In a sense then, Mother Nature becomes your ‘god’. You believe that because she made you, she knows what is best for you, what life you will find most fulfilling and happy. If we investigate Mother Nature’s dictates through the high priest of evolutionary theory, we will find the best way to live. This is essentially the answer that the Baltimore Catechism would give to the question “why should I serve God?” with the church and bible substituted for evolutionary theory/science, and Yahweh/Christ for Mother Nature.
This is a bit tongue-in-cheek; I think I’m of a similar opinion to you. But I see myself less as a vehicle for genetic propagation as a vehicle for memetic propagation. Language is the new DNA, the means by which the superorganisms called societies have been created. Our puzzle is not merely how to adapt to preserve our own genes, but how to adapt our society to preserve its memes. Since memetic adaptation happens on a much shorter timescale than genetic adaptation, it is memetic adaptation, the battle of ideas, that we must be most concerned with.
Well, FutureMan said that Atheism is just as invalid as Theism. What sorts of things can be (in)valid? Claims. Everyone seems to agree that there are certain kinds of atheism which contain claims- negative claims. It would seem to me that if there are attitudes or positions called ‘atheism’ that don’t involve any claims, they must be exempt from what Future Man was talking about.
oreso:
That simply isn’t true, or if it is true, it’s just a trick of wording. For example, I believe your claim above is false. I believe that. I don’t have an absence of belief, or a suspension of belief. It’s up to you whether or not you call my belief in the falsehood of your claim ‘positive’ or ‘negative’, but in just the same way, a person can believe that
God exists
Is false. That can be a belief that they hold, and that belief can be examined and critized.
This is not true either. A baby who has never heard of God doesn't believe God exists, and that is a completely different sort of situation than a person who proclaims "God doesn't exist!" in full knowledge of what his words mean.
This is not terribly important, i just thought i’d throw it out there as an attempt to account for the difficulty in pinning down the terminology.
And by stating “God exists” is false, then you do not hold that belief. Having the belief “‘God exists’ is false” is the trick of wording, what you actually stating is that you have considered the problem, and yet you still do not hold the belief “God exists”.
The only difference is the attitude, both the baby and me dont consider God. There is a lack of belief, and that’s all thats important, the rest is just background information detailing your attitude.
I don’t think so. Suppose there were a magic djinni who made us all bet our lives on whether or not God existed. There are people who would bet ‘yes’ with some degree of confidence and security, there are others who would vote ‘no’ with that same degree of confidence, and others who would remain uncertain, considering both options equally likely, and eventually pick one on a whim or coin flip or something. People who honestly claim " ‘God exists’ is false" are clearly in the camp of those who would confidently vote ‘no’. People who merely ‘still do not hold the belief that God exists’ would be in the uncertain camp.
People who claim “God exists” is false are certainly in the group who do not yet believe God exists. However, not all people who do not yet believe God exists would be comfortable claiming “God exists” is false. We’re talking about two distinct classes of people here, and it’s clear to me that Future Man was addressing the ‘vote no’ group and not the undecideds.
No, there are a host of beliefs that come along with atheism:
“Christians are wrong when they claim X”.
“Mohammed is not a prophet of Allah”
“Moses did not talk to God on Mt. Sinai”.
Are you saying that the atheist simply doesn’t have any position on these matters, or that an atheist may take either position? A baby, or other person who had never heard of God would have no position on the above, an atheist would have to agree with all the above positions.
i think future man gave up on this thread. looks like even a relentless critic can’t disprove an anti-theory like athiesm. his point was very logical yes,but there were no thiests in this debait, were there? my argument leads to obvious ‘di·gres·sions’.
god dosnt exist?RE:where did creation come from.=
evoltuion!=ILP impossible debait. OR
yes he did create everything.bingo.
creation is my foundation and my foothold.people argueing thier ultimate origin is like saying they were created by a greater means or by a non admirable means. like an irony of beliefs asserting human worth.
athiesm seems akin almost to nihilism,BUT that statment is far too controversial,so it should not be considered.just alike in that they both attack ‘structures’ rather than build them.
future man’s attempt was not in vain as it seems to have exposed this.
the athiests seemed to put down no testimony,it was equatible to an anti-belief/structure.
