filtherton

As i was shuttling between campuses today i got to thinking about stuff and it occured to me. I'm short on time, so this might be in need of some editing and/or elaboration. Will do when i have a chance.

Atheism is a philosophical position regarding the standards of evidence necessary to justify a belief. Is this an agreeable description?

If so, it would seem to be a tad "apples and oranges" to directly compare the faith of christianity or any one religion to atheism. Any differences between atheists and theists would necessarily be based on differing perspectives on the meaning of proof.

I would then argue that different types of knowledge require different standards of proof. This is something to which i will assume you all implicitly agree.

So if theism in its most general sense the application of intent to the universe, why can it not co-exist with more science-y explanations for everyday phenomena?

DaveOrion

I don't believe that anyone can give a mathematical proof of the existence of God. But we can show that God's existence is far more likely to be a reality than his non-existence. Unless the atheist can show that a Supreme Being is a logical impossibility and prove all their premises, the case for atheism remains very weak.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

CSflim

I'm not sure what you mean by asking if the two beliefs can "co-exist".

If you mean should we be tolerant and respectful of others beliefs, then sure, theism and atheism can certainly co-exist.

If you mean can both positions be true, then the answer is clearly an emphatic no, and the two positions are the antithesis of each other.
Theism: A god exists (or gods exists).
Atheism: No gods exist.

Suggesting that both are true is entirely equivalent to asserting "A and not-A". In doing so, you are refusing to allow the debate to exist in any kind of logical framework and hence further communication is rendered impossible.

Would love to hear it.

__________________

roachboy

well, every once in a while in the context of debates about this matter, i post something on the order of: these debates are disputes over axioms. axioms cannot be demonstrated from within proofs that presuppose them.

the rules that shape a proof can be indentical for theists and atheists, but the divergent axioms would still lead to different results.
if the existence of a god is taken as axiomatic, its effects can and will be dragged through the whole of a proof without necessarily resulting in a violation of the rules.
so a theist could produce claims that are formally speaking "true"
and a parallel situation obtains for atheists.

the most likely outcome is what lyotard called a differend--a space where arguments concerning the same thing (say) simply talk past each other.

in hobbes you find the same problem--except there the scenario involves an assumption of scarcity of material goods and competing, internally valid (and therefore "true") claims on those goods. the result would be war--so an outside arbiter is required who can make arbitrary decisions that have the force of law. the idea is not that this arbiter would have any access to a higher form of insight and so be able to determine which internally consistent (thereby "true") claim is more true than the other--rather, the arbiter would simply find one or the other argument more persuasive and make a decision based on that and that would resolve the fight over scarce goods--and it would be legit because it offered something like a solution in a scenario where the alternative is war of all against all.

in a messageboard, the war of all against all is not an issue.
so the result of debates over axioms is usually a differend.

what is confusing is the tendency for folk on both sides of these debates to act as though they can, from within their own set of axioms, manage to falsify the proofs of others which operate with different axioms.

you could, i suppose, rig up a meta-game wherein everybody agrees to rules concerning the nature and meaning of higher-order proofs that take on axioms: but christians (in particular) routinely are not amenable to this game because, in the end, faith kicks in at around this point, and faith is not falsifiable on these grounds.

the counter argument from that side is generally that atheism is no different in that it too presupposes articles of faith--and that is a non-trivial objection in itself--but i havent seen a theist stop there--and the next move---which is to claim that because it relies on matters of faith at some levels that atheism is therefore a form of religion--is just stupid--because what this sets up is yet another badly framed inevitably pissy dispute about axioms. if this goes on long enough, the theist--particularly a christian--will simply opt out again by referencing faith.

round and round.
nothing happens.
round and round.
more nothing.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Because of a lack of the evidence showing intent, it is quite difficult to allow the two ways of though to coexist in my mind. The idea that theists and atheists have different meanings of the word "proof" only seems to come up when the philosophies are directly compared. I think that atheists and theists share the same ideas about proof in our every day lives, such as crossing the street when there is a car coming. The only real separation comes with the application of said proof to theism, which by it's very nature has no connection to proof. I think it runs counter to the idea of faith to share the same philosophical presupposition (5 point word) as atheism, Darwinism, etc.

