Why dropping church and not praying might have been a mistake...

[rejecht]

well, usually when you talk of a probability, there's some way to calculate it...

My assumption now is that you saw the word probability, stopped parsing the rest of the sentence, and started a narrow path for evidence based on a false premise. (Trolls usually change the context and turn it into semantic discussion. Just sayin' why I won't indulge your ego. )

and so you basically say the probability is low because we haven't met him yet? or because there were incorrect assumptions about our origins?

<3

 

[kiff]

ok, well it's just as easy to argue that since as time marches on, we can't prove god exists just means it's not possible to "prove it". and if that's the case, then that hardly disproves it. the longer you try to prove something that can't be proven, just reveals more and more failed ways.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Sir! I thought it was quite clear in the first sentence of my first reply to C, that atheism is not absolutist, also from the most basic point that when you revise something (going from theism (absolutism) to atheism), you don't reintroduce the same idiot mistake you are trying to avoid (absolutism).

What? Most people who don't believe in a God (let's not mince words about what "Atheism" is, please) believe it just as absolutely as people who believe there is one.

Atheism--"There almost certainly is no god" because the probability of there being a god is too low based on knowledge attainable by us all so far, but we can't produce any proof to hammer the last nail into that coffin, as it were. It's important to note that the god creatures (there have been many) get no special treatment from other fairy tale creatures, which the anti- point I made was about.

Theism--"There is a god."

That's fine and dandy, but you're more making a case for Agnosticism than Atheism. Agnostics believe that either scenario is plausible, but that neither scenario will ever be able to be sufficiently proven. I think most people who call themselves Atheist rather should call themselves Agnostic.

So it makes sense to talk about "Absolutist Atheists" or whatever you want to call them when you bring up atheism.

Also, I'd love for you to show me where any nails have been driven into this so-called "coffin" You can't drive the last without driving the first

 

[Molgan]

Also, I'd love for you to show me where any nails have been driven into this so-called "coffin" You can't drive the last without driving the first

That there is no proof what so ever for the existence of something Godlike (part from me wielding a shock rifle) is a big fat nail imo. These facts vs fiction discussions will never lead anywhere though.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

That there is no proof what so ever for the existence of something Godlike (part from me wielding a shock rifle) is a big fat nail imo. These facts vs fiction discussions will never lead anywhere though.

Fixed.

 

[Molgan]

Fixed.

Fixed what? That there is no proof what so ever for the existence of something Godlike is fact, that it can be called a big fat nail is my opinion. Oh and that part about me and the SR might be fiction even..

 

[Bersy]

Well if everyone required proof to believe something, tech wouldn't have advanced very far as many breakthroughs were only because someone believed in their ideas no matter how much they were ridiculed and lacked proof. So that is some very flawed logic, lack of proof being a "nail" for anything.

 

[Molgan]

Well if everyone required proof to believe something, tech wouldn't have advanced very far as many breakthroughs were only because someone believed in their ideas no matter how much they were ridiculed and lacked proof. So that is some very flawed logic, lack of proof being a "nail" for anything.

And this is the problem with these kind of discussions, believes and logics don't mix well.

 

[rejecht]

Molgan == Dave Grohl

Keep rollin' rollin' rollin' rollin'. Part of this thread could use George Lucas reminding us to stop assuming too much.

@Sir_Brizz: Atheism has proven to be a beast of a definition which is not as intuitive as many would like to think. Anyway, Austin Cline explains this a lot better than me, because I won't touch that subject ever again.
Atheism vs. Agnosticism

@Bersy: You lost me. I think you tried to take the "demand for proof" and transfer it over to a completely different context. ?

Thought experiment:
* Claim: Remove human beings, and you remove the concept of meaning, because there is no one left to make assumptions about the environment.
What is left, then?--Functions.
** A typical example of function is to convert O2 to CO2. It doesn't need to mean anything. Labeling it wouldn't change the function.
*** Given that reality doesn't need meaning, and we're all stuck in this place, isn't it logical that we'd want to escape from the harsh realization that we're just a cog in some machine? ..and what *isn't* escapism.. Music. Movies. Friends. Reading. Writing. Forum whoring. etc Anything to distract the mind from reality. At the end of the day, none of (y)our words or meanings matter to others than (y)ourselves.

 

[Bersy]

@Bersy: You lost me. I think you tried to take the "demand for proof" and transfer it over to a completely different context. ?

Correct, it's called illustrating a parallel. What the context is shouldn't matter, the principle in itself is fundamental, that lack of proof of something in itself does not constitute an argument against it.

 

[Molgan]

Correct, it's called illustrating a parallel.

Like Jesus used to do.

 

[Underscore]

What? Most people who don't believe in a God (let's not mince words about what "Atheism" is, please) believe it just as absolutely as people who believe there is one.

What you're saying is that people who don't believe X believe not(X), but this isn't true, because those are different things. Imagine saying that you don't believe UT is the best game ever, and saying that you believe UT is not the best game ever. The second thing is making a claim about something, but the first thing isn't.

 

[Zur]

It's fun seeing how this topic went from "faith has a precise mental function in life regardless of religion" to "religion vs atheists". I guess it's my fault for choosing the title that I did and assuming people would think through the first post.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

What you're saying is that people who don't believe X believe not(X), but this isn't true, because those are different things. Imagine saying that you don't believe UT is the best game ever, and saying that you believe UT is not the best game ever. The second thing is making a claim about something, but the first thing isn't.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "most" in retrospect. I was simply trying to point out that assuming that all "Atheists" are really skeptics is silly. In this thread there are people "making a claim" that there is not a God (which is absolutist) as opposed to not believing in a God (which is skeptical). These people exist.

@rejecht: Like I said, let's not mince words about what Athism means. I'm just going by the first few words of the Wikipedia definitions. I would personally consider an atheist someone who has an active belief that there is not a supreme being, and an agnostic as someone who is skeptical about that. All of these terms are highly subjective, but of course there are people who consider themselves atheist who are absolutists. It's simply ridiculous to think that there wouldn't be.

 

[Underscore]

@rejecht: Like I said, let's not mince words about what Athism means. I'm just going by the first few words of the Wikipedia definitions. I would personally consider an atheist someone who has an active belief that there is not a supreme being, and an agnostic as someone who is skeptical about that. All of these terms are highly subjective, but of course there are people who consider themselves atheist who are absolutists. It's simply ridiculous to think that there wouldn't be.

No doubt there are people who definitely believe that there is no God, but if you use those words in that way, you'll confuse people who are using the correct definitions, and you won't get anywhere in an argument. See this I wrote ages ago for a similar thread for a wordier explanation of what 'atheist' and 'agnostic' means.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

As I said, I was going by the first few words of wikipedia definitions. But, frankly, the meaning of the words is far too subjective to attach a simple definition to.

 

[Bersy]

Admitting you use Wikipedia to support arguments is just... wow.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Admitting you use Wikipedia to support arguments is just... wow.

As far as I'm concerned, it's as reliable as almost any crappy source link used in arguments, plus whatever crappy books there are (like Britannica is much more correct?)

 

[Wild Weasel]

Bla bla bla bla bla this is the OP

Try checking out the book "The brain that changes itself" by Norman Doidge. Excellent, excellent book.



On a side note, I'm Catholic. Born and raised one. Then I went all "**** this, I'm going to do what I want to do"

That lasted about 7 years of doing whatever and then everything hit the fan in my life. So I thought "well, I guess I could pray...maybe go back to church one day" and so I did. Things have improved in all aspects of my life.

I don't shove it down anyones throat, I don't stand on the corner preaching, and I don't look down on people from the pulpit. I answer questions about my faith and just try to treat others as I would like to be treated in the most diplomatic way possible. That alone is hard sometimes (I know, I work in construction) but everyone around you notices the way you behave and it works wonders.

 

[Bersy]

Brizz: Don't know about that.. I don't have anything inherently against using Wikipedia as a source, but usually only in conjunction with another seperate source. You are right that anything is subject to errors and bias, even books. So it's important to look at as many potential sources as possible. After all, wikipedia can only be as accurate as the material it's compiled from, if indeed any and much of it is unsourced. I could go on there right now and make up some bull****, if the article is obscure enough or it happens to pass around the eyes of editors it can go ages without getting flagged or actually removed.