Anabolic Member
My personal observation of Austinite is that he is a fairly easy going individual. Not saying that what you said is false, it just seems out of character. Bottom line is no one is perfect, and sometimes we rub people the wrong way. I've driven two people off over the years that I'm aware of, probably more. I'm surprised it hasn't been a helluva lot more to be truthful. Either way, Austinite is a great contributor and a net asset. Please try to get alongOriginally Posted by Metalject
Knowledgeable Female Member
Well, perhaps some of the people are who are anti-religion have good empirical or theoretical reasons why they think the way they do. Perhaps whether people are pro- anti- or neutral towards religion they have reasons that support their position. I realise that you say that the people you meet don't, but the many atheists I know do. And anyway, being anti-religion does not entail a position on whether one believes in the supernatural.
And both positions are not belief systems. I'm quite surprised you are even saying that. It is something that I see religious people do in order to make their view appear to be similar to the views commonly held by atheists (presumably in an attempt to equalise things), but it is incorrect. Atheism is the rejection of belief in gods. It means that I, as an atheist, do not accept the view of deists. It does not mean that I BELIEVE that there are no gods, as in, this is something that I hold to be true, come what may. It means that my evaluation of the proposal that gods exist is that there is no extant evidence to support that belief. Should evidence otherwise come to light, then I would of course reevaluate my position and bring it into line with any new knowledge.
Member
This is something theist struggle with. I'm not anti religion but you can't argue that almost every religion has done bad. Most of them also do good. But there are very good reasons to dislike religion. Just look at what's going on in the middle east. While the situation is complicated it all boils down to, "my invisible sky wizard is better than your invisible sky wizard"
Anabolic Member
See, I always understood an atheist to be one that feels there is no god period.
And I always understood an agnostic to be those that are against the institutions of religion and doubt the validity of any particular scripture, yet hold out for the possibility there is still some type of metaphysical being.
So in my view point, you are an agnostic, yet call yourself an atheist.
here is a copy and paste of Wiki, which is more or less how I was looking at it:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of God, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2]
Knowledgeable Female Member
Since it is impossible for anyone to prove that something does not exist, I think it is silly to attribute that definition to atheism (or anything), except if you want to give it a meaning that makes it prima facie false. Did you tell your children that santa doesn't exist, or did you advise them that you are agnostic about his existence, and they should neither believe nor disbelieve?
Any atheist that would argue that they KNOW that there is no supernatural can be therefore summarily dismissed. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, and I am an atheist. The word 'agnostic' does no work that the word 'atheist' does not already cover.
As an aside, I think people often use the word 'agnostic' when they are trying to not offend religious people, because I think they feel allowing for the possibility that some religious people might be right is less confrontational than saying they think they are wrong. Perhaps others don't feel there is any evidence for the supernatural, but sort of wish there were gods (especially personal gods who are interested in their well-being), and agnosticism feels like it is some kind of emotional halfway point. Although I think some people who don't believe in gods don't actually realise the pointlessness of 'agnosticism' themselves.
Anabolic Member
missed my point.
I'll be very direct.
My position:
It is OK to be a true believer
It is also OK to say there is not a god of any type.
Neither side can empirically prove or disprove either their position or the other position.
It is NOT Ok for the true believer to say an atheist is wrong.
Likewise, it is NOT ok for an atheist to say a true believer is wrong.
Neither side should cast stones at the other.
And yes, I believe that ANY atheist that would argue they know for a fact, no chance of error, with absolute 100& certainty, there is no metaphysical being of any type, none, is arguing from a non factual position. How could I have any other position?
See, here's the thing. People DO argue as if they know for a certainty, what ever their position is. But just because they believe with all their heart, unfortunately, doesn't make it so.
And yes, I'm an agnostic, and yes, my kids were held to believe in a Santa Clause for a few years. To me, it's a very endearing time in their lives, and I cherished it.
I don't use the word agnostic very often when I describe myself. I don't like to use a single word to express my thoughts. Instead, i'll tell them, as I have expressed in my thread, how I feel.
