Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 121 to 154 of 154

Thread: Atheism

  1. #121
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Atheist and Theist are binary positions. There is no middle ground, you are either one or the other. In order to be a theist you must believe in a God(s). If you do not, then you are not a theist, if you are not a theist you are an atheist.
    As I said, by your typecasting, I'm an atheist. That said I don't see why we should accept your typecasting. I tried to explain the difference between what I see as an atheistic answer to the general question and what I see as my own answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    The default answer is always no. So in reply to your question you would be forced to answer that you do not have data on the weather in that state so you can not confirm that it is raining. (It's not raining unless you have evidence that it is raining). Therefore it's not raining because we have no evidence of rain.
    "Is it sunny?"
    "No"
    "Is it cloudy?"
    "No"
    "Partly cloudy?"
    "No"
    "Raining?"
    "No"
    "Your opinion, then, is that there is simply no weather at that place?"
    "That does seem bad."

    Doesn't it?

    The issue, Sirv, is phrasing. Imagine that you know it's either sunny or cloudy.
    "Is it sunny?"
    "No, by Sirv's logic."
    > must believe it is cloudy.

    "Is it cloudy?"
    "No"
    > must believe it is sunny.

    Contradiction.

    The center does not hold.

    I believe that we are in a position analogous to this prisoner who cannot verify the weather. We cannot verify the state of the world as either godless or godded. You want the question to be "Is our universe godded?" and the default answer to be "no." Why can't the question be "is our universe godless?" Shouldn't the answer be no by your logic?

    In the case of something we already have info about, i.e. whether the sun appears yellow or not yellow, there is an apparent default answer. I am claiming we have no information about the divine realm. How could you have a default answer except by framing the question the way you chose to frame it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    My personal religious position is as an agnostic atheist apatheist. Apatheist being a custom word of my own design meaning that the ultimate question of God is irrelevant because if God does exist it does not appear to play any role in our reality, and thus can be safely ignored making the entire argument pointless. Hence it doesn't matter if God exists, hence apathy about theism, apatheism.
    I also don't know of any God belief I have any faith in and believe the argument to be pointless, but for a different reason; that I don't believe it *can be* resolved by humans, even if it really matters. Just can't know what the answer is, so why bother?

    But I still don't agree with your typecasting of the positions. I feel it ignores too much nuance.

  2. #122

    Default

    Why is a metaphysical being or presence bring downplayed to a common occurrence such as the weather?

    Weather always has a non binary state. But when you posit a claim, the default is skepticism. I.e. no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  3. #123
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Whether the weather is binary or not, defaulting to "no" results in the claim that there is no weather when you cannot verify it. That's obviously mistaken.

    I picked weather. Take any example. The idea I am trying to convey is that the universe and the realm of the divine are separate. They're a Venn diagram with no intersection at all. You don't have info about it, but more importantly you don't have any way to get info about it. The analogy I gave is a prisoner kept underground d in Wyoming who is asked about the weather in Florida. But you can give any example where you have a person and they are asked a question they cannot access the answer to.

    You're given a Chinese character and you don't speak Chinese. Does it mean "lion?" Sirv's default "no" -> can be asked about every word in the dictionary -> you have to say no to all -> contradiction.

    Is the universe godless?
    -> no
    Is the universe godded?
    -> no.

    The issue is that the universe is either godless or godded, and those two questions are a matte of pure free choice as to which to use unless you have some other information to begin with about the status of divinity. I don't know beforehand whether the universe "defaults" to being godless or godded, just like you don't know beforehand which Chinese character to "default" to without any further information, or what weather condition ought to be considered "default" without any further information.

  4. #124
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Burn, I usually support your ramblings in general, but this one is drifting into la la land. Stop using the weather and use unicorns. That's something with the same underpinnings. We DO know there is always weather. We know chinese characters DO mean something. We do not know there has to be something like a god(s), and we do not know there are little flying creatures at the bottom of my garden (well, we do, but they are moths, and I kill as many as I can. Sorry faeries if they are your servants).

