Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cerapa]

Yes, perhaps I do have a failing to understand the concept you describe. Because I do think everyone has a belief in or against everything.

Ah, this sums up our differences pretty much. Our definitions seem to be in order.

Lets take the question "Do you believe in a god?"
Now, lets take another question "Do you believe in the lack of a god?"

Lets say we have a different situation and topic. Lets say you know that a ball is in a box, and you know that it is either red or blue. You have no further information.

Lets take the first question "Do you believe the ball is blue?"
The answer is, of course, no, you have no reason to assume the ball is blue rather than red. You believe it is possible that the ball is blue.

Lets take the second question "Do you believe the ball is red?"
The answer is the same as with blue, you have no reason to presume things. It is simply a possibility.

Thus the answer to both is thus no. You dont believe the ball is blue nor that it is red. You believe(actually, you know in this case) that the ball is either red or blue, which is another option entirely. A belief in possibility, rather than in certainty.

Basically there is another entirely different belief line, belief in possibilities rather than in certainties. You technically dont believe in either of the options, only that both options are possible. An answer of "yes", being a belief in certainty, would force the other to be a "no", but both can be a "no" at the same time, as neither are a belief in certainty.

EDIT: I love discussions where I learn things. The whole "belief in possibilities" came to me while writing this post and realizing that I wrote a sentence that was seemingly paradoxical ("I dont believe that the ball is blue nor that it is red."). Went WTF for a second there until I figured out where I went wrong.

[Bauglir]

I would like to just leave a reminder that the definitions argument is poison to this kind of thread. We do need to get it out of the way, but we should do so as fast as possible, and people should be willing to make concessions if they'll make that happen. Remember, if you're arguing in this thread to correct someone, we have a problem.

[Phmcw]

I like ignosticism, and use it in a weak atheist framework.

At the question does god exist, I answer : what is god? Make being a weak atheist much easier in a debate.

[_DivideByZero_]

Most Christian philosophers would argue that God is a necessary omnipotent, omniscient being, and their arguments reflect this.

@Bauglir This always happens. The only place you won't have people quibbling over definitions is a philosophy forum where only the occasional troll starts a definitions argument. Anywhere else you can't really have a "generic" theology discussion without having this kind of argument pop up time and time again.

Which is why I don't usually bother.

[Cthulhu]

Regardless, arguments over what letter goes before -theist and what that means will kill a discussion dead.

These are the definitions I use:

Strong atheism:  "God" does not describe a thing that exists.  The existence of a thing describable as "God" can be determined empirically.
Weak atheism:  Lack of belief that "God" describes a thing that exists.  The existence of a thing describable as "God" cannot be determined empirically.
Agnosticism:  Without further information the question of whether a thing described as "God" exists is moot.  God cannot be determined empirically.
Ignosticism/Igtheism:  "God" must be defined.  If the definition is unfalsifiable, go to weak atheism


Theism's a bit more variable since there are so many conceptions of God.  I'm igtheist.  I'm not sure a true strong theism exists because if a being worthy of worship could be empirically proven we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And yes.  "I don't believe in God" and "God does not exist" are separate and distinct standpoints in my view.

[Tabbyman]

I started out atheist fundamentalist (faithful followers of the almighty lab-coat priesthood whose word is always truth, as long as it's peer reviewed by the established priesthood). I swung around to some kind of exploration of pagan stuff for a bit but it didn't sink in. (edit: typo)

I'm floating in the limbo of agnosticism, where everything is subject to change. It's not that I don't believe in anything or don't see any wonder or mystery in the world. Quite the contrary.

I see awe and wonder in the mysteries that cannot be explained, the histories that have been lost forever, and the unpredictability of the amazing things that happen as the future comes. I see something incredible, baffling, immense in its profundity, and completely indescribable by the power of written and spoken language in the wonders of the mind.

If anything is godlike to me, if anything is to be worshipped by this skeptic former atheist who prefers to see before believing, it's to be found in the exploration of the full strangeness of the mind. It's probably not surprising coming from me.

Dreaming is a beautiful example. It requires no drugs (except the ones produced in your brain), you can do it every single night/morning without losing your grip on reality, bad dreams are much less common than bad trips, with practice the depth and detail is extremely impressive (with 3 in-depth dreams clearly remembered in a night in my case), and the potential for and frequency of bizzare situations and experiences in my dreams was HIIIIIGH when I was really into it.

I had a dream where I was blasting extremely powerful magical blasts at some kind of diabolical dragon monster, and I almost accidentally obliterated all my allies with my excessive show of force... But some old wise white bearded gandalf-like figure popped in at the last second and shielded them with his own magic.

