Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=63227 Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 04:26 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist PollPosted By: Mr ProgFreak
Subject: The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 07:08
Just curious. There's no "other" option - either you think that there's one or more personal Gods (then you are a Theist), or you believe that there is or might be one or more god like beings but you also believe that they are not concerned with humanity and/or don't interfere with our universe in any way that is relevant to us (then you're an agnostic/deist), or you believe that there is no God in any form that's super-natural or beyond science (then you're an atheist).
I used to say that I'm an Agnostic, but uppon further study I have to say that I'm an Atheist, for all intents and purposes.
Replies: Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 07:13
In practical life, there's very little difference between atheist, agnostic, and deist. It revolved around a technicality that has little to do with anyone's practical life.
I chose atheist.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 07:18
^ I think that in some communities dominated by theists there is a better acceptance of agnostics than of atheists. But of course you're right, for all practical purposes there's not much difference ... the big difference is between theists and non-theists.
Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 07:19
Theist.
-------------
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 07:58
Theist
-------------
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 08:35
Panentheist for me.
Agnostics know that they don't know.
Too many Atheists think they know something they can't.
Deism seems like an intellectual curiosity as much as anything.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 08:49
Atheist.
-------------
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 08:55
Theist.
Although I don't see the difference between theist and atheist, it's both a matter of belief.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 08:58
I think the wisest position is to just admit that you really don't know.
There are known knowns. These
are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to
say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also
unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 08:59
Such as WMDs?
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 09:27
I, uhm, don't really know.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 09:43
With no other choice left, I declare that I'm atheist. Strong one I think. Like anybody give a (dirty word) about it.
------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless,"
-Andyman1125 on Lulu
Even my
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 09:51
I've heard that in some countries Atheists aren't exactly well received ... some people even put them on the same level as child molesters, while others assume some other traits that supposedly go along with Atheism, including communism or nihilism/anarchism. Well, I'm an Atheist but also a law-abiding and generally friendly/helpful person. :-)
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 10:16
Agnostic
-------------
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 10:36
Negoba wrote:
Panentheist for me.
So - would that rather be Theism or Atheism? It obviously depends on how you think that God manifests in the world around us. If you think that God *is* the world around us then IMO that would strongly point towards Atheism, for all practical intents and purposes.
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 10:38
Agnostic. Basically means I have absolutely no idea.
------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."
Arnold Schoenberg
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 11:00
Panentheism means that I believe in a simultaneously immanent and transcendent Divinity. Pantheism is the belief that God is the sum of all the Universe. Panentheism beleives that is true but that God also is greater than the sum of this material universe.
My beliefs currently are most in line with Vedanta / Yoga lines of thought but I personally think most paths all point to the same light. Many atheists discover profound truths that to me still point to the one (immense) truth.
One of the sticking points is when you ask about the personality and powers of what you're calling God. Already you're anthropomorphising God in a way that seems a little simple to me. I do not believe in God as a separate, limited but more powerful being (a la Zeus) with whom I can converse like I converse to other people. But I can attune my own awareness to the existence of the Divine that's always is there.
But that's pretty far from what most atheists I know believe in.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 11:04
Negoba wrote:
Panentheism means that I believe in a simultaneously immanent and transcendent Divinity. Pantheism is the belief that God is the sum of all the Universe. Panentheism beleives that is true but that God also is greater than the sum of this material universe.
Cool, I finally found a name for what I believe to be true.
Although I still have difficulty relinquishing my Catholic/Christian roots. I find myself not drawn to the whole church/organization/institution but I still look to Christ's teachings on how to try and live my life.
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 11:07
^ Well, how do you interact with the Divine? If it doesn't manifest itself in anything supernatural, then I see little difference between you and a true atheist. It's not like atheists cannot appreciate beauty in the world ... or "grandeur" as Dawkins cited Darwin.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 11:24
Post-theist.
------------- What?
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 11:29
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ Well, how do you interact with the Divine?
We used to go bowling every Thursday, but then he got a girlfriend and we don't see each other as much.
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 11:40
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ Well, how do you interact with the Divine? If it doesn't manifest itself in anything supernatural, then I see little difference between you and a true atheist. It's not like atheists cannot appreciate beauty in the world ... or "grandeur" as Dawkins cited Darwin.
The quick answer is meditation. The longer answer is devotion to a spiritual practice actually does change your perception of how the world operates. I've spent alot of time on this line of thought, and I'm still a babbling infant in terms of understanding it.
The word "supernatural" is meaningless to me. I get that atheists still connect with some of the things that I'm talking about but there a sense of awe that comes when you realize that the VAST majority of reality is beyond our ability to either perceive or understand. That doesn't make it "supernatural," it's completely natural.
If I say that my individual self is just a manifestation of an eternal ground of potential self, the Brahman, the Tao, that's going to trip the "supernatural" switches for most atheists. But for me, I just think it's another way to describe how the world works.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 11:47
Theist. Though I am not an expert on any of this stuff.
-Jeff
------------- Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime
Posted By: The Block
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 11:50
I was born into a Jewish/Cristian family and never go to church, so I wouldn't consider myself an atheist, but I could care less.
