I don't know, Ustwo. We teach Latin as a language like any other, not as mythology. And according to what Infinite_Loser just said, it's perfectly fine for me to worship Apollo.

Kewl!



* * * * *

Are we still stuck on "Athiests have no moral code" vs. "Atheists are immoral/ammoral"??

How about "Athiests do not prescribe to a unified or shared moral code"?

Carry on. This is getting good.

Blame my lazy cut and paste ass.
It's a joke. I'd not expect a Christian to say the same as a Bible or a Muslim of the Qur'an.
Atheists have no single set moral code from a book. We're far and away moral, but it comes from a more personal place. It's individualized. Proof? Compare me to Ustwo. Both of us are atheists, obviously. We don't exactly share all the same ideas about things.
I'll take "People who aren't something" for $500, Alex. Atheist is a word for someone who isn't an atheist. Gentile is a word for someone who isn't a Jew.

Funny... post like this drive ME insane :orly:

1) How can you say its logical to believe that something exists if it has never been observed, and has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever to back up the hypothesis, despite our best efforts to find any? I'll mention the tired old cliche of the flying spaghetti monster. What reason is there to believe in it? Lack of evidence for the existence of something either means we haven't looked for any, or there just isn't any that we can observe with our modern resources. In the either situation, its pretty clear that to believe in your hypothesis, with unwavering devotion, is pretty irrational.

As for your aliens statement.. no I wouldn't agree with it and its consistent with my thoughts on god. We can observe life. Earth is filled to the brim with it. We seem to be getting somewhere in understanding how it all came about. The universe is a ridiculously, absurdly large place, at least from our perspective. Its not unreasonable or illogical to assume that the same processes and conditions that allowed life to begin on this planet, can and quite possibly exist elsewhere in the universe. The fact that life flourishes on this planet is good enough evidence to consider the possibility of life on other planets as well. Anyone who claims to know the nature of life that may possibly exist elsewhere in the universe, either knows something I dont, or is talking nonsense and can safely be ignored:) .

The religious are the ones making the extraordinary claims.. its up to them to prove their claims. I dont think its reasonable at all to be offended or surprised if some people don't see a reason to entertain the idea, at all.


2) I disagree.

You still have to make the "leap of faith" to accept his existence in the first place. Any way you look at it, a person must consciously decide to accept a belief in god and it isn't rational. Not that I'm judging anyone here... everyone acts irrational, or makes irrational choices from time to time, even if we try not to. Impulses and emotion get the best of any of us.

This is rather simple to explain; If someone accepts basic religious axioms as true, then any argument which follows is also true unless said axioms are falsified (A feat within itself which is nearly impossible). Science can only measure what's known rather than unknown. In a nutshell, science can't prove God's existence nor will science ever be able to prove God's existence, so it's pointless trying to use scientific 'proof' as an arguing point as the concept of God exists outside the scope of science.

Lemme' summarize your argument for you: Life exists on Earth and the universe is large. Therefore life exists on other planets. This is an example of a deductive argument. Given that your premises are true, you assume that your conclusion is true. The problem is that science generally doesn't work too well with deduction (There's no way to test the conclusion based on the premises), as you assume an absolute truth based on a pair of general truths. This isn't to say that your conclusion isn't true (As it very well may be), but the conclusion may very well may be false and the premises do nothing to tell us whether or not the conclusion is, indeed, true. In this respect, your argument is logical but fails to pass the basic tests of scientific reasoning (Induction).

The Bible, for example, says that God exists. If I accept the Bible as true then any argument which says God exists will be logically valid. Hell, the argument "The sky is blue. Therefore God doesn't exist" is also logically valid (Though it's not very sound). Of course, what I've found is that most atheists judge validity by what conclusion is reached rather than how you get there (Which is just mind-boggling, to say the least).

No "Leap of faith" is required. Logic is actually quite simple. You can assume any conclusion you want so long as, when paired with a set of premises, it forms a cohesive argument.

I suppose if you are to read something and take it at face value without trying to reproduce the results... I suppose an argument could be made for making the leap of faith required in using the Bible as your proof of God's existence.

Most Christians I know are not afraid to admit that belief in God absolutely requires faith... in fact they are proud of this stance.

I am curious to understand why that is not the case with you?

So, logically, it's okay if I worship Apollo?



By the way, how is "The sky is blue. Therefore God doesn't exist" logically valid? "I like apple pie, therefore you don't have a pet salamander." Does that work, too? What if a friend were to give you a pet salamander? Does that mean I'd suddenly hate apple pie?

Infinite_Loser, what you are describing is faith, not logic. What you are saying is that if I accept the existence of the Greek pantheon as true, then any argument denying its existence is false. Where do we draw the line between logic and delusion? Does this mean that Christianity only exists because we believe in it? Does this mean that a great shift into secular beliefs will eventually mean that Jesus will be just as Apollo is now: without any living followers, and therefore without existence? Or does Apollo exist? Does he exist?

Everyone has a blind faith in something, regardless of what they may say.

Some have blind faith in their religion/spirituality. Some have blind faith in Metaphysics. Some have blind faith in Science.

All can be disavowed and argued by those of differing faiths.

Science is almost daily proven wrong in one way or another.... yet, those who blindly follow Science will say there is the law of averages and it was an anomaly and work to prove how it happened. People of Religion will look to see this as "an act of God", and whatnot. It all boils down to belief.

The simple part is the question: Why not allow people to have their beliefs/faith and let it go?

The answer is the hard part: People want their faith to be the one proven right so they can better come to terms with their faith.

People secure in their faith, from my own experience and speaking personally, don't care what your faith is, just don't shove yours down my throat. It's respect. I don't feel a need to justify my beliefs, they just are, they have come from 30+ years of searching, learning and finding what I believe works best for me and my life. I'm still open and learning but my faith is pretty much unshakable.

The biggest problem is getting one to accept the other's faith and trying to understand each other without trying to prove the other wrong or feel superior. No one's faith is more important than another's outside that person.

