|
|
|
wonkavision
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2003 : 10:51:18 [Permalink]
|
I am new to this forum, and, although I would love to respond to every point made in this thread, of course that would be more of a task then I am willing to undertake at this time, so I will try to address the spirit of this thread. There are two major issues broached here- the original question concerning the validity of atheism in semantic terms and this issue of morality. Let me start by saying- Trish, I like you. We would get along famously. Most of the other arguments in this thread are rife with logical fallacies; yours are solid. Now let me say that all these slippery definitions of atheism are silly. Semantically speaking, the meaning of atheism couldn't be more clear- a, meaning not or without, theism meaning belief in a god or gods. If you are uncomfortable with this then either get over it or define yourself differently. I come across many "atheists" who imply that they are "on the fence" concerning the existence of god. Well then, you are not an atheist- you are agnostic. That being said, allow me to try to qualify this without appearing inconsistent. Technically speaking, if you really want to be a stickler, anyone who adheres to the principles of critical thinking and the scientific method would have to call themselves an agnostic- about everything! You simply can not assert any theory, conjecture or belief with 100% confidence. A critical thinker must reserve the possibility that some earth shattering new evidence may come along contradicting what was thought to be a very strong theory. Although, what will more likely happen is that a theory will come along that simply applies to a larger frame of reference, and therby outreach that theory, but not negate it. Understanding the universe in a profound way is a matter of probability and not dogma. Science is not dogmatic, it is methodical. It evolves. The question is how likely is a proffered conjecture. Is it supported by an overwhelming body of empirical evedince, and is it in accord with an already existing, highly predictive and strong architecture of theory? If it does then there is a good probability that the conjecture is on to something. If, on the other hand, a conjecture is supported by no evidence, only anecdotal evidence (which is not evidence at all) or is non-falsifiable, then there is likely a very low probability of its veracity. The conjecture that there is some supreme architect of the universe falls into the latter category. If you "believe" in the theory of relativity (which of course falls into the former category) it would obviously be inconveniant to say "The theory of relativity has a very high probability of truthfullness due to its predictive power and body of empirical evidence, and, therefore, I tend to believe in its veracity, although I hold out the infintismal possibility that it is mistaken." And so we are somewhat liberal with the meaning of "belief," and for the sake of brevity simply say, "I believe the theory of relativity." The same is true for the opposite. Although there is a very small possibility that the universe rests on the back of a very large pink rabbit, the probability is so small that I just say that I don't believe such a thing. The same goes for the conjecture of a supreme being and, this is why I call myself an atheist. The probability is very low. There is simply no empirical evidence to support it, even after millinea of popular belief in such a thing. It in no way interlocks with any strong theorys, and it has no predictive or explantory power. Any claims to explanatory value is endlessly recursive and specious. Example- "well, then where did the universe come from?" "Well where the hell did god come from?" We are right back where we started, and nothing has been explained. Let's not forget the very important principle of "burden of proof" as well. The notion that god exists is a conjecture. The notion that he doesn't exist is not a conjecture any more than not believing in the big pink bunny is a conjecture. The negation of any possible claim that someone comes up with is not a hypothesis, it is a dimissal. As to the issue of morality, ethics are a construct of consciousness. I don't say human consciousness, because it is likely that life may exist elsewhere in the universe with a sense of morality, and it is possible that some other animals here on earth possess some rudimentary sense of morality. Any attempt to ascribe some ethical framework to the universe as a whole is shameless anthropomorphism. That in no way devalues ethics. Ethics are essential to the efficiency and progress of society, but this long standing philosophical argument that right and wrong exist as objective entities independent of the mind are entirely unfounded and contrary to the principles of critical thinking.
|
So shy a good deed in such a weary world... |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2003 : 12:27:27 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Kil.
Welcome to the forum wonk.
quote:
I am new to this forum, and, although I would love to respond to every point made in this thread, of course that would be more of a task then I am willing to undertake at this time, so I will try to address the spirit of this thread. There are two major issues broached here- the original question concerning the validity of atheism in semantic terms and this issue of morality. Let me start by saying- Trish, I like you. We would get along famously. Most of the other arguments in this thread are rife with logical fallacies; yours are solid.
