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

[Antioch]

It is why i identify as agnostic, and not atheist.

It is possible, if unlikely, that a divine entity exists outside of our universe. I cannot remove this possibility. As such, it would be a foolish assertion of blind belief on my part to say one either does or does not exist. When asked, I answer that I simply do not know, and given the nature of the problem, logically cannot know.

Hence hard agnostic.

That's still atheist m8.

And Antioch, that whole sentiment is pretty close to the kind of thing that ends up with you being Wronger Than Wrong.

Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.

In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.

[Bohandas]

I answered atheist, though it is more a description of what I do NOT believe than what I do.

If asked for my convictions I would say that I am a freethinker.

What is freethought?

A quote by William Kingdon Clifford is often cited as a short summary of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

How do you guys identify with the principles of freethought?

There's a lot of "question everything"/"don't believe anything/everyhing you read" stuff in subgenius and discordianism. It's a very good policy. Although pragmatism and the Munchausen Trilemma limit the degree to which it can reasonably be put into practice by the average person.

[Antioch]

I answered atheist, though it is more a description of what I do NOT believe than what I do.

If asked for my convictions I would say that I am a freethinker.

What is freethought?

A quote by William Kingdon Clifford is often cited as a short summary of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

How do you guys identify with the principles of freethought?

There's a lot of "question everything"/"don't believe anything/everyhing you read" stuff in subgenius and discordianism. It's a very good policy. Although pragmatism and the Munchausen Trilemma limit the degree to which it can reasonably be put into practice by the average person.

I wouldn't say "don't believe anything" is an entirely accurate description. You can just base what you believe to be true on the most credible information that is now available to you. You just have to be prepared to accept that when there is new information available there is a chance that you will have to adjust those views. A lot of people don't do this and never question any of the dogma's they believe in.

[Rolepgeek]

It is why i identify as agnostic, and not atheist.

It is possible, if unlikely, that a divine entity exists outside of our universe. I cannot remove this possibility. As such, it would be a foolish assertion of blind belief on my part to say one either does or does not exist. When asked, I answer that I simply do not know, and given the nature of the problem, logically cannot know.

Hence hard agnostic.

That's still atheist m8.

And Antioch, that whole sentiment is pretty close to the kind of thing that ends up with you being Wronger Than Wrong.

Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.

In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.

Being impossible to prove false does not quite mean it's impossible to prove true, nor does it mean that it is not true.

Although I've become less sure about questioning literally everything recently. After a point, saying 'why do you believe that?', and people saying 'because it feels right', well...saying 'hah! This proves you have a terrible basis for your beliefs' isn't actually an argument at all. You can't change your beliefs after all. They can be changed, but you cannot change them simply by force of will. What you profess to believe? Sure. Which belief you'll operate by, if torn between two? Sure. But what you actually believe is true? A lot harder to do on your own.

[Bohandas]

It is why i identify as agnostic, and not atheist.

It is possible, if unlikely, that a divine entity exists outside of our universe. I cannot remove this possibility. As such, it would be a foolish assertion of blind belief on my part to say one either does or does not exist. When asked, I answer that I simply do not know, and given the nature of the problem, logically cannot know.

Hence hard agnostic.

That's still atheist m8.

And Antioch, that whole sentiment is pretty close to the kind of thing that ends up with you being Wronger Than Wrong.

Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.

In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.

Being impossible to prove false does not quite mean it's impossible to prove true, nor does it mean that it is not true.

Although I've become less sure about questioning literally everything recently. After a point, saying 'why do you believe that?', and people saying 'because it feels right', well...saying 'hah! This proves you have a terrible basis for your beliefs' isn't actually an argument at all. You can't change your beliefs after all. They can be changed, but you cannot change them simply by force of will. What you profess to believe? Sure. Which belief you'll operate by, if torn between two? Sure. But what you actually believe is true? A lot harder to do on your own.

This seems to brush on several arguments, including:

Onus probandi
Improper fact-value distinction
Argument from silence
argument from ignorance
non sequitur
appeal to faith

...basically you're just throwing up your arms and giving up rather than making a point. You haven't shown the other arguments to be any less invalid.

[wierd]

some questions are not answerable. it is not a crime, nor intellectually weak to point this out.

also, re: outside universe

there is no other place a creator god could be. Before the big bang, there was no universe. In order to initiate the creation of the universe via the big bang, the creator god must be outside. it cant inhabit something that does not exist yet. thus, creator god must be outside the universe, if creator god exists.

re: That's atheism mate

No, atheism means "not theist", or has no belief in a god. There are two kinds, hard and soft. The soft kind has some overlap with agnosticism, which means "without knowlege." One can have faith in something they do not know is real or existing. If that thing is a god, then it is theist.

the atheist says he does not believe in a god-- eg, that the god is not real.
the theist says he believes in a god-- eg, that the god is real.
the agnostic says he has no knowlege of any such god-- he makes no value judgement about the god being real

I make no value judgement, since I have nothing to base a judgement on. That is soft agnosticism.
further, i state that it is not possible to know, (which is more than simply professing ignorance)-- that is hard agnosticism.

please stop subsuming other positions into atheism.



for a very faulted secular only analogy:

what is x/0?

the computer gives an agnostic error: division by zero error.
Humans give incorrect answers, like "zero", "infinity", and if actual mathematicians, "has two equally valid solution domains approaching but not reaching zero that do not converge."

