I hope I may (re?)gain some composure on the boards

Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I hope I may (re?)gain some composure on the boards

I guess I've been getting to the sad reality that very few people, even rational thinking atheists, are finding it very hard to shake loose the concept of Religion(man's invention) and the concept of God(something no mortal being could even attempt to create a somewhat accurate representation of, if It even existed) as being anything but two completely seperate matters to be dealt with.

I must accept however, that weeks ago, this frustration towards everyone, was getting very out of control. I have cooled, and will not apologize. I believe my arguments were founded in complete rational thinking, as hot-headed, and as irrational as it may have seemed or sounded.

I believe I have simply come here to not argue the aspects of Religion, which yes, is very inane, and arcane.

The concept of "God" however is one that may never be fully understood, but only discussed and debated on a firm, level basis.

I am so sick of having God and Religion being ONE thing.

Because the concept of God could never be fully understood by a mortal creature, obviously the Judeo-Christian, Islamic, as well as any other form of God, is utterly asinine in it's description of such an entity.

Of course, any set of beliefs which states that I am right, and you are wrong, is a set of beliefs founded by a structure of ignorance and intolerance.

Does that mean God(if existing) is ignorant and intolerant, or simply the devices that has been used to explain such a concept, is ignorant and intolerant?

I guess I came to these boards, not to change the minds of free-thinkers, but rather came here to bolster my opinion on the world(not religion) from rational points of views. I however, am quick to observe that because I label myself as one who believe in a higher entity, I am myself labeled as ignorant and intolerable. In that, the views of many people on these boards could also be labeled and observed as being intolerant towards my beliefs.

I suppose, when coming to these boards, I would have found myself debating the existence of a higher entity, God if you may. That is after what your banner at the top of this website is stating.

I have however, found myself debating the foundations of religion, which I view to be, yes, very related to the concept of God, as religion is firmly based on the IDEA of God.

A rational view of a God, should be free of clutter, free of dogma, and free of the stranglehold which has been religious zealotry(is that a word?) that has dominated the supposedly "free" world for the past 2 millenia.

A rational view of life on earth up to the now is also very quick to point out that the world would most likely be a better place if such dogmatic beliefs would simply vanish. This will not happen, as radical Islamists and fundamental Christians are more quickly to "stay the course" as quickly as you are to even begin a discussion with such close minded individuals as to the validity of their entire belief structure.

-----------So what is there to do about this sickness that we can all agree upon which is religion?------------

Would arguing that because nobody can prove the true existence of such and entity, It MUST be merely a figment of our imagination, something that gives theists a "crutch."

Or would me arguing that because nobody can disprove the true existense of such and entity, then It MAY be something worth at least discussing, rather then completely throwing it out the window as if it was a foul tasting take out meal.

True, religion has been a pretty heaping pile of 3 week old Peking Chicken, but does that mean that the chicken still doesn't exist? May the problems that have been associated with the chicken not be the chickens fault at all, but rather the disgusting cooks faults?

I merely ask now, why did the chicken cross the road?
My only logical answer would be becuase he didn't want to be butchered by the same cooks which has worshipped the chicken for ages now.
(by making such statements I refuse to aknowledge if chickens do infact exist...in all seriousness, what the fuck are chicken nuggets anyways? I really doubt that it is chicken. and why does EVERYTHING taste like chicken? that's kind of ridiculous)

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I would agree with you on

I would agree with you on the rediculousness of religion for worshipping an unknowable entitity, but I see no reason in believing in any god at all for those same reasons.

There are an infinitie number of gods you could come up with, and none of them could be provable or disprovable. The likelyhood of there being any god at all is about the same as the likelyhood of there being invisible, nondisprovable unicorns floating in space...that is, not impossible, but close enough to zero that we can assume it to be so.

Even still, if such an entity existed, if it were "unknowable", it would have no measurable effect on the universe at all, and therefore would not be a "god" at all.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
How do you mean unknowable?