The intensity of that experience was like no videogame or real event in my life. The blast was enormous and devastating in its proportion, and was RIGHT THERE. I've seen other such things in dreams, where the world was blown to pieces by an overzealous "final fantasy character" in a world full of final fantasy parties of varying classicness. Some guy comes up and is like "bahahaha ultra mega super bolt spell" or something, I really don't know what but that's what it looked like when it hit... It was like... *JAW DROPS!....* Immense flashes of light!!! Incredible lightshow indeed... complete with the world blowing to pieces and being tracked down by some bad guy on a floating chunk of world as the dream continued.

Sorry to get so off topic... I meant to say "I devote my spiritual exploration to the mind." In each one of our heads (if the idea that mind is physically stored and operated in the brain) there's something of godlike profundity and incomprehensible complexity. The sheer range of possible experiences and perceptions of our mind extends far beyond what's physically possible for our everyday bodies, and extends far beyond what one can even wrap one's mind around or explain in any language. It seems almost like a paradox that something believed to be inside our heads is incomprehensible by said head in its enormity. The mind cannot comprehend itself, it's so complex and strange.

I'm just not quite comfortable calling it a god in and of itself, nor do my beliefs in the area of mind mesh with established science, or even measurable science. Science doesn't like the idea that two people experiencing the exact same hallucination detail for detail may be either exchanging or picking up information from outside, SOMEHOW.

Too spooky for science to explore the idea that "spirit" may exist indeed, or that mind may not entirely be internal.

I'm not a very popular kind of agnostic, I think.

Random note, who here has ever heard of psychedelic Christianity? There are churches in this world that worship Jesus and take psychedelic drugs in a religious context. They consult the Lord in person. I think that rocks.

[DwarfMeister]

People seem interested in having a religious discussion, but we seem to lack a place for it right now. I like to think I burned myself out on internet religion debates in high school, so I think I can handle this.

Now, for those of you who don't know, atheism threads in the past have become huge megathreads of circular arguments and hatred. Honestly, I won't be surprised if this gets locked eventually. But let's try to have as much good discussion as we can, thanks.

Rules:

• Don't be a dick. Whether religious condemnation or atheistic condescension, we're all prone to it. Try not to do it please. No matter what your religious views, you're not enlightened. You're not smarter than everyone else.
• No flaming. Things here can get personal. If someone's not outright being a troll, step back and maybe think about it a little bit. Respond calmly, basically.
• If you don't understand something, feel free to ask people. Not everyone's going to understand religious views. But ask politely. Things like "How could you possibly believe that?" are breaking rule #1.
• Try to use citations wherever they're relevant. They're not required for things like personal philosophy, but bringing up links and relevant material is rarely a bad thing.
• Try not to rehash the same discussion over and over again. These arguments can get really circular, and a bit of that is inevitable but just try to avoid it if possible.
• Keep past threads out of this if possible. I know we're a small community, and I know you might recognize someone from a past thread, but it really shuts down discussion if someone posts once and they get five people going "Oh, you're that guy. I remember you. You said this dumb thing."

Feel free to make rules suggestions.

I believe in God. That is all I am going to tell you.

[MrWiggles]

How can you be a fundy atheist? There no doctrines or dogma to vehemently cline to.

I believe in God. That is all I am going to tell you.

Thank you for your interjection. Why did you bring something up if you didnt want to talk about it?

[Tabbyman]

How can you be a fundy atheist? There no doctrines or dogma to vehemently cline to.

Believe me, there is dogma. There are people who believe the most popular theory with absolute faith, without considering whether there are holes in it, without considering the validity of other theories. These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.

Not saying all atheists are fundamentalist, just saying that it's possible to have a fundy's level of unquestioning faith when you claim to have escaped religion into science. It's a pretty easy pattern of thinking to fall into, no reason it has to be exclusively the domain of traditional religion.

Not all atheists or people with an interest in science believe everything they hear from everybody in a labcoat. Some critically examine any claims and the methodology of scientific studies. Some admit that even a scientist can lie.

I used to have faith. Now I'm skeptical but don't consider science to be some kind of farce, just an imperfect human tool of reality exploration, capable of deluding itself and the public just like anybody is capable of being deluded in their imperfect methods of analysis.

[Supercharazad]

I think it's quite stupid how many people say Agnosticism doesn't exist, and that you MUST be either Athiest or Thiest.

Why is there no room in this equation for people who want some sort of proof before believing something? I believe air exists, because I can feel it. I believe electricity exists, because I've been shocked by it. I believe things are made of cells, because I have seen these cells with my own eyes under a microscope.
I don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.
I don't believe he *doesn't* exist, because I haven't been shown decisive proof on that either.

One thing I thought was funny was that when on multiple occaisions I asked my Religion teacher (Catholic Grammar School) why Jesus didn't just show himself and prove that he exists, she said that he did it 2000 years ago therefore we must have faith and you must believe in him or you will burn in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. Why should I believe in the teachings of an ancient civilisation from 2000 years ago? Only 1000 years ago we still thought the Earth was flat, but anyone who has been high enough can tesitify that they can see the curvature of the Earth.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.

*facepalm*
That's how science works. Everything is being attacked all the time so false theories can be discarded. To crib Tim Minchin, alternative theories that can't be validly attacked are called theories.

Some admit that even a scientist can lie.

Everyone can lie, but scientists have little motive to lie about their studies. If you make a study that you know is wrong, then in peer-review another scientist will eventually discover in the process of peer-reviewing that you are, in fact, wrong and will expose that so they can take all the credit for discarding false information.

I don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.
I don't believe he *doesn't* exist, because I haven't been shown decisive proof on that either.

Do you not believe ghosts don't exist because you haven't been shown decisive proof that they don't? Of course not. You can't prove a negative. It follows that not believing in god is thus the default.

Only 1000 years ago we still thought the Earth was flat, but anyone who has been high enough can tesitify that they can see the curvature of the Earth.

No, actually. Earth was widely known to be a sphere of some manner since the days of the Hellenistic Greeks. People in the past thinking Earth is flat is inaccurate.

[DwarfMeister]

My post from higher up was meant as a reply and not a quote. Sorry.

[Tabbyman]

These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.

*facepalm*
That's how science works. Everything is being attacked all the time so false theories can be discarded. To crib Tim Minchin, alternative theories that can't be validly attacked are called theories.

Some admit that even a scientist can lie.

Everyone can lie, but scientists have little motive to lie about their studies. If you make a study that you know is wrong, then in peer-review another scientist will eventually discover in the process of peer-reviewing that you are, in fact, wrong and will expose that so they can take all the credit for discarding false information.

*Facepalm to your facepalm*
There's a difference between rabid attacks and rational attacks. Rabid attacks don't take into account logic, data, scientific method, etc. Rabid attacks consist of character assassination and other logical fallacies, personal insults, etc. A prominent climate science spokesman suggested that the homes of "deniers" should be burned down to save the rest of humanity. (hmmm isn't that bad for the environment by the way?) Many popular scientific dogma are highly incongruent with the data and don't employ the scientific method, but rather rely on grants fed by politically motivated institutions that seek to find a certain thing to be true rather than to find what the truth happens to be.

And unfortunately, peer review doesn't work that way. It happens to support whatever dogma is currently most widely believed. It has a tendency to block alternative views, not unscientific theories.

EDIT: By the way, if you don't pick up the party line and decide to investigate alternative theories in a valid scientific manner, BAM! You lose your career and reputation, grants, etc. No motive to lie? Reeeeeally?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's a difference between rabid attacks and rational attacks. Rabid attacks don't take into account logic, data, scientific method, etc. Rabid attacks consist of character assassination and other logical fallacies, personal insults, etc. A prominent climate science spokesman suggested that the homes of "deniers" should be burned down to save the rest of humanity. (hmmm isn't that bad for the environment by the way?)

The radical opinions of a spokesman is irreverent to the actual science and scientists involved in climate change research.

Many popular scientific dogma are highly incongruent with the data and don't employ the scientific method, but rather rely on grants fed by politically motivated institutions that seek to find a certain thing to be true rather than to find what the truth happens to be.

You're talking about think tanks. Think tanks are not science. (Usually.)

And unfortunately, peer review doesn't work that way. It happens to support whatever dogma is currently most widely believed. It has a tendency to block alternative views, not unscientific theories.

What are you on about? Peer review does not support what is most widely believed, it supports what remains true in the face of repeated testing from multiple sources. Even if a more popular false theory exists, peer review ensures that it will be discarded and replaced by the more accurate one exists.

EDIT: By the way, if you don't pick up the party line and decide to investigate alternative theories in a valid scientific manner, BAM! You lose your career and reputation, grants, etc. No motive to lie? Reeeeeally?

Do you know what happens if you establish an important new truth in science? Your career is immortalized. You get more grant money than you know what to do with. The rewards for important discovery are massive. There is no "party line" but what stands up to testing.

[MrWiggles]

How can you be a fundy atheist? There no doctrines or dogma to vehemently cline to.

Believe me, there is dogma. There are people who believe the most popular theory with absolute faith, without considering whether there are holes in it, without considering the validity of other theories. These people, some of them being scientists, will rabidly attack any alternative theory instead of scientifically considering alternatives.

I can't believe you...
Atheism isn't a belief system. There is no dogma. And there are anti science atheists.