I agree, being uncertain is a different option to not holding or holding the belief, ie. they consider the belief as they go about things, but they can still take a contrary view.
This is splitting the definition again.
I see it such:
Vote yes: They hold the belief.
Vote dunno: They are uncertain of the belief.
Vote no: They do not hold the belief.
You are attempting to add another rung below this called:
Vote anti-yes: They hold the opposite of the belief.
This last option is just playing on connotation, they only way it is different to not holding the belief is that its a stronger wording: ie. you’re more sure of your status, but your actual status hasnt changed.
Again, here all you are stating is “I do not hold Religious belief X”.
Of course not. Since you dont have religious belief X, you arent going to have any reason to hold religious beliefs X1, X2, etc, and indeed, you would have a hard time accepting X1 without X.
This really is just a change of wording you know. I just dont like the idea of holding an anti-belief, I think its an unnecessarily silly way of looking at the problem.
This is my point with the stuff above. Atheism is not an anti-theory, it is just the absence of a theory. There is nothing to prove or disprove, and this doesnt lead to uncertainty, just a lack of the belief in question.
I think its some kinda deconstruction point im making here. By rejecting X in the sense holding not-X, you necessarily give X a kind of existence. Like, how solipsism in the Tractatus is unstatable, since to say “I” automatically implies dividing the world into subjects “you”, “him” ,etc. The real way to reject X is to say -.
I find a bigger problem in creating structures based on nothing, or unsound things. I can arbitrarily create any structure I like, but there is no point in doing so if its not necessary to explain the facts of the world.
if you dont believe that it was god, then you either believe that it was something besides god, something mechanical like the laws of physics, or you just admit that you dont know. i think if you admit that you dont know, that should be called agnosticism. if you believe that its the mechanical laws of physics, thats like mechanicology or something.
if you havent made a decision, i dont see why youd say atheist instead of agnostic, unless you are slightly leaning towards mechanicology. you should obviously reject mechanicology equally as theism
heres a fact of the world: it exists. if you want to explain this strange fact, you need an essentially arbitrary structure of the unknown. you have three options: arbitrary structure based on conscious decision maker (theism), arbitrary structure based on inanimate objects (mechanicology, atheism), or ‘i dunno’!
‘i dunno’ cant be less theistic without being more mechanological. if you say you are atheist instead of agnostic, theres a reason! are you saying the only reason is because agnostic gives the possibility of god more credit than you are willing to give it? because that would mean that you have a slight bit of anti-godism. why?
i totally still dont understand the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism if it isnt this slight bit of pro-mechanology and anti-theism. its not conclusive anti-theism, but its a slight bit that leads you to use the word atheism instead of agnosticism, right? so why the anti-theism and necessarily pro-mechanology?
well i believe that there is not a unicorn on my desk who reflects photons in the normal way for one reason: i trust that my eyes are functioning properly. im allowed to think that he is not here right now, im allowed to be pretty darn sure of it.
so why is god not likely? regardless of whether or not you are ever capable of changing your belief.
my worldview includes a greater, consciously created metaphysical purpose, ie god. i think this is better because it feels good. eternal death is less comfortable. i think if theres absolutely no evidence supporting anything, the belief that includes eternal death and no purpose should be completely avoided, due simply to the fact that the main part of it is disgusting.
surely, if you are slightly leaning the tiniest bit, even if you havent made the final decision, towards eternal death and away from my conveniently wrapped up package, there must be some other, unrelated reason that leans you in that disgusting direction.
is the difference between the weak atheist and the agnostic this slight leaning? why lean?
Something extra physical is impossible. Physics is a descriptive science, and if something defies description then the description is changed to suit the new evidence. So, in this sense, no matter what my beliefs in God or even if i am uncertain, I will be a mechanicologist (do i get a badge?).