My beliefs/faith is not going to matter to 99.9% of the people I meet, because they truly aren't going to care. What they care about is what kind of person I am, how I treat them and so on. The only ones that seem to care are those who may want to share and learn from each other and we are able to work together and learn from each other, and those that want to "prove" my faith wrong so they can build their ego and feel better about theirs, and they don't care to learn, share or help anyone but themselves.

Science is a continual refinement. You look at a problem, find what you think is the answer, and if it becomes apparent that answer isn't complete you refine that answer. This does not make all 'answers' equally right.

Calling it an act of god is nothing but intellectual laziness. With that logic early man finds a fire started by lighting, says 'its an act of god' and the only way we ever get new fire is to wait for a lighting strike. Human progress comes to a halt.

One does not blindly follow science like one blindly follows a god. You question science, but if you question a god his followers stone you to death.

This is the entire intent of science, to establish a theory and attempt to disprove it. The scientific method therefore has a built in mechanism of steady improvement of building upon its findings and disprovings. However, I don't think that science was ever meant to disprove God or the existence of gods, mearly to provide a workable paradigm for providing predictable behaviour.

Belief in the scientific method as such a tool does not rule out faith in gods or God.

**edit:
oh yes, this is somewhat along the lines of Ustwo's earlier response...

See, there is nothing wrong with Science. The problem lies when the Scientist tries to degrade and bemoan those who have faith in God, Metaphysics etc.

Again, they become as militant about their beliefs as militant religious people. It then becomes a question of blind faith. If you choose to believe Science can answer all questions and there is no God or Metaphysical because it cannot be proven and Science can prove a lot of those beliefs false... then you have a blind faith in Science.

I used this before. Someone jumps out of an airplane and falls 5,000 feet. His chute doesn't open and he hits the Earth but lives.

Now, the Scientist will try to say it's an anomaly and try hard to come up with reasons why the person isn't dead. The religious will say it was an act of God.

The problem is why one must try to prove the other wrong. Why not accept the other's belief and be secure enough in your own that you don't care what the other believes?

Well, I think that people generally attempt to come up with the simplest reasoning for events (Occam's Razor?) and will automatically gravitate to the view that suits them and their arguements.

I think, however, that eminent scientists such as Einstein were getting close to the the view that belief in the efficacity of a toolset (i.e. a paradigm, a methodology) doesn't mean that one can't have faith in a belief. Go ahead and believe that God created the universe. Maybe at one point in our development of science, we may even be able to demonstrate that.

But there is nothing wrong in believing that science can provide some answers, and will grow to answer more. Increasingly, the religious will be able to devote more of their faith to worship of God, rather than having to explain anomalies as acts of God.

Well put, Leto.

They are afraid because the more you explain the less they can say 'act of god' the less important their invisible friends become.

Don't forget the invisible enemies.

Man, it's strange to agree.

additionally, a problem occurs because many religious texts have old scientific theories couched within them. how old is the earth? where did man come from? why do certain things happen? when our newer interpretation and explanations run counter to these theories, then many within the religion feel that the entire religion is under attack. thus sets up the big fight between science and religion.

most atheists i know wouldn't give two shits who prays to what, if they didn't also insist on creationism being sold as 'science,' or noah's ark as being probable (2x2 remember) and so forth. sure, it's religion, it's belief, and most of us don't give a damn if you believe it. but don't try to put it next to f=ma and say that they are equivalent. they're not.

Accepting those basic religious axioms is what requires a leap of faith, and is irrational. Now your taking it even further, and claiming to know the nature of this being called god, and that it exists somehow "outside" of science. You said it best... science can only measure what is actually measurable. Let me take it one step further... science can only measure things that *exist*.

Thats not what my argument said at all. Let me summarize it , more accurately.

Life exists in the universe (here on earth). Therefore, it holds true, that there is a good probability that there is life elsewhere. There is even a probability that a god exists. Its just so small, that its not even worth considering. You might even say there's a probability that I may spontaneously combust here in my chair as I'm typing this... but its so ridiculously infinitesimal, that its not something I should consider.

Thats exactly what I'm questioning... how you get to your conclusions. You just said we judge the conclusions without looking at how you get there, but somehow its logical to accept imaginary premises to arrive at any conclusion you want.

Accepting the bible to be un-erring truth is irrational. It makes many grandiose claims with no evidence *at all*, which can cannot be corroborated. Are you going to tell a scientologist that his beliefs are rational and worthy of consideration? According to their beliefs, there was an alien warlord named Xenu, who enslaved all other the alien races in the galaxy, brought them to earth, dropped them all in volcano's, then used giant "soul catcher" devices to trap their souls as they floated away from their burnt bodies. Then he proceeds to blow them up with nuclear bombs, scattering them all over the earth. Now all the pieces of those alien souls are understandably upset, and living inside all of us, and causing all the pain and suffering in the world. Of course, we cant disprove there is no alien warlord Xenu, but give me a good reason why anyone claiming he exists should be believed?

Pardon me while I go bang my head against a wall...

All axioms are 'irrational' and 'require a leap of faith', as axioms are nothing more than a set of principles which are assumed to be self-evident truths (For example, the axiom "All men are created equally"). They're necessary is order to provide a 'starting point' which you can then use to determine whether or not all other statements are logically derived. I've said this before, but science is built on induction. It can only measure the known; Not the unknown. Put another way, you can't prove that all swans are white but you can prove that some swans aren't white.

I know what your argument said. Re-read what I typed out. You correlate the fact that life exists on Earth and the fact that the universe is large to mean that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Given the premises, you deduce that the conclusion must be true.

In logic you can assume anything you want. When dealing with a conditional, the premises are irrelevent as they don't affect the outcome of the conclusion. They can either be true or false-- It doesn't matter. Only the conclusion need be true. Of course, some arguments will be better than others based on their nature, but you get the point by now (Or, at least, you should).

We're going in a circle here. All things begin with assumptions. Either you accept the Bible to be true or you don't. Whatever you decide, as long as your beliefs are consistent than they're no less logical than someone else who believes differently. Simple.