How do you mean unknowable?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote:I guess I've

Ripple wrote:
I guess I've been getting to the sad reality that very few people, even rational thinking atheists, are finding it very hard to shake loose the concept of Religion(man's invention) and the concept of God(something no mortal being could even attempt to create a somewhat accurate representation of, if It even existed) as being anything but two completely seperate matters to be dealt with.

Yes, religion and the 'god hypothesis' can be considered independently of each other. So?

 

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
So.. Because the "God

So.. Because the "God hypothesis" can't be proven by the scientific method means that the God hypothesis is founded in untruth and unfallacy in thinking? Sorry that I answered your question with another question... I do that.. A LOT.

At one point in time, gravity was only a hypothesis. Light being dually a wave and a particle was only a hypothesis. Both things have been "proven" to the point that we all must pretty much accept the fact that both things are very true, and are in fact very much the basis of life, and the cosmos, as we know it. So? Because it was a hypothesis at one point in time, does that make it untrue and based in unfallacy of thinking? Or because it has been proven, through countless experiments, it is no longer a hypothesis, but rather a factual occurance of life, and the basis of life itself. Well then yes, it is, but mind you, gravity is still regarded as a theory, evolution is still regarded as a theory, as well as the Quantum Theory, as well as God is merely only a theory. Does that mean it is untrue?

Maybe God(if it exists) doesn't want us to prove it. Does gravity have a say in whether or not it wants us to prove it or not. Because if that was so, then this world would be chaotic.

But if God doesn't want us to prove it, does that mean this world is chaotic, or rather an elegant universe that works...flawlessly? What is the title of that Brian(is it it Michael? I hate that I can never remember his first name..) Greene book? The Elegeant Universe?

By stating that, I am by no means trying to claim that the only way that the universe works so elegeantly is soley because of God, but I'm merely trying to point out that maybe such an entity could have the capacity to conceive of such a flawlessly working system. Or maybe nature did it, without the work of any such a being. For that, my arguement for the existence of God is very much futile, for I have no proof of God. I admit that to every degree. I however am keeping myself in the a...state of blindness? by completely rejecting even the notion of such a being by simply stating that I have no proof.


What if my proof was that God talked to me(I don't claim a damn thing of such) Would my point of view be accepted by any intellegent human being? Absolutely not. I would probably be sent to a psych ward faster then you can say "god." But does that mean I am really talking to God? Maybe, maybe not; but regardless to every other person upon this planet, for all intents and purposes, I would not be, for the burden of proof lays upon me, and the ability to prove such things(hearing voices) is a burden of proof which is IMPOSSIBLE to prove. Therefore, it wouldn't even matter, except to me, or to anyone else who would believe in my claim of talking to God, if God really was talking to me. I hope that all made sense...I'm so tired right now.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Yes, well, we're really

Yes, well, we're really sorry for mixing God and religion with one another, but, you know, it is actually religion that has invented the concept of "god", and that perpetuates it.

I believe the reason these things are discussed as if they were the same is what I stated above. From your point of view, they are completely different, but from the point of view of the vast majority of theists, they are inseparable. Consider this forum as following the Machiavelian principle of purpose excusing the means.

I hope that the RRS will agree with me on this one. I've asked myself your question as well, Ripple, and came up with this reason only.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: So.. Because

Ripple wrote:
So.. Because the "God hypothesis" can't be proven by the scientific method means that the God hypothesis is founded in untruth and unfallacy in thinking? Sorry that I answered your question with another question... I do that.. A LOT.

At one point in time, gravity was only a hypothesis. Light being dually a wave and a particle was only a hypothesis. Both things have been "proven" to the point that we all must pretty much accept the fact that both things are very true, and are in fact very much the basis of life, and the cosmos, as we know it. So? Because it was a hypothesis at one point in time, does that make it untrue and based in unfallacy of thinking? Or because it has been proven, through countless experiments, it is no longer a hypothesis, but rather a factual occurance of life, and the basis of life itself. Well then yes, it is, but mind you, gravity is still regarded as a theory, evolution is still regarded as a theory, as well as the Quantum Theory, as well as God is merely only a theory. Does that mean it is untrue?