I am not uncertain in my belief in God, nor do i have a complete account of the origin of the universe. I am not worried by this (partly) because i dont think causality must apply to the universe as a whole (which would make causality a meta-universal law and necessitate another structure over and above the universe, thus question begging). This gives me a reason for rejecting the question “how did the universe come about?” as nonsensical anyway.
But also (partly) because my lack of belief in God has nothing to do with the origin of the universe and thus i dont link the two. I am not uncertain of my belief like an agnostic, thus i dont attempt to apply god in such problems at all. I would be insane to ever seriously entertain the notion that X did Y, if I have no evidence for X, even if I was unsure of Y.
For example, I have absolutely no idea why Marmite tastes so good. But I’m not about to run through the list of possible entities that could be responsible for the taste of Marmite if I have no evidence for the entities themselves (Easter Bunny, Unicorns, Compassionate Conservatives, etc). Its an incredibly stupid way of trying to find out the actual answer.
I have made a decision, I have decided to reject the belief in God, I have considered the evidence and found it insubstantial. Thus, I do not believe in God, and I’m an Atheist. My lack of belief is not in doubt by the evidence Im aware of.
If I had found some evidence, but not enough for me to be confident or there was also some evidence against, then i would be uncertain, and thus Agnostic.
first, as for saying that everything is subject to physical laws, i disagree, obviously only because of my definition of physical. i would say that god is not physical because he is not made up of particles subject to the electro-strongo-weak force, nor does he occupy a position in three dimensional space, travel forward in time at a roughly uniform rate, or have shit that stinks.
things that are physical are the ones that he created (or that the mechanical god spewed) that we can interact with. the realm of the creator is necessarily separate from the physical laws that we know in this universe because in this universe, there is time and necessarily causality. in order for a creator to not require an infinite regression of more creators, he must exist in a “place” that has no time or causality, at least not the way we understand it.
if there is a mechanical god, then obviously he is subject to some laws as that is what i mean when i say mechanical. those laws would happen to not include time, but thats irrelevant. this whole little section here is kind of irrelevant, just more pain in the ass semantics.
so being agnostic means that you dont have enough information to be confident. wouldnt that mean that your atheism means that you are confident? what anti-god evidence supports your confidence?
what anti-god evidence supports anybody’s slight leaning towards atheism, away from theism, away from agnosticism? whatever those stupid words mean is completely irrelevant, you know what i mean, its really not that hard.
“some evidence” should include the very fact that the universe exists, and happiness feels good, and silly things like that that arent actual proof. you either believe the mechanic explanation for the origin of these things, the religious one, or neither. thats only three options, two of which contain beliefs composed of evidence.
what evidence are you referring to that you found insubstantial? why is that not an example of the evidence that you are referring to that would cause you to be an agnostic? would the agnostic evidence be something like a magical miracle that might have just been a huge coincidence? and the insubstantial evidence would be something that you think is entirely unrelated to the question of a magical sky man, like the mere fact that the universe exists or humans dont know what happens after death? ill assume this is what you mean until you give me an example.
lets look at a piece of evidence that would cause you to be agnostic. the magic miracle, mother theresa heals someone after she ran out of penicilin. it could be a real life miracle, or she could have been hiding more penicilin, trying to trick us all into cannonizing her. either god zapped it, or some process took place in the physical world that we can understand and reproduce.
compare that to the evidence you refer to that you have found insubstantial. the universe exists. i think this piece of evidence is totally comparable to the miracle, in every way. you have two possible explanations. either god zapped and we have no clue how, or there is some physical machinery that can be observed, predicted and reproduced.
give me some examples of this evidence. which have you found insubstantial and which would cause you to become agnostic?
i STILL dont see the difference between weak atheism and agnosticism except for a slight leaning towards disbelief that must be based on some seemingly rational evidence that i am capable of providing a counterargument against. thats why i want you to cite this evidence.
what made you think that the evidence supporting theism was insubstantial? the fact that that evidence doesnt actually support gods existence any more than it supports the existence of a mechanical god?
