14 Aug 03
3 edits
Originally posted by richjohnsonMy mistake; I apologise. I lean a bit toward the latter type of atheist, but I wouldn't want anyone to actually alter his or her beliefs on my account 😲.
With all due respect, RC, please do not confuse god-believers with god-pushers. The former have no need to prove anything to anyone - it is the latter that must be prepared to defend their position.
Consider the analagous dichotomy ...[text shortened]... "there IS no god, and anyone who thinks otherwise is irrational".
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by T1000Mark, you use a phrase that is rarely heard in Christian discussions about faith or for tht matter many religious traditions. That phrase is "I'm unsure of..." To me, the idea of questioning and examining is the essence of faith- not undying loyalty and absolute assurance of God's existence. Rather it is the fearless search that most often leads to some type of spiritual pilgrimage and insight. I like it when people don't know. I think it was Lao Tzu who said "Those who know don't say and those that don't say, know." Kirk
There is much, hugely much in fact, that draws me to "freethinking". Genuinely and sincerely there is. While feeling that I share a great many of the tenets and ideas that belong to "freethinking" (don't worry Rob - not going to apply to join your clan, not that you'd have me 😀) there is something about being a "freethinker" (nothing to do with clans) ...[text shortened]... ered on this site or any other - if so someone point me in the right direction please]
T1000
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenWhat bbarr originally said was: "Since there is no compelling evidence for the existence of God, and since there is overwhelming evidence against the existence of God (e.g., the existence of preventable suffering) it is not rational to believe in God."
Certainly I agree with this, but I doubt many religious people who have thought about it disagree with this point. In my experience, their reply is not contradictory to this, rather, they say "God is outside of reason, and therefore the reasonabless of belief in him/her/it is no test of whether god exists." However:
When one talks about an ...[text shortened]... who apparently should be total nihilists, are sometimes so vehement. Anyone care to comment?
First, "compelling" is a highly subjective term. What may be compelling to one person may be considered unimportant to another.
Second, nobody is privy to all of the "evidence" available to someone else. For example, a man can say "I love my wife", but be unable to prove it to you. Would you consider him irrational?
Third, "preventable" is not a meaningful term, given that it has been proven that the universe is a deterministic place, and that anything which has happened could not have possibly happened in any other way than which it in fact did happen.
(If you're just joining us, please take a moment and read the thread entitled "Freedom of the Will" - http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=3867)
But the main reason why I disagree is that neither of the two alternatives (there is a god, vs. the universe spontaneously generated us on this marvelous little rock) have been proven or disproven in any rigorous manner. Thus, it would be irrational to conclude that someone favouring one alternative over the other is irrational.😉
14 Aug 03
2 edits
Originally posted by richjohnsonFirst, "compelling" is a highly subjective term. What may be compelling to one person may be considered unimportant to another.
[/b]
I think, and I apologise Bennett if I am erroneously putting words in your mouth, that "compelling" here means "enough to convince someone who thinks in a strictly rational way".
Second, nobody is privy to all of the "evidence" available to someone else. For example, a man can say "I love my wife", but be unable to prove it to you. Would you consider him irrational?
Are you insinuating that one's inability to find evidence/proof is at all related to the actual lack of presence of such evidence? Indeed, I would think him to be irrational about loving his wife unless he provided his reasons.
Third, "preventable" is not a meaningful term, given that it has been proven that the universe is a deterministic place, and that anything which has happened could not have possibly happened in any other way than which it in fact did happen.
(If you're just joining us, please take a moment and read the thread entitled "Freedom of the Will" - http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=3867)
I assume you are replying to my post based on the "originally posted by royalchicken" heading. My post, however, does not contain the word "preventable". I can only assume that you are replying to Bennett's locution about "preventable suffering", which concept I made no use of in my post. I also assume based on the fact that Bennett was the initiator of the "Freedom of the Will" thread that you are recommending I read it, in order to somehow repudiate claims in my previous post that the universe is not deterministic. However, I made no such claims. If indeed the universe is totally deterministic, then again I wonder how any religious model of God can have any effect, given that an "act of God" as presented in standard religious literature is an act of free will, albeit of a rather capable and accomplished being.
But the main reason why I disagree is that neither of the two alternatives (there is a god, vs. the universe spontaneously generated us on this marvelous little rock) have been proven or disproven in any rigorous manner. Thus, it would be irrational to conclude that someone favouring one alternative over the other is irrational.😉
When arguing about whether a circumstance is true, the responsibility rests with those who would affirm it. When at 3 o'clock this morning I was trying to show that any set with sufficiently large entropic measure is
a-uniform, I could not take my difficulty in doing so as proof or even evidence that the opposite is the case. Certainly, the existence is as you say uncertain, but failure of proof is no evidence in either direction. However, the fact that physical theories exist without mention of god that seem to concur almost exactly with observation while there is virtually no evidence that a god is required to start or maintain the universe as it is.
When Napoleon asked Laplace why the latter's Mechanique Celeste made no mention of the Creator, Laplace replied: "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese."
I am an atheist because none of my knowledge of how the world works requires the complex and difficult presence of a god.
It is irrational to accept a complicated epxlanation based on faith when a simple one based on reason suffices. This is exactly what a person does when explaining physical phenomena in terms of god when a physical theory already exists. Therefore it is irrational to believe that god has anything to do with the physical world. And if you read my earlier posts, you will note that I don't really doubt that the god in anyone's mind is a very real presence.
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by richjohnsonOf course a theist would deny that the world is deterministic in this way, and I have adopt that presupposition for the purposes of debates about theism. After all, if the world were completely deterministic then it would make no sense to say that some act of sufferring could have been prevented. But since it only makes sense to say of someone that they ought to have done something if it was possible that they could have done that thing (pace: You are obligated to violate this law of physics vs. you are obligated to violate this law of the United States. The first obligation makes no sense, whereas the latter clearly does), an entailment of determinism is that the whole notion of moral responsibility is incoherent, and thus so is the concept of sin. If you could never have done otherwise, then your violation of God's Law could not have been prevented. But, of course, most theists want sin to have a place in their theology, so they really can't adopt the view that the world is deterministic.
What bbarr originally said was: "Since there is no compelling evidence for the existence of God, and since there is overwhelming evidence against the existence of God (e.g., the existence of preventable suffering) it is not rational to believe in God."
First, "compelling" is a highly subjective term. What may be compelling to one person may be ...[text shortened]... be irrational to conclude that someone favouring one alternative over the other is irrational.😉
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenI have yet to see a simple explanation of the origin of life on earth. The explanation that, in an infinite universe, everything will happen eventually by chance is pretty wishy-washy.
It is irrational to accept a complicated epxlanation based on faith when a simple one based on reason suffices.
(btw - my last post was mainly aimed at Ben's original statement which I quoted - I was under the impression that you were using the same logic to support your claim that "it is not rational to believe in god". Sorry, my mistake.)
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by richjohnsonI do not profess to understand how life originated on earth. I will say one thing, however, and that is that from any sufficiently large system (physical, mathematical, whatever), certain well-defined types of order may inevitably be observed. Maybe have a look at:
I have yet to see a simple explanation of the origin of life on earth. The explanation that, in an infinite universe, everything will happen eventually by chance is pretty wishy-washy.
(btw - my last post was mainly aimed at Ben's original statement which I quoted - I was under the impression that you were using the same logic to support your claim that "it is not rational to believe in god". Sorry, my mistake.)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RamseyTheory.html
" " /SzemeredisTheorem.html
Things like Ramsey's & Szemeredi's Theorems indicate that the "wishy washy" explanation is not "wishy washy" at all, since life is really just a well-defined ordering of studiable objects, and the universe a larger and more disordered such system.
Sorry about the little mix up there. I was really agreeing with Bennett's claim, but for slightly different reasons.
(Hey-I have to push the Cult of Maths-linked site somehow.)
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenbbarr:
It is irrational to accept a complicated epxlanation based on faith when a simple one based on reason suffices.
If you don't mind me paraphrasing in-game messages, I noticed that some stuff I was saying sounded a bit familiar, and looking through archives revealed that you had told me that Hume said something to the effect that it is irrational to attribute something to a miracle when other evidence is present. Care to be more specific here/enlighten me?
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by ToeYou, like many other theists, are mistaken as to what atheism means. Atheism is not a belief structure, but rather it is the lack of beliefs. It is a negation, not an affirmation. The atheist doesn't need to prove that god did not create the universe, for the burden of proof lies with the theist. If you are to claim that god created the universe, then you must be able to offer some proof for your claim in order for me to believe it. If you are unable to do so, then my only logical choice is to not believe your claim. The atheist does not put forward any claims of his own. He merely denies the truthfulness of the theistic claims.
Alas this argument is not congruent with atheim as defined: i'm afraid there is NO 'evidence' of the lack of god, though one can posulate the lack of certain definitions of god (or gods) according to the specific religeous denominations.
For example: you cannot disprove that some 'god' created the universe, then went off and totally ignored it: thus the ...[text shortened]... lief structure of choice for the non-believer.
My own beliefs are mine: I'm not evangelical.
Of course, failing to offer any convincing proofs to back up your claim does not in turn prove that the claim is false. But it does mean that it should not be accepted as being true. The atheist does not claim that god can be proven to be false. He merely states that unless he is presented with proof to indicate that god exists, he will continue to assume that god does not exist. The atheist freely admits that he may be wrong and that god does exist, but he thinks the preponderance of evidence would indicate otherwise.
This is not to be confused with agnosticism which claims that since the existence of god can be neither proven nor disproven, then god is just as likely to exist as to not. He thinks that nothing more can be said on the subject. The atheist, by contrast, thinks the balance of evidence comes down squarely against the existence of god.
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenOf course I don't mind, Mark. Hume's basic claim was that the antecedent probability that a miracle has occurred is incredibly small, since miracles are violations of laws of nature. So, any testimony to the effect that a miracle has occurred will be in all probability incorrect. It is always more probable that the person(s) testifying to the occurrance of the miracle are mistaken or dissembling. Others have taken up this argument and applied it not only to the testimony of others, but also to potential first-person experiences of weird phenomena. The issue becomes much hairier when discussing what set of experiences could make it rational to believe that a miracle had occurred. There are also deep issues here surrounding the establishment of antecedent probability, problems common to Bayesianism.
bbarr:
If you don't mind me paraphrasing in-game messages, I noticed that some stuff I was saying sounded a bit familiar, and looking through archives revealed that you had told me that Hume said something to the effect that it is irrational to attribute something to a miracle when other evidence is present. Care to be more specific here/enlighten me?
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by buckkyUh...But doesn't God intervene in human affairs all through the Bible? Isn't God's sacrifice of his only begotten blah blah blah the ultimate intervention?
Allowing one to suffer is proof of nothing. The none intervention of a God is what makes God a God. Puppets are no fun. The "Prime Directive" is the key. Non intervention!
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by bbarrBlah, blah, blah? I really should catch up on my reading 🙂 Reading your statement about God's only begotten..., you seem to be focusing on ONLY the Christian concept. You, I and quite a few people here will agree that that concept is in error. But you must take into account that there exist concepts about God that are not contained in (or even close) to the Christian concept of God sacrificing his son (God commiting suicide?) Since you brought this topic of sacrifice up, is the Christian concept of God "allowing" or in certain cases justifying human sacrifice? That alone should be enough to show that the Christian viewpoint is totally untenable (sort of like black's position is a Marcozy bind). Please contrast this to the Jewish concept, it could be argued that God sacrificed all those he had killed by the Jews. But it must aslo be seen that those God "ordered" killed were killed as a punishment for something NOT sacrificed as someone elses punishment. Now i know this will open a HUGE can of worms but I am extremely glad to see a thread on this topic. It is unfortunate that I am going on vacation and will be unable to participate as I would like. But rest assured I will return in 7 days and I will participate in this thread. Now I forget who but someone here asked if a theist could be a Freethinker, my gut reaction would be yes. As a matter of fact, the man in my avatar was a deist (theist) as his belief was that there is a supreme power (being) but that belief conforms to neither Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism, etc. Now being "dogmatic" towards religion would (in my opinion) rule out being a Freethinker.
Uh...But doesn't God intervene in human affairs all through the Bible? Isn't God's sacrifice of his only begotten blah blah blah the ultimate intervention?
Amici Sumus
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by bbarrI must agree with you in the sense that the bible does not support the theory of God creating the universe and then lets is run of its own accord.
Uh...But doesn't God intervene in human affairs all through the Bible? Isn't God's sacrifice of his only begotten blah blah blah the ultimate intervention?
However, I understand that the point he was trying to make was that the existence of suffering has no bearance upon the existence of God. I understand where you are coming from in your point about it, but to say that a just God would not permit suffering in the world is to hold God to a moral level of your own. Your belief therein that God cannot exists because it does not fit your personal moral code is based purely upon your own discernment of morality.
14 Aug 03
Originally posted by eddie andersIf Rangers are the greatest football team on earth? What happened against FC Copenhagen
i think you are in need of a footballing lesson rangers are the greatest team to grace this earth no team will stop us we will be champions of europe so give your self a shake montathingy😛
😀