Print

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

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[wierd]

How is that any different, really, from:

"I have the lack of evidence for your god behind me, I am right, you're not, you can't judge me because your god is not real."

??

[TD1]

It's not.

I have yet to meet an atheist who would say "you can't judge me" except for the odd one in books. Such arrogant self assurance is the preserve of those with a belief, rather than a lack of one, as a general rule.

The atheist who says "I am doing this for nothingness! Nothingness is right! I am right because nothingness is behind this!" Is rare.

[wierd]

Really? Then how do you explain the popular trends of atheistic sentiment toward the wanton destruction of religious faith, rather than ignoring it?  The seeming "need" that many have to evangelize their "lack of belief"?

One is sessile, the other is proactive.  Given that proactive atheism seems to exist (look at Dawkins!) how do you justify your previous statement?

What I am getting at, is that by its very nature, evangelism requires faith. Lack of faith is sessile. Belief in absence permits evangelism.

[TD1]

I never said it didn't exist. Just that I haven't talked to any, and have only read about them/read their work.

It is just more common in religion than in atheism. It makes logical sense, anyway. The theist believes in an absolutist approach and is convinced of their rightness. The atheist is more flexible in that regard, and many won't say "I'm absolutely correct," but instead, like me and nearly everyone on this forum, would say "God is possible. It's just that possibility is as tiny as (to use the typical go-to example that I use) that of Santa Claus."

[wierd]

No, Santa Claus is less likely to exist, as we are able to explore the north pole.  We cannot explore supernatural domains, due to their supernaturality. We cannot even define the parameters of existence for a supernatural entity.

This is also the same argument I have against the "orbiting teapot" rhetoric, and others like it. It is logically possible for us to have perfect awareness of all orbiting bodies in our solar system, given sufficient investment.

The same CANNOT be said for things that logically lie OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. We simply do not, and can never have, the tools or methods needed to test for the existence of a supernatural being. It is logically impossible.

[TD1]

We are able to explore the North Pole, yes. But as everyone knows, he has magic. His toy factory need not be in plain sight, much like heaven. But fine. If you don't want to use the example of Santa Claus, try Zeus. Try the creator in any fictional book who is as probable as God is.

Besides, God isn't outside the physical universe. Were it true he would "logically lie outside the physical universe" then, logically, Jesus wouldn't have existed. God would not have caused the flood. God would not have talked to anyone, performed miracles, settled wars, turned people into salt.

God is ultimately physical, as only that which is physical can be a part of the physical world.

[Bohandas]

We are able to explore the North Pole, yes. But as everyone knows, he has magic. His toy factory need not be in plain sight, much like heaven. But fine. If you don't want to use the example of Santa Claus, try Zeus. Try the creator in any fictional book who is as probable as God is.

Besides, God isn't outside the physical universe. Were it true he would "logically lie outside the physical universe" then, logically, Jesus wouldn't have existed. God would not have caused the flood. God would not have talked to anyone, performed miracles, settled wars, turned people into salt.

God is ultimately physical, as only that which is physical can be a part of the physical world.

Read the novel Mogworld

[Rolan7]

This proactive atheist movement is mostly an American thing, and it's a defensive response to the powerful fundamentalist Christian lobby.  In nations where Christians don't try to legislate their morality, atheists don't mobilize because they don't need to.

As I've shown a few times, Atheism (as in, even basic skepticism) is absurdly under-represented in the US Congress:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/congress-religious-affiliation_n_6417074.html

I'm not saying 91.8% is *fundamentalist* Christian, but it's still telling.  And the fundamentalists are the backbone of the "moral conservatives" resisting positive social change.

I'm not a loud atheist because I hate people being wrong, though it helps.  I'm loud because I can be legally fired for liking guys.  I have to praise God in the Pledge of Allegiance and when I use cash money.  I'm loud because women are being denied reproductive rights based on *faith*.  Because stem cell research has been held back years based on *faith*.  Because climate change is being denied based on *faith*.  Because evolution is often presented as "just a theory" alongside an unscientific non-explanation which makes no predictions.

I don't hate Christians, but I hate what Christian political groups are doing to the country and me personally.  I just want important issues to be discussed rationally rather than resorting to faith.  That's literally all I'm arguing for.

And obviously there are progressive Christians, God bless.  People whose morals are so strong that they're able to interpret heinous, hateful religious texts in a loving way.  Focusing exclusively on the few nice parts.  I consider them to be especially good people because they overcome and reject the evil in their dogmas.