if you have found that the mechanical god is EXACTLY as likely as a real one, why isnt that agnostic???
lets stop talking about what stupid words mean and answer my question: if you lean slightly away from believing in god towards believing in mechanicology, why lean? why not be exactly in the middle?
i think any reason for leaning anywhere is irrational, and my leaning towards god is also irrational. my irrational reasons make me feel good, as do most of the implications of the idea that i am willing to accept. the implications of atheism that you must accept (eternal death, never fully understanding the universe) are unnattractive, and i feel it is my duty to stop people from forcing themselves to accept those unnattractive things simply because they think theism is impossible. theism is very possible without being illogical at all. its not proven, but it is completely possible without having to say things like “stfu, god doesnt have to explain what his son dying has to do with forgiving your sins”
this is what im looking for. if we can find a way to explore this issue, “where does causality end?” i think this thread can be uniquely good.
i think this idea applies to the creator, not to the universe itself. the universe needs a first cause, because everything subject to physical laws happened as a result of something else. everything. i think an infinitely long historical record is just as nonsensical as saying that a god who doesnt need a creator is capable of creating things… uh… you know what, fuck this time question. if someone has something great to say about it, go ahead, but this thing is way over humanity’s head for the next 100 years or so. i give up, and am therefore agnostic.
whats the deal with that first sentence? what kind of god is unrelated to the origin of the universe? youre simply saying that you found enough evidence elsewhere first, and so didnt need to bother answering the impossible causality question?
wait a second, im not trying to explain how the universe was created. im trying to say that the idea of some kind of conscious creator and mechanical creator are equally plausible. im not seriously proposing that we all believe the omnisoul theory, im seriously proposing that if your problem with theism is the lack of plausible theories, you need to check out some more theories. lots of people are atheists because of the many countless logical inconsistencies of christianity. the purpose of this thread is to explain that none of them are necessarily connected to theism or even the pursuit of selflessness.
your example of the marmite is more complex than what im doing. you seem to be suggesting that its ridiculous to propose a theory of the omnisoul when we have no possible way of proving or disproving the existence of the omnisoul. well i never said i was trying to prove anything at all besides the complete lack of impossibility. christianity has a little speck of impossibility in that it makes no sense for a god to care if you trust a man in a dress who wants your cash and says stuff that he has no supporting evidence of simply because believing is intrinsically good in some way that we cant perceive.
the omnisoul theory has no such silliness, therefore, an atheist cant say that all theories of god are full of things that are impossible. the omnisoul has no parts that are impossible (except for the impossible to describe causality problems which ought to just be ignored as they prove nothing but our lack of understanding).
so therefore, since the strong atheist cant say that all theories of god are impossible, he must have some other supporting evidence for his theory that a mechanical god did it. thats why i made this, to find out why people are atheistic besides the fact that religions who ask for your money and patronage are all wrong.
have you EQUALLY rejected the belief in a mechanical god? if so, you are agnostic (and i dont care about the stupid semantics). if not, tell me why not. tell me more pieces of evidence that go against god, whether or not they are the foundation of whatever belief or lack thereof you might have.
DO NOT tell me what the definition of some stupid word is! i dont care. i care why anybody is not exactly in the center of believing in a conscious creator and mechanical creator. i am pretty sure that everybody is, and if they arent, they can give me what they think is factual evidence and i will refute it. at that point, the only reason for anyone not being exactly in the middle would be irrational, which is fine. id like to discuss those as well.
one thing i absolutely do not want to discuss is semantics. you know what im referring to. why do you lean away from the center. i lean because theism is happy and atheism is death. thats irrational, but its a reason. what are the reasons for leaning away from god? irrational or not.
sorry for the sprawling reply. Ive cut repetitions where possible, but in doing so i might have missed an important point, let me know if thats the case.
Doesnt matter, no matter the contents. If its in experience, then even if it breaks current laws, new laws will be made to describe it (even if phycists are so confounded they have to call it a divine force).