Seriously, whats with all the atheists
-------------
Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 11:55
I am a sometimes Atheist maybe a Deist occasional Agnostic! Depends which side of t'bed I got out of.
I have no time for organised religion - invented to keep the masses in their place and keep the rich- wealthy.
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 12:35
akamaisondufromage wrote:
I am a sometimes Atheist maybe a Deist occasional Agnostic! Depends which side of t'bed I got out of.
I have no time for organised religion - invented to keep the masses in their place and keep the rich- wealthy.
I have to say that by and large organized religion has not been positive to humanity.
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 12:35
Negoba wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ Well, how do you interact with the Divine? If it doesn't manifest itself in anything supernatural, then I see little difference between you and a true atheist. It's not like atheists cannot appreciate beauty in the world ... or "grandeur" as Dawkins cited Darwin.
The quick answer is meditation. The longer answer is devotion to a spiritual practice actually does change your perception of how the world operates. I've spent alot of time on this line of thought, and I'm still a babbling infant in terms of understanding it.
The word "supernatural" is meaningless to me. I get that atheists still connect with some of the things that I'm talking about but there a sense of awe that comes when you realize that the VAST majority of reality is beyond our ability to either perceive or understand. That doesn't make it "supernatural," it's completely natural.
If I say that my individual self is just a manifestation of an eternal ground of potential self, the Brahman, the Tao, that's going to trip the "supernatural" switches for most atheists. But for me, I just think it's another way to describe how the world works.
Hinduism comes in many forms, and some of them are undoubtedly "theistic". One key criterium is whether or not the belief system demands certain actions or behavior in order to receive certain benefits (in hinduism that would be reincarnation, karma etc). If you believe in something transcendental that might be interacted with or is affecting us in any guiding way depending on our actions, then IMO that would be neither agnostic nor atheistic.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 12:40
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Post-theist.
So you believe that there *was* a God? Usually it's assumed that He's eternal/immortal, so where did He go?
He's tired and needed to take a vacation. But when he comes back, you'd better watch out because she will be really pissed at what we've been up to. Be sure and look like you're busy.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 12:44
With no other choice left, I declare that I'm atheist. Strong one I think. Like anybody give a (dirty word) about it.
------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless,"
-Andyman1125 on Lulu
Even my
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 12:45
Slartibartfast wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Post-theist.
So you believe that there *was* a God? Usually it's assumed that He's eternal/immortal, so where did He go?
He's tired and needed to take a vacation. But when he comes back, you'd better watch out because she will be really pissed at what we've been up to. Be sure and look like you're busy.
I am waiting on the Post - Card
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 12:47
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Post-theist.
So you believe that there *was* a God? Usually it's assumed that He's eternal/immortal, so where did He go?
No, not quite.
I believe that mankind had a need for a god-head in the past and so created one, but now that need is obsolete (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism - post-theism ).
------------- What?
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 12:54
The Block wrote:
Seriously, whats with all the atheists
Is the collective noun an acongregation of atheists?
------------- What?
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 12:56
Slartibartfast wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
I am a sometimes Atheist maybe a Deist occasional Agnostic! Depends which side of t'bed I got out of.
I have no time for organised religion - invented to keep the masses in their place and keep the rich- wealthy.
I have to say that by and large organized religion has not been positive to humanity.
As far as I can see the negatives far outweigh the positives.
(I do of course exclude Jediism from that thought)
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 12:57
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Post-theist.
So you believe that there *was* a God? Usually it's assumed that He's eternal/immortal, so where did He go?
No, not quite.
I believe that mankind had a need for a god-head in the past and so created one, but now that need is obsolete (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism - post-theism ).
"Post-Theism uses religious doctrine for the non-religious purposes, using sacred texts as facilitators of enlightenment and edification rather than rituals and piety."
Dean is just rebelling against the Nu-Theism movement.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 13:05
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Post-theist.
So you believe that there *was* a God? Usually it's assumed that He's eternal/immortal, so where did He go?
No, not quite.
I believe that mankind had a need for a god-head in the past and so created one, but now that need is obsolete (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism - post-theism ).
"Post-Theism uses religious doctrine for the non-religious purposes, using sacred texts as facilitators of enlightenment and edification rather than rituals and piety."
Dean is just rebelling against the Nu-Theism movement.
Interesting quote there Rob - got a source for that?
------------- What?
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 13:06
I am a practicing Catholic. Wanna take a guess at what I picked?
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 13:09
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Post-theist.
So you believe that there *was* a God? Usually it's assumed that He's eternal/immortal, so where did He go?
No, not quite.
I believe that mankind had a need for a god-head in the past and so created one, but now that need is obsolete (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism - post-theism ).
"Post-Theism uses religious doctrine for the non-religious purposes, using sacred texts as facilitators of enlightenment and edification rather than rituals and piety."
Dean is just rebelling against the Nu-Theism movement.
Interesting quote there Rob - got a source for that?
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 13:23
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Hinduism comes in many forms, and some of them are undoubtedly "theistic". One key criterium is whether or not the belief system demands certain actions or behavior in order to receive certain benefits (in hinduism that would be reincarnation, karma etc). If you believe in something transcendental that might be interacted with or is affecting us in any guiding way depending on our actions, then IMO that would be neither agnostic nor atheistic.
