MSD

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html
click for the other 7 pages

Science, after all, is an empirical endeavor that traffics in probabilities. The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small. He is confident that no Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the Bronze Age get more respectful treatment?[/quote]
I am an agnostic atheist. I honestly believe that religious belief and the intolerance inherent in the overwhelming majority of religious doctrine will be the downfall of mankind. Atheism is far from exempt in this list of intolerances.

I agree with Dawkins that the probability of a supreme being's existence is very low, but I understand that there's a possibility that I'm wrong. While I don't agree with belief in God (and especially belief in organized religion,) I agree with him that children shouldn't be indocctrinated (to the extent that I consider forcing a chiild to attend religious services abuse,) but I am equally uncomfortable with the practice of forcing my views on others. I am bothered by Dawkins' assertion that accepting evolution necessarily equates to accepting non-theism at some level. I feel that anyone who firmly believes that humans can answer the question of divinity either way is rejecting logical thought to almost the same extent that those who assert the "truth" of creationism reject it. At the same time, I disagree with firm belief in anything for which concrete empirical evidence cannot be produced, and I feel that while evolution has all of the evidence applicable to the theory standing behind it, neither religious belief nor atheism has any concrete evidence to support them and that the only valid argument is simply whether the burden of proof is on the believers or the non-believers (I think it's pretty clear where I stand on this issue.)

I suppose the whole basis of my cognitive dissonance is my knowledge that in the past I was devoutly religious and fully believed in the tenets of my religion, yet at this point in time I cannot associate myself with that mindset, even to the point that I can understand why I believed what I believed. The closest I can get is teh realization that the inability to prove the existance of God and the tendency to disbelieve based on lack of evidence is as intuitive to me now as the indusputable fact that God existed and that I was carrying out his will and divine commands.

I really don't know what to think about this.

abaya

I don't know what to think either, but my thinking is parallel to yours. I, too, was a meaningfully evangelical Christian, and thought I would go to the grave believing what I did. And yet... how Life changes us, if we allow it to do so. I still believe in that kind of Grace, if that makes any sense. Transformation, evolution.

Not much to add, just a little commiseration...

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

flat5

I don't think humans are smart enough to figure this out.
Let's ask a race that has evolved millions of years beyond us these questions.
It may take some patience.

little_tippler

I am an atheist, but a slightly agnostic one at times, and I think tolerance is always a good thing. There are cases where tolerance isn't enough to "smooth over" an intolerant response to your own tolerance. I'm not sure if this is one.

I think many people of faith can be quite intolerant of people who do not follow a particular faith. I like to be tolerant towards religious people. I don't make a point of making being religious or non-religious an essential part of my life. I just try to live my life as well as I can, like most people. I try to waste as little time as possible in my life arguing. I don't see the point. I admit that maybe in my future, if I have children, that it may become an interesting issue, particularly if I decide to have children with someone who is adamant about their faith. Hopefully that won't happen and I'll be with someone who isn't a "believer".

I don't believe in the idea that religion is an evil thing. Good and evil is a product of religion, I think. Our inherent sense of it has partly been instilled in us through the ages by faith. I do believe that religion can at times hamper a person's faith in themselves. Or the opposite. I think religion is an element that brings peace of mind to some people, and helps them find in themselves added strength. I don't like that sometimes religion will lead a person to choose to take a discriminating or weak position.

I agree with the poster that said that religion will eventually be our downfall.

__________________
Whether we write or speak or do but look
We are ever unapparent. What we are
Cannot be transfused into word or book.
Our soul from us is infinitely far.
However much we give our thoughts the will
To be our soul and gesture it abroad,
Our hearts are incommunicable still.
In what we show ourselves we are ignored.
The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged
By any skill of thought or trick of seeming.
Unto our very selves we are abridged
When we would utter to our thought our being.
We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams,
And each to each other dreams of others' dreams.

Fernando Pessoa, 1918

Zyr

I'm going to blatently steal this from Lady Sage's current sig: "If only closed minds came with closed mouths."

That said, he is right. The buden of proof is on the believer. And until that proof is given, belief in a supreme being is not a justified belief. It might be true, as might many other things. As he said, we can't prove that "the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden" don't exist, but belief in those would also be unjustified.