    It is just as much a matter of free choice to choose to believe fairies exist as that god does. In both cases there is no reason except faith to believe either and there is no substantive underpinnings for either. Sure, I can believe faeries MIGHT exist, and you can believe god MIGHT exist, but in both cases, the default position has to be no.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  5. #125
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Use life on another planet instead.

  6. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    Use life on another planet instead.
    The chances of there being life is statistically probable.

    A better example would be elves. There are stories of them, some people believe in them, but there's no evidence either way that they exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  7. #127
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    The chances of there being life is statistically probable.

    A better example would be elves. There are stories of them, some people believe in them, but there's no evidence either way that they exist.
    vampires, Dracula? maybe elves stories originated from people too!
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  8. #128
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    The chances of there being life is statistically probable.

    A better example would be elves. There are stories of them, some people believe in them, but there's no evidence either way that they exist.
    No, you do not understand how absolutely perfect my example was.

    Religious people know and want there to be a god. For the other side, for people who claim to care about science, they know and want there to be life on another planet.

  9. #129
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Rok: if there is rain, there is a good chance we will have evidence of it. We have the right sensory equipment to detect such a thing. Is it surprising that there's no evidence of a God? It's not the kind of thing we are equipped to have any evidence for or against.

    Does an ant have any evidence for the existence of people? If I pick up an ant from one place and put it down in another, does it have the cognitive and sensory equipment to develop a true story about what happened to it? If there is a being that would be recognized as a God, that ant has a better chance of understanding humans than I have of understanding the God.

    Weather and God are exactly alike in that way -- we have exactly as much evidence for or against them as our sensory organs would allow us.

    I don't think the difference you brought up otherwise is relevant. That we already know there is SOME weather is meant to be a background condition of you being asked whether the weather condition is rain or rain-less. The analog is that you know as a background condition that there is this concept of the divine, and now you're being asked whether it is godded or godless.

    @Sap: I don't see why the default condition on any specific posit is "skepticism I.e. No." If you're asking me, a prisoner underground in Wyoming, about the weather in Alaska, even though I can't access it, I'll default to it being dark and cold. I'll say "those conditions are probable." If you try to ask if it's warm and sunny, I'll say "probably not." This is importantly different from "no." ("No" flat is also different from "i have no evidence that would confirm or deny this.")

    Probabilities are relevant to what is default. Unfortunately, since I don't have any information about God, I don't have a prior probability on it, so I just say "I don't know." If you give a *specific* God, and you don't self contradict, I'll say "that is very unlikely," which is skeptical, but it isn't NO.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 12-29-2016 at 01:43 AM.

  10. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    @Sap: I don't see why the default condition on any specific posit is "skepticism I.e. No." If you're asking me, a prisoner underground in Wyoming, about the weather in Alaska, even though I can't access it, I'll default to it being dark and cold. I'll say "those conditions are probable." If you try to ask if it's warm and sunny, I'll say "probably not." This is importantly different from "no." ("No" flat is also different from "i have no evidence that would confirm or deny this.")

    Probabilities are relevant to what is default. Unfortunately, since I don't have any information about God, I don't have a prior probability on it, so I just say "I don't know." If you give a *specific* God, and you don't self contradict, I'll say "that is very unlikely," which is skeptical, but it isn't NO.
    We know weather exists. We know that different weather forecasts exist throughout the world. This is a known fact that supports a chance of any type of weather finding itself in any part of the world. If you asked me if it's hailing in Jamaica in June, I would think it unlikely, but possible.

    If you said there was a weather forecast of fireballs falling from the sky, I would say it's preposterous and not true. That's the difference. We know weather and types of weather exists. It all comes down to statistical probability. We know intelligent life evolved on Earth, so there is a statistical probability that it has a evolved somewhere else. We know there's hail, rain, clouds, sunshine, et cetera in [insert location] on Earth, so there's a statistical probability it can be again.

    The difference between your comparisons and God is we have evidence supporting the existence of weather. Therefore, the hypothesis has supporting evidence.

    Show me supporting evidence for a God and we can then say that there's a chance of its existence. An "I don't know", as you will.