Thats fine, but if he influences the physical universe then that influence must be accounted for by a revision in the physical law. This isnt a constraint on god, but a constraint on the nature of descriptive laws.
I told you, it isnt anti-god, just the absence of god. I dont need evidence to show that there is an absence of something (and such evidence is impossible, the invisible pink unicorn thing).
To be confident about the absence of something, i just have to have considered all the evidence i can be reasonably aware of.
Um? I think i know what you mean, i just dont mean the same thing. No evidence for the lack of belief is required. Lack of belief is always the default state for any particular belief, and only evidence can change this.
Religion doesnt explain those things very well, if at all (its theories fail to account, or even flatly contradict the available evidence). As such, they arent substantial evidence.
Obviously direct evidence is hard to come by, so we have to rely on arguments which show existing (usually well known) evidence to support god. I mean stuff like, cosmological, ontological, teleological and prudential arguments. As well as stuff like reports on miracles and religious experience.
Im not gonna go through everything here, but “The Non-existence of God” by Nicholas Everitt is pretty thorough.
I guess yeah. If there was a miracle or something that would definitely count, or a compelling argument that suggested some kind of deity even.
I see the origin of the universe differently.
There are two possibilities: the universe has a cause, or it doesnt. If it does (this has problems but i wont go into it) then that cause could be conscious or not (a deity or just mechanistic).
Non-conscious is simpler than conscious. Consciousness is not required to explain the cause, thus the simpler and thus more preferable explanation is non-conscious. Anything on top of the simplest explanation is insubstantial speculation (you are no longer explaning the evidence, but inventing stuff).
The default state without evidence is not uncertainty, its rejection. You may not be completely sure, but you wont consider this uncertain proposition in daily life.
There are lots of arguments for god, its not just that they all point to something non-conscious, some of them are simply unconvincing or wrong.
Because the mechanical explanation is simpler, and thus doesnt speculate. Speculation is nonsense.
Not leaning. Default. You are the one leaning towards uncertainty.
This is a matter of opinion, and if the truth was a matter of opinion I would go for this life being it. This puts more value on the moment rather than diluting it with meaningless and boring ‘bliss’ and relegating my life to a test. Not existing is not a bad thing, you spent several billion years doing it before you were born after all.
Start a new thread if you wanna go into it, i havent tried those ideas out in public yet anyhow
All I meant was that i dont consider god in my daily life (daily life also means considering the origin of the universe and other such things).
The lack of impossibility is not the same as uncertainty. Things are only uncertain if they are reasonably probable, and for that to be the case then there has to be evidence which isnt better explained by competing theories.
This is absolute and utter nonsense.
“since a guy who doesnt believe in unicorns cant say that all theories about the origin of unicorns are impossible, he must have some other supporting evidence for his theory that only horses exist”
Im sorry, but without evidence, im not even gonna consider a belief, i dont have to find it impossible before im allowed to stop considering it.
Suurree we are. This debait looks thoroughly pointless. These damned argements on both sides could have been put in a few simple sentances instead of an essay.It boils down to definition.Looks like a definition can’t be agreed apon.Thus this thread looks like a repeating decimal.(both sides wont compromise.)
and here i thought i was debating how and what criteria we need to hold or not hold or be uncertain of beliefs.
This doesnt seem like just semantics to me, though using different definitions of course does muddy the water and thats why its best to be clear with aforementioned essays rather than obtuse little sentances.
Futureman…I’ve come to experience your genius, that I may learn and grow!
No-one can define God other than in terms of their own or someone elses imagination so what is there to believe in…?
There is a possibility of God. There is also a possibility of a giant turtle holding up the universe [God might be an absurdist]. There’s a possibility everything I experience is a figment of my imagination and that my mind is the only one in existence. There’s a possibility the world and everything in it only came into being five minutes ago. Your brilliant opening post is a possibility. There are possibilites everywhere you look but why should I believe in any of them?