To me, the question "is there a god?" is just as insoluble as division by zero.

[Bohandas]

Specific deities can be disproven though. Omnimax (Omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) deities are straight out as they are inconsistent with the facts ot the world (as well as being inconsistent with every theodicy I've ever encountered - they are invariably based on a form of strawman argument which attempts to prop up a god who is merely omnipotent omnibenevolent and wise, or omniscient omnibenevolent and powerful, or omniscient omnipotent and benevolent, as a true omnimax deity). The ancient pagans (as well as some abrahamic fringe sects) on the other hand had many deities that while unlikely cannot be categorically ruled out. Furthermore, due to the low standards of the ancient pagans their standard of divinity - especially on the low end - falls clearly within the realm of the possible and occasionally even the feasible (even if the specific entities in question nevertheless still fall between the fantaatically unlikely and the outright absurd)

This is why I am agnostic.

Zeus probably isn't real, but throwing full-strength lightning bolts around is simply a matter of shelling out enough money to build a large enough tesla coil.

And in a millenium or so it may be within our capacity to build a vehicle capable of towing the sun around. Like Apollo.

EDIT:

some questions are not answerable. it is not a crime, nor intellectually weak to point this out.

I agree with your premise, I disagree with your conclusion. It could just as easily be interpreted as a proof of nihilism and/or absurdism.

[Rolepgeek]

It is why i identify as agnostic, and not atheist.

It is possible, if unlikely, that a divine entity exists outside of our universe. I cannot remove this possibility. As such, it would be a foolish assertion of blind belief on my part to say one either does or does not exist. When asked, I answer that I simply do not know, and given the nature of the problem, logically cannot know.

Hence hard agnostic.

That's still atheist m8.

And Antioch, that whole sentiment is pretty close to the kind of thing that ends up with you being Wronger Than Wrong.

Wronger than wrong is the kind of expression I usually see to describe idea's that are even impossible to proof false. I don't really see how it applies here.

In fact wronger than wrong is a term that I would apply to the statement that there is a god, because it is literally impossible to proof false when that god is placed outside the known universe by the person making the claim.

Being impossible to prove false does not quite mean it's impossible to prove true, nor does it mean that it is not true.

Although I've become less sure about questioning literally everything recently. After a point, saying 'why do you believe that?', and people saying 'because it feels right', well...saying 'hah! This proves you have a terrible basis for your beliefs' isn't actually an argument at all. You can't change your beliefs after all. They can be changed, but you cannot change them simply by force of will. What you profess to believe? Sure. Which belief you'll operate by, if torn between two? Sure. But what you actually believe is true? A lot harder to do on your own.

This seems to brush on several arguments, including:

Onus probandi
Improper fact-value distinction
Argument from silence
argument from ignorance
non sequitur
appeal to faith

...basically you're just throwing up your arms and giving up rather than making a point. You haven't shown the other arguments to be any less invalid.

Not really; I'm not saying 'therefore it's true'. I'm saying 'from this, it does not follow that it is necessarily wrong'.

You have to prove it wrong on it's own. If it can't be proven wrong, that doesn't mean it's right. It just means it can't be proven wrong.

@Bohandas; Omnimax deities are only inconsistent if you use human morality for the basis of omnibenevolent. If there truly was an Omnimax deity, anything they did would, essentially by definition, be 'good'. (Additionally, I've seen a definition of omnipotence not as being literally 'capable of anything' but rather 'capable of anything possible', which are two rather different statements, though subtly)

Also; reality isn't always consistent with logic. At least, not logic that would actually be obvious save in hindsight. Light is a wave and a particle. Nothing can actually reach absolute zero. Eventually, instead of going faster, reality warps around you.

[Orange Wizard]

"We don't understand how quantum physics work" != "reality is inconsistent with logic"

[Bohandas]

@Bohandas; Omnimax deities are only inconsistent if you use human morality for the basis of omnibenevolent. If there truly was an Omnimax deity, anything they did would, essentially by definition, be 'good'.

This is both begging the question, and a no-true-scotsman fallacy.

EDIT:
Also, has anyone else noticed that many theodicies, if extended rationally, lead inescapably to the conclusion that free will is inherently evil. It goes like this: God wants to prevent suffering but can't because of free will -> therefore free will is the reason why suffering exists -> therefore free will is evil.