I'm not a scientologist. However, as long as it adhere's to it's basic religious axioms and is consistent within itself then, hey, it's about a logical argument as will come around :lol:

The axoims that we can trust our senses are traditionally considered to be reasonable. I see this, therefore it's reasonable absent evidence to the contrary, to consider what you see as real. Not only that, but the scientific method is reasonable by it's very nature, therefore it's reasonable to use the scientific method to provide reliable information. It's those two axoims upon which our entire perceptions are based.
What about Shaniqwa Swain? She's a black swain and proves that some swains aren't white. Booyah? Booyah.
Religious axoims presuppose god. They cannot be used, despite what idiots like Plantinga want, to prove or disprove the existence of god.

Speaking of Einstein :

Still a belief. The most intelligent, scientific mind ever, had a belief in a God of his understanding. Kind of sounds..... hmmmmm.... neo paganistic, like a naturalist.

axioms are not irrational--they simply cannot be demonstrated from within a proof that presupposes them.
they can be demonstrated/subjected to proof--the only problem really is that this sets up the possibility for a regress of proofs.

were that not the case, you could argue that circles are only circles if they wear bunny scuffs when they go to bed and there'd be nothing to be said about it.

"God is nature" is a semantic philosophical argument. I can just as easily say "My delicious turkey sandwich lunch is god" and not be wrong. Does that make me a theist?

In my even more offensive youthful days, when cornered by religious folk in college I'd say 'god is a small invisible fish that lives in my anus.' This was in the days prior to the church of the flying spaghetti monster of course, but it was to the same effect.

This is where we differ. Presupposition of god not an axiom... closer to an un-falsible hypothesis, at best.. fantasy at worst.

As roachboy pointed out, pretty much anything can be an axiom... But to think that anything can simply be a rational, well reasoned axiom worthy of consideration, just because it is self-evident inside someone's own head is crazy.

I will never understand why it is so very important for an Atheist to try to convince there is no God and their constant need to belittle those that do believe.

Some want us to believe that by being Atheist they won't have to fight in the name of God. And yet, they will be as verbally offensive and degrading, and can be as violent in their own beliefs.

They claim they are above the "religious" because they are smarter, more scientific, more knowledgeable, more rational...... and yet, they will do all they can to shove their beliefs down your throat... in the name of "nothingness" "Science" whatever whichever Atheist wishes to claim is their reason for "disbelief".

Atheism to me is still a religious/spiritual belief and quite possibly the only one I can truly say I cannot agree with in anyway. Not the fact that they don't want to believe in a spirituality, that is a very personal decision to begin with and I can respect that.... it's the fact that they (the vocal and somewhat militant) choose to be very condescending, far more judgmental and self serving in the name of their beliefs than the vast majority of believers in a God or Spirituality.

How fucking ironic is that?

I like your better. The flying spaghetti monster is absurdist humor, yours is bathroom humor. Considering the attempted association, I find the latter to get more of a chuckle.

I will refer to an excerpt from a speech given by Douglas Adams, where he talks about this.. he being an author and all (and most likely much smarter than me) he echos my feelings on the topic... just much better than I ever could;).

You brought up the idea that atheism is a religion, which I find almost as offensive as the idea that atheists are immoral. I make it a practice to never instigate discussions about god or theism. I just address things brought up by others to be addressed by me. As for the belittling, I try to avoid it but I also don't like mincing words.
Violent? This all reeks of appeal to emotion or appeal to victimization fallacy.
Above? Smarter? You're not getting this at all. Some of the most brilliant people in history have been theists. Mozart was a theist. Shakespeare was a theist. It has little or nothing to do with intellect, really. Fundamentalism, maybe, but not theism. As for shoving, I have to try not to laugh at that. You live in Jesusland next to the rest of us. I live in one of the most liberal places in the US, and I still get it shoved down my throat every day. It's disgusting and frustrating, but
[QUOTE=pan6467]Atheism to me is still a religious/spiritual belief and quite possibly the only one I can truly say I cannot agree with any anyway. Not the fact that they don't want to believe in a spirituality, that is a very personal decision to begin with and I can respect that.... it's the fact that they (the vocal and somewhat militant) choose to be very condescending, far more judgmental and self serving than the vast majority of believers in a God or Spirituality.

You brought up the idea that atheism is a religion, which I find almost as offensive as the idea that atheists are immoral. I make it a practice to never instigate discussions about god or theism. I just address things brought up by others to be addressed by me. As for the belittling, I try to avoid it but I also don't like mincing words.
Violent? This all reeks of appeal to emotion or appeal to victimization fallacy.
Above? Smarter? You're not getting this at all. Some of the most brilliant people in history have been theists. Mozart was a theist. Shakespeare was a theist. It has little or nothing to do with intellect, really. Fundamentalism, maybe, but not theism. As for shoving, I have to try not to laugh at that. You live in Jesusland next to the rest of us. I live in one of the most liberal places in the US, and I still get it shoved down my throat every day. It's disgusting and frustrating, but I let it slide. So we made a thread called "Atheism", and we're guilty of throat shoving? That's as incorrect as it is melodramatic. No, atheism hasn't been shoved down anyone's throat since it was misused by communist Russia... and that wasn't even really atheism.
You're in a thread called "Atheism's Sudden Rise" complaining about how vocal atheists are.

No, Will you chose to take one sentence out of a different post and decided to attack my views.

And I must change that, I can respect Atheists and their views. I just find I cannot accept the militant atheists view that he must put down someone else's beliefs. It's much like militant Christians, militant Muslims.... they claim they do it to better mankind to preach the word... (or in an Atheist's case to not preach...) but in the end they belittle, degrade and attack any who don't believe as they do.

That is what is fucking ironic.

Not at all. You're assuming that most religious hypotheses are derived from clear and distinct axioms (Such as God exists) when, in fact, Christianity/religion as a whole can't be easily reduced down to a certain set of creeds (This isn't to say it's not possible, because it is). Trying to qualify what constitutes a religious axiom and what is a conglomeration of centuries worth of religious practices/tradition is a bit problematic and much harder than most atheists want to make it out to be. Just ask Mr. Aquinas (Well, you'd have to dig him up first).

Edit: In terms of Christianity, most of it's axioms stem from the Ten Commandments.

