|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 11/26/2002 : 16:01:45 [Permalink]
|
Ha! I've had that conversation too many times. Reality is "subjective" is another one.
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
Maybe my whole problem is not whether there is a god, or that I have misrepresented myself through mislabeling stuff, but does reality really exist?
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 16:08:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
It seems to me that there is a larger reality that we can't deny. Such as the distances to the end of the observable universe exists, that gravity forces exist, maybe strings exist and things undiscovered exist that dwarf our human existence.
Thanks, but you did not answer the question about purpose. As for the rest: - In what way have "black holes organized galaxies"?
- How is gravity a "larger reality" than algae or electricity?
- What, precisely, is atheism denying that "we can't deny"?
Finally, for every thread of truth in the unknown, there's a blanket of superstition. When standing in awe of the unknown, too many wrap themselves in this blanket and talk about 'remaining open to the possibilities'. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 11/26/2002 16:22:49 |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 19:06:52 [Permalink]
|
I don't understand your question regarding purpose, ResonableDoubt. Who said anything about purpose? Maybe you should answer that one.
Black holes have organized galaxies via their attractive force.
Gravity is a larger reality to the limited existence of algae on this planet. I can't tell if it is larger than electricity since the universe essentially is neutral charge. So maybe yes, maybe no, or does it matter?
I'm not talking about atheism denying anything. I'm talking about accepting your place in the universe, what forces control you vs what forces you control over the universe. Unless you want to deny the universe. I think of it as an objective reality.
I'm not sure where you are going with your blanket of superstition. There is always an unknown, even if it is just the answer to that calculus problem you can't solve. It's sort of like that book that is on the top shelf that you can't reach that you know has that calculus solution. Unless maybe there are no questions that you have not been able to answer.
And I don't think awe has anything to do with it. It seems to me that you want to reject any truth, regardless of how objective it is, just for the sake of rejecting everything.
Is truth, whatever it turns out to be, the right or wrong answer? I assume it is the right answer but I could be mistaken. |
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2002 : 19:59:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
I don't understand your question regarding purpose, ResonableDoubt.
Sure you do. You probably even know what "teleology" means.
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
I'm talking about accepting your place in the universe, ... It seems to me that you want to reject any truth, regardless of how objective it is, just for the sake of rejecting everything.
My place is in Chicago, and I try not to confuse truth with pretense. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 05:10:33 [Permalink]
|
A note about the idea that the non-existence of god(s) isn't provable. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was once asked why she could say that god(s) don't exist. She said something to the effect that any god she ever heard of doesn't exist.
You say that god(s)non-existence isn't provable? Define god(s). Does prayer work? No. Can a being be omnipotent and omniscient and loving and allow free will all at once? No. Gods like that don't exist.
It's pretty clear to me that Jehovah and Allah and Hercules and Jesus are all fairy tales. Do these god(s) exist? No. Why say that the existence of gods are any more possible than that of unicorns? Are you an agnosticunicornist? No, because the idea is not worth coming up with a name for it. There's not much more need when it comes to god(s) except that a lot of people came up with a disease called theism, so now some of us feel impelled to define ourselves out of that group.
I'm an atheist under both definitions. Any god that I ever heard of does not exist. Any god that I haven't heard of hasn't told me what to believe, so I lack a belief in them as well as the gods I have heard of.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 11/27/2002 05:18:31 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 06:34:39 [Permalink]
|
| Well said, Gorgo! That's my stance on the matter to a tee... |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 07:51:50 [Permalink]
|
I think there is value in the comments and approach found in Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998). I also particularly like Stephen Roberts oft quoted statement: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.".
Lewis Carroll reminds us that meaning is more than etymology. At some point what words convey takes precedence: if my audience persists in a peculiar interpretation of the word I need to acknowledge this interpretation if my goal is to communicate my views on Deity. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 09:01:14 [Permalink]
|
ReasonableDoubt,
Please explain "teleology". Why do you assume I'm familiar with it?
Just because I see truth and pattern in the universe does not mean that I assume any design or purpose. You're coming out of right field on that one IMHO.
Do you deny that Chicago is within the observable universe? Or is your observable universe only what you can see from your armchair?
Why do you equate facts about the universe with theism? |
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
| Edited by - chainsaw on 11/27/2002 09:12:08 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 09:52:21 [Permalink]
|
Teleology is a philosophical term that means, basically, "goal-directed" or "purposeful." I don't consider a recognition of pattern an assumption of purpose, per se, as pattern-recognition is a fundamental part of our evolutionarily developed cerebral cortex. I don't know what you mean by "truth," chainsaw, but if you see pattern in the universe, in the sense that the universe or its constituent parts resemble or remind of other things, then I would certainly not label you a theist.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 11:30:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
Please explain "teleology". Why do you assume I'm familiar with it?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
Just because I see truth and pattern in the universe does not mean that I assume any design or purpose.
And I never insisted that you do. I asked a fairly straight forward and honest question. You bluster and protest, but you've yet to answer it. Permit me another, related question: is this truth you see any different from the body of knowledge established by science?
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
Do you deny that Chicago is within the observable universe?
No.
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
Or is your observable universe only what you can see from your armchair?
This 'question' is childishly rhetorical.
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
Why do you equate facts about the universe with theism?
Is it your claim that I have done so? If, so, please feel free to substantiate the claim. Otherwise, I see no choice but to view it as little more than the continuation of your previous inane rhetoric.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 12:47:40 [Permalink]
|
I think his "previous inane rhetoric" was supposed to be "spirituality."
A young friend in Mensa once explained to me that here in California it was very important to be spiritual. He was an Atheist and he was still spiritual because if you weren't you couldn't get a date. He went on to explain that being spiritual was easy. All you had to do was make a few vague and spooky remarks and keep a spiritual expression on your face. Which he proceeded to demonstrate by looking half asleep.
He told me that he was moving back to Boston so that he could keep his eyes all the way open.
I believe Gilbert & Sullivan wrote an operetta on this very subject. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 14:20:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
I believe Gilbert & Sullivan wrote an operetta on this very subject.
 OUTSTANDING |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 14:26:43 [Permalink]
|
Funny, Slater, I've had the same problem. I always wonder what the fuck folks who pull that "I'm not religious, but spiritual" are actually talking about--your friend's observations hit it on the head.
I guess that there is at least the possiblility of some sense in which this "spirituality" thing isn't a complete put on (or complete credulousness, for those who buy into all that shit). As a yoga practicioner, I often have a hard time not bursting out in laughter at some of the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that is stated in class, though most of it is so ontologically non-committal that I have just chosen to understand it in more naturalistic terms than those which dominate the presentation of yoga philosophy. E.g., I believe that the quasi-ethical teachings which encourage one to take stock of one's motives and drives and to let go of all of the shit that ultimately won't make me happy is sound advise, even if I don't buy the idea that it is getting me in touch with my "higher self" or helping me attain "oneness with the universe, etc. etc." I guess that I'm "spiritual" in that sense, but I avoid using the term because of all of the baggage attached.
And yes, I am an atheist who spent most of his early adulthood thinking that he was an agnostic. This is partly because I had only been exposed to conventional (and thereby church-sanctioned) definitions of atheism and agnosticism; it is also partly because I had internalized the stigma associated with being an atheist, and didn't like the association. For one reason or the other, I think that most "agnostics" (well, pretty much all of the one's I've met) are actually atheists; they are either ignorant of a definition of atheism that doesn't make a straw man out of the position and/or scared of the label.
And for those still on the fence: Wouldn't an omniscient god know what kind of evidence was necessary and sufficient to convince a mere mortal like me that he exists? Oh, I know that the theists would say, "well you have hardened your heart, and thus you cannot see." No, I've just hardened my brain, and refuse to entertain flimsy evidence. |
"The amount of noise which anyone can bear stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity." --Schopenhauer |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 14:32:57 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks, TD and well said, Spock! |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2002 : 14:53:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And yes, I am an atheist who spent most of his early adulthood thinking that he was an agnostic. This is partly because I had only been exposed to conventional (and thereby church-sanctioned) definitions of atheism and agnosticism; it is also partly because I had internalized the stigma associated with being an atheist, and didn't like the association. For one reason or the other, I think that most "agnostics" (well, pretty much all of the one's I've met) are actually atheists; they are either ignorant of a definition of atheism that doesn't make a straw man out of the position and/or scared of the label.
And for those still on the fence: Wouldn't an omniscient god know what kind of evidence was necessary and sufficient to convince a mere mortal like me that he exists? Oh, I know that the theists would say, "well you have hardened your heart, and thus you cannot see." No, I've just hardened my brain, and refuse to entertain flimsy evidence.
I'm sorry but this kind of talk offends me. First, you seem to making an assumption that agnostics are atheists and agnostics and atheists regarding Catholicism and other well-known religions as opposed to the concept of a god. This, for me anyway, is simply not the case. If there does happen to be a god of some sort(which I doubt) I see no reason why it would care if people believed in it or not. It would just "be" and that's why I scratch my head over comments like Wouldn't an omniscient god know what kind of evidence was necessary and sufficient to convince a mere mortal like me that he exists because this obviously applies to specific claims of revelation. I may be an agnostic but any specific claim is rather easy to either shoot down or find supporting evidence for. I suggest the atheists think things through and attempt to understand that one is agnostic not necessarily about any specific religion but the concept of a creator. Go ahead and shoot me some evidence you may have that there isn't one. I could use a good laugh.
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
