Atheism - why? [Archive]

econ21

09-17-2003, 16:57

In my opinion, Saturnus has given the best intellectual answer. To me there is no compelling reason to believe in a God. I find godless scientific accounts do a reasonable job of answering some fundamental queries about life. Divine explanations, if anything, detract from this by adding a further layer of complexity.

I probably don't believe in the non-existence as fully as the religious believe in his existence. I can easily conceive of the possibility that he does exist and somehow doubt many followers of organised religion could admit a similar possibility of error. I can envisage compelling reasons to believe in God - if I was blinded on the road to Damascus as St Paul was or was spoken to by a burning bush etc - I would believe. But the third person accounts of these kind of revelations I have heard are not convincing and could be given more plausible explanations than those involving divine revelation (someone commented on how the major religions often seemed to originate from desert areas well known for inducing hallucinations and among people who often used narcotic substances). I can also concede that our scientific understanding is still very limited. It might be possible in the far future that science does discover powers that go far beyond what we now understand and are something akin to what we would now regard as supernatural. But so far trends in scientific research seem to head the opposite way: explaining more and more in terms that do not require a God.

Personally, I find the agnostic position rather strange. It would seem to be rather a big issue to be undecided on. If the concept of God is to mean anything, it should surely be rather important for one's day to day life. I can see acting your life as if there was a divine element. I can see acting your life as if there were not. But at a day to day level, I would be curious to know what assumptions agnostics work on. I am typically undecided on things that don't matter too much to me, at least on a day to day basis. Important stuff, I have to make my mind up about or feel tormented about until I do.

As to hating God: I confess there is something emotional for me, here. I cannot open a passage of the bible without finding something I profoundly disagree with ethically. Furthermore, a God that would allow the kind of terrible things that daily go by in this world to me is either immoral or irrelevant. I confess, if the God of most major religions existed, I would be in opposition to him. I would never have conceived of hating god until you mentioned it. But now you do, I could state my position thus - I do not hate God for not existing; I might hate him if he did.

[On reflection, this might sound like incendiary stuff and I mean no offence to believers - I find them to be at least as good people as us sinners]

Archlight

09-17-2003, 17:54

Quote[/b] ]Personally, I find the agnostic position rather strange. It would seem to be rather a big issue to be undecided on. If the concept of God is to mean anything, it should surely be rather important for one's day to day life. I can see acting your life as if there was a divine element. I can see acting your life as if there were not. But at a day to day level, I would be curious to know what assumptions agnostics work on. I am typically undecided on things that don't matter too much to me, at least on a day to day basis. Important stuff, I have to make my mind up about or feel tormented about until I do.

That's exactly how it works for me. It's not important to me in my day to day life, therefore I don't worry about if God does or does not exist. I have no concrete proof either way, so think either is a possibility. Therefore, I'm agnostic.

BDC

09-17-2003, 18:11

Athiest. Agnostic just isn't definate enough for me.

econ21

09-17-2003, 18:15

Quote[/b] ]That's exactly how it works for me. It's not important to me in my day to day life, therefore I don't worry about if God does or does not exist. I have no concrete proof either way, so think either is a possibility. Therefore, I'm agnostic.

OK, but this position prompts a number of thoughts.

Firstly, it seems to rule out the kind of Gods in most organised religions - as whether they exist would seem to be important for how one lives ones life. Conversely, the existence of a vague, less anthropomorphic divine presence might be no big deal I guess.

Secondly, it would seem to imply that agnostics think it is roughly equally plausible that the is and is not a divine presence. I'm an aetheist, but I accept as you say that it is possible there is a God - I just don't believe it because it seems so unlikely. Just as it is possible I won't make it home tonight, but I believe I shall and work on that assumption.

Thirdly, I can't help feeling that in some sense agnostics holding that position actually don't believe there may be a deity - if it doesn't affect their daily life. Or at least that they don't believe in a divine presence that really matters to them. I guess I am having trouble with the idea of neither believing nor not believing. I can understand not knowing - I freely admit I don't know there is no god. But not believing - it seems that you either have faith or don't. Maybe I just tend to see things too black and white.

BTW, these thoughts are just intellectual reactions to what you say and I am not trying to criticise you, change your mind or get you to justify yourself. People are all entitled to their own views on these ultimately very personal and private matters.

Sigurd

09-17-2003, 18:26

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Sep. 18 2003,03:15)]I guess I am having trouble with the idea of neither believing nor not believing. I can understand not knowing - I freely admit I don't know there is no god. But not believing - it seems that you either have faith or don't. Maybe I just tend to see things too black and white.
This is what IMO agnosticism is all about… not knowing. It depends on what you read into the word. It seems that more and more of the strong opinionates tend to separate belief and knowledge and combine them again into new wording.
E.g. Agnostic Atheism which IMO you and A.Saturnus both can be labelled as.
In other words Gnosticism and Agnosticism is all about knowledge and Theism and Atheism is all about belief.

BTW the results are out in What do you Believe?: RESULTS (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=10706;#entry152221)

Fortebraccio

09-17-2003, 18:44

A very brief answer to such a question could be: Hockam's razor. [http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif]As an atheist, it's not that I believe against God...I do my best non to believe at all, under any circumstance and into anything. I prefer trust to belief, and sense to faith.

Archlight

09-17-2003, 18:54

Quote[/b] ]Firstly, it seems to rule out the kind of Gods in most organised religions - as whether they exist would seem to be important for how one lives ones life. Conversely, the existence of a vague, less anthropomorphic divine presence might be no big deal I guess.

Yes, I disagree with organized religion's idea of God. How arrogant are humans to believe that God is like a human, but with super powers?

Quote[/b] ]Secondly, it would seem to imply that agnostics think it is roughly equally plausible that the is and is not a divine presence. I'm an aetheist, but I accept as you say that it is possible there is a God - I just don't believe it because it seems so unlikely.

I don't know about others, but that is the way I feel. If it's a possibility, then it deserves a place in thought. Even if the chances are largely imbalanced, there's still a chance. I lean much more toward there NOT being a God, but still acknowledge the possibility that there is. Maybe I'm screwed up on my definitions of Atheist and Agnostic, but I was under the impression that Atheists did not even believe in the possibility of a God existing, and that Agnostics were open to that possibility. It's a tough road to walk. I guess sometimes it DOES play an important part in my life since sometimes I wonder what the point of everthing is, but for the most part, it's neither here nor there for me as long as I have food, shelter, family, and friends.

The way I figure it. If there IS a God and he's the benevolant being he's supposed to be. I could stand before hiim when my time comes and tell him I was wrong and I'm sorry and he'll forgive me for being a freethinking skeptic and let me on in...

And don't worry about me getting upset thinking you're criticizing me. I'm just not that way. I like these sorts of intellectual discussions and I'm a pretty liberal person. I like knowing others ideas and thoughts on my ideas.

A.Saturnus

09-17-2003, 19:28

I think the best definition of the words is given by Sigurd. We should all hold to it.

katar

09-17-2003, 20:53

Quote[/b] ]In other words Gnosticism and Agnosticism is all about knowledge and Theism and Atheism is all about belief.

isn`t it nice to be pigeonholed.... NOT http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

Alrowan

09-17-2003, 22:05

how can one be an athiest if they freely admit they dont know everything, therefore how can they say there is no God without knowing everything to prove it? If you try to believe there is no God, then you are not an athiest, because by chosing to believe there is no God is the admittence of the possibility, meaning one is agnostic, not athiest.

katar

09-17-2003, 22:16

Portuguese Rebel

09-17-2003, 22:16

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Sep. 17 2003,10:20)]There`s a very good explanation of what is it to be an atheist by Portoguese Rebels in the thread Atheist or Believer? in the Tavern.
I'm flattered But i won't let it rise to my head since you got my name with spelling mistakes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Portuguese Rebel

09-17-2003, 22:32

Quote[/b] ]how can one be an athiest if they freely admit they dont know everything, therefore how can they say there is no God without knowing everything to prove it? If you try to believe there is no God, then you are not an athiest, because by chosing to believe there is no God is the admittence of the possibility, meaning one is agnostic, not athiest.

Simple, insert Santa Claus instead of god and you will get your answer. Why must we give more credibility to this text with the word god than with Santa Claus? Show me why.

my position on the subject can be found here:

http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....22;st=0 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=6;t=10522;st=0)

And it is not in the thread Saturnus said it was... But he was still very nice to mention me, spelling mistakes and all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

econ21

09-17-2003, 22:47

Alrowan - people don't choose to believe; at least not in the sense that you choose to go the gym or watch a movie.

I can't choose to believe black is white, that Santa Claus exists or that there is a world Zionist conspiracy.

Belief is affected by your understanding and knowledge but not something you can alter simply as an act of will.

I think it is possible there is a God, but the possibility in my assessment is so small, I cannot believe it.

A dear friend of mind is a Christian and would like me to change my mind, but I simply cannot unless I am given some good arguments for God's existence.

To me an agnostic is one who implicitly thinks there are good arguments on both sides.

Knight_Yellow

09-17-2003, 22:50

i dont need an emotional safety net of religion to help shield the fact that when we die thats it.

live life cos its the only time you have

Sigurd

09-18-2003, 03:38

Quote[/b] ( Portuguese Rebel @ Who is God?)]Like with god/s, if new evidence comes up i will gladly review my position as any good science guy will if shown the evidence.

This my friend, can be considered as an Agnostic statement. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

rory_20_uk

09-18-2003, 11:27

I don't think that Agnosticism is a cop out in terms of a choice of religion, I see it is the rational response to the evidence that presents itself.
To cite an example, I view the existence or not of god similar to wondering what lies at the furthest point away in the universe. As far as we are aware at the moment we have no evidence from the event itself, nor any secondary effects. To be firmly committed that there is something or not at this point seems to be far less sensible to me than to think that either may be true, and to get on with one's life: the extremes may think that agnostics are sitting on the fence. As an agnostic I think that the extremes are taking sides way too prematurely.

To paraphrase one famous humanist: God either exists or he doesn't. So isn't it better to worship him as if he does? If you are right, you go to Heaven, if you are wrong, nothing happens in any case I think that this is the most sensible course of action, although not one that I have managed to follow yet

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

squippy

09-18-2003, 11:42

Agnosticism vs. Atheism

Lets take them from first principles. The Agnostic asserts that the existance of god is unkown, therefore it would be foolish to assert confidently that dog does or does not exist.

The atheist asserts there is no god.

But: one should not leap to conclusins that the Atheist is saying they believe there is no god. This is a lie that theists tell so they can comfort themslevs by claiming everyone believes equally.

As an Atheist, I think the Agnostics are in a wholly illogical position. As was pointed above, the implication is that the possibility of the existance and not existance of god is roughly equal, for they consider them both.

But: why do we even ask ourselves the quesiton at all?

BEcuase of the institutions, the churches. Without those, I suggest that nobody would even bother to wonder if there was a god.

Agnostics must surely apply their principles consistently. An agnostic must also be agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, which has exactly the same evidential basis as god. They have to be agnostic about father christmas, and about the Lambton Wyrm, and alien Greys, anfd the Loch Ness Monster, all of which have been reportedly observed by people, and which are documented to varying degrees.

To most rational people, the existance of the Tooth Fairy is not a serious question. They do not agonise about it. After age 10 or so, most people would be happy to say that they do not think the Tooth Fairy really exists. They are A-Fairyists. If pushed, they would probably agree that they cannot conclusively prove the non-existance of the Tooth Fairy. They will howevre protest that the burden of prrof does not lie on them, it lies on those who claim the Tooth Fairy DOES exist.

The Pro-Fairyists assert the existance of the Tooth Fairy on the basis of revealed wisdom. Fair enough, if it keeps them happy. They never seem able, however, to advance any serious evidence of their beliefe or why they believe it.

But the Fairy Agnostic is the weirdest of the lot, because even they they admiot that there is no evidence for the Tooth Fairy, they will not draw any conclusions from this absence of evidence. They seem to claim, illogically, the burden of proof lies on the A-Fairyists equally; the Fairy Agnostic thus leaves open the possibility of the existance of the Tooth Fairy despite the awsome improbability of this being true.

The Fairy Agnostics are the least rtational of the lot.

econ21

09-18-2003, 11:47

Sigurd Fafnesbane: I would not bring the term gnostic into this, it refers to a specific religious doctrine (matter being evil or some such) and is not the antithesis of agnosticism per se.

I think the confusion over definitions arises because the term agnosticism could be taken to refer to either knowledge or belief, depending how narrowly you want to interpret it. Take the definition in Webster's online dictionary, vis

Quote[/b] ]
agnostic: person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

I would be an agnostic on the first definition but not on the broader one. I don't know for sure that God does not exist, but until I see good evidence I am committed to believing he does not. However, if we want to contrast three mutually exclusive positions - atheist, theist and another - then the broader definition of agnostic is the one we should be using.

Sidenote: Atheism and theism do seem to be about belief, rather than knowledge according to Webster's:

Quote[/b] ]
theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

A.Saturnus

09-18-2003, 12:45

Sorry, Rebel, I got it all wrong. I corrected your name, though.

Well said, squippy, that`s exactly what I wanted to express with that story I posted.

Portuguese Rebel

09-18-2003, 13:19

Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Sep. 17 2003,21:38)]
Quote[/b] ( Portuguese Rebel @ Who is God?)]Like with god/s, if new evidence comes up i will gladly review my position as any good science guy will if shown the evidence.

This my friend, can be considered as an Agnostic statement. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
I can see how it can, but the atheist position derives from the absolute lack of proofs or indications of a god or gods. If such evidence was to be produced, then the atheist position would have to undergo some changes, under the penalty of being accused of intelectual dishonesty, if i failled to do so.

Until those proofs are produced, i'm razoring the unecessary hypothesys.

Portuguese Rebel

09-18-2003, 13:21

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Sep. 18 2003,06:45)]Sorry, Rebel, I got it all wrong. I corrected your name, though.

Well said, squippy, that`s exactly what I wanted to express with that story I posted.
It's ok Saturnus, i'm eating some belgium chocolate right now so i'm inclined to forgive you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

komninos

09-18-2003, 18:04

Though I avoid such debates ... a lot
1. They lead to no where cause your beliefs are your beliefs and none others. They apply to you because they fulfil certain needs and that’s that.
2. You just don't know where they will end. And finally
3. I had way too many such debates in the past.

Why I brake this ... well ... no particular reason just make a statement or two ... who knows.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have been trying to free my self of all beliefs and teachings since I was ~14. Now I am 31 so it’s been some time.

I am Greek this means Greek Orthodox Christian. This also means that a lot of preaching for a simple reason: We are very few Also since 1821 till 1980 there was a very strong link that bonded Greek to Orthodox.
So since these things made me think a lot (I was never a believer) I decided to consider my self as an atheist. this was easy.
But unfortunately you need to believe in something. I read a bit but mostly I searched in me.
Finally I stumbled on some people that try to resurrect our ethnic religion ... the Dodekatheon. I since follow that path as my own.
Trust me it has been difficult.

One of the things I learned though all this was people make there gods in their own image. The gods represent the ideas that there followers should try to be.

What I learned to like about Orthodoxy was that it gave you freedom to decide for your self if you were to follow it. Though other Greeks will not approve of you it gave you the option. The same thing can be found in the Dodecatheon. It has an evolving nature. It bonds the Ideas of what we should be like with us.

But what I totally loved about it is that there is no Good and Evil. There is no battle between good and evil, they simply coexist even in the gods. The Gods can and will make mistakes.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So don't go on trying to prove what is best or write ... you just can't. The question here is are you satisfied with the answers you are getting from what you believe in?
Does it follow your way of life?

As since moves forward believing the original text will be almost impossible. (According to the Bible the world is ~10000 years old ... the Dinosaurs never existed.) But apart from the tales of old time every religion gives you and defines a way of life.

Even I you never enter the church and you say there is no god you can be a Christian ... why ... because you live like one. You believe in the same basic stuff. You will teach your children the same things.

I have spent 12 years as an atheist only to find my self where I started. I have spent 3 years as a Dodecatheist and I think I am changing to my pleasing

Knight_Yellow

09-18-2003, 18:13

how come my comment

i like microsoft actualy

was deemed heritical and this wasnt

i dont need the emotional safety net of religion

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

Portuguese Rebel

09-18-2003, 18:59

Quote[/b] ]I read a bit but mostly I searched in me.
Finally I stumbled on some people that try to resurrect our ethnic religion ... the Dodekatheon. I since follow that path as my own.

Now this is interesting. For the peeps who do not know, the Dodekatheon is the religion of the twelve gods. The traditional gods of the greeks: Zeus, Apollon, Ares, Hephaestos, Hermes, Poseidon, Hera, Athena, Aphrodite, Artemis, Demeter, and Hestia.

Is this current strong in greece komninos? Because i think most people believed your particular form of religion to be extinct.

katar

09-18-2003, 19:11

Quote[/b] ]I stumbled on some people that try to resurrect our ethnic religion ... the Dodekatheon.

indeed it is very interesting, i had absolutely no idea that it had been revived at all. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

i hope it isn`t like the Druid religion in the U.K., a totally made up farce for the gullible.

it wont`t change my views, but it`s nice to see that you have found your path. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

katar

09-18-2003, 21:05

Quote[/b] ]you must be a very sad depressed person then...

if that's it, then what's it all for?

yes we're all here and that's nice and we're all gonna die and that's it.....

so let's found an anrchy and just have lots of fun before we die

Let's all become rapists if that's what makes us happy, because hey, you have to enjoy yourself cause once you die that's it....

Or maybe I should be an evil dictator who slaughters millions of people just for the fun of it because hey, you have to enjoy yourself cause once you die that's it....

might i suggest that you try and calm down a bit, you`re starting to loose it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

by the way i`m atheist and i`m not depressed at all. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

can`t type anymore, the nurses are coming round with the medication again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Pindar

09-18-2003, 21:16

Typically, an atheist approach makes appeals to evidence, or rather its lack when discussing Deity. I have seen two good explanations along this line (one a reference to Sagan, the other by the Portuguese Rebel). In each case, the central question revolved around the data at hand. This is a proper scientific approach. Science to operate requires a field of study, data. Otherwise there is nothing to measure or to draw conclusions on.

I think the difficulty lies in what constitues a catergory mistake. Applying traditional scientific methodology toward an area that, by necessity, is beyond the natural realm. The required data does not exist because the object of investigation is by definition transcendent. This is different from questions involving unicorns which either exist in the world or not at all. Applying a temporal methodology to the question of a nontemporal object is to be involved in what Kant referred to as an antinomy, drawing a conclusion about a topic impervious to empirical investigation.

The traditional core of religious devotion in the West revolves around faith. Faith is not a catergory of knowledge. One either has it or not. Regardless, the object of that faith is a thing beyond scientific investigation.

(ughhh, I'm taking on too many topics)

katar

09-18-2003, 21:57

Quote[/b] ]I'm taking all of this in good fun m8,

your quote above is how i look at life, and not just debates. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Portuguese Rebel

09-18-2003, 22:11

Quote[/b] ]I think the difficulty lies in what constitues a catergory mistake. Applying traditional scientific methodology toward an area that, by necessity, is beyond the natural realm.

For us atheists, the problem is the beyond the natural realm bit. To consider that something is beyond the natural realm you first must believe there is something beyond it (since something beyond the natural realm is unsubstanciated by physical evidence). the position of the believer is that there is something beyond the natural realm, while the atheist does not see a reason to accept, by default the existance of something beyond the natural realm.

To sum it up, the believer believes to believe (sounds bad but...), while the atheist requires evidence to believe in something.

