school in Connecticut

[mikeh]

Mike, note that I said "at most one" is true - it's right there in what you quoted :)

 

I think many believers would say that evidence is not the point - rather, faith is the point. Science is, by definition, the study of that which there is evidence for. But is science all that there is? Why should there not exist real things, that do not have the properties that science studies? We would not be able to prove their existence in the scientific sense, but that does not necessarily mean that they do not exist; only that one cannot study them with the methods of science.

 

It is also fallacy to believe that methods of faith can be applied to matters of science. Unfortunately this does not stop some from trying, with generally unsupportable results.

If you don't see the absurdity of your statement, as a reason to positively believe in the existence of something we can't perceive, then there's no real point in having any discussion. I await a detailed reason why your god is any more valid than the FSM, whose impact on our lives is every bit as perceptible as that of any of the other gods man has invented. Btw, saying that more people beleive in your god than in the FSM is not an argument worthy of any respect: the existence of a particular god should not be a popularity contest (despite Blackshoe's theory :D ). Note also I refer to the impact of the god, not the impact of people who beleive in that god. I am looking for evidence of action by the god not by his believers.

[dwar0123]

It seems to me, with respect, that your attitude reflects a version of the law of the gaps. We can't (yet) understand certain things, so we are tempted to assume that they, being inexplicable so far, will remain inexplicable and thus can be attributed to supernatural influence or design.

 

This is really, really sloppy thinking.

 

It isn't what we can't understand that is causing awe, it is what we do understand. Part of what we understand is the many things that we don't understand; things which we will surely understand someday.

 

It is really, really sloppy thinking to deny a possibility based specifically on a lack of knowledge.

[mikeh]

It isn't what we can't understand that is causing awe, it is what we do understand. Part of what we understand is the many things that we don't understand; things which we will surely understand someday.

 

It is really, really sloppy thinking to deny a possibility based specifically on a lack of knowledge.

I don't deny the possibility of the existence of a god and I know no atheists who do, tho of course I don't pretend to know even a significant fraction of atheists around the world.

 

Your post reflects a common misconception about atheism, as I understand the notion. Atheists don't (generally) assert that there is no god, as a positive assertion. We state merely that on the available evidence there is no plausible reason to assert that god exists.

 

For all I know, compelling evidence for the existence of god has already been found and the paper is undergoing peer review as I write.

 

Given that the existence of god would be a very big deal, one would hope that the evidence and resulting arguments based thereon would be compelling, and unambiguous. In which case, I truly hope that I and other atheists would take a long, close look at the evidence and the arguments, and accept as true that which seems to have been objectively proven to be true.

 

You see, contrary to the position of most religious believers, atheists don't base their position on 'faith', which has to be the weakest argument of all time. "It's true because I believe it to be true". Were a 4 year old to spout that in defence of an assertion that there were monsters under his or her bed, we'd laugh. When an adult says it to defend the institutions of religion, we are supposed to show deference and tolerance.

 

Show me evidence that suggests the existence of god...evidence that positively points that way rather than simply idenitifying limits on our knowledge, and I'll look at it. Until then, I say there is no current justification for the existence of god.

 

In the meantime, to accuse someone of sloppy thinking for 'denying the possibility' shows that you don't actually understand the thinking that you criticize. My experience with reading interchanges between believers and atheists is that we see more strawman, and no true scotsman, arguments advanced by believers than in any other area of human discourse. The apparent need to resort to logical fallacies to bolster one's arguments seems to suggest a certain weakness in the position being advanced :P

[dwar0123]

In the meantime, to accuse someone of sloppy thinking for 'denying the possibility' shows that you don't actually understand the thinking that you criticize.

Oh I understand the thinking that I criticize, it may just not be your thinking. :)

 

While I posit wonder about the Universe and some doubt about it's origins, I do suppose Phil was positing something a little more affirmative than I.

 

Simple mistake of responding from my point of view and not the point of view of the person you were replying too.

 

And while I am familiar with your take on atheism; that is a fair paraphrasing of Dawkin himself, I would be curious to hear you articulate what you perceive to be the difference between that and agnosticism. I also believe that many atheist that I know and know of posit a more positive denial of God then you just did.