Fabiano,
Even if that were true and there is an absolute moral standard, how do we know what it is? All we have is human reason to try and work it out. Religious morality is really as relative as any other, since people pick and choose from religious texts what meshes with their own moral conscience. For example some christians say homosexuality is moral, others say it is immoral. There are always interpretations to be had, unless you are a foaming fundamentalist who accepts every word of doctrine as literal truth, but somehow I dont think that would lead to a good moral outcome or get us any closer to a moral absolute, should it exist.
Over time religious morality changes too, in accord with changes in thinking. That’s why it’s no longer considered moral to keep slaves or burn witches, whereas at one time it was. Even in the one faith there are different sects espousing different moral values…so i cant see how religious morality is any superior to secular morality. In fact it could be powerfully argued it’s worse because it 's bonded to ancient precepts which lay claim to infallibility. That sort of thing can stand in the way of a clear view of things.
“Most people have rejected the vast majority of gods that have ever existed, atheists have just gone one god further”
A religious man must justify why he is right and the other infintesimally different beliefs that use almost exactly the same arguments are wrong, not only difficult but stupid. The atheist just has the one point to work with…
Not directly related to this topic but I was wondering if some one could tell me what the theist argument would be for this. Just the name of the argument would be enough so I can google it.
no, someone who believes in a very specific theory like the omnisoul or christianity has to do that. in order to be a theist and not an atheist, you simply have to think that the creator makes conscious decisions and is not a physical process.
the only evidence supporting the idea that we were created by a physical process is the fact that everything else is created by a physical process. thats a pretty good reason, but certainly not a solid one.
there really isnt much evidence supporting the conscious creator along these same lines. maybe you could say that since the creator and the created thing are so different, it would be like humans creating computers out of rocks. there is no way a rock is going to physically turn into a computer without someone with a serious brain controlling it. likewise, you might be able to say that whatever the meta-universe looks like, the regular universe is so different and complex (its the first thing to ever have time in it) that it must have been crafted by intelligence.
since we know nothing of the structure of the meta-universe, its laws or its population, you cant actually say that EITHER of these things is the default.
you cant just say “oh occams razor chops it down to mechanicology” because look at computers. lets say we were watching the universe from outside of it, and we found computers, but not humans. somehow, two things that are unfamiliar with human consciousness are arguing about how those computers got there. one thinks the rocks made it with their physical laws, and the other think that little, undetectable creatures made the conscious decisions to create them.
if these two debaters dont know about the laws of the rocks, or what human consciousness is like or how it is created, how can either of them say that they are right? how can either of them say that their explanation of the origin of the computers is occam’s favorite simplicity? they cant, because they dont know jack about it.
you dont know that mechanicology is the more simple explanation any more than i know that theism is! just because most things are pure mechanics does not mean that the creation of the machinery is more likely mechanical than conscious. thats like saying that since all apples are red, the inside of the tree must be red. the source of the actions in our universe (magnets pulling together, planets orbiting, intelligent life evolving) could be as unrelated to the causes of actions in the metaverse as the cause of the color in the apples is unrelated to the cause of the color in the center of the tree.
you dont know jack, occam doesnt know jack. so far ive heard that the main reason for atheism is occams razor. i feel like i just refuted that. please continue arguing pro-atheism.
It depends on whether you are looking for consolation or truth. If there’s no evidence supporting anything then the only truthful position is to believe nothing in particular.
It doesn’t follow that not believing in your package deal means leaning in another direction. Its possible to not believe in God and not believe in oblivion/eternal death or any other theory regarding the meaning of existence at the same time. I’d rather let the mystery be than try to fill it with a personally satisfying package just because it might feel good. Anyway in order for it to really feel good you would have to actually believe it, not just want to believe it. The problem for many skeptics is they find it hard to believe things which have “no supporting evidence.”
Not really, because God doesn’t answer the question of why anything exists. Taking your statement to its highest generalization proves the point.
Q Why does something exist rather than nothing?
A Because of God
Q Why does something, including God, exist rather than nothing?
God then, doesn’t answer the question. It just poses another one.
Its entirely descriptive, no need for an imperative element.