Willravel

"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?

Ustwo

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.

__________________
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.

sprocket

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.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

pan6467

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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

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.

sprocket

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.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

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.

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Infinite_Loser

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.

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

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

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.

Leto

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.

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Infinite_Loser

I found this sentence ironically humorous.

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

Willravel

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.

Ustwo

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.

__________________
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.

Hain

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.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Leto

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.

Willravel

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.

Baraka_Guru

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.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Infinite_Loser

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 believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Leto

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.

Baraka_Guru

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?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

filtherton

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.

Leto

eureka!

Ustwo

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.

__________________
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.

roachboy

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.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Leto

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.

Ustwo

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.

__________________
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.

Hain

@ 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...

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

filtherton

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.

Hain

"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.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

filtherton

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.

Willravel

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

Hain

@ 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?"

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Willravel

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.

filtherton

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.

Hain

@ 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.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

filtherton

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