[mikeh]

I would be curious to hear you articulate what you perceive to be the difference between that and agnosticism.

I'm not entirely sure, tbh. I know that for years I described myself as agnostic, but I don't think that my reasoning altered in any profound way as I came to identify myself increasingly as atheist.

 

I have seen it suggested that agnostics are really atheists without the courage of their convictions, and I suppose that may be accurate for some. It may also be that in some parts of the world (the USA springs to mind but I doubt that it is the only place) there are social costs to identifying as atheist that may not be as harsh for agnostics. But, again, I wouldn't assert that such factors are 'the' or even 'major' reasons why some are agnostic and others are atheists.

 

Maybe it is more to do with the importance of the issue in one's view of the world. An agnostic may well see himself or herself as basically not caring if there is a god. Not caring allows for a refusal to accept the tenets of religion without having to do what might be perceived as the mental 'heavy lifting' to proceed to the proposition that it is highly unlikely, rather than more or less evenly balanced, as to whether a god exists.

 

Please note that I have deliberately refrained from looking up definitions of agnostic, so that I am not merely parrotting a wikipedia definition to you. I suspect that different agnostics might well give differing explanations for why they are not either religious or atheist. I suspect that there is in fact a spectrum of strength and definition of opinion throughout the agnostic/atheist community (not that I think that there is any such single 'community', but I want to refer to people in a broad manner), just as there is in the religious communities. Indeed, I would expect that there are many who identify as 'religious' who are in practice, at least, fairly agnostic. See for example the UK where there is little direct correlation between those who identify as religious and those who attend religious services....a huge proportion of professed 'xians' apparently take part in no religious ceremonies of any kind, beyond weddings and funerals :P Their belief appears to be sort of a default position that has no real meaning in their lives. Maybe agnostics are that sort of counterpart to atheists ;)

[billw55]

If you don't see the absurdity of your statement, as a reason to positively believe in the existence of something we can't perceive, then there's no real point in having any discussion. I await a detailed reason why your god is any more valid than the FSM, whose impact on our lives is every bit as perceptible as that of any of the other gods man has invented. Btw, saying that more people beleive in your god than in the FSM is not an argument worthy of any respect: the existence of a particular god should not be a popularity contest (despite Blackshoe's theory :D ). Note also I refer to the impact of the god, not the impact of people who beleive in that god. I am looking for evidence of action by the god not by his believers.

 

...

 

This is really, really sloppy thinking. It ties in with the common but usually unstated and not consciously acknowledged belief that we live at a time of maximal human knowledge when, unless a global catastrophe occurs, we seem to have barely started our exploration of the universe as it is. The species has existed for about 100,000 years and the scientific method has been in use for less than 400 years. I think it absurd to assume that the remaining gaps won't eventually be filled in.

You use phrases such as "your god". I remind you that I have made no statements of my own beliefs. I assume that the syntax you choose is merely a convenience for presenting your argument.

 

Regarding gaps: I would say that it is absurd to think that the remaining gaps will be filled in. In fact, it has been mathematically proven that not all true things can be proven - Godel's incompleteness theorem. A rather fascinating property of existence, IMO.

 

Yes, it is reasonable to expect that human knowledge will be nondecreasing with time, barring natural or human-induced disasters. But never will all gaps be filled. Maybe you just meant all the gaps we know about now ;)

 

edit: I am not 100% sure what "FSM" denotes :huh:

[mikeh]

You use phrases such as "your god". I remind you that I have made no statements of my own beliefs. I assume that the syntax you choose is merely a convenience for presenting your argument.

 

Regarding gaps: I would say that it is absurd to think that the remaining gaps will be filled in. In fact, it has been mathematically proven that not all true things can be proven - Godel's incompleteness theorem. A rather fascinating property of existence, IMO.