[Rolepgeek]

What I'm saying is that the human understanding of logic does not match reality. We are not perfectly rational beings, and while I believe we reach the limits of rationality (You can only put A->B and B->C thus A->C so many different ways) when we put our minds to it, I also believe that you cannot logic your way into solutions to the universe, not for things you can't test. You can say 'the bible is wrong on X and Y' and try to prove it. You cannot say 'there is no god of any type' and try to prove it. Well, I guess you could try, but I don't really see any useful way to.

Anyway. Point is: we don't understand a lot of shit. And things don't make sense without an intricate understanding of the underlying mechanism. This is both what spawns religions (I believe), and why you can't say 'well it's impossible'. Maybe it is and we just don't know how it would be.

Additionally, I never said it's inconsistent. I said it isn't always consistent, and specifically not with logic that you can tell in advance without study. We are remarkably good at pulling out data from things that seem incredibly difficult to parse. But we aren't perfect.

Oh, and one last thing; as an example, there's people who think we're probably in a simulation, because given infinite parallel universes, some of them could run simulations perfect enough to simulate our reality essentially perfectly, and they could run an arbitrary number of them. From this, they decide that out of all possible perceived universes, a simulation would be more probable than a 'real' universe, so we're probably a simulation. While I'm not completely against the idea it's all a simulation, intellectually, I do find this logic faulty, because it's replacing empiricism with logic. Same with the ontological argument for the existence of god. But logic is an abstract concept that creates contradictions unless it's very carefully practiced. What's more, sometimes it's just plain wrong.

@Bohandas: And that's a fallacy fallacy. Logical fallacies exist for a reason. No True Scotsman applies to people, not concepts. If anything, it would be moving the goalposts, though I never defined omnipotent previously for it, so that doesn't really apply. If you want to address the argument, address it. Slippery slope is a fallacy; doesn't mean it can't make a good point.

My personal view is that I'm ambivalent as to whether an omni-anything deity exists; if it has morality on a level equal to mine, I'll get into heaven so long as I'm a good person. If it doesn't, I don't want to be in the heaven of a god that would not do that, regardless. That said, I'm trying to give an argument representative of religious views, and they vary widely. There are certainly many people who believe that the definition of 'Christian' is not 'professes to follow Christ', it's 'actually follows Christ', and they have their own views of what that means. Saying 'No True Scotschristian' in that case is true. It's also irrelevant.

[Bohandas]

No True Scotsman applies to people, not concepts.

The more important issue of begging the question still stands. Your entire argument is based on an arbitrary redefinition of what constitutes omnibenevolence to basically mean "whatever it was going to do anyway regardless of what that is". This definitely falls somewhere within the family of begging the question, moving he goalposts, and what Scott Adams referred to as "argument by bizarre definition" (a comparable example would be the statement "He's not a criminal, he just does things that are against the law")

Oh, and one last thing; as an example, there's people who think we're probably in a simulation, because given infinite parallel universes, some of them could run simulations perfect enough to simulate our reality essentially perfectly, and they could run an arbitrary number of them. From this, they decide that out of all possible perceived universes, a simulation would be more probable than a 'real' universe, so we're probably a simulation. While I'm not completely against the idea it's all a simulation, intellectually, I do find this logic faulty, because it's replacing empiricism with logic.

Plus, there's also the fact that the logic is somewhat faulty. Whatever strengths it has on the basis of the mediocrity principle are more than canceled out by parsimony violations.

[Orange Wizard]

Wait, are we talking Ancient Greek the-world-is-four-elements formal logic or mathematical logic?

[Rolan7]

All codes of morality are arbitrary.  Many people choose to promote the moral code of "Whatever our God mandates".  Or notably, "Whatever a certain book says our God mandated".  Is that any less valid than maximizing happiness while minimizing suffering?  Perhaps also valuing liberty, and/or the survival of the species?  Not really.

I think serving an alien being as defined by ancient texts is a frightening moral system compared to *any* combination of the above.  But it's valid.  So when they say God is tautologically good, they're technically right.  It doesn't mean God is at all nice, it's a meaningless and misleading tautology, but it's true by their moral code.

[Frumple]

... it doesn't actually matter, to be honest. Logic as a system is fundamentally divorced from reality -- they don't work together, and almost unilaterally the former(s, even though I don't think you can plural like that, but whatever) wasn't built to resemble reality. It exists, and is best used, for other things, generally analysis of created systems.* They're incredibly useful tools (as math both as a language and a logic system serves as an excellent example), but logical systems are fairly specific things. And they're mostly very much human things, meant to address foibles of human concept systems, not some kind of thing inherent in existence.

I think the way to talk about reality isn't that it's logical or illogical, but that it's alogical, even if that's mostly a horrible butchering of word usage. Logic as a whole isn't for adhering to reality, it's for making sure our constructed concept systems adhere to themselves. S'just... not the right tool.

*Though, incidentally, logic can look like it resembles reality when it's being used to address a system that was created to describe it. Still, it... doesn't. Any match between reality and logic is more or less incidental.