somewhere. But to simply cease to look for an answer to that question by dismissing it all as a "strangely wonderful place" is you hiding from the obvious.


There is no answer to the problem that either you end up with something back forever or you end up with something starting without a cause. Those are the only two options. However the observable universe might not be all there is to reality, there might be multiple branes sitting in a higher dimensional space, there might be the remains of the cosmic pillar, or magic creators sitting in the background. Perhaps something did cause the big bang, as i said before both quantum loop theory and string theory predict that, (though really they should be called the quantum loop hypothesis and the string hypothesis).

However you are mistaken in thinking that the universe _must_ come from somewhere, that's not a logical requirement at all that's simply a common sense intuition but our common sense intuitions are useless for dealing with the fundamentals of reality, that is the lesson that Einstein and Heisenberg and Bohr and all the twentieth century physicists have taught us. (In any cause our common sense intuitions, can be seen to inevitably fail for they also balk at the idea of something always existing too).

Given what we know about the universe about space and time and matter and how they are all wrapped up together. It really doesn't violate anything we know to say that the big bang is an ultimate beginning indeed our equations essentially predict that. (Though general relativity may well break down at the small scale, and so without knowing a theory of quantum gravity we don't know whether those equations hold).

Quote:
 

However it happened, it happened. The amount of material that exists in the universe is so massive there is no way to even comprehend its scope. It was made out of something, Moonie, and that something had to come from somewhere or something, and that had to come from something, and on and on. Somewhere as you move backward looking for the beginning, you have to finally hit the first "something" that it all is made from, and then you are left with the question - where did *that* come from? Where did the space it exists in come from?


If something _had_ to come from somewhere and on and on, then that on and on never ends. If you accept there can be a _first something_ if you accept there can be a point for which there is no cause, that wasn't made of anything, then your first step in the argument fails doesn't it? You can't demand that everything _has_ to come from somewhere if you're willing to accept the possibily of a first cause. If one is accepting possibility of a first cause maybe the big bang is that first cause. Maybe it's not, maybe it is, i don't know, i'll wait and see what the evidence says. If you're not accepting the possibiltiy of a first cause then reality goes back forever.

None of this is any kind of support for an individual account of creation that lacks any evidence like the cosmic pillar i mentioned or your concept of God.

You ask where space comes from, well the first to thing to understand is that space and time and matter are all rolled up together, our common sense intuitions about space and about time and about what stuff is as completely different seperate kinds of things is wrong. Reality is not the way we imagine it to be, it is far more mysterious and interconnected than that.

Quote:
 

You have no answers for that. Neither do I. But it is impossible for all that exists to come from nothing. Getting down to as tiny a speck of "something" as you can get, there *is* a beginning point that you cannot avoid. The Bible says God created that out of nothing. Accidents can't develop from nothing.


Well it's not impossible, but the orthodox kind of picture of the big bang as an ultimate beginning doesn't actually say that all that exists "came from nothing" the reason it doesn't say that is because it says that space and time began with the big bang along with matter. So your statement about "coming from" doesn't work, because was no "before" one cannot speak of where it all "came from" because there was no from, there was no past beyond that point. It is a truly ultimate beginning. It is not that there is there is black emptyness and then bang everything appears. That picture is _wrong_ because in that picture you have time and space existing forever (or atleast existing prior to the big bang) and that is not what the orthodox account says.

The point remains that none of this is any kind of support for tradditional monotheist ideas, none of these strange issues and curious unknowns implies that there is magic mind, nor does it imply there was a cosmic pillar, it doesn't support or deny any of the near infinite number of hypothetical descriptions of what the universe is and where it came from if it came from anywhere. The whole idea of raising this stuff as support for theology totally fails.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
The inescapable conclusion is that either the reality as a whole goes back forever or it begins with no cause. There is no other option.


No, that's the atheist response to the question, designed to limit the options down to *your* way of seeing things. Reality does not care what your opinions are. And reality is, something cannot come from nothing. So the only inescapable conclusion one can reach from everything you just wrote is that you are fooling yourself. Both of your options fail. Unless of course, all you're interested in is being an apologist for the religion of atheism.

Quote:
 
The point remains that none of this is any kind of support for tradditional monotheist ideas, none of these strange issues and curious unknowns implies that there is magic mind, nor does it imply there was a cosmic pillar, it doesn't support or deny any of the near infinite number of hypothetical descriptions of what the universe is and where it came from if it came from anywhere. The whole idea of raising this stuff as support for theology totally fails.


Moonbat, no snarkiness intended with this response at all - but no, you are incorrect. It has everything to do with the notion of a high power, an intelligence involved in the creation of all that is, and it is precisely here where *your* theology totally fails.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I think if there was an easy answer, we'd have figured it out by now.

I don't see my atheism as a religion, but then again I don't wish to deny others their faith - I'm a little envious of it to be honest. Each to their own.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
sue
Dec 22 2007, 04:06 PM
[1] Do you have a word for someone who doesn't think Santa is real?
[2] Or the tooth fairy?

[1] Asantaism, or anti-Clausian.

[2] Toothless-fairyism.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
TomK
Dec 22 2007, 04:08 PM
sue
Dec 22 2007, 04:06 PM
Good grief boys. Why this need to put a label on a non-belief? 

Because a lack of proof cannot constitute disproof, and a lack of belief is vastly different from a state of active disbelief.

It wouldn't hurt to hone down EXACTLY what belief really is. Rather than disbelieving in God, based on the lack of evidence, wouldn't it be more reasonable to recognize that we cannot be certain that new evidence won't turn up in the future, and so it's best to intentionally remain tentative and always continue one's inquiry?

Maybe any dogmatism as a disease of the mind. Agnositicism is logically superior to atheism.

So, with regards to Santa Claus' existence, are you an asantaist (or anti-Clausian) or are you merely a Santa agnostic?

With regards to the Tooth Fairy's existence, are you a toothless-fairyist or merely an tooth fairy agnostic?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Dec 23 2007, 10:30 AM
TomK
Dec 22 2007, 04:08 PM
sue
Dec 22 2007, 04:06 PM
Good grief boys. Why this need to put a label on a non-belief? 

Because a lack of proof cannot constitute disproof, and a lack of belief is vastly different from a state of active disbelief.

It wouldn't hurt to hone down EXACTLY what belief really is. Rather than disbelieving in God, based on the lack of evidence, wouldn't it be more reasonable to recognize that we cannot be certain that new evidence won't turn up in the future, and so it's best to intentionally remain tentative and always continue one's inquiry?

Maybe any dogmatism as a disease of the mind. Agnositicism is logically superior to atheism.

So, with regards to Santa Claus' existence, are you an asantaist (or anti-Clausian) or are you merely a Santa agnistic?

With regards to the Tooth Fairy's existence, are you a toothless-fairyist or merely an tooth fairy agnostic?

No there is proof that Santa does exist. The North Pole has bee explored, no presents have ever been delivered by Santa. On the other hand--lots pf people say their prayers have been answered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Let's standardize on these different labels for different levels of expectations on the existence of one or more gods:

Label --- Expectation on the existence of god(s)

Fundamentalist Atheist --- expectation == 0
Extremist Atheist --- 0 < expectation < 10^-100
Atheist --- 10^-100 <= expecation < 10^-10
Atheistic leaning agnostic --- 10^-10 <= expectation < 10^-1
Agnostic --- 10^-1 <= expectation < (1 - 10^-1)
(Poly)Theistic leaning agnostic --- (1 - 10^-1) <= expectation < (1 - 10^-10)
(Poly)Theist --- (1 - 10^-10) <= expectation < (1 - 10^-100)
Extremist Theist --- 0 <= expectation < 1
Fundamentalist Theist --- expectation == 1

The "others" categories:
Ignoramus --- not smart enough to assess one's own expectation on the existence of god(s), and/or not smart enough to understand the classification system presented above
Liar --- not honest enough to tell people where one's expectation really is
In-Denial --- can't bring oneself to introspectively admit one's true expectation or lack of expectation

So which label fits you?

[EDIT: Poll here: http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_New_Coffee...showtopic=30348 ]

(p.s. A note about pantheism -- the pantheists are basically atheists who bastardized the notion of "god", so put them under the "atheist" bucket. :P )
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
TomK
Dec 23 2007, 10:40 AM
Axtremus
Dec 23 2007, 10:30 AM
TomK
Dec 22 2007, 04:08 PM
sue
Dec 22 2007, 04:06 PM
Good grief boys. Why this need to put a label on a non-belief? 

Because a lack of proof cannot constitute disproof, and a lack of belief is vastly different from a state of active disbelief.

It wouldn't hurt to hone down EXACTLY what belief really is. Rather than disbelieving in God, based on the lack of evidence, wouldn't it be more reasonable to recognize that we cannot be certain that new evidence won't turn up in the future, and so it's best to intentionally remain tentative and always continue one's inquiry?

Maybe any dogmatism as a disease of the mind. Agnositicism is logically superior to atheism.

So, with regards to Santa Claus' existence, are you an asantaist (or anti-Clausian) or are you merely a Santa agnistic?

With regards to the Tooth Fairy's existence, are you a toothless-fairyist or merely an tooth fairy agnostic?

No there is proof that Santa does exist. The North Pole has bee explored, no presents have ever been delivered by Santa. On the other hand--lots pf people say their prayers have been answered.

Hello!?!?!?

Many people received Christmas presents, purportedly from Santa!!!

Many people have also sent letters to the North Pole, addressed to Santa, and got replies, purportedly from Santa!!!

Furthermore, just because our naked eyes and scientific equipments could not detect Santa's existence at the North Pole does not mean Santa doesn't exist.

Also, it is possible that "North Pole" is an allegory to some other time/place not yet properly understood.

You really need to keep a more open mind on this, Tom.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Dec 23 2007, 10:02 AM
I think if there was an easy answer, we'd have figured it out by now.

There is eternal supply of good beer and great sex in the afterlife.

What's so hard to figure out?

:D
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Ax - You forgot about the significant evidence for wood sprites. After all, what else makes trees grow? I know all about photosynthesis and nutrients in the soil and the like - but, globally, what keeps this process in motion, and gives it meaning and who set it up in the first place? You don't think photosynthesis just happened all by itself do you? The only answer must be wood sprites. Are you an anti-wood sprite fundamentalist? They could be there you know. Lots of people in human history have believed this. Don't be so dogmatic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Quote:
 
The inescapable conclusion is that either the reality as a whole goes back forever or it begins with no cause. There is no other option.


No, that's the atheist response to the question, designed to limit the options down to *your* way of seeing things. Reality does not care what your opinions are. And reality is, something cannot come from nothing. So the only inescapable conclusion one can reach from everything you just wrote is that you are fooling yourself. Both of your options fail. Unless of course, all you're interested in is being an apologist for the religion of atheism.


The conclusion holds even if God exists. Even if a creator mind created the observeable universe still one is left with precisely the same problem.

Either God always existed and hence reality (which includes God) goes back forever or there is some ultimate beginning - the birth of God - which is acausal.

If there is a beginning to this creator intelligence that is not acausal then it follows that it is not the ultimate beginning and one must look at whatever the cause was. And then one again faces the same problem.

So you see it's not "the atheists reponse to the question" at all. Really there can be no solution to this problem or put another way infact it is not a problem at all. Reality is simply wonderfully strange. Really all it shows us that our common sense style intuitions are powerless when dealing with the fundamentals of the way the things are.

Quote:
 

Moonbat, no snarkiness intended with this response at all - but no, you are incorrect. It has everything to do with the notion of a high power, an intelligence involved in the creation of all that is, and it is precisely here where *your* theology totally fails.


My point is just that the problem of existence is not an argument, or evidence for the idea that there was an inteligent creator. The problem of existence does not support or deny the idea of a God, nor does it support or deny the idea of a cosmic pillar creator nor does it support or deny the idea that the big bang was caused by the collision of branes in a higher dimensional space or the idea that the big is an ultimate beginning, etc. etc.

It is completely neutral with regards to everything. Before one considers these matters of ultimate beginnings or the lack thereof, the idea of a cosmic pillar is exceedingly unlikely because nothing suggests it's true, that conclusion remains completely unchanged after one considers the aforementioned issues. The situation is precisely the same for tradditional monotheist ideas of a creator God.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Axtremus
Dec 23 2007, 10:20 AM
John D'Oh
Dec 23 2007, 10:02 AM
I think if there was an easy answer, we'd have figured it out by now.

There is eternal supply of good beer and great sex in the afterlife.

What's so hard to figure out?

:D

Is that good beer by American standards or by everybody elses?

When it comes to beer, I'm a bit of a fundamentalist.

I declare Fatwah against Anheuser-Busch. They are the anti-christ and make an unholy-water.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 14