 

Yes, it is reasonable to expect that human knowledge will be nondecreasing with time, barring natural or human-induced disasters. But never will all gaps be filled. Maybe you just meant all the gaps we know about now ;)

 

edit: I am not 100% sure what "FSM" denotes :huh:

You make valid points, and in addition there is reason to think that we literally may never know what came 'before' the singularity referred to as the big bang, assuming that the evidence indicating that such a singularity existed holds up as we gain more understanding. And even framing the issue that way may be meaningless, since the very concept of 'before' may not be relevant. Plus my limited reading of string theory (and the math is way beyond me, so I rely on popular science books in this regard) is to the effect that many of its implications are simply untestable in principle.

 

Plus, as I've written before, it would be no surprise to learn that our brains simply lack the ability to process certain concepts, in a fashion analogous to our eye's inability to perceive electromagnetic radiation in the x-ray range of frequencies.

 

None of which argues for a god, btw :D

 

As for FSM: I refer to his noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

I am not actually a member of his church, but I have partaken of the holy sacrament many times....tho I prefer penne or linguini.

[mgoetze]

Fluffy seems to be hiding under a rock now or something. I may or may not read the debate that his comment sparked carefully later on. But meanwhile, back on topic...

 

I doubt I agree with Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News etc. etc.) very often but his reaction here seems spot on:

[mike777]

Fluffy seems to be hiding under a rock now or something. I may or may not read the debate that his comment sparked carefully later on. But meanwhile, back on topic...

 

I doubt I agree with Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News etc. etc.) very often but his reaction here seems spot on:

 

 

I think the machine gun was banned around 1934, automatic weapons in the 1980's?

 

Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy

 

---

 

 

 

btw I think but am not sure that oZ banned many of these weapons retroactively, in other words no grandfathering and no 900 weapon exceptions....but not sure...

 

Here in the USA the number of guns is rougly 300 million and grew by roughly 10 million in 2011 and 12 million in 2012 or so..

[jeffford76]

edit: I am not 100% sure what "FSM" denotes :huh:

 

It's worth reading the original letter about FSM written to protest teaching creationism in schools:

 

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[CSGibson]

It really is an interesting discussion going on contrasting religion, athiesm, and the value of religion and religious institutions in society. While I find MikeH to be both consistent and eloquent in his arguments, I cannot accept the precept - and I am not quoting, but merely stating my interpretation of his view - that the world would be better off without organized religion, or that religion is the cause of an impossibly high number of violent conflicts that would not exist without organized religion.

 

I will take Judeo-christianity in general as an example, since it is the religious viewpoint I am most familiar with: One of the fundamental precepts of the religion is "Thou shalt not kill". That is fairly straight forward. If someone is killing, and claiming that it is for the advancement of Judeo-christian values, then I would argue that they are really killing for themselves, and using the religion as justification, since they have perverted the core of that religion through their actions. In reality, it is almost always about power and domination.

 

Using your philosophical beliefs to justify killing, by the way, does not just extend to religious beliefs, but to anything that can be believed with fervor. Belief in Communism, Democracy, and most other political structures have killed millions when the people espousing those beliefs have sought to impose them upon others. I am not judging those actions, just noting that they exist, and that those justifications of political killings have taken off right where religious killings have left off. The difference is that technology changes the magnitude of impact of each of these justifications, in some cases lessening the impact, and in others magnifying it. Think, for example, of US drone strikes in other sovereign nations, or of a "preemptive" war, or any number of conflicts in east asia as counter-points within the last 60 years to religious conflicts in the middle-east.

 

Its my belief that religious organizations are doing well when they are involved in charity, teaching children about rules for acceptable societal behavior before they have enough experience to make informed decisions, and providing a support structure for a community as a whole. When, on the other hand, they get involved in consolidating power and actively enforcing a belief structure upon people that do not subscribe to their religion, they are harmful to society. You can think of many examples of religious organizations that have gone towards the latter road, I'm sure, but that does not condemn the idea of a religious organization - it just makes me wary of the ones that overstep. Similarly, just because some charities are proven to be fraudulent, or inefficient in their use of resources is not a reason to kill all charities, it is just a reason to do due diligence before affiliating yourself with a charitable organization.