The problem that I keep coming back to is the explanation of faith. "I just believe" doesn't satisfy me, which is why I am for all intents and purposes an atheist. I see no logic in that position. Others do.
You may have just dug yourself into a very deep hole with this statement. Would you mind showing, with proof or evidence, that god's existence is far more likely to be a reality than his non-existence?
That's not really how science works. We gather evidence and test in order to draw conclusions. Something without evidence, like god, simply doesn't matter. Sure, it's interesting to apply theism to philosophy, but speaking from a purely scientific perspective, god is as important as any work of fiction or flight of fancy.

pig

hey filthy,

first, i would modify your opening definition of atheism. i would say that something like skepticism is a philosophical position regarding the standards of evidence necessary to justify a position or belief. i would then argue that atheism is a subset of skepticism, on the topic of theistic religions / spiritual worldviews. Therefore, the evidenciary standards are naturally pretty important.

I have to agree with willravel that atheists and theists don't seem to have different evidenciary standards most of the time. only in this trivial "why are we here, where have we been, where are we going?" (thanks joyce carol oates) discussion. I'd have to ask what you mean by wanting different types of proof. I think this is precisely where roach's point about "faith" and "leaps of faith" come in. That to me would seem to be the big theological fudge factor for most religions. It seems to me to represent a schism in the way theist approach questions of knowledge. I honestly don't really understand it.

This may also be tied up in your last comment as well; you stated that theism in its most general sense a question of "intent" in the universe. I suppose "intent" may require an "intendor," but this seems to throw out deism, for example. So, in a way you seem to lumping in theism with spirituality, which I suppose I don't personally agree with.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this notion of "proof" and theism/atheism a little more. I feel as though this post is mostly a critique / question about your post, without as much creative personal thought as I'd like. I hope to post back when I've had some time to think about this and how to put my perspective.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

DaveOrion

Yes, I dug a hole and now I will plant a beautiful tree in it as proof of God. More Later: Its to nice a day to have this pointless debate! Soon the bradford pears, dogwoods, and redbuds will be blooming....more proof. I'm sure that God is a personal experience for everyone, what is proof to me, may not be to others. When my daughter was born I was absolutely positive it was a miracle, and it was even more proof (To Me!!). Even though I know the scientific explanation of reproduction, it didnt diminish the experience. When I look into a clear night sky at all the stars billions of miles away, I see more proof. Although I know the scientific explanation of this also. When a mighty oak grows from a single acorn I see it again....This is my point of view, and while the atheists may not be able to see what I see, it doesnt make my view any less valid. Have a wonderful rest of the day...

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

asaris

1. I don't think that that's going to be an adequate description of atheism. It may well be that most atheists disagree with most theists about issues of evidence and proof. But I suspect there are some theists that would agree with the atheists conception of proof, and vice versa, with the disagreement being along the lines of whether the burden of proof is satisfied or not. You'd have to say more about what you mean by a standard of proof.

2. I agree that different areas of knowledge use different types of proof. I would be inclined to use science and history as examples of this. I would disagree if you mean to imply some sort of ranking among disciplines based on their standard of proof. I'm not sure that science is in any sense 'better' than history just because it uses a different standard of proof. Sure, no one disputes the existence of gravity. But no one disputes the existence of Queen Elizabeth I either.

3. I think theism can certainly co-exist with 'science-y' explanations of ordinary phenomena. The claim theism makes is that science does not explain everything, not that it explains nothing.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Lizra

Willravel took the words right out of my head. for most everything else in life we go with obvious proof....not wishful thinking that may be true...if what our senses tell us is actually not true....but I can understand going with this "purpose of life optimism", which is sort of what religious faith seems to be imo.
Believe me, there have been many times in my life where I really wished I could have it (optimistic religious "faith")
but my brain just won't allow me to indulge in such foolishness! still, the joke's on me.....

__________________
Happy atheist

DaveOrion

Do you love your family, your parents, your spouse, your children??? Prove it.....