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    No, you do not understand how absolutely perfect my example was.

    Religious people know and want there to be a god. For the other side, for people who claim to care about science, they know and want there to be life on another planet.
    As I've said above, we have evidence that intelligent life has evolved on Earth, under very precise circumstances. If someone wants to attribute the statistical improbability to a God, then by all means, take the intellectually vacuous route. As it stands, we did evolve. And with the trillions of galaxies in the observable universe, across the 13.82 billion observable years the universe has been around, we can say there is a statistical probability that the circumstances presented themselves to allow intelligent life to form elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Weather and God are exactly alike in that way -- we have exactly as much evidence for or against them as our sensory organs would allow us.
    This is the biggest load of bollocks. We have ample evidence of weather, and none against it. Our sensory organs have given evidence in the form of sight, smell, touch, sound, and taste. We have felt weather in every way humans are able to. We have zero evidence or sensory evidence to a God.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I don't think the difference you brought up otherwise is relevant. That we already know there is SOME weather is meant to be a background condition of you being asked whether the weather condition is rain or rain-less. The analog is that you know as a background condition that there is this concept of the divine, and now you're being asked whether it is godded or godless.
    Again, you're confusing empirical evidence with anecdotal evidence.

    We have empirical evidence of rain, wind, thunderstorms, etc. We only have anecdotal evidence when I tell you it was raining fireballs during lunch at work today.

    The stories of divinity are as damning as my anecdotal evidence of fireballs. If you asked anyone about the forecast of fireballs falling from the sky, the only people you would get to support that are the nutters calling for the end of days and quoting Revelations.
    Last edited by Sapient; 12-29-2016 at 02:45 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  11. #131
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Probabilities are relevant to what is default. Unfortunately, since I don't have any information about God, I don't have a prior probability on it, so I just say "I don't know." If you give a *specific* God, and you don't self contradict, I'll say "that is very unlikely," which is skeptical, but it isn't NO.
    So there is a probability that either we live for real or we live in a matrix and we can prove neither!

    intersting
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  12. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    So there is a probability that either we live for real or we live in a matrix and we can prove neither!

    intersting
    He's just being obtuse for the sake of argument. He'll say you were being too specific, therefore "that is very unlikely."

    Honestly, I think he's falling under the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but in terms of obscurity. In essence, it falls to his own opinion and feelings, and doesn't lay its groundwork in fact or logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  13. #133
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Sapient, let me try to be clear about this one more time, because it's like you *almost* grasp what I'm saying as you try to rebut it, but you miss the mark every time.

    What would you say if I told you that there were particles that flash into existence and out again with the properties of being electromagnetically neutral, having a mass of 1/1000th of an electron, and existing for 10^-1000 seconds? [The particles are so small you can't detect them and so short lived you can't detect them and they are ignored by obvious things they could be measured by, such as if they had an electromagnetic influence.]

    Point: there is nothing logically impossible about such a posit
    Point: if these exist, you would not have any evidence for them.
    Point: if these did not exist, you would still have no evidence for them.

    Now, if you're asked if they exist, your answer should be "IDK." Why? Whether or not they exist, you'd have no evidence.

    My position is that God with no characteristics specified is like this story. If there was a nameless God out there with no interest in us, we'd have no evidence. Thus, your point that we have no evidence for such a God is irrelevant. (Your point that many of the Gods worshipped by man are obviously fever dreams is also irrelevant to whether or not there is a higher power of some kind.)

    Rain, weather, etc are like this because we have exactly the evidence you'd expect to have for such a thing. Rain is the kind of thing we can detect. Ergo, if it exists, we should detect it. God is not a thing we should be able to detect. So why do you expect evidence of the kind you'd expect for rain?

    Theory: the universe has a God and is empirically identical to the universe we observe.

    ^ this is the theory you have to disprove to believe that there is definitely no God.

    I don't think that this can be disproven by creatures as limited as humans.
    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    So there is a probability that either we live for real or we live in a matrix and we can prove neither!

    intersting
    Yes. This is absolutely the case.

