Would you date/marry someone who was not an atheist?
Offline I have read lots of threads in the past as a lurker, and it seems quite a lot of you atheists here are married to theists. Personally, I would never do that. Especially not since I would like to have children someday. I have never been married, don't have any kids, and am not in a relationship or dating. However, to have a serious relationship, I must find another atheist. I have spent my whole life around conservative Christians and I am completely disgusted with them. I can't stand the idea of willingly living with theists. Therefore, I would never date one, and especially not marry one. I also want to make sure any children I have in the future are raised rationally as freethinkers and have a united consistant outlook from both parents. One thing though, that sucks, is that limiting myself to fellow atheists greatly reduces the number of potential dates and relationships I can have, since atheists are clearly in a minority. How do yall in mixed atheist/theist relationships deal with raising your children, if you have any? I suspect that many atheists that are married to theists were not atheists when they got married, although I'm sure that is not always the case. Anyway, I think this could be an interesting discussion, at least to me.
- Login to post comments
I prefer the Epicurean approach -
According to Epicurus, god/s/dess do not interact with this world as they are in the perfect state of bliss. Interacting with the world and mankind, would bring them pain and so they do not. Therefore, don't worry about him/her/it/them as they are not worried about you.
In my own words, as long as god/s/dess do not interact with the world, for me, s/he/it/they do not exist.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Wow, I got laid into pretty strongly.
Anyways, i think 100% nailed it on the head. My agnosticism isn't about ignorance nor is it about being a dunce, as it was so kindly put. It is also not about preserving face or value, it is simply a reflection of an informed opinion. I have very little data about what came before the big-bang and what came 200 steps before that is well off the radar. I am a highly ignorant individual about our origins and anyone that claims not to be may as well be a theist.
Is it possible that a being so much further advanced than us managed to create the big bang or trigger life? Unlikely, but not off the charts unlikely. Humans have often mistaken simply ignorance for magic or super naturalism. I find the idea of the standard judeo-christian god preposterous but can I say with certainty that it is impossible? No.
I don't consider myself a dunce or any of the other wonderful terms tossed my way, we clearly just have a stark difference in opinion. You may look at this as being fearful of terms, I see your usage as polarizing a term that doesn't really need polarization.
I don't believe in any gods.
I believe any common concept of a god is extremely unlikely to the point of absurdity, but I also don't believe I can make the claim of certainty that isn't one. I do not believe it is possible to know with certainty that a god does not exist. I do believe that if a god exists, we will eventually be able to prove it through science.
I can simply say with certainty that I don't believe in any gods.
Including many of our favourites brains on the boards of this forum. They would suggest there is the vanishing possibility of a creative force or prime mover given we do not know how the universe/multiverse was formed. Vanishing possibilities are obviously, vanishingly small, as you have been quick to point out. Of course these god things are not the sorts of god things the god-people on this planet keep jamming down our throats. Perhaps the creative force is a cloud of quantum matter or a cosmic yo-yo or a cycle of fusion/fission in some particle we know nothing about. I personally go with 'fuck knows' but this is a grey area. I think we would both agree that all the gods and deities we have ever heard of on this planet are a crock of shit.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Both are the case for me.
Yes, and I have no problem demonstrating that this 'God' is impossible. It has been well demonstrated, and even long before I was ever around.
And I disagree. I believe offering proof positive for another complete and consistent world view is the only way to fully demolish the god of the gaps.
I don't know what you are talking about. Human is easily enough defined within a margin that is not logically impossible.
Would you like a range of definitions?
Here's one: N. Entity possessing, to an extent, human genetic material, correlated to greater than 50% over that of other existent species.
Here's another: Adj. a trait deliberately and causally formed by way of intelligent decisions from something that is human.
I could give you dozens of acceptable and precise definitions. One needn't define *every* element of a thing, only enough to set it apart from that which is NOT the thing.
Definitions function by including things which are the subject, and excluding things which are not the subject. That's all the definition needs to do.
Are any of the definitions I provided logically impossible? No. That is, do they contain any internal logical contradictions? No.
You can ad hoc the definitions as much as you want, but they need to be logically precise enough to include the subject, and exclude things which are not it.
Sure, it's not difficult. The problem with logical disproofs is that theists usually don't accept logic over faith (or won't sit down and listen long enough to hear them without forgetting the first half- I have literally had theist actively forget the proofs within minutes to where they genuinely can't recite them back in full).
There's a different, optimal, way to say and explain it for each common definition.
Here's one for reference, based on your definition:
Your definition is unclear, but I will address the likely interpretations:
"The universe" is inherently inclusive of all space-time and existence when you say it that way. Causality doesn't exist outside 'the universe' by nature- the action of "hit enter button" is logically incoherent. This god you have postulated is logically impossible.
If there is another universe outside of this being, it is not the ultimate creator (and you get a string of infinite regression- who created that creator, what made that universe, etc.).
If you qualify this statement as "our perceivable universe" then you have made your god both relative and arbitrary; I who have made an ant farm am just as much verifyably god as any other in an objective sense. This definition fails to be exclusive.
Give me a definition of a god, and I will debunk it as logically impossible, or show you how it is not an acceptable definition. I have been through every dictionary definition I have found many times; every common and accepted definition- anything beyond these definitions just is not a common or acceptable definition.
This sounds pretty ridiculous.
Having proof makes one vulnerable to spontaneously disregarding the proof and taking up a position of blind faith, whereas being ignorant of the proof in the first place makes that less likely?
What are you smoking?
I would expect you to be far more likely to spontaneously become Christian if you experienced a "miracle", a vision, strange dream, etc. because you have no real logical reason to disbelieve random anecdotal empirical evidence which you could easily misinterpret as from a god.
If I experienced a vision of a god coming down to Earth and asking me to have faith in it, I would still not believe- because I would know it to be a hallucination or some manipulation by a being that was not a god (perhaps special effects, or something mechanically induced), given the logical impossibility of a god.
After my last post, if you still haven't learned, then it's about both. You're being an ignorant dunce (a dunce is a person who won't learn).
Take it from somebody else, then, who is less snarky than I am:
Which is precisely my point.
A potato is not an airplane. An electron is not a star. A square is not a circle. A deity is not quantum foam.
Words have definitions that attempt to include themselves and exclude things that are not themselves.
When we refer to active disbelief in gods, we are referring to a certain subset of *honest* definitions which are very clearly impossible. Or as Atheistextremist put it, are crocks of shit.
If you are referring to a non-standard definition of a god, you might as well start scrambling up all of your definitions on a whim and give up using language entirely-- these non-standard definitions are not what we are referring to, because they are neither acceptable definitions of 'God' nor 'gods' as they have stood historically and ontologically since the inception of recorded history.
If you want to assert that quantum foam qualifies a deity, that's an entirely different argument (an ontologically absurd one) which has nothing whatsoever to do with the antitheist or positive atheist rejection of the claim of the existence of deities, or adoption of the opposite claim.
No, it's a reflection of ignorance; persistent ignorance, and acceptance of a very underhanded kind of linguistic dishonesty.
You don't need that data to assert logical fact, particular in regards to such things as "1 + 2 = 5", square circles, or deities.
That's a pretty f*cking bold claim to make, and you had better be ready to fight to back that up.
This does not qualify a god.
You have not defined the standard Abrahamic god, you've presented a weak and ambiguous definition that fails to disqualify evident non-deities.
This is not a difference of opinion. A difference of opinion is acceptable... that's like "Mmm... this alfalfa shake is delicious" vs. "Yuck, no, alfalfa tastes bad!"
Or hell, even "Murdering people is fun", vs. "No way, that's not very nice!"
Those are opinions- the second of the latter case perhaps overwhelmingly supported over the first, but opinions none-the-less.
What you are expressing are ignorantly incorrect facts.
You are mistaken.
Now that *is* a statement of faith.
I am disappointed, quite hoped you'd call me names too.
Please give me a textbook definition of the following:
Agnostic
Atheist
In 200 words or less explain the origin of each of the words, their root, and use them in a sentence. ~ very elementary, I know, but I really want to know your understanding of the words.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
You can be anything you want to be, I don't care lol.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
This sounds like "Zen-Buddhism" to me.
See, I told ya, you are a believer!
Have you ever witnessed the conversion of a Christian to an Atheist after you have "fully demolished the god"?
... anyone ....?
best,
100%
No, but I have had this discussion with Blake before. The best I ever did was demolish the religion and convince someone to switch from a charismatic church to a mainstream church. I thought that was pretty good, actually.
edit: The best I ever did with a theist, not with Blake. Obviously, I was not good at convincing Blake of much of anything. He has even forgotten to give positive reinforcement.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
If you mean to suggest that I walloped on you intellectually, somehow... rest assured I didn't.
Blake has demonstrated, OVER and OVER, that he has little tolerance of viewpoints that run counter to his own. He only knows one 'correct'...
way to be atheistic. And that is, of course, to piss all over anything that seems less-than-staunchly opposed to all religions. He's excessively pedantic, for that matter. Then again...
he isn't going to win anyone's heart OR mind with that arrogant and pompous little attitude of his.
He is also highly pedantic about... vocabulary? Meh, whatever. My question is "Who's going to give a shit about 100% certainty of an undeified Universe?" and I answer, thusly "Not many besides the overly anal-retentive eggheads of the world." (it was a rhetorical question) On the other hand...
Blake certainly does put the 'whimpering idealists' of atheism to shame and often sends one or two of them into a rage. That, by itself, more than puts a diabolical grin on my face more often than not, and it pleases to me NO END!
So if I had to be called up in order to (hypothetically) defend Blake's post content, my defense would rest on "character witnesses": every last unrealistic dreamer sniveling about the less-than-ideal circumstances that he or she has found themselves in! My "closing argument" would sound something along the lines of: " Blake may not be all that charismatic; he may not even know how talk to people rather than simply talk at them! But, LADIES and GENTLEMEN... he does have the facts on his side!"
In this hypothetical, I would certainly hope that the prosecutor doesn't point out the definition of agnostic:
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I may have just preempted this type of 'argumentative' rhetorical behavior on your part. (It was too tempting to resist, though!)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Well, I did ask you if you were a potato; though for purposes of demonstration.
I'm not going to count my words, because I will delve in to the definitions more than you are used to. I suspect that you are just trying to waste my time, but here you go:
Agnostic:
Strictly speaking-
a + gnostic = lacking in knowledge of the spiritual/transcendent. This can also be, but is less commonly, the belief that such knowledge is unattainable (although the knowledge that the knowledge is unattainable would be some knowledge of the thing itself ) . It could also be, as I suspect it was originally intended (although ambiguously) , the belief that spiritual origins of knowledge are not valid.
Coined by the famous Darwin's bulldog, Thomas Huxley, in an era where atheism was still highly unacceptable, as a stance against claims of spiritual knowledge. As I said above, I suspect his original intent was for a meaning that was very much not what it has come to mean (and could be equated with mere naturalism ) ; but, of course he's not alive to confirm or deny this, so it's just idle speculation.
I don't blame him for copping out on this (and in either case, it was a bit of a cop-out in comparison with potentially more accurate descriptions), in the words of Susan B. Anthony:
Alienating potential supporters by being a hard-liner on everything isn't the best way to go if one wishes to be effective.
Lets just say I wouldn't be the most functional politician, due to my generally uncompromising nature.
Huxley aside;
Comparing the definitions, the three I mentioned above largely conflict with each other- as does some modern usage conflict with them.
That is-- a probabilistic belief in the existence or lack thereof of such spiritual or theistic elements *might* not even qualify as agnostic by the first, and certainly not by the second I mentioned, as this implies knowledge (albeit uncertain knowledge, estimation of probability is still knowledge) .
Apathetic ignosticism may be closer now to older usage, but I really don't care enough to determine that for certain.
The use of the term "platform agnostic" for software better reflects this in some ways.
More recently, agnostic has been taken to mean a degree of uncertainty, allowing for probabilistic knowledge (although traditionally this might have been meaningless, since absolute certainty of anything is profoundly rare) , and as such may now be coupled to any inclination of belief to indicate lack of complete certitude (namely, for the express purpose of copping out) .
Atheist:
Roughly-- ungodly.
One who does not hold a positive belief in the existence of a deity or deities/god or gods, or one who may hold such belief, but does not recognize or worship those deities or gods. Or, more rarely, one who denies the Abrahamic god in particular, in any way (this last definition is very antiquated, but still in use- denying "the God" ) .
Breaking it down from its modern form, we can clearly see: a + theist = atheist. Although atheist as a term derived from the older atheos (same roots, meaning roughly 'without gods' ) , with a few middle languages in the way; rather trivial note, and probably not of any relevance since the meaning has been largely preserved.
Positive/strong atheism, "gnostic" atheism, or "antitheism" is something more explicit, but is also contained within "atheist" as an alternate definition (and logically under, and not excluded by, much of the above anyway) .
All of these, of course, hinge on the definition of the spiritual and/or of deities/gods/'God'.
Either of the above can be used as adjectives or nouns.
I'm not going to use them in a sentence for you- the all seemed highly unnecessary, and quite a waste of time-- if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them.
A few, but they weren't very deep in.
Others: temporarily, but they tend to emotionally rebound. I've bumped people along the path more frequently (in what I suspect is more permanent) Religious -> more deist/spiritual -> agnostic -> atheist. Usually only a couple rungs; beyond that I have no reason to believe it persists.
That is pretty good.
No I haven't. I didn't mean I'd do it online :P I enjoy too much being snarky. I do have to stay in character.
I'm actually trying that elsewhere; didn't say anything about doing it across the board.
I'm not all together concerned with winning hearts and minds on the interweb; this is for my amusement. Real relationships- therein I'm willing to try harder and be patient.
Actually, I was not trying to waste your time and I do appreciate you listing your definitions. I am trying to determine if it is just the internet placing the limitations on communication or if you are actually ... angry at people.
It seems as though you do indeed understand the meaning of the words agnostic and atheist. I THINK you are trying to say that you are tired of seeing the word 'agnostic' used as a middle of the road word, a safe word for those who won't commit to either saying they believe or don't believe.
It just seems that you are lashing out at many people on here that use the term agnostic. They may have full understanding of the word and may not use it in the way you think they are. Perhaps I am not reading you correctly ~ I do understand that you are of the school of thought that holds 100% certainty there is no god ~ maybe the use of "agnostic atheist" is what has you so passionate in your delivery?
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
This is certainly true.
This is not so.
People can be closeted atheists who go to church, and believe that religion is a good thing and needed to keep society in line.
Doesn't mean I can't call them idiots, though
I'm arguing against idiocy, here, not theism. I am arguing against agnosticism as a form of idiocy.
Where I draw the line, and am unyielding in my attack of agnosticism, is where agnostics (of any flavour) suggest that positive atheism is a position of faith- it most certainly is not. That's an expression of a 'fact', which is simply false. I will argue it until there's nothing left to argue.
It's my way of the ninja.
I may not be endearing to everybody, but I'm at least memorable, visible, and interesting. A meek and humble character? Yeah, that ever got anybody anywhere... tis better to be infamous than unknown.
That said, I'm largely here for my amusement (and yours; you're welcome).
That they are unknown by anybody is a statement of faith. That they are unknowable/that human knowledge is thusly limited is an assertion of empiricism, and a denial of rationalism. Such an assertion is intellectually bankrupt, as it rejects the validity of logic.
See the definitions I described in my post; you covered the first and second. Insofar as 'unknown' spans beyond personal knowledge into suggesting the knowledge that others possess, it is idiotic. 'Unknowable' is patently idiotic, as is empiricism and dialetheism.
Now, the definition I feel may have been closer to what Huxley intended is not idiotic- that which is more near to naturalism- however, I currently have no way to verify this potential definition, and it is certainly not in common usage.
The current form coming into popular usage and indicating only uncertainty isn't strictly idiotic, but makes the word far less meaningful.
The only definition I could possibly be agnostic under is the one I suspect Huxley *may* have been trying to advocate (but may not have expressed clearly or unambiguously enough)- in that I absolutely reject the spiritual as a source of knowledge. Like I've said, though, that's idle speculation, and has not much to do with common usage.
The empirical evidence is not really useful, because:
A. People can choose not to understand it, or be incapable of understanding it due to inadequate IQ
B. People can choose to ignore it
C. People can reject the logic it is founded on- See dialetheism
D. People can reject the empirical evidence via ad-hoc acts of deities, or straight out lies and conspiracy theories- See evil atheist scientist conspiracies
The logical proofs are not very useful because:
A. They've been around for ages, and apologists have constructed confusing counter-arguments that out-number the logical disproofs and succeed in throwing people off without negating the arguments-- a.k.a. people don't want to understand them, and seek out confusion for that purpose
B. People can choose to ignore them- or choose to not pay attention, or avoid sitting through them
C. People can reject logic- Again, see dialetheism (a.k.a. insanity)
People are idiots. If they want to believe something, short of strapping them to chairs and forcing them to listen, they'll tune out the opposition. And particularly in the case of the empirical evidence (which is complicated and difficult to understand) people are often not intelligent enough to grasp it even if they try.
Logical disproofs of 'God' are neither difficult to find, nor difficult to construct. For the empirical disproof, you'll have a bit more investment on your hands.
Blake is pretty consistent with comming out as an ass. I think he uses this forum to vent, as do I most of the time. It's frustrating feeling like a small bit of sanity in a sea of delusion. The internet is an easy release, and this probably fits most of the people here. I myself try to reserve being a sarcastic ass for those who really deserve it. I really love the sarcasm, I have a jar of it on my coffee table in front of me.
The rare occasion when someone actually comes up with something genuinely thoughtful, or a new interesting way to look at something is the only reason I continue here. I appreciate 100%'s line of logic, though *I think* he is here in part to help himself to make a decision. He does bring a different perspective in the way he questions rather than states. So many of us are guilty of just stating facts and what we think, too few -really- ask..questions.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I got bored of reading his posts.
I don't believe you can scientifically prove to me that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
He seems to think you can. I'll wait to see the evidence that supports that.
He seems to think I'm an idiot / dunce / ignorant for not believing he can provide that evidence.
I got bored.
I don't think his posts are worth reading.
Sounds like a pretty ineffective discussion / debate to me.
You have a short attention span, I understand. That explains, albeit doesn't really justify, your duncy ignorance.
No, you'll ignore the evidence, as you have persistently ignored the evidence against gods thus far.
I don't expect you to have a positive belief that I can provide that evidence- that would be faith, without having seen the conclusive evidence.
I expect you not to have a positive belief that I certainly can not provide the evidence- as it stands, you hold an incredible amount of certain faith that it is impossible to disprove these gods. Your certain and positive belief that I can not disprove these gods is faith.
You are a fideist; your faith is in the most idiotic form of agnosticism.
Yes, you are an idiotically ignorant faith-head dunce. There you go- you win my longest insult of the day.
If you will renege on that claim, and say "well, you know, maybe you can provide the evidence, and maybe you can't" that would be fine.
Under that assumption, however, you CAN NOT claim that positive atheism is based on faith- you can only say that you don't know if it's based on faith or not.
Genuine humility would be acceptable. Yours is a pseudo-humility covering up the deepest idiotic arrogance. F*cking hypocritical agnostics.
This is why I can't stand agnostics. They make profoundly arrogant and asinine claims, and then they run off and hide- they don't have the backbone to stand up and be accountable for what they've claimed.
Theists at least generally are more honest and have more integrity than agnostics- I tolerate the position only insofar as it is often an unavoidable stepping stone to positive atheism.
As a long-term position, however, it is potentially more cowardly and idiotic than the worst kinds of theism. Cop-out.
There you go.
I didn't say it was impossible to demonstrate that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, I said I don't think you can. There is a big difference there. I would say that I am lending you the same credibility that you can prove to me that a god does not exist that I lend the credibility of a god actually existing which is to say, that I believe it so extremely unlikely. I am always open to what is 'fact' changing. Despite not believing that any god exists, I am still happy to read all the evidence that is sent to me that people claim will prove that their god exists so I am happy to read yours.
Toss all the insults you want, that doesn't lend credibility to your claims, it only takes away your own credibility as it makes you appear a raving lunatic not worth listening to rather than a person with a legitimate point. Prove to me that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. Show me the evidence.
Saying that we are all ignorant is a profoundly arrogant and asinine claim?
Wow...I am not running from being accountable, I just think that if you honestly believe you know everything and are ignorant to nothing then you are way too thick headed to be worth my time. My point is simple...we, as a species, know very little by contrast with knowing everything. If we weren't ignorant, we wouldn't have any questions, we would be omniscient. I take pride in my ignorance and do everything in my power to fight it. You seem to be a know it all which, by my assessment, is far more arrogant than my belief that myself and everyone else are ignorant to many things which should be nothing more than then obvious truth.
I am annoyed by people who insist that positive atheism is a stance of faith- particularly because:
1. It isn't
2. Those people are hypocrites, because that very insistence is a stance of faith
It's a cop-out. People are welcome to cop-out if they want (I don't have to respect it).
What I'm tired of are the arrogant agnostics.
Using the term, coupled with atheist, is semantically fine to imply a bit of uncertainty- it is, however, entirely unnecessary, and quite simply a cop-out when asserted.
Agnostic as a belief in itself is idiotic.
Not very passionate, I'm just saying it's a cop-out, and I find it hard to fully respect the use as such.
What have me 'passionate' in my delivery are the arrogant dunces who claim agnosticism as a shield while accusing positive atheism as being a stance of faith equivalent to theism.
Those coming from agnosticism as a measure of uncertainty have no grounds on which to assert that a belief is faith, because they don't know who has what evidence- when they claim they do, they are well deserving of spite and ridicule.
Those who hold agnosticism as a core belief, with the single exception of the possible belief of Huxley himself (which as I've said, is speculation rather than valid modern word use), as fideistic idiots, as the certain positive belief that evidence does not exist, or can not exist, is a stance of faith.
Do you follow what I'm saying?
What test can you perform that would prove that something that does not exist, does not exist? How you do you demonstrate that there is no such thing as a unicorn or never has been any such thing as a unicorn? All we can really say is that there is no evidence that suggests there is a unicorn.
I am quite happy to be proven wrong, but I am skeptical.
Any 'positive atheist' claims I have witnessed in the past have been 100% emotional commitment to there not being a god with no evidence that would support it, just a demonstration of the lack of evidence to support a god which is not evidence that there is no god. You have played right into this stero-type as you have appeared to be emotionally charged and offensive in your approach yet I am yet to see anything that would demonstrate beyond doubt that something that does not exist, does not exist.
You said that positive atheism was a faith based position, which means you know for certain that we don't have proof-positive that these gods can not exist.
Are you now recanting that statement, to say that you actually don't know if it's faith or not?
Then read it already. Nobody is stopping you.
I'm not insulting you to gain credibility- it doesn't work that way. I'm insulting you because I like to state the obvious. Insults serve their own purpose. It doesn't hurt or help my credibility from any rational perspective.
Yes. In doing so you are claiming absolute personal revelation of certain knowledge that all human beings are ignorant. You don't f*cking know that. It is an arrogant and asinine claim.
I didn't say that; I said that your faith based belief that I don't know something, or am not ignorant to something that you believe that all people are ignorant to, makes you thick headed [a dunce].
This isn't about me, it's about you.
It's about your claiming humility, and then making asinine statements of profound arrogance- that *you* know everything about what everybody else can and can not know.
If you now are not saying this, then you have some statements to recant. I will await your formal recantation and apology.
Your last statement , however, seems to indicate that you still very much hold to your old faith-based world view:
If by obvious truth, you mean fideistic personal revelation on your part.
Arrogantly ignorant delusionally hypocritical fideistic dunce.
Sorry, I didn't see this reply; you must have written it while I was posting.
You don't perform any tests- that's the problem with empiricism. Empiricism is about physical observations- about knowing the world through the senses. We could very well be in "The Matrix", or a deity could be meddling with our observations. Empiricism is inherently flawed, because it can only tell us what might be, or what probably is.
Rationalism, in contrast to empiricism, uses logic to tell is not what is, but what is not.
Something can be proven false by demonstrating that its very nature is in logical self-contradiction. Something that is self-contradictory can not exist.
No test need be done at all to disprove gods- we simply analyze the definitions, break them up into their logical components, and then expose contradiction.
I believe I was quite clear on this.
One would demonstrate that there is no such thing, and never has been, as a unicorn by examining the definition and finding a logical contradiction. If there exists no contradiction, then this can not be done.
We can NOT say that there is no evidence that suggests there is a unicorn unless we know that unicorns are impossible- there might be evidence, we just might be ignorant to it.
You can say that *you* don't have evidence. I can say that *I* don't have evidence. But we can not speak for each-other's evidence unless we are mind-readers, or unless we have demonstrated that unicorns are impossible (thus making evidence of them impossible as well).
Lets investigate the definitions of a unicorn (paraphrasing):
1. Creature resembling a white horse with a single horn
Well, this looks alright- could very well exist, as I can't well prove that it's impossible for a white horse to have a horn.
2. Creature resembling a white horse with a single horn, which when used as medicine possesses the power to cure all diseases, and that as a creature is invisible to all but virgins.
This all looks alright- perhaps unlikely, but still could be possible.
I can't find any accounts of unicorns that lend themselves to complete logical impossibility. I am not quick to call something impossible. Examine the definitions of 'God', and you will find it less forgiving on these terms.
Indeed, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, logical impossibility is-- not just evidence, put proof.
I'm surprised you haven't encountered any logical argument against the existence of a god- you apparently didn't read my posts, and perhaps have generally avoided reading many posts here at all, because it would be hard not to stumble across one.
I admit I haven't read all your posts because it you lose me with the brick wall of ranting. This is where your approach loses you credibility. Your entire argument and point gets ignored because it comes across as nothing more than insult filled drivel. I, personally, don't see any value in debating as it is a clear indication that you are not up for discussion but merely spouting your own view without flexibility and without thought. Now, I know this is an assumption, but one that has served well over the years. There are many people out there talking, I tend to stick with the ones who don't come off as raving lunatics and who at the very least try to appear like they are being objective.
I believe that it is extremely unlikely that god exists.
I believe it is equally unlikely that you can prove to me that god does not exist. While I appreciate that empiricism is not suitable for proving all things, and most certainly for disproving the non-existence of things, the problem with the concept of a god is that there are so many definitions. While I agree that the contradictions in, say, the Chrisitan god, should demonstrate that he does not exist, I can't as a blanket statement say that no form of any god exists. How do I disprove the god that created the universe and walked away? There are no contradictions there, just a statement that there was something prior to the point that we know a decent amount about. Let me be clear: I am not agnostic to the Christian god. I am very to a very minor extent agnostic to the potential for "a" form of a god.
Well, I'm not going to type it all out again. You are perfectly capable of going back up to read.
Just say: "Yes Blake, I have absolute certainty and complete faith that there are not contradictions in that definition."
So let's hear it, eh?You can skip the personal definitions in the same way that you wouldn't question if somebody wanted you to eat an airplane for dinner if said person offered you a potato. This narrows it down some 99.99999999% or so. People aren't referring to the non-standard personal definition of "George Bush Jr." when they answer 'no' to belief in Santa-clause (even though, somewhere out there somebody may define Santa-clause as good ol' Dubya). We aren't, and couldn't be, referring to all of the arbitrary personal definitions of gods when we avow disbelief.
The primary impossible qualities of deities that you will find one or more of in all of the standard definitions:
Prime mover, All-creator, benevolent, malevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, supernatural.
(I may be missing a couple, it is quite late)
Seriously, just do your homework before you go around accusing positive atheists of having faith based world views.
If you don't want to read (which is perfectly understandable, some people are lazy and content to be stupid), and you don't want to be called an arrogantly ignorant fideistic dunce, then just stop running your mouth off to insult us. It's pretty simple.
I don't want to jump on the bash Blake wagon but, you did nail it, and I had to note it.
/memo
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Probably this discussion went way off of date/marry me topic.
Nevertheless, I still don't see any mathematical logic fallacy in statement "God created the Big Bang". Note that "who created God" is a completely different question.
Even if an argument seems to be a total carp [
] and absurd, it still may very well be logically correct. For example, the statement that "ALL BLUE MARSUPIAL COWS HAVE FIVE LEGS" is logically true. If you want to disprove it, you ought to present just ONE blue marsupial cow that has some different number of legs. 
Best,
100%
First off, there's a big difference between 'the' big bang, and 'a' big bang. The former is a hypothetical initialization of all space-time and reality. The latter is potentially a minor cosmological event in the grand scheme of things.
If you are trying to say, roughly, 'God' is that which caused a big bang--
That is not now, nor has it ever been, the definition of 'God'. Having caused a big bang does not a god make. You are using ONE ascribed action to define the entity itself- that's like saying Walt Disney is defined as somebody who has drawn Micky Mouse- this makes anybody who has drawn Micky Mouse the genuine article, Walt Disney.
'God' is the all-creator, not just a creator. It's easy to create a universe; not so easy to create the universe.
I could construct a picture of an entity that caused "a big bang", or even "our big bang", which would be overwhelmingly rejected by a theistic usage panel as being 'God'. The definition does not exclude things that are not 'God'.
But then, when you say 'THE':
...it isn't [a different question] anymore.
Either way, bear in mind that not all 'things that created the universe' would be considered 'God'.
You have to conform to common usage here. A potato is not an airplane.
You can't say that. It *might* not be logically incoherent, but that is yet to be demonstrated. All we can say is that a logical contradiction has yet to be revealed in this statement.
Bear in mind that just because you don't see a contradiction, doesn't mean there isn't one.
In accordance with #1, #3, and #4 of the first definition, a cow is not a marsupial. However, of course we have the generic application to mature female mammals- so this would be acceptable as per #2. The other definitions are not relevant to this statement.
We would have to go through every single word and deconstruct this phrase in detail to be sure there are no contradictions present; and if there were, you'd have to adjust the statement a bit, or abandon it. Adjusting the statements is just fine, but then you will tend to find that they include things you didn't wish to include.
If it is impossible to construct a definition which includes the things that are the subject while excluding the things that are not the subject, the subject is undefined (i.e. that doesn't qualify a valid definition). When the subject is defined as possessing impossible characteristics, the subject is impossible.
You probably don't understand why definitions are actually important, and to that I can only give you this; what if you had said:
"All cyan-red hued square circles have 1/0 legs"
Do you see any problems there? A statement must in itself be logically coherent. Any given statement is not guaranteed to be.
Blake,
1) Regarding a/the business. As you know, English is not my native language, but in this particular case, I have to confirm that my usage of a-s and the-s was as intended. By THE Big Bang I meant the one that is described by the modern cosmological theories, that's it.
2) You seem to be knowing a lot about properties of your personal God. You know, I don't care. I don't care if we call God a creator of ping pong balls or the only almighty creator of the entire universe. I am an atheist, I do NOT care about the properties of a god. And I don't care if you say that we should care because the Christianity is the dominant religion. You will never be able to feed this to a Muslim or a Hindu. Hindu or Buddhists may not digest "the only creator" b.s..
3) I was talking about elementary mathematical logic. If we start with a false argument then ANY correlated conclusion is true. If you don't understand this then any theist, who is smart enough to learn math, will logically excuse you as a negligible obstacle. Please read about material implication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
I agree with many of your statements and arguments. However, the holes in your logic are often so big that even the most ignorant theist will point at you and say "what the ..., this ... atheist is trying to teach me???"
We the Atheists must not let our ignorance and uncontrolled "feelings" and "anger" to fuel the fire of theistic propaganda.
I'm very likely wrong on many things, this is just what I think...
Best,
100%
Just out of your curiosity.
The noun in this statement is "circles". From Wikipedia,"Circles are simple closed curves" . If we are not talking about space-filling curves, then curves are one-dimensional objects in a multidimensional space. The thickness of a curve is a zero. Such one-dimensional objects of finite size cannot interact with visible light. So, here is the proof that circles have no color. Then, it is proven that the first part of the above statement is false.
It is really difficult to "play" with abstract objects. They turn out to be the best defined ones.
Blake...
...it's DISTURBING the similarities between our patterns of thought and of cognizance!
As well, most of our opinions easily overlap with each other. (read every last comment I made in that link, and tell if you don't agree at least a little...)
On the other hand, Blake, if people are idiots, why bother discussing anything with them? They'll still be idiots, no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise.
Not to me he doesn't. I do think he wastes too much time with minds that essentially are inferior to his. It's usually more fun/rewarding to manipulate said, inferior minds for one's own benefit.
"It is better to use pawns as chess pieces, than it is trying convince them that they are, in fact... pawns." -me, trying to match some of the other quips on this site.
In all other respects, he's about as close to ideal a mind that I find it dizzying how ... PERFECT his character is. We need more bright minds like his on our side; ESPECIALLY if they are, indeed, "uncompromising" and elitist as he comes off being. (no sarcasm hidden somewhere in that sentence, either) The amount of socialization that a particular atheist has is irrelevant; they are a 'notch above' the vast majority of the population in terms of intellect, they then have plenty of use within them for the "Atheist Activist" cause. I think it's safe to say that "Atheism and secularism always has more room available for quiz kids and prodigious thinkers, regardless of social capacity."
In favor of what you're implying, I would politely suggest that Blake take control of his emotions, rather than letting his emotional response control him. (Which, basically is the same thing as reactionism.)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
All that aside, has anyone else noticed how amazingly well-groomed, well-dressed, and stunningly good-looking Renee is in her latest avatar?
(Yes, I'm already taken for the time being, so it is not as if I'm trying to hit on her, or anything)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
She's always been a looker.
Given that definition of a circle, that's a fine disproof! Even I missed that one.
Or the easiest to nail down, yes. And definitions of 'God' are very abstract- that's why they're most easily proven false. The harder it is to nail down the definitions, the more versions one has to disprove.
So, that particular big bang- which may just be a big bang.
So, under that definition, a hypothetical:
A distinctly mortal and not omnibenevolent (nor even very powerful) alien creature named Xergon from the planet Zerganon in the universe Bloggnor did an experiment in a particle accelerator and caused, unbeknownst to him (given that he's not anything approaching omniscient, nor even very smart), our big bang and the initialization of our universe.
Mr. Xergon is therefore an acceptable interpretation of 'God'
You think that's a valid god in modern social and historical contexts? You really think that would fly among a theistic usage panel?
If you do, then be agnostic to mr. Xergon and call him a god (I'm agnostic to Xergon, but the difference here is that I don't call him a god). You're fooling yourself, though, and using the word 'god' in a dishonest context if you define it in this way.
Mr. Xergon, though he might be a right fellow, is neither a god, nor the 'God'
You'd do well to realize the limits of these definitions and the word use.
I don't have any personal god. However, if you'd actually bother looking at a dictionary, you would discover those properties that are ascribed for yourself.
Language, and the meaning of words, is not an opinion- it's a meme generated by overwhelming democratic agreement. "God", like potato, has a certain subset of potential meanings.
That's your problem. You won't recognize that 'God' and 'gods' have standard definitions. You seem to be refusing to have the common decency to use words. What *is* your native language? Is randomly making up new personal definitions to words and forcing them on other people common and acceptable where you are from?
You said you were an agnostic atheist. That means you are uncertain if a god exists or not.
Gods are logically impossible- such uncertainty is unnecessary. Gods do not exist.
Hindu and Buddhist gods also have supernatural qualities which are logically impossible. Muslims believe in the "all creator" prime moving god of the Christians.
Duh, ex falso quodlibet.
I'm talking about, and have always been talking about, the law of non-contradiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non-contradiction
See logical explosion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
Don't try to out-smartass a smartass, smartass. Given a contradiction, an entire proposition is incoherent because it breaks logic; my rule trumps your rule. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the first thing about logic.
I don't have any uncontrolled feelings.
We must also not allow the theists to go around believing that their gods are possible, or giving them the impression that they can actually use logic or reason of any kind as a tool.
Caving in and telling them we are "agnostic" to their gods as as good as defeat- it's validating their world view, and giving them permission to hold it with merely the mild caveat that we find it "unlikely".
I don't find it unlikely. It's thoroughly impossible.
There are thousands of deities / gods that have been defined and worshped throughout history. Not all of them meet the dictionary definition unfortunately.
http://www.crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Penn_Says_Agnostic_vs_Atheist/2317311
There ya go, he sums it up very well.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Thanks Rob. Gotta love Penn.
That's a fantastic statement of faith on your part, isn't it, seeing as how you haven't one to present?
Well, then I suggest you actually look inside a few dictionaries, and look up the definition.
If that's true, it should be quite easy for you to find just one valid deity that doesn't fit within the spectrum of available definitions.
I can tell you right now, though, even if you manage to find something archaic which was construed under a bad translation, it won't fly with a modern usage panel, and it simply isn't what the modern question addresses. Neither is Elvis, or Caesar.
The definitional spectrum of deities that atheism addresses are those supernatural beings that require or demand human worship or piety. The magical, or supernatural nature of deities is still fundamental to these minority of deities.
Yeah, you're not worth the time investment. Sorry.
We differ on something too fundamental. You say "a potato is not an airplane" but I see it as you are restricted your definition of god to 'your' definition of god while saying that "a potato is not an airplane" when someone brings up something like the god that 'creates and walks away'. The way I look at is that the potato you disapprove of is not an airplane, but it is simply not a russet potato and your definition of a potato seems to be restricted to russets only. From my perspective, there are many types of potatoes.
Static definitions only please, arrrrgh overload.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Rob, are we actually in agreement here?
I don't like to put things into a small box, to be viewed from one side only.
However On the agnostic and atheist thing, I actually do agree with your assesment. I wouldn't call myself an agnostic if nothing else out of pride, it's like making a concession.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
No, much of this is a semantic argument; one in which you are playing the part of the arrogant idiot.
If definitions are static and factual constructs, then what I'm saying is correct, and positive atheism is perfectly valid without faith.
If definitions are fluid and subject to personal whim, then you have no basis for saying that we can't define atheism however we want.
That definition is a kind of potato, yes, and it has been debunked. You are ignoring this.
There are many types of impossible gods. I went over this.
In conclusion: You are an idiot twice over.
My advice: Stop being an idiot.
Thank you for playing.
I've asked and you have provided no evidence.
The best you have provided is that the said 'god' would not have been the 'ultimate' creator.
Not being the 'ultimate' creator does not negate it from being the creator of our universe.
I went over this. You don't seem to have read it or understood what I wrote. Address my explanation- or are you incapable?
I provided sufficient evidence- it's likely that no evidence would be enough for you, because yours seems to be a position of faith.
I addressed the only thing I saw that seemed to be you addressing it. Post it again if you think that I didn't address it.
There was a time when I would have said no. But I'm beginning to think there are more important compatibility issues when choosing a mate.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
You are perfectly capable of scrolling up and re-reading what I wrote.
Well, I think the big question you should be asking is whether you intend to procreate with this individual, and whether you have any concern for the nature of your future children. If either of the answers are no, then it probably doesn't matter.
If you are planning to procreate, however, and you do care how your children turn out- and rationality is important to you- then there should be nothing more important.
A mate who can be deconverted from religion should seem fine in that respect- but one that can't be is ultimately going to instill, either actively or passively, some religious mush into your children's brains in their formative years. And given the possibility that dogmatic belief is at least partially genetic-- what are you giving those poor kids to work with?