Atheists are skeptics by nature, and apply their skepticism in other areas beyond religion. What is funny is that believers are sometimes very skeptic in other areas (non religious areas), using a sort of double standard. One attitude towards religion, another for other subjects.

econ21

09-18-2003, 23:45

Pindar - the problem with saying scientific arguments cannot be used to investigate whether god exists is that maintaining this would seem to seriously curtail the kind of god that is being talked about.

For example, the Christian God spoke directly to prophets. If I heard him, I would listen. Jesus performed miracles - if I saw them, I would follow. Today, many of the more evangelical Christians seem to believe they have experienced similar revelations. I don't think this kind of communicative God is impossible to prove the existence of at all. But if it is a God that does not talk to you (or anyone), it becomes less important in some sense.

Moreover, often the religious believe their God intervenes in the world. Well, this suggests we should examine the patterns in the data. Looking at the horrors that befall some virtuous people and the evil that others perform unchecked, I find the concept of such an intervenionist God alternately ludicrous or offensive. Some believe God answers their prayers. This would seem to be testable. Again, if it is a god that does not intervene in this world and does not answer prayers, he would seem rather less important to me now.

Many religions stress the afterlife - now this becomes a very strange concept if taken in the literal way some do. We know from science how much of your personality and experiences depend on the physical. Postulating that these can continue when we are just dust seems very strange - how can something we can scientifically explain, persist without the scientific basis continuing?

I think the religions hundreds of years were much more literal and concrete in the kind of god they envisaged than they are today. Taking the very early Christians as an example, they expected a quick second coming (partly to free them from the tyranny of Rome). The afterlife they envisaged was probably a physical one here on this earth in the future. They believed in miracles. They believed God spoke to people, answered their prayers and struck down their enemies. That kind of God would seem to be the kind that must leave some evidence.

Over time, the more we have come to understand how the world exists through science, the more the religious have had to retreat into believing in a nebulous entity that seems rather pointless to me.

Writing this, I can now understand why agnostics (as opposed to aetheists) can exist - the kind of God they could envisage really does not matter much at all, so why do they need to form an opinion on whether he exists?

I apologise if I am stating this crudely - I do not mean to offend the sincere faith of believers, who I often admire even if I cannot join them.

|OCS|Virus

09-19-2003, 00:30

I do belive that there is a god, a devil, and I have given thought into pergatory. although that may be a little extreme. I however am very certain that there is a heaven or at least a life after death, although I do not belive that we were created in his image I do belive that we were somehow or another created by a higher being. I think that those of you who are agnostics are usualy asking for proof, but if you belive then you do not need proof. how many of you give thanks for your lifes? for the simple pleasures of cracking open a pop? if you have not suffered then you can not enjoy these things unless you have gone without before. and once you suffer through something then you get what you want, but you dont know why this {in my opinion} inspires faith. while some of the agnostics may not agree this is my opinion, although I will probly never become a priest or anything I do hold a firm belief that there is a god and a devil. And that those who have not suffered will not belive. Why would they? If they never had any needs of god why would they get any? well theres my view http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

EDITED: I only read the first few posts so if I just came outta the blue sry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Pindar

09-19-2003, 01:18

P. Rebel,

Quote[/b] ]For us atheists, the problem is the beyond the natural realm bit. To consider that something is beyond the natural realm you first must believe there is something beyond it (since something beyond the natural realm is unsubstanciated by physical evidence).

What is being discussed are basically knowledge claims. If knowledge claims are restricted to the natural realm, I assume this means basically an empirical approach is what we are opting for. Empiricism is the arena of science typically. Empiricism has its most developed history in Britain. From John Locke onward there were serious attempts to ground knowledge off of experience. As things progressed the position became more and more prone to skepticism until finally Hume was able to undercut even the most basic of claims to know.

Any object subject to empirical investigation is immediately recognized by its properties. i.e. a lump of coal is black, hard, has a smell etc. However, the lump of coal is more than any one of these properties. The trick is to find the thing that allows all of these various properties to cohere. First order properties, say dimension or second order properties like color do not yield the thing itself. The essential core that allows the coal to be experienced remains hidden.

One could argue all things, the world, are simply a product of mind, a solipsistic position. However, solipsism has is own propblems and isn't a place an empiricist wants to go. So, how does one ground experience? Wither is the source of sensation?

Taking a simple empirical approach to knowledge itself creates a necessary other realm, hidden from the subject. to reference Kant again since I began with him: this is the numenal as opposed to the phenomenal world. The beyond the natural realm becomes inescapable.

Pindar

09-19-2003, 01:42

Simon,

Quote[/b] ]the problem with saying scientific arguments cannot be used to investigate whether god exists is that maintaining this would seem to seriously curtail the kind of god that is being talked about.

For example, the Christian God spoke directly to prophets.

The God of the Bible, is a God of revelation. He reveals himself, he is not discovered. The way the texts present Deity is as the revealer, not the revealee. An epiphany is subject to the grace of the source, not the intention of the recipiant. Thus, the transcendant can be made manifest but is not required to do so. Regardless, the origianl point holds. Science remains bound to the flesh. It cannot investigate that which is of another order. This does not mean one must believe in a god any more than it means one must believe in justice or the number four, but it is an error to apply the scientific method to any one of them.

I think that would be the typical answer to your post.

The problem of evil is a separate question.

squippy

09-19-2003, 11:16

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 18 2003,15:16)]I think the difficulty lies in what constitues a catergory mistake. Applying traditional scientific methodology toward an area that, by necessity, is beyond the natural realm. The required data does not exist because the object of investigation is by definition transcendent.
Pindar, I agree that is logical, but it then rests on the presumption that this epehemeral realm does have some objective, rather than imaginary, existance. And if I donlt share that assumption, then the category error does not apply. The required data does not exist because the object of investigation does not exist.

The burden of proof lies onn those who assert there is soemthing to be investigated.

squippy

09-19-2003, 11:22

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 18 2003,19:18)]

Quote[/b] ] Taking a simple empirical approach to knowledge itself creates a necessary other realm, hidden from the subject. to reference Kant again since I began with him: this is the numenal as opposed to the phenomenal world. The beyond the natural realm becomes inescapable.

Except this is more philobabble. I see no need at all to be confused about second order properties like mass or temporal dimension - these too are properties of the material world. Kant was totally ignorant of modern information technology, and so for hiom it is perhaps forgivable that he sees informaiton as numinous, but we do not. Information is property of organisation of material. The case fior a numinous realm remains wholly unproven.

A.Saturnus

09-19-2003, 11:34

Saying that science cannot explore the transcendent and can therefore not settle the question whether god exists is what Popper called immunization against criticism. The scientific answer is simple: if you can`t judge with scientific methods whether something exists, we assume it doesn`t.
Everything that influences the empiry must in theory be measurable. If it`s not, then that means that it doesn`t make a difference. And as Mr. Spock said: a difference that doesn`t make a difference, isn`t a difference.

Quote[/b] ]
and don't say the burden of proof is on the believer cause it's not, you guys are the ones who are challenging an established belief, so therefore you have the burden of proof

TK, what established belief? There are so many of it. You can`t expect that we disprove any single one of it, especially since believers use to immunize their beliefs (see above). Whether a belief is established or not is irrelevant for epistemological questions. But you can build a testable theory out of your belief and compare it with other theories, which explains the facts the best way and then hold to that that wins. Science is a fair competition.
And BTW, can it be that you have the utterly absurd thought that all atheists are immoral monsters? Is your life endangered by atheists that kill everyone just for fun? If you look at the world carefully you might come to the conclusion that it`s rather the beliefers you should be carefull about. How morality can be established without a divine being is very well described in another thread by me and others.

squippy

09-19-2003, 11:42

Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Sep. 18 2003,13:16)]

Quote[/b] ] you must be a very sad depressed person then...

Why? I'm not the one in fear of an imaginary god.

Quote[/b] ] if that's it, then what's it all for?

I don't know. Sadly religion does not explain that either

Quote[/b] ] so let's found an anrchy and just have lots of fun before we die

Now thats is a good idea.

Quote[/b] ] Let's all become rapists if that's what makes us happy, because hey, you have to enjoy yourself cause once you die that's it....

No, not really. Its not in my interest to haver this kind of thing going on all over the place - it might happen to me. Besides, the god worshippers only restrain themselves out of fear, not morality.

Quote[/b] ] Or maybe I should be an evil dictator who slaughters millions of people just for the fun of it because hey, you have to enjoy yourself cause once you die that's it....

Thats hardly in my interest if I'm one of the millions, isn't it? But its still more .likely to be done by a beleiever, all they have to do is imagine god told tem it was ok. We see that all the time in the bible.

Quote[/b] ] and don't say the burden of proof is on the believer cause it's not, you guys are the ones who are challenging an established belief, so therefore you have the burden of proof

Baloney. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are claiming to be in contact with an invisible pixie - prove it or withdraw the claim.

Quote[/b] ] so prove that there is no eternal life and that God(s) do not exist....

the very idea is primna facie ridiculous. Without any supporting evidence, I don't even need to address it.

rory_20_uk

09-19-2003, 11:54

Squippy, I think that for whatever reason mankind has for many a year eondered if there is something greater. There must have been a point when this was wondered before churches reared their ugly heads, as there must have been a first one.
My beliefs are somewhere closer to those popularly espused by the Great Author Terry Pratchett. Gods are everywhere - by themselves they are no more than powerless wisps of air (or close enough to make no difference) it is belief that empowers a God, and also shapes him according to the current views.
Whilst not trying to make this fiction into a pseudoscience, I find that it is rather amusing how this explanation could be tied into religions: most start out with fiery gods, who kill crush and destroy all their enemies in a spectacular manner (e.g. the Israelites). However, both the force of belief in teh god, as well as the change in focus over time to reverence of the church not the god ends up with the situation that we have now: powerful churches that exist to exist - the god that they origionally espoused has long ago regressed in power, as no one believes in him anymore.
As a true scientist, I am supposed to be open minded to any theory that is put forward until a more accurate on encompasing all the evidence, as well as other theories failing to encompass the evidence. This position has certainly not been reached yet, and IMO will never be reached, due to the fact that we are talking about almost by definition the indefinable.

Teutonic Knight

09-19-2003, 14:42

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Sep. 19 2003,05:34)]TK, what established belief? There are so many of it. You can`t expect that we disprove any single one of it, especially since believers use to immunize their beliefs (see above). Whether a belief is established or not is irrelevant for epistemological questions. But you can build a testable theory out of your belief and compare it with other theories, which explains the facts the best way and then hold to that that wins. Science is a fair competition.
And BTW, can it be that you have the utterly absurd thought that all atheists are immoral monsters? Is your life endangered by atheists that just for fun? If you look at the world carefully you might come to the conclusion that it`s rather the beliefers you should be carefull about. How morality can be established without a divine being is very well described in another thread by me and others.
ok, first of all, most of you are challenging the traditional beliefs of Christianity so there you go.

Quote[/b] ]And BTW, can it be that you have the utterly absurd thought that all atheists are immoral monsters? Is your life endangered by atheists that just for fun? If you look at the world carefully you might come to the conclusion that it`s rather the beliefers you should be carefull about.

yes this is exactly my point
Atheism has no morality, so you use the moral code of the religion you reject Why??

if Christianity is such foolishness, then why do you use its moral establishment as a basis for normal behavior? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Teutonic Knight

09-19-2003, 14:44

Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 18 2003,15:57)]
Quote[/b] ]I'm taking all of this in good fun m8,

your quote above is how i look at life, and not just debates. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
it's the only way you won't die of stress m8 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

katar

09-19-2003, 15:38

I BELIEVE.... i believe iv`e got an ingrown toenail, so that is my current priority in life, not theology. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Portuguese Rebel

09-19-2003, 17:52

I've just seen Bruce Almighty, the movie. I thought it was very funny, and with a very deep religious meaning (surprinsingly deep considering it's a Jim Carey movie). I know some KKK dudes were offended by God being a black guy on that movie, but i think that guy is a great actor and did tha part very well.

What did you believers think of that movie? Did you liked it? Was it offensive?

I myself did not find anything offensive in it, but i'm not christian so...

katar

09-19-2003, 18:08

Quote[/b] ]I know some KKK dudes were offended by God being a black guy on that movie,

for some unknown reason i`m not terrible bothered that they were offended. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

i preferred the god in Dogma, i like Morgan Freeman but i though the woman in that movie looked better http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Portuguese Rebel

09-19-2003, 22:44

Quote[/b] ]i preferred the god in Dogma, i like Morgan Freeman but i though the woman in that movie looked better

Funny katar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Eastside Character

09-19-2003, 23:32

That woman was Allanis Morrisete.
Personally I dont think that God really exists.
There are so many different religions ,very often describing divine entity in completely different way - it is impossible to tell which if those Gods is the one.
And since every religion claims to be the only true faith - my way of thinking is that there is no such thing as God or that there are as many of them as the number of believers...

Pindar

09-19-2003, 23:38

Squippy,

Quote[/b] ]it then rests on the presumption that this epehemeral realm does have some objective, rather than imaginary, existance. And if I donlt share that assumption, then the category error does not apply. The required data does not exist because the object of investigation does not exist.

I see no need at all to be confused about second order properties like mass or temporal dimension - these too are properties of the material world. Kant was totally ignorant of modern information technology, and so for hiom it is perhaps forgivable that he sees informaiton as numinous, but we do not. Information is property of organisation of material.

Taking the first quote, first:

What you say is correct. However, such a rejection means one must come up with an alterante grounding for experience. Sensation alone is insufficient in that it does not reaveal the thing but only an aspect of it. Further, sensation ipse does not explain the coherence of experience. If you opt for a mentalist approach how do you account for new experience or my stumbing my tow?

I'm not sure I follow the second quote's point. The Kantian view, which I put forward, would be that numinousity is the necessary thing-in-itself that allows a particular experience to be objective and not a phantasm of the subject.

Pindar

09-19-2003, 23:50

Saturnus,

Quote[/b] ]Saying that science cannot explore the transcendent and can therefore not settle the question whether god exists is what Popper called immunization against criticism. The scientific answer is simple: if you can`t judge with scientific methods whether something exists, we assume it doesn`t.
Everything that influences the empiry must in theory be measurable. If it`s not, then that means that it doesn`t make a difference. And as Mr. Spock said: a difference that doesn`t make a difference, isn`t a difference.

Popper's distain for ontology is what lead to many of the errors of his thought. Logical Positiveism is dead, by implosion.

To say only the measurable exists means one must just assume the world without foundation, not very rational. Further, you create a mechanism that turns on its own master in that verification schema begin to atomise to the point of absurity. Ultimately all 'scientia' becomes suspect.

I shan't dare challenge Mr. Spock.

Pindar

09-19-2003, 23:57

P. Rebel,

Quote[/b] ]What did you believers think of that movie? Did you liked it? Was it offensive?

I myself did not find anything offensive in it, but i'm not christian so...

I haven't seen it, but heard it was funny from everyone I know.

I didn't like Allanis Morrisete in Dogma. She's not pretty enough to be divine. They should have switched Selam Hayek and her roles.

Quid

09-20-2003, 10:34

Hi there you lot

Clearly, this is a never ending discussion as we do not know the answer. And it is based on each individual so we will have either 7 billion different kinds of beliefs or at least 7 billion different interpretations of it. Each one of those beliefs as acceptable as the other.

I have taken time and read through most of what people said here and it seems to me that the point before mentioned has just been proven in its complexity. There are some very intelligent answers and replies, dare I say, even intellectual ones. From my experience in discussing this topic, much rubbish has been told, to put it bluntly.

The way I see it is that it has always been in the human nature to believe in something, to believe in the unknown, the mystic and the un-provable. It is human nature to believe or at least to tackle the issue at hand whether or not one believes in a deity or religion be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other known religion or form of belief. Atheists by definition BELIEVE that God does not exist; agnostics BELIEVE that nothing can be known about God. Why not believe in extra- terrestrials and UFOs ?

How about this for a theory ?: There are no gods and deities in reality but only stories told and preached by people whose intention it was to make the world a better place, free from all wars and hatred, a base for everyone to live in peace and be let to live in peace. What if religion as we now know it has been concocted long ago through wishes of the poor (because mainly the poor show a high degree of belief) and written down by someone who agreed with them. After all, the guidelines, in whatever religion, are mostly ethical rules (although I am not so sure about the first four in the Ten Commandments; seems more like a rather pungent ‘do or die’ to me whereas the latter 6 are more ‘do AND die’s). Do these ethical rules not outline a life of harmony, or at least the wish for it ? Then why do we go on killing and raging war on others when a large majority of the people are religious in some way and do not wish for hatred to take the upper hand ? This is because it has a tiny flaw in it: it is unrealistic bollocks People of then and today have not taken into account the human nature of greed and jealousy to the degree we have always had (and probably always will). I am not saying religion is bad because for the most part the idea behind it is a good one and of ethical justification. However, it is the ideal tool for dismay and war and it is, even today, used to still the hunger for greed and hatred.

So why is it implausible to believe that we, the human race as a whole, represent God, and we have it in our hands to create a good world for everyone to live in. Everyone of us has the chance in life to make an impact and we should strive to do so.

As to the point of life after death: Why does one have to believe that there is such a thing ? What if life after death is our heritage we give to our children whether it be our ideas and thoughts or our genes. Life is never a waste of time (although I am starting to think that me playing MP in MTW is a huge waste of time since I keep on being on the losing side…) because one always tries to leave something behind, some sort or memory for the descendants to keep.

Last but not least, I was wondering whether anybody had ever heard of Erich von Däniken. He states that maybe extra terrestrials came to this planet long ago and are still now remembered vaguely through our religions. Given that during the Leahy-Expedition to several islands in New Guinea and our general fascination with the stars it may not all be that unjustified. The people on those islands actually started to build aeroplanes out of straw and wood and prayed to it as if it was a deity. That begs the question if the whole thing has not actually happened long ago as well and that all religions are based on an elaborate hoax of some aliens…I will let you think about that.

So, I hope that this little span of time you have dedicated to reading this was not all wasted and that I did not come over as a totally and utterly wasted old git (am not yet). If parts of it feels like it is some sort of ethical/moral lecture…well, it wasn’t really meant to be. It is simply the way I think (an inner conflict going on here…don’t know what to think really).

So be it

Quid

katar

09-20-2003, 11:24

Quote[/b] ]Last but not least, I was wondering whether anybody had ever heard of Erich von Däniken.

he was already dealt with in one of the other threads on belief and morality.

from what i`ve seen of the aliens as god cults, they usually end up comitting mass suicide, hence their lack of posts on this forum. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Pindar

09-20-2003, 18:23

Quote[/b] ]from what i`ve seen of the aliens as god cults, they usually end up comitting mass suicide, hence their lack of posts on this forum.

HeHe, that's funny. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

mandt

09-20-2003, 21:41

I see a number of very wimpy atheists here, or at least they say they are atheists, I'm not saying I believe there is no God. I'm saying I don't believe in God. C'mon I've heard GW Bush speeches with less spin than that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

I'm an archaeologist. I work with archaeologists. I know several who claim to be atheists. To the last, their postion is that they believe there is no God. Period.

You hair-splitting athiests are nothing more than closet agnostics.

But that's okay. Being an agnostic has its advantages. Of the three, theist, agnostic, and atheist, agnostic is the only choice based on sound logic. Think about it. It is the only position that describes the one nexus between belief and science, that nexus being, Who knows, and can do so without compromising itself. Let's face it, each of these is a kind of faith, right. In fact, it is this logic that sets agnostics apart from theists and atheists. Though one might intuitively believe agnostics to fall somewhere between theists and atheists, they are more accurately positioned apart from the two.

Both theists and atheists have belief in common, theists that God exists, atheists, that he does not.