Ah but see.... for me at least religion/spirituality/ militant "lack of" are very personal decisions. Moreso than political and economical, because those fluctuate within everyone and you can see results and demonstrate through ideas what your hypothesis is and work through to an end result.

Now, religions/spiritualities/philosophies of life are different and far more personal and require true faith and belief. Those that question theirs (in my experiences) are those that are far more militant than those more secure in their beliefs. As being very personal decisions, one doesn't want to be made fun of, told that their most personal faith/belief/decision is wrong. They will fight tooth and nail about it, especially the ones with much inner turmoil about their beliefs.

So there is a huge difference between politics/economics/etc and religious beliefs.... IMHO.

You brought the discussion here Will. You (among others) attacked one sentence and I asked to not threadjack so you brought the discussion here.

Now, you're telling me that my wanting to respect someone's thread by not threadjacking it and offering to discuss my views in a different thread is unwelcome, or I should have expected an attack? You chose this thread, instead of making a new one. I even stated early one I never even visited this thread because it had held no interest for me.

So, Will now it sounds like someone I supposedly had a mutual respect for decided to ambush me and set me up.

Very interesting.

If you mean the "view" that atheism is a religion, then I'm not attacking, I'm disproving. There's a marked and important difference. Atheism absolutely is not a religion at all, in fact I'd say if there was an opposite to religion, atheism would be it.
I don't know what religion you are. In what way am I putting down anyone's beliefs? By posting my beliefs am I putting down yours?

Because it was becoming a threadjack, sure. It was something very specifically about the nature of atheism, so I figured it belonged in a thread about atheism. I was trying to be nice to the other thread starter.
It's not an attack. We're saying you're wrong and we're making arguments to support that. I don't know if you realize this, but it's deeply offensive to call atheism a religion to some atheists. I don't mention it because I was hoping that wasn't your intent. Just like it's not my intent to put down religions or religious people.
Find where it says unwelcome.
I have respect for you despite the melodrama of your last few posts, but that's hardly on point. The emotional dissection of the events leading to this isn't really relevant. You suddenly jumped off topic and started talking about atheist attacks or forcing atheism.

Ahh, but I have to jump in here and state that I think of Atheism as a faith based viewpoint. Atheists require faith to support their belief that god doesn't exist because there is no definitive, scientific proof. Is that religious? I suppose if you define religion as the use of faith rather than science to support your beliefs.

Moreover, to be comprehensive about the religious and atheist standpoints, it should be pointed out that there are atheist religions. Take Buddhism, for example. For the most part, Buddhists don't believe in the Creator. They are spiritual, yet are not concerned with deities. (Though some aspects use the concept of deities for meditation purposes.)

How does this relate to this discussion? Well, this means that there are many atheists out there (both Buddhist and non-Buddhist) who aren't heavily critical, prejudiced, or hateful of theists. Many atheists (even non-religious ones) have a respect for certain aspects of religion as they relate to philosophy and morality. It would be hard to find a Western atheist who isn't in some measure influenced by the morality sold by the Christian Church. If anything, atheists are created once they see through corrupt practices of the Church, among other reasons. But this doesn't mean atheists have completely turned away from the beliefs of Christianity when it comes to morality. If I believe there is value in loving my neighbour, does this mean I have accepted Jesus in my life? No. It means I agree with him. Simple as that.

As a Western atheist, it is difficult for me to completely deny the values of a dominantly Judeo-Christian society. But it is easy for me to criticize its shortcomings, especially on the topic of dogma, ritual, fundamentalism, ignorance, etc.

Most important, you cannot paint atheists with the same brush.

I found this sentence ironically humorous.

This is a fantastic point! I've always viewed Buddhism as a philosophy, not a religion, but many people specifically see it as a religion. I would hope that someone who does believe Buddhism to be a religion could explain the religious facets to me.

I don't know how true this is, I'm sure it might start the questioning, but in my case I had no knowledge of diddling priests and the like when I had my epiphany. Really, a corrupt church is a pretty poor reason TO be an atheist, and more than one splinter group has started because of what someone thought was a corrupt church. The two are easily reconciled.

I think it is considered a religion because there is some path to divine enlightenment in it. Most religions have you dying before you reach eternal peace or complete understanding. That is why Buddhism is cool---a goal one ca live to see!

Personally, by considering it all as a philosophy---only sometimes with a story to believe in---I find the conversations become much smoother between varying theistic groups. My rule for some time now is: Live by a philosophy, not a religion; both are some sort of 'ism.

UPDATE:
Ustwo beat me to the thread and pointed out that comment. I have to agree with him. I was Catholic (of all things to be) and I knew nothing of the Catholic priest fiasco when I dropped it like a bad habit. The answers I was looking for were not answered to my satisfaction in the church. I called myself agnostic and have been studying the universe ever since. I don't know what the truth is, and it really does not matter what the truth is either, but, damnit, I want to try and figure it out.

This would be interesting if you'd discuss it.

And, willravel, the Dalai Lama has many good books that discuss both the religious and non-religious value of Buddhist philosophy.

Actually to clarify I spent some time living in Sri Lanka, a very traditional orthodox Buddhist country. This point was always drivenhome: it was not a religion, but a way of life.

Leto, that's how I took it, too. I have a few books written by his holiness and they strike me as books about philosophy.

I've read a few of his books, but I've yet to read The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. It's on my list, and I'm looking forward to it.

Erm... That's not surprising as you'll find that religion in most non-Western countries is considered a way of life. Nothing special about Buddhism. Sheesh...

I thought the meaning was pretty self-evident.

I'm not connecting to the tone of your reply... at any rate, it's note-worthy to understand that Buddhists incorporate reigion within their philosophy, in that gods are also a step in their end-game.

I said it would be interesting if you'd discuss it. Until then, I find it to be incongruously sardonic.

You can read this to mean: It would become interesting if....


Self-evident? Not exactly. I could take this to mean that you believe you can paint all theists with the same brush. Is that what you find so humorous?

On a scientific note: it is just as much an act of faith to believe absolutely in any of newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics as it is to believe absolutely in god.

eureka!