[wierd]

Somebody has not been reading the fictional book they are ranting against, I see.

Characteristics of God, as defined by the bible:
Is the beginning and ending of all things.
Created the physical universe (not just the earth.)
Used Jesus as an avatar to accomplish some goal in heaven (not well stated, just that jesus's sacrifice satisfies some set of obscure laws in the divine realm)
"Is literally all things"

Those describe an extra-universal entity, which contains our universe. A thumb on a person's hand is not the person. It is a thumb. Searching the thumb for evidence of the whole person is logically absurd. However, the person can freely manipulate and even mutilate the thumb at their whim. The teapot analogy people are basically implying that not exploring something that can be explored is the same as not exploring something that cannot be explored. They are not the same thing.

"God" can exist as described, and satisfy all of those features, by being extra-universal in nature. It simultaneously explains how this entity is both beginning and end, is omniscient about the past, present, and future of our universe, and yet still seems bound by some set of laws and conventions. 

Like many, you fall victim to preconceptions about the religion, rather than critically thinking about what is actually being stated in the religious texts. EG, what is actually written, vs the dogma associated.

Again, I am an agnostic, and a hard one at that. I dont KNOW that there is an extra-universal god, nor that our universe is merely a component thereof-- I am just pointing out that such a theoretical model holds with the description, and that your argument does not hold against such a circumstance.

[TD1]

You use the Bible, an account of a physical God who has physical presence (even wrestling people) to describe an outside-universe God?

My point being, if he were outside the universe we couldn't know him. Spongebob could be outside the universe. The Kraken. We wouldn't know.

[wierd]

No, your understanding of what is actually in the bible is what I am questioning. The bible does not define the christian god as a physical being, but as a "Spiritual one", and outright asserts that the mind of god IS unknowable.

[Rolan7]

An "extra-dimensional" entity is just a black box.  The thing about black boxes is, scientific testing can create an increasingly accurate model of what's inside.  Based on how this entity interacts with our existence, we can figure out what it's likely to do next.

We can't prove the nonexistence of a god who never interacts with us, but it's meaningless.  If the god does interact with us, is it really outside our universe in a meaningful way?

A brain in a jar isn't actually in a separate universe, it just perceives things that way.  It can be effected by reality and, theoretically, learn things about reality.

[wierd]

Indeed, but there are limits to what such black box testing can accomplish--

In this circumstance, we have a 'god' that sits outside the universe, and has some vested interest in the goings on inside that universe. There are mechanics inside our universe that it could employ to accomplish goals that would subvert all attempts at positive attribution of agency by that god.  Take for instance, quantum vacuum fluctuations.  As long as the total vacuum energy potentials remain balanced, any outcome simply looks like random chance.  Pile enough random chance encounters on top of each other, and you end up with the improbable. Human scientists invent untestable theories like Many Worlds to satisfy the coincidences.

In short, this god's method of agency may merely be sustaining the rules that would ground the many worlds hypothesis as fact, and be willing to purge an infinite number of universes of its creation, to achieve its version of the logically perfect one.

You would never be able to know this.

[TD1]

God is physical because he acts in the physical realm. The most obvious example is Jesus. How is it meaningful to say "God is not of this universe" when he works within this universe? Of course, this argument crumbles if you say the Bible is wrong and he didn't act in that way. He didn't speak to people, didn't wrestle people, didn't come to earth as Jesus. However, as the basis for belief in God rests on that text, all you are left with is a God who sits outside this realm and interacts with it (and, again, I would ask how that which is capable of interacting with the physical is not in itself physical? A ghost is typically seen as not physical, and also typically cannot interact.) but, as he acts just like random chance, it is a meaningless God that we don't know, and which doesn't necessarily even care about us. Utterly impersonal, alien, and non human.

Of course, when you have random chance it's simpler to simply say it is random chance than to say it was God.

[wierd]

Your argument is flawed:

Scientists wrestle with germs all the time with micro pipettes. Does that mean the scientists are in the petri dish?

When the game is rigged, you can make the game itself into your avatar, and thus have avatars of your avatar. Jesus can be attributed as such a meta-avatar.  Created through the agency of this entity, to accomplish a goal of that entity, using the rules of the universe it was created in, through a process indistinguishable from random chance, but guaranteed to happen, due to many worlds being true, and the willingness to sacrifice an unlimited number of alternative timelines.