In order to be a true atheist you must circumvent a basic law of scientific investigation, that it is almost a practical impossibility to prove something does not exist. Yeah, I read the Easter Bunny and Father Christmas examples several posts ago. And that guy is right. You can't prove they don't exist either. But not believing in them, because the notion is absurd is still bad science.

So, in order for an atheist to argue his position, he must be willing to violate at least one of the rules he uses to build his case.

Both the atheist and theist believe in a conclusion that cannot be proven. On the other hand the agnostics follow a more rigourous set of protocols, and because of this are unwilling to draw unsupportable conclusions.

In a sense, agnostics are the real scientists, while athiests can better be described as very theistic-like believers. Theists? Well, they just chose to believe, and that's their right.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Portuguese Rebel

09-20-2003, 22:50

So what would be expected from a hard-line atheist? Open insults on the ones who believe? Is clarifying one's position wimpy? Mature atheists will not resort to insulting unless insulted (exception is the juvenile who wants to seem rebelious and cool).

Quote[/b] ]So, in order for an atheist to argue his position, he must be willing to violate at least one of the rules he uses to build his case.

No. The atheist who chooses to explain his position simply gives at start, as much credibility to the hypothesys that there is a god as to the hypothesys that there is a Tooth Fairy. What, in this, violates the rules used to build the case? In science the burden of proof always falls in the proponents of the existance of something for wich there isn't a way to prove an existance. If that is too agnostic to you, what can i say? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

mandt

09-20-2003, 23:53

Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 20 2003,16:50)]

No. The atheist who chooses to explain his position simply gives at start, as much credibility to the hypothesys that there is a god as to the hypothesys that there is a Tooth Fairy. What, in this, violates the rules used to build the case? In science the burden of proof always falls in the proponents of the existance of something for wich there isn't a way to prove an existance. If that is too agnostic to you, what can i say? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Did we miss the smilie face after the comment? Or are we choosing to miss it in order to attain some sort of moral high ground?

Actually, I beg to differ with you regarding your mature atheist comment. I see a lot of condescension on the part of atheists here.

First, some advice. If you are going to imply that another is immature, than it would be best to avoid flip analogies to the Tooth Fairy and the inclusion of the http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif It's bad form, i.e. the pot calling the kettle black, so to speak.

But I'll address your question for you. What violates the rules of science is that the atheist looks at incomplete evidence regarding God's existance and concludes that it is definitive evidence of God's nonexistance. That's bad science and goes against the very process that many atheists depend on to support their arguments in the first place.

This is not meant as an insult or character judgement. The main thrust of my post was to illustrate that atheists, like theists can only ride the evidence train so far. Then they must make a leap of faith to believe what they believe.

Now, an anyone who gives the same degree of credibility to the existence of the Tooth Fairy, as to God, is probably not too bright. He is certainly not very educated.

In the 500k years or so of modern human existence on this earth, there has not been a single, sane, adult person who claims to have seen, heard, or spoken to a tooth fairy. I'm not claiming this is proof the tooth fairy does not exist, though it makes a pretty convincing argument.

On the other hand, there is evidence, though circumstantial, scanty, subjective, wildly incredible, and whatever other limiting adjective you wish to attach to it, that some sort of supreme being or to paraphrase Einstein, all encompasing intelligence governing the universe might exist.

There are googles of perfectly sane and credible people that claim to have spoken to God, or seen God, or heard the voice of God, or seen heavenly visions, miracles, and/or healings. Since the moment humans started pecking pictures on cave walls they have left evidence of belief in origin myths and supreme beings. This occured all over the world.

Do I think this makes a compelling evidence for the existence of God? No. But it beats the heck out of the tooth fairy.

All I intended to point out was that one who claims to be an atheist, and says he does not believe in God, but is not willing to say he believes God does not exist, is by definition, an agnostic.

I would categorize myself as an agnostic, though a very skeptical one. Wimpy atheists, by coming up short of claiming that God does not exist are no different than a skeptic, than me.

hellenes

09-21-2003, 00:12

I will repeat my position stated in 'What are your believes' thread that: 'My personal interpretation of the matter of God is that no matter if he exist or not the fact that my religion (orthodox christian) is based on the humanism and the compation makes the belief in God (from my point of view) an important element that makes us more human...' And add that NONE can prove OR disprove the existence of god AND the generalization of the term god finds me opposit. we believe in different gods so just face it christians are saying that JESUS is GOD,jews say that JESUS was just a man (and some other things wich i dont want to place here),muslims are saying that MOHAMED is GODs prophet (and that JESUS isnt GOD) EVERYONE from the above denies it so first decide who is god (In your theory) then prove or disprove his existence and then try to convince other people... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Portuguese Rebel

09-21-2003, 00:13

Quote[/b] ]There are googles of perfectly sane and credible people that claim to have spoken to God, or seen God, or heard the voice of God, or seen heavenly visions, miracles, and/or healings

This is were you lose me...

Quote[/b] ]Do I think this makes a compelling evidence for the existence of God? No. But it beats the heck out of the tooth fairy.

Yeah, but it does not beat ghosts, the bigfoot and other funny/weir stuff.

Quote[/b] ]Actually, I beg to differ with you regarding your mature atheist comment. I see a lot of condescension on the part of atheists here.

Do not confuse condescent atitude with being tactfull to avoid direct head on confrontation that could lead to a flame war. I do not think it is condescent to say that i need proofs and i cannot accept the existance of a god without proofs. Any intelectual sane atitude must have an opening to allow a change in position if proofs are provided. If i, for example said i do not believe there is a god and that's it it would not better than say i believe no matter what.

The agnostic position can be very well defended, but it is one position that gives, at the very start, more merit to the possibility of the existance of a god than it does to other similar unsupported claims. Why is that?

I do know that my type of position is kind of a mellow atheism, since i actually give space for something extraordinary to change my mind. For some this is an agnostic-like caracteristic. I preffer to think that is plain good intelectual atitude, since i'm not in an atheistic and twisted form of religion. Being condescendent would be to say that i do not know if there is god when i see absolutely no evidence to even indicate it exists.

mandt

09-21-2003, 01:23

Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 20 2003,18:13)]There are googles of perfectly sane and credible people that claim to have spoken to God, or seen God, or heard the voice of God, or seen heavenly visions, miracles, and/or healings

This is were you lose me...[/quote]

You will have to be more clear on what you rquestion is here?

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Do I think this makes a compelling evidence for the existence of God? No. But it beats the heck out of the tooth fairy.

Yeah, but it does not beat ghosts, the bigfoot and other funny/weir stuff.

Is this your scientificly proven conclusion, or subjective categorization? Also, just a side comment here, while it may not have been your intent your comparing belief in God with other funny/wierd stuff would liklely be considered by believers to be condescending.

Quote[/b] ]Do not confuse condescent atitude with being tactfull to avoid direct head on confrontation that could lead to a flame war. I do not think it is condescent to say that i need proofs and i cannot accept the existance of a god without proofs. Any intelectual sane atitude must have an opening to allow a change in position if proofs are provided. If i, for example said i do not believe there is a god and that's it it would not better than say i believe no matter what.

First of all, veiled insults are no way to avoid a flame war. Second, my comments were not even about you or your posts.

I am not saying that requiring proof is condescending. As a matter of fact, you make a very good pro-agnostic argument here. You said:

Any intelectual sane atitude must have an opening to allow a change in position if proofs are provided. If i, for example said i do not believe there is a god and that's it it would not better than say i believe no matter what

I agree completely. You have defined an agnostic perfectly here.

Quote[/b] ]The agnostic position can be very well defended, but it is one position that gives, at the very start, more merit to the possibility of the existance of a god than it does to other similar unsupported claims. Why is that?

I completely disagree. Some agnostics may believe more than disbelieve, but as I mentined in my previous post, I am a skeptic. In other words, I think the chances are slim to slimmer that God exists. And as I also mentioned above, claims to God's existance are not entirely unsupported. the support is, in my opinion incredibly weak, but there is some support. I was going to say that there was not as much as there is for Bigfoot with the video and all, but I can't. The son of the guy who who made the tape just outed. He was on the news, he showed the suit and everything. The world is getting smaller and smaller. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

But everyone believes some things more than others. Alright. Do you believe in alien spacecraft? I do, and I'm pretty set on it too. But to tell you the truth, I know of no supportable evidence to show that they exist. If you held a gun to my head, I would not be able to make a better case for alien spacecraft than I could for the existence of God.

Quote[/b] ]I do know that my type of position is kind of a mellow atheism, since i actually give space for something extraordinary to change my mind. For some this is an agnostic-like caracteristic. I preffer to think that is plain good intelectual atitude, since i'm not in an atheistic and twisted form of religion. Being condescendent would be to say that i do not know if there is god when i see absolutely no evidence to even indicate it exists.

Saying that I don't know if there is a God is not condescending. It might be considered stupid or cowardly, but you are in no way ridiculing another's belief. You are not questioning or challenging existence or nonexistence. You're just saying I don't know.

Now, the people who have guts, are those that say, I believe God exists or I believe God does not exist. The rest of us, those who don't believe, but are keeping their options open, or those who are skeptical, or thiose that are undecided, well, we may not have as much guts as the other guys, but we are practicing better science, or as you said good intellectual attitude.

Sigurd

09-21-2003, 06:11

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 21 2003,06:41)]I see a number of very wimpy atheists here, or at least they say they are atheists, I'm not saying I believe there is no God. I'm saying I don't believe in God.

I know several who claim to be atheists. To the last, their postion is that they believe there is no God. Period.

You hair-splitting athiests are nothing more than closet agnostics.

But that's okay. Being an agnostic has its advantages. Of the three, theist, agnostic, and atheist, agnostic is the only choice based on sound logic. Think about it. It is the only position that describes the one nexus between belief and science, that nexus being, Who knows, and can do so without compromising itself. Let's face it, each of these is a kind of faith, right. In fact, it is this logic that sets agnostics apart from theists and atheists.

In order to be a true atheist you must circumvent a basic law of scientific investigation, that it is almost a practical impossibility to prove something does not exist.

Both the atheist and theist believe in a conclusion that cannot be proven. On the other hand the agnostics follow a more rigourous set of protocols, and because of this are unwilling to draw unsupportable conclusions.

In a sense, agnostics are the real scientists, while athiests can better be described as very theistic-like believers.

mandt: I applaud your reasoning. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
This is exactly my position on this issue. I just could not explain it like you did.
I think that we should leave Bigfoot and others out of our definitions.
It is in fact only in relation to the question of God we use these terms.
I do not think that theists believe in Santa or tooth fairies, which would be the implication of introducing supernatural beings other than God into these terms.

Portuguese Rebel

09-21-2003, 22:25

Quote[/b] ]Quote
Do not confuse condescent atitude with being tactfull to avoid direct head on confrontation that could lead to a flame war. I do not think it is condescent to say that i need proofs and i cannot accept the existance of a god without proofs. Any intelectual sane atitude must have an opening to allow a change in position if proofs are provided. If i, for example said i do not believe there is a god and that's it it would not better than say i believe no matter what.

First of all, veiled insults are no way to avoid a flame war. Second, my comments were not even about you or your posts.

I am not saying that requiring proof is condescending. As a matter of fact, you make a very good pro-agnostic argument here. You said:

Any intelectual sane atitude must have an opening to allow a change in position if proofs are provided. If i, for example said i do not believe there is a god and that's it it would not better than say i believe no matter what

I agree completely. You have defined an agnostic perfectly here.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Veiled insult? i was talking about atheists who have the same, atitude considering god, as do believers. By shutting the door on evidence (even if extraordinary), they show themselves to have a not sane intelectual position. Now, how is this a veiled insult? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

I'm sorry if i insulted you but i really don't see any possibility of an insult arrising from what i said about atheists, in wich you are not included.

Quote[/b] ]Is this your scientificly proven conclusion, or subjective categorization? Also, just a side comment here, while it may not have been your intent your comparing belief in God with other funny/wierd stuff would liklely be considered by believers to be condescending.

That's the point. Scientificaly, all this things have in common the fact that they have not been proven to exist. The reasoning behind what makes people deny the existance of many things (you can choose whatever you want to fit in here, if you don't like bigfoots or ghost or whatever) is that their existance has not been proven. By the resoning agnostics normally use anything could exist or be, since the proving of a negative is not possible since the proponent can always invent whatever he wants to escape scrutiny from a third party.

For example, you cannot prove there isn't a dragon in my garage if i'm allowed to invent caracteristics to avoid it to be tested by the methods you want to employ to test my claim. So you say i do not know if you have a dragon in your garage, and that is being condescendent...

mandt

09-22-2003, 02:03

Quote[/b] ]
Veiled insult? i was talking about atheists who have the same, atitude considering god, as do believers. By shutting the door on evidence (even if extraordinary), they show themselves to have a not sane intelectual position. Now, how is this a veiled insult?

I'm sorry if i insulted you but i really don't see any possibility of an insult arrising from what i said about atheists, in wich you are not included.

I think I was referring to the immature reference. No problem. Let's just chaulk that up to my misunderstanding http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]That's the point. Scientificaly, all this things have in common the fact that they have not been proven to exist. The reasoning behind what makes people deny the existance of many things (you can choose whatever you want to fit in here, if you don't like bigfoots or ghost or whatever) is that their existance has not been proven. By the resoning agnostics normally use anything could exist or be, since the proving of a negative is not possible since the proponent can always invent whatever he wants to escape scrutiny from a third party.

For example, you cannot prove there isn't a dragon in my garage if I'm allowed to invent caracteristics to avoid it to be tested by the methods you want to employ to test my claim. So you say i do not know if you have a dragon in your garage, and that is being condescendent...

I think the point I'm making here is that it is often easy for atheists, and agnostics to fall into a pattern of ridicule when we challenge belief. We may at times compare religious belief, which many people take very seriously wioth something like Big Foot, which most people consider a joke. I don't think anything was intended by it.

Maybe we have a different understanding as to the use of condescending, at least the way that I'm familiar with its use. If you say you prove that you have, or don't have a dragon in your garage, and I say, I don't know if you do, and mean what I say. That is not condescending. However, if you said you had a dragon in your garage (and you did), and I responded, yeah, sure, and I'm dating Pamela Anderson. That, would be closer to condescending. It's kind of difficult to explain. Or, if you compared, intentionally brelief in God with something you stated was also silly. i guess it's more in the delivry than the exact words.

Anyway, I still think we agree on more of this stuff than we disagree. We're just hammering out the kinks here. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Portuguese Rebel

09-22-2003, 02:22

Quote[/b] ] think the point I'm making here is that it is often easy for atheists, and agnostics to fall into a pattern of ridicule when we challenge belief. We may at times compare religious belief, which many people take very seriously wioth something like Big Foot, which most people consider a joke. I don't think anything was intended by it.

Maybe we have a different understanding as to the use of condescending, at least the way that I'm familiar with its use. If you say you prove that you have, or don't have a dragon in your garage, and I say, I don't know if you do, and mean what I say. That is not condescending. However, if you said you had a dragon in your garage (and you did), and I responded, yeah, sure, and I'm dating Pamela Anderson. That, would be closer to condescending. It's kind of difficult to explain. Or, if you compared, intentionally brelief in God with something you stated was also silly. i guess it's more in the delivry than the exact words.

Anyway, I still think we agree on more of this stuff than we disagree. We're just hammering out the kinks here.

Errr... yep i have a diferent understanding of what it is to be condescending... all this seems kinda silly now... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

squippy

09-22-2003, 09:20

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 20 2003,15:41)]

Quote[/b] ] So, in order for an atheist to argue his position, he must be willing to violate at least one of the rules he uses to build his case.

False. I only have to find a solution which is the most parismonious of the number ofd assumptions required.

The non-existence of god is more parsimonious than the existance of god. I provide a siutable alternate explanation: not by claiming the non-existance of god, but by demonstrating a source for the CLAIMS to the existance of god

Quote[/b] ] In a sense, agnostics are the real scientists, while athiests can better be described as very theistic-like believers.

Nonsense. Not the similarity here between the tehistic anf agnostic argument: both misrepresenting atheism as the positive belief, without evidence, of the non-existance of god.

Now I *believe*, in the sense that I expect this to be true, that there is noo god. I allow however I might be wrong. But to date, neither theist no agnostic have provided the slightest reason at all for me to believe in the existance of god.

As discussed aboe, I consider the agnostic position to be the least rational of the available options.

squippy

09-22-2003, 09:32

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 20 2003,17:53)]

Quote[/b] ] But I'll address your question for you. What violates the rules of science is that the atheist looks at incomplete evidence regarding God's existance and concludes that it is definitive evidence of God's nonexistance. That's bad science and goes against the very process that many atheists depend on to support their arguments in the first place.

No, it does not. As humans, we can only examine an argument that someone makes. If the best argument or god does not have complete evidence, then it is not a very good argument. If it appeals to special knowledged, and cannot be reliably independantly reproduced, then it is a bad theory and must fall. The unpopuklarity of the god argument occurs precisely becuase the evidence is lacking.

Quote[/b] ] Now, an anyone who gives the same degree of credibility to the existence of the Tooth Fairy, as to God, is probably not too bright. He is certainly not very educated.

Just above this paragraph you said you did not intend any character judgement. And before that you complained abou condescension from atheists. And yet here you are claiming some reason that I should distinguish between the unproven claim of the existance of the tooth fairy and the unproven claim of the existance of god.

Why? And on what basis? The Toothy Fairy and god have exactly the same level of evidence supporting them. The more important wuestion is why YOU priviliege one of these fictions, and not the other. If you are skeptical of the Tooth Fairy, why are you not skeptical about god.

Quote[/b] ] In the 500k years or so of modern human existence on this earth, there has not been a single, sane, adult person who claims to have seen, heard, or spoken to a tooth fairy.

I would suggest there are no such for god, either.
Besides which, this is only an appeal to reports, not evidence itself.

Quote[/b] ] On the other hand, there is evidence, though circumstantial, scanty, subjective, wildly incredible, and whatever other limiting adjective you wish to attach to it, that some sort of supreme being or to paraphrase Einstein, all encompasing intelligence governing the universe might exist.

No, there is HEARSAY and RUMOUR. And btw, Einstein is on record as strongly objected to being misquoted in this context.

Quote[/b] ] Do I think this makes a compelling evidence for the existence of God? No. But it beats the heck out of the tooth fairy.

Why?

squippy

09-22-2003, 09:36

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 19 2003,17:38)]

Quote[/b] ] What you say is correct. However, such a rejection means one must come up with an alterante grounding for experience. Sensation alone is insufficient in that it does not reaveal the thing but only an aspect of it. Further, sensation ipse does not explain the coherence of experience. If you opt for a mentalist approach how do you account for new experience or my stumbing my tow?

Sorry, I don't follow most of this.
Why is sensation not sufficient? What else do I have? I am perfectly happy with experience, qualified as it may be. something I cannot experience effectively does not exist - why then would I worry about it?

Quote[/b] ] I'm not sure I follow the second quote's point. The Kantian view, which I put forward, would be that numinousity is the necessary thing-in-itself that allows a particular experience to be objective and not a phantasm of the subject.

And this I vigorously reject. The very concept of the thing-in-itself- is a form of Idealism with which I have no truck. And secondly, it is not the experience that is objective, IMO, at all. External materiality exists and is experienced subjectively; this Kantian Idealism is exactly whatb I attacjked earlier. Go too far down this road and people start alleging a morality that exists as a thing in itself.

A.Saturnus

09-22-2003, 12:08

Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Sep. 19 2003,15:42)]ok, first of all, most of you are challenging the traditional beliefs of Christianity so there you go.