 

Going back to the root of the discussion, I think religions, like any other organization which has the borrowed power of so many individuals at its beck and call, can be easily corrupted. That corruption, in my opinion, has more to do with power in general than religion at its core. The urge to dominate another human being and force them to believe what you believe, whether it be religious, political, or otherwise, will always provide a source of conflict.

[CSGibson]

Oh - and on the subject of athiesm - I liken athiesm to a religion with one god, yourself, and one follower, also yourself. Its basically harmless in my viewpoint.

[blackshoe]

There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before Heaven and Earth. How still it was and formless, standing alone, and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere and in no danger (of being exhausted)! It may be regarded as the Mother of all things. — Tao Te Ching

[mikeh]

Oh - and on the subject of athiesm - I liken athiesm to a religion with one god, yourself, and one follower, also yourself. Its basically harmless in my viewpoint.

Have you confused 'ism's here? you aren't remotely close to describing atheism. Atheists (generally) claim no special status for themselves. To the contrary, unlike virtually all followers of a religion, most atheists see themselves as nothing special at all, in terms of cosmic significance. I mean, that's the whole point: we don't believe in a god and that includes a god who has granted its followers a special place.

 

I think you have confused atheism with solipsism, in your effort to sound witty. As it is, I think you half-suceeded

[VMars]

 

I will take Judeo-christianity in general as an example, since it is the religious viewpoint I am most familiar with: One of the fundamental precepts of the religion is "Thou shalt not kill". That is fairly straight forward. If someone is killing, and claiming that it is for the advancement of Judeo-christian values, then I would argue that they are really killing for themselves, and using the religion as justification, since they have perverted the core of that religion through their actions. In reality, it is almost always about power and domination.

 

I think that this is less straightforward than you seem to think, as what I was taught is that the commandment says "Thou shalt not murder". Murder is not the same thing as kill.

 

Oh - and on the subject of athiesm - I liken athiesm to a religion with one god, yourself, and one follower, also yourself. Its basically harmless in my viewpoint.

 

Maybe you liken "athiesm" to that, but as an atheist, I feel rather amused by that statement. I'm glad that you condescend to find my beliefs harmless, but puzzled as to why you liken non-belief in a god to a self-centered belief in a god?

[mike777]

Perhaps the biggest or really only big complaint against religion is the intolerance it has created.

 

Someone once told me that asking why one likes religion is sort of like asking a guy why he married his wife.

 

 

We invent reasons or maybe we just like how they smell; the smell of incense and candles in a church or perfume on our wife and that esthetic is reason enough.

 

:)

[debrose]

This statement strikes me, amongst other shortcomings, as rather dismissive of mikeh's posts.

 

 

 

Sorry for failed attempt to edit. Redid post below.

[mike777]

This statement strikes me, amongst other shortcomings, as rather dismissive of mikeh's posts.

 

 

please quote me in full context, thank you.

 

btw I went out of my way to not quote or direct my comments to any one poster.

[debrose]

please quote me in full context, thank you.

 

My apologies. I obviously missed, and am still missing, how the first sentence related to the rest of the post. I'm often unsure how much of things to quote. I'll try to edit my post if I can.

[CSGibson]

 

Maybe you liken "athiesm" to that, but as an atheist, I feel rather amused by that statement. I'm glad that you condescend to find my beliefs harmless, but puzzled as to why you liken non-belief in a god to a self-centered belief in a god?

 

Essentially I view religion as a code of ethics and behavioral guidelines. Followers of a religion agree to try and live by the ethical code, and to shape their behavior in service of that code (or worship of their god, or whatever). To some extent, they let that code dictate their behavior rather than just doing what they want to do when they want to do, or using their own judgment.

 

Athiests set their own code of ethics and behavioral guideline, and follow it. It does not have to be self-serving, or at least no more self-serving than any action ever is (and yes, I know you can argue that every action by every individual in every situation is somehow self-serving.) All I meant is that they provide their own moral compass, and go by it instead of assuming another's, although I understand that is an oversimplification, too - they could borrow an ethical code from somewhere other than religion, it does not have to be internal.