Thanks. I've given the situation lots of thought through the years. Arguing with some very good friends who are agnostic helps my arguments. Especially when one is working on his doctoral in Philosophy and the other has his doctoral in mathematics.
quote:
Now let me say that all these slippery definitions of atheism are silly. Semantically speaking, the meaning of atheism couldn't be more clear- a, meaning not or without, theism meaning belief in a god or gods. If you are uncomfortable with this then either get over it or define yourself differently. I come across many "atheists" who imply that they are "on the fence" concerning the existence of god. Well then, you are not an atheist- you are agnostic. That being said, allow me to try to qualify this without appearing inconsistent. Technically speaking, if you really want to be a stickler, anyone who adheres to the principles of critical thinking and the scientific method would have to call themselves an agnostic- about everything! You simply can not assert any theory, conjecture or belief with 100% confidence. A critical thinker must reserve the possibility that some earth shattering new evidence may come along contradicting what was thought to be a very strong theory. Although, what will more likely happen is that a theory will come along that simply applies to a larger frame of reference, and therby outreach that theory, but not negate it. Understanding the universe in a profound way is a matter of probability and not dogma. Science is not dogmatic, it is methodical. It evolves. The question is how likely is a proffered conjecture. Is it supported by an overwhelming body of empirical evedince, and is it in accord with an already existing, highly predictive and strong architecture of theory? If it does then there is a good probability that the conjecture is on to something. If, on the other hand, a conjecture is supported by no evidence, only anecdotal evidence (which is not evidence at all) or is non-falsifiable, then there is likely a very low probability of its veracity. The conjecture that there is some supreme architect of the universe falls into the latter category. If you "believe" in the theory of relativity (which of course falls into the former category) it would obviously be inconveniant to say "The theory of relativity has a very high probability of truthfullness due to its predictive power and body of empirical evidence, and, therefore, I tend to believe in its veracity, although I hold out the infintismal possibility that it is mistaken." And so we are somewhat liberal with the meaning of "belief," and for the sake of brevity simply say, "I believe the theory of relativity." The same is true for the opposite. Although there is a very small possibility that the universe rests on the back of a very large pink rabbit, the probability is so small that I just say that I don't believe such a thing. The same goes for the conjecture of a supreme being and, this is why I call myself an atheist. The probability is very low. There is simply no empirical evidence to support it, even after millinea of popular belief in such a thing. It in no way interlocks with any strong theorys, and it has no predictive or explantory power. Any claims to explanatory value is endlessly recursive and specious. Example- "well, then where did the universe come from?" "Well where the hell did god come from?" We are right back where we started, and nothing has been explained. Let's not forget the very important principle of "burden of proof" as well. The notion that god exists is a conjecture. The notion that he doesn't exist is not a conjecture any more than not believing in the big pink bunny is a conjecture. The negation of any possible claim that someone comes up with is not a hypothesis, it is a dimissal. As to the issue of morality, ethics are a construct of consciousness. I don't say human consciousness, because it is likely that life may exist elsewhere in the universe with a sense of morality, and it is possible that some other animals here on earth possess some rudimentary sense of morality. Any attempt to ascribe some ethical framework to the universe as a whole is shameless anthropomorphism. That in no way devalues ethics. Ethics are essential to the efficiency and progress of society, but this long standing philosophical argument that right and wrong exist as objective entities independent of the mind are entirely unfounded and contrary to the principles of critical thinking.
The reason I see that we get such a slippery definition of atheist is from the need to be very certain that the theist has the absolute correct understanding of the atheist position. Many dictionaries define atheism as the belief that god does not exist or denying the existence of god. Where in actuality it should be defined without belief in gods existence. One defines a point of view that says there is no god and the other says that there is not enough reason to declare the existence of deity. Though this is a fine line of reason between the two, there is a real difference. That last portion of the definition almost seems to require a belief that deity does exist in order to deny the existence.