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

pig

hey dave,

i guess for me, i don't understand why you interpret these instances of personal proof (flowers blooming, bees a-buzzing, cocks a crowing, etc) with proof of a particular flavor of religion, or even the presence of any sort of personified anthromorphic deity. i understand where i think you're coming from, and i definitely get the sensation that there is more occurring in this world / universe than contained in our theories. in fact, i think that inherent. but i don't see any particular facet that says "yes, my intepretation is correct." i can even somewhat understand a perspective from any particular believer that says "this is my perspective, and its only my perspective. it may have some flaws, maybe its not the "truth." but it works for me, and so forth." what i don't understand is the dogmatic belief that any particular religion is "correct."

but hey, it is a gorgeous day outside and i'm off to take a run.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

politicophile

two characters

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

DaveOrion

Another long winded, mind numbing post which basically says nothing. I often wonder if you're actually puking up a dictionary, or you think all those words help prove your point??? Meaningless to me, none the less....

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

roachboy

dave....i think we should talk about this, dave....

from what i can work out, given your style of posting (there are trees, i like them, therefore god) you really aren't interested in argument on this matter, are you? when the question of proof came up, your response (do you love your kids, prove it) was kinda...well...i hate to say it, dave...but it was kinda sophomoric. and now...

the first post could be confused with an argument because it maintains the formal structure of an argument, even if it isnt a very good argument.
the second post has no argument.
the third doesn't even try.

so if it is the case that you really are not interested in discussion about this topic--or any discussion of this topic it seems--then why not simply avail yourself of the lovely and important benefits of having a back button?

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Apples and oranges. I love my children as a function of emotion. Compare that to theism. In theism, one believes in the actual existence of a deity. One believes, for example, that a tangible creature with great supernatural power created the universe.

Emotion is simply an affective state of consciousness. God is a being. Those aren't comparable so far as provability.

filtherton

Okay, so it seems some clarification is in order.

First, this is coming out as a general presupposition about the position of all atheists. I realize that there will be atheists who don't fit this bill, and i apologize. It is a general argument, and i don't mean to tell anyone what they think. It's more of a tardy rebuttal to arguments i've already had.

Second, when i speak of spiritual people i mean people whose beliefs are adaptable; they don't believe in things that contradict their experiences or knowledge. I hope that idea is clear.

Okay, pigglet, you're right about the d/theism thing. I guess that i'm speaking more along the lines of spirituality in general. Would you agree that theism is a subset of spirituality?

As for the definition of atheism, i'm treating it here like the second law of thermodynamics: there are many different ways of saying it - you just pick the one most useful for doing whatever it is you're doing. It has been my experience that one of the standard atheist arguments against th/deism is that th/deism is an invalid perspective because it doesn't meet some sort of rigidly defined scientific criteria; teapots, spaghetti monsters, all that. These arguments would seem naturally apply to all spirituality, inasmuch as spirituality equates to belief in the supernatural. I know that technically atheism is isn't just about standards of evidence, but standards of evidence seem to be a fulcrum upon which its more militant adherents attempt to invalidate spiritual beliefs. Discussions generally seem to boil down to questions of proof.

The idea that there is a method which, when followed with enough diligence, can explain all things is groundless. Also, that the idea that any ideas unsupported by this method are regressive is groundless. Obviously, i don't have any sort of proof for these assertions, but a mathematical analogue for them might be godel's incompleteness theorems.

I guess what my position comes down to, is that evidentiary standards are necessarily fluid things. None of us could function if we only acted when we had a strict scientific basis on which to act. I think that a discerning person should be able to figure out for themselves where the limitations of rigorous doctrine A end and where the limitations of rigorous doctribe B begin, and also that the ability to adhere to two superficially contradictory methods of making sense of things isn't necessarily something to be frowned upon.

DaveOrion

You guys are so easy!! I knew the tree post would getcha!! Lighten up, its not the end of the world.....yet!!

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Willravel

Ah, but Dave you're hardly the only one to make such a point (and I'm wondering if you really posted those comments in jest or if you're backpedaling).

Dilbert1234567

if you want proof, come on down and threaten them, you'll see how much i love them the rest of your life.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

roachboy

filtherton: setting up standards of evidence amounts to setting up other proofs. the same problem of axioms will recur.
it doesn't go away: this is a problem with the form.

in the end, the rules and assumptions behind proofs as a form are either taken for granted (and so frequently unexamined and so frequently more problematic than they appear to be: like identity) or are attempts to write-to-ground of assumptions shared by a belief community. so there is nothing about the form that will prevent bad assumptions from being written into their structure. and once they are in, they become part of the apparatus that moves across the steps.

it is a bit strange that folk are fixated on proofs as a form that has no particular problems. the result of a proof is true if it doesn't violate the rules. the axioms arent demonstrable from within the proof that assumes them. no believer is going to set about developing a proof of gods existence before they start a demonstration---closest you get is the ontological proof, and that's a tautology that says the question "does god exist?" is tautological.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

DaveOrion

I must disagree with much of this, but the apples and oranges anology does seem apropriate. If I understand you correctly, perhaps you should have said Apples and Monkey Wrenches!