 

I also didn't think I was being condescending - I don't believe that my beliefs are superior to atheism; I don't really have strong religious beliefs to compare them to. I'm sorry that you read condescension where none was intended - my use of harmless was not meant to by synonymous with meaningless, but instead merely an antonym of harmful, in that it does not generally have the negative qualities I outlined earlier as being those I associate with organized religion gone wrong.

[gwnn]

mikeh: why is parroting definitions wrong? Isn't it nice to have a common language (maybe not shared by everyone but still more than one person)? There are two different ways of defining theism vs atheism. The one I like I hear often in the Atheist Experience and goes something like

 

'atheism: lack of belief in a god (in gods)'

'theism: belief in a god'

'agnostic: one who lacks knowledge whether one's position is true'

'gnostic: one who knows that one's position is true'

 

In this way there are 4 different groups, although the word Gnosticism is already taken. I am an agnostic atheist, I would say the existence of God seems highly unlikely but not impossible (indeed as John Shook says a sufficiently sophisticated definition of a god never allows for a complete disproof thereof). Atheists are like a jury who say 'not guilty,' (your case did not prove to the demanded standards that he exists) in that they are not saying 'innocent' (does not exist). 'Gnostic atheism' is again a position you would need to defend and a hard one to defend as well.

 

What you were describing about caring about a god enters under 'Apatheism.'

 

Anyway there is always the simple numerical scale of Dawkins for those of us who feel like the atheist/agnistic distinction is corrupted: 1 for someone who completely knows there is a god, 4 for someone who is completely neutral and 7 for someone who completely knows there is no god (he claims he is a 6.9, I guess I am a 6.5).

[debrose]

Perhaps the biggest or really only big complaint against religion is the intolerance it has created.

 

Someone once told me that asking why one likes religion is sort of like asking a guy why he married his wife.

 

 

We invent reasons or maybe we just like how they smell; the smell of incense and candles in a church or perfume on our wife and that esthetic is reason enough.

 

:)

 

This statement strikes me, amongst other shortcomings, as rather dismissive of mikeh's posts.

 

 

 

Note: Attempted to edit my original post to include full quote, but couldn't figure out how, so started again. My "this statement" refers to the first sentence.

[debrose]

please quote me in full context, thank you.

 

btw I went out of my way to not quote or direct my comments to any one poster.

 

Hmm, now I appear to have done the same thing again, but perhaps you added the btw after I quoted the first line this time? Very sorry if that's not the case.

 

I realize you didn't direct your comments to anyone, but given the effort mikeh has put into detailing some of the many complaints about religion, your comment hit a nerve with me. As I said, maybe I am missing something, and I again apologize for taking the one line out of context initially.

[VMars]

Essentially I view religion as a code of ethics and behavioral guidelines. Followers of a religion agree to try and live by the ethical code, and to shape their behavior in service of that code (or worship of their god, or whatever). To some extent, they let that code dictate their behavior rather than just doing what they want to do when they want to do, or using their own judgment.

 

Athiests set their own code of ethics and behavioral guideline, and follow it. It does not have to be self-serving, or at least no more self-serving than any action ever is (and yes, I know you can argue that every action by every individual in every situation is somehow self-serving.) All I meant is that they provide their own moral compass, and go by it instead of assuming another's, although I understand that is an oversimplification, too - they could borrow an ethical code from somewhere other than religion, it does not have to be internal.

 

I also didn't think I was being condescending - I don't believe that my beliefs are superior to atheism; I don't really have strong religious beliefs to compare them to. I'm sorry that you read condescension where none was intended - my use of harmless was not meant to by synonymous with meaningless, but instead merely an antonym of harmful, in that it does not generally have the negative qualities I outlined earlier as being those I associate with organized religion gone wrong.

 

By saying that you judge something as harmless it implies that you are JUDGING it.

 

I also think that I was being too subtle: It's atheism (the "i" is part of the "-ism" or "ist", not part of the "athe").

[VMars]

This seemed to be a double-post. Sorry.

 

I will add that I think that you may be missing the "a" part of "atheist".

 

Also, everyone uses their own judgements as to morality. Others just cloak their judgements by claiming it matches something given from on-high, but they still have to judge if it fits.