Atheism has no morality, so you use the moral code of the religion you reject Why??

if Christianity is such foolishness, then why do you use its moral establishment as a basis for normal behavior? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Well, your belief challenges thousands of religions that have been before it. There you go.

Quote[/b] ]Atheism has no morality, so you use the moral code of the religion you reject Why??

We don`t. As I said:

Quote[/b] ]How morality can be established without a divine being is very well described in another thread by me and others

A.Saturnus

09-22-2003, 12:16

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 20 2003,00:50)]Logical Positiveism is dead, by implosion.
Yes, and Popper helped to kill it. He replaced it with critical rationalism (and this one is not dead&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

Quote[/b] ]To say only the measurable exists means one must just assume the world without foundation, not very rational. Further, you create a mechanism that turns on its own master in that verification schema begin to atomise to the point of absurity. Ultimately all 'scientia' becomes suspect.

Well, what is not measurable may exist, but it`s pointless to make any assumptions about it. If we find no measurable evidence for a divine being, we assume there isn`t one. The theory of science is not subject to falsification since it`s not a empirical question. Falsificationism is meant only for empirical sciences, but epistemology is a discipline of the theoretical sciences.

A.Saturnus

09-22-2003, 12:20

Well, mandt, I think we simply use different meanings of the word 'atheist'. When I describe myself as atheist, I mean that I don`t need the assumption of god to explain the empirical world and therefore drop it, not that I do believe in it`s negation. If this is agnostic for you then read 'agnostic' whenever I write 'atheist'.

Portuguese Rebel

09-22-2003, 14:21

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Sep. 22 2003,06:20)]Well, mandt, I think we simply use different meanings of the word 'atheist'. When I describe myself as atheist, I mean that I don`t need the assumption of god to explain the empirical world and therefore drop it, not that I do believe in it`s negation. If this is agnostic for you then read 'agnostic' whenever I write 'atheist'.
Yeah this was also my conclusion. We are in agreement, just call it different things.

mandt

09-22-2003, 16:40

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Sep. 22 2003,03:20)]

False. I only have to find a solution which is the most parismonious of the number ofd assumptions required.[QUOTE=Quote ]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by parsimonious in this context, but I assume you are saying that you are able to make a decision based on the comparative weight of the assumptions. Fine. It's still not good science.

The non-existence of god is more parsimonious than the existance of god.

And you know this to be fact? Prove it...not the existance or non-existance of God, but rather that the evidence against is weightier than the evidence for.

Quote[/b] ]Nonsense. Not the similarity here between the tehistic anf agnostic argument: both misrepresenting atheism as the positive belief, without evidence, of the non-existance of god.

Now I *believe*, in the sense that I expect this to be true, that there is noo god. I allow however I might be wrong. But to date, neither theist no agnostic have provided the slightest reason at all for me to believe in the existance of god.

You call my statement that atheism is a belief nonsense in your first comment, and then essentially agree with it in your second, by saying you believe. I don't get it. Do you? Why would an agnostic care what you believe. A theist might. An agnostic can't figure it out for themselves what they think.

Rational is a strictly relative term, but I would say that Agnostic is the most scientific and logical position of the tthress in that it agnostics choose not to draw a conclusion when there is so little evidence either way.

mandt

09-22-2003, 17:12

Quote[/b] ]No, it does not. As humans, we can only examine an argument that someone makes. If the best argument or god does not have complete evidence, then it is not a very good argument. If it appeals to special knowledged, and cannot be reliably independantly reproduced, then it is a bad theory and must fall. The unpopuklarity of the god argument occurs precisely becuase the evidence is lacking.

How is this different than the anti-God argument. To paraphrase you, if the best argument against God does not have complete evidence, then it is not a very good argument....The unpopularity of the anti-God argument occurs precisely because the evidence is lacking.

Quote[/b] ]Just above this paragraph you said you did not intend any character judgement. And before that you complained abou condescension from atheists. And yet here you are claiming some reason that I should distinguish between the unproven claim of the existance of the tooth fairy and the unproven claim of the existance of god.

Why? And on what basis? The Toothy Fairy and god have exactly the same level of evidence supporting them. The more important wuestion is why YOU priviliege one of these fictions, and not the other. If you are skeptical of the Tooth Fairy, why are you not skeptical about god.

Okay. This was not specifically aimed at you, or anyone. It was a general counter-punch to the condescending way that this comparison was introduced. But I apologize anyway. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif K?

I'll rewrite the Tooth Fairy discussion here to tidy up this post. Now, as I pointed out in that post, there is not a single, sane, adult person in the world who claims to have seen, heard, or spoken to the Tooth Fairy. However, there are, and have been since humans first pecked pictures on a cave wall, billions of people that we would otherwise consider sane that believe they have seen, heard, or even talked to God, an angel, seen a miracle, or whatever. Is this good evidence. No. Is this sound science. No. But it does suggest that the existance of God is perhaps slightly more likely than the existance of the Tooth Fairy. Eyewitness accounts have traditionally been the deciding factor in the outcome of trials in our society. Why are they not acceptible here? Why do you selectively call some eyewitness accounts heresay and rumor, and not others?

Also, I read the Einstein quote. I am taking it out of context, but I am not misrepresenting what he said, at least intentionally.

Alright, I'll ask you the same question I asked Rebel. Do you believe there is intelligent alien life somewhere else in the universe? I do. I'm almost certain of it. But to tell you the truth, there is no more evidence to support this than there is to support the existance of God.

Quote[/b] ][QUOTE=Quote ] Do I think this makes a compelling evidence for the existence of God? No. But it beats the heck out of the tooth fairy.

Why?

Did I explain this well enough here, or do I still need to respond to this? I'll be glad to.

Now, I'm just going to make an observation here. You seem to be very disturbed by my comparison of atheism and theism as both ultimately needing to rely on belief. From the nature of some of your posts, as well as the Tooth Fairy comment, I wonder if perhaps you look at theists as being foolish or stupid and so you find any comparison to their position and yours repugnant. I could be wrong, and I apologize ahead of time, if I am. It's just that it looks that way to me.

Terrax

09-22-2003, 18:00

Quote[/b] (Eastside Character @ Sep. 19 2003,17:32)]Personally I dont think that God really exists.
There are so many different religions ,very often describing divine entity in completely different way - it is impossible to tell which if those Gods is the one.
And since every religion claims to be the only true faith - my way of thinking is that there is no such thing as God or that there are as many of them as the number of believers...
That is also the conclusion that I have come to. Being raised in church (I'm the son of a Fire and Brimstone Babtist minister) I was taught that there was only the Christian God, the others were false gods, which I believed. As I matured and did research on some of the religions in the world, it seemed to me to be all bs. Why should I believe a religion older than my own is wrong? Why would God let hundreds of millions of people believe in false gods for centuries?

Afer a while, I had more questions on what proof I had that my religion wasn't bs. Maybe I was raised worshipping a false god. But I had no proof that there was a true god out there I should worship.

In the end, I came to the decsion that there aren't any gods. Religion's are just ancient fairy tales passed down for centuries. I think they were invented by people who did back breaking work all day, had miserable disease infested lives, and had to believe that paradise awaited them after death to keep motivating themselves to get up and suffer day after day.

katar

09-22-2003, 18:52

Quote[/b] ]I think they were invented by people who did back breaking work all day, had miserable disease infested lives, and had to believe that paradise awaited them after death to keep motivating themselves to get up and suffer day after day.

ain`t that the truth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

A.Saturnus

09-22-2003, 18:58

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 22 2003,17:40)]Prove it...not the existance or non-existance of God, but rather that the evidence against is weightier than the evidence for.
There are simply no empirical facts that would require the hypothesis of god. Man emerged due to evolution, the earth emerged due to gravitation, everthing dumb, meaningless processes that can create the weirdest things. No creator needed.

Quote[/b] ]You call my statement that atheism is a belief nonsense in your first comment, and then essentially agree with it in your second, by saying you believe. I don't get it. Do you? Why would an agnostic care what you believe. A theist might. An agnostic can't figure it out for themselves what they think.

Again, confusion about the meaning of words. About the different meanings of the word 'believe' read my thread in page 2 or 3 of the Tavern.

Quote[/b] ]
Rational is a strictly relative term, but I would say that Agnostic is the most scientific and logical position of the tthress in that it agnostics choose not to draw a conclusion when there is so little evidence either way.

It`s not scientific not to draw conclusions. As long as there`s no evidence for cold fusion, the scientific conclusion is that cold fusion doesn`t exit. If the question of god were treated like a simple scientific question without emotional emphasis, no sane person would accept the assumption of god`s existence. The evidential situation is as clear as it can be.

Quote[/b] ]Alright, I'll ask you the same question I asked Rebel. Do you believe there is intelligent alien life somewhere else in the universe? I do. I'm almost certain of it. But to tell you the truth, there is no more evidence to support this than there is to support the existance of God.

There are several good scientific reasons to assume the existence of extraterrestrial life. Actually, the likelihood of it`s negation is abyssimal low.

Portuguese Rebel

09-22-2003, 22:10

Quote[/b] ]
Alright, I'll ask you the same question I asked Rebel. Do you believe there is intelligent alien life somewhere else in the universe? I do. I'm almost certain of it. But to tell you the truth, there is no more evidence to support this than there is to support the existance of God.

Scientificaly the possibility for the existance of alien inteligence (if we could somehow recognize it, and this is a big if) is good. You have an infinity of stars with respective planetary systems. We have seen life arrise in a planet (our own) and is it possible that it can happen elsewhere (although those aliens must be quite different from us, if they exist). But, for example, if you tell me that those intelligent aliens are visiting us everyday, abducting people by the thousands, impregnating women (yeah right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ) and mutilating animals.... Then i ask where is the proof for it. There isn't any, so, until there is, i'm not buying it.

mandt

09-22-2003, 22:17

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Sep. 22 2003,12:58)]There are simply no empirical facts that would require the hypothesis of god. Man emerged due to evolution, the earth emerged due to gravitation, everthing dumb, meaningless processes that can create the weirdest things. No creator needed.

Likewise there are no empirical facts to preclude the existence of God. Evolution and gravity are certainly parts of nature's process, but their existence does not preclude the existence of a god. In fact, a believer might say that they are the very worksops of God -- how he does what he does. How can one dispute that? BTW, can anyone explain to me how gravity works?

Quote[/b] ]It`s not scientific not to draw conclusions. As long as there`s no evidence for cold fusion, the scientific conclusion is that cold fusion doesn`t exit. If the question of god were treated like a simple scientific question without emotional emphasis, no sane person would accept the assumption of god`s existence. The evidential situation is as clear as it can be.

This is the trap. Cold Fusion is a physical process, the existence or non-existance of which can be determined by scientific testing. God is not. Therefore the protocols of scientific experimentation and inference do not apply. And they won't until someone invents a God detection gadget like that thing with the lights in Ghostbusters.

Quote[/b] ]There are several good scientific reasons to assume the existence of extraterrestrial life. Actually, the likelihood of it`s negation is abyssimal low.

What scientific reasons are you referring to? The fact that tehre is life here? The fact that there are googles of stars out there with the potential of almost as many planets like ours? These assumptions are not scientific reasoning, they are components of recreational monkeying with probability. Or, in other words gambling.

The truth is, I am suckered in by this too. It is hard for me not to believe that somewhere, out there, there is someone else to talk to. But I am not about to bet my last two dollars on it, any more or less than I'd be willing to bet my last two dollars on the existance or non-existance of God.

katar

09-22-2003, 22:18

Quote[/b] ]We have seen life arrise in a planet (our own) and is it possible that it can happen elsewhere

currently the best options for finding traces of alien life (sorry i`m not referring to L.G.M., just anything from bacteria upwards) are in our own solar system, on Mars and Europa (one of Jupiters moons).

other than that it is all supposition.

time will tell, one way or the other. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Sigurd

09-23-2003, 00:08

Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 23 2003,07:18)]currently the best options for finding traces of alien life (sorry i`m not referring to L.G.M., just anything from bacteria upwards) are in our own solar system, on Mars and Europa (one of Jupiters moons).

other than that it is all supposition.

time will tell, one way or the other. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
This is true,
Before we have the means to visit other solar systems, the only turf for examination is our own backyard.
If we find life on (e.g.) Europa, the possibility of life in other systems are increased by what?...

mandt

09-23-2003, 02:43

Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Sep. 22 2003,18:08)]
Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 23 2003,07:18)]currently the best options for finding traces of alien life (sorry i`m not referring to L.G.M., just anything from bacteria upwards) are in our own solar system, on Mars and Europa (one of Jupiters moons).

other than that it is all supposition.

time will tell, one way or the other. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
This is true,
Before we have the means to visit other solar systems, the only turf for examination is our own backyard.
If we find life on (e.g.) Europa, the possibility of life in other systems are increased by what?...
When I was a kid, at night, I'd look out my bedroom window at the meadow and woods beyond, and pray that one night, a UFO would land out there. (Yeah, I admit, it's a pretty geeky and pathetic image.) I was certain, that one day we would discover, or be discovered by intelligent alien life. I also thought that it would be a distinct possibility that in my lifetime we'd be routinely traveling to other planets, and maybe even other stars.

Now, I've come to believe that none of this will happen in my lifetime. This realization is one of my greatest disappointments.

Sigurd

09-23-2003, 07:40

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 23 2003,11:43)]I also thought that it would be a distinct possibility that in my lifetime we'd be routinely traveling to other planets, and maybe even other stars.

Now, I've come to believe that none of this will happen in my lifetime. This realization is one of my greatest disappointments.

I share your feelings m8. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

I have to admit I once considered the “Aliens = Gods” theories.
I have read some of van Däniken’s books, and all though some of it is interesting, I feel he is grasping for straws.

A.Saturnus

09-23-2003, 11:45

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 22 2003,23:17)]Likewise there are no empirical facts to preclude the existence of God. Evolution and gravity are certainly parts of nature's process, but their existence does not preclude the existence of a god. In fact, a believer might say that they are the very worksops of God -- how he does what he does. How can one dispute that? BTW, can anyone explain to me how gravity works?
We don`t need empirical fact to preclude the existence of the tooth fairy. Why should we need one for god? The fact that god`s existence is (slightly) more believable can be explained. The absence of evidence isn`t the evidence of absence but it`s enough to drop a hypothesis. This is done in science all the time. If there`s no evidence then the null-hypothesis counts, and this is in that case that god doesn`t exist.

Quote[/b] ]
This is the trap. Cold Fusion is a physical process, the existence or non-existance of which can be determined by scientific testing. God is not. Therefore the protocols of scientific experimentation and inference do not apply. And they won't until someone invents a God detection gadget like that thing with the lights in Ghostbusters.

Is transcendental cold fusion that is not a physical process any more believable?? Immunization again. If you say your hypothesis isn`t empirical testable you must accept rejection.

Quote[/b] ]These assumptions are not scientific reasoning, they are components of recreational monkeying with probability. Or, in other words gambling.

Wrong, they are statistics. That may be no hard empirical evidence but it`s much, much more than what speaks for god. It`s like lottery. Statistics don`t prove that you won`t win, but they prove that you better not expect it.

squippy

09-23-2003, 12:19

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 22 2003,11:12)]

Quote[/b] ] How is this different than the anti-God argument. To paraphrase you, if the best argument against God does not have complete evidence, then it is not a very good argument....The unpopularity of the anti-God argument occurs precisely because the evidence is lacking.

Thats true. So therefore I apply Ockhams Razor - which of these two solutions is most parsimonious with assumptions?

To introduce an omnipotent god is a much larger assumption than not to do so. Accordingly, the god hypothesis is weaker than the non-god hypothesis and can be abandoned.

Quote[/b] ] However, there are, and have been since humans first pecked pictures on a cave wall, billions of people that we would otherwise consider sane that believe they have seen, heard, or even talked to God, an angel, seen a miracle, or whatever.

Well, YOU may consider them sane, but *I* obviously do not. Its hearsay at best like any other hearsay.

Quote[/b] ] Eyewitness accounts have traditionally been the deciding factor in the outcome of trials in our society. Why are they not acceptible here? Why do you selectively call some eyewitness accounts heresay and rumor, and not others?

I don't do so selecteively - I would apply the sam criteria to everything. That is exactly what makes this particular claim equivalent to that of the Tooth Fairy.

Furthemore, I can parsimoniusly posit a reason for this phenomemenon - fraud.

Quote[/b] ]
Also, I read the Einstein quote. I am taking it out of context, but I am not misrepresenting what he said, at least intentionally.

OK. This is what he had to say on the matter:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. - Albert Einstein

Quote[/b] ] Alright, I'll ask you the same question I asked Rebel. Do you believe there is intelligent alien life somewhere else in the universe? I do. I'm almost certain of it. But to tell you the truth, there is no more evidence to support this than there is to support the existance of God.

I think there is an extremely high probability that there is other life in the universe.

Quote[/b] ] You seem to be very disturbed by my comparison of atheism and theism as both ultimately needing to rely on belief.

Correct. I assert that Atheism is the absence of belief, not merely a different type of belief.

Quote[/b] ]
From the nature of some of your posts, as well as the Tooth Fairy comment, I wonder if perhaps you look at theists as being foolish or stupid and so you find any comparison to their position and yours repugnant.

Thats a fair statement. What I mean more precisely, is that I strongly resent it when people tell me that I believe in atheism the same way they believe in god. I don't - I merely don't have a positive belief in god. As you saw with my cautious answer above, while I expect that there is other life in the universe, I would not go so far as to say that I BELIEVE it exists. In my analysis, its highly probable - so probable the absence of evidence is quite worrying. But if new data arrives tomorrow that undermines this idea, then I can abandon my position freely.

mandt

09-23-2003, 17:52

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Sep. 23 2003,05:45)]
Is transcendental cold fusion that is not a physical process any more believable?? Immunization again. If you say your hypothesis isn`t empirical testable you must accept rejection.

What the hell is transcendental cold fusion? You state that if you say your hypothessis isn't empirical testable you must accept rejection. An atheist hypothesis is that God does not exist. Fine. Show me some empirical evidence.

Wrong, they are statistics. That may be no hard empirical evidence but it`s much, much more than what speaks for god. It`s like lottery. Statistics don`t prove that you won`t win, but they prove that you better not expect it.[/quote]

What statistics? Show me one single fact or piece of statistical evidence that supports the notion that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. there is none. You can't. Your time would be better spent on handicapping the ponies.

Quote[/b] ]We don`t need empirical fact to preclude the existence of the tooth fairy.

This is a loaded comparison. Nevertheless, we find it easy to preclude the existence of the tooth fairy, not because of any empirical evidence, but rather the stigma that is attached, that in fact you are attaching to it, by the cultures we live in. That is that to believe in the tooth fairy is insane. Alright, so I'll bite. The fact that you feel that you do not need empirical fact to preclude the existance of the tooth fairy, is your prejudice. Still, I offer that there is at least some circumstantial evidence that suggests the existance of a god. And we use evidence based on circumstances all the time in our every day lives. Why then would it be inadmissable in only this case?

[/QUOTE]The fact that god`s existence is (slightly) more believable can be explained.
Quote[/b] ]

How?

[QUOTE]The absence of evidence isn`t the evidence of absence but it`s enough to drop a hypothesis. This is done in science all the time. If there`s no evidence then the null-hypothesis counts, and this is in that case that god doesn`t exist.

That's where you stray. The null-hypothesis is not a negative hypothesis. As you said, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The absence of evidence is just that, no evidence. Any conclusion you draw from that is a leap of faith. Oh, it may be a very safe and practical leap, but nevertheless it is a leap of faith.

Now, if you decide to make that leap, fine. I think it's a pretty safe leap.

However, it's not safe enough for me. At least not yet.