Loving someone, & believing in God are both emotional states that exist within your mind. While they are somewhat different, they both have similar qualities that cant be defined or proven. Many people believe in & love God, as they believe in and love others. Apples & Oranges.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

filtherton

Roach, i'm not saying that proofs aren't problematic, i'm saying that they are. My position is there is no one true way of making sense of the world.

I agree that it's all in the axioms. Arguing against scientific ideas based on the supernatural assumptions, and vice versa, is like arguing against euclidean geometry based on the assumptions of noneuclidean geometry; both are valid ways to think about abstract things, they just have different, mutually exclusive axioms and different spheres of relevance. Granted, there don't seem to be many outspoken militant ideologues when it comes to mathematics, as far as i can tell, no one has been drowned for proving the existence of irrational numbers lately.

politicophile

two characters

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

filtherton

I wonder how bertrand russel would feel about dark matter. Perhaps it's just a bunch of invisible teapots?

Willravel

We don't believe in and have faith in love, we experience love as an affective state of consciousness. God is not a state of consciousness, he or she or it is a being, as is described in theism. Love may be loosely referred to in lore —Cupid/Eros, Aphrodite, etc.—, I'm sure you do not have faith in these beings because you recognize that, while they may have philosophical meaning, they are myths and are no more real than Frodo or Spider-Man.

They are entirely different.

He would say that there is some evidence to suggest that dark matter exists, whereas there is none to suggest the existence of god.

shakran

Perhaps your post needs more editing, but so far it boils down to "religious people have faith that their beliefs are true. Atheists do not."

Not to be pushy, but. . .we all know that


You answered your own question. Different types of knowledge require different levels of proof. Faith-based knowledge doesn't require much, if any proof. I have faith that my wife doesn't cheat on me, but when you get right down to it I have no proof of that because I don't have her under 24 hour surveillance. I cannot therefore scientifically say that she does not cheat on me because I have not tested that theory.

Same thing with religion. You can have the knowledge of faith - i.e. you believe that your god exists, however you cannot have scientific knowledge of that god because there is no way to test your faith-based knowledge scientifically. It would be awfully nice if we could dump a couple of chemicals in a beaker or hold a piece of litmus paper up to a church to verify the existence of god, but we cannot.

In short, theism certainly can go hand in hand with science. Religious people who justify their dismissal of the theory of evolution as "not glorifying god" are shortchanging god. Look at it this way. Any idiot can make a chair. Only a genius can make a chair that then goes on to produce more chairs, each one an improvement over the last. Any idiot omnipotent being can make a life form, but only a truly great one can come up with a life system that improves itself over time without intervention. You want the glory of god? You want an example of how smart he is? Assuming he exists and created all this, then evolution is a pretty big example of his genius. I wouldn't have thought of it.

Willravel

Well put. Some theists are threatened by science, but that's really not necessary. Why fear the known?

DaveOrion

I think you've already stated this once, and I agree that God is not a state of consciousness, but 'Believe In God' is a state of consciousness. Since the believer must use his mind to believe, it must be a conscious thought, therefore a state of consciousness. The same can be said of 'Love'. So love & belief must both exist within conscious thought, both within a state of consciousness.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Willravel

But what you believe in defines the process behind the belief. Believing in love is not the same as believing in god because of what the belief is in.

Anything that goes on in your head is a state of consciousness, but as far as states of consciousness go, again, belief in god and love are apples and oranges.

DaveOrion

Yes, thats what I said 3 posts ago, (2 if you dont count this one....nice recovery btw) but both have similar qualities that cant be proven. So just because I cant prove I love my family doesnt mean that my love doesnt exist. I cant prove there is a God either, yet through my own experiences I have come to believe that He does exist. My belief is most certainly real, just as my love for my family is. So if belief is a delusion, then so is love. Scientifically they're both just chemical reactions in my brain. Are chemical reactions delusion??? If that were so then all thought must be a delusion and that is not the case. The debate will go on...........