And this is how I feel:
The idea of a metaphysical being creating the universe doesn't seem entirely unreasonable, but unsatisfactory in that if we are looking for an explanation as to beginnings, then we have created a circular reference due to answering a question with yet another question that must be asked.... who/what created god? Therefore, evoking a god does not ultimately answer "where did it all come from", since "god" should probably be included in the use of the word "all".
on the other hand, the same can be said of those that evoke a quantum fluctuation as our starting point. All well and good, but then the theory goes that these quantum fluctuations may have occurred an infinite number of times, involving the creation in an infinite number of universes. So this explanation also lacks the ability to answer.. "where did it all come from?"
My position as an agnostic is that neither side's explanation is satisfactory. Therefore, I refuse to choose.
Anabolic Member
what I don't understand is why can't an deist/atheist simply say, "I'm pretty certain my position is right, I could be wrong, but I doubt it"?
Anabolic Member
instead of what I usually hear...
"I'm an atheist/deist, and I know for a fact I'm right and the other side is wrong"?
Banned
If one could admit to possibly being wrong how would he/she then be considered a true believer of whatever they believed in?
Anabolic Member
easy. because they have made a decision to believe. in the case of a true believer in a deity, they would say they chose this belief because it best compliments their life and how they want to live it. They could also say they made this choice to honor their family and their community. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to live a life style as if there is a god. It can be a very rewarding lifestyle, rich with tradition and culture and wisdom. Many can take comfort with all that.
I remember growing up my folks would tuck me in bed and it was a ritual we would say prayers, and at the end, kisses all around. This makes children feel very secure. And it makes the parents feel good for being able to provide this type of feelings of security.
And the ritual of going to church, and that feeling of community, that feeling of fellowship. It's all good. So why do people feel the need to crucify those that choose to believe differently?
Knowledgeable Member
Very good clip with Penn Jillette explaining the difference between agnostic and atheist and a few other things in that same light. This is a small clip from the full discussion, the full clip is pretty interesting and shows a good example of how the discussion should go between a believer and non-believer.
Banned
It's not as easy as saying you are a believer bc it best compliments a lifestyle. One can be a believer and live a totally incongruent lifestyle and conversely one could not be a believer and live the lifestyle. Nor is it the case of simply honoring family and community although I suspect that that is the case for some.
True but I would argue it was the ritual itself and not necessarily the prayer or belief portion that added the feeling of security. The prayer was one component but this happens with many families of non-believers as well.I remember growing up my folks would tuck me in bed and it was a ritual we would say prayers, and at the end, kisses all around. This makes children feel very secure. And it makes the parents feel good for being able to provide this type of feelings of security.
Going to church to me seems more about building on your connection with what you choose to believe in although many see it for it's social benefits instead. I do agree some ppl feel the need to crucify others who don't believe in the same things but I don't think that's just a believer/non-believer or even a religious issue. We see this sort of behavior in every aspect of life and not just religion.And the ritual of going to church, and that feeling of community, that feeling of fellowship. It's all good. So why do people feel the need to crucify those that choose to believe differently?
I would consider myself religious although I haven't attended church in a long time. I used to go every weekend as a child with my mom...dad wasn't particularly religious. I went to a catholic prep high school even though I wasn't catholic and I believe that to be the reason I have a bad taste in my mouth (insert gay joke here) when it comes to organized religion. The things I experienced jaded me. I still believe but I choose to believe outside a church. I for one don't care what others believe in. You are free to make your own choices in life and while I do believe atheists to be incorrect, I do not judge them on those terms nor do I see myself as a better human being bc of it. I will not force my beliefs on anybody and only talk about them when asked. For me at least, I can believe in a higher power yet respect your freedom and right to believe otherwise
Knowledgeable Member
Excellent response, I agree.