First of all, I'm currently learning from Hindu sources but wouldn't presume to call myself any type of Hindu. Karma is tricky because in a soft form I think it's absolutely true. In an oversimplified, concrete form it seems pretty doubtful to me. Reincarnation to me is like saying "will another wave arise from the ocean after that wave is reabsorbed." Of course one will. Does an individual soul come back as a goat? Almost for sure not in any way a human could actually understand.
So we get into metaphors that point to something, and as soon as we try to nail it down, things it tricky. After just enjoying an hour of George Carlin's ideas, I realize many people think it's all just caca. But the fact is that there is an enormous proportion of how the universe works that we don't understand and probably aren't even capable of understanding. Which, to me make hard atheism just as much an easy cop-out as fundamentalism.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 13:24
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Post-theist.
So you believe that there *was* a God? Usually it's assumed that He's eternal/immortal, so where did He go?
No, not quite.
I believe that mankind had a need for a god-head in the past and so created one, but now that need is obsolete (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-theism - post-theism ).
"Post-Theism uses religious doctrine for the non-religious purposes, using sacred texts as facilitators of enlightenment and edification rather than rituals and piety."
Dean is just rebelling against the Nu-Theism movement.
Interesting quote there Rob - got a source for that?
http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=32 - very good - and not wholly inaccurate.
------------- What?
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 13:26
I'm pretty much done with religion for this lifetime but if I'm reincarnated all bets are off.
Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 13:28
I'm a fairly strong Atheist, however I honestly don't think it matters in a well developed civil and secular society. I accept that no-one can be 100% sure about anything at the present moment, which technically makes me Agnostic. It's all very so-so for me.
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 13:44
Agnostic atheist. You can be both at the same time... atheism is the absence of a belief in God, agnosticism is the negation of knowledge. Two different things.
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 14:34
Kestrel wrote:
atheism is the absence of a belief in God
I disagree. As an atheist I not only not believe in God ... I deny its existence. I'm certain that it is a delusion.
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 14:40
Diests and Agnostics are two different things, yet you've lumped them together in this poll.
I'm not voting.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 14:43
Considering the number of spots available for any given poll I was thinking lumping Agnostic/Deist together was wrong.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 15:07
^ actually when I created the poll I was thinking about only making it two choices: theist vs. atheist.
You may be right that lumping them together was wrong ... the question is whether Deism would be closer to Theism or Atheism, if made a separate choice. Or maybe it should have been:
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 16:17
^ I just think having Agnostic as a seperate option would have been nice, since I honestly don't consider myself a Deist anymore, yet not quite an Atheist. I'm admitting that I don't know one way or the other, yet according to this poll, I'm either a believer of some sort, or I am not. No middle ground has been given as an option, yet many people including myself consider themselves to be just that.
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 16:20
Theist.
Shouldn't Deists be lumped with the Theists? Deists still believe in a "God," even though it's not a personal God.
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 17:14
^ Deists believe in a god that doesn't interfere with life (or the universe in general) ... in my opinion that makes deists atheists in daily life. On the other hand it makes them theists because they believe in the existence of a god that there exists no evidence of, which is not really compatible with the guiding principle of most atheists: to rely only on scientifically sound theories.
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 17:22
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
atheism is the absence of a belief in God
I disagree. As an atheist I not only not believe in God ... I deny its existence. I'm certain that it is a delusion.
Hmm... So you put yourself at the level of 7 on Dawkins' spectrum? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
I pretty much agree with Dawkins which is more of a 6.5, I guess.
Posted By: Soul Dreamer
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 21:16
I find myself on 6 on Dawkin's scale...You can NEVER be 100% certain, but probability highly favours the non-existence of (a) God, at least as (a) God as we learned through tradition.
------------- To be the one who seeks so I may find .. (Metallica)
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 02:02
Kestrel wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
atheism is the absence of a belief in God
I disagree. As an atheist I not only not believe in God ... I deny its existence. I'm certain that it is a delusion.
Hmm... So you put yourself at the level of 7 on Dawkins' spectrum? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
I pretty much agree with Dawkins which is more of a 6.5, I guess.
Well, I guess I would be comfortable at 6 for scientific considerations, but certainly at 7 when it comes to personal gods like the judeo-christian god - of those I am completely and utterly convinced that they don't exist.
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 02:10
OK, here we go.
1) I believe in God, or a God, whatever.
2) Organised religion of any kind is a big stinking pile of poo and makes me angry.
3) God is not far away, in fact he's near all the time and I can see his presence around me every day, and not even in a concealed way. I'd have to be friggin' blind not to acknowledge his presence.
4) God is a pratical joker with quite a mean streak now and then.
5) I'm not at all certain that my God is the same as that of other people, or many other people actually have one too.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 02:29
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
atheism is the absence of a belief in God
I disagree. As an atheist I not only not believe in God ... I deny its existence. I'm certain that it is a delusion.
Hmm... So you put yourself at the level of 7 on Dawkins' spectrum? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
I pretty much agree with Dawkins which is more of a 6.5, I guess.