I feel that in some instances we must be more precise in our language than we would normally practice, to be entirely certain that our point is not misconstrued by the other party. This makes explainations much more long and involved than seemingly necessary. I could say, I don't believe there is a god, I do believe that evolution happens, newtonian, relativistic, and quantum physics are correct. But this leaves so much unexplained. Yes, in much of the sciences there is an infinitesimal chance that one of these theories may prove incorrect or be modified by a better explaination of phenomena. We must always hold that possibility in reserve. To do otherwise requires a dogmatism that has no business in a scientific/skeptical outlook. Dogmatism denies science.
For the majority, I agree. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
wonkavision
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2003 : 13:52:01 [Permalink]
|
| If you are saying that the definition "there is not enough reason to declare the existence of deity" implies the existence of diety, I must disagree. It only implies the existence of the concept of diety. Unless of course you believe that for something to be conceived it must already exist in some ideal sense, an idea that has been posited many times in the long and convoluted history of philosophy going back at least as early as Plato's cave analogy. It is the kernal of the ontological argument for the existence of god offered by St. Anselm and further elaborated upon by Descartes and Spinoza. In order to imagine a perfect being, it goes, such a being has to exist, since a conceived being that doesn't exist isn't as perfect as one that does, so in order to conceive the idea of a perfect being in the first place he must exist. Of course this is grossly simplified, but you can see how covoluted the logic gets here. It seems to me to completely disregard the tool which allowed such an argument in the first place- abstraction of thought. What exactly is the axiom that leads to the idea that something which does not exist can't be imagined? Anyway, I'm rambling. I'm not even sure if that is what you meant by that statement. |
So shy a good deed in such a weary world... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2003 : 14:32:58 [Permalink]
|
wonkavision wrote:quote:
Technically speaking, if you really want to be a stickler, anyone who adheres to the principles of critical thinking and the scientific method would have to call themselves an agnostic- about everything! You simply can not assert any theory, conjecture or belief with 100% confidence. A critical thinker must reserve the possibility that some earth shattering new evidence may come along contradicting what was thought to be a very strong theory.
I believe that I adhere strictly to the principles of critical thinking and the scientific method, yet I can also assert, with 100% confidence, that blue is my favorite color. In other words, it's important to make the distinction between those theories, conjectures, and beliefs which fall under the umbrella of "science" and/or "logic," and those that don't. Being a completely subjective notion, and peculiar to me alone, what my favorite color may or may not be isn't testable, nor is it founded on some logical basis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2003 : 19:32:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
wonkavision:
Trish, I like you.
 Who doesn't?quote:
Trish:
I feel that in some instances we must be more precise in our language than we would normally practice, to be entirely certain that our point is not misconstrued by the other party. This makes explainations much more long and involved than seemingly necessary.
Sadly, most theists have no concept of the importance of these semantic distinctions. When asked about my beliefs, I usually make sure the inquisitor really wants to know; this ensures they are willing to at least try to understand. I don't believe "there is no god," I just don't believe there is a god.
[Edited for spelliing] |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 08/03/2003 19:34:06 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2003 : 19:34:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
Now let me say that all these slippery definitions of atheism are silly. Semantically speaking, the meaning of atheism couldn't be more clear- a, meaning not or without, theism meaning belief in a god or gods. If you are uncomfortable with this then either get over it or define yourself differently. I come across many "atheists" who imply that they are "on the fence" concerning the existence of god. Well then, you are not an atheist- you are agnostic.
You'll forgive me if I disagree. Perhaps the problem is not one of "slippery Definitions" but, rather, an inability to grasp the fact that language is nuanced and dynamic, that meaning tyically transcends etymology and vernacular usage, and that Dictionary.com is a poor foundation for surety. Sophomoric arguments about the definition of atheism are tiresome at best. If you are uncomfortable with this either get over it or be defined accordingly.
That you would counterpose atheism and agnosticism is simpy thoughtless: the two address rather disjoint domains. Agnosticism and, in particular, agnosticism as a methodological stance, is rather clear as it relates to science:quote:
In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: - You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.
This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.
- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler
But, having addressed what is knowable, there remain the question of belief systems. What subset, if any, of an unbounded and often conflicting set of supernatural claims warrant belief. As an atheist, my answer is "none". This rejection of God(s) is tentative and contingent upon a continued lack of verifiable evidence. At the same time, the continued and pervasive successes of science gives me full confidence that my stance is as robust as it is methodologically sound. That you might consider such a stance "on the fence" speaks more to an incorrect view of science than any insights into atheism or agnosticism.
I am an atheist as a consequence of a commitment to agnosticism as methodology or, more precisely, I am a philosohical naturalist as a consequence of a commitment to methodological naturalism:quote:
The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible. ... For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts."
-- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism by Doctor Barbara Forrest
You say to me and others: "Well then, you are not an atheist- you are agnostic." It's a rather old and rather worthless refrain. In fact, I am both.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
wonkavision
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 01:27:28 [Permalink]
|
I'm not familiar with Barbara Forrest, but the quote intrigues me. It's a little verbose, but it interests me in examining this Methodological Naturalism that you espouse. It is not evident from that blurb how her position differs from mine. I certainly agree that the expansion of scientific knowledge has rendered beliefs of a superstitious nature specious. I would like to know where she goes from there. Addressing Mr. Strahler's comment, yes non-falsifiable hypotheses are, by their nature, outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Consequent to that point though he seems to imply that, given this, science puts metaphysics on a seperate but equal philosophical level. Now, this quote is completely out of context, so that may not be the thrust of his argument at all. If it is, though, then I have to take issue with that. That would be his evaluation of the comparitive philosophical values of science and metaphysics, but certainly not that of all in the scientific community. " You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word"? I certainly don't take them at their word. Regarding your comment on language, I am well aware of the nuances and dynamics of language, and that language shifts and permutates in an almost organic way. And I agree that this is what makes language rich. On the other hand I bristle at being so plastic with words that we lose common ground. At that point we lose what little surety of intercourse that we have. Certain critical terms need to have some sense of intermutual meaning, or conversation loses substance. If one refers to himself as an atheist and defines this as the postulate that god may or may not exist, then "atheist" has lost all meaning. There already exists a term for that stance. That is an agnostic. That being said, I'm not sure where you are disagreeing with me. "That you would counterpose[sic] atheism and agnosticism is simpy thoughtless: the two address rather disjoint[sic] domains." Either you are not clearly expressing what you mean, or you misunderstood what I meant, because that is exactly my point that they possess disjointed domains (although disjointed is not the term I would use.) How did I counterpoise them? My point was that they have distinct definitions.
"But, having addressed what is knowable, there remain the question of belief systems. What subset, if any, of an unbounded and often conflicting set of supernatural claims warrant belief. As an atheist, my answer is "none". This rejection of God(s) is tentative and contingent upon a continued lack of verifiable evidence. At the same time, the continued and pervasive successes of science gives me full confidence that my stance is as robust as it is methodologically sound."
Exactly how do you perceive that this is contrary to my stance? According to that paragraph, I would not consider you "on the fence" at all. In fact that is essentially my argument, that even though effectively a critical stance on the notion of god would be an agnostic one, the probability, based upon the evidence, is so low as to warrent the use of the term atheist as a matter of convenience. I suspect that either I am misinterpreting what you replied, or you misinterpreted what I stated. |
So shy a good deed in such a weary world... |
|
|
|
wonkavision
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 01:37:02 [Permalink]
|
| I wanted to respond to Dave's comment as well. I feel you are lumping together beliefs and sensations. I am refering to conjecture, the positing of some specific belief as true, whether god, alien visitation, superstring theory or the belief that your neighbors are letting their dog crap on your lawn. I think there is a distinction between this and personal preferences or feelings. Of course this touches on subjects that have been broached through centuries of philosophy, and so could constitute and entirely new thread. |
So shy a good deed in such a weary world... |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 03:23:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
If one refers to himself as an atheist and defines this as the postulate that god may or may not exist, then "atheist" has lost all meaning. There already exists a term for that stance. That is an agnostic. That being said, I'm not sure where you are disagreeing with me.