I think one reason so many atheist, non-believers or whatever the label is you'd like to use take issue with religious people, christian in particular, is for some of the reasons you alluded to. People see the hypocrisy of those that attend church and that is a problem without question. But equally problematic is often the non-believers perception of what it means to be a christian, which by any definition does not imply an individual who lives without fault.
Knowledgeable Female Member
Roman, this is called an inferential argument. It's like making the claim that all eggs are white. If you do so, and then I show you a brown egg, I prove that you are incorrect. And the fact that I am an atheist that does not argue that I know for a fact, with no chance of error, that there is no metaphysical being of any type means that your claim is wrong. I have already stated so twice, so either you think I am lying, or you are not hearing what I am saying. Seriously, claims like this are simply bizarre - it as though you are being insistent about what MY position is.
More to the point, I wonder why you are interested in characterising atheists in a way that makes their view incorrect as a matter of the definition you choose. You may know some unintelligent atheists, as you said, but I know plenty of atheists that know how to think and are persuaded by good reasons, including me.
Knowledgeable Female Member
So you are agnostic about santa claus?
Knowledgeable Female Member
Hey Doc, I don't care what other people believe in either (and I don't mind at all that you think I am incorrect!), but I am always surprised at how many people care intensely about what I don't believe. I wonder what drives this. I find in general many people get quite agitated when atheism is discussed.
People often make comments about forcing their beliefs on people often when religion or atheism is discussed, and it always makes me wonder whether people think discussion is forcing views on people. Personally I think forcing one's religious views on someone else entails things like making laws such that religions and religious practices are forbidden or required, or forced conversions, or denying people jobs or housing on the basis of religion or the lack thereof. I think if someone locked someone in a room, and wouldn't let them leave such that they were forced to listen to things against their will, that would be a situation where talking about beliefs or non-beliefs would be forced. But mostly, think people just talk (at least in the US, I'm not arguing that people don't have religion forced on them in other parts of the world). Because it comes up so often in these discussions, I wonder if people experience other people's spoken views as some kind of coercion. Why do you think people are so uncomfortable with disagreement?
Knowledgeable Female Member
Roman, I must apologise, I misread what you wrote about this. I had previously said the exact same thing, so when I was reading it, and I guess my brain just assumed there was no reason for you to just be repeating what I said, so I missed that you were saying an atheist that would say this would be wrong, and thought you were saying that this is what atheists think. Perhaps atheists who are not very thoughtful about their position would say that, but to be fair, I have never heard an atheist make this claim. Only a person with a certain kind of mind would make a claim like that.
Anyway, I still don't understand why you are saying it, since I said the same....was there something further point you were trying to make about this?
Banned
Hi Angel
People want to believe their belief system is right or better than others possibly? They feel better forcing it upon others maybe or maybe they just would feel better about their own beliefs if morpe ppl believed the same.
Ppl maybe uncomfortable with disagreement bc it affects their views would be my guess. Maybe they think that if their belief is undoubtedly correct then everyone should believe in the same and if they don't they feel as if their belief system is attacked. I also think ppl care what others think way too much. We've stopped living our lives for ourselves and began living it in a manner to constantly seek approval from everyone. I don't think simple discussion is forcing your views, on the contrary, true 'discussion' is perfectly fine. It's when the discussion turns into something else that it becomes forcing your views.
Banned
I agree. Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. I saw much hypocrisy, among other things, and while I hold much disdain for that particular institution I still believe many of those ppl are generally good ppl. The actions of the few do not speak for the establishment itself.
AR-Elite Hall of Famer
My question is..... Why is it being repeated that there are intelligent and unintelligent atheists? There's an awful lot of unintelligent believers out there......
Why do I need "proof" that there is no god. Why can't I just believe what I want to believe without being deemed unintelligent?
Suspended or Banned either way gone!
Knowledgeable Female Member
Hey Roman,
Perhaps this way of thinking about it will help to elucidate the atheist's position.
You say that religious people cannot prove that gods exist, and atheists cannot prove that gods don't exist, and therefore, their positions are equivalent.
But it is impossible to prove a universal negative; it is impossible to prove that something does not exist.