Well, I guess I would be comfortable at 6 for scientific considerations, but certainly at 7 when it comes to personal gods like the judeo-christian god - of those I am completely and utterly convinced that they don't exist.
I don't think saying "'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one" is that difficult for an athiest given that most theists, agnostics and atheists can say that there is no Ra, Horus, Apollo, Zeus, Perseophone, Baccus, Freya, Odin, Loki, Eostur, Pan, Ceres, Demeter, Kali, Sedna, Quetzalcoatl etc... with a reasonable degree of conviction.
------------- What?
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 02:41
npjnpj wrote:
OK, here we go.
1) I believe in God, or a God, whatever.
2) Organised religion of any kind is a big stinking pile of poo and makes me angry.
3) God is not far away, in fact he's near all the time and I can see his presence around me every day, and not even in a concealed way. I'd have to be friggin' blind not to acknowledge his presence.
4) God is a pratical joker with quite a mean streak now and then.
5) I'm not at all certain that my God is the same as that of other people, or many other people actually have one too.
I'm not undermining your sincerity here, but you have just unwittingly diagnosed an imaginary friend ?
Physician heal thyself etc
-------------
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 02:42
He'll smite you for that one!
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 03:44
Dean wrote:
I don't think saying "'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one" is that difficult for an athiest given that most theists, agnostics and atheists can say that there is no Ra, Horus, Apollo, Zeus, Perseophone, Baccus, Freya, Odin, Loki, Eostur, Pan, Ceres, Demeter, Kali, Sedna, Quetzalcoatl etc... with a reasonable degree of conviction.
It's really difficult to find the right words though, isn't it? For example, if I said "I don't believe in God" that would trigger a certain response by religious people, claiming that I simply lost my faith, or am in a phase of rejecting God. If I said "I know for a fact that God doesn't exist" then religious people would dare me to prove it to them, which leads to the "gap problem" which works either way (theist/atheist), depending on how you use it.
I think that the most important message that new atheism should convey is that especially with the judeo-christian god there are so many examples of logical mistakes and false statements in the holy books and scriptures that for a clear-thinking person, looking at all the data without prejudice, there is no way to accept it as true. And that of course is highly controversial with religious people and perceived as an "attack", even when all we are doing is to encourage people to look at the evidence and draw their own conclusion.
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 08:33
One problem I see with Dawkins' scale and all this is that you haven't defined what "believe in God" means. Often what is held up is a straw man, school age religious concept. Dawkins and his ilk don't deal with modern adult religion.
You can criticize the metaphor arguments for being too soft, but once you dig into how language works, everything is a metaphor at some level. The words we use to describe concepts like black holes are woefully inadequate so we use analogies, ideas, characteristics. Well guess what, divine concepts are like that too, so we do our best. Just because my explanations are inadequate doesn't mean the object I'm trying to describe isn't there.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 08:58
^ I guess your point is that moderated religion should not be criticised by atheists, as opposed to fundamentalist/creationist people. Well, I disagree ... either God exists or not, there can't be any middle ground. God is - in most religions - described as an infallible, all knowing, omnipotent, immortal being. Those are all superlatives, with no "wiggle-room" for interpretation. Modern religions seem to me like an apologetic attempt to delay the breakdown of a system that has already been watered down over the ages. Today many religious people accept science in their every day life, using it to do things that would clearly have been identified as satanic/unholy a couple of centuries ago. You can't have your cake and eat it too!
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 09:08
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
I don't think saying "'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one" is that difficult for an athiest given that most theists, agnostics and atheists can say that there is no Ra, Horus, Apollo, Zeus, Perseophone, Baccus, Freya, Odin, Loki, Eostur, Pan, Ceres, Demeter, Kali, Sedna, Quetzalcoatl etc... with a reasonable degree of conviction.
It's really difficult to find the right words though, isn't it? For example, if I said "I don't believe in God" that would trigger a certain response by religious people, claiming that I simply lost my faith, or am in a phase of rejecting God. If I said "I know for a fact that God doesn't exist" then religious people would dare me to prove it to them, which leads to the "gap problem" which works either way (theist/atheist), depending on how you use it.
I think that the most important message that new atheism should convey is that especially with the judeo-christian god there are so many examples of logical mistakes and false statements in the holy books and scriptures that for a clear-thinking person, looking at all the data without prejudice, there is no way to accept it as true. And that of course is highly controversial with religious people and perceived as an "attack", even when all we are doing is to encourage people to look at the evidence and draw their own conclusion.
Of course by using the word god with a capital "G" and in the singular you are immediately limiting yourself to one god, the one of the Middle Eastern religions, so in effect you are attacking a religion rather than refuting the concept of a supreme being or pantheon of supreme beings.
The "proof" vs. "belief" argument is pointless - it isn't an argument, its an excahnge of statements and contradictions, which is why Dawkins phrased it as he did. However I'm not that enamoured by the idea of a partial atheist - that's an agnostic.
Negoba wrote:
One problem I see with Dawkins' scale and all this is that you haven't defined what "believe in God" means. Often what is held up is a straw man, school age religious concept. Dawkins and his ilk don't deal with modern adult religion.
That's the explanation I've been reaching for all morning but have been unable to put into words. Thanks.
Negoba wrote:
You can criticize the metaphor arguments for being too soft, but once you dig into how language works, everything is a metaphor at some level. The words we use to describe concepts like black holes are woefully inadequate so we use analogies, ideas, characteristics. Well guess what, divine concepts are like that too, so we do our best. Just because my explanations are inadequate doesn't mean the object I'm trying to describe isn't there.
And the converse is also true.
As I have said during the course of many an argument here on the PA - metaphors and analogies are only valid at one level, delving deeper they are bound to fail so defeating the analogy is not defeating the argument. Therefore if the only way to explain an idea is through metaphor then the only way to counter the idea is by reducing the idea and not the metaphor used to describe it.
------------- What?
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 09:14
^ "God", "god" ... does the capital G really have that implication? In an argument of theism versus atheism "God" should more appropriately refer to one (or more) personal gods - entities that interact with humans in ways described by believers as "supernatural".
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 09:42
Even in most Christian churches, I think the image of "God" most children learn is much more like Zeus than Allah (who should be the same "God" given that both talked to Abraham). That is, the straw man of a superhero guy on the top of a mountain with a steroid physique and a flowing white beard. Both ultra-powerful, but very flawed. But to take a single character from a pantheon framework and use that as your foil to prove there is nothing Divine at all is intellectually a bit missing the point.
You really have to understand both the power and limitations of metaphor to understand why arguing about specifics soon becomes pointless. Metaphors allow us to allude to things that cannot be referenced with concrete speech. But as Dean says, they only go so far. They can ALWAYS be torn apart. And they are ALWAYS in context of a culture, because their function is to help THOSE PEOPLE understand a concept that's hard to grasp. It is easy for me to say the Greek Pantheon doesn't exist, but it was just a way to try to conceptualize both the immensity and chaos of the Universe. All metaphors break down if you don't recognize them for what they are. And that includes the Truths that they are able to reveal.
Many people criticize religion in general, or organized religion, when in fact what really gets us in trouble is when we adhere too closely to our metaphors. I would argue that we're pushing our ecosystem to the brink of collapse based on a culture we say is based on science (and it is to some degree) but includes an extreme arrogance to the degree to which we (or at least those nerdy guys in a lab somewhere) understand the way the world works. It has replaced traditional religions in many cultural functions, and in some ways we are much worse for it.
Reading books like _The Elegant Universe_ will put your face smack into the fact that science is also working with metaphors (They're called hypotheses, and science benefits from the fact that we test them for function. But eventually, because reality is more complex than words, every hypotheses will break down eventually)
I'll come back and ramble some more later.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 09:43
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ "God", "god" ... does the capital G really have that implication? In an argument of theism versus atheism "God" should more appropriately refer to one (or more) personal gods - entities that interact with humans in ways described by believers as "supernatural".
It should, but it doesn't, at least not in the Western world, because we (Europeans and Americans) live in a predominantly christian world, where even atheists when they think of "God" think of the Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic God. As Jay points out, this is the trap Dawkins falls into (but one I think he deliberately falls into).
------------- What?
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 10:25
Interesting topic... now I do took my time and read the whole thread... I'm a active Catholic, by conviction, not by tradition so you now what I choose... I think that this discussion has no ending because Progfreak argument that the contradiction on the holy books are enough to disproof the existence of "the God" Judeo-Chistian... but that's what most of the atheist wishes to... You really think that only the non-well-studied persons are Juwish or Christian? most of the so "contradiction" of the holy books are really make up man, the "truth" on the books you can see it on the day to day experience, because the holy books are just that, a collective knowledge surviving through thousand of years...
Again, the existence of God, at least for me, you can see it in every single thing happen in the world... yes, I cannot give a proof, because people is so used to have "physical evidence" but at the end... as no one of us is sure... is an eternal question...
Those who said that religion is for keeping the rich rich... well, don't you think there is too much rejects on the holy books against the rich, the selfish and the proud...??? It's hard to me to explain myself in english, but you cannot stand an argument like that... you can say that some people of some religions have screw everything... but the text and the ideals of the religions are quite OK... you should try to study the ideals... that's why it exists through all this years... because the church is no the pope... is us, the people who lives with the hope on one Messiah... so... well... there's what I believe...
-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 10:59
IMO every single thing happening in the world supports the atheists. When was the last time you witnessed a true miracle?
I wouldn't say that religious people are "non well-studied" ... but I would say that they're biased. Dawkins uses the term "clear-thinker" on his website, and I agree that clear-thinking is all that is required to understand the atheist point of view. Nobody, atheist, deist or theist, can deny that in the world surrounding us there are much more hints towards atheism than there are towards theism. Foir example, theists claim that their god is performing miracles, yet fail to produce solid, independently verificable evidence of such miracles. Sure, they might be able to make up some strange excuse for that. But as the list of excuses is growing longer and longer, many theists realize that the whole concept is flawed. I have never been a theist to begin with, but many of my friends (mostly catholics and protestants) have stopped believing.
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 11:09
This is what I talk about the child-idea straw man. Even when I still regularly attended Catholic church, the priests would talk about seeing the "Miraculous" dividing of the fishes as more of a Stone Soup situation, and that in terms of actually changing the souls of those present, it was a more important transformation that seeing some magic come from outside of themselves. These are ideas that adults discuss even among the very faithful. Spirituality and Belief do not necessarily depend on supernatural events. The benefits of faith are not about magical powers. Interestingly, in the Yoga Sutras, there are described "supernatural" powers that can be obtained through practice but then goes on to describe them as distractions. Certainly, yogis do have some command over their bodies that undisciplined humans cannot do. What is your definition of "supernatural"?
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 11:17
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
IMO every single thing happening in the world supports the atheists. When was the last time you witnessed a true miracle?
This is where I would recommend a book like http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Exodus-Scientists-Discovery-Extraordinary/dp/0060514043 - this .
I believe most, if not all miracles have scientific explanations. Even if I cannot attribute a scientific explanation to a miracle, that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Besides, even if there were no miracles, I would still believe in God.
Jesus is not a "magician" that must prove himself by pulling rabbits from hats. He himself chided people for http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:38-39&version=NASB - requiring miracles .
The bottom line is miracles are incidental matters and people who require them are frankly missing the point.
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 11:21
Exactly like that... you are not a Theist and even you are giving arguments that progfreak called as "excuses"... I have never said that miracles were something supernatural... supernatural to whom...??? we as mankind do not understand the half of the power of nature and that's my point...
if we take this discussion further I will say these... how many probabilities were that this planet could support enought heat of the sun to create life...??? how many probabilities were to this planet to have the perfect balanced to evolve an atmosphere that protect most life on earth... how many probabilities are there to the creation of water...??? and how's that the trees need our breathing at the same amount we need them to produce oxigen...??? if we go to the facts... the probabilities are like 0.0000000001 % so, do you think this happen only because an curious explotion...??? man... it's improbable... but at the end of the day it happen...
If that doesn't matches with the idea of a miracle... I don't know what I'm talking about... but then again... who said that miracle is not life itself...??? what makes you different from a rock or the dust...??? you have no streight answer to the mistery of life... so...
And BTW... there are a lot of tradional thoughts in most every culture about the "supernatural" power of people... you see saints capable to move thousands of pounds of rocks... people who control the gravity at will, people who could live without food for mounths -it's a fact you die if you don't eat in three weeks- so... Miracles as just a definition of "supernatural" fireworks is quit silly... don't you think...???
-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 11:39
We've had other threads where I talked about self-organizing systems and complexity theory. The chance of life occurring without self-organizing systems is ZERO. But these systems exist all around us and even though most people don't consciously think about them, they are part of what you know about reality.
This is beyond the massive of amount pruning of randomness that happens just through natural selection. The world is the way it is partly because most other arrangements are unstable and could not exist. But even beyond that, increasing complexity actually begets new forces that change the way the system works. Culture is an example with human populations. The fact that humans are effective in information transfer makes us as organisms unlike any other life form we know of.
I'll be back.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 11:41
Dawkins doesn't attack a strawman. He doesn't bother arguing against the theological concept of God because most people don't believe in that God. It's also most likely why he doesn't bother with polytheism - Britain/Europe/United States are mostly Christian, not Hindu.
Anyone else notice how apologetic arguments are always so convenient? Miracles - one way for God to show himself - are off limits to require. Very slick.
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 11:51
How exactly is it not a strawman for a PhD trained scientist to take on pop-culture ideas of religion rather than theological ones? Further, how do you know how most people conceptualize God?
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 12:01
Who tell you that miracles were meant to be one way to God show himself...??? He doesn't need and doesn't care about proving you nothing... that's faith all about... but you will believe it's only an excuse right...???
I put it this way... if you see Jesus going back to earth, if you see him flying down tonight you will believe in him...??? yes... until you have proof right...??? well, what is so special to believe in what you already knew... that's what faith is all about... I believe in God specially because I have no proof at all... but... well.. again... is that an excuse for you...???
-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 12:01
Also I would point out that even if a miracle (of the science-violating kind) did happen, would science-minded atheists go, "Well, there must be a deity after all!"
No...most of them I'd wager would consider it another one of those anomalies science would explain eventually...
...which makes miracles an unimportant facet of this discourse anyway.
Finally, if a Creator exists, then He called into being every scientific law man would ever discover. Wouldn't violating those laws then point against God's existence?
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 12:09
Here's a way to put it.
For an atheist, God is magic, so to believe in God, he wants to see magic.
For the faithful, God is reality, so evidence of God exists in every aspect of the Universe around us.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 12:13
but if you see... atheist think that god believers are magical primitive people... funny don't you think...???
-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 12:13
Atheist.
My son who celebrates his 12th birthday tomorrow told me few months ago he is agnostic (I checked, he used the word properly). So he's more modest than me and willing to admit he doesn't know where I chose to decide I do not believe.
I read Dawkins' book a year ago and I think he is wrong blaming religion for the evil making in our world. I think that men do evil cause they want to and use religion as an excuse for that (and if not religion they will find other excuses such as race theory or whatever).
However, according to Dawkins the place where being an atheist is almost bad as padofilia is USA
I think this thread can not be completed without some lines from "God song" (Matching mole) :
What on earth are you doing god ?
Is this some sort of joke your'e playing,
is this cause we didn't pray ?
------------- omri
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 12:31
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 12:53
jampa17 wrote:
but if you see... atheist think that god believers are magical primitive people... funny don't you think...???
No. We. Don't.
I see value in debating an idea, but see no value in disrespecting the people who support that idea.
------------- What?
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 13:29
jampa17 wrote:
but if you see... atheist think that god believers are magical primitive people... funny don't you think...???
I think that there are many religious people who simply ignore the evidence that (quite strongly) suggests that their God is not real. I don't think that you need to have a degree in science to understand the evidence - maybe if you're talking about the origin of the universe, but not if you're talking about errors and inconsistencies in holy books, for example.
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 13:33
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
.
...he didn't even mention the the-man-walking-along-the-path-and-finding-the-watch thing Theists bang on about when ridiculing scientific facts-or-whatever...
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 17:12
Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???
you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???
You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...
-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 17:19
We all know that the earth was built by the Mice anyway - ask Mr Slatibartfast he did the fiddly bits!
God had nothing to do with it.
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 18:12
jampa17 wrote:
Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???
you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???
You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...
What you are describing are emotions.
Emotions are part of human nature. Just like instinct is in animal nature. Each species has qualities unique to their own. It doesn't prove God exists at all.
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 18:22
p0mt3 wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???
you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???
You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...
What you are describing are emotions.
Emotions are part of human nature. Just like instinct is in animal nature. Each species has qualities unique to their own. It doesn't prove God exists at all.
Emotions are a part of nature, not just human nature - animals have happy, sad, fear, joy, whether they are as sophisticated as human emotions is another question, but how sophisticated human emotions are is debatable too.
------------- What?
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 19:15
Dean wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???
you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???
You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...
What you are describing are emotions.
Emotions are part of human nature. Just like instinct is in animal nature. Each species has qualities unique to their own. It doesn't prove God exists at all.
Emotions are a part of nature, not just human nature - animals have happy, sad, fear, joy, whether they are as sophisticated as human emotions is another question, but how sophisticated human emotions are is debatable too.
You're a vegetarian, aren't you?
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 19:29
p0mt3 wrote:
You're a vegetarian, aren't you?
Nope, I'm a vegetarianarian - I only eat amimals that eat plants.
...or perhaps that's herbivorian....
------------- What?
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 19:37
Dean wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
You're a vegetarian, aren't you?
Nope, I'm a vegetarianarian - I only eat amimals that eat plants.
...or perhaps that's herbivorian....
Whew!
And all this time I thought Dean was under my bed ready to eat me.
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 20:58
I thought also that Dean only ate vegetarians.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 21:49
Negoba wrote:
How exactly is it not a strawman for a PhD trained scientist to take on pop-culture ideas of religion rather than theological ones? Further, how do you know how most people conceptualize God?
Because Dawkins' purpose was to write a popular book for the pop culture. Given what you wrote, you seem to agree that there is a difference between pop-culture ideas of religion and theological ideas of religion.. which means most people (pop-culture) have a different way of conceptualizing God. Like you said, people (Christian Americans, anyway) think of God as more Zeus-like than the way Muslims may view God.
Also, most people don't read philosophy or theology. Dawkins didn't have any interest in arguing against ideas held by a group of academics.
I would take a quote from the book but I'm currently lending it to my sister...
jampa17 wrote:
Who tell you that miracles were meant to be one way to God show
himself...??? He doesn't need and doesn't care about proving you
nothing... that's faith all about... but you will believe it's only an
excuse right...???
I put it this way... if you see Jesus going back to earth, if you
see him flying down tonight you will believe in him...??? yes... until
you have proof right...??? well, what is so special to believe in what
you already knew... that's what faith is all about... I believe in God
specially because I have no proof at all... but... well.. again... is
that an excuse for you...???
I didn't say miracles were meant to be a way for God to show himself, they are just one way he could.
I don't like the idea of faith. At all. I don't use faith anywhere in my life and I don't get why people expect me to use faith in the areas of explanations of how and why we are here and how to live my life. It's just not sensible to me. But there I go again, using logic and stuff.
Epignosis wrote:
Also
I would point out that even if a miracle (of the science-violating
kind) did happen, would science-minded atheists go, "Well, there must
be a deity after all!"
No...most of them I'd wager would consider it another one of those anomalies science would explain eventually...
...which makes miracles an unimportant facet of this discourse anyway.
Well, if the atheist is truly science-minded, he would be willing to change his mind given the evidence. And with God being omnipotent and omniscient and all that, I'm sure it could figure out a way. Until then, I don't have any evidence pointing to its existence.
Finally, if a Creator exists, then He called into being every scientific law man would ever discover. Wouldn't violating those laws then point against God's existence?
I don't think so. My definition of a miracle would be some event that does break scientific laws. Jesus turning water in wine is definitely breaking scientific laws.
jampa17 wrote:
Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???
you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and
chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if
there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling
you want... how do you proove that...???
You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing,
that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot
distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical
reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not
exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof
than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as
that.. don't you think...
I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Emotions are just chemical reactions - that's why people ingest chemicals (drugs) to change them. Past that, I'm not sure what you're saying... Sorry.
Also, I don't personally take how I feel about something in determining how I think about something. Sure, it might be nice if God exists, depending on how you view the situation, but that feeling doesn't make his existence true nor false.
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 01:28
jampa17 wrote:
Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???
you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???
You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...
This talk is about morality and how it can exist naturally, as a result of evolution. If you like you can look up other presentations or books by neuroscientists that deal with how feelings relate to brain functions.
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 09:59
Dean wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???
you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???
You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...
What you are describing are emotions.
Emotions are part of human nature. Just like instinct is in animal nature. Each species has qualities unique to their own. It doesn't prove God exists at all.
Emotions are a part of nature, not just human nature - animals have happy, sad, fear, joy, whether they are as sophisticated as human emotions is another question, but how sophisticated human emotions are is debatable too.
Guess it's kind of hard for me to argue in english... but at the end you answer what I wanted... the "sophisticated emotions" are debatable... so as we don't have a proof of that we can say that there are not such "sophisticated emotions"... so... we are animals... but it's very different to percieve quemical reactions to the fact that you feel something... how you distinguis one thing to another, emotions from feelings... that's my question... and other thing, I imagine then that love doesn't exist, 'cause there are just chemical reaction and by that, all of you could possible denied that you feel love for someone, your parents, wife, sons or whatever... because as I understand it, love is way much more than the "instinct" of protect the individuals of your species... or am I wrong...???
-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 10:49
jampa17 wrote:
Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???
you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???
You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...
There is no proof of the existence of god and for sure there is no proof for the unexistence of god. We (each one of us personally) have to choose if we believe or not. Your choice to believe in god is O.K. just as my choice not to believe and these different choices of us don't make neither you nor me better than the other in anything. I respect your choice and hope you respect mine. I see no reason for hard feelings.
------------- omri
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:06
omri wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Well.. lets put it this way... ok...???
you want a proof that God exist and you see nothing but nature and chemical reactions and that's all... well... I ask you to proof me if there exist love, hate, happiness, anger, sadness or whatever feeling you want... how do you proove that...???
You cannot tell me as well that happiness is more than laughing, that we break into tears only when we are sad or happy, you cannot distinct a difference between emotions if those are not than chemical reactions in our brains right...??? well, if you accept that there not exist nothing of that... I prefer to believe in God without a proof than living on the believe that feelings do not exists... as simple as that.. don't you think...
There is no proof of the existence of god and for sure there is no proof for the unexistence of god. We (each one of us personally) have to choose if we believe or not. Your choice to believe in god is O.K. just as my choice not to believe and these different choices of us don't make neither you nor me better than the other in anything. I respect your choice and hope you respect mine. I see no reason for hard feelings.
You see... that's Ok... the problem is that here are some that want the physical proof of god existence... so, I respect your faith and your believings but when people start claiming about physical proof they already know that there are non... or that everything is sign of god existence... is a tough argument... It can work either way... but progfreak want a physical proof and I especially don't want it... I believe in God especially because there's no proof at all... but that's faith and progfreak don't want to talk about it...
Yes, there's no reason for hard feelings...
-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:24
While one day me may have proof of god's existence (if he decides to just appear and we don't categorize it as universal psychosis), we will never have proof of god's non-existence. In a way, it's more difficult not-to-believe, especially in certain parts of the world.
I don't know if there's god or no. I'm 99.99% sure the god of the bible all other holy books doesn't exist (but even of that I can't be sure). I'm 99.98% sure NO god exists at all. But again, I can't be sure. I think none could reach 7 points in Dawkins scale and considered him/herself a true non believer. Reaching 7 in that scale requires too much faith.
-------------
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:44
^ consider using the phrase "I'm sure that beyond any reasonable doubt there is no god". :-)
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:52
^i don't think so. There's always room for reasonable doubt, always. In the legal system, of course we use that figure not to say something didn't happen, but that we can't prove it did. In this case, and in science in general, we can't accept that as evidence of anything. Yes, I have very little doubt... but one day a big bearded guy may appear from the heaven and prove me wrong... (unless I'm high on something and it turns out to be an old Mike Portnoy.. )
-------------
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 12:08
yeah... I was thinking in the holy Drummer... "Carpe Diem" he'll say...
-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 12:15
On a gut level, beauty / art / subjective enjoyment in life do offer a bit of evidence of the Divine for me. It is difficult for me to imagine the kind of experience of I have in reaction to art to have any explanation or purpose within the current scheme of scientific knowledge.
At the same time, the depth of pain and the apparent capriciousness of suffering is used to say there is no God. I understand this notion, and really have not been able to take it to further conclusion that both undeniably exist.
------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 12:26
Even if the creator/God/bearded gaffer did appear and all doubt was removed about his/her/their existence: would that entity punish those creatures who either hitherto denied his existence or were incapable of recognising such e.g. wildlife, plants, conservative politicians, line dancers, Tangerine Dream fans etc
Would he acknowledge a moral compass with man-made poles ?
(As an atheist, I'm hoping to get a lenient sentence for good behaviour)
Negoba wrote:
Prog Archives Tour Van 