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Willravel

Actually, there are not chemicals associated with theism. There are, however, chemicals proven to be associated with love.

I'm sorry, I'm not making this clear enough. There are three distinguishable processes of perception: affective (emotional), cognitive (perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning) and volitional (free will). Love is an affective process of perception by it's very definition, and does not include the cognitive or volitional at all. Belief in god is a combination of all three, though it asks you to suspend cognitive reasoning. The emotional aspect changes from person to person, but to simplify, it could be that one has an emotional attachment to religion or faith as someone would have for any other ever present environmental factor (like he idea of "home", for example). It's cognitive because it calls on you to perceive the world around you within a certain construct, and it requires memory ("I believe in one god, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth"...will always be in my mind) for various dogma and biblical (spiritual texts) verses. It requires judgment, in that one must judge the faith itself as well as the faith's effect on one's self, others, and our world. Faith is also volitional in that it requires free will to accept faith.

I hope this has been helpful.

filtherton

I know that what i'm saying might not necessarily be mind blowing. It was just more of a rebuttal for those who believe that spirituality, and perhaps by extension theism, is regressive.

It's just that i've gotten an impression from some folks that science is "the decider", so to speak, when it comes to acceptable ways of looking at things. I just wanted to explain why i disagreed with that notion. If the shoe doesn't happen to fit you personally, then good for you.

pig

In my opinion, I think this is a question of what views will I tolerate from other people, what views will I tolerate from other people as they cross into the public domain, and what do I consider to be more accurate representations of reality. One of the problems with many theistic positions is that they aren't purely resigned to the untestable regions of supernatural phenomena and hyperconsciousness, but they make direct claims about physical/scientifically testable subjects that are much more difficult to reconcile with what we can observe than are the corresponding scientific theories. If a theist adopts the position that they must adopt all of the tenets of their religion, or none of them...and they need to see this reflected in governmental or educational policy, for instance...then we've got a problem. I think that's one of the main places this need for "proof" comes in. Age of the universe, evolution, etc.

As to what someone else believes, in terms of creation stories or what happens after they die or whatnot when it doesn't cross over into the public domain...well, who cares? I don't care if they believe in reincarnation, or going up to heaven or Valhalla. Bonny for them.

Then there's the pure "intellectual" discussion about the "truth." I would have to suppose that the theist values the accounts they have been handed down through family and community more than taking an approach that wipes the slate clean. I think many atheist try to take the perspective that if they were trying to figure it out from scratch, what would be the most logical way to proceed. As I've stated in other threads on this, I think at one point in time, various religious viewpoints probably made as good sense as any other position. However, I just don't see that being the case any more. We've got a better explanation for the rising of the sun or lightning strikes, how babies are made, and so forth - and I think that the tendency to personify (other than for the purposes of analogy) things we don't understand is less credible than it used to be.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Ourcrazymodern?

The universe loves me or I wouldn't be here.
There's something to be said for luck, after all.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

filtherton

I agree with you here. I don't really have much interest in defending ways of understanding the world or finding meaning that directly contradict more readily verifiable explanations. I firmly believe that spirituality and factual analysis can be complementary, and i acknowledge that this often is not the case.

I see what you're saying. I'm not a theologian, so i don't know exactly how to reconcile theism as a means of explaining natural phenomena with theism as a means of explaining more existential questions. I know that there are christians who take everything in the bible literally, and frankly, i've never understood how. The types of theism i'm interested in are those who take a more macro view concerning what their particular diety seems to be about, and then use this view to make sense of reality. I don't know if you could call it theological rational empiricism or theological post modernism or what.

I feel as though this kind of theism and the sciences might ultimately converge as t -> infinity, so to speak, but it will depend on whether science can satisfy the need for meaning.

pig

yep - i think we agree on these issues more or less. the search for "meaning" will not play out in the realm of science. i had conversation with a fellow engineer type a while back, along the lines of "science is the pursuit of how things happen, philosophy/religion is the pursuit of why they happen..." which folds in nicely with the viewpoint of a professor i knew a while back who's methodology was if you want to drill in on details, ask how. if you want to go to the macroscopic viewpoint, ask why.