Portuguese Rebel

09-23-2003, 18:09

I think the bottom line in all this is that agnostics give, at start, more crdibility to the there is a god possibility than atheist do. Atheists level the there is a god hypothesys with the there are [insert weird stuff here] hypothesys, in the sense that this has none or very little credibility. Agnostics place the there is a god hypothesys a little higher in the scale of probability.

Hence the different conclusions:

Atheist- No proof, i'll say it does not exist

Agnostic- No proof, i don't know.

It all depends on the credibility you give to that initial hypothesys.

mandt

09-23-2003, 19:07

Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 23 2003,12:09)]I think the bottom line in all this is that agnostics give, at start, more crdibility to the there is a god possibility than atheist do. Atheists level the there is a god hypothesys with the there are [insert weird stuff here] hypothesys, in the sense that this has none or very little credibility. Agnostics place the there is a god hypothesys a little higher in the scale of probability.

Hence the different conclusions:

Atheist- No proof, i'll say it does not exist

Agnostic- No proof, i don't know.

It all depends on the credibility you give to that initial hypothesys.

Quote[/b] ]I think the bottom line in all this is that agnostics give, at start, more crdibility to the there is a god possibility than atheist do. Atheists level the there is a god hypothesys with the there are [insert weird stuff here] hypothesys, in the sense that this has none or very little credibility. Agnostics place the there is a god hypothesys a little higher in the scale of probability.

Right. That's more or less it. I would describe it a little differently, from my point of view, I try to start with a level playing field. In my case, I am torn between the apparent ability for the universe to run itself without a god, and the apparently reliable accounts over thousands of years that there is a god.

That puts me smack dab in between theists, who place greater emphasis on the apparently reliable accounts of God's existance at the expense of the universe's apparent ability to run itself without a god; and an athiest who places greater emphasis on the universe's apparent ability to run itself without a god, at the expense of apparently reliable accounts of God's existence. Hopefully, I have confused you all with this last statement http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

mandt

09-23-2003, 19:44

[QUOTE=Quote ]Thats true. So therefore I apply Ockhams Razor - which of these two solutions is most parsimonious with assumptions?

To introduce an omnipotent god is a much larger assumption than not to do so. Accordingly, the god hypothesis is weaker than the non-god hypothesis and can be abandoned.

Who says one is weaker than the other? You? If that works for you, fine, as long as you recognize that from the start your conclusions are founded on assumptions and your own personal prejudices. That's okay, we all operate under the same restrictions. However, do not assume for an instant that what you are describing here is an objective thought process.

Quote[/b] ]Well, YOU may consider them sane, but *I* obviously do not. Its hearsay at best like any other hearsay.

So, From your statment here, am I to conclude that you consider some 95% of the world including leaders, scholars, researchers, teachers, and psychiatrists, to name a few insane?

Also, that every eyewitness who ever testified at a trial, is providing nothing more than hearsay? Tell me something. How do the courts in your country even function?

Quote[/b] ]
I don't do so selecteively - I would apply the sam criteria to everything. That is exactly what makes this particular claim equivalent to that of the Tooth Fairy.

You do? So does that mean that you NEVER consider eyewitness testimony as legitimate criteria for anything?

Quote[/b] ]Furthemore, I can parsimoniusly posit a reason for this phenomemenon - fraud.

You're going to have to explain this one to me.

Quote[/b] ]OK. This is what he had to say on the matter:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. - Albert Einstein

Yeah. This is Einstein's response to reaction to his original statement/statements. That's fine. However, one thing that literally jumps out at me, is that he deliberately comes up short of saying, I believe that God does not exist. In fact, he is careful to use the term personal God, suggesting his opinions reagrding a particular interpretation of God.

Quote[/b] ]I think there is an extremely high probability that there is other life in the universe.

Based on what data? There is no empirical evidence to indicate that any kind of life, let alone intelligent life exists anywhere but here on earth. Yet, you are willing to apply a different criteria to this question than to the God question. Doesn't this contradict your earlier statement?

Quote[/b] ]Thats a fair statement. What I mean more precisely, is that I strongly resent it when people tell me that I believe in atheism the same way they believe in god. I don't - I merely don't have a positive belief in god. As you saw with my cautious answer above, while I expect that there is other life in the universe, I would not go so far as to say that I BELIEVE it exists. In my analysis, its highly probable - so probable the absence of evidence is quite worrying. But if new data arrives tomorrow that undermines this idea, then I can abandon my position freely.

Nobody is telling you how or what to believe. I'm only pointing out that considering the absence of empirical evidence to support either argument, both atheists and theists must make something of a leap of faith to come to the conclusion they do.

Either you believe God exists, or you believe God doesn't exist. The key word in each statement is believe. You can reword the sentance any way you want, but you will only be playing with semantics.

Agnostics, while sharing the views of both groups cannot quite believe in either position.

There' is no moral advantage any of these preferences. That's all they are.

Portuguese Rebel

09-23-2003, 22:55

Quote[/b] ]Agnostics, while sharing the views of both groups cannot quite believe in either position.

There are agnostics, then there are agnostics. Agnostics are an heterogeneous bunch. Agnosticism can go from the cristian who is not absolutely sure to the almost atheist who cannot make up his mind due to lack of evidence.

mandt

09-23-2003, 23:49

Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 23 2003,16:55)]
Quote[/b] ]Agnostics, while sharing the views of both groups cannot quite believe in either position.

There are agnostics, then there are agnostics. Agnostics are an heterogeneous bunch. Agnosticism can go from the cristian who is not absolutely sure to the almost atheist who cannot make up his mind due to lack of evidence.
Well, heck which am I Reb? Am I an agnostic? Or an agnostic? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Actually, I think I'm more the latter as you explain it.

But that's very true. I kind of envision it as a sort of bell-curve with all of the varied agnostic types bunched in the middle, with a single, decided type at each end.

Well, I think that's that. I believe I'll be moving along. If I stay in this thread much longer, I am afraid that I will find myself making the ultimate decision. And to tell you the truth commiting to either prospect scares the bejesus outta me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Great debate guys. Thanks.

squippy

09-24-2003, 08:21

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 23 2003,11:52)][quote=A.Saturnus,Sep. 23 2003,05:45]

Now, if you decide to make that leap, fine. I think it's a pretty safe leap.

However, it's not safe enough for me. At least not yet.
Ther problem with your position, Mandt, is that the leap that you make - the assumption of gods existence - is much bigger and riskier. The atheist is still being more cauthious, more critical, than the theist.

squippy

09-24-2003, 08:53

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 23 2003,13:44)]

Quote[/b] ]
Who says one is weaker than the other? You?

Formal logic; William of Ockhams razor has been employed for hundrees of years now and is widely considered a good tool. A simple theory with few conditions is more likely to be true than a complex theory with many interdependant conditions.

Quote[/b] ]
If that works for you, fine, as long as you recognize that from the start your conclusions are founded on assumptions and your own personal prejudices.

Denied. I am using the tools that the modern world provides, the tools with which we develoepd this tehcnology and this power over the material world. I am applying logic.

Quote[/b] ]
That's okay, we all operate under the same restrictions. However, do not assume for an instant that what you are describing here is an objective thought process.

I don;t particularly that abyone can have an objective thought process. An it is precisely to counter that bias that tools like Ockhams razor are employed. Regardless of what I prefer, I must recognise a methodological preference for the simpler answer.

Quote[/b] ]
So, From your statment here, am I to conclude that you consider some 95% of the world including leaders, scholars, researchers, teachers, and psychiatrists, to name a few insane?

No, becuase the vast majority of those will NOT claim to have seen a burning nush or angels ascending to heaven in clouds. Those who do claim to have such I lump in the same category as UFO conspiriologists.

Quote[/b] ]
Also, that every eyewitness who ever testified at a trial, is providing nothing more than hearsay? Tell me something. How do the courts in your country even function?

You will note the presence of material evidence in courts. As it happens, I have just been on jury service, and we acuitted a case precisely becuase the only evidence presented was hearsay. The prosecution had provided no supporting evidence and hence we felt there was no case to answer.

Quote[/b] ]
You do? So does that mean that you NEVER consider eyewitness testimony as legitimate criteria for anything?

Legitimate criteri for some things, yes. an absolute statement of truth, no. For example, police testing has revealed that a sizable proportion of witnesses to an event will get major elements - like the colour of the perpetrators shirt - wrong, even if interviewed only minutes later. A recent TV programme on exactly this aspect of perception demonstrated that they could march a man in a gorrilla suit across the screen and the viewer would not necessarily notice. Perception is not exact, and some qualifiaction does need to be applied. Thus, science does not proceed on the basis of claim or hearsay - science proceeds on the basis of independant reproducibility.

Quote[/b] ]
You're going to have to explain this one to me.

The phenomonenon I address is religious groups appealing for sup-oprt to spread the faith. What we have here is non-productive citizens asking to be supported, and they cite gods work as justification.

I think it is more parsimonious to see the claim of gods instruction to be fraudulent than that god actually exists. These people clearly have a motive for trying to persuade you to part with your money - their own wellbeing. Religion is fraud.

Quote[/b] ]
Yeah. This is Einstein's response to reaction to his original statement/statements. That's fine. However, one thing that literally jumps out at me, is that he deliberately comes up short of saying, I believe that God does not exist. In fact, he is careful to use the term personal God, suggesting his opinions reagrding a particular interpretation of God.

Perhaps true... but as I pointed out eralier, even as a committed Atheist, I never say I BELEIVE that god does not exist... I say that the probability that god exists is ridiculously small and therefore it is not worth thinking about.

Quote[/b] ]
Based on what data?

A whole sequence of experiments into the origin of life, and the work of Frank Drake and Enrico Fermi. We have good reason to believe that life occurs naturally and spontaneously in appropriate substrates, and therefore no reason to think that life on earth is special. Indeed, I am hoping there will be life in the iced-over oceans of Europa, one of Jupiters moons. Drakes famous equation postulated as many as 10,0000 technical civilisations existing in our galaxy alone, right now. Fermi's famous Paradox asks so where are they then?.

Quote[/b] ]
There is no empirical evidence to indicate that any kind of life, let alone intelligent life exists anywhere but here on earth. Yet, you are willing to apply a different criteria to this question than to the God question. Doesn't this contradict your earlier statement?

No. You are mistaken in thinking that I have applied different criteria. I think the PROBABILITY that there is life elsewhere is high; I specifically did NOT say I BELIEVE in extraterrestrial life, and my assesment of that probability arises from my knowldge of empirical data extant to date on the developent of life, the development of solar systems and planetary geology.

Quote[/b] ]
Nobody is telling you how or what to believe. I'm only pointing out that considering the absence of empirical evidence to support either argument, both atheists and theists must make something of a leap of faith to come to the conclusion they do.

I refute that. The question of empirical evidence for or against god is laregly irreleveant if a suitable explanation for CLAIMS about god can be provided. And have provided one: fraud.

Quote[/b] ]
Either you believe God exists, or you believe God doesn't exist.

So YOU believe. But I do not assume such extreme positions without any basis. I don't THINK god exists, and I think that people who claim that god exists are lying (including to themselves).

Quote[/b] ]
The key word in each statement is believe. You can reword the sentance any way you want, but you will only be playing with semantics.

Exactly. And I say, no belief step is involved in rejecting god. I do not assert that I know or beleive that god exists. I assert that I have no reason to think that god does exist, or to behave in any way based on the presumption of gods existance. I think its much more probable that people have made these claims about god for fraudulent reasons.

Quote[/b] ]
Agnostics, while sharing the views of both groups cannot quite believe in either position.

No, agnostics fail to distinguish between qualitiatively distinct forms of data. And thus, as I pointed out, if they hold to the god hypothesis as probable just becuase it was reported, then they must also be agnostic about bigfoot, becuase that has alsoi been reported, and UFO's, because they too have been reported, sometimes by reputable witnesses. I find the inability of agnostics to apply their principles consistently.... interetsing.

Quote[/b] ]
There' is no moral advantage any of these preferences. That's all they are.

Morality is wholly irrelevant to the question, yes.

A.Saturnus

09-24-2003, 18:32

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 23 2003,18:52)]What the hell is transcendental cold fusion? You state that if you say your hypothessis isn't empirical testable you must accept rejection. An atheist hypothesis is that God does not exist. Fine. Show me some empirical evidence.
The atheist hypothesis isn`t that god does not exist. That`s what we try to make clear all the time. I`ve invented transcendental cold fusion to counter your immunization. Let`s say TCF is like cold fusion except that it`s not a physical process. I can now state the hypothesis that TCF exists. Of course you wouldn`t accept this hypothesis just for the reason that I say that I`m really sure that TCF exists. It would be insane to do so. You would assume that the null-hypothesis TCF doesn`t exist is correct unless you see some evidence for it`s existence. More generally, as long as there isn`t any evidence for a hypothesis x exists, it`s negation is accepted. This is normal in science and in common sence. The reason for this is that assuming the existence of x increases the number of entities required to explain the phenomenological world. If this is done without necessity (thus without evidence), it contradicts Occam`s razor. If you don`t apply Occam`s razor to god, you are using a double standard. You may not realize this but you use a double standard.

Quote[/b] ]What statistics? Show me one single fact or piece of statistical evidence that supports the notion that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. there is none. You can't. Your time would be better spent on handicapping the ponies.

Ever heard of the Drake formula?

Quote[/b] ]This is a loaded comparison. Nevertheless, we find it easy to preclude the existence of the tooth fairy, not because of any empirical evidence, but rather the stigma that is attached, that in fact you are attaching to it, by the cultures we live in. That is that to believe in the tooth fairy is insane. Alright, so I'll bite. The fact that you feel that you do not need empirical fact to preclude the existance of the tooth fairy, is your prejudice.

Nonsense. We preclude the existence of the tooth fairy because of the lack of evidence. I`m not denying that culture can have a influence on the scientific process of testing hypothesis, but in the end scientific theories are accepted or not only on basis of empirical evidence. What you argue here is quite close to the social strong program and other relativistic crab.

Quote[/b] ]Still, I offer that there is at least some circumstantial evidence that suggests the existance of a god. And we use evidence based on circumstances all the time in our every day lives. Why then would it be inadmissable in only this case?

The fact that god`s existence is (slightly) more believable can be explained.
Quote[/b] ]

How?

What evidence of god are you speaking of? The fact that people say they know that god exists? That is explainable without assuming god`s existence. Religion is a strong meme-complex and there are people who profit from it`s existence. It has emotional advantages for many to believe in god. Ok, if I ask someone the way to the station in a town unknown to me, I`m ready to use circumstancial evidence. But only because of the triviality of the problem and the absence of alternatives. If my doctor gives me a drug, then I`m not satisfied if he thinks it will help and not harm me. I need to know that this drug has been scientifically tested on it`s effect.

Quote[/b] ]That's where you stray. The null-hypothesis is not a negative hypothesis. As you said, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The absence of evidence is just that, no evidence. Any conclusion you draw from that is a leap of faith. Oh, it may be a very safe and practical leap, but nevertheless it is a leap of faith.

Now, if you decide to make that leap, fine. I think it's a pretty safe leap.

However, it's not safe enough for me. At least not yet.

In the case of hypothesis like x exists the null-hypothesis is the negation. What else could it be? What you call leap of faith is done by scientists every day. And it`s common in normal life. Applying Occam`s razor isn`t a leap of faith, in the contrary. Not applying it on the question of god`s existence is double-standard.

Teutonic Knight

09-24-2003, 20:09

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Sep. 19 2003,05:42)]
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Sep. 18 2003,13:16)]

Quote[/b] ] you must be a very sad depressed person then...

Why? I'm not the one in fear of an imaginary god.

Quote[/b] ] if that's it, then what's it all for?

I don't know. Sadly religion does not explain that either

Quote[/b] ] so let's found an anrchy and just have lots of fun before we die

Now thats is a good idea.

Quote[/b] ] Let's all become rapists if that's what makes us happy, because hey, you have to enjoy yourself cause once you die that's it....

No, not really. Its not in my interest to haver this kind of thing going on all over the place - it might happen to me. Besides, the god worshippers only restrain themselves out of fear, not morality.

Quote[/b] ] Or maybe I should be an evil dictator who slaughters millions of people just for the fun of it because hey, you have to enjoy yourself cause once you die that's it....

Thats hardly in my interest if I'm one of the millions, isn't it? But its still more .likely to be done by a beleiever, all they have to do is imagine god told tem it was ok. We see that all the time in the bible.

Quote[/b] ] and don't say the burden of proof is on the believer cause it's not, you guys are the ones who are challenging an established belief, so therefore you have the burden of proof

Baloney. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are claiming to be in contact with an invisible pixie - prove it or withdraw the claim.

Quote[/b] ] so prove that there is no eternal life and that God(s) do not exist....

the very idea is primna facie ridiculous. Without any supporting evidence, I don't even need to address it.
well my religion does, I don't know which one you're talking about that doesn't give a reason for life http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ] so let's found an anrchy and just have lots of fun before we die

Now thats is a good idea.

I take it you're being sarcastic, why is this not plausible for you? If I have nothing directing my morality, then why can't I do whatever I want?

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ] Let's all become rapists if that's what makes us happy, because hey, you have to enjoy yourself cause once you die that's it....

No, not really. Its not in my interest to haver this kind of thing going on all over the place - it might happen to me. Besides, the god worshippers only restrain themselves out of fear, not morality.

ah, it's not in your interest so people shouldn't be able to do it? why not? maybe because its.....wrong?

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ] Or maybe I should be an evil dictator who slaughters millions of people just for the fun of it because hey, you have to enjoy yourself cause once you die that's it....

Thats hardly in my interest if I'm one of the millions, isn't it?

but why should I give a sh*t what's in your interest because I'm an evil dictator and that's how I get my kicks
If I wish to watch you eaten by dogs as a form of entertainment, then who's to say I shouldn't?

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ] and don't say the burden of proof is on the believer cause it's not, you guys are the ones who are challenging an established belief, so therefore you have the burden of proof

Baloney. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are claiming to be in contact with an invisible pixie - prove it or withdraw the claim.

no, there has never been an atheistic society before, so therefore you are challenging an established belief. Hence you have the burden of proof, I'm presenting something that is 5,000 years old, you are presenting something totally new to our society and culture. So I say to you, prove it or withdraw your claim.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ] so prove that there is no eternal life and that God(s) do not exist....

the very idea is primna facie ridiculous. Without any supporting evidence, I don't even need to address it.

I can only assume that you can't prove your point? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

(I apologize for my tardiness, I hadn't realized you'd replied to my post)

A.Saturnus

09-24-2003, 21:08

TK, how established a belief is really irrelevant for epistemological questions.

Teutonic Knight

09-24-2003, 22:48

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Sep. 24 2003,15:08)]TK, how established a belief is really irrelevant for epistemological questions.
yeah, but I'm talking about burden of proof m8

Parmenio

09-24-2003, 23:50

If we recognise that authority is not morality, and that morality is in our own interests, then 'forming an anarchy and having fun while we can' sounds like a very promising proposition.

Those who trade in fear and wish to impose authority upon you, probably wouldn't approve.

mandt

09-24-2003, 23:56

[QUOTE=Quote ]Formal logic; William of Ockhams razor has been employed for hundrees of years now and is widely considered a good tool. A simple theory with few conditions is more likely to be true than a complex theory with many interdependant conditions.

I'd be careful employing Ockham in discussions such as this. Ockham was a theologian who made clear that this philosophy (not tool) didn't work in the same way with faith as it did with science. He believed in fact that cicnece was ill-equipped to make any reliable assumptions about faith.

Quote[/b] ]Denied. I am using the tools that the modern world provides, the tools with which we develoepd this tehcnology and this power over the material world. I am applying logic.