No, "atheist" has simply lost your meaning. If, however, atheism is defined as the absence of a belief in Deity, there is no conflict between "atheism" and "agnosticism".
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
"That you would counterpose[sic] atheism and agnosticism is simpy thoughtless: the two address rather disjoint[sic] domains." Either you are not clearly expressing what you mean, or you misunderstood what I meant, because that is exactly my point that they possess disjointed domains (although disjointed is not the term I would use.)
Rarely do I deserve 2 sic's in one sentence, and it is always possible that I was unclear. I employed the term "counterpose" to mean counterpose. Similarly, I used the term [i]"disjoint" to suggest disjoint. Furthermore, I agree with you that [i]"disjointed is not the term I would use". |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 06:15:01 [Permalink]
|
I responded to the athiest question "are you really an athiest?". By asking the Christian I was talking to if he believed that Zeus or Apollo were gods. He of course replied "no". I said, "So there is absolutely no possiblity that Zeus is real". Again, he said, "no".
Well, the point is that there is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of the any God. So I can say that a christian's doubt in the existence of Zeus is on par with my doubt in the existence of any God.
I can also say if God showed up with a host of angles or Zeus showed up with a hand full of lightening bolts, I would have to reevaluate my position. Of course, I think that either of those two possibilites have the same likelyhood of happening.
(The purpose of life - to reproduce.
The meaning of life - what ever you choose to make it.)
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 08:08:39 [Permalink]
|
I always liked this quote....
"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." - - Stephen Roberts |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
wonkavision
New Member
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 15:01:32 [Permalink]
|
| I understand where you are coming from saying that you are both an atheist and an agnostic. In fact, if you read my entire post (which I'm increasingly suspecting you didn't) you should see that that is very close to my point! I simply qualified that point in some detail, and I believe this qualification to be important. Nowhere did I say that there is a "conflict" between the two terms. I simply implied that atheism refers to a much higher level of conviction, which, unless I'm mistake, you seem to agree with, so I'm honestly not clear where you think that we are at odds. I clearly said that given my critical propensity to maintain an open mind given new evidence that, ultimately, I am agnostic, but I find the probability of such unsubstantiated claims as god, plant emotion, out of body experiences etc to be so low that, as a matter of convenience I think it useful to cut to the chase and call myself an atheist. Please explain to me how this differs from your stance, because I am finding that either your responses don't directly follow from my statements, or I am not following your style of composition and misunderstanding you. Also I would like to point out that statements like- "...an inability to grasp the fact that language is nuanced and dynamic... and that Dictionary.com is a poor foundation for surety... Sophomoric arguments about the definition of atheism are tiresome at best," are ad hominem attacks. Accusing me of not understanding the nuances of language is a logical fallacy. You are overtly attacking me personally and not addressing the argument objectively. Why you even took my post so personally as to impugn my education and perspicacity, I don't know. I was not responding specifically to anything that you said, but to the spirit of the thread in general as I stated. One of us is clearly misunderstanding the other. Perhaps it is I who am not being lucid. |
So shy a good deed in such a weary world... |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 18:35:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
I understand where you are coming from saying that you are both an atheist and an agnostic. In fact, if you read my entire post (which I'm increasingly suspecting you didn't) you should see that that is very close to my point!
Your suspicions are unfounded.
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
Nowhere did I say that there is a "conflict" between the two terms. I simply implied that atheism refers to a much higher level of conviction, which, unless I'm mistake, you seem to agree with, so I'm honestly not clear where you think that we are at odds.
Nowhere did I suggest that you did. Rather, I suggested that you falsely counterpose the terms, viewing them as necessarily reflecting different degrees of nontheism. This is again reflected in your claim that "atheism refers to a much higher level of conviction". I believe, on the contrary, that atheism and agnostism (or at least one representation of each) simply address different issues. It is true that one can be both atheist and agnostic. It is also true that one can be a committed theist and agnostic. Finally, one could conceivably dismiss God(s) while believing in astology, past-life regression, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
I clearly said that given my critical propensity to maintain an open mind given new evidence that, ultimately, I am agnostic, but I find the probability of such unsubstantiated claims as god, plant emotion, out of body experiences etc to be so low that, as a matter of convenience I think it useful to cut to the chase and call myself an atheist.