i think that a lot of ground could be covered by many followers of various theistic approaches if they would loosen their interpretations a bit. but that's an entirely different situation, i suppose. i'm not sure that different disciplines really have a fundamentally different conception on the standards of proof, per se...but more that the "experiments" are vastly different, so the ways in which the standards of proof may be met are different. i think asaris referenced history vs. physical science...i think the "scientific method" still lies at the heart of these approaches, only that the way one applies the same logical thought pattern must be adaptable to the types of data present.

as for science and the type of spirituality that you're talking about, i think, merging as t->inf....well, i'd say that's what most religions these days are the result of. t sort of went to a practical limit of infinity...and their scientific, sociological, spiritual and ethical knowledge all got wrapped up in one big enchilada. i think that's partially why different theist brands have this trouble with new science...the cultural knowledge of previous civilizations gave birth to these various religions, and to be flexible on the parts that pertain to the areas we've made huge advances in (primarily technology / science in the post Enlightenment era) is difficult when that might creep over in the areas where we haven't made a lot of significant progress, ie. why are we here and what the fuck are we supposed to be doing...and what happens when we're done, anyways? so you get people clamoring for proof of the aspects that are easily contradicted by modern knowledge, and that creeps in on the rest because the construction of the religion doesn't allow the aspects to be easily cleaved...or so it seems to me.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Jinn

To the OP: I believe that the idea of "proof" in 'metaphysical inquiries' is a delusion, as neither Theists nor Atheists can present empirical evidence for either claim. Nor can we, with sound mind, claim that anecdotal experience, unverifiable writing, or even radiometric dating 'prove' the existence or non-existence of any deity. Logical arguments can always be made towards likelihood; Ockham's Razor, Pascal's Wager, etc. I find it unlikely that a diety exists, but not altogether impossible.

Wouldn't it be foolish to commit to either? This feverish commitment to the absolute existence or nonexistence of God(s) means declaring omniscient knowledge AND certainty on a position which one cannot ever be certain about.

Finally, I just wanted to re-post this quote in case it got lost in the random flaming by Dave, as its the best summarization of my feeling on this matter that I've ever heard.

It lends itself more naturally to agnosticism than atheism, and it's very accurate.

Thank you, politicophile:

__________________
"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

DaveOrion

Orignally Posted by DaveMatrix
Yes, I dug a hole and now I will plant a beautiful tree in it as proof of God. More Later: Its to nice a day to have this pointless debate! Soon the bradford pears, dogwoods, and redbuds will be blooming....more proof. I'm sure that God is a personal experience for everyone, what is proof to me, may not be to others. When my daughter was born I was absolutely positive it was a miracle, and it was even more proof (To Me!!). Even though I know the scientific explanation of reproduction, it didnt diminish the experience. When I look into a clear night sky at all the stars billions of miles away, I see more proof. Although I know the scientific explanation of this also. When a mighty oak grows from a single acorn I see it again....This is my point of view, and while the atheists may not be able to see what I see, it doesnt make my view any less valid. Have a wonderful rest of the day...


Originally Posted by politicophile
Indeed, the signs of His Noodly Appendage are everywhere if you know what to look for. You silly God-believing types have just made the unfortunate error of mistaking the signs of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for those of God. When you look out at a Marinara-colored sunset, it is so obvious as to be undeniable that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and influences our everyday lives.

Ramen.



And what would you call this JinnKai??? I Post about a personal experience and this is the response.....now thats random flaming, and a total lack of respect for other members who dont share his views, in fact its down right egomanical.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Jinn

He is describing his belief as a Pastafarian, one who worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It sounds just like your description of birds and God, so I fail to see how you take offense from one crafted just as yours is.

__________________
"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

DaveOrion

I see, so basically the college click takes up for the college click, right or wrong. Got it.

Actually this is incorrect. All thought is a combination of chemicals and an electrical charge.The chemicals are stored in sacks located at the end of a neuron branch, the site of the synapse, the space where one neuron sends it's message to the next. An electrical charge frees chemicals from their holding tanks making their way across the synapse to the connecting neuron. This is the scientific basis of thought.

You may be thinking of the chemicals released when people fall in love, which is different than the love we feel for our families, and different neurotransmitters are involved. All thought is a combination of chemicals and electrical charges within our brains, whether you think of love, or God, or what time you're cooking dinner. The only difference are the chemicals involved. Hope this helps you understand a little better.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...