That logic being?

Quote[/b] ]I don;t particularly that abyone can have an objective thought process. An it is precisely to counter that bias that tools like Ockhams razor are employed. Regardless of what I prefer, I must recognise a methodological preference for the simpler answer.

We agree, except the Ockham's razor part. Ockham's razor is really nothing more than providing some structure to the way in which we make assumptions. It does not make the data we are using to make these assumptions any more rigorous.

Quote[/b] ]No, because the vast majority of those will NOT claim to have seen a burning nush or angels ascending to heaven in clouds. Those who do claim to have such I lump in the same category as UFO conspiriologists.

Heh. I almost changed my comment that you are responding to here, but decided not to. I agree, anyone who who says they have seen the burning bush on the corner of Broadway and 42nd st. at high noon, must be talking about the street vendor with the flaming k-bobs. But I'm not talking about those guys. Many people of faith believe they have had, or even regularly have some kind of real religious experience, a feeling, a sixth-sense, and event they feel could have been a small miracle. You and I might be quick to rule most of this out as the power of suggestion, but many believe these experiences are real. And they aren't nuts.

Quote[/b] ]You will note the presence of material evidence in courts. As it happens, I have just been on jury service, and we acuitted a case precisely becuase the only evidence presented was hearsay. The prosecution had provided no supporting evidence and hence we felt there was no case to answer.

Good point. Let me ask this. Was the witness credible? If he was, can I assume you aquitted because, despite the fact that a credible witness declared with certainty that he had seen a crime, you were reluctant to convict without empirical evidence? Fine. I likely would have done the same. However, can you say with absolute certainty, that the defendant was innocent. That he did not commit the crime? No, of course not, unless you are psychic. But considering the evidence put before you, you made the best guess you could. And that, if I understand you correctly has been your position all along, that you use the evidence at hand. My position is not that you were wrong, or that you were making frivolous judgements, but rather that after you examined all the evidenc that was available, you made an assumption. And I think assumptions are all that can be made about things such as this.

Quote[/b] ]Legitimate criteri for some things, yes. an absolute statement of truth, no.

Holy cow I'mnot saying that it's absolute. Not at all, we do not differ on this.

Quote[/b] ]For example, police testing has revealed that a sizable proportion of witnesses to an event will get major elements - like the colour of the perpetrators shirt - wrong, even if interviewed only minutes later. A recent TV programme on exactly this aspect of perception demonstrated that they could march a man in a gorrilla suit across the screen and the viewer would not necessarily notice. Perception is not exact, and some qualifiaction does need to be applied. Thus, science does not proceed on the basis of claim or hearsay - science proceeds on the basis of independant reproducibility.

I don't dispute this. I've had a little experience in this area myself. And you are absolutely right about science, though I will argue that much science, especially theoretical science includes a sizeable component of, assumption and hypothesis.

Quote[/b] ]The phenomonenon I address is religious groups appealing for sup-oprt to spread the faith. What we have here is non-productive citizens asking to be supported, and they cite gods work as justification.

I think it is more parsimonious to see the claim of gods instruction to be fraudulent than that god actually exists. These people clearly have a motive for trying to persuade you to part with your money - their own wellbeing. Religion is fraud.

Heh. I sorta agree with you. I agree that organized religion has done a lot of bad, but it has also done a lot of good too. But on the whole, I don't think that organized religion, at least the big ones have as much to do with God and faith as most people think. Pass the donation basket.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps true... but as I pointed out eralier, even as a committed Atheist, I never say I BELEIVE that god does not exist... I say that the probability that god exists is ridiculously small and therefore it is not worth thinking about.

Oh for goddsakes (heh, I had to say it) Somehow I didn't pick that up. We share almost exactly the same position. I might swing a little more over to the believing side when my boss wants to see me, or I have a doctor's exam, but normally, I see it in exactly the same way as you.

Quote[/b] ]A whole sequence of experiments into the origin of life, and the work of Frank Drake and Enrico Fermi. We have good reason to believe that life occurs naturally and spontaneously in appropriate substrates, and therefore no reason to think that life on earth is special. Indeed, I am hoping there will be life in the iced-over oceans of Europa, one of Jupiters moons. Drakes famous equation postulated as many as 10,0000 technical civilisations existing in our galaxy alone, right now. Fermi's famous Paradox asks so where are they then?.

Look, I'm an evolutionist. I firmly believe in all that same stuff. I just like to entertain the notion that the processes of nature could very well be the processes of GOd. Just because we can prove something scientifically, doesn't mean that God had no hand in it. Alright, I know this might be an unorthodox notion, but bear with me.

When Newton invented/discovered calculus, it was hailed that he had deciphered the language of God. When I read this I thought, ya know, it can be imagined that the natural laws by which we live are the very mechainism by which God works. Why would it have to be miracles. And to tell you the truth, even though we can explain every single step of the human reprorduciton process, isn't it still, kind of miraculous? It blows me away.

Anyway, if you don't like my mechanism theory, that's okay, a lot of people don't. The Catholics and fundamentalist Christians I've bounced it off of haaaaate it.

Drake's formula is fun to play around with. But it is also very dated now. Recent revelations about the relationship between the Earth and moon and how life started on earth changes a lot. We should really start a thread on this. It'll be fun, and it might be a topic you and I won't squabble over.

Quote[/b] ]No. You are mistaken in thinking that I have applied different criteria. I think the PROBABILITY that there is life elsewhere is high; I specifically did NOT say I BELIEVE in extraterrestrial life, and my assesment of that probability arises from my knowldge of empirical data extant to date on the developent of life, the development of solar systems and planetary geology.

That's pretty much along the same lines as I look at it. Only I don't see a differentiation here. Drakes formula assumes that because some things we have here also exist there, so must other things. Well, for lively discussions as we have here, or for working on recreational probability problems that's fine. But all you can really do with this is make assumptions that are a little better qualified than blind faith. In other words, you are making an educated guess.

Quote[/b] ]I refute that. The question of empirical evidence for or against god is laregly irreleveant if a suitable explanation for CLAIMS about god can be provided. And have provided one: fraud.

What fraud?

Quote[/b] ]
Either you believe God exists, or you believe God doesn't exist.

So YOU believe. But I do not assume such extreme positions without any basis. I don't THINK god exists, and I think that people who claim that god exists are lying (including to themselves).

I dind't say I beleived in anything here. But you do assume to an extreme position. You don't believe. By defintion, believing and not believeing are the exteme positions. The I don't knows are the moderate postion.

Do you really think that people who believe in God are lying? Is it even possible to lie about something you believe in?

Quote[/b] ]Exactly. And I say, no belief step is involved in rejecting god. I do not assert that I know or beleive that god exists. I assert that I have no reason to think that god does exist, or to behave in any way based on the presumption of gods existance. I think its much more probable that people have made these claims about god for fraudulent reasons.

Squip amigo, isn't this just a little fancy footwork? Are you afraid to say I believe God does not exist? Why? Because I'll tie in that belief connection which you find so repugnant. I'm not trying to dig you here. I really don't understand why this connection bothers you so much. Because the more I read your stuff here the more it looks to me that but for this one issue, there is little here that we significantly disagree on.

Quote[/b] ]No, agnostics fail to distinguish between qualitiatively distinct forms of data. And thus, as I pointed out, if they hold to the god hypothesis as probable just becuase it was reported, then they must also be agnostic about bigfoot, becuase that has alsoi been reported, and UFO's, because they too have been reported, sometimes by reputable witnesses. I find the inability of agnostics to apply their principles consistently.... interetsing.

Squip, let's drop the posturing here. I can't speak for all agnostics. I can only speak for me. I can't always distinguish good data from weak data, but I usually can. You've read what I have said about my opinions on ET, and the other issues you mention. None of it is what you describe here. So, unless you force this issue, I am not going to rehoe that road. But as far as consistancy is concerned, I've asked the same question of you. Why is it you think that niether one of us thinks the other is looking at the data consistently?

mandt

09-25-2003, 00:41

[QUOTE=Quote ]The atheist hypothesis isn`t that god does not exist. That`s what we try to make clear all the time... If you don`t apply Occam`s razor to god, you are using a double standard. You may not realize this but you use a double standard.

Okay. Now I understand what you are talking about. Of course there's a double standard. There are the standards by which science is conducted, and the standards by which faith is based. The problem arrises when you try to apply the standards of one to the other. They don't work that way. Even Occam was careful to point that out. In fact, as I mentioned to squippy, I'm not sure Occams razor is the best way for you to make your case here.
but let me make this clear. I do not dispute your science.

Quote[/b] ]Ever heard of the Drake formula?

Yup. It's fun. But it's not science. It's a numbers game based on assumption. And As I have mentioned in the other post, recent revelations concerning the creation of the earth and moon, make it obsolete.

Quote[/b] ]Nonsense. We preclude the existence of the tooth fairy because of the lack of evidence. I`m not denying that culture can have a influence on the scientific process of testing hypothesis,

Then it isn't nonsense?

Quote[/b] ]but in the end scientific theories are accepted or not only on basis of empirical evidence.

That's true. That is unless you are employing Occam's Razor.

Quote[/b] ]In the case of hypothesis like x exists the null-hypothesis is the negation. What else could it be? What you call leap of faith is done by scientists every day. And it`s common in normal life. Applying Occam`s razor isn`t a leap of faith, in the contrary. Not applying it on the question of god`s existence is double-standard.

I deal with the philosphy of Occam's Razor in my work every day. You guys keep throwing it out like it's some sort of law. It isn't it's a philosphy, a way to look at something. We don't actually cite Occam's razor in our reports, though we will often imply it to give our assumptions some teeth. Here it is the way I see it. If there are two possible solutions, the answer is probably the one that is most elegant, or simple. One problem with the razor when applied to belief is the determination of which option is simplest is often subjective.

So, If you and I were walking in the desert of Iraq, and saw dozens of big 100' round holes in the ground, we might assume that they were dug by hand, or were bomb craters. If we were to apply Occam's razor, we might conclude that they were bomb craters.

The next day we go out, and what do we see but dozens of American GIs digging holes in the ground looking for Saddam's gold.

I hope this didn't sound facetious. I was just pointing out that Occam's razor should be relied upon more as a guideline than a law. And like I said, it's perfectly acceptible as a guideline, and as you have said, if you don't, you have some explaining to do.

But Occam himself believed his razor did not apply to belief in the same way it applied to science.

It's interesting to hear you guys referring to it. While we use the philosphy of thought all the time, I haven't heard it directly cited in years. Ah, the fond memories come flooding back. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

A.Saturnus

09-25-2003, 12:02

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 25 2003,01:41)]Okay. Now I understand what you are talking about. Of course there's a double standard. There are the standards by which science is conducted, and the standards by which faith is based. The problem arrises when you try to apply the standards of one to the other. They don't work that way. Even Occam was careful to point that out. In fact, as I mentioned to squippy, I'm not sure Occams razor is the best way for you to make your case here.
but let me make this clear. I do not dispute your science.
The only reason for this double standard is the need to believe or to don`t have your believes destroyed. It`s sentimental. As rationalist I cannot accept it.

Quote[/b] ]
Yup. It's fun. But it's not science. It's a numbers game based on assumption. And As I have mentioned in the other post, recent revelations concerning the creation of the earth and moon, make it obsolete.

Science is most of the time a numbers game based on assumption. This recent revelations make only the values of Drake put into it obsolete. I`ve heard no one ever make a reasonable objection against the formula itself. Recent scientists (I don`t agree with) have claimed that we must conclude that there are no other intelligent species in our galaxy. They often word it: We are alone, so it gets easily misunderstood.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Nonsense. We preclude the existence of the tooth fairy because of the lack of evidence. I`m not denying that culture can have a influence on the scientific process of testing hypothesis,

Then it isn't nonsense?

I think you didn`t understand what I was saying.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]but in the end scientific theories are accepted or not only on basis of empirical evidence.

That's true. That is unless you are employing Occam's Razor.

The use of the razor is in no contradiction with sensible scientific working.

Quote[/b] ]I deal with the philosphy of Occam's Razor in my work every day. You guys keep throwing it out like it's some sort of law. It isn't it's a philosphy, a way to look at something. We don't actually cite Occam's razor in our reports, though we will often imply it to give our assumptions some teeth. Here it is the way I see it. If there are two possible solutions, the answer is probably the one that is most elegant, or simple. One problem with the razor when applied to belief is the determination of which option is simplest is often subjective.

So, If you and I were walking in the desert of Iraq, and saw dozens of big 100' round holes in the ground, we might assume that they were dug by hand, or were bomb craters. If we were to apply Occam's razor, we might conclude that they were bomb craters.

The next day we go out, and what do we see but dozens of American GIs digging holes in the ground looking for Saddam's gold.

I hope this didn't sound facetious. I was just pointing out that Occam's razor should be relied upon more as a guideline than a law. And like I said, it's perfectly acceptible as a guideline, and as you have said, if you don't, you have some explaining to do.

But Occam himself believed his razor did not apply to belief in the same way it applied to science.

It's interesting to hear you guys referring to it. While we use the philosphy of thought all the time, I haven't heard it directly cited in years. Ah, the fond memories come flooding back. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

The importance of Occam`s Law is often unestimated. About Ockham himself, he lived in the middle-ages and the church took the razor as a reason to excommunicate him (though the actual reason was different. He simply might have defended himself. But that`s irrelevant. The razor is fundamental. We apply it every day without noticing it. Without it science would not be possible. It is of course not a procedure to find a proof, only to make a rational discrimination between theories.
BTW, I have a lot of science books that refer to it constantly (with good reason).

Portuguese Rebel

09-25-2003, 14:23

Ockham must be proud of himself. Almost all great minds that lived in the middle ages had problems with the church (before you guys say it, yes i'm fully aware it was the catholic church and they aren't real christians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ).

squippy

09-25-2003, 14:47

Quote[/b] ] We agree, except the Ockham's razor part. Ockham's razor is really nothing more than providing some structure to the way in which we make assumptions. It does not make the data we are using to make these assumptions any more rigorous.

I definitely agree it does not change the data. But what it allows us to do is to frame the data more coherently, and to select which avenues of investigation are likely to be worthy. Given the limits on material being, we cannot investigate every claim ever made by anyone – somehow we have to winnow, to separate the ideas that probably have some truth from those that are just rambling. That does not mean that they actually have any truth – but at least we wasted less time and effort pursuing dead ends.

Quote[/b] ] Many people of faith believe they have had, or even regularly have some kind of real religious experience, a feeling, a sixth-sense, and event they feel could have been a small miracle. You and I might be quick to rule most of this out as the power of suggestion, but many believe these experiences are real. And they aren't nuts.

I don’t know exactly. Lets say I suspect that what they have experienced is some sort of electrochemical reaction which, subjectively, feels like this presence. I think there are a number of these… like the apocraphyl “feeling of being watched”. Paranoia is good in a animal that is preyed upon, and think this is an atavism, not a sixth sense. So no, I don’t thin this is supporting evidence for the supernatural – a naturalist explanation still requires fewer, and more reasonable, assumptions.

Quote[/b] ] Good point. Let me ask this. Was the witness credible? If he was, can I assume you aquitted because, despite the fact that a credible witness declared with certainty that he had seen a crime, you were reluctant to convict without empirical evidence? Fine. I likely would have done the same. However, can you say with absolute certainty, that the defendant was innocent. That he did not commit the crime? No, of course not, unless you are psychic. But considering the evidence put before you, you made the best guess you could. And that, if I understand you correctly has been your position all along, that you use the evidence at hand. My position is not that you were wrong, or that you were making frivolous judgements, but rather that after you examined all the evidenc that was available, you made an assumption. And I think assumptions are all that can be made about things such as this.

In point of fact, we-the-jury felt that the crime, in all probability, happened exactly the way the plaintiff described. And I really mean that – with perhaps two exceptions, we though it had happened. But there was insufficient PROOF that it happened to justify applying the sanction of the state. It is BECAUSE the only decision that we could come to, in the absence of evidence, would be an assumption, that we declined to endorse the state sanction. It’s innocent until PROVEN guilty, not innocent until PROBABLY guilty.

Under Scottish law, there is a third option: the Jury can say the case is “not proven” and require the prosecution to re-present their case. If that option had been available to us, we would have used it. But under the circumstances, without solid proof one way or another we could not set the machinery of the state in motion and say that we had seen justice done.

Quote[/b] ] I don't dispute this. I've had a little experience in this area myself. And you are absolutely right about science, though I will argue that much science, especially theoretical science includes a sizeable component of, assumption and hypothesis.

Yes, I fully agree, but I say that is exactly why we have to be very very careful about the assumptions we do make, and the reasons we make them.

Quote[/b] ] When Newton invented/discovered calculus, it was hailed that he had deciphered the language of God. When I read this I thought, ya know, it can be imagined that the natural laws by which we live are the very mechainism by which God works. Why would it have to be miracles. And to tell you the truth, even though we can explain every single step of the human reprorduciton process, isn't it still, kind of miraculous? It blows me away.

Sure. This is sometimes describes as Deism, if I understand correctly. Or the Hidden God. It’s plausible… but has its own problems. After all, if god is that hidden, and operates so mechanistically, is there any value to be derived from labelling that ‘being’ god?

If god = natural law, then the interventionist god who revealed himself to the israelites is still hopelessly improbable. There was no mighty hasnd that turned lots wife into a pillar of salt. So having pushed god this far back into our world, pretty much all the reports of gods alleged actions must be abandoned, and the god that any given religion describes considered to be non-existant.

That’s why I often say that I find the question of the existence of god unimportant. Either god is an interventionist, who should be identifiable via phenomenon, or god IS the phenomenon and there is no point in thinking of them in a theistic framework. Either way, the question becomes irrelevant.

Quote[/b] ] That's pretty much along the same lines as I look at it. Only I don't see a differentiation here. Drakes formula assumes that because some things we have here also exist there, so must other things. Well, for lively discussions as we have here, or for working on recreational probability problems that's fine. But all you can really do with this is make assumptions that are a little better qualified than blind faith. In other words, you are making an educated guess.

Exactly so. And because I know them to be assumptions, not proof, I qualify my actions toward them. If someone came around with a collection tin to help the Raelian mission on Earth, I will decline. If someone says that unless I take the one and only J’bok into my heart as a saviour or I’m doomed, I will decline. None of this necessarily means I am making a hard statement to the effect that I deny the existence of Raelians or J’bok – only that insufficient evidence exists for me to believe the claim.

Quote[/b] ] What fraud?

People who do not labour in their own support asking for support from others.

Quote[/b] ] I didn't say I believed in anything here. But you do assume to an extreme position. You don't believe. By definition, believing and not believing are the extreme positions. The I don't knows are the moderate position.

I disagree: “by definition” is a dangerous assumption J
Saying I do NOT believe, is not identical to saying I believe the opposite of the proposition. Saying I am an a-theist is not the same as saying I am an anti-theist. All it says is that I do not accept theism, do not accept the claims to the existence of god. Of course, this implies I think god does not exist – but I don’t accept that I have a BELIEF in the non-existence of god. If this is true, then I must be said to disbelieve everything of which I am ignorant, everything I find dubious or false. And at this point the “belief” has become so tenuous as to be descriptive of nothing.

As with the court case, having a given opinion one way or another is not so important as what your opinion directs you to actually do. The theist position is that what I should do is worship god; as an a-theist I do not worship god because I don’t particularly think there is anything there to be worshipped. And I will indeed act on the assumption of the non-existence of god (i.e. I am not worried about the fate of my immortal soul as I see no reasons to worry about this alleged item).

Quote[/b] ]Squip amigo, isn't this just a little fancy footwork? Are you afraid to say I believe God does not exist? Why? Because I'll tie in that belief connection which you find so repugnant. I'm not trying to dig you here. I really don't understand why this connection bothers you so much. Because the more I read your stuff here the more it looks to me that but for this one issue, there is little here that we significantly disagree on.

Because theists use this in a manner I find dishonest and repugnant. Creationists, for example, either through ignorance or dishonesty, claim that evolution is “only a theory”, and because it is “only a theory” it is equivalent to the “theory” that god exists. But this is not so – to get to the point of being a theory, evcolution has had to demonstrate its capacity to explain and predict natural phenomenon. This is an abuse of the term theory and a conflation of what that specifically means in the jargon and what it means colloquially. Similarly, “belief” is used to designqte Faith by theists; especially in the Christian tradition in which “proof denies faith”. Faith is specifically belief WITHOUT reasons or DESPITE reasons. So when a theist alleges that I have as much faith/belief in the no-existance of god as they have in the exostance of god, they are attributing to me a mode of thought I find grotesque and have done my level best to eradicate. And I resent that they attribute to me the sloppy thinking in which they wallow. There is little value in the word “belief” if it is not to assert a strong position, a faith that occurs without reference to the evidence. But my position IS based on reference to the evidence, andf thus it is an OPINION, not a belief. People get upset when their BELIEFS are challenged, fewer get upset when their OPINIONS are challenged. Opinion allows the possibility, the self-recognition, that the opinion might be wrong. Belief does not.

Quote[/b] ] Do you really think that people who believe in God are lying? Is it even possible to lie about something you believe in?

Yes and yes.

Quote[/b] ] But as far as consistancy is concerned, I've asked the same question of you. Why is it you think that niether one of us thinks the other is looking at the data consistently?

Because everyone, consciously or otherwise, seeks to reify their own position as rational an normal. Hence the theistic attempt to claim that atheism is qualitatively indistinct from theism; this allows them to claim equivalence of belief, an equivalence I reject. I think agnostics are doing the same – I consider their position basically irrational, and I am angered by the condescension with which they dismiss a position I think is much more rational. As above, the agnostic – by admitting they do not have knowledge of god – has no reason to even consider the god hypothesis in the first place. Why then do they do so? Why, especially, do they privilege the god hypothesis and not the BigFoot hypothesis? This seems to me to be left over sentimentality, a sort of wish that god would be there despite the absence of any indication that god is. And when challenged, agnostics default to the same argument that thgists use, the equivalence of “beliefe”, as if any position on any matter could only be “belief” rather than opinion.

mandt

09-25-2003, 16:55

Okay Squip. We're good on everything but a couple of issues near the end.

[QUOTE=Quote ]Because theists use this in a manner I find dishonest and repugnant. Creationists, for example, either through ignorance or dishonesty, claim that evolution is “only a theory”, and because it is “only a theory” it is equivalent to the “theory” that god exists.

Let's forget organized religion here. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. How is a person being dishonest if they sincerely believe in a god? You would call Mother Theresa dishonest? How are they ignorant? There's a lot smarter and better educated people than you and me that believe in God, my friend. Creationists in general simply don't believe that science has the capacity to explain or prove God. But most believers are not strict Creationists anyway.

Quote[/b] ]But this is not so – to get to the point of being a theory, evcolution has had to demonstrate its capacity to explain and predict natural phenomenon. This is an abuse of the term theory and a conflation of what that specifically means in the jargon and what it means colloquially.

You're going to have to run this one by me again.

Quote[/b] ]Similarly, “belief” is used to designqte Faith by theists; especially in the Christian tradition in which “proof denies faith”. Faith is specifically belief WITHOUT reasons or DESPITE reasons. So when a theist alleges that I have as much faith/belief in the no-existance of god as they have in the exostance of god, they are attributing to me a mode of thought I find grotesque and have done my level best to eradicate.

Well, on some level, there is similarity in the way the two groups come to their conclusions. I don't know why you see this as a moral judgement, unless you see believers as being basically inferior to you intellectually or other wise. Was Ockham a lyer, intellectually inferior? He was a theologist. Just by trying to prove or disprove something, or to support an assumption or belief, both sides are necessarily starting down the same path, and at points throughout the process use the same thought methods to come to differing conclusions. I grant you, the differences FAR outweigh the similarities, but there are still similarities.

Quote[/b] ]But my position IS based on reference to the evidence, andf thus it is an OPINION, not a belief. People get upset when their BELIEFS are challenged, fewer get upset when their OPINIONS are challenged. Opinion allows the possibility, the self-recognition, that the opinion might be wrong. Belief does not.

Alright Squip, you say tomato, and I say tom-ah-to. But it is my humble opinion that you are doing nothing more here than to twist the language to fit your argument, which by the way, I find odd that you feel you have to make. So, to break the deadlock, I've pulled out my trusty ol' copy of The Merriam Webster Dictionary, and I have looked up the definition of opinion, and here is what I have found:

Opinion: 1. a belief stronger than impression, and less strong than positive knowledge. 2. Judgement. 3. a formal statement by an expert after careful study.

Let's look up belief:

Belief: 1. confidence, trust. 2. something (as a tenet or creed) believed syn conviction, opinion, persuasion, sentiment.

So, unless we have a colloquial language gap here, which is possible, or that we are deciding to ignore universally accepted definitions described in universally accepted sources, I think your argument that belief and opinion are demonstrably different concepts just went south for the winter. They are the same. In your own words, your conclusions are your opinion, or in other words, your belief. And that's been my point all along.

squippy

09-26-2003, 10:35

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 25 2003,10:55)]

Quote[/b] ] Let's forget organized religion here.

No, we cannot forget organised religion. If there were not organised relkigion, then most people would never even consider the possibility of there being a god at all, IMO. It is only bercuase this fiction is vigorously propagated that it appears as a subject for discussion at all.

Quote[/b] ] How is a person being dishonest if they sincerely believe in a god?

They have zero phenomenological evidence of this god. How can they assert belief in something they cannot experience? They are indeed dishonest, or perhaps a better word would be delusional. And yes, this does include Mother Theresa, the Pope, Billy Graham, Joan of Arc et al.

Quote[/b] ] Creationists in general simply don't believe that science has the capacity to explain or prove God.

No, Creationists argue that the world was created in 6 days EXACTLY like the biible says. And this means they have to rationalise away things like dinosaur fossils. These people are actively seeking to undermine science, knowledge, and the Enlightenment.

Quote[/b] ] You're going to have to run this one by me again.

Most people, when they say, well its just a theory, mean that something is just an idea, a thought, a possibility.

Wehn a scientist says that something is a Theory, it means that it has previously been a hypothesis, and has demonstrated it capacity to predict phenomenen and answer questions about thye real world. It may still, later, b=e succceeded by a better theory.

Creationists in certain US locations hav arranged for textbooks on evolution to be lablled to indicate that they are just a theory and argue that they should be able to teach their theory of Creaitonism alongside, and with equal weight, to the theory of evolution - because its just a theory.

What they are doing is deliberately conflating the common usage of the term theory with the strict jargonistic term theory as it is used in the formal scientific method. They are deliberatly misrepresenting the strength of their superstitions, and falsely undermining the evidential strength of the ToE.

And this process is exactly analogous to the abuse of the word belief to describe an atheists position that the existance of god is unproven.

Quote[/b] ] I don't know why you see this as a moral judgement

Where have I presented this as a moral judgement?

Quote[/b] ] Was Ockham a lyer, intellectually inferior? He was a theologist.

No; becuase as above, the phenomenon of religion i a SOCIAL one, and if Ockham has been indoctrinated into the faith since he could walk then it ius underiuprising that he holds on to these superstitions.

And Isaac Newton thought that his theological works would make him famous, not his works on physics. Fortunately, despite the fact that he was a theist, his scintific work was methodologically sound, and indepedently reproducible. So, as a holder to the sicentific method, regardless of what I think of Newtons moral condition or state of mind, if his decsription of observed pehonmenon is accurate and verifiable, then thats all there is to it.

Quote[/b] ] I grant you, the differences FAR outweigh the similarities, but there are still similarities.

No I deny that. Chritsianity, anyway, starts indoctinating children in belief, and proclaims belief to be a virtue I say belief is a failing, and to say that you believe in something is only to admit you don't undertsand it well enough to have an informed opinion. Religion is anti-intellectual, anti-science, and tries to make peoiple into obedient little slaves rather than rational, thinking beings.

Quote[/b] ] So, to break the deadlock, I've pulled out my trusty ol' copy of The Merriam Webster Dictionary, and I have looked up the definition of opinion, and here is what I have found:

A lot of collquial iuses, becuase a dictionary is obliged to show them. So fair enough - I will withdraw my alleged distnction between belief and opinion, and refer you instead to hypothesis and theory as outlined above.

Quote[/b] ] In your own words, your conclusions are your opinion, or in other words, your belief. And that's been my point all along.

I deny it; it is wholly wrong to equate actively believeing, despite evidence to the contrary, with merely passively being unpersuaded. And the claim that they ARE the same, I say, only demonstrates the contempt that theists hold for rational enquiry. It is exactly the same as the American patriots who cannot seem to undestand that someone might disagree with their actions without hating America, or the Isaelis who cannot unsderstand Jews who oppose Isaerli terrorism and therefore claim they are self-haters as some sort of psychological pathology. Its simple slander, an attempt to rationalise away the need to address a contrary opinion.

A.Saturnus

09-26-2003, 14:04

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 25 2003,17:55)]So, unless we have a colloquial language gap here, which is possible, or that we are deciding to ignore universally accepted definitions described in universally accepted sources, I think your argument that belief and opinion are demonstrably different concepts just went south for the winter. They are the same. In your own words, your conclusions are your opinion, or in other words, your belief. And that's been my point all along.
I`m quite surprised mandt. I would have thought a person who has such obvious philosophical education as you knows better than to quote Merriam Webster Dictionary to settle a possible dispute about words. What you find in a normal dictionary is irrelevant for a philosophical discussion. Philosophically, the terms 'belief' and 'opinion' have meanings far apart. Did you read my explanations on the term as I suggested? Don`t you think I made a philosophically important distinction there?

Sigurd

10-03-2003, 03:02

What happened to my all-time favorite thread??

I just have to say guys, that this is probably one of the best reads I have done in these forums.
The discussion here, all the more prove that using the current, all too narrow three part definition; theist – agnostic – atheist, is way insufficient to describe someone’s beliefs.
There are probably as many beliefs as there are people on this earth.
I introduced a little broader but still too narrow definition by combining the words theist – atheist and gnostic – agnostic making four instead of three categories.

Quote[/b] (mandt @ Sep. 24 2003,08:49)]I kind of envision it as a sort of bell-curve with all of the varied agnostic types bunched in the middle, with a single, decided type at each end.

Maybe introducing something like a mandt-curve would be a good idea.
And speaking of your belief you’d say; I am a 4,6 on the mandt-curve... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

A.Saturnus

10-03-2003, 20:34

I guess Gregoshi has a Ph.D. in philosophy by now, reading through all this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
It must be a shock for him to see this thread on the first page again. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Gregoshi

10-04-2003, 02:47

Thanks to this topic, I believe in everything and nothing now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

I have to admit I was quite apprehensive about this topic when it first appeared, but with few exceptions, this discussion is a fine testimonial to the great patrons we have in these forums. A pat of the back and a tip of the hat to everyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

biguth dickuth

10-09-2003, 04:21

It's been a wonderful reading guys. You have examined the issue by many sides and while reading i constantly got new arguments but when i got to the end i discovered that it was finally all said.

So, instead of writing the same things again, i'll say that. as far as my opinion on the topic is concerned, i'm with squippy. I think he said it all.....

Therefore, i'm an atheist and although i've been raised as an orthodox christian and in a very faithful environment, i got to totally despise the official carriers of religion, the church.

I actually think (it's my opinion, not a belief) that there is no need for a god to exist in the world, anyway.

I really don't want to think about how many people died inspired by such silly superstitions.....

Papewaio

10-09-2003, 04:51

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Sep. 25 2003,06:02)]The importance of Occam`s Law is often unestimated. About Ockham himself, he lived in the middle-ages and the church took the razor as a reason to excommunicate him (though the actual reason was different. He simply might have defended himself. But that`s irrelevant. The razor is fundamental. We apply it every day without noticing it. Without it science would not be possible. It is of course not a procedure to find a proof, only to make a rational discrimination between theories.
BTW, I have a lot of science books that refer to it constantly (with good reason).
Fundamental tool yes. Science (edit) without (end edit) Occam's Razor though is quite possible.

Occam's Razor is a tool of logic and hence useful in the arsenal of a scientist.

However it is merely a way of sorting things into a logical order of investigation.

The most elegant or simple solution will tend to be the solution... still have to go out and prove the solution.

You could just as easily use Papewaio's Sledgehammer
'Start with the most complex solution hypothesis and test it to see if it works'.

What Occam's razor does is reduce the number of iterations it takes to get to the viable solution. Pape's Sledgehammer (outside of Quantum Physics, Demolition Derbies and Republican Diplomacy) would in all likely hood take the longest route and most energy to find the viable solution.

However at the end of the day. Pape's Sledge would still find the same solution as well as Occam's. Science does not rely on Occam's razor to work. Occam's razor is just a catalyst to find proofs faster. In so doing it also reflects on something quite poetic and meaningful about our universe. That we as humans can see the relationships and find them in whe whole elegant and logical.

A.Saturnus

10-09-2003, 21:50

Sorry, Pape, but I think you`re wrong here. The picture you draw of science here implies that we actually could test all possible hypotheses. We have to make a selection. Your sledgehammer can`t work because there is no most complex explanation. W.V.O. Quine has pointed that out in his criticism of Popper. Imagine all observations are points on a Cartesian coordinate system, now our explanation for them is a graph through all points. You can define the most simple solution, but you can`t define the most complex one, because there is a infinite number of them. No matter what new observations you add, there will always be an infinite number of graphs. Thus, by empirical studies alone you can never come to an definite answer. You must use a criterium to find the most acceptable graph. It can be shown that we are best off with the simplest one. Of course, that`s no proof that the simplest must be true, since every new point could falsify the simple graph.

Papewaio

10-10-2003, 02:40

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Oct. 09 2003,15:50)]Sorry, Pape, but I think you`re wrong here. The picture you draw of science here implies that we actually could test all possible hypotheses. We have to make a selection. Your sledgehammer can`t work because there is no most complex explanation. W.V.O. Quine has pointed that out in his criticism of Popper. Imagine all observations are points on a Cartesian coordinate system, now our explanation for them is a graph through all points. You can define the most simple solution, but you can`t define the most complex one, because there is a infinite number of them. No matter what new observations you add, there will always be an infinite number of graphs. Thus, by empirical studies alone you can never come to an definite answer. You must use a criterium to find the most acceptable graph. It can be shown that we are best off with the simplest one. Of course, that`s no proof that the simplest must be true, since every new point could falsify the simple graph.
Most situations have a finite solution set.

Occam's Razor could just as easily be replaced with Holme's Rule of the Improbable:

To paraphrase 'Once you eliminate the Impossible, the answer is what is left, no matter how Improbable'.

Occam's Razor makes Science quicker. By the fact that one choses the simplist answer would normally implie that you are looking at a finite set to begin with. Simple is after all a relative item... there has to be something more complex.

Out of that set if I choose the most outlandish first and then can easily discount them down to the most simple. I still could get to the essential scientific principals, although normally at a much slower rate.

A.Saturnus

10-10-2003, 18:03

Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Oct. 10 2003,03:40)]Most situations have a finite solution set.
If you want to answer very specific hypotheses, yes. But more general explanations, like the Theory of Relativity have infinite alternatives. The finiteness of possible explanations is often created by implicitly ruling out the extreme complex possibilities. If I want to know why the sun seems to emitt less neutrinos than the theory predicts, I don`t assume they are stolen by gnomes. This explanation is possible but ruled out beforehand (even unconsciously). Of course, I haven`t used Occam`s Razor explicitly to do this, but it is still the logical tool I would need if some asks me why I haven`t considered this hypothesis. You could say Occam`s Razor is already installed into the cognitive working of our mind.

Quote[/b] ]Simple is after all a relative item

Yes and no. It can be very difficult (or even impossible) to define which of two or more theories is more simple, but there`s still a 'simple end' (so maybe a fuzzy one) to the class of possible explanations, but usually not a 'complex one'.

Anti-christ

10-11-2003, 15:33

Citera[/b] (katar @ Sep. 17 2003,09:21)]
Citera[/b] ]So, do you the athist believe against a god as firmly as those that believe that there is one (As far as you are aware)? And As a second, why is this? I have heard it said that many atheists hate god for not existing - is this true?

good questions.

iv`e considered myself an atheist since i was 15, 20 years ago LOL. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

to the first part of your question; i vere slightly in that direction, but don`t like the fact that i do (we`re talking inner turmoil here&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif as i consider it irrational to get that worked up about something that doesn`t exist (my view only ) .

to answer the second part; no, i can`t hate something that is not there, though i can hate what it`s followers have done to humanity down the ages, in it`s many names.

just look at the Crusades in the game, all done in it`s name.

since my change in viewpoint i have never been tempted to run back to any religion, even in extremis.

this is all very cathartic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
here here

Shigawire

10-11-2003, 17:00

I previously considered myself an atheist. That is, until I realized the paradoxial nature of it. Atheism is the belief/assumption that there is no higher power (whatever that is). Now, when you so firmly believe in something, be it God or atheism, it's still a belief. Atheism is, in effect, a religion in itself.

I therefore consider myself an agnostic. Simply because I don't know. Though, I'm extremely sceptic as to the existence of a SENTIENT omnipresent God. It is this sentient and rather vague thing that most Monotheists believe in.

I will have more faith in the men that are using logic in order to determine things unknown. Suffice to say, I have way more faith with internationally acclaimed scientists than I have with propagandaist believers/prophets. Prophets that are trying to brainwash me by repeating their message.

I also don't see the need to believe in some mumbojumbo to be in awe of the marvellous existence of matter and life.
The very existence of the universe is in fact god enough to me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I keep thinking about the universe. The universe does sort of fit into the definition we have of the vague God. (minus the sentient bit)

The universe, being the sum of all existance is:
Omniscient- All knowledge that there is is contained within the universe,
Omnipotent- All power that exists is present in the universe
Omnipresent- The universe exists everywhere at once.
Perfect- being the sum and entirety of everything, can it be anything else?

A.Saturnus

10-11-2003, 19:03

Quote[/b] (Shigawire @ Oct. 11 2003,18:00)]I previously considered myself an atheist. That is, until I realized the paradoxial nature of it. Atheism is the belief/assumption that there is no higher power (whatever that is). Now, when you so firmly believe in something, be it God or atheism, it's still a belief. Atheism is, in effect, a religion in itself.
Well, you didn`t read the whole thread, right? We have defined atheism to death now. Nevermind...

Quote[/b] ]Perfect- being the sum and entirety of everything, can it be anything else?

Can a universe containing Windows XP be perfect? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

biguth dickuth

10-12-2003, 12:15

Quote[/b] ]You could say Occam`s Razor is already installed into the cognitive working of our mind.

I agree. It's possible that it is in fact a product of the evolution process which our species underwent in order to become a Homo sapiens sapiens. It has probably unconsiously led the steps of human curiosity long before Occam or anyone else defined it.

And if this seems to come in contrast with the growth of religion (because religion is irrational: not seeing, not touching, feeling and analysing but just believing) just think that for a man in the prehistoric age to think of a thunder god as the cause of the thunder was much simpler than realising that there is something, such as an electric cargo or electricity in total.

At that time that was the most simple and relieving explanation to the cause of his fear, as a god (most gods are presented to be thinking like humans) could be given some presents (sacrifizes) in order to remain calm. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

biguth dickuth

10-12-2003, 12:21

Quote[/b] ]Can a universe containing Windows XP be perfect?

Well, it is certainly more perfect than a universe containing Windows 98.......LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Since our universe containes both of them, what the heck is it anyway...??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

Duke John

10-12-2003, 12:49

I have one question for anyone who believes in God. I asked this question at a believer once and he got stuck at one time. Now let's assume that the other religions do not exists since they all contradict each other and say that the Bible is the truthfull account of history.

The Bible says that a couple of thousand years ago, Earth was created. (At that time, people did not know of other planets so excuse their non-existance). Now we have found numerous archeological prove of humans in the past. Let's go back in time;
- Medieval times, sure that has existed
- Dark ages, of course
- Classical age, in that time Jesus was born
- The time of the Egyptians...? Already 8000 BC, do you still believe they existed or were their pyramids sand castles of God?
- Now we're reaching into the prehistorical age, certainly no evidence of Christianity as that believe arose much later, do you still believe in the existance of this age?
- Dinosaurs, now surely you must find this nonsense and all the bones and footprints are a joke from God.

Now if you believe in the scientific birth of Earth, then you reject the Bible since you don't believe in the creation of Earth by God, which you must admit was one of his greatest deeds. Now the question is:

How far do you go back in time before you say stop: And at this time, God created the Earth.?

And when you answer, please explain why you reject the evidence of civilizations before that date.

Cheers, Duke John

Sigurd

10-12-2003, 17:39

Do not expect to get an answer on these boards, as the more religious patrons seem to avoid these topics.
IMO there are too many heavy guns on one side.
But hey, you never know. One full blood believer might wander unawares into this Lion’s den, where BIG dark figures armed to the teeth with heavy calibre weaponry lurks, waiting for the perfect prey.

You rise however an interesting question, when did it all start?
The bible (OT) as we have it today, is a legacy from Moses (the writer? of the first five books including the Creation theory). Is this the first account of this theory? You know, six days god laboured and on the seventh, he rested. This is what? an account from about 1300 BC...

When God appeared to Moses (as described in the Bible), he claimed to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ok, do accounts exist written by these men?
I have a book claimed to be written by the hand of Abraham, and is from papyrus scrolls predating Moses by about 700 years. It is interesting that the same creation theory is recorded on these scrolls with slight deviations. It talks about Gods (plural) not God (singular). It also contains very distinct indications of advanced knowledge of planetary systems and revolutions of planets as time measurement.
I have to admit that it might very well be a hoax, but the thought of having anything older than the bible is intriguing.
In fact there are so many records found that it will take more than 10 000 years (with the current speed) to translate them all.
Some have writings without translation keys (you know like the stone that gave us the key to the Egyptic hieroglyphics).
Ancient Egypt is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) civilizations we have and according to Abraham, the descendants from Ham (sometimes called Caanan) that came with Noah’s ark, and his daughter Egyptus and her oldest son called (surprise) Pharaoh.
Where did these stories originate? Are there older records then Abraham? Well if the scrolls are in fact from 2000 BC as suggested the Great pyramids and the Old Empire predates them by 1000 years.
There is one theory that I find interesting: ‘The Lost Civilization theory’ by Robert Bauval, Adrian Gilbert and Graham Hancock, where they claim that great monuments of our planet were built to commemorate a certain event in 10500 BC, even the Gaza pyramids was built depicting from the air, the stellar constellation of Orion’s belt.
If you roll back the stellar movement (by software) to around 10500 Orion’s belt is overlapping the pyramid formation.
Hancock and others might be way off in this but I find their thoughts provoking and out of the box. I just hope we can find (if there were such an advanced civilisation back before 10500BC) any written evidence from such a civilization and read their “creation theory”. Maybe the ancient Egyptians has some of these texts hidden somewhere.

A link on this (http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/egypt/lost.html)

PS Slightly off topic, but you triggered some thoughts I had and I had to share... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

A.Saturnus

10-12-2003, 23:45

Well, the pyramids are surely orientated to Orion. Orion was very important in Egyptian religion. The pharaos were supposed to travel to Sirius (Osiris) when they die and the Belt of Orion directs to Sirius. Strange that they supposedly knew that Sirius is a twin star system. However, the origin of Judaism is probably the first known monotheism, the Aton-religion of Pharao Echnaton. I could imagine that Moses - or Mo-Sis, a common name in old Egypt - was one of his priests, who brought this religion to Palestine after Echnaton`s downfall. If this is true than we can expect quite some parts of Judaism to be the invention of Echnaton. But that`s of course all speculation.
BTW, what do you mean with heavy guns? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Sigurd

10-13-2003, 05:28

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Oct. 13 2003,08:45)]BTW, what do you mean with heavy guns? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
You know... the ones that gives atheism its name, like yourself. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

A.Saturnus

10-13-2003, 13:37

Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Oct. 13 2003,06:28)]
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Oct. 13 2003,08:45)]BTW, what do you mean with heavy guns? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
You know... the ones that gives atheism its name, like yourself. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Honestly, I don`t have any guns... only a two-handed sword, a scimitar and a set of knifes. No theist must fear any serious harm in these discussions, only occasional minor wounds maybe that heal pretty quick.
Also, if you wake up and find any atheist bite wounds on your body, please inform the mods immediately so they can take every necessary step to hush things up.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Sigurd

10-13-2003, 15:09

...said the wolf lying under the bed sheet. And my ears are big so that I can hear you better... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Pindar

10-13-2003, 21:55

Duke John,

Let's see if I can answer a little.

Quote[/b] ]The Bible says that a couple of thousand years ago, Earth was created. (At that time, people did not know of other planets so excuse their non-existance).

The creation account is not clear on an exact time of the creation. The six days, found in the Genesis account, was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word typically translated as day has other meanings. That same word can also mean an era or period. It is possible to understand the text as dividing creation into six distinct periods. Evangelical Christians who believe in Biblical inerrancy do take the English translation of day to mean a 24hr period however.

On a side note: the abrahamic text (1950 B.C.) that Fafnesbane referred to does claim that diety created a vast number of other worlds prior to this one.

Regarding the origins of things. I think the standard dates are the following:

The Peneteuch (the oldest section of the Bible) written by Moses is dated around 1250 B.C. I don't believe it is claimed this knowledge was origianl to Moses. Rather, he recorded events so the House of Israel would have a standard history whereby to understand/remember its origins and covenants.

You may recall Moses' father-in-law, a Jethro of Middian, was a priest who in fact, gave Moses his first priesthood authority. Suggesting a divine involvement with peoples other than the house of Israel (Jethro is supposed to be a descendant of Ishmael, Abraham's other son).

Joseph (sold into Egypt) is dated around 1750 B.C. during the Hykksos (sp) period.

Abraham is typically dated around 1950 B.C. I believe this is based on references to the city of Ur. This would also correspond to the time of Melchezedek the Prince of Salem who Abraham recognized and paid tithes to.

The Flood has no specified date. There was an Anglican Bishop (17th Century) who tried to back date all of the events recorded in the Bible. I think, he put the Flood at around 3000 B.C. This is also the general time taken for the rise of the Summerians and the Egyptians. There are newer theories that aruge for a much older Egypt, but these views are not the consenses view yet.

The Antediluvian period refers to a variety of peoples (the City of Enoch etc.) but does not give exact dates save for the ages of various individuals.

The Bible does not mention the length of time in the Garden of Eden nor the exact number of years between the Fall of man and the flood.

Evangelical views have often followed the afore mentioned Anglican Bishop's chronology that works backward to come up with a general date for the Fall at around 4000 B.C.

Others would argue that Biblical chronology is unclear. The believer is not bound to a specific date as much as to a general chronology. Events such as the Fall, the Flood etc. are thought to have happended as real histoical events but the exact when remains uncertain. This position would therefore be untroubled if information arose suggesting Christ's birth was more accurately in 4 B.C. (this view exists) or that Moses actually lived in 1550 B.C. Rather, the focus is in on sequence.

For a believer, Neanderthal cave paintings dated around 30,000 B.C. or dinosaur bones require either a rejection of the dating mechanism, a rejection of uniformitarianism, or the belief that these creatures also correspond to, and occupied space at the same time as, the revealed chronology.

Sigurd

10-14-2003, 16:10

Wow Pindar, A great post... are you a scholar of some sort?
What did you offer Mime as payment for drinking at his well? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I would love discussing Abraham and/or the Antediluvian period in detail with you... I guess you would know more than I would, as I am merely a babe when it comes to being a (hobby)scholar of ancient texts. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Too bad I have exams coming up which restricts my presence here.
I allow for a couple of minutes every day putting my mind off the books.

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Oct. 13 2003,08:45)]The pharaos were supposed to travel to Sirius (Osiris) when they die and the Belt of Orion directs to Sirius. Strange that they supposedly knew that Sirius is a twin star system.
I thought Sirius was the embodiment of Isis and that the stellar constellation Orion was Osiris, brother and consort to Isis. I might be mistaken since it have been some time since I read about this... also wasn’t there an African tribe claiming Sirius to be a tri-star system? And that sometime in the 90’s some French scientist suggested a third (brown dwarf)star in the system...

[edit]: Ah, I remember you. You were the one that threw Liahona at me...

Teutonic Knight

10-14-2003, 16:16

Awesome post Pindar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Pindar

10-14-2003, 21:22

Quote[/b] ] I remember you. You were the one that threw Liahona at me...

hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

A.Saturnus

10-14-2003, 21:32

Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Oct. 14 2003,17:10)]I thought Sirius was the embodiment of Isis and that the stellar constellation Orion was Osiris, brother and consort to Isis. I might be mistaken since it have been some time since I read about this...
More probably I confused them. I might ask my mother, she knows quite a lot of Egyptian history and mythology.

Sigurd

10-15-2003, 16:49

I was going to say something more about the Antediluvian period and the Sumerian civilization in Mesopotamia, and looking through my books a came over one American writer Zecharia Sitchin, a “friend” of Eric von Däniken and self proclaimed expert in cuneiform tablets.

He,he I had a good laugh reading this and would like to share...

He has a controversial hypothesis that he claims are the results from decades of studying ancient texts in the Middle East and especially ancient Sumerian texts. The hypothesis are that of Ancient Astronauts… in his book(s) The Earth Chronicles the following can be found...
Oh, Nibiru is the 12th planet in our solar system, popularly named Planet X

Events Before the Deluge
- Earth Chronicles

450,000 years ago on Nibiru, a distant member of our solar system, life faced slow extinction as the planet's atmosphere erodes. Deposed by Anu, the ruler Alalu escapes in a spaceship and finds refuge on Earth. He discovers that Earth has gold that can be used to protect Nibiru's atmosphere.

445,000 years ago - Led by Enki, a son of Anu, the Anunnaki land on Earth, establish Eridu -Earth Station I - for extracting gold from the waters of the Persian Gulf.

430,000 years ago - Earth's climate mellows. More Anunnaki arrive on Earth, among them Enki's half-sister Ninhursag, Chief Medical Officer.

416,000 years ago - As gold production falters, Anu arrives on Earth with Enlil, the heir apparent. It is decided to obtain the vital gold by mining it in southern Africa. Drawing lots, Enlil wins command of Earth Mission; Enki is relegated to Africa. On departing Earth, Anu is challenged by Alalu's grandson.

400,000 years ago - Seven functional settlements in southern Mesopotamia include a Spaceport (Sippar), Mission Control Center (Nippur), a metallurgical center (Shuruppak). The ores arrive by ships from Africa; the refined metal is sent aloft to orbiters manned by Igigi, then transferred to spaceships arriving periodically from Nibiru.

380,000 years ago - Gaining the support of the Igigi, Alalu's grandson attempts to seize mastery over Earth. The Enlilites win the War of the Olden Gods.

300,000 years ago - The Anunnaki toiling in the gold mines mutiny. Enki and Ninhursag create Primitive Workers through genetic manipulation of Ape woman; they take over the manual chores of the Anunnaki. Enlil raids the mines, brings the Primitive Workers to the Edin in Mesopotamia. Given the ability to procreate, Homo Sapiens begins to multiply.

200,000 years ago - Life on Earth regresses during a new glacial period.

100,000 years ago - Climate warms again. The Anunnaki (the biblical Nephilim), to Enlil's growing annoyance marry the daughters of Man.

75,000 years ago - A new Ice Age-begins. Regressive types of Man roam the Earth . Cro-Magnon man survives.

49,000 years ago - Enki and Ninhursag elevate humans of Anunnaki parentage to rule in Shuruppak. Enlil, enraged. plots Mankind's demise.

13,000 BC - Realizing that the passage of Nibiru in Earth's proximity will trigger an immense tidal wave, Enlil makes the Anunnaki swear to keep the impending calamity a secret from Mankind.

Events After the Deluge

11,000 BC - Enki breaks the oath, instructs Ziusudra/Noah to build a submersible ship. The Deluge sweeps over the Earth; the Anunnaki witness the total destruction from their orbiting spacecraft.
Enlil agrees to grant the remnants of Mankind implements and seeds; agriculture begins in the highlands. Enki domesticates animals.

10,500 BC - The descendants of Noah are allotted three regions. Ninurta, Enlil's foremost son, dams the mountains and drains the rivers to make Mesopotamia habitable; Enki reclaims the Nile valley. The Sinai peninsula is retained by the Anunnaki for a post-Diluvial spaceport; a control center is established on Mount Moriah (the future Jerusalem).

9780 BC - Ra/Marduk, Enki's firstborn son, divides dominion over Egypt between Osiris and Seth.

9330 BC - Seth seizes and dismembers Osiris, assumes sole rule over the Nile Valley.

8970 BC - Horus avenges his father Osiris by launching the First Pyramid War. Seth escapes to Asia, seizes the Sinai peninsula and Canaan.

8670 BC - Opposed to the resulting control of all the space facilities by Enki's descendants, the Enlilites launch the Second Pyramid War. The victorious Ninurta empties the Great Pyramid of its equipment.

8600 BC - Ninhursag, half-sister of Enki and Enlil, convenes peace conference. The division of Earth is reaffirmed. Rule over Egypt transferred from the Ra/Marduk dynasty to that of Thoth. Heliopolis built as a substitute Beacon City.

8500 BC - The Anunnaki establish outposts at the gateway to the space facilities; Jericho is one of them.

7400 BC As the era of peace continues, the Anunnaki grant Mankind new advances; the Neolithic period begins. Demigods rule over Egypt.

3800 BC - Urban civilization begins in Sumer as the Anunnaki re-establish there the Olden Cities, beginning with Eridu and Nippur.

3700 BC - Anu comes to Earth for a pageant. A new city, Uruk (Erech), is built in his honor; he makes its temple the abode of his beloved granddaughter Inanna/lshtar.

Kingship on Earth

3760 BC - Mankind granted kingship. Kish is first capital under the aegis of Ninurta. The calendar begun at Nippur. Civilization blossoms out in Sumer (the First Region).

3450 BC - Primacy in Sumer transferred to Nannar/Sin. Marduk proclaims Babylon Gateway of the Gods. The Tower of Babel incident. The Anunnaki confuses Mankind's languages. His coup frustrated, Marduk/Ra returns to Egypt, deposes Thoth, seizes his younger brother Dummies who had betrothed Inanna. Dummies accidentally killed; Marduk imprisoned alive in the Great Pyramid. Freed through an emergency shaft, he goes into exile.

3100 BC - 350 years of chaos end with installation of first Egyptian Pharaoh in Memphis.Civilization comes to the Second Region.

2900 BC - Kingship in Sumer transferred to Erech. Inanna given dominion over the Third Region; the Incus Valley Civilization begins.

2650 BC - Sumer's royal capital shifts about. Kingship deteriorates. Enlil loses patience with the unruly human multitudes.

2371 BC - Inanna falls in love with Sharru-Kin (Jargon). He establishes new capital city. Agate (Aka). Akkadian empire launched.

2316 BC - Aiming to rule the four regions, Jargon removes sacred soil from Babylon. The Marduk-Inanna conflict flares up again. It ends when Nergal, Marduk's brother, journeys from south Africa to Babylon and persuades Marduk to leave Mesopotamia.

2291 BC - Naram-Sin ascends the throne of Aka. Directed by the warlike Inanna, he penetrates the Sinai peninsula, invades Egypt.

2255 BC - Inanna usurps the power in Mesopotamia; Naram-Sin defies Nippur. The Great Anunnaki obliterate Agate. Inanna escapes. Sumer and Aka occupied by foreign troops loyal to Enlil and Ninurta.

2220 BC - Sumerian civilization rises to new heights under enlightened rulers of Lagash. Thoth helps its king Gudea build a ziggurat-temple for Ninurta.

2193 BC - Terah, Abraham's father, born in Nippur into a priestly-royal family.

2180 BC - Egypt divided; followers of Ra/Marduk retain the south; Pharaohs opposed to him gain the throne of lower Egypt.

2130 BC - As Enlil and Ninurta are increasingly away, central authority also deteriorates in Mesopotamia. Inanna's attempts to regain the kingship for Erech does not last.

The Fateful Century

2123 BC - Abraham born in Nippur.

2113 BC -Enlil entrusts the Lands of Shem to Nannar; Ur declared capital of new empire. Ur- Nammmu ascends throne, is named Protector of Nippur. A Nippurian priest-Terah, Abraham's father - comes to Ur to liaison with its royal court.

2096 BC -Ur-Nammu dies in battle. The people consider his untimely death a betrayal by Anu and Enlil. Terah departs with his family for Harran.

2095 BC -Shulgi ascends the throne of Ur, strengthens imperial ties. As empire thrives, Shulgi falls under charms of Inanna, becomes her lover. Grants Larsa to Elamites in exchange for serving as his Foreign Legion.

2080 BC -Theban princes loyal to Ra/Marduk press northward under Mentuhotep I. Nabu, Marduk's son, gains adherents for his father in Western Asia.

2055 BC -On Nannar's orders, Shulgi sends Elamite troops to suppress unrest in Canaanite cities. Elamites reach the gateway to the Sinai peninsula and its Spaceport.

2048 BC - Shulgi dies. Marduk moves to the Land of the Hittites. Abraham ordered to southern Canaan with an elite corps of cavalrymen.

2047 BC -Amar-Sin (the biblical Amraphel) becomes king of Ur. Abraham goes to Egypt, stays five years, then returns with more troops.

2041 BC -Guided by Inanna, Amar-Sin forms a coalition of Kings of the East, launches military expedition to Canaan and the Sinai. Its leader is the Elamite Khedor-la'omer. Abraham blocks the advance at the gateway to the Spaceport.

2038 BC -Shu-Sin replaces Amar-Sin on throne of Ur as the empire disintegrates.

2029 BC -Ibbi-Sin replaces Shu-Sin. The western provinces increasingly to Marduk.

2024 BC -Leading his followers, Marduk marches on Sumer, enthrones himself in Babylon. Fighting spreads to central Mesopotamia. Nippur's Holy of Holies is defiled. Enlil demands punishment for Marduk and Nabu; Enki opposes, but his son Nergal sides with Enlil. As Nabu marshals his Canaanite followers to capture the Spaceport, the Great Anunnaki approve of the use of nuclear weapons. Nergal and Ninurta destroy the Spaceport and the errant Canaanite cities.

2023 BC -The winds carry the radioactive cloud to Sumer. People die a terrible death, animals perish, the water is poisoned, the soil becomes barren. Sumer and its great civilization lie prostrate. Its legacy passes to Abraham's seed as he begets -at age 100- a legitimate heir: Isaac.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif That’s an alternative chronology of the earth for you...