You also think it useful to instruct others, i.e., those who do not rise to your self-proclaimed "much higher level of conviction" to do so as well, while pretentiously offering: "If you are uncomfortable with this then either get over it or define yourself differently."
quote:
Originally posted by wonkavision
Also I would like to point out that statements like- "...an inability to grasp the fact that language is nuanced and dynamic... and that Dictionary.com is a poor foundation for surety... Sophomoric arguments about the definition of atheism are tiresome at best," are ad hominem attacks.
I believe it to be a relevant and well founded observation. To paraphrase a fellow atheists, if you are uncomfortable with this then either get over it or present yourself differently. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 19:39:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you are saying that the definition "there is not enough reason to declare the existence of deity" implies the existence of diety, I must disagree. It only implies the existence of the concept of diety.
Part of the misunderstanding thing I was going on about, now I'm apparently guilty of causing it. No, 'There is not enough reason to declare the existence of deity', implies only that there is not enough reason to do so. That which we understand of our universe implies the complete material nature of reality. Let's clear things up here, I am an atheist. I do not see enough reason to say there is a diety and therefore am unconcerned with worship or whether another decideds to believe. I also must concede, that there is a possibility, however small, that a deity might exist. However, stick a particular god in front of me, and I'm more than happy to tell you why that particular god can't exist as described. What really burns is the idiots that think they need to legislate religion into my life. Live and let live.
quote:
Unless of course you believe that for something to be conceived it must already exist in some ideal sense, an idea that has been posited many times in the long and convoluted history of philosophy going back at least as early as Plato's cave analogy.
And my first thought was the multiverse theory. We know enough to reasonably say, no there isn't a god.
quote:
It is the kernal of the ontological argument for the existence of god offered by St. Anselm and further elaborated upon by Descartes and Spinoza. In order to imagine a perfect being, it goes, such a being has to exist, since a conceived being that doesn't exist isn't as perfect as one that does, so in order to conceive the idea of a perfect being in the first place he must exist. Of course this is grossly simplified, but you can see how covoluted the logic gets here.
Well, Descarte is hilarious if you read some of his stuff with the concept that he's really an atheist attempting to cover his ass with the church and avoid the inquisition.
quote:
It seems to me to completely disregard the tool which allowed such an argument in the first place- abstraction of thought. What exactly is the axiom that leads to the idea that something which does not exist can't be imagined? Anyway, I'm rambling. I'm not even sure if that is what you meant by that statement.
We've imagined dragons, unicorns, fairies, basilisks, pixies, elves, leprachauns, etc. Look at Tolkein, Brooks, Moon, Lackey, Simak, Clarke, Baxter, Heinlein, and every other fantasy/scifi author out there. These are created worlds where there are all manner of creatures that are incredible but non-existant as far as we know.
Anyway, I think we sideswiped on our posts. Not the first time for me and it probably won't be the last. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 20:07:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I responded to the athiest question "are you really an athiest?". By asking the Christian I was talking to if he believed that Zeus or Apollo were gods. He of course replied "no". I said, "So there is absolutely no possiblity that Zeus is real". Again, he said, "no".
Well, the point is that there is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of the any God. So I can say that a christian's doubt in the existence of Zeus is on par with my doubt in the existence of any God.
I can also say if God showed up with a host of angles or Zeus showed up with a hand full of lightening bolts, I would have to reevaluate my position. Of course, I think that either of those two possibilites have the same likelyhood of happening.
(The purpose of life - to reproduce.
The meaning of life - what ever you choose to make it.)
Afraid I would have to go with Clarke on this one:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - ), "Technology and the Future"
"I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse."
Isaac Asimov
I'm afraid I can't remember the person who said something to the effect of:
If god were to step down and say, "I am god" I would much sooner question my own sanity than believe in god. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