Maybe God(if it exists) doesn't want us to prove it. Does gravity have a say in whether or not it wants us to prove it or not. Because if that was so, then this world would be chaotic.

But if God doesn't want us to prove it, does that mean this world is chaotic, or rather an elegant universe that works...flawlessly? What is the title of that Brian(is it it Michael? I hate that I can never remember his first name..) Greene book? The Elegeant Universe?

By stating that, I am by no means trying to claim that the only way that the universe works so elegeantly is soley because of God, but I'm merely trying to point out that maybe such an entity could have the capacity to conceive of such a flawlessly working system. Or maybe nature did it, without the work of any such a being. For that, my arguement for the existence of God is very much futile, for I have no proof of God. I admit that to every degree. I however am keeping myself in the a...state of blindness? by completely rejecting even the notion of such a being by simply stating that I have no proof.


What if my proof was that God talked to me(I don't claim a damn thing of such) Would my point of view be accepted by any intellegent human being? Absolutely not. I would probably be sent to a psych ward faster then you can say "god." But does that mean I am really talking to God? Maybe, maybe not; but regardless to every other person upon this planet, for all intents and purposes, I would not be, for the burden of proof lays upon me, and the ability to prove such things(hearing voices) is a burden of proof which is IMPOSSIBLE to prove. Therefore, it wouldn't even matter, except to me, or to anyone else who would believe in my claim of talking to God, if God really was talking to me. I hope that all made sense...I'm so tired right now.

This wordy attempt can be summed up in a few words, "Humans dont know everyting about the universe"

Ok, stating the obvious doesnt constitute absurd magical claims being a reality.

If you readly claim you have no evidence of "god" or "God" or "gods" then fine, but to say it is wrong to trash absurd ideas because we dont know everything is to cling to fair tales for the sake of wishfull thinking wich most of the time retards learning and growing.

Stop living in the past just because. Inventing a concept of a "higher being" or "super natural" is absurd and not only unessary for life to exist, but is dangerous to retarding growth of the species because these inventions of man, be it a personal claim, or organized religion are not rooted in rational scientific exploration, but ancient myths full of absudity.

So, word your "lets not jump the gun" game all you want, but I see through this tactic as nothing  more as an excuse to cling to the absurd, JUST BECAUSE.

Just because a majority of humans once believed that the earth was flat doesnt make it so. Stop trying to justify a "being" without a physical body or brain. It is an absurd claim and never will have any merit no matter how much playdough justification you try to use.

This isnt about opression of thought or free inquery. This isnt about atheists being close minded. This is about defending facts and calling a duck a duck. "God" or whatever the hell you want to call it, is an absurtity on so many levels and has no scientific or even moral justification.

Your words are nothing but you clinging to the past. I see a much brighter future when Linus puts away his imaginary security blanket and is brave in facing reality. I see a brighter future when we give up on Santa, Superman and Jesus or any absurd claim. I think we have nothing to lose by throwing away old fiction. I think humanity has everything to lose by clinging to absurdities.

Our species has so much great potential but we are still stuck making up stories and killing over these stories just because we like these stories. Humanity needs to stop acting like a 5 year old in a playground going, "My daddy can beat up your daddy and will beat you up if you dont kiss is ass".

I dont know how to be polite about this. The survival of the species and planet depends on giving up fiction sold as fact. 6 billion people willl never agree on all things all the time, that is a given. Even atheists dissagree amongst themselves. No one should seek the opression of others. But I am damn sure not going to sit around and not challenge absurd claims. I think humanity can do better than buying absurdities. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: At one point

Ripple wrote:
At one point in time, gravity was only a hypothesis. Light being dually a wave and a particle was only a hypothesis. Both things have been "proven" to the point that we all must pretty much accept the fact that both things are very true, and are in fact very much the basis of life, and the cosmos, as we know it. So? Because it was a hypothesis at one point in time, does that make it untrue and based in unfallacy of thinking?

The difference between these and the 'God' hypothesis is that these were provable, just not yet proved. God, by the very definition of what God is, is not provable. So it wasn't something like your examples that we could predict there being a proof for. God is a concept that by it's definition we can have no knowledge of, so there can be no proof of it.

However, the fact that the God concept is like this isn't obvious. So I can understand someone treating the 'God hypothesis' like an unproved scientific hypothesis (like String Theory?) until they understood the God concept better.

This reminds me of a topic I've been meaning to bring up.
Most theists I've come across (including my former 'semi-theistic' self) seem to believe in the anthromorphic "man-in-the-sky" God that isn't so obviously unknowable. How would you go about refuting such a God? I presume there's a reason why the official theologians use the 'official' version?

Quote:
Well then yes, it is, but mind you, gravity is still regarded as a theory, evolution is still regarded as a theory, as well as the Quantum Theory, as well as God is merely only a theory. Does that mean it is untrue?

Scientific "theory" is different to the common use of theory.
A scientific theory is more certain than individual facts.
A common theory is conjecture.
Gravity etc a theories in the scientific sense, God isn't.

Quote:
I have no proof of God. I admit that to every degree. I however am keeping myself in the a...state of blindness? by completely rejecting even the notion of such a being by simply stating that I have no proof.

None of us rule out the 'possibility'.
(Most of us are agnostic atheists! Smiling)

Quote:
What if my proof was that God talked to me(I don't claim a damn thing of such) Would my point of view be accepted by any intellegent human being? Absolutely not. I would probably be sent to a psych ward faster then you can say "god." But does that mean I am really talking to God? Maybe, maybe not;

Did the whole universe suddenly arise out of nothing two seconds ago, becoming everything that it is now? (memories and all)
Maybe, maybe not.
It makes no sense to consider such a possibility though, let alone actually believe in it.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: So.. Because

Ripple wrote:
So.. Because the "God hypothesis" can't be proven by the scientific method means that the God hypothesis is founded in untruth and unfallacy in thinking? Sorry that I answered your question with another question... I do that.. A LOT.

Too bad you didn't think your question through, because you're not being very clear.

If the 'god hypothesis' can be stated in a falsifiable manner, then it is open to scientific scrutiny. And since many theists present cosmological arguments for 'god', then it follows that 'god' is open to such falsification.

 

However, if 'god' claims are not open to falsifiability, then what can we say about them at all?

 

Quote:
 

 At one point in time, gravity was only a hypothesis.

So? You seem to think you're making points....  

 

Quote:

Light being dually a wave and a particle was only a hypothesis. Both things have been "proven" to the point that we all must pretty much accept the fact that both things are very true, and are in fact very much the basis of life, and the cosmos, as we know it. So? Because it was a hypothesis at one point in time, does that make it untrue and based in unfallacy of thinking?

No.

But you're not making much sense, because you're presenting a false dilemma. No atheist is ruling out 'god claims' because they are in an inchoate stage of development, of what is otherwise a rational account of the universe... atheists are saying that 'god claims' are intellectually bankrupt both ontologically and epistemologically.

 

Quote:

Maybe God(if it exists) doesn't want us to prove it.

What sort of sense does that make?  Even if it were true, it would mean that atheism is the justified position!

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Ripple

Strafio wrote:

Ripple wrote:
At one point in time, gravity was only a hypothesis. Light being dually a wave and a particle was only a hypothesis. Both things have been "proven" to the point that we all must pretty much accept the fact that both things are very true, and are in fact very much the basis of life, and the cosmos, as we know it. So? Because it was a hypothesis at one point in time, does that make it untrue and based in unfallacy of thinking?

The difference between these and the 'God' hypothesis is that these were provable, just not yet proved. God, by the very definition of what God is, is not provable.

Yes,  he's conflating something unprovable by definition, (Merely because it's incoherent, mind you) with something falsifable, coherent, and merely not yet supported.

  
 

Quote:
Well then yes, it is, but mind you, gravity is still regarded as a theory, evolution is still regarded as a theory, as well as the Quantum Theory, as well as God is merely only a theory. Does that mean it is untrue?

 

Quote:

Scientific "theory" is different to the common use of theory.
A scientific theory is more certain than individual facts.
A common theory is conjecture.
Gravity etc a theories in the scientific sense, God isn't.

He's conflating 'scientific theory' with the colloquial usage of 'theory' as 'wild, unsubstantiated guess'

 Let me present an overview of what 'theory' means in science, knowing full well it won't make a difference anyway.... Smiling

Theory' '

A theory is a system of learned concepts that describe, explain, predict and/or guide us in how to control the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena, based on a preponderance quantifiable, observed data and supported by experiments that are capable of being replicated.

Theory and 'fact' are not antonyms. Theories cannot exist without facts (evidence) and theories help explain the evidence.

Theories thrive in an ocean of facts.  

Finally, a theory is a self correcting, self validating, functional method of knowing the world.  Theories are built upon falsifiable hypotheses - and are supported when new evidence fails to refute the theory.

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

I hope that the RRS will agree with me on this one. I've asked myself your question as well, Ripple, and came up with this reason only.


What a reason...



Brian--

What fairly tales have I claimed to cling onto? I have repeatedly stated my opinion that the Bible and any other "holy texts" are pretty much as good as toilet paper, other then the pure metaphorical and analogous stories that they provide(whether you, me, or anyone likes them)

Likewise..what ancient myths have I rooted my claims in? Scour my posts please, and give me ONE time I have done so.



Brian37 wrote:

an excuse to cling to the absurd, JUST BECAUSE.


I really don't know what to say to this, other then the fact that you prove how un-substantial your claims and how irrational you choose to be, by making the assumption that I cling to such "absurd things" JUST BECAUSE. For that, your "evidence" of my character is founded in IGNORANCE and IRRATIONALITY, because you have no evidence.



Brian37 wrote:
"playdough justification"


funny...you're cute.


Brian37 wrote:
has no scientific or even moral justification


To say such things is...absolutely insane. The basis of almost all religion and belief systems that center around god is structured in some sort of moral code. Hell, Christianity even has one in place with the 7 deadly sins and heavenly virtues. Sure, there is no moral justification persay, but to claim that religion hasn't at least attempted to put forth a moral standard is kind of crazy. In all certainty I can make my opinion stating that the only reason the "idea of a god" has turned into such a horrible monster which is modern day religion is because MAN has created such a monster.

In this, I agree with every single one of you that religion has been rooted as a pretty large(wouldn't say absolute) peice of the pie on why a lot of things in this world are fucked up. However, to blindly associate religion to equate exactly as to what God might really be, that is fairly ludicrous.


Brian37 wrote:

Your words are nothing but you clinging to the past. I see a much brighter future when Linus puts away his imaginary security blanket and is brave in facing reality. I see a brighter future when we give up on Santa, Superman and Jesus or any absurd claim. I think we have nothing to lose by throwing away old fiction. I think humanity has everything to lose by clinging to absurdities.


I would love to sit down and converse to you about reality. Man, how absurd, and how ancient my belief system is...when my near entire belief system ROOTS in the same belief and conviction of science, and particularly Quantum Mechanics, in which most rational, educated beings claim to. So please, keep throwing your childish attacks upon my security blanket, I mean, God will protect me from such threatening words.


I can beat up your daddy.







Strafio wrote:
This reminds me of a topic I've been meaning to bring up.
Most theists I've come across (including my former 'semi-theistic' self) seem to believe in the anthromorphic "man-in-the-sky" God that isn't so obviously unknowable. How would you go about refuting such a God? I presume there's a reason why the official theologians use the 'official' version?


Well by my irrational reasoning, such a figure, man-in-the-sky if you may, would in all actuality be possible if such a entity exhibts an all-powerful persona. If it is truly all-powerful, then God could merely take the form of any thing, whether it be a man, or a rabbit. But this is merely idealogical rambling..and as far as delving into such a matter would only be worthy with another individual of a likeminded approach to such a thing, may it be you or any one else

 

Strafio wrote:
Scientific "theory" is different to the common use of theory.
A scientific theory is more certain than individual facts.
A common theory is conjecture. Gravity etc a theories in the scientific sense, God isn't.

I concur in such a statement. I guess such a "theory" of a diety would be nothing more then an Idea. But like I've stated, there have been plenty of "idea's" that have been proven, disproven, and not proven at all. That doesn't mean the idea is completely wrong, unless it's been disproven.

God has not been disproven. God has not been proven. That is a matter of fact which may not be debated for all intelectual, philosophical, and scientific intents and purposes.


Strafio wrote:
None of us rule out the 'possibility'.
(Most of us are agnostic atheists! Smiling)


Yes..but for some odd reason, when I claim to be of such a stance, I am flat out wrong in the eyes of many people on these boards.


Strafio wrote:
Did the whole universe suddenly arise out of nothing two seconds ago, becoming everything that it is now? (memories and all)
Maybe, maybe not.
It makes no sense to consider such a possibility though, let alone actually believe in it.


Does the Higgs particle really exist? Maybe, maybe not. But yet it makes COMPLETE sense to consider such a possiblity because nearly all mathematical equations will point that the universe's ability to maintain it's structure and order relies on such a thing(Higg's particle) Keep in mind, we as human beings have not, to this date, observed such a particle in action, nor can we hold to heart the validity of the theoretical existence of such a thing, yet most quantum physicists do..just because?

Therefor, all we must do is provide to, for the scientific method to follow out procedure to prove the existence of a theoretical particle. And that is exactly what we as a civilization is trying to do with the rapid advances in science we make, and have been making since the discovery of gravity, then later electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and then so and so on.

Quantum theory was based only in mathematics for a very long time, only until recently when labratory procedures have been able to effectively prove the theory. Yet, what is considered as the "next big step" in the development of the Quantum Theory is relying on the theoretical existence of a particle. How ludicrous is that? By all of the arguments I have been hearing, it's so ludicrous that all quantum physicists should probably be locked away, forever. However, they are not. Why? Just because?


Okay todangst..let my try to reiterate my statement.

If

"God hypothesis" can't be proven by todays logical standard(scientific method)

then

it is untrue?



The thing is, god claims are open to falsfication. That is why religion is what it is today. All religions today were based out of UNKNOWLEDGE of the world, millenia ago. Sadly, these institutions of unknowledge have survived through the ages because these institutions are such seemingly powerful tools of manipulation. (I would say that Man is the most easily manipulated creatures upon this planet)

However, anything is open to falsification. That is the power of the human mind, to create something out of nothing. Or, to create something out of everything, with that something being completely wrong. Please..please tell me you understand that... I really don't know if I could rephrase that any much more simpler.


I never said atheism wasn't a justifialbe view upon the world. In fact, it's the best way to view the world. Yet, because I do believe in a God, my view of the world is completely skewed. That is basically what I'm recieving as input from people who, other then the notion of God, is pretty much completely likeminded with me upon the world, and how it works.



Just how is the notion, the idea of God incoherent? Is my argument for God incoherent, or is God incoherent. Please be clear on what you are stating.

So..this theory of God... Has no means of proving itself. Yet, by your defintion:

Theories are built upon falsifiable hypotheses - and are supported when new evidence fails to refute the theory.


Then may I also state that YOU lack evidence which fails to refute the hypothesis of God.


The idea of God is built upon (edit: (un)falsifiable hypothesis(maybe, maybe not)

Are you saying that because there is no evidence to refute the theory, that it is not a theory at all, but rather just an idea? What a shame, how ignorant am I for having ideas.....