No.

I have no faith in Newtons laws. I have used them to calculate ballistics or the force of an impact and then compared this with actual measurements to verify them as part of a university physics class. They work. With them I could tell you (well I would have been able to tell you 18 years ago) how much velocity and what angle was needed to make a projectile travel X distance, how high it would get, and how hard it would hit, in a vacuum and at various air densities. The variables add up and slight deviations will be noted.

Likewise at the same university as an exercise you would calculate the expected temperature of a liquid when a cold body was placed in a hot liquid, and then measure the actual result.

Both Newtons laws and the laws of thermodynamics are flawed to some degree, but they are working tools which are 'close enough' to make accurate predictions.

I have no faith in them, I have demonstrated some of them , those capable for a 2nd year science major at any rate, and they have held up.

If we had such proofs for God, odds are I'd be in the choir right now. There is no faith involved beyond assuming that which I haven't directly tested is also valid. Likewise when someone comes along as shows that they are not valid, I'm willing to change that 'faith' I have.

il:

aquinas started with an axiom, the "ontological proof"--it runs

that god is is a tautology.

a statement that only makes sense in the context of a "realist" conception of god (god contains all categories, being is a category, therefore the statement "god is" is literally tautological because the subject (god) actually contains the verb/predicate (being)).

you might think about this as characteristic of propositions that are rooted one way or another in faith.

there are two ways to go with this:
either you try, as you have been, to argue that the circular nature of such propositions is characteristic of all propositions, so that faith in a god is no different from something like perceptual faith (that the chair i am sitting on now will still exist now will still exist now will still exist now kinda thing)--but that can be shot down in a hurry and from any number of angles. but for that game to be interesting at all, there has to be agreement about the rules of argument. agreement about rules would prevent term-switching. as there is no such agreement, and as term-switches are everywhere in this thread, it is not a game worth playing, so far as i am concerned.


or you can argue that as a matter of faith, your committments (or those of any believer) are arbitrary.
but there's no problem with arbitrariness. (think any nominalist...say kierkegaard or pascal..or william of ockham if you want).
but if that's understood as being the case, then there is no point in bothering with attempts to demonstrate your position.
i dont see why this would be problematic.
you believe as you believe.
if there is a god, and this god is eternal, human understanding (which is finite) cannot understand the first thing about this god and so ANY relation--even that of naming god "god"--is arbitrary.
for kierkegaard (for example) faith only STARTS with this concession concerning the limits of human understanding.
it is a leap into the void.

so seems to me that there is perfectly legit reasons within christianity itself for sucking it up and saying "this is arbitrary and that changes nothing about my relations, about my faith, etc...."

that would end the game.
same question could be directed at pan, but from within another logic.
questions about basis are only even relevant if you concede their relevance.

maybe what filtherton was attempting to reason out was acceptance of the scientific method to determine predictable action such as Newton's laws is an act of faith.

The only faith there is the faith in your senses and the faith your brain can work out what those senses gives you.

It is not 'just as much an act of faith' as believing in a divine super man.

@ Leto-
I can observe that the scientific theories I use in school and work are valid. I can physically see them in practice. There is no faith in that.

The common misconception about "laws" in science is that they are not actually laws, but observations that are so basic we have no real ways to prove them. Quantum Mechanics is a theory, despite the work that validates it, only because a better theory can come along and replace it, once one is found.

But on the topic of scientific faith: the men of the Apollo program had no one else other than Sir Isaac Newton in the driver seat, even though we found out that Newton was a terrible driver at near light speeds---Albert Einstein, that racing devil, showed the world how it's really done.

EDIT: You always beat me...

You show your faith in newton's laws every time you put your life in the hands of a machine or building whose design was based on first principals. You expect the universe to behave in a rational way, and though it isn't an off expectation, it is one that is at its very core faith-based. You expect things to happen as a direct result of the things that happened before them, and that is a position of faith, regardless of how obvious it seems that things happen as a direct result of the things that happened before them.

Laws are just emphasized observations- you didn't demonstrate them, you just observed them. All you did was observe that f = ma. Whether f actually always (or even usually) equals ma is another thing entirely.

If you think that there is such a thing as a proof for any of newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics than you are mistaken. They are nothing more than observations of how things happen, and it would clearly be fallacious to claim that the fact that you have observed something to be true every time you've observed it means that it is true all of the time.

The faith comes in when you attempt to apply the things you have directly observed to the things you have not.

It isn't a misconception. There is no proof for the notion that energy is conserved, there is no proof for the belief that heat can only flow from hot to cold. It is impossible to prove the validity of a set of rules from within those rules' jurisdiction. You can't use geometry to validate the axioms on which geometry is based, and first principals are axioms, albeit axioms well supported by experimental evidence.

"The faith comes in when you attempt to apply the things you have directly observed to the things you have not."
...Check...

While I would never say it is faith... as an engineering student I realize I base all my work on the assumptions that equations I have and have proved are all based on observations I agree are on how the universe works.

I think my "faith" it cannot be classified as faith like in the religious sense as I have observable instances. Religious faith has no proof or observable instances. There are no words directly from God, only a bunch of books (... 66 books) spanning ... quite a while. These are books written by man supposedly all about the same God. I'll trust in the universe (that maybe some one made) before I trust in the words of men (that maybe some one intended to make). I have faith in the idea that the universe cannot tell lies, we only hear it wrong.

Well, as an engineering student myself, the further i progress the more i come to the realization that there is a lot of stuff we don't know, a lot of stuff we can't know, and that there is a lot of stuff which is presented as fact, which is actually just the current consensus amongst the folks who are supposed to know what they're talking about. When it comes down to it, for most engineering purposes, and i guess for science in general, what is actually happening isn't all that relevant as long as models correctly predict reality.

It is really a question of how far you want to go when stressing the omniscience of scientific knowledge. It is one thing to claim that the models accurately reflect reality as far as we know and leave it at that. It is another thing entirely, and in my mind a mistake, to claim that the models are reality.

I agree with you here. Except that i think that there are probably a lot more books that a theist could use to learn about god, and that a lot of these books are science books.