And to state that is not to force your beliefs on others, any more than telling a person that believes in fairies, that they don't exist. The way forward for civilisation is to confront ignorance, respectfully, but not to let it lie.

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

ASU2003

I just could care less about religion, unless violence is carried out in it's name.

aberkok

What's so bad about teaching children to disbelieve what there's no proof for? What I like about the so called "New Atheism" is that it takes a position, where the "old" kind is merely a lack of one.

Intolerance for the idea of God doesn't necessarily mean intolerance for the people who believe in God. You can bet I'm ready to argue with someone on the difference between proof and faith, but I don't immediately lose respect for that individual.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Lady Sage

To believe or not to believe that is the question...

What one believes is ones business unless pushed on another person. That is why I have problem with one religion only. Practice whatever you wish in your own way as long as it hurts no one and I wont care. Too often religion preaches too much and practices not enough.

Practice what one preaches or one should get off the proverbial pot.

(That is why my sig is there... for quoting by others when in need of it)

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Cynthetiq

I read this the other day and I believe this was also highlighted in a NYTimes Article this past Sunday.

Personally, I don't care.

If you impose your thoughts or beliefs onto another person unreasonably, it doesn't matter which side of the fence, field, railroad tracks, mountains, stream, city, nation, world, you suck. Period.

I don't care what New Label you call it. His shit smells just as bad as anyone else who's doing the same kind of process.

Hmmm... for some reason, I read this and we'd call it trollish behavior on the boards.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

mixedmedia

I am an agnostic with Taoist tendencies. I do not believe in deities or miracles or saints or the writings of people from millenia ago purporting the cause and reason of existence before mankind could even begin to conceive of the true mysteries and vastness of the universe. I believe that deistic religions are the products of self-centered and cosmically-impaired societies and it's nothing less than foolish to try and make our constantly expanding world fit within the confines of their dusty, old texts. Sometimes I wonder if the world's deistic religions could have come about from brushes with fantastic universal truths by ordinary people who meant well, but, being ordinary people in a darker, less enlightened world, did not have the capacity to process the enormity of what they'd seen thereby leaving much open to interpretation by the limited scope of their imaginations.

But regardless of how they came about, in most cases I don't think it took long for some to view these burgeoning concepts as opportunities to wield power and influence over large groups of people. (And sometimes I wonder if they underestimated just how powerful and influential these concepts would be...and would remain!) Using religion in this way, I believe, has corrupted its spiritual efficacy and diluted its significance as a tool of "higher learning." Buddhism being a happy and notable exception (non-deistic = coincidence?...I think not).

I say I am agnostic because I am open to the possibility that there is an underlying order to the universe that very well could be metaphysical. I just don't know. So, for the most part, I give people space to believe what they need to believe. After all, my ideas are based on a sort of faith, too. Take note of how many times I say "I believe" in this post, lol. But I do take issue with faith when it becomes more of a conquest than a quest for knowledge and understanding about one's place in the universe, especially when coming from those who exhibit very little capacity for understanding the basic human tenets of love, compassion and tolerance. I don't know a lot about the atheist movement, but I am sure there are ignorant, intolerant atheists, as well. So I guess what it comes down to, for me, is that it is not so much what one believes, but whether one uses that belief to make one's self wiser and a more thoughtful, kinder, and positive influence on the world.

So I don't know if any of this addresses the OP , but those are my thoughts this morning on faith and religion.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

hiredgun

I admire Dawkins for the clarity of his thinking and for his commitment to science. On the issue of teaching evolution without diluting it with supernatural baloney, I am entirely on his side.

I don't think I can stand with him in his attack on religion, though. I don't share his alarmist concern for its inherent dangers, and I definitely don't think atheists are necessarily better or smarter people... the idea presents its own attractions to a number of audiences, much as religions do. I agree with the final evaluation of the author of the Wired article posted in the OP; the New Atheism looks way too much like its religious counterpart to be appealing to me.

Ustwo

I realized there was no god when I was 8 years old, in Church, by myself.

That doesn't mean I see nothing good in religion, but just that the good in it is solely due to human work, no divine intervention.