    I have reasons to believe that this possibility doesn't really matter, but you are definitely correct. There is no way to dislodge the hypothesis that everything is an illusion, so as a matter of fact it must be regarded as possible. (Although as a matter of practical consideration the possibility ought to be ignored.)

  14. #134
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    (Although as a matter of practical consideration the possibility ought to be ignored.)
    Yes, he should. Which makes the idea of god JUST as probable as the idea of faeries. If they exist they don't want to be seen and we should have no evidence. Aliens have landed but don't want us to know about it, hence we should have no evidence. Some blurry pics slipped through so all that probing was just as likely as a prayer being answered. You are an agnostic theist if your position is I don't know, but there could be a god.
    If you have to give a binary answer to "Is there a god?" what is it? It HAS to be binary, or you fall into burning lava.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  15. #135
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    I agree that things that we should have no evidence for should be ignored for that reason, Rok.

    But I don't agree that it's on par with faeries. Faeries are described as things we *should* have evidence for even if they try to hide! (We find all kinds of creatures who try to hide from us.)

    The divine is supposed to be a fundamentally different kind of thing. It's much more plausible that this would be not-detected.

  16. #136
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I agree that things that we should have no evidence for should be ignored for that reason, Rok.

    But I don't agree that it's on par with faeries. Faeries are described as things we *should* have evidence for even if they try to hide! (We find all kinds of creatures who try to hide from us.)

    The divine is supposed to be a fundamentally different kind of thing. It's much more plausible that this would be not-detected.
    So it's more like a schizophrenics voices then?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  17. #137
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    If the universe was able to produce intelligent beings -humans-, doesn't that make the universe intelligent, thus with purpose?

    either the universe itself is divine, or the one who created it is divine.

    randomness cannot create intelligence!
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  18. #138
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So it's more like a schizophrenics voices then?
    Let's put it this way: there's no way to distinguish between someone who has divine revelation and someone who is schizophrenic. So if I myself heard voices, I'd assume it was the latter. That's the thing to assume. My thesis is that if there is a divine being, we can't know anything about it. That includes by revelation. Belief in revelation requires faith, which I have always lacked, for better or for worse.
    Quote Originally Posted by н-υ-п-т-ε-я View Post
    If the universe was able to produce intelligent beings -humans-, doesn't that make the universe intelligent, thus with purpose?

    randomness cannot create intelligence!
    1) the universe does not need purpose to create intelligence. There are rule directed actions that have no purpose. Atoms will follow physical laws despite not doing so "on purpose."
    2) why can't randomness create intelligence?
    3) I don't believe that divinity or randomness created intelligence -- evolution is not a random process.

  19. #139

    Default

    We can know by medicating the individual and seeing if the voices stop. If it's a divine being, I assume it could still talk in someone's head regardless of meds.

    Also, what evidence so you have to say evolution is not random? I can think of where evolution is based on external stimuli, which is what I wine you're saying. But there are also examples of bad evolutionary design that holds no value to the species and has no net advantage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  20. #140
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    1) the universe does not need purpose to create intelligence. There are rule directed actions that have no purpose. Atoms will follow physical laws despite not doing so "on purpose."
    Intelligence is purposeful, they are interconnected somehow.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    2) why can't randomness create intelligence?
    can a monkey typing randomly on a typewriter create a "purposeful" or "intelligent" paper?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    3) I don't believe that divinity or randomness created intelligence -- evolution is not a random process.
    so how intelligence was created? Just out of nothing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  21. #141
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    8,564

    Default

    Not meaning to be mean hunter, but what level of schooling have you had (specifically sciences, biology optional)

    Because your posits are getting pretty ... dumb. But to play the game...

    Intelligence can be used with purpose. Doesn't need to be made with it. Any 2 parents can randomly create offspring with varying levels of intelligence.

    If a monkey is intelligent it can do intelligent things. It's not what intelligence does but where it came from that is in question.

    See evolution.
    Last edited by Rokchick; 12-30-2016 at 02:27 PM.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  22. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Not meaning to be mean hunter, but what level of schooling have you had (specifically sciences, biology optional)
    He graduated college in Dearborn Michigan in 2012 then went back to Russia.