We've already addressed this. Go back a few pages.

@ Willravel:
How many is a few pages??? I have to take into account I read at the rate of third-grade-retard. If the book doesn't have pretty pictures with detailed formulas and arrows all over that picture... I am for-shit-useless.

@ Filtherton:
Usually, they do not concern about what is known in science, but what is unknown or what is difficult to swallow in science, and use that as proof that there is a God. Sorry @ willravel for beating the dead horse (we'll have it into glue in no time) and for stealing your signature (it fits perfectly here):
"Just because something is inexplicted doesn't mean it's inexplicable."

On a personal note:
If there is/was a creator or there is a divine way to life: they only way we are going to understand it is through understanding: physics, psychology, and philosophy. The first lets us marvel at ALL THAT EXISTS, the next lets us marvel at HOW WE ARE (a part of ALL THAT IS), and the last suggests how we OUGHT TO BE.

"Where did the universe come from? What is my purpose in life? Where are we going? What do we wear when get there?"

We covered how Filtherton isn't right. It may have been in the other Atheism thread. I cover this subject a lot. The bottom line is that there is no faith involved in repeatedly witnessing the scientific method work and then allow that experience to translate to the perception of other things. It's not faith at all.

I need to find a post by Ustwo, who managed to wrap up in a few sentences what I had said over several pages.

Some of the greatest minds in the history of science believed that the order of the universe was evidence of the existence of a diety. There are a lot of folks who have no problem integrating science and theology into a cohesive belief system, because if one so desires the two can be mutually exclusive.

It all depends on whether you think science is capable of explaining everything, a belief which i think is akin to the deification of science.

@ Filtherton:
There is no deification of science here, and this "faith" it is not comparable to religious faith. Thank you Will. I do not have problems with those that integrate religion and science. I say let everyone have an 'ism to believe in. Look at Einstein: believed in God---I quote him all the time, and doesn't phase me in the least.

This goes off topic but we are in the philosophy boards:
I do not deny the existence of a god, I just feel that there is not so much attention on us as the Bible leads us to believe.
As I stated there were three elements, one of those being philosophy. When I start conversing about all three and make parallels between them all I start getting that chill down the spine feeling that they are somehow interconnected. Philosophy isn't a science, it is math (logic) on how to be right and good.

Actually, we covered how will, being a psych major, has little familiarity with actual science and therefore overstates its meaning. ;)

Ustwo is a dentist. Together, we practically make a doctor.

You guys should have a t.v. show- young, fairly liberal nonprofit exec and his older, conservative swinger orthodontist. There would have to be some super contrived reason for you to be stuck living together. Each episode would end with you making some remark about the effectiveness of universal healthcare or the validity of global warming followed by ustwo slowly shaking his head and tsk-ing at you while looking into the camera and shrugging, like, "whattami gonna do with this guy?"

I'd watch it.

Fairly liberal?!

Still, I'd watch it too.

The ages won't matter. It's all about it starring Sean Connery and Hugo Weaving.

Actually on a side note, Einstein was at best a theist, and was berated by Christian groups for his apparent atheism. We really have nothing in the language to express the mystery and vastness of the universe without using 'god' quite a bit. He used the language but I think he was in fact an atheist.

If wills mother is hot, I have a reason :thumbsup:

YOU THINK I LIVE WITH MY MOTHER?!

You don't?

Um, no... not since I was 17.

:thumbsdown:

Willy baby, you gotta work with it man. Just like a book is just a book and it shouldn't affect the movie baby, reality is just a pishposh, you need to see it for the vision it could be.

It would be like all in the family, I'd be Archy, only with two advanced degrees, and Edith would be your hot sex crazed mom, you would be Meathead only with, well you would be Meathead, and you would be dating this hot republican mayors aid baby, its gold I say gold!

And with the writers strike, we could most likely sell it.

Roachboy, I think, oversimplifies Kierkegaard. It's true that he speaks of the leap of faith out of the realm where human reason governs. But it's not true that that leap is something sui generis. Human reason itself points to its own limitations, and points beyond itself towards God. So I'm not sure it's really arbitrary in the way Roachboy is using that term.

asaris---

i was thinking of "fear and trembling" because it seemed most relevant to the discussion...and that primarily because there is this argument concerning proof in the thread, which made me think of the abraham and isaac stories, the juxtaposition of radically opposed orders, their incommensurability---so i used arbitrariness in a sense conditioned that way, in the sense that faith is not amenable to proof (a transposing of the a&i stories) and so.

you refer more to the situation of a believer (or one who wants to believe)....i take "fear and trembling" as written from the aesthetic viewpoint, and so works at a distance with reference to that situation.

it was easier to make the point that way: but sure....as a synopsis of kierkegaard it was way simplified.

Because you need a brain to have an ism,"a" comes before "_".

...no, really! God told me!

Considering how little we actually know about the nature of the universe, I think it's a bit premature to start writing off the concept of God entirely. If the universe is a simulation, for instance, which might never be proven one way or the other by us peons, its creator would be God by definition. It's entirely conceivable that there IS a God and He isn't even aware of humanity's existence. Now if it were possible to simulate an entire universe one would also imagine the ability to find organizations of information within it as well, but what if life and the silly little electromagnetic signals some of it produces are just not what He's looking for? Maybe He's only looking at the stars, which would make us low-level noise.

Anyway I'm not a fan of the whole concept of categorizing people based on their vote for one of Theist, Atheist, Don't Know. I'm a lot more concerned with my personal spirituality. Trying to pigeonhole people's beliefs has been responsible for more than one pointless religious war, when will we learn?

God is an Engineer... I first heard that expression from my psychology professor. He had to get those unmotivated engineers motivated in the subject.

You have obviously thought out your philosophy. The question is have others thought it out or are they just part of the crowd.

I see Atheism's motives, however I will be an agnostic until I can limit the possibilities between: Loving God, Unloving God, Something Else, Nothing Else.

I would think a quick glance into a pediatric cancer ward would eliminate 'loving god'. :thumbsup:

Come on, Ustwo. We all know God isn't a hands-on engineer... He's the First Mover.