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
I would like to

I would like to interject.

I want to make sure I know what Ripple -does- believe.

1. Ripple does not believe in any religions.

2. Ripple leaves open the possibility that "some" version of "God" may or may not exist.

3. Ripple appears to lean towards some belief in a non-descript deity that is logically possible.

4. Ripple believes that it is impossible to prove or disprove such a non-descript deity.

------------------------

Response:

1. First off, I highly recommend a breakdown of levels of belief in Dawkin's book, "The God Delusion". There are 7 levels. At the extreme end of the atheist spectrum is "7" KNOWLEDGE that no God exists. Ripple, Dawkins himself, every RRS core member (to my knowledge), and myself are not infallible "knowers" that God does not exist. Rather, we take the view that a non-descript "version" of God -may- or -may not- exist. BUT; we do not believe in such a God in that we do not base our lives on such belief. Thus, I think the term "Agnostic Atheist" is applicable to almost all "atheists" on this forum.

The distinction between agnosticism and atheism, in my opinion, is a botched up bungled mess that centers on CHristian definitions of atheism that are WRONG. One could certainly be an agnostic on Christianity, but I claim knowledge that Christianity is false, as do many others on this forum. I claim infallible knowledge that this is the case, because logical contradiction prevents it from being true.

2. You seem to have a great deal of angst that there is so much focus on the Christian religion. In addition, there are many arguments against a "deistic" type of deity that you seem to leave open the possibility for. I think EVERYONE HERE would agree with you. We cannot know if such a being exists. I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do.

3. You are arguing based on the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" fallacy. You claim that since we cannot prove God does or doesn't exist, we should keep an open mind. Well, yes and no. I agree that I must wade in uncertainty with respect to whether or not the deity exists. HOWEVER, it's not something I'm going to obsess about or base my life on. I think you simply need to get over the angst of uncertainty. Yes, it's tough, but trust me, I've done it and you can to... Uncertainty can be maddening if you let it; but I swear it's in your power to control it and put it to bed.

4. Next, I implore you to take a look at Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Large snip from Russell:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Understand? As one said before me, there are an infinite number of things that are outside the realm of science that are logically non-contradictory imaginary things. But what's the probability of their existence? Would it even MATTER if they existed? Why should I care?

I maintain that a God MAY exist who has logically non-contradictory properties that resembles some kind of deistic "prime mover" who made the universe and doesn't have a hand in what goes on after. I don't think its logically necessary, and I think the actual probability of even a deistic creator is still very low.

So in essence, we are at (peaceful media) war with religion. Obviously, arguments against deism are going to come up, but it's nothing to get upset about when deism and Christianity are confused. It's all for the same goal, and in common / layman discussions, such interchange is perfectly fine and even necessary for fluency.

Leprechauns and the Tooth Fairy -MAY- exist, for they are not necessarily logically contradictory beings. They affect me in no way. Knowing whether or not they exist does not concern me.

----------------------------

You stated:

"Or would me arguing that because nobody can disprove the true existense of such an entity, then It MAY be something worth at least discussing, rather then completely throwing it out the window as if it was a foul tasting take out meal."

That's just it, Ripple. Vagueness and Ambiguity of such a logically non-contradictory God's properties and involvement with human lives is a pointless waste of time. If the idea of such a creator removes it from rational inquiry, then why bother?

Lets look at the implication:

If a non-descript deistic being exists; then I would do NOTHING different in my life than I would if it did not exist.

-I would still have to figure out ethics on my own.

-I would still need science.

-I would still come to the conclusion that "God" doesn't give a shit.

-I would still have no meaning in my life set by God -- and would be free to choose my own meaning in life.

--------------

NOTHING WOULD BE DIFFERENT!!!

 

If you can show me that there is ANY positive implications for discussing Deism (which is what you are posting), then I'm all ears.

 

To be blunt:

 

WHAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT ABOUT THE WAY HUMAN SOCIETY FUNCTIONS AND HOW I LIVE MY LIFE IF A DEISTIC, LOGICALLY NON-CONTRADICTORY BEING EXISTED?

 


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: So.. Because

Ripple wrote:
So.. Because the "God hypothesis" can't be proven by the scientific method means that the God hypothesis is founded in untruth and unfallacy in thinking? Sorry that I answered your question with another question... I do that.. A LOT.

At one point in time, gravity was only a hypothesis. Light being dually a wave and a particle was only a hypothesis. Both things have been "proven" to the point that we all must pretty much accept the fact that both things are very true, and are in fact very much the basis of life, and the cosmos, as we know it. So? Because it was a hypothesis at one point in time, does that make it untrue and based in unfallacy of thinking? Or because it has been proven, through countless experiments, it is no longer a hypothesis, but rather a factual occurance of life, and the basis of life itself. Well then yes, it is, but mind you, gravity is still regarded as a theory, evolution is still regarded as a theory, as well as the Quantum Theory, as well as God is merely only a theory. Does that mean it is untrue?

You're absolutely correct that:  an atheist who claims to know that a [deistic] god doesn't exist commits a fallacy.

The "Appeal to Ignorance" Fallacy:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

------- 

1. Gravity is not a theory, it's a law.  It can be expressed by a mathematical equation on Earth.  g = 9.8 m/s².

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

2. Equating -a deistic non-Christian logically non-contradictory- "God hypothesis" with the theory of Gravity is a BAD comparison.  It would be better to compare the "Easter bunny hypothesis" to the "God hypothesis".

We have evidence for gravity, quantum mechanics, and evolution.  Real world, physical evidence.

We have NEVER had (and probably WILL NEVER have) any real world physical evidence for  -a deistic non-Christian logically non-contradictory- "God hypothesis".

The ideas of gravity, quantum mechanics, and evolution are all explanations for real world, observable phenomena.  How does the "God hypothesis" explain real world, observable phenomena in a way that CANNOT be explained by natural means?

Furthermore, take this definition of hypothesis:  "Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation."

How does God act as an educated guess for an observation?

How could it be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation?

=====================

And finally, I will vehemently argue against any arguments along the vein of "How can you prove I love my children?"  Your actions.  Your brain activity / brain chemicals (that could theoretically be observed with future technology).  Love is a ridiculous imaginary concept that corresponds to actions in the limbic system of the brain, a flood of neurochemicals, and is ultimately expressed with -actions-.  In this way, love is observable and provable if you carefully define the word, love.  Wittgenstein (philosopher of language) would be angry with the "How can you prove I love my children?" argument.

=====================

I digress.

Simply put, as I have attempted to prove before, a deistic non-christian logically non-contradictory deity does not deserve a whole lot of discussion time or rumination. 

 

 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: God has not

Ripple wrote:
God has not been disproven. God has not been proven. That is a matter of fact which may not be debated for all intelectual, philosophical, and scientific intents and purposes.

God has been proven to be unprovable, but the proof of this might be debated. (some mathematical truths have also been proven to be unprovable)



Strafio wrote:
None of us rule out the 'possibility'.
(Most of us are agnostic atheists! Smiling)


Yes..but for some odd reason, when I claim to be of such a stance, I am flat out wrong in the eyes of many people on these boards.


Quote:
Does the Higgs particle really exist? Maybe, maybe not. But yet it makes COMPLETE sense to consider such a possiblity because nearly all mathematical equations will point that the universe's ability to maintain it's structure and order relies on such a thing(Higg's particle) Keep in mind, we as human beings have not, to this date, observed such a particle in action, nor can we hold to heart the validity of the theoretical existence of such a thing, yet most quantum physicists do..just because?

Then we have mathematical reasoning.
When we say reason we don't necessarily restrict to empirical evidence. God concepts have been shown to be either incoherent or atleast beyond our comprehension. Very different to this particle that mathematics has predicted.