    So, he's trolling mostly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  23. #143
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Not meaning to be mean hunter, but what level of schooling have you had (specifically sciences, biology optional)
    I'm looking at the philosophical part of it. And philosophy is higher than biology. doesn't science built on philosophical rules?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    He graduated college in Dearborn Michigan in 2012 then went back to Russia.

    So, he's trolling mostly.
    I never studied in Dearborn nor I visited Russia, keep assuming on your lack of information.
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  24. #144
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I believe that we are in a position analogous to this prisoner who cannot verify the weather. We cannot verify the state of the world as either godless or godded. You want the question to be "Is our universe godded?" and the default answer to be "no." Why can't the question be "is our universe godless?" Shouldn't the answer be no by your logic?

    In the case of something we already have info about, i.e. whether the sun appears yellow or not yellow, there is an apparent default answer. I am claiming we have no information about the divine realm. How could you have a default answer except by framing the question the way you chose to frame it?


    I also don't know of any God belief I have any faith in and believe the argument to be pointless, but for a different reason; that I don't believe it *can be* resolved by humans, even if it really matters. Just can't know what the answer is, so why bother?

    But I still don't agree with your typecasting of the positions. I feel it ignores too much nuance.
    All claims are false unless proven. That is what I meant when I said the default answer is no. The proper response to those weather queries is I don't know, if the asker instead had stated that it is currently sunny in where ever, then the person would be justified in saying, prove it. Hence the default answer is no, because it has not been proven. You are also shifting the burden of proof, the burden of proof is on those who are making claims, not on those who are NOT making claims. The person wouldn't be making a claim, and that is when it actually matters that the answer is no. Also this all ignores the reason that agnostics are atheists. They are atheist because they do not believe in God. It has nothing to do with knowledge of the status of existence of God. If you do not know if something exists, then how can you believe in it logically. This is why religion is based on faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  25. #145
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    @Sap: the mechanism of evolution is natural selection. That's not random!

    @Hunter: I can't tell what you're trying to say. But "intelligence" isn't "created." It's an emergent property of brain/central nervous systems. Also, yes, randomly stringing together things on a keyboard will eventually result in something comprehensible.

    @Sirv: I don't disagree with any of the content in your last post -- just disagree with the classification system you're suggesting. I am not merely claiming that I don't know about God, I'm claiming no one can know. I don't see why that thesis ought to be lumped together with people who think there is no God/that God is a dumb idea.

  26. #146
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    @Sirv: I don't disagree with any of the content in your last post -- just disagree with the classification system you're suggesting. I am not merely claiming that I don't know about God, I'm claiming no one can know. I don't see why that thesis ought to be lumped together with people who think there is no God/that God is a dumb idea.
    In order to be a theist you must believe in God, if you do not believe in God you are not a theist and are thus an atheist. What you are stating has nothing to do with theism, but with gnosticism. The roots of the word are different because it deals with a different subject. You are actually the one lumping things together, I'm saying that being agnostic is separate from being an atheist because they deal with different subjects. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, one can be both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  27. #147
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    So you want me to label as an atheistic agnostic?

    I'll have to think about this for a time before getting back to you on it.

  28. #148
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    1,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    @Hunter: I can't tell what you're trying to say. But "intelligence" isn't "created." It's an emergent property of brain/central nervous systems.
    The was nothing/something concentrated, then the universe was created/formed by God/Big bang/whatever. The universe in itself have to be intelligent by design to produce Different galaxies and different solar systems, and then form life and intelligent life.
    You agree that a car is not intelligent by itself, but do you agree that the design of a car is and intelligent design (the human who design the car was intelligent)?

    I'm feeling that my explanation would be a paradox if there was no designer of the universe "God/universe conscious", thus there is fundamental differences in our views of the world that lead to such different.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Also, yes, randomly stringing together things on a keyboard will eventually result in something comprehensible.
    yeah but that probability is negligible. It is zero because the number would be so small that if you want to write the (-)power of it would take you years

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite monkey theorem
    The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times. However, the probability of a universe full of monkeys typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero).
    Quote Originally Posted by Avicenna
    That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumi
    What you are seeking is also seeking you.