Please refer to post #572.

Don't forget SIDS. Or the fact that most of the universe is open space and is the most uninhabitable environment known to man.

@ Ustwo:
Hence why I am agnostic. I know all those, "God doesn't make suffering" lalalas and some people are just tested more and I should count my blessings...

Maybe all those people are more bets God has with Satan. Wouldn't that be interesting: God is a compulsive gambler... Where would that leave other gambling addicts? Their addiction would be divine?

@ Baraka_Guru:
You bring up a point. I am an engineer in training, and I know that I have the vision for a machine. Then it takes an industrial engineer to rain on my vision and tell me it is over budget and reworks it. If God was an engineer, does he have degrees in both universal engineering and industrial engineering? Or who was God's IE?

I think people become atheists for the same reasons they follow any religion. Atheism is just a Godless religion. I'm sure the fact that it's in vogue has more than a little to do with it, but the God people have been screwing things up for so long it makes sense that there would be a reaction to them. That's Newton's Third Law in action. Do people think about it, to a certain extent yes. Probably more so for atheists than followers of some other religions, but religion doesn't generally fit into identifiable thought processes anyway, it's more a matter of innate belief. Which isn't necessarily bad, to believe something just because you do, but many followers extend their lack of thought process in their FAITH to their ACTIONS which is what causes the real problems.

As an atheist, I must say the following:

Hey, Mit Romney, fuck you. Freedom does not require religion you bigoted moron. You know exactly jack shit about John Adams, and you know jack shit about freedom. Church DOES NOT BELONG in government. Look for a copy of "The God Delusion" in the mail.

Sincerely,
Someone who will always be smarter than you.

Perhaps not smarter but certainly more viable as a President.

WillRavel For President: The New Dubya

WillRavel promises to bring you his love... and like the love of God, it is cold and remote.

Come now will, you believe in your own unprovable theories :skeptical:

Never read God Delusion... it is on the list though. Personally I am against any "scientific" or "logical" arguments that prove or disprove the existence of god(s).

A book that I did enjoy reading (as it doesn't go to prove or disprove anything, only explain why man created would have god):
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes
I actually bought this one. Jaynes starts off with a definition of what it means to be conscious and what roles consciousness actually plays. He then explains how the modern mind evolved from a non-conscious mind where each hemisphere of the brain was an independent processing unit that spoke to one another, hence why man heard the voice of God.

While I find Dawkins to be perhaps the pinnacle of Ivory tower snob and a total asshole, I'd still recommend the God Delusion not for the 'logic' side of it, that was preaching to my internal choir, but the sections on why religion seems to be part of our make up. God or no god, its obvious there is something innate in why we are so susceptible to religion and I just sort of unthinkingly accepted it from a psychological standpoint when it was really an evolutionary question.

it's funny to me how easy it is for people to rebel against God and then when consequences happen put all the blame on the "loving God." For instance, I heavily abuse drugs for weeks and then overdose resulting in ICU and near-death. "Why is God doing this to me? Why am I in so much pain?"

All of this pain and suffering is a result of human beings thinking we know what's best for ourselves. Things WERE perfect. When we start eating cheeseburgers instead of vegetables, staring into radioactive monitors instead of books, abusing our sexual organs, etc. etc. it makes you wonder why people are overweight, have brain tumors, and give birth to children with birth defects.

I try not to get caught in the details. Either the universe was created or it wasn't. If it was created, it was out of love because He had to GIVE something for us to be here. If we wasn't created, then this thread would have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. SO FUCK ALL YOU BITCHES RANDOM FUCKING THREAD YOU SUCKK!KKKK!K!K!K!K!K haha jk. :thumbsup:

For a minute there Ays, I thought you were going to say "Things WERE perfect. But then Eve had to eat the apple..." And I would have hit my head into the table.

Just because the universe was created doesn't mean whatever did gives a damn... maybe they had nothing to do, maybe they didn't intend us to be this way, maybe they are watching something else, maybe we aren't actually experiencing the universe the way it truly is.

As children of God, we want to grow up and be big and strong like daddy, oh well. Hopefully we'll figure out how to end the suffering and misery that we experience beyond our choices. It is my opinion that little kids dying of cancer is not caused by any of those human choices.

So, why bother calling it God, Jehovah, Santa Claus or anything else when we'll never know? Only real universal rules: be able to live with your choices... and make sure others can, too. I didn't need God or the bible to let me figure out that one... OK, so I read Kant, but I had the idea before reading him... :paranoid:

You can get cancer from the sun. god supposedly created the sun. Good job, god. Those are not "consequences" of going against god's will, they are rather simple facts of life which some people are unable or unwilling to deal with.

It has nothing to do with perfection in creation, it has everything to do with continuing adaptation and simple reality.

Here, watch this:

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist

I know him, thats the guy who killed Pluto :)

Yeah, that was pretty messed up. "Dwarf planet". Like the astronomical version of "is it in yet?"

That was good! I disagree with Tyson's assessment of the mouth. It obviously was a design feature---people have to stop talking in order to breath, eat, and drink... :rolleyes:

Hey that was a pretty funny video! But anywhoo, to respond to your skin cancer and sun comment. Yes, the suns rays can give skin cancer, but ONLY because of a hole in the ozone caused by OUR pollution. Our skin excretes a large amount of toxins. These toxins in our diet combined with malnurished bodies that can't break down the sun's energy as well, combined with an increase in the sun's strength due to depleting ozone can cause cancer!

I'm sure in the beginning the sun didn't BURN. It was probably more a warm caress, but over time it gets corrupted by us just like everything else. In some countries the local water gives you cancer. I'm pretty sure it didn't used to, but after the nearby plants dump all their waste into the streams you can get the idea...

Iron is good for our bodies, but too much can also cause cancer!

The only adaptation going on here is trying to survive through our own mistakes.

OK let's keep the global warming issue somewhere in Politics. And you don't know if the sun burned way back when. It may have been cooler back then, but tanning wasn't one of those things that aristocrats did to keep pale.