As such I don't see a reason to shove atheism down anyone’s throat. Most people who are 'true believers' won't be swayed and what do I gain by convincing someone on the fence that there is no magic candy land when they die, and there is no reason to be good beyond their own morality? Nothing, I just bring them into my world of pure logic and no comfort.

Before one attempts to ‘convert’ the world to atheism, you need to ask yourself what good will come of it? Its nice to think that the world will be suddenly enlightened, and religious violence and intolerance will be a thing of the past, but lets look at those who advocate promoting ‘New Atheism’. I’m not talking about looking at their character or what not, but their intelligence. As a rule we are talking about people in the top few % of intelligence who seem to be able to grasp the concept that not only is there no god, but that you don’t NEED a god to be a human, to have a purpose in life.

Human nature is what it is, and apparently belief in a higher power suits that nature. Just because we have science to explain away mysteries, it doesn’t change the nature, the desire for a higher purpose and cause to life seems a pretty universal human trait. What works for the top percent of intelligence may not work as well for the masses. Being ‘right’ doesn’t mean its practical. Religion may be the opiate for the masses but there seems to be a need.

While its in vogue to whine about the injustices of major religions, especially Christianity, those whines ignore the good which really over shadows the evil. Even those who reject Christianity often just fall into another religion. It sort of proves the universal need/desire for a higher power. They reject their parents religion and then instead believe in a religion younger than the automobile, casting spells and pretending to be druids or whatever. Its telling that rather than take the next logical step of, my religion is false, maybe there is no god, they go to my religion is false, maybe this even more illogical one is better. It tells me that there is a need that gets filled and people will jump through logic hoops to fill that need no matter how silly. (and don’t try it, I have +3 saving throws vrs any religion younger than my great grandmother )

So in conclusion, while I think the ‘New Atheists’ are correct, there is no god, and belief in god, gods, spirits, etc, is just silly, I just don’t see any long term good coming out of promoting this for the mainstream.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ratbastid

An atheist zealot is just another kind of religious zealot. I see no difference.

I left my faith behind when I read St Thomas Aquinas and saw the Ontological Argument for the flawed piece of self-convincing handwaving that it is. I don't have to convince anyone else of that--I'm secure enough in my "non-faith" that I can tolerate others believing whatever they believe.

Incidentally, I'd say that in the balance, as much good has come of religion as evil since the dawn of mankind. It's just that the evil tends to be all concentrated in once place and it makes the news a whole lot more than the good.

roachboy

i am not sure i understand the meme "the new atheism" because it looks alot like the older types of atheism: same arguments, same procedures, same type of evidence.

within the judeo-christian tradition, god has always been a name.
nothing more.
how people believe, what they project about themselves as being outside themselves, what they attribute to these projections, how they interact with them, has alot to do with the effects of naming--the possibilities that assigning a name sets up--that the name would refer to some guy, some older white guy with a beard (like me) is just one possibility--that the name would refer to other names and say nothing about the attributes of a (potential) referent is another. that there should be no name because god designates dimensions that surpass finite understanding is yet another (nominalism seems to me the only coherent form of christian belief, btw)

what tends to reinforce one view over another is the social situations within which it functions.
what accounts for the selection of one view over another is certain types of social functionality--certain types of social power, certain types of social control, certain modes of deference to hierarchy, etc etc etc.
the problem generated by the notion of faith is simply that it pushes you into an immediate relationship with the context that shapes your beliefs, such that you do not think about context, only about the terms that your belief brings together for you.
so it would seem unreasonable for one who believes to think that they beliefs rest in significant measure on social effects.

the judeo-christian way of framing this god character is very strange.
generally speaking, i am more sympathetic to the catholic version than i am to the protestant one simply because in catholicism you have lots of saints running around and the saints let you indulge the magic-doing aspects of religion--you can invoke them and they will go to the big god-office and talk to the chief of the administrative branch that runs the sector of the lifeshow that concerns you and see if something can be done. i think that's nice. dont you?


this magic-doing seems far more universal an aspect of spirituality than does the single abstract dude and the three phases of being attributed to him. religion seems to me mostly about magic, the desire to be able to do magic, to influence events by invoking a higher power, to have things go more or less your way, to counter impotence and isolation with spiritual artillery.

in this the gnostics seem to have been much more intereting than what later became catholicism, even though catholicism comes out of gnosticism, was a version of it prior to the conversion of constantine and the assimilation of christianity into the bureacratic structure of the roman state. with gnosticism, divine inspiration was everywhere and anyone could tap into it if they performed the correct rituals. the various gnostic groups seems much more horizontally organized, not at all about social control (which is what freaked augustine out about them) and deeply committed to magic---that is not to an abstract notion of faith, instead to kinds of practice.
anyone could be a prophet.
anyone could write gospels.
that sounds kinda cool.
but i digress.

atheism is just the inversion of christianity--both are predicated on this curious belief that human activity yields certainty--they simply disagree on what constitutes certainty. the idea of certainty seems to me wholly retrograde. you dont need it practically, and you cant ground it conceptually.

not knowing makes more sense to me.
because we dont.
we know some of how this phenomena we call reality is organized, we know some cause-effect relationships, we like to think we know alot more than we do becaue we take causal relations that obtain on one register and map them onto all others--whence the illusion that mechanics can function as a way of thinking about causation in general. but if you think about it, there are all kinds of problems with this--for example, even human beings as systems of systems operates on a number of scales at once, and causation within one scale/system does not follow the rules of other scales/systems--and the assumption that there is a single causation has been shown repeatedly to be a real obstacle to understanding--an epistemological limitation that follows from the frames of reference investigators drag from one level to another, the inability to suspend what they take for granted, what they think is "natural"...

i digress again.

stopping now.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

If St. Thomas Aquinas made you an atheist... read Augustine's "Confessions". That book, and it's influence on the Catholic Church made me quit going to Catholic mass.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Halx

I've given up defining myself. I have no faith, nor belief in a god. It always feels to me that those who feel that it matters are all in the same ignorant boat - whether they are athiest or religious. In other words, the bad thing isn't believing or not believing in a god. The bad thing is treating people differently whether they do or do not.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

1010011010

What makes religious extremism a Bad Thing is the extremism, not the religion.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

Infinite_Loser

No, it isn't.

The burden of proof is on the athiest, as (s)he is challenging the claim that God exists. Contrary to popular belief, the aim of science isn't to prove but rather disprove. If science can't disprove that, in this case, God exists (Or even doesn't exist) then it simply says that God might exist but there's no scientific evidence available on the subject.

Anywho, what's the difference between teaching a child to believe in a certain religion? It's no worse than, say, teaching your child that there is no God.

Religion won't be the downfall of man; A lack of religion will be, though.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

filtherton

I guess when it comes to atheism i just don't really understand what the deal is. I know that they don't believe in god, i just don't understand why they can't just leave it at that. I guess religious folk of a certain sort do the same thing. The whole "let's organize just like the religious folk" thing just screams insecurity to me. Then again, i've never really felt the need to proclaim or justify my belief system to complete strangers.

I also don't think it necessarily makes sense to defer to science on matters where science has nothing to say. Besides, science only applies to places where we as a species can apply it, and scientists are just as prone to irrational pursuits as religious folk are(string theory? unified field theory? evolutionary psychology?). Ask a string theorist how they plan to verify the existence of something that's theoretically 10^-35 meters in diameter, and they'll say "I don't fucking know." The idea seems to be that if you put enough time into working on the problem, if you make enough of a sacrifice, one day you'll reach the promised land of little strings everywhere.

roachboy

the idea that string theory provides something like an account of "ultimate reality" is itself a religious idea. it's not that far from the kind of stuff i just sat through in that ramtha infomercial dressed up as a feature film about the "quantum physics lifestyle"....this is not a remark about string theory itself, but rather about the claims some folk make about string theory--it is an example of what i was talking about in the last of the many digressions in the post above--strange assumptions that get dragged from one register into another when you shift scale/system.

btw i got into a long argument with a physicist who does this stuff at a party. what he is doing sounds interesting--but what he says it *means* (once he wanders outside the modelling itself) is just---well----gunk that only makes sense because he is himself inclined to want to believe and can't believe in the sense that organized religion would have him do, so this provides a way around all that.

there is a book---henri atlan's "from enlightenment to enlightenment"----that addresses this kind of cross-chatter (science/mysticism) in quite sophisticated ways that i'd recommend--before stuff like the tao of physics, which will lead you straight back into the string theory as the ultimate reality/manifestation of god thing. it is sadly a rare thing to read scientists who are also good philosophers. this guy is one. most aren't. and because they aren't. it's good to be skeptical abotu claims as to meaning.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ironpham

Now that is an extremely bold statement. I mean how can you really say that there is no God? There is no proof that there is or isn't. Saying that you don't believe in God and that there is no God is 2 completely different things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't atheism a type of religion? Mankind is doomed...

And yes, I am an atheist as well. However, I chose atheism because I hated being forced to go to church.

Mrs Master

Jeebers, how many times has this discussion been raised in my home? I think a majority here have expressed my own views.

From personal experience, I view a belief in a paradise beyond this one ultimately stems from a fear of death. A fear which is meant to be there for our own instictive survial. I watched my mother all to easily give up on life early with a belief that what was beyond was peaceful and more forgiving than this planet and the people on it. Maybe she is somewhere better, I told her to prove it to me and come back and haunt me, but so far nadda.

Now my father is of the same ilk as my mother in the belief thing (I wont say religion, it's not that, it's more of a theosophical eastern influence, a take what you like and leave the rest thing). Just recently he was given some bad news. Ive heard many saying in this thread that they wouldnt challenge someone with a belief but I'll be stuffed if I'll let him go without a reality check, which Ive already started working on.

I choose to make the most of the trees, stars, grass, laughter and love here. My brain can fool me into many unrealistic fantasies and dreams, but what I physically see, feel, hear, and touch is what I choose to believe in. I dont see anything wrong with challenging someone of faith to forget trying to get their head around what they cant see and make the most of whats in their own back yard. I wont be shoving it down peoples throats but if I notice faith harming someones quality of life I'm pointing some stuff out.

Of course some will hang onto their 'Get out of death free card' with iron grip, so if I'm going to shoot staight it would only be done with unheated intelligent discussion from both sides.

Bill O'Rights

I disagree. What works for science, does not work for religion. Based upon what you're saying, I could come up with the most ridiculous concept immaginable (ala the Flying Spaghetti Monster), and the onus would fall upon you to disprove it. No. It should be up to me to demonstatively *validate* that my belief in whatever deity is accurate.

There is a fine line between teaching, and indoctrination. On the surface, there is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching a child to believe in a certain religion. It's when a child is taught that their myopic view is the only acceptable "truth", and that if they don't believe it then they will surely burn for eternity in a pit of fire...that's what knots my undies a bit.

I don't think that they are two completely different things, at all. To him, a man that does not believe in God, there is no God. I see it as synonomous. At least in so far as Ustwo views his beliefs. Consider again...my Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy. Do you believe in the FSM? No, you do not. Can you prove that he does not exist? No...you cannot. Would you go so far as to say that FSM does not exist? Probably. At least, I would hope so. Same thing, really.

Oh, and by the way...if you don't "get" the Flying Spaghetti Monster...just google him. It's just a much more elaborate version of the Invisible Flying Purple Llama.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

ratbastid

Both points of view are ridiculous. This is faith we're talking about--including the faith in the non-existence of God. There's no "burden of proof" where faith is involved. "Proof" and "faith" inhabit entirely different realms.

It's a symptom of the phenomenon called "belief" that things the believer observes tend to be construed as evidence supporting the belief. This makes us think absurd things like the notion that there are ways to prove or disprove elements of faith.

Ustwo

Yes its a bold statement, but one I can't see a way to weasel around. I have no proof, but I also have no proof that god isn't a small invisible fish that lives in my anus. That was my ridiculous reply in my younger days when someone said to prove god didn't exsist, I'd say prove god isn't a small invisible fish in my anus no one can see. Obviously the flying spaghetti monster has more mass appeal but he is a younger god than my anus fish.

If you count anything you can't absolutely prove as a religion than yes, atheism is a religion, but than so is science. Mankind is doomed regardless, so I don't see much we can worry about there.

I hated being forced to go to Church too, but only AFTER I had my personal relevation. Prior to that I was worried because my parents didn't seem to go enough and I was at Church on my own, on a school day, before class when I figured it all out. I'd be a pretty nervous atheist if a lack of desire to go to Church was my prime motivation.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Seaver

Thanks Roach, nice post.

A buddy of mine is Atheist, and would often attack my religious views. So one day I tired of it and asked him what makes the Universe. He went on about various leading theories, including the string theory. Having recently seen a show on the String Theory we had a discussion about it.

So I slowly meandured my way to get him in a corner. I asked him if he felt that miniscule waving circles made of no matter could create matter, energy, and every force/thing/motion in existence. He said yes, that it was very plausible.

So then I told him why is it so hard to believe, if he believed the String Theory, that there is a greater being which seeks balance and love. Why is it so hard to believe that the good or bad we do in life will affect us later.

He was stumped, but he promised to come back with an answer. That was 3 years ago and has not bothered me about my faith since.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Leto

It takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist, as much as to be a Theist. So, I'm not sure how you can mix agnosticism with that.

Agnosticism is simply not knowing the answer, while faith doesn't require the knowledge, and therefore tends to be proselytizing. This is what people don't like, the preaching of another's faith without reason.

Zyr

Here's a bit from a book called "The Philosophy Gym" by Stephen Law.

Of course, many would claim that the evidence points to one side or the other, but that's not the point.

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

filtherton

Okay, so what's the most simple explanation for the existence of the universe?

Ace_O_Spades

That sounds remarkably like some works of Carl Sagan, but he talks about dragons in our garage.

__________________
Feh.

Zyr

Yes, well, that's the problem isn't it. Or it would be, were the evidence equal on both sides. I happen to be of the opinion that it's not, and that the evidence is in favour of atheism. The post was mainly pointed at the agnostics in the room.

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

newshoes

Occam's razor is certainly a good way to chose what you believe, but belief, imo, is weaker than truth. I see no contradiction in believing that my garden is fairy free whilst refusing to cite it as an "objective" truth (if such a thing even exists). Perhaps the desire for our belief set to be "true" is the problem (or a problem).

Wrt "The New Atheism", i'm generally wary of anything that draws battle lines. But then again, if my friend told me he believed he was immune to electricity and proceeded to take a toaster into the bath with him, i'd fight him all the way*. I guess Dawkins thinks the damange caused by the confrontation will be outweighed by the benefits of victory. This is usually about the point i stop having opinions.

* edit: ideally my friend would proceed to take an unplugged toaster into the bath with him and then laugh at me for falling for it.

__________________
You may have to use your hips as fodder.

filtherton

What evidence? Show what evidence there is to discount the existence of a diety. The argument between atheists and spiritualists can really be summed up with a repeated back-and-forth of "you're wrong" and "no, your wrong." The basis of the conflict is a strong sense that the other fella's wrong. There is no "evidence" either way, at least not in the scientific sense.

Just to be clear, i'm pretty much agnostic. I do find instances of faith in others, be it atheist or spiritual, to be interesting, though.


Edit: and as an aside about ockham's razor: I've never understood why it would be advantageous, if one is attempting to figure something out, to always pursue the simplest explanation. I could see it being advantageous to choose the explanation most easily verified, which might sometimes be the simplest. Very often, explanations are complex. I have a feeling that if mr. ockham was alive today he'd be selling diets and herbal supplements on late night television.

It reminds of something i once heard concerning people who lived in the last millenia. I'm not sure which century exactly. The deal is that they thought that rats were borne out of dirty rags, and that maggots spawned directly from rotting meat.

I could see this discovery being predicated on ockham's razor. You have youself a rat problem and you notice that the rats happen to like your cellar, which has a pile of dirty rags in it(it might be the food, too). Now, given the choice between the idea that the rats are the result of complex biological systems working within the framework of the ecology of your neighborhood who mate and produce offspring, and the idea that the rats just spawn out of the rags, which idea would ockham have you choose? Which one is simpler?

Also, though an above example uses ockham's razor to refute theism, it strikes me that the idea of a god as the originator of our universe is actually a whole lot simpler than whatever the scientific soup dujour on the subject.

Ustwo

One can not prove 'non-exsistance'. I can not prove that there is no Big Foot, I can not prove that aliens do not live amongst us, and I can not prove there is no god.