So you have charged the atheist with a task that is literally impossible, and then judged them on the fact that they cannot complete it.
Do you see why this is a problem? Your only way out of this unfairness (given what you have already asserted) is to argue that it is also impossible to ever prove the existence of gods. I suspect that will be more difficult that it sounds, but if that is your position, then maybe you can clarify this.
Knowledgeable Female Member
Hey Doc. I've been wondering how things have been going at school. I would love to go back and do another degree! I hope you are managing to enjoy your life at the moment.Hi Angel
People want to believe their belief system is right or better than others possibly? They feel better forcing it upon others maybe or maybe they just would feel better about their own beliefs if morpe ppl believed the same.
Ppl maybe uncomfortable with disagreement bc it affects their views would be my guess. Maybe they think that if their belief is undoubtedly correct then everyone should believe in the same and if they don't they feel as if their belief system is attacked. I also think ppl care what others think way too much. We've stopped living our lives for ourselves and began living it in a manner to constantly seek approval from everyone. I don't think simple discussion is forcing your views, on the contrary, true 'discussion' is perfectly fine. It's when the discussion turns into something else that it becomes forcing your views.
Everyone feels their point of view is correct as they understand things, I think. And I agree that people struggle with the fact that people disagree, and there seems to be a big emphasis on what other people think. People need a lot of validation or they seem to doubt themselves.
I have been thinking that the reason things turn very quickly into language about forcing one's beliefs on people is due to the uncomfortability that you describe. I suspect if people feel threatened when someone disagrees, then the act of talking somehow morphs into a perceived force. I don't care if people disagree with me, but if they try and deny me a job based on that, then there is some real force involved. I am uncomfortable with most instances of talking being described as force, because it minimises what real force is. I feel the same way when people throw around terms like antisemitism when someone disagrees with the views of someone who is jewish; it makes light of the seriousness of real anti-semitism (and force).
Anabolic Member
it's all good Angel.Roman, I must apologise, I misread what you wrote about this. I had previously said the exact same thing, so when I was reading it, and I guess my brain just assumed there was no reason for you to just be repeating what I said, so I missed that you were saying an atheist that would say this would be wrong, and thought you were saying that this is what atheists think. Perhaps atheists who are not very thoughtful about their position would say that, but to be fair, I have never heard an atheist make this claim. Only a person with a certain kind of mind would make a claim like that.
Anyway, I still don't understand why you are saying it, since I said the same....was there something further point you were trying to make about this?
I've never tried to pin down an atheist this tightly before. But I have heard a few say there isn't a god with a tone of certainty in their voice. As if the people that are religious and take the king james as a fact are wrong.
Personally, I too think that the "King James" is wrong. Especially when they say that although written by man, but guided by divine inspiration. That's pretty hard to swallow when if is fairly common knowledge that the Bible is a product of the Niciam Council around what? 300 AD?
It's interesting to see the emotion involved when discussing someone's belief system, regardless if true believer or atheist.
You have to admit, a button was pushed when I suggested that an atheist could be wrong.
See, I have my doubts about the big bang too. Although the theory seems likely at this point, there are some unresolved items that cast some doubt on this theory.
In my humble opinion, there is probably an equal probability either side could be wrong.
Wouldn't it be wild if we were later to find that both sides were somehow wrong?
Such as, there is/are metaphysical beings, but had nothing to do with the "creation" of the universe, and then even further, there was no big bang?
Anabolic Member
I don't see why any side needs to "prove" their position?
Proving one's position is an antagonistic endeavor imho. The outcome of proving a position is also disproving the other side's position.
I think it sufficient to simply believe.
My issue is when one side antagonizes the other side, or between the varieties of religious belief.
I take offense when an individual takes a superior position over another in their belief system.
Member
I think you are all ignoring the 800 pound gorilla. I will use the Christian faith because it is the one I'm most familiar with. Although, I'm pretty sure all other religions are similar.