A few of your points are true, but there are still plenty of other craptacular things that happen to people regardless of choice: genetic disorders, mental insanity, meteorites, the moon wandering away...

If I was directly responsible for a meteorite striking us... I'll be damned. I think this town is in need for a good natural catastrophe... However I think flood is more fitting. Still, any choices I can make to have a meteorite fall on my head?

EDIT: Let me make this more realistic: Is there any simple choice I can make to have a meteor get its title upgraded to meteorite? Something shy of actually going out into space and riding the meteor down to Earth myself (yes with my cowboy hat on, giving out loud Yee-Haws in my space suit).

That's not actually true, and this is symptomatic of the curious nature of creationists: they make things up. People get skin cancer in areas of no ozone depletion. While it may or may not be more common because of depletion, skin cancer can happen through our virgin atmosphere without any assistance from man or machine. You see, while the atmosphere can sheild us from most UVA and UVB radiation, it's incapable of filtering all of it and there's no evidence that it ever has. UVA radiation isn't even absorbed by the OZONE layer.

My question is this: if you don't know something, are you able to not only make up the answer to fool others, but do you in fact fool yourself?

Pretty much everything you said was wrong, which makes it rather hard to have a discussion.

Actually it's caused skin cancer for thousands of years. The hole in the ozone has been almost exclusivly limited to an area over Antarctica, and ozone isn't the only ultraviolet (the wavelength that causes skin cancer) blocker in the atmosphere. There's evidence of skin cancers in dinosaurs, although nothing proven at the moment.

Yeah, this is pretty much nonsense. Our skin doesn't excrete "toxins" on a regular basis. Diet has virtually nothing to do with the occurrence fo skin cancer, and as I mentioned, the "depleted" ozone layer has little to do with skin cancer in, say, northern Europe.

You're sure? Sure you're wrong? 'Cause you are. If we go back to the "beginnning", the sun's rays were felt even stronger on earth (the strength off the earth is, for our purposes, a constant). Over the last few million years, the atmosphere has changed.

As far as "nearby plants dumping waste into streams", what does water pollution have to do with the depletion of the ozone layer? That kind of conclusion is laughable.

Sorry for the threadjack, but I can't leave this kind of stuff alone...

Maybe this is a good example of "Atheism's sudden rise". Upon hearing this, an informed theist would think, "Wow, that's totally wrong.", and there could be a moment of doubt. Doubt is really all it takes to allow someone an exit from religion.

It's cool man, I'm just conversating like the rest of yall. it's when you people start bashing me, calling me a fool, and telling me that what I'm saying is wrong or false that it becomes a problem.

Unless any of you have absolute knowledge of everything then none of you can bash me like I'm some sort of idiot. Sorry to burst you guy's bubble, but EVERYTHING is purely speculation, and that includes whatever you, me, or anybody else says.

I'm just like all of you. I do my research and I make my conclusions based on my life and experiences. I'm not just making crap up for the fun of it. I believe whatever I'm saying has truth to it or is a likely possibility. Every day my views and perceptions of life change with my spiritual, mental, and physical growth. I'm just sharing what I think with the rest of you.

now, as far as responding to some of what The_Jazz said about the skin excreting toxins - http://www.doctoryourself.com/skin_care.html (first paragraph)

Your response to the ozone layer - Yes, maybe the hole is over antartica, but that doesn't mean the rest of it is not affected at all by the pollution.

About the sun in the Beginning. See, we're talking about two different beginnings. I'm guessing, that you're referring to the beginning of existance on an evolutional/big bangist viewpoint. In that case, yeah an explosion is pretty damn hot.

The Beginning I am talking about is the beginning of mankind that was created by God. In that case, I believe God sculpted the universe to show his magnificence. He put all the stars and constalations in place, the milky way, the sun, and planets. Then created the Earth, made the sky and the sea. He made the plants and animals... He wanted things to be beautiful. He put it all together so when Adam woke up and the beginning of humanity started, it was juuuuuuust right. :thumbsup: You see, this is because He created out of LOVE.

That's why I believe the sun was probably more of a warm carress than a BURN. because a warm carress of the sun just feels so damn good. And God is all about feeling good.

And lastly, about my laughable conclusion. i wasn't talking about the polluted waters giving them skin cancer, just cancer. - http://chinaview.wordpress.com/2007/...ges-pay-price/

I wasn't writing some paper dude. I was just making conversation. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Holla!

One ought not get offended at a knowledge based forum. Either one is right or one is wrong. One just likes to read those credible sources. Ones that draw the dots between skin excreting toxins... and that causing skin cancer from the sun.

And everything is not purely speculative as you make it out to be. Yes the universe is based off observations and we make models of it... but we have observations! We didn't speculate from a set of books written thousands of years ago that: the Earth was made 4000 years ago, that God exists and loves us, etc.

Couldn't we leave the global warming out of the thread?!?!? And we all ready know that the sun still gives you cancer even when there aren't those holes in the ozone. Where is the source that states that it is only because of the toxins our skin excretes from eating the cheeseburgers? I honestly want to read some good credible sources!

I imagined he was referring to the time shortly after the Earth formed and it was a hot chaotic toxic place for a Martian to take a vacation.

OT but on philosophy: Yes, the world is fucked; you don't need to find articles from China to tell us that. You can either set aside all assumptions about what the world and the universe are and look for the truth yourself, or you can believe in the feelings a set of books give you... Personally, I'll make my own journey.

If what you're saying is false, and we tell you it's false, we have a problem?
We have absolute knowledge that the OZONE layer does not block UVA rays, and UVA rays now are shown to also cause skin cancer in addition to UVB rays, which the OZONE filters most of but not all. These are scientific facts. There's no speculation at all about it.
You think that UVA and UVB rays don't move in a straight line? Sorry to burst your bubble, but other than being slightly pulled off course by the immense gravity of Earth or other massive celestial bodies , the rays of the sun travel in a straight line. If you're sunbathing in Miami, you're not getting sun from Antarctica.
Somehow I doubt the former inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah would agree. Also, the entire population of the earth at the time of Noah, minus a few people. Or the other countless people who had horrible deaths as a direct result of god's wrath, according to the bible.