This is why the burden of proof is on the believers. Humanity may be ignorant on why the Universe is here, but that doesn't make an invisible friend in the sky a valid reason.

It may feel better to believe the myths, both old and new, it may fill a void and keep us warm at night, but thats about as far as it goes.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

No one has to prove anything. Faith does not require proof. Faith and proof are two different things. Humanity is ignorant on why the universe is here, period.

FoolThemAll

Heh, that's Colbert's line. "Isn't it a whole lot simpler to say that "God did it"?

But as Dawkins responded when he was the guest on the show, "then who did God?"

"We don't know how existence came into existence" is simpler than "God created existence and we don't know how God came into existence".

(I say all this and yet I hold on to a belief in God.I was just never a big fan of the 'proofs' or 'evidences' of God. Cosmological is my favorite and yet you see me attacking it here.)

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Jinn

I was an atheist, simply because I despise "faith" as I knew it - people using it to ignore science. Science, in my mind, is the most effective method we as humans have for advancing our race. Through the exploration, documentation, experimentation and repetition, we can make sense of our world. By turning our backs on it and relying on "faith" we stagnate and stall.

I'm not claiming there is scientific proof of non-Divine Creation, only that using the scientific method would be the best approach.

The only reason I'm not an atheist is I believe I was being hypocritical in doing so. I could hardly argue that theists were silly for basing their lives on a book written by an Almighty imaginary man without being able to verify it, if I based my life on the non-existance of such.

I simply won't commit to the existance OR nonexistance of a diety, because neither has verifiable credibility.

It's simply not important to me. Religion is only "critical" once in your life - right after you die. If there's a God and a Heaven, then I'm fucked. If there isn't, then.. well, I'm still dead and therefore still fucked.

But because I don't live my life with a fear of death, nor do I spend my days thinking about the very last moment of my life, it never comes up. Why should I commit so strongly to something that I don't and won't ever care about? Furthermore, a strong committal to either side would lead me (simply by the nature of strong belief) to ignore an entire half of society with valuable insights into a simple philosophical question.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

MSD

When you're in a 10% minority and a significant portion of the other 90% actively engage in societally acceptable discrimination ranging from trying to tell you you're wrong all the way to believing that your contrary belief (or lack of belief) means that you're incapable of being anything but evil, you tend to want to speak out at those whose beliefs not only seem absurd, but cause them to hate you for thinking differently.

I guess the simple way to say it is that it's hard to keep your mouth shut when most of the world is against you.

filtherton

I can see where the frustration might come in. Lord knows that i'm often frustrated by the pigheadedness of the pious. However, it doesn't seem to me to be all that constructive to essentially adopt the tactics (as dawkins has) of your religious persecutors by proselytizing and condemning those who disagree with you.

Not all religious folk are intolerant of atheists just as not all atheists are intolerant of religious folk. Dawkins and his ilk appear to be, and to me that makes them just as bad as that guy on the bus who asks you if you have a close personal relationship with jesus christ.

MSD

Being an Atheist who does not believe in God because there is no proof either way requires no faith. This is the Agnostic Atheist. Being an Atheist who strongly believes that there is no God requires faith. This is the Strong Atheist. I am the first, I do not believe that either can be proven, but when given the choice of nothing or something, nothing is the default option.

given a choice between:

The universe has existed forever and has been in its current form for approximately 15 billion years, the beginning of which is believed to have been an event commonly known as the Big Bang which flung all material and energy outward from a singularity in a pattern of motion that can still be observed today. The functioning of this system consists of observable patterns, of which human life is a minor one. With the advancement of technology and the evolution of human ingeniuity, we will eventually be able to observe and document these patterns through processes that will yield consistent results with repeated observations

and

An omnipotent being has existed forever and at some point in time, which is disputed by the followers of this being as having been as long as 15 billion years ago and as short as 6000 years ago, according to writings by previous followers claiming to have been contacted by this being, it created the universe from nothing simply by willing it into existence from nothing. This being has not proven its existence by contacting us for thousands of years, but we must believe because of stories passed down by those who experienced its presence thousands of years ago, which weren't written down until hundreds of years after the fact.


I am inclined to take the simpler solution.