The church teaches us that only true believers will be accepted into the kingdom of heaven. When this is taught, believers must defend their position as the only correct one. To do otherwise would remove the reward.
To me, this is the significant difference. As an atheist, whether you believe what I believe or not is meaningless. There is no reward or punishment. I have nothing invested in your opinion. But to challenge a believers position is to challenge their ultimate salvation.
The certainty that "my religion" is the only correct one is what drives me nuts. As an atheists I'm capable of saying, "I might be wrong" But if you are a true believer you can't. Not and still be a believer. Your faith won't allow for any other conclusion.
Anabolic Member
I don't agree. There are many religious people that admit the possibility they could be wrong. Then they usually say, "if I'm wrong, it won't matter, but if I'm right, then I'll be in heaven".
..........if they are wrong, it doesn't matter.
See, I "believe" I have a job waiting for me on Monday morning. And I will prepare my life as if it were true. But I don't really know if I have a job waiting for me Monday morning. The CEO could have decided to fire by the time I get there.
Knowledgeable Female Member
Hey Roman,
My buttons get pushed when someone mischaracterises my position. I will defend my view, but don't mind disagreement, as long as the other person defends their position using the dictates of reason, which they usually do not, at least in the lounge. Even the idea you are professing: why can't we all believe what we want and eschew any evidence? Well, we can, but without appeals to reason, there is just not much point in discussing any of it. It's like me preferring vanilla or chocolate ice cream - why would be there any interest at all in what I like? I think it's a waste of time.
And atheists may all be wrong, I don't mind, and it has no impact on my view. I am a rational person, and that is what I value. I do not believe in santa and the supernatural and don't believe things because I prefer that they be true. Obviously we all make our own choices and others believe differently. But show me some good evidence and I will reconsider. That's what Deal Me In is getting at - non-religious beliefs can be falsified, whereas religious beliefs cannot.
Tell a christian that their god cannot be both all-loving and omnipotent if it allows human suffering to go on, and people immediately get their knickers all knotted up, and do you know, I have never heard a religious person say, wow, that's really interesting, how could my god possibly be both those things and still allow people to suffer every day in extremis? Instead a lot of stuff is trotted out about the inability of human minds to understand the will of god, and no real explanation ever emerges but the conversational contortion is extreme - that is the reaction to the many contradictions. And it seems to fit: if you make a non-evidenced based choice, why should you change it based on evidence?
Knowledgeable Female Member
I disagree with this. We first have the question of whether the supernatural exists at all. Atheists have a 50% stake in that game by chance, so the odds are even there.
But what if we consider the 50% chance of the supernatural side and then look at the many competing claims: there are something like 60,000+ religious groups that are estimated to have existed throughout recorded history. Many of those worship/ped a plurality of gods, but even if we limit the number to 60,000 thinking that within the polytheistic systems there was no conflict between the belief in the gods (there definitely was, but we are trying to be conservative with the number), that's at least 60,000 separate bets for the supernatural team, and many of those gods don't offer "salvation" or whatever the particular prize is for people who worship others. So what are the odds of getting the right bet then (when you just die if you bet on the wrong gods)?
Last edited by thisAngelBites; 11-10-2014 at 03:49 PM. Reason: Didn't mean to use the word metaphysical - I meant supernatural!
Knowledgeable Female Member
Atheism is not a belief system.
Associate Member
Knowledgeable Member
That issue is addressed in the bible in several instances, one may or may not have an issue with the explanation but it is explained. When Jesus is asked about the tower of Siloam is a good example. The tower fell and killed numerous people. But it's impossible for an atheist to accept the answer given, that doesn't mean one isn't given but it becomes more than difficult to argue or discuss such points when the foundation of the believer and non-believers arguments exist on opposite ends.
Member
This is Pascal's wager and is intellectual laziness at it's finest.
Member
No, it's not impossible for us to accept the answer given. It's the conclusion. Millions of children die every year from all different things. An atheist asks why an all loving god would allow such a thing and a theist will say, "god works in mysterious ways" or "we are not meant to understand the ways of god" or some other explanation that avoids the question. Ok. I accept your explanation.
However, I reject your conclusion that your god is all loving. His actions seem to be those of a psychopath.
If you accept that your god can kill millions and because he/she/it does it, it's good, then you have excused any moral check on society. This type of thinking leads to the crusades, burning witches, and flying planes into building.
~Retired~ AR-Platinum Elite-Hall of Famer ~
Now that video questions a lot
Thanks for posting will be watching more of this guy's videos.
Pissing Excellence!
Aliens
Knowledgeable Member
I agree that the "mysterious ways" comment or those like it are irritating answers. I would prefer a simple "I don't know" to any of those.
Anyway, as for the direct question at hand, I think it's a two part answer. The reason God allows bad things to happen is because man has free will. We are free to choose how we live and act, and some men will choose poorly. Secondly, the "God is all loving" idea, while true is warped IMO in American Christianity. People tend to forget God is loving and also wrathful because the latter is uncomfortable to think about. God created man and woman in his image, but we only (American Christians, I can't speak on others) focus on the feminine nature. Sure, there are those hell and brimstone preachers out there, but that's an entirely different animal altogether and best saved for another topic.
Anabolic Member
there is no way of knowing the probability of this theoretical discussion of a deity.
99,999 people can predict heads on the coin toss, and only one predicts tails. The odds are still only 50/50
See, even if the "bangers" are right, it still doesn't rule out a metaphysical being. And their could be metaphysical beings that came about post bang that have nothing to do with our origins. The way I derived the odds is about as simple as it gets. Without any data to calculate true odds, it would seem reasonable, with the lack of a better approach, to say two possible outcomes (there could actually be more, more on that later), god/no god. Without knowing the weight of each possible outcome, then to arbitrarily take the median and say 50%.
We are talking about the need or not the need for metaphysical beings to attribute our origins to. but if we take it a step back further, and just try to calculate the odds for metaphysical beings, there could also be
metaphysical beings that are not a part of this universe and do not interact with this universe
Metaphysical beings that are not a part of this universe and are responsible for the creation of this universe
Metaphysical beings that ARE a part of this universe and only interact with this universe post bang (not responsible for it's creation)
Metaphysical beings that ARE a part of this universe and are responsible for the creation of this universe
we can also break it down even further
Metaphysical beings that are a part of this universe and were created at the time of the bang
other beings could have started out biological, and over the eons, evolved into metaphysical beings.
the variations continue as far as the imagination can take it...
Anabolic Member
And I think the old testament crew are more realistic in trying to describe the nature of god's mentality.........
"a vengeful god that demands retribution......."
i think given the state of the world, and saying "god is responsible" which also means we do not have free will, which flies in the face of biblical teaching, then how could a loving and benevolent god allow such a horrific thing as the holocaust? or WW1 or WW2? This is not the actions of a loving parent. And to hell with the "god works in mysterious ways" bs. If there is a god, and he's responsible for the state of affairs we see around us to day, he is one vengeful vindictive SOB
Knowledgeable Member
This would only be so if life here and now is all there is. If life now is simply an extension of life to come, meaning there is no end, then life ending here isn't as a horrific thought. Would God be aware of your suffering? If he is God then most certainly. But once again free will comes into play. I don't simply mean free will as an individual, but also free will as a society or species.
And the old testament vengeful God, the same God is also described as loving, just and loving. Even in the new testament where people often only point to the loving God an angry God is also shown when Jesus goes into the temple and drives the merchants away with a whip.
Lastly, a loving parent will allow a child of their own to experience pain. As a child, I remember my mother telling me she always had to push my hand away from trying to touch the stove and one day she finally let me. I'm sure it hurt, but I never touched the stove again. God would be the same, we're allowed to make bad decisions, to do things that hurt ourselves, and unfortunately, so are others. Of course touching a stove and an event that leads to death are two very different things, but only if one believes death is the end.
There are currently 12 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 12 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote