PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
3) Wavefreak?
4) dunno
6) Yes
7) Yes. Infinite.
I'm a theist so the others don't apply
My Artwork
1. - 2. Read this.
"We don't have to justify the things that don't make any sense anymore."
~former Scientologist Greg Barnes
xenutv.com
Welcome to the forums, SPS!
We'd like to get to know you a little better. When you get a minute, we'd love it if you'd hop over to the General Conversation, Introductions and Humor forum and introduce yourself.
As for your questions:
1 (a)
2 N/A
3 I do it all the time with my theist friends. I will add the caveat that none of them are fundies.
4 No
5 No
6 I think it's possible
7 I admit that I haven't really given it any thought. I leave that to the cosmologists.
Most of your questions are covered in existing threads. Take some time and poke around!
Rational Responders - atheist, atheism, agnostic.
1. You can't prove a negative, so anyone who claims they know for a fact that there is no god is committing a fallacy, I'd say. It's a lack of evidence. A severe and utter lack.
2. N/A
3. I can tolerate theism in anyone. I just think it's a silly belief. Something I can't tolerate, however, is a believer who is intolerant of other beliefs while claiming to be peaceful. I can't tolerate a religion that slows the progress of science. I can't tolerate a religion that has managed to elude separation of church and state. That sort of thing.
4. No.
5. I believe in feelings of spirituality. Being an atheist doesn't mean that I'm an emotionless drone with a computer brain or some other such nonsense. I can lie on the beach at sunset and be momentarily overwhelmed by the scenery. I can go on a walk and experience a feeling of peace. The difference is that I don't attribute these things to an object called "soul" or "spirit". They are just feelings. Good feelings, but just feelings.
6. It is certainly possible.
7. I'm not well-versed enough in cosmology to say with certainty what I accept as true, but given how well science fares compared with religious explanations when it comes to other things, I'm going to bet that the current scientific answer is much better than whatever religion has to offer.
Your questions have been answered by the Atheist Road Warrior! Awwww yeah! I'm baaaaaaaaack! Bwahahaha!
(Just kidding. No one kill me.)
*edit*
Removed a potential ad hom.
"What would Jesus do for a Klondike Bar?"
"Faith is a lot like virginity. You can't appreciate how annoying it is until you actually lose it."
Welcome! I'll be glad to answer these questions.
I'm gonna have to go with A on this one. I'll skip question 2, as it doesn't apply to me.
I'll tolerate another person's theism only to the extent that it doesn't (adversly?) affect other people. Wearing a cross on your necklace, setting up a 5-foot-tall Nativity Scene on your lawn, even a bumper sticker that says:
"The Big Bang - God Spoke And BANG! It Happened."
...are things I'll tolerate.
However, I will NOT tolerate official endorsement of any religion, expressed or implied, by government; nor will I tolerate acts of violence in the name of religion, like tossing Molotovs into abortion clinics or flyin airplanes into buildings.
No.
Also no.
My reason for answering "no" to questions 4 and 5 are the same for my lack of god-belief - namely, the overwhelming lack of supporting evidence.
Yes.
No evidence supporting this hypothesis has been found yet. This does not mean, however, that intellient life is NOT possible on other planets.
Yes. Once again, it's possible but (as of yet) unproven.
The universe in which we live could be the one and only universe, infinite in size in all directions.
It could be the only universe, but finite in size.
It could be one of a finite number of universes in something bigger.
It could be one of an infinite number of universes in something bigger.
In either of the last two possibilities, the "something bigger" may itself be one of a finite or infinite "somethings bigger" in a "something even bigger," ad infinitum.
Or this could be one of only two universes, in which our counterparts in the other universe are identical to us in every way, except they all wear cowboy hats.
You're welcome! I'd say this is a good way to get to know some of the people on this board.
18*-1
Something you should know about me: four years at a Catholic college did more to beat the Catholicism out of me than anything Richard Dawkins could have said. No one knows more about subjecting faith to critical scrutiny than I do. Yes, I still maintain a theistic leaning, but it's very loose and non-dogmatic. If you read the last paragraph on page 60 of "The God Delusion", you will find a pretty accurate description of my beliefs. I find it ironic that Dawkins, of all people, should be able to sum them up so eloquently. But I feel comfortable with the few beliefs I have left because I arrived at them AFTER many years of critically analyzing them, during which time, I should add, most of them fell by the wayside.
FWIW, I am a staunch evolutionist. I believe in the Big Bang. I just don't feel that those beliefs are incompatible with a belief in a higher being of some kind. All three can exist in the same universe. The real evil starts when people claim to KNOW what that higher being is all about, and start acting accordingly.
I am well aware of the evils of religious extremism. My son almost died in Iraq. Why? Because of religious extremism. You don't have to convince me that religious extremism is an odious thing.
You have no idea how many migraine inducing debates I have had with fundamentalist Christians. I find them extremely frustrating to deal with, because as soon as they see they're losing the arguement, inevitably they always fall back on the "I believe it and that settles it" routine. I point out to them that chimpanzee DNA and human DNA are almost identical, and it's only a few strands of DNA that stand between them and a life of sitting in a tree, scratching their balls, and wondering where their next banana is coming from. They start quoting Genesis.
I point out to them that every society has a creation myth, this is just the Hebrew version of that myth, and since Christianity sprang from Judaism, this has become the "official" creation myth of western civilization. They reply that the Bible is the Word of God. I reply no, it's a collection of books written by many different people at different times and codified in the fourth century by the Council of Rome, which had an agenda of its own. I ask them if the Bible is the word of God, why is it so bloody contradictory. And they reply some things can't be explained, and we go round and round until I'm reaching for my migraine medication.
Extremism of any kind irritates me. In this case, one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Sure, you can blow holes in religious DOGMA all day, but that in no way proves God doesn't exist. Conversely, the inability to disprove God's existence in no way proves that he exists. The inescapable truth is: nobody knows. And if nobody knows, no one has the right to force their beliefs--either way, mind you--down the throat of another. Because I hold firmly to THIS belief, I tend to catch a lot of grief from both creationists and atheists. Such is the price for being a centrist; you end up fighting a two front war. ;>
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read this, and thank you all for the kind welcome.
Just one thing in response:
We cannot absolutely prove that there is no God. = True.
We cannot absolutely prove that there is a God. = True.
However, you cannot automatically infer from those statements that the probability of his existing is a 50/50 situation.
We've simply entered the next phase of the question: Which is the more likely?
Skeptical atheists generally contend that evidence is immensely weighted against God.
"What would Jesus do for a Klondike Bar?"
"Faith is a lot like virginity. You can't appreciate how annoying it is until you actually lose it."
1) I go with both A (no evidence to show any god period) and B) in my opinion, because there is no evidence first off, and second the holes blown into the god(s) created by man show there is no god as per the religious definition of god (however the possibility of an einteinian god remains a slightly small....small small possibility)
2) already answered it, although i could go into more detail, i rather keep this small.
3) I tolerate many people, and many beliefs, it's when those beliefs affect my life do i raise against it, private personal beliefs no problems, beliefs that interfere with my life that i live with in the law of the land, big problem.
4) No
5) No
6) yes, dawkins has the best presentation that i can think of of the probability of life on another planet, even though it seems small, it's is a good possibility.
7) It's a nice hypothesis that could be true, if we ever figure out what the universe that we live in occupies, if it occupies anything else at all. However i don't believe it to be true.
As for your statement about holes being blown through religious dogma but not through god, well i have to disagree, the christian, jewish, muslim god is not different than the hundreds of thousands of other gods, they all emulate humans in some way or form, they all have human emotions and human faults, jealousy, hate, anger, and the human desire of immortality, very very very few deities die (well in legend anyways) and most of them have the same thing that the heaven(s) is a far better place than earth (again a human want for a better location than there present location)
Hello SPS,
1. Short version (a). Longer version: most definitions of 'God' are internally inconsistent, from the ones that are consistent most are testable (i.e. we could find evidence for them) but all proper tests failed so far and the ones that are untestable seem useless philosophical constructs (for example deism). When compared to the strong evidence we have for all that is real (a.k.a. science) the atheist position seems the most reasonable.
2. Doesn't apply unless you talk about the ones with an internally inconsistent definition.
3. I accept deism (and some other philosophical constructs) as intelectually honest, even if I consider them useless. I think I can tolerate any theist that doesn't want to impose his beliefs on me.
4. No, because of lack of evidence.
5. No, because of lack of evidence.
6. Yes, it's possible.
7. Yes, it's possible. I don't know the number, I think we need more evidence before aswering this.
Cheers,
Richard
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.
The word 'God' has no coherent meaning. It is nothing but a verbal trick used by charlatans to fleece their victims. Evidence does not enter into it as "God exists" is not an intelligible proposition at all.
I see religion, not theism, as the problem. Theism is silly but religion is lethal.
No.
No. I'll answer in more detail if you explain what you mean by 'spiritual'.
Yes.
I'll need to study more physics before I can form an informed opinion on that.
It's both. There are weak atheists (Example A) and strong atheists (Example B). I'm a weak atheist.
It would be the same way that theists who follow religions, like Christianity, know that their answer is correct.
Just to clear something up, everyone is technically agnostic since no one knows for sure.
Anyway, Deism is acceptable as well as the belief that there is a watchful creator. Generally speaking, this is not the kind of theism that is meant when a reference is made to theism.
This goes out to you guys Wavefreak and CptPinaple =P.
No, I do not. However, I think that the chemicals released in the brain before and during death create a false world with which to cope with the fact that we are about to stop existing.
Sort of like what it was like before conception.
No, I do not. I believe in certain things, such as playing music, to be spiritual in nature, but it's not super natural or even relating to a spirit/soul/whatever.
Intelligent life? Possibly. Life in some shape or form of the matter? 100% most definitally. In regards, you could say that I'm a "Strong" believer in the existance of life on other planets but a "weak" believer in regards to intelligent life.
Kind of vague question. Me personally? No. Am I open to the notion that there could be if there was evidence to support it? Yes. That is to say that there could be evidence to support it and I simply haven't came across it yet, not that this factoid interests me one way or another nor would it sway my belief in anything one way or another.
'CptPinaple' has no comment.
You're not thinking, you're merely being logical -Neils Bohr to Einstein
Why thank you.
The Christian god is internally contradictory, and includes an incoherent concept, and so I can say with certainty that it doesn't exist. I am not certain that there is absolutely no being that could be called god, but as yet, I've never heard a definition that was coherent enough to even be testable. I have seen zero evidence of any gods, and there is extremely strong evidence that there is not one.
Well, I already answered why I know the Christian god does not exist. My answer is (a) for potential definitions of god that I'm not aware of at this time.
What do you mean by acceptable? I do not lean in any way towards theism, so I guess in my own life, no level of theism is acceptable without evidence. In others, I'd like all theism to go away, but I realize this is not likely to happen. I am content if people lean one way or another, but don't try to enforce their uncertainty on anyone else.
Due to the complete lack of any evidence, and the strong evidence that life is contingent on being alive and having a functioning brain, no, I don't believe in any form of life after death.
If the word spiritual has any connotation of supernatural, no. I believe that there is a concept which can be called spirit, consisting of a mix of a person's emotional, intellectual, and empathetic existence, but it's just a word for natural stuff, not anything spooky.
Two answers, even though you asked about intelligence specifically. It's getting harder and harder to even consider the possibility that we're alone in the universe. The more we're learning about how life began, and more importantly, the extreme conditions in which life can flourish, I almost lean towards the position that there's some kind of life in our solar system.
Now, as to intelligence, I'm pretty damn certain, but the reality is that we don't know how common rocky planets in circular orbits are. We haven't found any because our technology is simply not good enough to find them. If it turns out that they're extremely rare, I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that there's definitely intelligence of our level. Intelligence, after all, is not necessarily an evolutionary advantage, and it's hard to speculate about what other planets' environments would be like.
Long way around to say that I'm pretty sure it must exist, as immense as the universe is, but I'm holding out until we know more about rocky planets.
I believe in the possibility, but only because really smart cosmologists say it's possible. I don't know enough to form my own opinion about it.
No worries. If anybody can actually find an inconsistency in my answers, especially one that allowed a god to sneak in, I'd sure want to know about it.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
1. Closer to A than B, but mainly because I accept that the nature of the universe as something that works on natural laws and contains identifiable, measurable, and limited existants.
Hi SPS,
1.A
2. N/A
3. I think I am tolerant towards personal believes. But if a person say's I should believe what he or she beliefs, or I should follow the rules of his or her Theism, than not so much. (To my shame I must admit I once turned my parents dog on a group of Jehovah's witnesses when they just wouldn't leave. I think that was the only time that dog ever obeyed me and I am glad he stopped chasing them when they reached the public road. No Jehovah's witnesses were hurt!)
4. No.
5. No.
6. If its possible here, there is no reason to assume it can't be possible on an other planet. Earth is the living proof life can evolve in the universe.
7. I don't know enough about the subject to even speculate about it.
(S)PS, before I became an atheist, I had the same problem. I used to struggle between defending my faith against atheists and defending my lack of belief in literal interpretation by fellow Christians. I have fought harder with Christians when I was one, then after I became an atheist.
Willem.
1) A and B. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever (not just not enough evidence, but really none at all ever) it is also wholly errant to consider that a god could exist in the first place.
2) Refer to 1 and I'll suggest looking up essays within the RRS that discuss the type of errancy I'm talking about, as well look up Dawkins among others who touch on statistical improbability and other ideas.
3) I am ever polite and tolerant of people who have different beliefs (I use the term grudgingly) than I do so long as their beliefs are harmless.
4) No. If there is an Atheist that does I posit that the person is not an Atheist.
5) The answer is the same as in 4).
6) Sure it's possible.
7) Sure I believe it's possible. Are they finite or infinite in number? I'm not an educated cosmologist and my unlearned opinion on the matter is essentially worthless.
Good questions and it's good to see you are trying to find stuff out, but read the forums because the answers to all of these are everywhere in them. You might even try asking questions that haven't cropped up before. The answers would be much more insightful.
Read it [the bible] because we need more Atheists and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible. Elvis never did no drugs!
*Penn Jillette
I'm afraid I've never heard it put quite that way before. It's one thing to say that god "doesn't" exist. Why would you say he "can't" exist? This makes it sound as though you're closer to B than A.
I'm not trying to be a smartass here, just looking for clarification as to what you mean.
Why is it "wholly errant" to even CONSIDER that god, in some form, might exist? You say it's possible that there might be life on other planets, yet there is not the slightest proof of that, either. My point here is that it is not unreasonable to SPECULATE on the possibility of the existence of some things, even if there is no evidence that they exist. This is valid whether one is speculating about intelligent life on other planets, or the existence of a higher power of SOME KIND. Surely it is reasonable to keep an open mind on both subjects. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Up until about 70 years ago no one thought the coelacanth existed until they found one of the silly things swimming around off the coast of Africa. If we can't even be completely sure what's going on on THIS planet, how can we, with absolute certainty, make statements about what definitely does and does not exist in the entire universe?
Not trying to pick a fight, mind you, I was just wondering if you had considered it this way.
I can see that I've already been branded a "theist". In this group it feels a little like being branded with a scarlet letter.
In any event, while it is true that I am a theist in the narrowest sense of that word, I hope people will take the time to read my second post on this thread to get an accurate view of what my "beliefs" (for lack of a better word) are. I do NOT wish to be confused with a religious fundamentalist. That would be extrememly annoying. As John Lennon once wrote, "It gets on my tit!"
My atheism is a de-facto-atheism, which means that I don't give any offers or sacrifices in favor of God. I don't care to epistomologically disprove God - the lack of evident divine interaction with this world, disqualifies a possibly existing God from worship or sacrifice.
The answer isn't b.)
From my standpoint any personal, non-proselytising theism whose time spent in worship is appropiate to the quite small amount of mental benefit (feeling good) it may cause. Such a theism would also need to be non-divisive.
That disqualifies most theisms around. For example Christianity which is annoyingly proselytisig, time- and lifeconsuming and divisive to it's very core
I like the idea of a Republic of Souls in the afterlife, but I know that there is no scientific prove for that. So lets be surprised we will find out soon enough.
By the absence of prove of any kind of such a spiritual world I don't believe firmly in it. Everywe might say about a possibly existing one would be pure speculation.
Certainly. However numerous the constraints for life on earth are - the universe is big enough to make it certain that life evolveld somewhere else. The real question is the distance and the state of development in which those lifeforms are in. What I personally don't believe in is that alien civilisations are spacefaring.
In the discussion about alien civilisations it came out clear that if there would have been space colonising alien civilisations the milky way would have long been colonised by them before. Because it just takes several million years to do so and giving the age of our galaxy those waves of colonisation would have already swept through our solar system.
Enrico Fermi concluded from this consideration that therefor no alien civilisations exist within our galaxy.
(Fermis paradoxon: That the aliens weren't here proves that they don't exist)
The way to get around it is to assume that those people simply aren't simply colonising other planets. And there are good reasons to believe so.
The flights necessary to colonise those plants are long enough to make it necessary to build ships on which the crew lives hundrets or thousand generations before it reaches it destination. First of all: You would have to find people sufficiently insane to board such a ship, but no so insane that you shouldn't let them board that ship. By the time those people reach their destination the crew would have developed a whole new culture which turns around being having left your original home (being expelled from their original home) to go to an unknown destination. It is even likely that the crew will eventually during the flight try to turn the ship around to fly back to 'Eden'.
Those flights aren't economic at all. When the europeans colonised the world it was because they were striving for wealth. Given the flight-times to reach other stars it is quite obvious that there can't be anything of pecuniary worth to justify such an endeavor.
What stays from the reasons for spacefaring would be scientific research. But you don't need to do that with a crew and a spaceship in Star-Trek ways. Robotic probes with artificial intelligence unknown to our level of engineering would be much cheaper, much more efficient and better adapted to the lethal environment of working in space.
By the Copenhagen interpretation of quantuum physics every possible state of a quant to be realised in time exists in a different universe. Which means that the number of parallel universes according to such an interpretation is enormous but finite.
But just finite given by mathematical definition. If you keep in mind the number of protons, electrons and all those other small particles in the universe, the amount of ways to shuffel them is enormous beyond any understanding
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.