I'm Atheist-Agnostic. Why? I have no fucking clue if there's a god or not. I don't know how this universe works for sure, nobody does, we just have a pretty good guess.

You see, atheism is the belief that there is no god. If you say "I'm totally sure there is no god", you have no real proof..... god has never been DISproven, nor has god been proven.

When I say god, i mean a higher being, or ANYTHING.

So therefore, Atheist-Agnosticism is the only religion of someone who truly believes in science.

Shut up.

+1 post count

Noone's ever disproven Hubbard's work either, be sure to leave room for the Thetans

This thread gets made at least once a week.

Edit: To explain: To disbelieve in something you see no evidence for requires no faith. Few atheists claim to have to proof that God is nonexistent, though I would agree that they are probably in error if they do; most compare God to Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot).

Well technically, atheism means "Without God" - and it isn't too far of a stretch to imagine that alot of atheists would choose to be "without God", even in the unlikely, near-impossible, highly improbable event that God was proven. Some people just do not subscribe to the idea that holding to a Higher Power is beneficial to their well-being, and some people are quite certain that there is nothing to be experienced after death.

So the entire pudding of it is not made solely with "proof" for some people. I of course am not speaking for all atheists. Just myself.

People can call me an atheist when it's appropriate - but I prefer them to think of me in terms of a non-subscriber, rather than just an unbeliever.

I'm just trying to say that Atheist-Agnostic is a much better term, as it implies you're not believing something for sure without proof.

I'm just trying to say that Atheist-Agnostic is a much better term, as it implies you're not believing something for sure without proof.

It implies that youre trying to be a smartass.

Saying your an atheist does not mean you dont leave the possibility of a grand something out there.

I have nothing to base my opinion on something outside of our universe...Yet. For all i know our universe is a lab experiment on some creatures desk in a snow globe type deal. I'm not agnostic to that though, currently i believe there is no limit to our human understandings. It just takes time.

Untill something is proven i wont believe in it.

I am howevor 100% shur the gods layed out in religion are a crock of shit created by primitive man.

So you see I will stick with atheist, untill.........

No one has ever disproven the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you don't belive that FSMism is possible then you're equally as blind.

No one has ever disproven the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you don't belive that FSMism is possible then you're equally as blind.

I almost miss the invisible pink unicorn.


Anyway, there is nothing at all that points towards flying spaggetti monsters being real, but there are at least things that point towards the possibility of God, but again it depends on your definition of God.

Shut up.

+1 post count

+1

I know that God doesn't exist, I'm not in doubt. That's what a lot of Christians assume about Atheist's. They think that most people who don't believe in God have this internal struggle going on to decide if it's all true or not. Fucking arrogant if you think about it.

The claim is that a god exists. Is there anything to support this claim as fact? No, therefore there is no reason to believe that a god or gods exist. This is the basic situation, and any justification beyond that is not needed, regardless of how much bullshit religionists spew to try and prove their ass-backwards point.

I’ve seen no evidence for the existence of a God, so I don’t believe there is a God and I’ll continue not to believe until I see some, yet I admit I don’t know for sure whether or not there is a God and could be wrong.

Some would say this makes me agnostic, some agnostic-atheists, others atheist. Basically I don’t care, don’t think it matters and if someone asks me if I believe in God I say exactly what I said above, which gets my point across a lot better than stating a single word that the other individual possibly has a lot of misconceptions about.

I can't think of anything to say... hmm.. oh!
Shut up.

I laughed.

yeah dumbass and im totally sure theres no such thing as a real natural unicorn and no one gives me shit for that. BECAUSE THERES NO FUCKING PROOF SAYING THERE IS ONE!!! like god...noob

I'm Atheist-Agnostic...

...So therefore, Atheist-Agnosticism is the only religion of someone who truly believes in science.


How can you expect to be taken seriously if you do not even understand that atheism is not a religion?

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour, "off" is a TV channel, and Jimmy Hendrix couldn't play the guitar.

I think it's funny that religion is such a controversial topic. Millions of people are killed because of religion of all things.

In the end, you cannot fully PROVE that your religion is right. There is arguably no valid physical proof that any religion existed. But that's the beauty of it - religion does not NEED any physical proof to exist; all it needs is belief.

Take Buddhism as an example. The history of Siddartha Gautama and how he was Hindu and then thought up the 4 noble truths etc, etc. IF we somehow got into a time machine, went back to the time that he was supposedly alive, and found that there was in fact NO such human being as Siddartha Gautama (later seen as "The Buddha"), would we be able to slam the fact that all Buddhists are wrong right into their faces?

The answer is no. We could not. Even if we had physical proof that the beginning of the religion that they so heartily confide in was 100 percent myth, the followers of Buddhism would still practice the same religion. Why? Because of pure belief. There are so many people that confide in such a thing that it doesn't matter whether or not the full history of it is 100 percent correct.

So, in that sense, I could easily claim that every religion is wrong, but at the same time, every religion is right.

No sense in having an arguement about it, because you're never going to have a full conclusion to who is right and who isn't.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents :P

EDIT: Actually...on that note...I'm going to paste this same response in a new topic.

This thread gets made at least once a week.

Edit: To explain: To disbelieve in something you see no evidence for requires no faith. Few atheists claim to have to proof that God is nonexistent, though I would agree that they are probably in error if they do; most compare God to Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot).

Actually it's incredibly easy to logically disprove God, people just never really think about what God is.

God(head, Brahman) is an infinite-being-conciousness which is described as completely unknowable. If it's completely unknowable, it must not exist.

And THIS is where faith must triumph over logic. It's FAITH that there is something OUTSIDE and greater than you. In logic, solipsism trumps all, but faith in God trumps logic itself.

It has to, God bows to nothing. Which taken in the sense that nothing is a positive existing thing [absurdity] has a very different meaning which is very eye-opening. God bows down to nothing - become nothing and you become greater than God!

Ah, all spirituality is a paradox, and is thusly so. When you understand something, it fails to amaze you. It just is. But how you can you understand that which you can't? Logic brings depression, faith brings infinite happiness. :)

Just believing in something doesn't make it true or real. Faith, "spirituality" and other bullshit buzzwords are nothing more than security blankets that the weak-minded and otherwise indoctrinated masses wrap themselves in to shield themselves from reality.

Logic doesn't bring depression if you're not a fucking moron or an emotional wreck. Logic and reason gets shit accomplished, praying or wishing that somebody will come save you does nothing but waste time and energy.

I am an atheist. I am happy, I can love and am loved. I have much to live for and I do not believe in any supernatural bullshit to achieve this. Fuck anyone who says otherwise.

If it's completely unknowable, it must not exist.
Or rather... we can never know if it exists, meaning it's pointless to consider anyway?

And THIS is where faith must triumph over logic. It's FAITH that there is something OUTSIDE and greater than you. In logic, solipsism trumps all, but faith in God trumps logic itself.
This is where we disagree. I find faith in God to be just as silly as faith in, say, unicorns or Mr. Bush. :D

Logic brings depression, faith brings infinite happiness. :)
Undoubtedly for some! Me, I'm happy in logic... although I admit to occasional depression. :p But only over everyday things!

Or rather... we can never know if it exists, meaning it's pointless to consider anyway?

Yes, but we can never know that this computer really exists so why are we typing? Because it makes us happy. We exist because there is nothing outside of existence. That's why death is merely an illusion.


This is where we disagree. I find faith in God to be just as silly as faith in, say, unicorns or Mr. Bush.

So do I, but I see nothing wrong in believing in unicorns. They're fantastic creatures and I'd love to meet one sometime. Isn't life so much more wonderful when you consider the possibility that there MIGHT be unicorns, or that Bush MIGHT not be stupid and in reality is being controlled by some VERY smart people that actually have good intentions for the world.

You can't prove it, but you can't prove anything, and I'm 10x happier and more confident about living now.


Undoubtedly for some! Me, I'm happy in logic... although I admit to occasional depression. But only over everyday things!

Logically, you're illogical. Why do you get the most upset over the everyday, trivial things but not the big, looming things that effect EVERYONE?

But how you can you understand that which you can't?

You could always fantasize in your head about being eternally conscious - and couple it with ancient texts and a whole lotta wishful thinking.
:rolleyes:

Logic brings depression, faith brings infinite happiness. :)

Well, you know how the old saying goes: Ignorance is bliss!

Yes, but we can never know that this computer really exists so why are we typing? Because it makes us happy. We exist because there is nothing outside of existence. That's why death is merely an illusion.
Happiness is indeed the point in life. :) Not so sure about death being an illusion, though... ceasing to exist is surely possible?

Besides, I do see evidence for the computer... though you're right in saying it can't be proven to exist.

So do I, but I see nothing wrong in believing in unicorns. They're fantastic creatures and I'd love to meet one sometime. Isn't life so much more wonderful when you consider the possibility that there MIGHT be unicorns, or that Bush MIGHT not be stupid and in reality is being controlled by some VERY smart people that actually have good intentions for the world.
There's nothing wrong as in evil, but there's something wrong as in not correct. Sure, there might be unicorns; I certainly agree. I might BE a unicorn and not know it! I just don't think it's very likely.

Why live by what is likely? No particular reason, it's true. Except in cases like not walking off a cliff because you think it's likely you'll die. :D

You can't prove it, but you can't prove anything, and I'm 10x happier and more confident about living now.
Because you have chosen to believe in a happy world, even though you know it might not be true - or likely?

That works... but the problem is when the world disagrees and something happens like Bush drafts you and you get to eat Iraqi lead. That is one of the reasons I set my course by what I believe to be most likely to be true: so that I may change it if it causes unhappiness.

Logically, you're illogical. Why do you get the most upset over the everyday, trivial things but not the big, looming things that effect EVERYONE?
What big, looming things?

Everyday things affect me, either way, and since my own existence is the only one I have or can experience, I am pretty concerned with it. :D

Rizzo be hittin' the pipe sometimes.

:cool:

Rizzo be hittin' the pipe sometimes.

:cool:
Sometimes? :D

Happiness is indeed the point in life. Not so sure about death being an illusion, though... ceasing to exist is surely possible?

Besides, I do see evidence for the computer... though you're right in saying it can't be proven to exist.

No, you see evidence that you PERCIEVE the computer. Be specific now.

There's nothing wrong as in evil, but there's something wrong as in not correct. Sure, there might be unicorns; I certainly agree. I might BE a unicorn and not know it! I just don't think it's very likely.

All "sin" or "evil" means is not correct, illogical(within a system of logic), or ignorant. Do not think in terms of mainstream christianity brainwashed bullshit. Who cares if something is likely? What does that get you? Practical results? FUCK that, I don't need practical results, I'm happy WITHOUT being practical thus being the EPITOME of practical. Paradox? Yes. Spiritual? Most definitely. Makes me happy? You got it.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." -Socrates


Why live by what is likely? No particular reason, it's true. Except in cases like not walking off a cliff because you think it's likely you'll die.

But when death is an illusion all that means is that walking off a cliff is a sure way to a new conciousness, in one way or another. :p


Because you have chosen to believe in a happy world, even though you know it might not be true - or likely?

That works... but the problem is when the world disagrees and something happens like Bush drafts you and you get to eat Iraqi lead. That is one of the reasons I set my course by what I believe to be most likely to be true: so that I may change it if it causes unhappiness.

I eat Iraqi lead in this scenario, I'm heartbroken over a girl in another, I'm homeless in another - who cares? Life is full of pain, suffering is optional. I know I will eventually come to terms with where ever I'm at. I've been through mental and physical hardships enough that I know nothing is worth worrying or fearing. At all.

What big, looming things?

Everyday things affect me, either way, and since my own existence is the only one I have or can experience, I am pretty concerned with it.

Humanity, God, time, emotions, existence, intangible things like that.

I'm very callous to everyday bullshit but when it comes to the BIG things I will and have gone bat shit insane. usually everyday things are just a catalyst.

Rizzo be hittin' the pipe sometimes.



Sometimes?

QFT.

You could always fantasize in your head about being eternally conscious - and couple it with ancient texts and a whole lotta wishful thinking.

You just summed up every spiritual/magickal/esoteric/occult philosophy ever. Good fucking job man.

Well, you know how the old saying goes: Ignorance is bliss!

Couple that with the other wisest words of "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. " and you've just figured out that the only thing from stopping you from being happy is your own arrogance, you ignorant bastard! :D

I will and have gone bat shit insane.

I could not muster up an argument to that if I were forced, at gunpoint.

:D

I could not muster up an argument to that if I were forced, at gunpoint.

:D

Heh, of course you can't. Break it down logically. What is insanity? An extreme deviation from the normal standards of humanity. So what? All that means is I've taken my mind places people have never been before, so I know(in the gnosis sense of the word) more. :p

Break it down logically. What is insanity?

Okay... but I'm not attempting to be scathing here. You specifically asked for it:

in·san·i·ty - noun, plural -ties.

1. the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.
2. Law. such unsoundness of mind as affects legal responsibility or capacity.
3. Psychiatry. (formerly) psychosis.
4. extreme folly; senselessness; foolhardiness.


[Origin: 1580–90; < L insānitās. See in-3, sanity]


—Synonyms 1. dementia, lunacy, madness, craziness, mania, aberration.

I bolded the parts I felt were relevant to your predicament. :)

All that means is I've taken my mind places people have never been before

And luckily for the reading audience, you blog about it. Literary sainthood will become you someday.

Okay... but I'm not attempting to be scathing here. You specifically asked for it:

in·san·i·ty - noun, plural -ties.

1. the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.
2. Law. such unsoundness of mind as affects legal responsibility or capacity.
3. Psychiatry. (formerly) psychosis.
4. extreme folly; senselessness; foolhardiness.


[Origin: 1580–90; < L insānitās. See in-3, sanity]


—Synonyms 1. dementia, lunacy, madness, craziness, mania, aberration.

I bolded the parts I felt were relevant to your predicament.

As long as you don't attempt to be scathing, I will not take one bit of offense to anything you say. You're cool with me I'm cool with you, regardless of whatever else.

The whole point though is that it is only foolishness in the eyes of society, and mania is merely a chemical reaction in the brain, just like drugs.

The dictionary is only the source of definitions for a commonly agreed about language by a common people.


And luckily for the reading audience, you blog about it. Literary sainthood will become you someday.

Sometimes I think I'm a modern day William Blake, but that's usually just my ego talking. :p

Yes, but we can never know that this computer really exists so why are we typing?

I think this problem can be summed up as one of cause and effect, i.e. one of what's causing the computer I'm perceiving. Is it caused by my perception, is it an illusion caused by a deceiving demon, is it a figment of my imagination, is it a thing in itself, or is it caused by a substance that permeates everything, taking infinite shapes, etc.?

mania is merely a chemical reaction in the brain

But how do you know mania is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain? Don't use any sources, because that might just be a commonly agreed upon illusion by the masses.

Couple that with the other wisest words of "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. " and you've just figured out that the only thing from stopping you from being happy is your own arrogance, you ignorant bastard! :D

No offence, but I saw this and I found it really weird. I love the quote, which I'm guessing is Socrates, who taught me that basically you shouldn't be so arrogant as to think you have whole truths and are definitely right. But what I find really weird, as I was mentioning earlier, is that you attack other people's viewpoints to fill them full of doubt but then I find you stating things as if they were fact, when I can see no arguments, only conclusions. Why is that?

I think this problem can be summed up as one of cause and effect, i.e. one of what's causing the computer I'm perceiving. Is it caused by my perception, is it an illusion caused by a deceiving demon, is it a figment of my imagination, is it a thing in itself, or is it caused by a substance that permeates everything, taking infinite shapes, etc.?

It can be all of these, depending on what you want at the time. Are you tripping hardcore on acid and seeing fractal infinity in everything? Are you heavily into the occult and think technology are merely man made demons?

I mean fuck man, whatever you want, it's your reality, YOU choose it.

But how do you know mania is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain? Don't use any sources, because that might just be a commonly agreed upon illusion by the masses.

Gnosis can not be given to one another, to KNOW about mania and chemicals you have to EXPERIENCE mania and chemicals. Speed is very much like mania, although I'll take mania over speed any day.

However I "know" in a semi-agreed upon reality that the brain is dependent on a number of chemical reactions. So your question is a bit useless, not to mention slightly insulting.

It can be all of these, depending on what you want at the time. Are you tripping hardcore on acid and seeing fractal infinity in everything? Are you heavily into the occult and think technology are merely man made demons?

I mean fuck man, whatever you want, it's your reality, YOU choose it.

True, it's my reality, but is it really all of those things, or is there a reality that the objects I perceive refer to in some manner that exists separately from me? Once again, I just see a conclusion with no argument.

Gnosis can not be given to one another, to KNOW about mania and chemicals you have to EXPERIENCE mania and chemicals. Speed is very much like mania, although I'll take mania over speed any day.

Uh-huh. I feel like you're avoiding the answer a bit here. How do you KNOW the mania is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain or that the drugs cause a chemical reaction in the brain or that it's the drugs effecting you?

However I "know" in a semi-agreed upon reality that the brain is dependent on a number of chemical reactions. So your question is a bit useless, not to mention slightly insulting.

How do you know that? How do you know you just didn't dream that and today you're going to turn on the television and remember it's generally accepted to be caused by someone else? Or perhaps you'll wake up and find it was just a dream and you're all that exists.

True, it's my reality, but is it really all of those things, or is there a reality that the objects I perceive refer to in some manner that exists separately from me? Once again, I just see a conclusion with no argument.

There is never any conclusion to anything, it's an infinite loop. That's the entire point.


Uh-huh. I feel like you're avoiding the answer a bit here. How do you KNOW the mania is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain or that the drugs cause a chemical reaction in the brain or that it's the drugs effecting you?

No, you just wrote a poorly written question. I KNOW there's a chemical reaction like I KNOW I'm sitting on a chair. Does that mean anything? It can, but only to you and to others who wish it do so. Some ancient man might think my chair is a deity to be worshipped. Who the fuck knows? We just put shit together and call it something, then use it.

How do you know that? How do you know you just didn't dream that and today you're going to turn on the television and remember it's generally accepted to be caused by someone else? Or perhaps you'll wake up and find it was just a dream and you're all that exists.

Yes, hypotheticals are great for wondering about but until you make it a reality it is entirely meaningless and a waste of time. When I wake up to that day I will have a new understand and thusly will be able to explain it. Since I'm NOT there I can't.

I suppose if I take enough drugs I will be though....heh, the humor of God at it's finest. :D

There is never any conclusion to anything, it's an infinite loop. That's the entire point.

Here you go with stating conclusions without present any arguments again. PROVE IT.

We just put shit together and call it something, then use it.

How do you know we put shit together? How do you know we even exist?

Yes, hypotheticals are great for wondering about but until you make it a reality it is entirely meaningless and a waste of time. When I wake up to that day I will have a new understand and thusly will be able to explain it. Since I'm NOT there I can't.

How do you know it is entirely meaningless and a waste of time until we make it a reality? How do you know you're not there?

I suppose if I take enough drugs I will be though....heh, the humor of God at it's finest. :D

How do you know God has a sense of humour?

Rizzo... you're completely missing what Hare Geist is saying here. He keeps saying it over and over again, yet for whatever reason it's not quite clicking in that skull of yours.

Hare Geist is bringing up arguments that originate from Descartes... "Cogito Ergo Sum": "I think, therefore I am."

How do you KNOW that you're sitting on that chair? How do you know that the world around you exists? How do you know that I exist, and that I'm not just some part of your thinking process, going off in a separate area of your brain? Frankly you don't even know your own body exists. Yes you SEE it, yes you FEEL it... but that's all based on the senses. Mathematically, logically, rationally... you have no proof that your body exists, and that you are anything more than a thinking consciousness.

This is what Descartes meant by cogito ergo sum. You do know that YOU exist, at least as a thinking conscious, because you are thinking. However anything past that... could ultimately be nothing more than the deceiving demons, that Hare Geist brought up earlier in this thread. You have no knowledge a priori that anything other than your conscious exists. Everything else is a posteriori.

Descartes saw the world we know, as Plato's shadow in the cave. There are universal truths out there... and only through reason and science and rationality, can we break through the world we see, and determine what is and isn't true. The rationalists philosophers, Descartes included, believed that truth could be determined through thinking really hard about things. (epistemology)


How do you really know, any of this is real?

If you would like me to answer this question for you, in a sense that refutes Hare Geist's (and Descartes) claims... then the answer I would provide is that

"I don't... but its as real as your existence, and anybody else's."

There is no absolute truth to any of this existence... it is ALL subjective. Reason and rationality are tools for us... not "things in them self". There is no such thing as rationality, or reason... these are human inventions that we have developed to understand the world. These are things we developed to survive in a world of tigers and bears.

We cannot use our consciousness, to evaluate our own consciousness. Rationality works like a tool... say, a thermometer. You use a thermometer to measure temperature... and yes, you do gain the ability to measure temperature... but what if your thermometer is broken? You would never know that your thermometer is broken... and you'd have no idea of the inaccuracy of your temperatures recorded. In order to combat this, you would need two thermometers. However, going back to the mind, we cannot have two consciousnesses... and it is for THIS reason that all truth is subjective. The mind can not step out of the mind, and look down at the mind.

With that said, it is also impossible to ever escape the senses when determining truth. Descartes would hold methods such as mathematics take this role... when in reality, math is nothing more than an invention that we have developed, based on the senses, when we noticed that picking up one rock and adding another rock, we got two rocks. Math is nothing more than invention, for us to come together as humans and "know" things together, in order to once again, survive in a world of tigers and bears. Knowledge cannot escape the senses, ever.

Nietzsche would blame our need to find an "I" in "I think, therefore I am" on our long history of grammar. Grammar has taught us that every verb has a subject... and because there is thinking (which there is, you cannot argue that), our grammar makes us feel as if there MUST be an I, a subject, a doer of that action.

Of course Hare Geist already knows all of this, he's well read in Nietzsche's works, and in the works of many other philosophers as well. It seems he's playing a bit of the devil's advocate... in order to drive you nuts, and make him feel superior for flying these references right over your head.

(Which he should feel superior, because they definitely did fly over your head.) :P

I've tried recently to keep up with all the arguments, but I can't seem to and i've only come up with one conclusion for my lifestyle and it can be summed up with one quote I heard a while back, but can't remember where or exactly how it goes, but it went something like this : "I'd rather believe in god and find out i'm wrong, than not believe in god and find out i'm wrong."

No, you see evidence that you PERCIEVE the computer. Be specific now.
I count my perception of the computer as evidence that it exists, since as far as I know my senses are mostly accurate and I see no reason to believe they are not. :)

All "sin" or "evil" means is not correct, illogical(within a system of logic), or ignorant. Do not think in terms of mainstream christianity brainwashed bullshit.
Interesting view; perhaps evil is just incorrect assumptions about morality... but it's a specific type of evil in that case, which is what I meant.

Who cares if something is likely? What does that get you? Practical results? FUCK that, I don't need practical results, I'm happy WITHOUT being practical thus being the EPITOME of practical. Paradox? Yes. Spiritual? Most definitely. Makes me happy? You got it.
Practical results make me happy. :)

But when death is an illusion all that means is that walking off a cliff is a sure way to a new conciousness, in one way or another. :p
Now you just have to convince me that death is an illusion! :p

Either way, though, I'm happy as I am... a new consciousness is not what I'm after at the moment! And I don't think you're that eager to abandon this life either, no?

I eat Iraqi lead in this scenario, I'm heartbroken over a girl in another, I'm homeless in another - who cares? Life is full of pain, suffering is optional. I know I will eventually come to terms with where ever I'm at. I've been through mental and physical hardships enough that I know nothing is worth worrying or fearing. At all.
Theoretically, yes. I should be able to divorce myself from suffering. However, my body has too strong a hold on my mind for me to avoid suffering from physical pain, and avoiding emotional pain, for me, would mean avoiding caring about people; and that, I don't want to do.

Even besides my own issues, most other people are also trapped in a world where suffering is prominent. I'd like to help them, too!

Humanity, God, time, emotions, existence, intangible things like that.

I'm very callous to everyday bullshit but when it comes to the BIG things I will and have gone bat shit insane. usually everyday things are just a catalyst.
How exactly do you mean?

I kind of agree...

Some atheists rabbit on and on about how they KNOW that God doesn't exist, and their absolute lack of faith that "he" could (or does) not exist in any form from all-encompassing energy to a very real aspect of the mind.

To me, not believing in God is fine and perfectly reasonable, however when atheists go out of their way to declare that God does not exist, anyone who disagrees is just a deluded fucktard... well then I kinda despair. If your lack of belief in God is based upon evidence, you MUST accept the possibility that you have not seen ALL the evidence, and that therefore ruling out God's existence... just doesn't stick. It's even worse when individuals who criticise religion for it's lack of evidence and "logic" such as Richard Dawkins display their philosophical ineptitude, and downright hypocrisy. By assuming that that which you have experienced or have "knowledge" about is the be-all and end-all of facts about the universe, you delude yourself as much as some closed minded religious believers.

I believe in the paradox of God's existence any; existence without existence, both in the mind in reality, with unlimited and both limited possibility.... I'm sure Kant would have hated me; I believe he called soft-determinism a "miserable subterfuge" but to me much of the current scientific dilemmas do seem to point away from the FIXED LOGIC that so many seem to rely on.

Open your minds yo, just because you "know" God exists doesn't mean he doesn't. To refuse to allow your beliefs to be falsified means you're throwing logic out of the window in the same way as the most fundie...fundie!

:D

I kind of agree...

Some atheists rabbit on and on about how they KNOW that God doesn't exist, and their absolute lack of faith that "he" could (or does) exist in any form from all-encompassing energy to a very real aspect of the mind.

To me, not believing in God is fine and perfectly reasonable, however when atheists go out of their way to declare that God does not exist, anyone who disagrees is just a deluded fucktard... well then I kinda despair. If your lack of belief in God is based upon evidence, you MUST accept the possibility that you have not seen ALL the evidence, and that therefore ruling out God's existence... just doesn't stick. It's even worse when individuals who criticise religion for it's lack of evidence and "logic" such as Richard Dawkins display their philosophical ineptitude, and downright hypocrisy. By assuming that that which you have experienced or have "knowledge" about is the be-all and end-all of facts about the universe, you delude yourself as much as some closed minded religious believers.

I believe in the paradox of God's existence any; existence without existence, both in the mind in reality, with unlimited and both limited possibility.... I'm sure Kant would have hated me; I believe he called soft-determinism a "miserable subterfuge" but to me much of the current scientific dilemmas do seem to point away from the FIXED LOGIC that so many seem to rely on.

Open your minds yo, just because you "know" God exists doesn't mean he doesn't. To refuse to allow your beliefs to be falsified means you're throwing logic out of the window in the same way as the most fundie...fundie!

:D

Actually Dawkins once said people have to be technically atheist-agnostic but then whats the point? you have to be like that with the teapot or pink unicorn.

Actually Dawkins once said people have to be technically atheist-agnostic but then whats the point? you have to be like that with the teapot or pink unicorn.

Uhhh yes, exactly...

Do I know that there isn't a "teapot" of some sort in space? No I don't...

I can believe there isn't all I want, but I still could be wrong. Dawkins assumes that his current knowledge however provides a sufficient basis for establishing a "factual opinion based upon fact"...

And the "point" of being agnostic is to recognise the boundaries and limits of one's own knowledge and experience, and to have some humility in your potential to learn things new.

Uhhh yes, exactly...

Do I know that there isn't a "teapot" of some sort in space? No I don't...

I can believe there isn't all I want, but I still could be wrong. Dawkins assumes that his current knowledge however provides a sufficient basis for establishing a "factual opinion based upon fact"...

And the "point" of being agnostic is to recognise the boundaries and limits of one's own knowledge and experience, and to have some humility in your potential to learn things new.

Being unable to prove/disprove something does not mean that the odds of it existing are 50/50. It is very logical to form an opinion /belief based on the probability of it's being true/untrue.

I do not believe in the celestial teapot due to the almost infinite odds against it's existance. Could it possibly exist? Sure. Is it's existance even worth considering? Absolutely not.

Being unable to prove/disprove something does not mean that the odds of it existing are 50/50. It is very logical to form an opinion /belief based on the probability of it's being true/untrue.

I do not believe in the celestial teapot due to the almost infinite odds against it's existance. Could it possibly exist? Sure. Is it's existance even worth considering? Absolutely not.

How did you calculate the probability of the teapot existing?

How did you calculate the probability of the teapot existing?

How else? I used my handly little Acme celestial teapot calculator! ;)

All bullshit aside, anyone with even very limited critical thinking ability, will understand that the odds of such a teapot existing are incredibly minute.

It's obvious that we (mankind) do not know all that there is to know. That in no way means that we know nothing. In reality, we know quite a bit about our little corner of the universe, and are learning more all the time.

We know enough to understand the improbability of such a teapot existing.

Ok, I'll show you how you calculate the odds of the teapot.

(P(A teapot is released from planet earth into orbit) Or P(Aliens exist)*P(They use teapots)*P(They released a teapot into orbit))*P(Teapot didn't get destroyed after leaving orbit)*P(Teapot acquires the correct velocity and angular momentum to orbit)*P(A celestial body did not interfere with the orbit)

As you can see you are multiplying low probabilities. Even if the probability of every event was 50%
You'd have a maximum of .5^4=6.25% Chance of existence. None of those events have the probability of even close to 1%, much less 50%

Atheism is a lack of faith in God. This is like having a lack of faith in unicorns existing, or a teapot orbiting jupiter, or Zeus; you can't disprove them, but hell, there are a million things we can't disprove. We don't just believe in something because we can't disprove in it, or we would have to believe in everything.

All bullshit aside, anyone with even very limited critical thinking ability, will understand that the odds of such a teapot existing are incredibly minute.

It's obvious that we (mankind) do not know all that there is to know. That in no way means that we know nothing. In reality, we know quite a bit about our little corner of the universe, and are learning more all the time.

We know enough to understand the improbability of such a teapot existing.

That's not an answer. ;)

Ok, I'll show you how you calculate the odds of the teapot.

(P(A teapot is released from planet earth into orbit) Or P(Aliens exist)*P(They use teapots)*P(They released a teapot into orbit))*P(Teapot didn't get destroyed after leaving orbit)*P(Teapot acquires the correct velocity and angular momentum to orbit)*P(A celestial body did not interfere with the orbit)

As you can see you are multiplying low probabilities. Even if the probability of every event was 50%
You'd have a maximum of .5^4=6.25% Chance of existence. None of those events have the probability of even close to 1%, much less 50%

-Many would argue the probability of the existence of aliens is far higher than 50%, but ultimately we don't know the actual figure.
-We don't know the probability that an alien species would use teapots.
-We have no way of knowing the probability that the aliens would have a reason for putting the teapot into orbit, but if they desired to do so, chances are they would be able to (if they could make it to our solar system that is, but we can't calculate the probability of that either).

Now if I calculate the probability your formula gives when all these variables are unknown...I get an answer placing the probability of the teapot existing somewhere between 100% and 0%. Which is right where we started.

When someone says that you can't disprove God exists, so it is better to be in an agnostic state rather than denying the existence of God, atheists will sometimes say that a celestial teapot can't be disproven either and none of us believe in that, hence they are justified in denying God. I say there are two problems with this.

1. There is no justification for denying the teapot unless it can be shown to have a tiny probability of existence, and this has yet to be established.

2. Even if the probability of the teapot can be established, the probability of God existing cannot; so the universal denying of the teapot is a completely different situation to denying God. Unless you can come up with a neat formula for the probability of God (one where you know all the variables)?

1. There is no justification for denying the teapot unless it can be shown to have a tiny probability of existence, and this has yet to be established.
The teapot is omnipotent and says that you must give me fellatio or you are doomed to perish in the Flames of the Abyss forever.

There's no justification for denying this unless it can be conclusively shown to have a tiny probability, so please get below the table...

2. Even if the probability of the teapot can be established, the probability of God existing cannot; so the universal denying of the teapot is a completely different situation to denying God. Unless you can come up with a neat formula for the probability of God (one where you know all the variables)?
It's exactly the same in that there is no evidence for either and a working model of the universe can be established without them.

The teapot is omnipotent and says that you must give me fellatio or you are doomed to perish in the Flames of the Abyss forever.

There's no justification for denying this unless it can be conclusively shown to have a tiny probability, so please get below the table...

I can't deny it, but I never said one should believe things you can't deny. In fact, if you re-read what I said you'll see I said it is best to remain agnostic.

It's exactly the same in that there is no evidence for either and a working model of the universe can be established without them.

A working model of the universe is irrelevant. We aren't looking for scientific advances here, we are looking for spiritual advances. Regardless, it still remains that even if you can say the teapot is incredibly unlikely, you can't do the same for God.

Religious--------Sane---------Atheist

I can't deny it, but I never said one should believe things you can't deny. In fact, if you re-read what I said you'll see I said it is best to remain agnostic.
Or "a-teapotist"... that is, atheist. :p

A working model of the universe is irrelevant. We aren't looking for scientific advances here, we are looking for spiritual advances.
Occam's razor...?

If a working model couldn't be established, it'd mean God was more likely.

Regardless, it still remains that even if you can say the teapot is incredibly unlikely, you can't do the same for God.
Really? :confused:

You cannot be completely sure that there is not god. But you can show that the probability of god existing is low, so low that it's below the flying teapot. After all, the existence of a teapot would not violate any known scientific laws and you would not have to bend reality in order to accept it's existence. What atheists do is consider such a probability and decide whether or not it's insignificant. Sure there's a probability someone wired a bomb to your car, but that doesn't stop you from starting it before even checking under it.
You can just consider probabilities and arrive at a conclusion. If you are doing that, you are using inductive reasoning rather than faith. By using inductive reasoning atheists estimate that the probability of god existing is .9repeating. .9repeating=1
By analyzing such probability one can be fairly certain that out of one trial it did not happen. Taking a stance on the more probable side is logical and intelligent.

Or "a-teapotist"... that is, atheist.

If you accept that you don't know whether God exists or not, I don't care what you call yourself. :)


Occam's razor...?

While I don't deny the usefulness of the razor in science, I consider it not applicable here for two reasons:

1. Without complete data, Occam's Razor can lead to false solutions. This means that rather than finding absolute truths, the razor finds a practical truth about which theory will work best at describing current data. However, when talking about the probability of God, we are dealing in absolute truths.

2. Since it was derived by observation about which theories about the universe tended to work, it is not able to be used accurately when describing an entity existing outside of the universe.

Really?

Can you come up with a neat formula that establishes that God is quite improbable?

You cannot be completely sure that there is not god. But you can show that the probability of god existing is low, so low that it's below the flying teapot. After all, the existence of a teapot would not violate any known scientific laws and you would not have to bend reality in order to accept it's existence. What atheists do is consider such a probability and decide whether or not it's insignificant. Sure there's a probability someone wired a bomb to your car, but that doesn't stop you from starting it before even checking under it.
You can just consider probabilities and arrive at a conclusion. If you are doing that, you are using inductive reasoning rather than faith. By using inductive reasoning atheists estimate that the probability of god existing is .9repeating. .9repeating=1
By analyzing such probability one can be fairly certain that out of one trial it did not happen. Taking a stance on the more probable side is logical and intelligent.

1. How did you conclude a teapot was unlikely? Didn't I show your last formula was useless?

2. How did you calculate the probability of God existing?

3. Scientific laws are based on and apply to observations made inside the universe; things like increasing entropy or not being able to go faster than light don't apply to a God.

4. I personally consider inductive reasoning to be a type of faith, but I'm willing to assume it isn't for the purpose of this discussion. ;)

1. Without complete data, Occam's Razor can lead to false solutions. This means that rather than finding absolute truths, the razor finds a practical truth about which theory will work best at describing current data. However, when talking about the probability of God, we are dealing in absolute truths.
I fail to understand what you're trying to say here. In my mind there is only true and false. Truth is binary. How would the existence of god be any higher or more absolute of a truth than 2+2=4?

2. Since it was derived by observation about which theories about the universe tended to work, it is not able to be used accurately when describing an entity existing outside of the universe.

Why would you assume that god exists outside the universe? Does it say so in any religious text specifically? The universe means just that - everything. Everything is in the universe and by saying that god exists outside of universe you are stating a paradox in itself.

Universe-everything that exists anywhere
Definition by Princeton



Can you come up with a neat formula that establishes that God is quite improbable?

Can I come up with a neat formula that god exists? Probably not. Can such formula be built? Absolutely. If one decides to follow scientific laws it would be pretty easy to show how some things that god does are impossible due to thermodynamics. Without an account of origin the complexity of god by itself is a strong statement against god's existence.


1. How did you conclude a teapot was unlikely? Didn't I show your last formula was useless?

You missed the point. The point of my formula is to show that it IS possible to calculate the odds of the teapot. I did not put any study or effort into actually compiling you an accurate one. I'd assume you would understand my point. Let's review
(P(A teapot is released from planet earth into orbit) Or (P(A teapot is released from planet earth into orbit) Or P(Aliens exist)*P(They use teapots)*P(They released a teapot into orbit))*P(Teapot didn't get destroyed after leaving orbit)*P(Teapot acquires the correct velocity and angular momentum to orbit)*P(A celestial body did not interfere with the orbit)
*P(They use teapots)*P(They released a teapot into orbit))*P(Teapot didn't get destroyed after leaving orbit)*P(Teapot acquires the correct velocity and angular momentum to orbit)*P(A celestial body did not interfere with the orbit)

P(teapot released) as we can understand no one for any reason would just kick a teapot out of planet earth. When I was little during a field trip to a cosmonaut training center I was told that it costs more weight in gold to put something of the same weight in space. It may be not true any more, or even back then, but it is very expensive so I would calculate the odds of this by itself as no more than .1%. That means that if everything else is 100%, the whole teapot probability is .1%

P(Aliens exist) - Indeed I made an error, my point was P(Aliens in the near vicinity of earth exist). From rather advanced observation we can tell this probability is far less than 1/10000ths %.
Teapot didn't get destroyed after leaving earth. - depending on the circumstances I will be generous. 90%
Correct velocity and angular momentum - Don't even start......000000000000001%
No interference with other objects - I have no clue, I'll let you keep a 100%

Multiply these out. Low, yes?

2. How did you calculate the probability of God existing?

Exactly the same way.
1) Define god
2) Use definition from 1 in order to ascertain origin
3) Calculate probabilities of origin

3. Scientific laws are based on and apply to observations made inside the universe; things like increasing entropy or not being able to go faster than light don't apply to a God.
Once again. Universe - everything that exists. If god is outside the universe, god doesn't exist. If you insist on saying that god cannot be disprove based on laws of science and that god is outside the universe, please, please don't ever say anything about science again. Saying that "science cannot disprove something because by my definition it's outside the realm of science" is one of the most inane mindsets one can achieve. If you believe in god, that's fine. If you think science can't prove/disprove god, that's fine. But don't ever say that science does not apply to god. Science applies to everything, from morals to music to art.
4. I personally consider inductive reasoning to be a type of faith, but I'm willing to assume it isn't for the purpose of this discussion. ;)
Umm, Inductive reasoning uses evidence and logic. Faith uses none.

Also Occam's razor works exactly the same way as statistics. If you make many assumptions, you have to multiply probabilities and that way you get a low final probability. I said this, because it seems you need to know how/why Occam's razor works in every case.

I fail to understand what you're trying to say here. In my mind there is only true and false. Truth is binary. How would the existence of god be any higher or more absolute of a truth than 2+2=4?

You calculated 2+2=4 using only Occam's Razor?

For an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at Aristotlean physics. Aristotle took into account all the data he had about the motion of objects and built a theory to explain it. His theory worked, and it was much simpler than any other explanations of the ancient Greeks. From the standpoint of a student of Aristotle, Aristotlean physics was supported by Occam's Razor (interestingly, Aristotle actually knew of the Razor).

But wait, hundreds of years later, Galileo performed an experiment that gave new data; it turned out Aristotle (and Occam's razor) were wrong. Eventually Newtonian mechanics came along. They too were supported by Occam's razor, and were more accurate than Aristotle. Then Einstein came and tossed Newton out the window using evidence from an eclipse of the sun I believe.

This demonstrates that Occam's razor is only truthful if you know all relevant data. So while Occam's razor is useful for finding helpful scientific theories, it is not useful for finding truth.


Why would you assume that god exists outside the universe? Does it say so in any religious text specifically?

I believe it is implied in Genesis, where God exists before creation.

The universe means just that - everything. Everything is in the universe and by saying that god exists outside of universe you are stating a paradox in itself.

Universe-everything that exists anywhere
Definition by Princeton

That's just word games. I can easily adjust my argument to:

'Since it was derived by observation, Occam's razor is not able to be used accurately when describing an entity that is different from all past observations.'

Can I come up with a neat formula that god exists? Probably not. Can such formula be built? Absolutely.

So you don't know the probability of God existing, but are going to assume that if you worked it out it would be very small?

If one decides to follow scientific laws it would be pretty easy to show how some things that god does are impossible due to thermodynamics.

It seems to be begging the question if you assume things like thermodynamics are applicable to a God that is believed to transcend said laws.

Without an account of origin the complexity of god by itself is a strong statement against god's existence.

Why is that? I would argue quite the opposite. Since we don't have an account of God's origin, we can't calculate the probability of God originating. And if you can't calculate a probability, it becomes indeterminate, not tiny.

You missed the point. The point of my formula is to show that it IS possible to calculate the odds of the teapot. I did not put any study or effort into actually compiling you an accurate one. I'd assume you would understand my point.

Your formula would only demonstrate that it were possible if it worked.


P(Aliens exist) - Indeed I made an error, my point was P(Aliens in the near vicinity of earth exist). From rather advanced observation we can tell this probability is far less than 1/10000ths %.

Presumably a race advanced enough to make it to our solar system would be able to hide themselves should they wish it.


Teapot didn't get destroyed after leaving earth. - depending on the circumstances I will be generous. 90%
Correct velocity and angular momentum - Don't even start......000000000000001%
No interference with other objects - I have no clue, I'll let you keep a 100%

Presumably a race advanced enough to make it to our solar system and that wanted to release a teapot into orbit would be able to bring all these percentages up to a very high level.

Even forgetting the aliens, there are numerous other possibilities that would place the teapot into orbit. Most important out of these possibilities are the ones we don't know about. Since we don't know about them, we can't calculate the probability that one of these would place the teapot into orbit. So, even without aliens, this makes the probability of the teapot indeterminate.


Exactly the same way.
1) Define god
2) Use definition from 1 in order to ascertain origin
3) Calculate probabilities of origin

A plan of an argument is not an argument. This only shows that you haven't yet calculated the probability of God, but are going to assume it is incredibly low anyway. Regardless, one of the reasons I believe you won't be able to come up with such a formula is that I doubt you will be able to complete step 2.

Once again. Universe - everything that exists. If god is outside the universe, god doesn't exist.

More meaningless wordgames...

If you insist on saying that god cannot be disprove based on laws of science and that god is outside the universe, please, please don't ever say anything about science again. Saying that "science cannot disprove something because by my definition it's outside the realm of science" is one of the most inane mindsets one can achieve.

Why exactly is that? You don't try to explain the motion of electrons using biological science, because biological science just doesn't apply there. I'm saying God is beyond all science the way electrons are beyond biology.

Science applies to everything, from morals to music to art.

Prove it.

Science is based entirely on our observations, it seems rather arrogant (and unprovable) to assume it applies to things which are nothing like any of our observations. If you have a mathematical model that was built to describe a set of data, it is pointless (and incorrect) to use that model to attempt to explain a completely different data set.


Umm, Inductive reasoning uses evidence and logic. Faith uses none.

Meh, I'm not going to argue here. If you want to start a new thread, I'm willing to put forth my arguments there.

Also Occam's razor works exactly the same way as statistics. If you make many assumptions, you have to multiply probabilities and that way you get a low final probability.

I'm well aware of how Occam's razor works.

This demonstrates that Occam's razor is only truthful if you know all relevant data. So while Occam's razor is useful for finding helpful scientific theories, it is not useful for finding truth.

Er, Occam's Razor is about nothing but removing as many unnecessary assumptions from the theory as possible. It has nothing to do with new evidence being found, it's relevant for keeping science from going over the top in assumptions, something I'm sure you know is very useful.

Meh, I'm not going to argue here. If you want to start a new thread, I'm willing to put forth my arguments there.

You mean David Hume's arguments? :p

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour, "off" is a TV channel, and Jimmy Hendrix couldn't play the guitar.


I actually knew a Jimmy Hendrix in 4th grade, and as far as I know he played no musical instruments. Always got teased about it.

However, I hear this Jimi Hendrix fellow can play guitar quite well.

Occam's Razor is about nothing but removing as many unnecessary assumptions from the theory as possible. It has nothing to do with new evidence being found,

Well, yes. My point is that Occam's razor only tells you the best choice out of current theories, so it's use doesn't guarantee that we've found truth. I probably should have made that more clear.

You mean David Hume's arguments?

Something like that. ;)

Well, yes. My point is that Occam's razor only tells you the best choice out of current theories, so it's use doesn't guarantee that we've found truth. I probably should have made that more clear.

Er, I've not been paying attention to the thread, but surely everyone knows that?

I've tried recently to keep up with all the arguments, but I can't seem to and i've only come up with one conclusion for my lifestyle and it can be summed up with one quote I heard a while back, but can't remember where or exactly how it goes, but it went something like this : "I'd rather believe in god and find out i'm wrong, than not believe in god and find out i'm wrong."


Quoted For Extreme Truth, damn, noone will prove anything better than anyone, in this world, we will never know anything but what we percieve so you might as well drive yourself crazy pondering it all or just enjoy your time on this planet, and one universal truth is that assholes shoving their beleifs on everyone else who is "wrong" suck...