  29. #149

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    In order to be a theist you must believe in God, if you do not believe in God you are not a theist and are thus an atheist. What you are stating has nothing to do with theism, but with gnosticism. The roots of the word are different because it deals with a different subject. You are actually the one lumping things together, I'm saying that being agnostic is separate from being an atheist because they deal with different subjects. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, one can be both.
    I believe in non-physical phenomena, in a universal "being" (for lack of a better word) that is the total of everything that ever has, currently is, or ever will be manifested as having physical existence, in the indestructibility of that portion of myself and of all other things that is the metaphysical root of our physical manifestation. I do not call this metaphysical union a god because it is not a seoarate being from myself and therefore did not create me or anything else, does not mandate belief, worship, ritual or a code of behaviours, does not act independantly of mysrlf to influence or control anything in the physical universe.

    I am clearly not a theist. By your definitions I might be an atheist, but would other atheists accrpt me as one of them when I unabashedly believe something that can never be proven or disproven and is cetainly not derived from logicsl observation of physical reality?

    I call myself an animist, one who believes in the existence of something non-material, non-physical, outside of our time-space continuum, that I class broadly as 'spirit.' I see myself as neither theist nor atheist, but decidedly not agnostic.
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  30. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    So you want me to label as an atheistic agnostic?

    I'll have to think about this for a time before getting back to you on it.
    Agnostic atheist sounds better.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  31. #151
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    So you want me to label as an atheistic agnostic?

    I'll have to think about this for a time before getting back to you on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapient View Post
    Agnostic atheist sounds better.
    What he said. It also happens to be more accurate. Hence why I self describe the way I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    I believe in non-physical phenomena, in a universal "being" (for lack of a better word) that is the total of everything that ever has, currently is, or ever will be manifested as having physical existence, in the indestructibility of that portion of myself and of all other things that is the metaphysical root of our physical manifestation. I do not call this metaphysical union a god because it is not a seoarate being from myself and therefore did not create me or anything else, does not mandate belief, worship, ritual or a code of behaviours, does not act independantly of mysrlf to influence or control anything in the physical universe.

    I am clearly not a theist. By your definitions I might be an atheist, but would other atheists accrpt me as one of them when I unabashedly believe something that can never be proven or disproven and is cetainly not derived from logicsl observation of physical reality?

    I call myself an animist, one who believes in the existence of something non-material, non-physical, outside of our time-space continuum, that I class broadly as 'spirit.' I see myself as neither theist nor atheist, but decidedly not agnostic.
    You are actually closest to pantheist, which is a type of theism. Theist is a root word, the prefix defining the type. "a" being the standard prefix for 'not'. So agnostic would be 'not knowledgeable'. Pan in this case would be all encompassing, that is God is everything and everywhere. This however does not necessarily require worship as the modern Judaeo-Christian religions would suggest or elevation to the 'status' the we have been programmed to believe that the word "God" is supposed to convey. Also Animism is a type of Theism. You should come down to the SF Bay Area for the next PantheaCon, which is in Feburary, it is basically a gigantic Pagan convention covering multiple types of Paganism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  32. #152

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    Sirveri: I wish I could come to SF. Unfortunately, I've been essentially bedbound for over a decade with multiple disabilities.

    Sounds like it would be a fun time.
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  33. #153
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    The roots of the word are different because it deals with a different subject. You are actually the one lumping things together, I'm saying that being agnostic is separate from being an atheist because they deal with different subjects. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, one can be both.
    This is an interesting thought. So would you lump theism/atheism into theology/philosophy (perhaps philosophy of religion), and then put the agnostic camp under the field of epistemology?
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  34. #154
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurk View Post
    This is an interesting thought. So would you lump theism/atheism into theology/philosophy (perhaps philosophy of religion), and then put the agnostic camp under the field of epistemology?
    Technically Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, but conceptually yes. Basically they deal with different facets of the same subject, one has both height and weight. So conceptually everyone also has positions on both theism and gnosticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •