Happy Atheist Forum

For me -- and am I alone in this? -- the question of whether a god or gods exist has absolutely no interest or importance. I can't imagine how any aspect of my life would change if somehow some answer to the question were found. To take one example of a similar issue, I have no interest in whether the the number of molecules in the universe is a prime or or not a prime. Like the existence of some supernatural being, I can't attach any significance to this question. Since I would not identify myself as a  "primist" or an "aprimist" because the issue has no significance to me so I couldn't call myself an atheist for exactly the same reason. I just don't care. By the way, this is not agnosticism. It's not that I don't know (I don't) but rather it wouldn't make any difference whether I knew or not.

Dawkins's discussion of this issue in The God Delusion has raised considerable debate most notable for being boring, moronic and pointless.  This was done at the expense of the many more important and interesting points raised in his book. In any event I much prefer the approach taken by Michael Parenti in his God and his Demons.

I guess I could call myself a "je m'en foutiste" but there wouldn't be much point in it. My reason for posting this is that I wonder if there are others who share this point of view. I confess my ignorance and am quite prepared to blush with embarrassment when informed that it is quite well known and not at all uncommon.

Thanks in advance for the enlightenment.
Attila

Hello Attila

Welcome on board.
I feel you put too much meaning into the terms Agnostic and Atheist.
From your intro it seems to me that you are Agnostic and you are an Atheist (lacking a belief in god), although these are not your defining labels.

But to say that you are not an Atheist is to say that you do not lack a belief in god, which means that you do believe in god.

I think a more defining term for you is Apatheist.

Anyway, I liked your intro, not really sure why it was moved, it certainly wasn't controversial and was a statement about you.

Hope you stick around to discuss your position more with us.

This wasn't Attila's intro and it was likely to spawn a theistic debate in the introduction forum.  :)

Not his intro?

But the original post is sitting in the Introduction section?

Quote from: Stevil on October 09, 2011, 10:45:27 AM
Not his intro?

OK fair enough then.

Sorry, my bad. Not his first post. Was I a bit quick with the move?

Quote from: Stevil on October 09, 2011, 10:30:55 AM
I think a more defining term for you is Apatheist.

Yes. That.

I think there are quite a few people here who are willing to admit their ignorance on a lot of issues. I, personally, believe that it is that kind of humility that draws quite a few people into being atheistic in the first place.

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

I'm guessing that if I did find out that some god exists, the only thing it would change in my life would I would curiously try to find out more about it. I know for a fact that I'm just not made for any theistic religion, with all their messy philosophical baggage and ideas of a personal god who listens to them.

Though by your definition, I wouldn't call myself an apatheist because of the reasons above. Truth is I'm way more concerned about religion's effect on people than the religions themselves.

Why, Attila, if you are so apathetic to the whole irrelevant subject do you choose to discuss it on a forum? It seems important for you to demonstrate how uninterested you are. I don't get it.

Quote from: Scissorlegs on October 09, 2011, 11:14:16 PM
Why, Attila, if you are so apathetic to the whole irrelevant subject do you choose to discuss it on a forum? It seems important for you to demonstrate how uninterested you are. I don't get it.

A fair question, Scissorlegs. 1. I don't think I'm apathetic. I actively dislike discussions about whether god(s) exist(s) or not. As I said, I find them pointless. I don't like do refer to myself as an atheist because I don't find my disbelief in any divine-human  interaction has no bearing on my moral/philosophical code. I find the terms "rationalist" or "materialist" (in the literal sense not in the Madonna -"I'm a material girl" sense). I felt Dawkins did himself a disservice in The God Delusion by broaching the subject. I claim that the absence of divine-human human interaction is the front that I will engage on. In a way Dawkins takes this position himself (but still argues the other) in his removing a Spinozan  god (=logical force) from his argument. So I actively reject divine-human  interaction and am willing to argue about it and, as a rationalist and not a person of faith, I admit the possibility that I could be wrong. So my position is that anyone claiming to have had contact with a deity or deities, is delusional or a liar.

I hope my clumsy efforts at clarification have helped somewhat.
ciao,
Attila

Quote from: Attila on October 09, 2011, 10:05:31 AM
For me -- and am I alone in this? -- the question of whether a god or gods exist has absolutely no interest or importance. I can't imagine how any aspect of my life would change if somehow some answer to the question were found. To take one example of a similar issue, I have no interest in whether the the number of molecules in the universe is a prime or or not a prime. Like the existence of some supernatural being, I can't attach any significance to this question. Since I would not identify myself as a  "primist" or an "aprimist" because the issue has no significance to me so I couldn't call myself an atheist for exactly the same reason. I just don't care. By the way, this is not agnosticism. It's not that I don't know (I don't) but rather it wouldn't make any difference whether I knew or not.

Dawkins's discussion of this issue in The God Delusion has raised considerable debate most notable for being boring, moronic and pointless.  This was done at the expense of the many more important and interesting points raised in his book. In any event I much prefer the approach taken by Michael Parenti in his God and his Demons.

I guess I could call myself a "je m'en foutiste" but there wouldn't be much point in it. My reason for posting this is that I wonder if there are others who share this point of view. I confess my ignorance and am quite prepared to blush with embarrassment when informed that it is quite well known and not at all uncommon.

Thanks in advance for the enlightenment.
Attila

I would say you have a form of agnosticism which is understandable in reasoning. Simply put, your reasoning in not affirming the existence of God appears to be primarily due to a lack of significance you'd feel personally (you're life would be more or less the same no matter truth).

In response to your primary stance, I would say although you may not personally feel like the existence of God or theological implications would play an enormously significant role. No matter the case, being member of humanity at a time and place of such astonishing height of social, industrial, and technological development, we have all commonly taken many things around us in lives as granted.

A bagel you had this morning for breakfast, for example, obviously had to of come about from somewhere. Surely through a complex route of natural and human processes, you have been fed. We all know that for whatever reason, if these human processes did not take place you would have no bagel, and if these natural processes did not take place, human existence would have a much more troubling time surviving. When we say something has the origin of a natural process, all that really means is that it is an observable phenomena. We don't really see anything very "magical" about our wheats and grains relying on the water cycle in order to sustain their existence mainly in part for the lack of surprise. Sheer repetitious nature of the process which has been observed and studied time after time again; to the everyday person, these process severely lack any sort of imaginative enginuity and at the end of the day, are down right boring.        

It appears this mother nature has a countess number of chores and errands to check-list day in and day out. Sculpting the topography of your backyard, providing uv rays protecting the sun from the skin and blood cells that have been placed all around you, the oxygen and hydrogen that are sustaining the lives of your loved ones. To someone who believes there is no rhyme nor reason for these things, they simply go along their merry way through life, perhaps appreciating the ups and downs this life has to offer, then expire.When we wake up each and every day, why do you choose to do so? Perhaps to meet, measure, and the succeed the expectations of the culture around us, maybe to pursuit ambitions of a particular hobby, pleasure, person you have grown fond of, or to simply enjoy life to the "fullest" in whichever manner one sees fits.

For the theist, these metaphysical implications are something to be cherished and given thanks to. Their view of the world around them is fulfilled through the faith that divinity has imparted responsibility for what is seen before them, a purpose in how others should be treated in much deeper sense than the social norms and expectations brought upon them.

In others words, if you were acknowledge the existence of some kind of "God", you're life and perception should have a notable shift.

Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 10, 2011, 04:29:03 PM
I would say you have a form of agnosticism which is understandable in reasoning. Simply put, your reasoning in not affirming the existence of God appears to be primarily due to a lack of significance you'd feel personally (you're life would be more or less the same no matter truth).

First of all, thanks for the thought-provoking reply, Cforce. Let me try to answer a few of your points.
I reject my view as agnosticism. It's not that I don't know. I believe I have as much knowledge about the existence of god as any other human. Any attempt to quantify this knowledge or absence thereof is complicated by the total absence of a definition of god. How could anyone  possibly point a finger and say, "this is god" or "that is not god". If you have an operational definition, I'd love to hear it.

QuoteIn response to your primary stance, I would say although you may not personally feel like the existence of God or theological implications would play an enormously significant role. No matter the case, being member of humanity at a time and place of such astonishing height of social, industrial, and technological development, we have all commonly taken many things around us in lives as granted.

Again you seem to be presupposing a definition of god that I'm not privy to. Why would the existence of god necessarily have any implications whatsoever? Again, you are presupposing a definition of god that you haven't stated. Even a singularity is not a logical necessity as far as I can see. Maybe there's a nest of them? or maybe they're now just background noise of the Milky Way. I don't see that people who hate gays or women are going to stop hating gays and women because of the existence or non- existence of some entity. Suppose some mysterious being appears out of a puff of smoke and says, "I don't hate gays or women". What will that change? People who believe god hates gays and wants women to be subservient to men will just claim that this being is not god but, say, a devil.

QuoteA bagel you had this morning for breakfast, for example, obviously had to of come about from somewhere. Surely through a complex route of natural and human processes, you have been fed. We all know that for whatever reason, if these human processes did not take place you would have no bagel, and if these natural processes did not take place, human existence would have a much more troubling time surviving.

Sorry Cforce, things are getting murky here. I really don't follow the business about natural processes.

QuoteWhen we say something has the origin of a natural process, all that really means is that it is an observable phenomena. We don't really see anything very "magical" about our wheats and grains relying on the water cycle in order to sustain their existence mainly in part for the lack of surprise. Sheer repetitious nature of the process which has been observed and studied time after time again; to the everyday person, these process severely lack any sort of imaginative enginuity and at the end of the day, are down right boring.

Now I'm really lost. Is there any thing that happens that doesn't involve some natural process? Can you give me a list of what these natural processes are? Are you describing physics here?        

QuoteIt appears this mother nature has a countess number of chores and errands to check-list day in and day out.

Ok, I'll stop. Things are getting way too metaphysical for these old materialist bones.

QuoteSculpting the topography of your backyard, providing uv rays protecting the sun from the skin and blood cells that have been placed all around you, the oxygen and hydrogen that are sustaining the lives of your loved ones. To someone who believes there is no rhyme nor reason for these things, they simply go along their merry way through life, perhaps appreciating the ups and downs this life has to offer, then expire.When we wake up each and every day, why do you choose to do so? Perhaps to meet, measure, and the succeed the expectations of the culture around us, maybe to pursuit ambitions of a particular hobby, pleasure, person you have grown fond of, or to simply enjoy life to the "fullest" in whichever manner one sees fits.

For the theist, these metaphysical implications are something to be cherished and given thanks to. Their view of the world around them is fulfilled through the faith that divinity has imparted responsibility for what is seen before them, a purpose in how others should be treated in much deeper sense than the social norms and expectations brought upon them.

In others words, if you were acknowledge the existence of some kind of "God", you're life and perception should have a notable shift.

Anyway thanks for your comments. They've been educational.
ciao,
Attila

Quote from: Attila on October 10, 2011, 05:32:10 AM

Quote from: Scissorlegs on October 09, 2011, 11:14:16 PM
Why, Attila, if you are so apathetic to the whole irrelevant subject do you choose to discuss it on a forum? It seems important for you to demonstrate how uninterested you are. I don't get it.

A fair question, Scissorlegs. 1. I don't think I'm apathetic. I actively dislike discussions about whether god(s) exist(s) or not. As I said, I find them pointless. I don't like do refer to myself as an atheist because I don't find my disbelief in any divine-human  interaction has no bearing on my moral/philosophical code.
ciao,
Attila

OK, your explanation, alongside some googling of the nuances of the Apetheist philosophy gives me some better understanding. It makes sense.

I understand that it doesn't impact your everyday life whether there is a disinterested God or no God at all. Of course we don't have all the answers, and rationalism is a noble stance. Are you so free-minded as to be able to forego any 'decision' that would help intellectually position yourself  within the universe (as I have done by 'deciding' on Atheism)? That's possibly the most broad-minded thinking possible and I salute you.

I, however, am not so intellectually unencumbered. Maybe you'd consider that I'm overly sentimental about such things, but I like to be able to place myself in the universe relative to all that is around me and how it became. I derive great joy from the notion of simply having evolved and just 'being'. And the man-of-faith derives great joy from the notion of being created by his God. Are you not depriving yourself of either of these joys by taking a neutral, emotionless view of your creation?

Quote from: Scissorlegs on October 10, 2011, 06:31:23 PM
OK, your explanation, alongside some googling of the nuances of the Apetheist philosophy gives me some better understanding. It makes sense.

I understand that it doesn't impact your everyday life whether there is a disinterested God or no God at all. Of course we don't have all the answers, and rationalism is a noble stance. Are you so free-minded as to be able to forego any 'decision' that would help intellectually position yourself  within the universe (as I have done by 'deciding' on Atheism)? That's possibly the most broad-minded thinking possible and I salute you.

I, however, am not so intellectually unencumbered. Maybe you'd consider that I'm overly sentimental about such things, but I like to be able to place myself in the universe relative to all that is around me and how it became. I derive great joy from the notion of simply having evolved and just 'being'. And the man-of-faith derives great joy from the notion of being created by his God. Are you not depriving yourself of either of these joys by taking a neutral, emotionless view of your creation?

Hi Scissorlegs,
To be brutally frank with you, I don't give a rat's arse about my place in the universe but I will defend to the death your right have such concerns. I don't think my position has any bearing on those feelings. Again it's about how you define god. For me, it's just as likely (or rather, unlikely) to be an adolescent extraterrestrial playing a computer game  where we are the avatars as  some Milky Way background noise. Whatever it may be, there is pretty good evidence that it has never had naught to do with us. In fact, the object popularly known as god is most often an aberrant use of the first person pronoun. (God hates fags=I hate fags). As for my view of my creation, I don't see anything to do with god here but rather my mother and father fucking sometime in 1941. I am not without emotion; I sincerely hope the had a good time. They're both dead now so I guess I'll never know but then I'm not that interested.

Most of the "people of faith" that I have had the bad luck to deal with (source for another thread) are tight-arsed grumpypusses who don't get joy out of anything except maybe burning witches and blowing up abortion centres. Joy and faith most certainly do not mix. Pleased about your concern though   but not to worry. ;)
Attila

Quote from: Attila on October 10, 2011, 05:20:31 PM
First of all, thanks for the thought-provoking reply, Cforce. Let me try to answer a few of your points.
I reject my view as agnosticism. It's not that I don't know. I believe I have as much knowledge about the existence of god as any other human. Any attempt to quantify this knowledge or absence thereof is complicated by the total absence of a definition of god. How could anyone  possibly point a finger and say, "this is god" or "that is not god". If you have an operational definition, I'd love to hear it.

Apologizes for the abstract subject matter, but bare with me and by all means feel free to ask for any clarification.

Let's say, for purposes of this discussion (I will break down into 3 components for clarity's sake), we can define "theology" as being (1) the metaphysical assertion that the external world around us has been mechanically processed and fashioned harmoniously(commonly through traditional understandings / interpretations through narratives of divinity including, God, gods, or goddess) and (2) universally within human experience, with the inclusion of objective purposes and intent that are relative to the form of theology (3).

(1) These harmonious processes and fashions have been frequently embodied by the very materials humans have experienced in order to be understood in manner suited for human understanding. Think of a male pagan farmer in Ethiopia during a period where humanity is transitioning out of hunting and gathering and into agriculture. He believes the sun as a god, watching over his crops. Regardless of what he understands scientifically of what is actually happening to his crops, according to his theology and worldview, the objective of the sun is to give crops in which enables him to eat. The same can be said of the origin of the seasons in greek mythology. They illustrated a narrative using Zeus and his daughter in order to assert why laws of nature harmonizes and synchronizes the four seasons as they are.    

(2) Just as I experience the four seasons (winter, spring, summer, fall) in the United States, you do as well. Theology asserts the external world is of a certain order, intent, and true to certain kind of nature.

(3) This can be somewhat confusing, as though the terms of what is experienced are objective according to a religion, they are also relevant to that particular worldview. In other words, one worldview can sharply differentiate significantly from another form of theology (one often contradicts another quite sharply).  

QuoteI don't see that people who hate gays or women are going to stop hating gays and women because of the existence or non- existence of some entity. Suppose some mysterious being appears out of a puff of smoke and says, "I don't hate gays or women". What will that change? People who believe god hates gays and wants women to be subservient to men will just claim that this being is not god but, say, a devil.

This is true, the idealistic existence of some sort constant material "god" who sat down on a throne around the Mt. Olympus region who may or may not puff in and out of smoke would not necessarily "force" certain behaviors unto others. And yes, the alterations of theology is not very difficult. To say God hates all people with yellow hats could be theologically debated despite being logically incompatible with previous notions of God.

QuoteOk, I'll stop. Things are getting way too metaphysical for these old materialist bones.

I'm curious of your own beliefs, it's easy to box one's belief under the box or tree of a certain philosophy, so your personal philosophy would be interesting to know.

Quote
Anyway thanks for your comments. They've been educational.
ciao,
Attila

Thank you, I love a good intellectual discussion  :)

Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 10, 2011, 09:31:46 PM


Apologizes for the abstract subject matter, but bare with me and by all means feel free to ask for any clarification.

Let's say, for purposes of this discussion (I will break down into 3 components for clarity's sake), we can define "theology" as being (1) the metaphysical assertion that the external world around us has been mechanically processed and fashioned harmoniously(commonly through traditional understandings / interpretations through narratives of divinity including, God, gods, or goddess) and (2) universally within human experience, with the inclusion of objective purposes and intent that are relative to the form of theology (3).

Firstly, this is great fun. Thanks for carrying on. Now to business: you have a strange notion of theology.  Theoology without a qualifier (jewish, christian, ..., or any other -ology) typically involves the study of something rather than the content of what is being studied. For this reason we'll need to find a word to replace theology or else qualify it or the discussion becomes completely opaque. Please avoid value-laden notions like "harmonious". It is meaningless, at least to me. If it means something to you please define it precisely. Concretely, examples of things fashioned harmoniously versus things that are not fashioned harmoniously. Also: how can an assertion be metaphysical? That makes no sense to me. As I understand things, people assert things and people are typically physical rather than metaphysical, right? If you mean the content of the assertion is metaphysical then I simply reject it on rationalist grounds. Terms like "traditional understanding" are dodgy and poorly defined. By "narratives of divinity" you mean stuff like the koran, the bible, various "sacred texts", stuff like that?

I'm afraid that number (2) has no meaning for me at all. If something is universal within human experience and if you accept that I am human, then you claim that I must have experiences something, correct? Ok so far so good. What exactly (in everyday words please) am I supposed to have experienced? That is all I could squeeze out of (2) I'm afraid. I suppose you're using to interacting with people far more intelligent than I so indulge me please. I'll stop here and await your explanations since your "narrative" (is that correct?) has a structure and if I don't understand the first part the remainder will certainly be incomprehensible as well.

Quote
I'm curious of your own beliefs, it's easy to box one's belief under the box or tree of a certain philosophy, so your personal philosophy would be interesting to know.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the word "beliefs" but if you're asking about my personal moral/political philosophy, it's simple: the ultimate evil is authority. I am against all forms of it and would argue that the majority of the world's ills stem, directly or indirectly, from its imposition -- in short I'm an anarchist.

Ok, I've said enough. I eagerly await your clarifications.
Ciao,
Attila

Quote from: Attila on October 11, 2011, 10:08:37 AM

Firstly, this is great fun. Thanks for carrying on.

;D

QuoteNow to business: you have a strange notion of theology.  Theoology without a qualifier (jewish, christian, ..., or any other -ology) typically involves the study of something rather than the content of what is being studied. For this reason we'll need to find a word to replace theology or else qualify it or the discussion becomes completely opaque.

I'd have to disagree, this definition of theology is fine for the time being. Commonality can be found over a broad range of religion, religious notions, theology: including belief of the aboutness of natural order, human condition, afterlife, eschatology, ect. Any religion should be considered compatible with this discussion.

QuotePlease avoid value-laden notions like "harmonious". It is meaningless, at least to me. If it means something to you please define it precisely. Concretely, examples of things fashioned harmoniously versus things that are not fashioned harmoniously.

"Harmonious" or the concept of harmony is essential for this definition. Think back to my example with the Ethiopian farmer. He is interpreting the sun god as offering him crops. The same sun we know from studying nature has taken some sort of anthropomorphic form embodied in a divine entity in order to bring about intention and purpose for something that is otherwise inanimate.

Another way of thinking about this is how science and religion differentiate fundamentally. Think "why" vs. "how". You can scientifically deduce the causality of how the sun is providing sunlight and synthesizing the crop's chemical compounds. However, why the the sun and the chemical compounds are coordinating in such a fashion which enables the crops to being formed; is not a scientific relative question. Hence, this primitive farmer asserts a metaphysical explanation in order to rationalize what the natural order of events have created in favor of him.

Quote
Also: how can an assertion be metaphysical? That makes no sense to me. As I understand things, people assert things and people are typically physical rather than metaphysical, right? If you mean the content of the assertion is metaphysical then I simply reject it on rationalist grounds.

For practicality's sake we can term metaphysics as simply anything "beyond the physical". As far as what people assert, I'd say the majority of used language are actually abstract semantics. Although many assertions, premises, statements of fact, are grounded in the physical. Most are organized and arranged within the abstract. These are usually where the many branches of philosophy hit. Think of common dialogue such as:

"you should do this, stop doing that"
"It's done this way, not that way"
"I don't like you"
"I feel terrible about this"
"I am in love"
"This is beautiful"
"kowabunga!"

Most everyday language is not about pure physicality. In fact, conceptions such as "meaning", "culture", "truth", "justice", and human understanding and rationality itself are not a physical phenomena (despite these concepts being "founded", originated or arguable contingent within the physical).

Think of economic currency, or a personalized journal, from the perspective of a blue jay perched on a tree branch or a timber wolf passing down an empty roadside.... These objects would just "be". The most basic concepts of "trading" and "expressing ideas and impulsion" are not physical.

You wouldn't be rejecting these premises on rationalistic grounds, but those of the (now) widely panned fundamental logical positivism. Apparently there are still some good defenders for this school of thought, and if you consider yourself a very pure and fervent materialist, I'd be curious to hear your rebuttal.

Quote
Terms like "traditional understanding" are dodgy and poorly defined.

I don't consider this a "dodgy" term, but I will clarify. Again, think back to the farmer and the natural order of things. Through his interpretation, nature's apparent tendencies of placing a sun which is providing the farmer living commodities such as food and warmth. Rather than rationalizing to himself that the sun "is what it is" or "this is just how things are", he is instead offers credit and gratitude to some sort of "divine being" in which these events are being contrived. Not only has this particular farmer inferred this, but in fact, the majority of mankind throughout their history. Generally speaking, all foundational human societies have interpreted or attested some sort divine explanation in regards to their inference of the natural world.    

Quote
By "narratives of divinity" you mean stuff like the koran, the bible, various "sacred texts", stuff like that?

Yes, the major religions have revelations which are primarily written. But several others have been told through other means such as oral tradition and hieroglyphics.

But what my definition for what "narratives of divinity" are, can be as broad as any objectivity in which external world is destined for. Whether it is intended to please a particular god/goddess, or that the earth should be completely deforested and eradicated of all trees. As long as the nature insinuates any sort of element of aboutness. To render some sort of "story" for the external world to play out would be suitable when considering how human beings cognitively infer events which demand what we would otherwise recognize as being a member within a "plot". Although these narratives traditionally and commonly include some sort of attribution toward a god, goddess or God, it is not a prerequisite.

Quote
I'm afraid that number (2) has no meaning for me at all. If something is universal within human experience and if you accept that I am human, then you claim that I must have experiences something, correct? Ok so far so good. What exactly (in everyday words please) am I supposed to have experienced? That is all I could squeeze out of (2) I'm afraid.

Sorry for the confusion. I'll to try clarify both (2) and (3) with a simple example: I and a friend from Washington D.C. are hypothetically journeying to South Dakota and witnessing Mount Rushmore side by side. We would both be experiencing Mount Rushmore and equate the same exact experience, more or less. Now, compare this experience with someone else, lets say, a 12th century knight from Germany. The meaning and significance for us being a modern American would differ sharply than the knight, because culture has inherently endowed meaning upon that mountain's sculpture.

The same could be said theologically speaking. Lets say the same sun god of our Ethiopian farmer has somehow created wildfire for a nomadic group of natives living off the same land. Perhaps they embody some sort of god of a more vengeful manner. Regardless, it is still the same physical sun we are talking about, but their purposes and attributes are being inferred metaphysically in sharply different terms.

QuoteI suppose you're using to interacting with people far more intelligent than I so indulge me please. I'll stop here and await your explanations since your "narrative" (is that correct?) has a structure and if I don't understand the first part the remainder will certainly be incomprehensible as well.

Haha, that is very kind of you to say. But I am afraid I am very much just an everyday person and am no expert in the realm of philosophy/religion. Although I do enjoy philosophical talks and discussion and any sort of critical thinking as an enjoyable hobby.

Quote
I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the word "beliefs" but if you're asking about my personal moral/political philosophy, it's simple: the ultimate evil is authority. I am against all forms of it and would argue that the majority of the world's ills stem, directly or indirectly, from its imposition -- in short I'm an anarchist.

Interesting, perhaps we can better discuss them in another thread of discussion.

Hi Cforce,
I think we are failing to communicate. I have no idea what you're on about and your manner of expressing yourself is not one that I'm capable of dealing with. If you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest simplifying things dramatically and dealing with one point at a time. What you write comes across as gibberish which I'm sure is not at all your intention.
ciao,
Attila

Quote from: Attila on October 12, 2011, 06:18:02 PM
Hi Cforce,
I think we are failing to communicate. I have no idea what your on about and your manner of expressing yourself is not one that I'm capable of dealing with. If you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest simplifying things dramatically and dealing with one point at a time. What you write comes across as gibberish which I'm sure is not at all your intention.
ciao,
Attila

Very well, I'll do my best to commentate on the discussion point in short layman's terms.

Quote

QuoteNow to business: you have a strange notion of theology.  Theoology without a qualifier (jewish, christian, ..., or any other -ology) typically involves the study of something rather than the content of what is being studied. For this reason we'll need to find a word to replace theology or else qualify it or the discussion becomes completely opaque.

I'd have to disagree, this definition of theology is fine for the time being. Commonality can be found over a broad range of religion, religious notions, theology: including belief of the aboutness of natural order, human condition, afterlife, eschatology, ect. Any religion should be considered compatible with this discussion.

Here you are suggesting that in order to discuss religion we must talk specifically in the context of one particular religion at a time (i.e. Christianity theology only can only be related in it of itself). I disagreed with you and argued there are many (enough) things in common with all (or at least most) religions that all could be discussed.

Quote

QuotePlease avoid value-laden notions like "harmonious". It is meaningless, at least to me. If it means something to you please define it precisely. Concretely, examples of things fashioned harmoniously versus things that are not fashioned harmoniously.

Quote"Harmonious" or the concept of harmony is essential for this definition. Think back to my example with the Ethiopian farmer. He is interpreting the sun god as offering him crops. The same sun we know from studying nature has taken some sort of anthropomorphic form embodied in a divine entity in order to bring about intention and purpose for something that is otherwise inanimate.

Another way of thinking about this is how science and religion differentiate fundamentally. Think "why" vs. "how". You can scientifically deduce the causality of how the sun is providing sunlight and synthesizing the crop's chemical compounds. However, why the the sun and the chemical compounds are coordinating in such a fashion which enables the crops to being formed; is not a scientific relative question. Hence, this primitive farmer asserts a metaphysical explanation in order to rationalize what the natural order of events have created in favor of him.

Previously, I was defining how nature being "harmonious" as a needed definition when discussing theology. However, you argued in favor of dismissing it outright.

I assumed you wanted to do this because it may be difficult to define what is or is not "harmonious" in nature. So I made up an example of farmer growing crops. I argued that theology implies the harmony of how the crops were being made through definable and visible coordination within different parts of nature in order to be produced. My point with the science/religion spill was that this coordination could be reducible for what is empirically causing the the plants to be made, but science can't say anything regarding the actual "harmonizing" (one act of nature working within another independently of the other in such a way that there so happens to be materialized result, really anything as far as we are concerned, but in this case a crop).

This farmer is pondering for what reason nature is allowing him food to eat (remember, science can not attest any part of nature working toward an end result). He is gives credit to the sun (one of the leading causation resulting in his food being produced), in a metaphysical sense (to say the sun has somehow planned, plotted that his crop could be produced would not be a physically deducible implication or in other words, pure observation of the events taking for any purposes could only be implied intuitively)

This same example can be applied across the board to a number of religions. Wheather it is the God of Abraham conjuring the water of the seas, or a sun god bringing forth the light of the earth. All of these are explaining some sort of harmonious acts of nature resulting in some sort of phenomena occurring within the natural world. And this harmonizing is needed in defining theology as these deities are explaining reasoning behind the wonders of what is occurring within the natural world we are in.   

Quote

Quote
Also: how can an assertion be metaphysical? That makes no sense to me. As I understand things, people assert things and people are typically physical rather than metaphysical, right? If you mean the content of the assertion is metaphysical then I simply reject it on rationalist grounds.

For practicality's sake we can term metaphysics as simply anything "beyond the physical". As far as what people assert, I'd say the majority of used language are actually abstract semantics. Although many assertions, premises, statements of fact, are grounded in the physical. Most are organized and arranged within the abstract. These are usually where the many branches of philosophy hit. Think of common dialogue such as:

"you should do this, stop doing that"
"It's done this way, not that way"
"I don't like you"
"I feel terrible about this"
"I am in love"
"This is beautiful"
"kowabunga!"

Most everyday language is not about pure physicality. In fact, conceptions such as "meaning", "culture", "truth", "justice", and human understanding and rationality itself are not a physical phenomena (despite these concepts being "founded", originated or arguable contingent within the physical).

Think of economic currency, or a personalized journal, from the perspective of a blue jay perched on a tree branch or a timber wolf passing down an empty roadside.... These objects would just "be". The most basic concepts of "trading" and "expressing ideas and impulsion" are not physical.

You wouldn't be rejecting these premises on rationalistic grounds, but those of the (now) widely panned fundamental logical positivism. Apparently there are still some good defenders for this school of thought, and if you consider yourself a very pure and fervent materialist, I'd be curious to hear your rebuttal.

Here you seem to be implying that you hail towards logical positivism (if it ain't  physical it is nonsense), the fundamental premise of this philosophy has been more of less been shown to be inherently fallacious and dated. But that being said, there are some who have modernized their arguments and perhaps you can still vouch for some sort of variation on this particular philosophy.

QuoteBut what my definition for what "narratives of divinity" are, can be as broad as any objectivity in which external world is destined for. Whether it is intended to please a particular god/goddess, or that the earth should be completely deforested and eradicated of all trees. As long as the nature insinuates any sort of element of aboutness. To render some sort of "story" for the external world to play out would be suitable when considering how human beings cognitively infer events which demand what we would otherwise recognize as being a member within a "plot". Although these narratives traditionally and commonly include some sort of attribution toward a god, goddess or God, it is not a prerequisite.

In other words, whenever you apply nonphysical attributes from human cognition (anything being "planned", "coming about without incident") you inherently gather these "divine stories, plays, events" which are used in illustrating the orchestration of the natural world.   

QuoteThe same could be said theologically speaking. Lets say the same sun god of our Ethiopian farmer has somehow created wildfire for a nomadic group of natives living off the same land. Perhaps they embody some sort of god of a more vengeful manner. Regardless, it is still the same physical sun we are talking about, but their purposes and attributes are being inferred metaphysically in sharply different terms.

Depending on the religion, these metaphysical implications or religious interpretation of what is occurring through nature can vary from religion to religion.

Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

It probably wouldn't change your behavior that much, but I remind you that you are a product of the Christian West, which has a 2000 year history with the teachings of Jesus.  If you had been born in a Muslim country like Afghanistan, you might now be telling your sons to go into suicide bombing for a profession and killing your daughters because someone from another tribe saw them without their burqas.
Think of the discovery of communication with God like the discovery of a birth father for an adopted son. It would probably change the son's concept of who he was and answer a lot of questions, but he would still be essentially who he was. 

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 03:30:54 AM

Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

It probably wouldn't change your behavior that much, but I remind you that you are a product of the Christian West, which has a 2000 year history with the teachings of Jesus.  If you had been born in a Muslim country like Afghanistan, you might now be telling your sons to go into suicide bombing for a profession and killing your daughters because someone from another tribe saw them without their burqas.
Think of the discovery of communication with God like the discovery of a birth father for an adopted son. It would probably change the son's concept of who he was and answer a lot of questions, but he would still be essentially who he was. 

I don't think god exists. I was making the point that saying one would not alter one's behaviour in light of new information is a little irrational. My comment had nothing to do with institutionalised superstition. Yes I am very fortunate to have not been born into a culture where institutionalised superstitions can force their lies on people, in particular children.

Quote from: Tank on October 13, 2011, 09:28:55 AM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 03:30:54 AM

Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

It probably wouldn't change your behavior that much, but I remind you that you are a product of the Christian West, which has a 2000 year history with the teachings of Jesus.  If you had been born in a Muslim country like Afghanistan, you might now be telling your sons to go into suicide bombing for a profession and killing your daughters because someone from another tribe saw them without their burqas.
Think of the discovery of communication with God like the discovery of a birth father for an adopted son. It would probably change the son's concept of who he was and answer a lot of questions, but he would still be essentially who he was. 

I don't think god exists.

Nor do I. 

QuoteI was making the point that saying one would not alter one's behaviour in light of new information is a little irrational. My comment had nothing to do with institutionalised superstition. Yes I am very fortunate to have not been born into a culture where institutionalised superstitions can force their lies on people, in particular children.

But doesn't that depend on the nature of that information? Would the new information that the number of molecules in the universe is not a prime number (or the contrary) change your behaviour in any shape, way or form? Is so, how? And doesn't the (non-)existence of god fall into that category?
ciao,
Attila

Quote from: Attila on October 13, 2011, 09:45:56 AM

Quote from: TankI was making the point that saying one would not alter one's behaviour in light of new information is a little irrational. My comment had nothing to do with institutionalised superstition. Yes I am very fortunate to have not been born into a culture where institutionalised superstitions can force their lies on people, in particular children.

But doesn't that depend on the nature of that information? Would the new information that the number of molecules in the universe is not a prime number (or the contrary) change your behaviour in any shape, way or form? Is so, how? And doesn't the (non-)existence of god fall into that category?
ciao,
Attila

As you point out, it's the nature of the information that is at the root of one's reaction to the new information. I couldn't give a rat's arse about the latest soap opera story line on TV. However if one could disprove beyond doubt that god did or did not exist that piece of information would impinge on you, if not directly then indirectly through the behaviour of others in their reaction to it. I would expect that such a revelation would have a huge impact on society and you are part of society and therefore not entirely immune to what goes on around you. The fact that you have signed up to this forum and take part in theistic discussions puts the lie to the fact that you claim not to care about the existence, or not, of god. Your actions speak louder than your words. If you truly didn't care about the existence of God I contend that you wouldn't have joined this forum  ;D

Regards your prime number example. That's an example based on an abstract irrelevance. The existence, or not, of God is not an abstract irrelevance. In my opinion it's built-in to our very psyche as human beings.

Quote from: Tank on October 13, 2011, 10:03:40 AM
As you point out, it's the nature of the information that is at the root of one's reaction to the new information. I couldn't give a rat's arse about the latest soap opera story line on TV. However if one could disprove beyond doubt that god did or did not exist that piece of information would impinge on you, if not directly then indirectly through the behaviour of others in their reaction to it. I would expect that such a revelation would have a huge impact on society and you are part of society and therefore not entirely immune to what goes on around you. The fact that you have signed up to this forum and take part in theistic discussions puts the lie to the fact that you claim not to care about the existence, or not, of god.
Regards your prime number example. That's an example based on an abstract irrelevance. The existence, or not, of God is not an abstract irrelevance. In my opinion it's built-in to our very psyche as human beings.

Thanks Tank. I like your answer. The problem is that "god" is not a well-defined object. So it's quite possible that discovery of god has zero impact on humanity. Wouldn't a more likely outcome be that the part of humanity gives a toss about a possible deity (1) denies that it's god and rejects the one we come up with out of hand and we're back to the current  state. As a practical matter I have no idea  how you would identify a god in the unlikely  event that one  exists. Do you?

QuoteYour actions speak louder than your words. If you truly didn't care about the existence of God I contend that you wouldn't have joined this forum  ;D

People keep claiming that and I keep denying that. I have a sneaky suspicion that you're just winding me up, right? Just a quick sentence: atheism has nothing to do with god but rather about values and practices in a godless world and how to deal with the delusional. Surely that's reason enough to be here, yes? And to meet people like your good self ...  ;D I world without god makes sense but a world without Tank? No way, José!
ciao,
Attila

Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 12, 2011, 08:04:09 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 12, 2011, 06:18:02 PM
Hi Cforce,
I think we are failing to communicate. I have no idea what your on about and your manner of expressing yourself is not one that I'm capable of dealing with. If you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest simplifying things dramatically and dealing with one point at a time. What you write comes across as gibberish which I'm sure is not at all your intention.
ciao,
Attila

Very well, I'll do my best to commentate on the discussion point in short layman's terms.

Hi Cforce,
We seem to live in very different time as well as philosophical zones. Thus, we will have gaps in our conversation. At this point let me acknowledge your superior education, experience and wisdom. I don't think anyone reading our respective contributions to this forum would have the slightest doubt about it. All this notwithstanding let me suggest that your response could be considered as patronising. Communicating in simple comprehensible language has always been quite enough for individuals we would both agree are worth reading, from Bertrand Russell to Richard Feynman to Noam Chomsky.

If I object to a term in a given context and attempt to present reasons why I object, being responded to by the phrase "this definition ... is fine for the time being" could be interpreted as authoritarian. Now I am sure that these are unintended outcomes but I would request, if there are to be further exchanges between us, that you be sensitive to the impact of your phrasing.

Early on your refer me to your example of "a male pagan farmer in Ethiopia during a period where humanity is transitioning out of hunting and gathering and into agriculture." In your subsequent responses you refer repeatedly to this "example" on the assumption that it has some content. You seem to know what he thinks and that this knowledge can have an impact of the points that are in question. I again confess my own ignorance. I have no idea what a pagan farmer in Ethiopia thinks. If you could indulge me by referring to some works where this is discussed, I'd be most grateful. In addition, I wonder about your use of the term "pagan". What is its semantic content in the time frame referred to? Were there non-pagans then? If not why make the effort of adding the word "pagan"? Is that a critical part of your example? Would it not be possible and easier to use more accessible examples, say, from our own time where I have some hope of understanding what you are talking about.

I am well aware that I may be "cramping your style" with these requests and I have no wish to impose my style of discourse on you. Terminating this discussion may be a more suitable response from you and one that I'll happily accede to.
ciao,
Attila

Attila, I like your style, man! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F2339%2Fbluethumbup.gif&hash=5fe03c6701607da88624dfc89a3acd7df124c467)

Quote from: Attila on October 13, 2011, 10:32:07 AM

Quote from: Tank on October 13, 2011, 10:03:40 AM
As you point out, it's the nature of the information that is at the root of one's reaction to the new information. I couldn't give a rat's arse about the latest soap opera story line on TV. However if one could disprove beyond doubt that god did or did not exist that piece of information would impinge on you, if not directly then indirectly through the behaviour of others in their reaction to it. I would expect that such a revelation would have a huge impact on society and you are part of society and therefore not entirely immune to what goes on around you. The fact that you have signed up to this forum and take part in theistic discussions puts the lie to the fact that you claim not to care about the existence, or not, of god.
Regards your prime number example. That's an example based on an abstract irrelevance. The existence, or not, of God is not an abstract irrelevance. In my opinion it's built-in to our very psyche as human beings.

Thanks Tank. I like your answer. The problem is that "god" is not a well-defined object. So it's quite possible that discovery of god has zero impact on humanity. Wouldn't a more likely outcome be that the part of humanity gives a toss about a possible deity (1) denies that it's god and rejects the one we come up with out of hand and we're back to the current  state. As a practical matter I have no idea  how you would identify a god in the unlikely  event that one  exists. Do you?

The discovery of God would have to include a detailed and verifiable definition of what God is. Thus the problem of 'god' not being well-defined would go away. Almost all humans have an opinion about the existence, or otherwise, of God. The discovery of God would impact on the world view of all these people. Now suppose God turned out to be Allah, the Muslims would feel vindicated. Now suppose God turned out to be like nothing ever described, all theists would get their knickers in a twist and all the atheists would be looking to start the new 'correct' church, whatever that may be.

The thing is that if one view of God were proved correct some people would simply go around with their fingers in their ears going 'La la la, don't want to know!' But I very much doubt you would be one of those people. I contend that as a curious and intelligent person you would at the very least not be able to resist studying the evidence and making your own mind up about whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of God. So I don't think you could possibly 'not care' about the existence, or not, of God. Now as to whether you believed the evidence represented proof would be down to your existing world view and the nature of the evidence. But your analysis of the evidence would impact on your world view, it would either reinforce it or destroy/weaken it, would it not? So unless you became a hermit before the 'revelation' and thus never heard it, I would contend that you could not help but be influenced by the information and debate about it.

If God existed and chose to want you to believe, you would believe, how God chose to make you believe is up to God.

Quote from: Attila on October 13, 2011, 10:32:07 AM

Quote from: TankYour actions speak louder than your words. If you truly didn't care about the existence of God I contend that you wouldn't have joined this forum  ;D

People keep claiming that and I keep denying that. I have a sneaky suspicion that you're just winding me up, right? Just a quick sentence: atheism has nothing to do with god but rather about values and practices in a godless world and how to deal with the delusional. Surely that's reason enough to be here, yes? And to meet people like your good self ...  ;D I world without god makes sense but a world without Tank? No way, José!
ciao,
Attila

I wasn't trying to wind you up  ;D

Unless you're playing the deist/theist card atheism has everything to do with the existence, or not, of God. In my opinion atheism isn't a cause but a result. It is the result of a naturalistic rational world view. If one holds a naturalistic world view the result is an atheist or possibly agnostic world view. And again I note that nearly all your posts are in the religion area or are on religious subjects, thus religion must be important to you and as all religions are founded on theistic/deistic faith then the existence of God must be a relevent sub-set of your interests; thus proof, or otherwise, of the existence of God would impinge on you.  ;D

Quote from: Recusant on October 13, 2011, 11:22:00 AM
Attila, I like your style, man! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F2339%2Fbluethumbup.gif&hash=5fe03c6701607da88624dfc89a3acd7df124c467)

Not too dissimilar to your own.

Thank you for the compliment, Tank. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)

Quote from: Recusant on October 13, 2011, 11:22:00 AM
Attila, I like your style, man! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F2339%2Fbluethumbup.gif&hash=5fe03c6701607da88624dfc89a3acd7df124c467)

Mais t'es trop gentil, mon p'ti! I blush with pleasure  :-[  :-[  :-[ Seriously, thanks for the kind words and the feeling is strictly mucilage, as we used to say when I was a kid.
ciao e grazie mille,
Attila

@Tank

QuoteThe discovery of God would have to include a detailed and verifiable definition of what God is.

But is that circular? How do you find something if you don't know what you're looking for? I should say I came from and have spent all my life in a religion-free personal (not public) environment. I am as a child in discussions about god. I'm not pissing about here. I really don't have a clue about what a god could be? Do you mean "the creator of the universe"? If so, my choice is either:
a. no god
b.  The background hum coming off the Milky way.
Ok, in terms of understanding the pre-big-bang universe b. has more interest but that interest has absolutely nothing to do with b. being god. Option a. could be true and b. remains equally interesting in the your sense, Tank. So tell me, why should I care?
ciao,
Attila

Quote from: Attila on October 13, 2011, 11:15:13 AM

Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 12, 2011, 08:04:09 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 12, 2011, 06:18:02 PM
Hi Cforce,
I think we are failing to communicate. I have no idea what your on about and your manner of expressing yourself is not one that I'm capable of dealing with. If you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest simplifying things dramatically and dealing with one point at a time. What you write comes across as gibberish which I'm sure is not at all your intention.
ciao,
Attila

Very well, I'll do my best to commentate on the discussion point in short layman's terms.

Hi Cforce,
We seem to live in very different time as well as philosophical zones. Thus, we will have gaps in our conversation. At this point let me acknowledge your superior education, experience and wisdom. I don't think anyone reading our respective contributions to this forum would have the slightest doubt about it. All this notwithstanding let me suggest that your response could be considered as patronising. Communicating in simple comprehensible language has always been quite enough for individuals we would both agree are worth reading, from Bertrand Russell to Richard Feynman to Noam Chomsky.

If I object to a term in a given context and attempt to present reasons why I object, being responded to by the phrase "this definition ... is fine for the time being" could be interpreted as authoritarian. Now I am sure that these are unintended outcomes but I would request, if there are to be further exchanges between us, that you be sensitive to the impact of your phrasing.

Early on your refer me to your example of "a male pagan farmer in Ethiopia during a period where humanity is transitioning out of hunting and gathering and into agriculture." In your subsequent responses you refer repeatedly to this "example" on the assumption that it has some content. You seem to know what he thinks and that this knowledge can have an impact of the points that are in question. I again confess my own ignorance. I have no idea what a pagan farmer in Ethiopia thinks. If you could indulge me by referring to some works where this is discussed, I'd be most grateful. In addition, I wonder about your use of the term "pagan". What is its semantic content in the time frame referred to? Were there non-pagans then? If not why make the effort of adding the word "pagan"? Is that a critical part of your example? Would it not be possible and easier to use more accessible examples, say, from our own time where I have some hope of understanding what you are talking about.

I am well aware that I may be "cramping your style" with these requests and I have no wish to impose my style of discourse on you. Terminating this discussion may be a more suitable response from you and one that I'll happily accede to.
ciao,
Attila

Unfortunately, the time I have to commit to this forum highly fluctuates. I'd like to eventually post some arguments which I would like to one day turn into a thesis or dissertation, and would enjoy hearing some feedback from anyone who is willing to give constructive criticism. With today's economy, philosophy will have to be a hobby for me, but if financial opportunity arises, maybe I'll have a head start throwing together some ideas that can be expanded upon.

Attila, call me Chris. Feel free to contact me on skype (smithcm), it will be easier to discuss things verbally and more topics can be explored in less time. Regardless, I will try to re-edit this post as time allows and respond to some of the questions of your previous posts.

I think your unconcern is far more common than the alternative, what I would describe as the militant atheist position. Almost everyone I know is atheist, and they all have three things in common. They don't believe in evolution, they are apolitical, and they don't care to discuss or contemplate the existence of gods.

Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 07:51:08 PM
I think your unconcern is far more common than the alternative, what I would describe as the militant atheist position. Almost everyone I know is atheist, and they all have three things in common. They don't believe in evolution, they are apolitical, and they don't care to discuss or contemplate the existence of gods.

None of the above. Somehow I feel relieved. 1. I don't "believe in" anything but I do think the most explanatory theory around (neo-darwinism actually). 2. I am extremely political. The notion of "god" is unintelligible and, accordingly, unsuited to any meaningful discussion. What are you thoughts on fornoninthreuretics? Get the idea? I guess we don't hang out in the same circles.  :)

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 07:55:10 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

I'm not quite sure why you bothered with that post. It's obviously not an honest question as it is blindingly obvious that I would have heard of the bible. So what could your purpose be in asking such a disingenuous question?

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 07:55:10 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

Are you asking me? I assume not. Anyway, sadly I have but fortunately no one I spend any time with has any use for it. I certainly have no interest in it.

Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 08:00:20 PM1. I don't "believe in" anything but I do think the most explanatory theory around (neo-darwinism actually).

What is the difference between "believing" and "thinking?"

Darwinism only attempts to explain what happened after we got here. How do you think we got here? 

Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 08:00:20 PM2. I am extremely political.

I think that most militant atheists are as well. That is probably what you have in common with them. They feel repressed in what amounts to primarily a theocracy. They like to think of themselves as independent, and so incapable of being organized, but the fact is that the average so called atheist is actually more of an Apatheist. It is the growing militant atheists that you see online discussing these issues that could benefit from organizing. It is nonsensical to use the excuse of having nothing in common, comparing the organization of Atheists with herding cats, Like Dawkins does, because what do you expect, in the past, similar organization of women, blacks, homosexuals or any other minority to have in common but the need to organize?

The fact is that aside from the Apatheists they are relatively few. But growing.   

Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 08:00:20 PMThe notion of "god" is unintelligible and, accordingly, unsuited to any meaningful discussion. What are you thoughts on fornoninthreuretics? Get the idea? I guess we don't hang out in the same circles.  :)

Oh, I don't know. Lets consider the definition of an atheist. A person who doesn't believe in the existence of god(s). The antithesis of theist. Then consider the definition of a god. Anything or anyone who is thought to be mighty (from the Hebrew el meaning "strong; mighty one,") This means that a stick, stone, or object that is venerated exists as a god. It also means that any man that exists that is called a god is an existing god. Moses, the Judges of Israel and Jesus were men called Gods in the Bible. Eric Clapton was called a god, Frodo (Baggins) doesn't exist and was called and therefore - a god. All of this is in line with an accurate understanding of the Bible and a good college dictionary.

Quote from: Tank on October 27, 2011, 08:03:00 PM

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 07:55:10 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

I'm not quite sure why you bothered with that post. It's obviously not an honest question as it is blindingly obvious that I would have heard of the bible. So what could your purpose be in asking such a disingenuous question?

I asked the question because I don't understand how anyone could be aware of the Bible and speculate on the possible discovery of a meaningful communication with God. That is exactly what the Bible is. 

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 09:00:33 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 27, 2011, 08:03:00 PM

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 07:55:10 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

I'm not quite sure why you bothered with that post. It's obviously not an honest question as it is blindingly obvious that I would have heard of the bible. So what could your purpose be in asking such a disingenuous question?

I asked the question because I don't understand how anyone could be aware of the Bible and speculate on the possible discovery of a meaningful communication with God. That is exactly what the Bible is. 

Ah! I thought what's you'd say.

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 08:50:20 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 08:00:20 PM1. I don't "believe in" anything but I do think the most explanatory theory around (neo-darwinism actually).

What is the difference between "believing" and "thinking?"

Darwinism only attempts to explain what happened after we got here. How do you think we got here? 

Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 08:00:20 PM2. I am extremely political.

I think that most militant atheists are as well. That is probably what you have in common with them. They feel repressed in what amounts to primarily a theocracy. They like to think of themselves as independent, and so incapable of being organized, but the fact is that the average so called atheist is actually more of an Apatheist. It is the growing militant atheists that you see online discussing these issues that could benefit from organizing. It is nonsensical to use the excuse of having nothing in common, comparing the organization of Atheists with herding cats, Like Dawkins does, because what do you expect, in the past, similar organization of women, blacks, homosexuals or any other minority to have in common but the need to organize?

The fact is that aside from the Apatheists they are relatively few. But growing.   

Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 08:00:20 PMThe notion of "god" is unintelligible and, accordingly, unsuited to any meaningful discussion. What are you thoughts on fornoninthreuretics? Get the idea? I guess we don't hang out in the same circles.  :)

Oh, I don't know. Lets consider the definition of an atheist. A person who doesn't believe in the existence of god(s). The antithesis of theist. Then consider the definition of a god. Anything or anyone who is thought to be mighty (from the Hebrew el meaning "strong; mighty one,") This means that a stick, stone, or object that is venerated exists as a god. It also means that any man that exists that is called a god is an existing god. Moses, the Judges of Israel and Jesus were men called Gods in the Bible. Eric Clapton was called a god, Frodo (Baggins) doesn't exist and was called and therefore - a god. All of this is in line with an accurate understanding of the Bible and a good college dictionary.

You were never an atheist, you don't even know what an atheist is.

Quote from: Tank on October 27, 2011, 10:11:31 PMYou were never an atheist, you don't even know what an atheist is.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

Earthling....Wait....so any atheist who isn't an apatheist is militant in your eyes?   ???

But... But... I don't care whether or not gods exist, really... And yet, I am the next best thing to militant when it comes to working against organised religion.

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 08:50:20 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 08:00:20 PM1. I don't "believe in" anything but I do think the most explanatory theory around (neo-darwinism actually).

What is the difference between "believing" and "thinking?"

My usage may be peculiar to me but you asked me so... "believe in" involves faith rather than reason. It is not evidence-based and the believer cannot be wrong. To "think" something is so means there exists some evidence to support that view but it could always be mistaken. The thinker (rationalist) is willing to abandon any evidence-based claim in the face of convincing counter evidence.

QuoteDarwinism only attempts to explain what happened after we got here. How do you think we got here?

1. By "darwinism" I assume you mean, evolution by natural selection. But are we really going down this road Earthling? Been there, done that. There's ample material available on the subject so  I'm unclear as to why you want me to repeat it again. A search of HAF will turn up all the answers you're looking for.
2. As a rationalist (an evidence-based kind of guy) I freely admit I can be wrong about any evidence-based claims I make. I have referred to this as "playing with real money". I abandon theories every day when the evidence show they are wrong. A faith-based person is essentially anti-social in the sense that no argument, be it logical or empirical, will cause you to change your mind. Such faith-based views are entirely legitimate but given their non-empirical nature that should be kept private. You cannot have a dialogue with a "person of faith" for the reasons given. This is what I call "playing with fake money". If you want to enter the rational world, Earthling you gotta pay the entrance fee. Are you prepared to do that.

Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 08:00:20 PM2. I am extremely political.

QuoteI think that most militant atheists are as well.

Please define "militant" atheist. I am loathe to discuss poorly defined or value ladened notions. My ignosticism (check it out if you're unfamiliar with the term) is derivative rather than primary. I am a rationalist and an anarchist -- ignosticism a logical consequence of those views.

Quote
That is probably what you have in common with them. They feel repressed in what amounts to primarily a theocracy. They like to think of themselves as independent, and so incapable of being organized, but the fact is that the average so called atheist is actually more of an Apatheist.

Interesting claims, but nought to do with me. I have never lived in a social circle where the topic ever came up. I've never known a theist (I mean one that came out of the closet) personally. I find discussions of political philosophy and rational moral philosophy quite interesting. Nothing about theism has any intellectual appeal. In sum and with all due respect, your musing about atheists seem to be a collection of unsupported garbage: either meaningless for factually incorrect.

QuoteIt is the growing militant atheists that you see online discussing these issues that could benefit from organizing. It is nonsensical to use the excuse of having nothing in common, comparing the organization of Atheists with herding cats,

WARNING!!!!! My saturation point is nearing. Reading your baseless assertions about things you know nothing about is starting to bore me and I don't like to be bored. Repeated claims of something in the absence of evidence has the stink of authority about it. I don't like authority in any form. Now let's see where this is going.

Your continued use of the undefined term "militant" raises my hackles as well as my suspicions. I wouldn't know a militant atheist if I tripped over one. I'm sorry but why would atheists form associations to debate issues with theists who, by definition, are immune to all rational discussion of the question? The benefit I see for such venues as HAF is to provide support for those who live in less fortunate circumstances (surrounded by religious fanatics [def.] people of irrational views who want to impose them on others [/def.])  and to provide information for people who are truly curious about learning a world-view different from one they are used to.

Quote from: Attila on October 27, 2011, 08:00:20 PMThe notion of "god" is unintelligible and, accordingly, unsuited to any meaningful discussion. What are you thoughts on fornoninthreuretics? Get the idea? I guess we don't hang out in the same circles.  :)

QuoteOh, I don't know. Lets consider the definition of an atheist. A person who doesn't believe in the existence of god(s). The antithesis of theist.

As I've said repeatedly I AM NOT AN ATHEIST I have no interest in debating a meaningless concept. I don't know what part of that statement you don't understand.

Quote
Then consider the definition of a god. Anything or anyone who is thought to be mighty (from the Hebrew el meaning "strong; mighty one,") This means that a stick, stone, or object that is venerated exists as a god. It also means that any man that exists that is called a god is an existing god.

WARNING!!!! #2 I'm getting really bored with this.
I don't give a flying fuck what mumbo jumbo you provide me with. My requirement are this: I want an operational decision procedure, an algorithm,  that I can use in evaluating any entity for whom the predicate GOD is proposed and that will return a value TRUE or FALSE. It's that or nothing, I'm afraid. I refer to you my remarks about the Dawkins scale. These may be of help to you. I've deleted the rest as just to boring. Get back to me if you're willing to play with real money and abandon all your currently held beliefs.  :)

Quote from: Whitney on October 28, 2011, 04:12:26 AM
Earthling....Wait....so any atheist who isn't an apatheist is militant in your eyes?   ???

I think that the majority of atheists are, Like Attila, not really atheist but apatheist. I always thought of myself as atheist before I began my study of the Bible, but looking back I think I was apatheist. At the time I didn't know what that was.

To me the people you see in chat rooms, in forums like this, who are outspoken or at least vocal about atheists I always referred to as militant, though I think they are just atheists.  I don't like labels so much, I don't like the Dawkins Scale . . . these are just words that I use to try and express what I mean.

'Militant' is one of those over-used words by theists for anyone who even just mentions that they're an atheist...

Speaking for myself, I call myself an ignostic atheist, but the a-theist part is just meaningful to counter any theistic version of god, as in I don't see sufficient evidence to back up any theistic claim. The word 'god' is a meaningless concept, and until believers firstly define or describe what their god is, it's pointless to call myself an atheist. I don't see myself as an apatheist because...ahem...theists exist.

And speaking of words, your usage of "believe in evolution" is wrong, IMO. There's nothing to believe in, since, as Attila said, it's not based on faith. "Accept", perhaps?

QuoteI think that the majority of atheists are, Like Attila, not really atheist but apatheist.

Labels are a double-edged sword, describes a person but at the same time gives them a simplistic word or two to identify them as ::) Not really atheist but apatheist? You make it sound like the two are incompatible...

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 06:59:44 AM

Quote from: Whitney on October 28, 2011, 04:12:26 AM
Earthling....Wait....so any atheist who isn't an apatheist is militant in your eyes?   ???

I think that the majority of atheists are, Like Attila, not really atheist but apatheist. I always thought of myself as atheist before I began my study of the Bible, but looking back I think I was apatheist. At the time I didn't know what that was.

To me the people you see in chat rooms, in forums like this, who are outspoken or at least vocal about atheists I always referred to as militant, though I think they are just atheists.  I don't like labels so much, I don't like the Dawkins Scale . . . these are just words that I use to try and express what I mean.

Do I note a glimmer of mutual understanding? or am I just being a silly older git? I do think you may have a reading difficulty. I started off my journey on HAF as an apatheist, a term which I learned here but (as I repeatedly indicated) was uncomfortable with it. Thanks in part to people on this forum I learned about the Ayer-Drange position on the question of the existence/non-existence of god. I am (no sarcasm at all here) really grateful to this forum for providing me with exactly what I was looking for, namely, a philosophical basis for my position which opens the door to all kinds comments (pro or con). Be that as it may, the god question does not really interest me nor occupy any significant role in my life. I repeat again: I know no theists my social group. I hope my view is clearer.

"Militant" frequently has negative connotations. May I suggest "sincere" in its stead. Perhaps you come from a culture where people need to "come out" if they are rationalists and so, as part of the  dominant group you see any form of resistance as "militant". Would you agree that this attitude is akin to the "uppity nigra" epithet used in recent American history. I mean something like "us po' godless heathen don't know our place, boss." You'd prefer us to take off our hats and step off the pavement when a Christian walks by. If we don't we're MILITANT. See what I mean?

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 10:59:31 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 27, 2011, 10:11:31 PMYou were never an atheist, you don't even know what an atheist is.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

Why? It would be like trying to teach a pig to sing, ultimatly impossible and it would annoy the pig  ;D

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 06:59:44 AM

Quote from: Whitney on October 28, 2011, 04:12:26 AM
Earthling....Wait....so any atheist who isn't an apatheist is militant in your eyes?   ???

I think that the majority of atheists are, Like Attila, not really atheist but apatheist. I always thought of myself as atheist before I began my study of the Bible, but looking back I think I was apatheist. At the time I didn't know what that was.

To me the people you see in chat rooms, in forums like this, who are outspoken or at least vocal about atheists I always referred to as militant, though I think they are just atheists.  I don't like labels so much, I don't like the Dawkins Scale . . . these are just words that I use to try and express what I mean.

Yet you have no compunction applying them all the time to other people, that's pretty hypocritical really isn't it?

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 09:00:33 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 27, 2011, 08:03:00 PM

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 07:55:10 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 09, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

You have heard of the Bible?

I'm not quite sure why you bothered with that post. It's obviously not an honest question as it is blindingly obvious that I would have heard of the bible. So what could your purpose be in asking such a disingenuous question?

I asked the question because I don't understand how anyone could be aware of the Bible and speculate on the possible discovery of a meaningful communication with God. That is exactly what the Bible is.  

But you're saying that as a believing Christian. To me the Bible is just a book of myths and stories written a couple of thousand years ago, no different from The Iliad or The Odyssey.

You also make the same mistake most Christians make, that if there is a god, it can only be your god. There are thousands of gods that might exist, and none of the others are the god of the Bible.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 28, 2011, 10:17:01 AMYou also make the same[corrected] mistake most Christians make, that if there is a god, it can only be your god. There are thousands of gods that might exist, and none of the others are the god of the Bible.

Well said, TFL but may I suggest a bit of a turn-around? ...that if there is a god, it can only be you. I think both you and Earthling would agree that when people start talking about what god loves or hates, they mean what they themselves love/hate. "god" is merely an aberrant use of the 1st person pronoun. This is an empirical claim. My prediction: There is no point on which Earthling disagrees with god but there are plenty of people who Earthling disagrees with who also don't disagree with god. The only rational explanation for this is that they are not talking about god at all but borrowing the authority of the word for their own purposes. Of course it could be a miracle.  :P

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 10:32:43 AM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 28, 2011, 10:17:01 AMYou also make the same[corrected] mistake most Christians make, that if there is a god, it can only be your god. There are thousands of gods that might exist, and none of the others are the god of the Bible.

Well said, TFL but may I suggest a bit of a turn-around? ...that if there is a god, it can only be you. I think both you and Earthling would agree that when people start talking about what god loves or hates, they mean what they themselves love/hate. "god" is merely an aberrant use of the 1st person pronoun. This is an empirical claim. My prediction: There is no point on which Earthling disagrees with god but there are plenty of people who Earthling disagrees with who also don't disagree with god. The only rational explanation for this is that they are not talking about god at all but borrowing the authority of the word for their own purposes. Of course it could be a miracle.  :P

Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 28, 2011, 11:38:10 AM

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 10:32:43 AM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 28, 2011, 10:17:01 AMYou also make the same[corrected] mistake most Christians make, that if there is a god, it can only be your god. There are thousands of gods that might exist, and none of the others are the god of the Bible.

Well said, TFL but may I suggest a bit of a turn-around? ...that if there is a god, it can only be you. I think both you and Earthling would agree that when people start talking about what god loves or hates, they mean what they themselves love/hate. "god" is merely an aberrant use of the 1st person pronoun. This is an empirical claim. My prediction: There is no point on which Earthling disagrees with god but there are plenty of people who Earthling disagrees with who also don't disagree with god. The only rational explanation for this is that they are not talking about god at all but borrowing the authority of the word for their own purposes. Of course it could be a miracle.  :P

Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Go to Theologyweb and watch the Christians arguing about JC, the Bible and Christianity in general. It is by turns hysterically funny and utterly pathetic.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 28, 2011, 11:38:10 AM
Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Whew. I'm glad that's out of the way. Now we can get down to solving serious problems: should the UK stay in the EU? :)

Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Go to Theologyweb and watch the Christians arguing about JC, the Bible and Christianity in general. It is by turns hysterically funny and utterly pathetic.

Ok, CB. I'll have a look and report back. Do bit reckie, what? Are we planning a full-scale invasion of that site? Mums the word. Blink once for yes and twice for no.

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 01:14:41 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 28, 2011, 11:38:10 AM
Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Whew. I'm glad that's out of the way. Now we can get down to solving serious problems: should the UK stay in the EU? :)

yeah, of course it should. I would like to be able to live somewhere warm and sunny one day!

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 28, 2011, 01:21:36 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 01:14:41 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 28, 2011, 11:38:10 AM
Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Whew. I'm glad that's out of the way. Now we can get down to solving serious problems: should the UK stay in the EU? :)

yeah, of course it should. I would like to be able to live somewhere warm and sunny one day!

You mean like me and Ildiko are doing right now? C'mon in the water's fine. Gorizia is inland but you might like Grado right on the coast. You'll have to brush up on your tedesco though. Living cost are considerably less than in the UK. The Adriatic is seriously underrated which is fine with me. Excellent wine region too. What else could anyone ask for. 

Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Go to Theologyweb and watch the Christians arguing about JC, the Bible and Christianity in general. It is by turns hysterically funny and utterly pathetic.

Ok, I checked it out CB and it's not orderly and well organised like HAF. ;D Can you point us to the funny forums where they really go after each other? What are Tank's top 5?
thanks.

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 01:33:03 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 28, 2011, 01:21:36 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 01:14:41 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 28, 2011, 11:38:10 AM
Yet more words of wisdom from you Attila, I'm considering moulding an idol of you and setting it up as a shrine to intelligent rational thought! I couldn't agree more, whenever we have Christians on this site talking about their god, they all seem to have different views of that god, and undoubtedly their vision of god is a mirror of themselves.

Whew. I'm glad that's out of the way. Now we can get down to solving serious problems: should the UK stay in the EU? :)

yeah, of course it should. I would like to be able to live somewhere warm and sunny one day!

You mean like me and Ildiko are doing right now? C'mon in the water's fine. Gorizia is inland but you might like Grado right on the coast. You'll have to brush up on your tedesco though. Living cost are considerably less than in the UK. The Adriatic is seriously underrated which is fine with me. Excellent wine region too. What else could anyone ask for. 

sunshine, sea, cheap living and good wine sounds like my idea of heaven :D I'm planning on taking a motorhome around Europe next year when I've sold my flat, I'll have to pop by to say hi and share a bottle of wine with you!

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 06:21:32 AMMy usage may be peculiar to me but you asked me so... "believe in" involves faith rather than reason. It is not evidence-based and the believer cannot be wrong. To "think" something is so means there exists some evidence to support that view but it could always be mistaken. The thinker (rationalist) is willing to abandon any evidence-based claim in the face of convincing counter evidence.

They like to "think" that, but I have found it not to be nearly as accurate. I will demonstrate this as you continue to espouse your propaganda.

To me though, to "believe" implies future tense. I Believe it will rain today is only somewhat more impressive coming from a meteorologist than the average Joe. To believe something means to expect it based upon the degree of knowledge and experience one has in determining it, though the degree of accuracy doesn't depend entirely upon either. It may or may not rain.

To "think" something is a present or temporal forming of opinion. You could be equally wrong. The difficulty with people who use the "rational" as a crutch is that they can become as bogged down if not more so by what they "think" is "rational." Western culture tends to lean even still upon its religious roots. They tell the student what to think rather than how to think. It is the difference between "propaganda" and education. The student comes out the other end with a world view that was dictated to him and which he proudly regurgitates. What began as religious propaganda became scientific propaganda. It is all speculation. History repeats itself.

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 06:21:32 AM2. As a rationalist (an evidence-based kind of guy) I freely admit I can be wrong about any evidence-based claims I make. I have referred to this as "playing with real money". I abandon theories every day when the evidence show they are wrong. A faith-based person is essentially anti-social in the sense that no argument, be it logical or empirical, will cause you to change your mind.

Playing with real money? Like gambling. You take the safe bet but are ignorant of the odds. Actually it is more like Fractional Reserve Banking. Based upon a premise unreal with nothing to back it up but opinion. That isn't rational.

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 06:21:32 AMSuch faith-based views are entirely legitimate but given their non-empirical nature that should be kept private. You cannot have a dialogue with a "person of faith" for the reasons given. This is what I call "playing with fake money". If you want to enter the rational world, Earthling you gotta pay the entrance fee. Are you prepared to do that.

[Laughs] Have you been drinking?

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 06:21:32 AMPlease define "militant" atheist. I am loathe to discuss poorly defined or value ladened notions. My ignosticism (check it out if you're unfamiliar with the term) is derivative rather than primary. I am a rationalist and an anarchist -- ignosticism a logical consequence of those views.

Its nonsense. The question of God is simply dismissed out of ignorance. Might as well ask the cat.

Post deleted. Not rising to bait.
Sorry Tank.

Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 09:35:47 AM

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 10:59:31 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 27, 2011, 10:11:31 PMYou were never an atheist, you don't even know what an atheist is.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

Why? It would be like trying to teach a pig to sing, ultimatly impossible and it would annoy the pig  ;D

As impressive an argument as comparing me to an unteachable pig may seem, is it possible the kettle is calling the pig black?

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 06:37:54 PM
As impressive an argument as comparing me to an unteachable pig may seem, is it possible the kettle is calling the pig black?

In Tank's case, it would be more like the barrel calling the pig round  :P

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 06:37:54 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 09:35:47 AM

Quote from: Earthling on October 27, 2011, 10:59:31 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 27, 2011, 10:11:31 PMYou were never an atheist, you don't even know what an atheist is.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

Why? It would be like trying to teach a pig to sing, ultimatly impossible and it would annoy the pig  ;D

As impressive an argument as comparing me to an unteachable pig may seem, is it possible the kettle is calling the pig black?

Your card is marked, I'm just accumulating evidence now.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 28, 2011, 06:41:58 PM

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 06:37:54 PM
As impressive an argument as comparing me to an unteachable pig may seem, is it possible the kettle is calling the pig black?

In Tank's case, it would be more like the barrel calling the pig round  :P

LOL that would be true  ;D

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 06:36:36 PM

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 06:21:48 PM
They like to "think" that, but I have found it not to be nearly as accurate. I will demonstrate this as you continue to espouse your propaganda.

I think you just went a step to far. In the most polite manner that I can muster would you have the decency to go fuck yourself.

Attila, please do not rise the bait if you don't mind, it makes the staff''s job a little more complicated. Feel free to vent via a PM (to me, not Earthling).

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 28, 2011, 07:26:12 AM'Militant' is one of those over-used words by theists for anyone who even just mentions that they're an atheist...

Such was not my intention, as I pointed out I think the majority of "atheists" are passive rather than "militant." And to me there isn't a negative connotation in the term "militant" as I use it, quite the contrary. I think the militant atheist is the more noble of the two. I consider myself a militant theist in that I am vocal and take an active interest in the debate. 

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 28, 2011, 07:26:12 AMSpeaking for myself, I call myself an ignostic atheist, but the a-theist part is just meaningful to counter any theistic version of god, as in I don't see sufficient evidence to back up any theistic claim. The word 'god' is a meaningless concept, and until believers firstly define or describe what their god is, it's pointless to call myself an atheist. I don't see myself as an apatheist because...ahem...theists exist.

As much as I think terms such as these only complicate rather than clarify ones position, my favorite term, the one I see as the most accurate and intellectually honest, is the term popularized by Christopher Hitchins, who I respect a great deal for his integrity and intellectual capabilities. He knows religious history but not the Bible, unfortunately. The term is anti-theist.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 28, 2011, 07:26:12 AMAnd speaking of words, your usage of "believe in evolution" is wrong, IMO. There's nothing to believe in, since, as Attila said, it's not based on faith. "Accept", perhaps?

The theory of evolution is, at best, a metaphysical experiment. It has produced a plethora of observations irrelevant based upon a faulty premise.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 28, 2011, 07:26:12 AMLabels are a double-edged sword, describes a person but at the same time gives them a simplistic word or two to identify them as ::) Not really atheist but apatheist? You make it sound like the two are incompatible...

I'm learning. I'm observing. An atheist is the antithesis of theist. A theist believes in gods. You can tack any pretext for or against to the theist. Mono, pan, a, apa, heno, etc.

The difficulty as I see it is an appalling lack of understanding on the very simple primitive meaning of the word god. It simply means anything or anyone that is thought to be mighty or is venerated. So Satan is a god. Eric Clapton is a god. God's don't have to exist to be gods. The skeptic and believer alike think of God as Jehovah, or God as Jesus, or God as exclusively supernatural and all of this is an example of the need for Ockham's Razor.

The simple definition of god negates any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy. It has nothing to do with the questioning of God's existence, which is unnecessary anyway as the definition of God implies. It doesn't matter whether the god in question actually exists unless you are specific about the God in question. The question of "do gods exist" is as moot as "do men exist."

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 06:36:36 PM

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 06:21:48 PM
They like to "think" that, but I have found it not to be nearly as accurate. I will demonstrate this as you continue to espouse your propaganda.

I think you just went a step to far. In the most polite manner that I can muster would you have the decency to go fuck yourself.

Arrogant old fuck, aren't you. I would be happy to go and fuck myself because, the alternative of having a possible discussion with you of a meaningful nature is null.

Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 06:48:54 PM
Your card is marked, I'm just accumulating evidence now.

Believe it or not I don't think anyone here, including myself, is so ignorant to not have known that was the case before I got here. Or anyone else like me.

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 06:36:36 PM
Post deleted. Not rising to bait.
Sorry Tank.

I think your position is a great deal safer than mine. I'm just a pig who should fuck off in a rolling sea of rationality waiting for lively debate and discussion.

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 07:03:11 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 06:36:36 PM
Post deleted. Not rising to bait.
Sorry Tank.

I think your position is a great deal safer than mine. I'm just a pig who should fuck off in a rolling sea of rationality waiting for lively debate and discussion.

There is no possibility of rational debate with theists. You all believe in invisible made up fairies - that's an absolute shit starting point for rationality.

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 07:01:12 PM

Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 06:48:54 PM
Your card is marked, I'm just accumulating evidence now.

Believe it or not I don't think anyone here, including myself, is so ignorant to not have known that was the case before I got here. Or anyone else like me.

I'm quite happy with Christians. My dog walking pal is the local Vicar. I supported Happy Forever a fundamentalist Muslim. My best mate is a Bosnian Muslim who lives in Bradford. How many Sufi Muslims have been to your house? My eldest daughter has a Muslim god mother (you should have seen the Vicar jump at that one!). I do have a problem with people who behave like sympathy trolls, and who join atheist forums just to preach and promote their particular brand of institutionalised superstition, who are conspiracy theorists and science deniers.

And you can cut the passive aggresive persecution complex as well, that just makes you more troll like, and it cuts no ice with me.

Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 28, 2011, 07:08:56 PM
There is no possibility of rational debate with theists. You all believe in invisible made up fairies - that's an absolute shit starting point for rationality.

The only think preventing a rational debate with theists are irrational and intolerant atheists.

Do you think it possible to have a rational discussion on the history and existence of Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny? What about the possible existence of extraterrestrial beings?

Woah, I could feel the heat coming from this thread from a long way off  :o

Might this be a good time to suggest that we have an official thread just for rants?  ;D

Earthing, I'll respond to your post later, it's way more interesting than some of the freelance stuff I have to finish, but you've gotta do what you've gotta do.  :(

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 28, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Woah, I could feel the heat coming from this thread from a long way off  :o

Might this be a good time to suggest that we have an official thread just for rants?  ;D

Earthing, I'll respond to your post later, it's way more interesting than some of the freelance stuff I have to finish, but you've gotta do what you've gotta do.  :(

I would enjoy that, Silver, but may not have the opportunity to do so in the foreseeable future.

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 07:03:11 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 28, 2011, 06:36:36 PM
Post deleted. Not rising to bait.
Sorry Tank.

I think your position is a great deal safer than mine. I'm just a pig who should fuck off in a rolling sea of rationality waiting for lively debate and discussion.

If you're not a troll all you have to is prove it through your behaviour. I have yet to ban an active member, only spammers and such.
You behave like fundimentalist theist. By deffinition there is utterly no point in attempting to debate with you, it's like talking to a brick wall, a brick wall you appear to value above all else. What possible motivations can a fundimentalist theist have coming to an atheist forum? I can't think of any but to preach and convert. Well this place is not here as a platform for you to preach and convert.

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 07:13:24 PM
Do you think it possible to have a rational discussion on the history and existence of Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny?

History of the myths, yes. The actual existene of actual bunnies and Clauses... Not so much.

QuoteWhat about the possible existence of extraterrestrial beings?

You can have rational speculations, and even that with usually widely varying degrees of rationality.

Quote from: Tank on October 28, 2011, 07:22:19 PM
If you're not a troll all you have to is prove it through your behaviour. I have yet to ban an active member, only spammers and such.
You behave like fundimentalist theist. By deffinition there is utterly no point in attempting to debate with you, it's like talking to a brick wall, a brick wall you appear to value above all else. What possible motivations can a fundimentalist theist have coming to an atheist forum? I can't think of any but to preach and convert. Well this place is not here as a platform for you to preach and convert.

My position isn't to convert, in fact, it is my chosen personal text. To me the attempt to convert or deconvert anyone is impossible and therefore futile.

All I want to do is learn from and teach you. I have already learned some good stuff in my short time here. What an apatheist and ingnostic is. The Dawkins scale. But honestly. I'm not here to be converted or convert anyone. Just to learn, teach, discuss and debate.

Please don't tarnish my opinion of you by dismissing me as a pig, unable to disagree. I'm not so intolerant as that and I hope you all wouldn't be as well.

My beliefs don't negate yours and there is no reason why we can't, in spite of our disagreements, get along and accept one another's differing beliefs.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 28, 2011, 07:25:23 PM
History of the myths, yes. The actual existene of actual bunnies and Clauses... Not so much.

If a parent tells his child about Santa Clause as a truth, and points to the existence of various examples on street corners ringing bell and at the mall every holiday season there is some explaining to do. It isn't necessary for you to have a lobotomy into believing that the guy in the sky exists for us to have a conversation.

What about Christian Easter? It comes from the alluvial plains of Babylon. There, the people celebrated the namesake of the pagan / Christian holiday, Astarte (aka Ishtar) the goddess of fertility, and her symbols the egg, the rabbit and the phallic symbol the cross. Thousand of years before Jesus.

Children, young virgins, were selected, bathed and given new clothes and sacrificed to fire. Their charred remains are commonly found in earns throughout the area with Astarte's symbols on the containers. Then they would have orgies and color eggs and make hot cross buns - bread in the shape of a cross.

Out of curiosity how many atheists teach their children Christmas and Easter?  

QuoteWhat about the possible existence of extraterrestrial beings?

Quote from: Asmodean on October 28, 2011, 07:25:23 PMYou can have rational speculations, and even that with usually widely varying degrees of rationality.

Exactly. Mythological explorations of primitive peoples in the context of historical examination needn't either dismiss their reference to the supernatural any more than the extraterrestrial. The "rational" needn't don a loincloth and club to contemplate a hunting scene painted on a wall in an attempt to try and understand where they were coming from. . . what . . . are . . . you . . . afraid . . . of?

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 07:46:54 PM
what . . . are . . . you . . . afraid . . . of?

That the state will want the taxes back.

Speculations should always be viewed as no more than that. In a rational debate, they have little to no place unless they can be backed up and turned into proper hypotheses. Of course, if theists differentiated at-best-semi-informed personal speculations from quality hypotheses and facts, then I suppose I'd be ok with far more of them.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 28, 2011, 08:06:48 PM
Speculations should always be viewed as no more than that. In a rational debate, they have little to no place unless they can be backed up and turned into proper hypotheses. Of course, if theists differentiated at-best-semi-informed personal speculations from quality hypotheses and facts, then I suppose I'd be ok with far more of them.

Uh-huh . . . here is the problem as I see it. Both sides tend to only speculate on their own side. They consider only the one.

So, if I asked an atheist what the Bible says the soul is they tend to dismiss it as some supernatural force that exits the body upon death. This comes from Greek philosophy, Socrates to be exact.

The Bible itself teaches that the soul is the blood, the life of any breathing creature. In fact the words translated into the English soul - admittedly an unhappy translation due to its very philosophical nature - means literally "breather."

The word spirit is translated from the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma. Pneuma is where we get the English pneumatic and pneumonia. It is any invisible active force. Something unseen but producing results. The Hebrew and Greek can be translated into breath, wind, breeze, mental inclination (the spirit of the horse was broken, or he was a mean spirited person, for example) or invisible spirit creatures. God is a spirit. Angels.

Likely your speculation which leads you to dismiss the Bible as bullshit is far from accurate. It isn't rational, it considers no evidence and tolerates no disagreement. You see the parallels with the dark ages religious mentality. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. 

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 08:22:12 PM
Uh-huh . . . here is the problem as I see it. Both sides tend to only speculate on their own side. They consider only the one.

With no reason to consider the possibility of the existence of gods and Santas, why would I do that? There is no need for gods in this day and age, at least in the more civilized parts of the world, so why invent them?

That said, a vast number of atheists did consider the possibility of gods, having once believed in such themselves... Was that not what you claimed to have done, except in reverse?

QuoteSo, if I asked an atheist what the Bible says the soul is they tend to dismiss it as some supernatural force that exits the body upon death. This comes from Greek philosophy, Socrates to be exact.

Why insist on searching for wisdom and knowledge in times ruled by superstition and big men with beards? You can build on that, but the most newly verified facts tend to be the best in quality.

The concept of soul is as unnecessary as the concept of gods. What purpose does your soul serve that you know to be an actual purpose? You are a process of your brain unless you claim to have some verifiable attributes whih can not be explained by the presense of said organ. When you die, you do not know that your existence will continue, and have no reason to assume that it will. Where does that leave a soul? In the realm of weak supposition, that's where.

QuoteThe Bible itself teaches that the soul is the blood, the life of any breathing creature. In fact the words translated into the English soul - admittedly an unhappy translation due to its very philosophical nature - means literally "breather."

In the days of modern medicine, the breathing thing is known to be done by your pulmenary system, the blood thing by your bone marrow, heart and the rest of the cardiovascular system and the thinking and managing the meat is done by the nervous system. What is it that the soul does then..?

QuoteThe word spirit is translated from the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma. Pneuma is where we get the English pneumatic and pneumonia. It is any invisible active force. Something unseen but producing results. The Hebrew and Greek can be translated into breath, wind, breeze, mental inclination (the spirit of the horse was broken, or he was a mean spirited person, for example) or invisible spirit creatures. God is a spirit. Angels.

Producing results... Now that is interesting. What results does a soul verifiably produce, which can not be attributed to physical workings of the body? What results do gods verifiably produce, except of course for bringing misery to untold millions in the most indirect way I can imagine?

QuoteLikely your speculation which leads you to dismiss the Bible as bullshit is far from accurate. It isn't rational, it considers no evidence and tolerates no disagreement. You see the parallels with the dark ages religious mentality. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  

Yes. The bible as a factual book is bullshit for all the abovementioned reasons plus terrible reproduceability of the claims made within it and poorly verifiable historial statements.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 28, 2011, 09:09:06 PMWith no reason to consider the possibility of the existence of gods...

Fine post, Asmodean. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F2339%2Fbluethumbup.gif&hash=5fe03c6701607da88624dfc89a3acd7df124c467)

Quote from: Recusant on October 28, 2011, 09:42:57 PM
Fine post, Asmodean. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg717.imageshack.us%2Fimg717%2F2339%2Fbluethumbup.gif&hash=5fe03c6701607da88624dfc89a3acd7df124c467)

Why, thank you!  :) I was trying to be construtive.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 28, 2011, 09:09:06 PM
With no reason to consider the possibility of the existence of gods and Santas, why would I do that?

EXACTLY! Now we are getting somewhere. What is the "Atheist Agenda?" Why get together and, out of almost complete ignorance, mock and belittle someone's nonsensical beliefs? You don't see forums devoted to exposing Santa. The only thing I can come up with is political / social class struggle. Most atheists that I have encountered, I would say, about 90% of them, are political in nature.

Issues like gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, prayer in school and of course, science being shoved down the children's throats as religion once was in school worked pretty good for establishing it as bullshit in the minds of most so I never could figure out why it was so important to atheists. History repeats itself.

Another thing I've noticed about atheists is they have this sort of scientific utopian idea of a world without religion which they seem to think will come in the form of political means without realizing that all of the harmful effect of religion was made possible by the exact same source. Religion and politics walking hand in hand. 

Quote from: Asmodean on October 28, 2011, 09:09:06 PMThere is no need for gods in this day and age, at least in the more civilized parts of the world, so why invent them?

There never was. You think of primitive men as being stupid and superstitious because they didn't have Wikipedia and cell phones. But they used gods like we use holidays. Excuses for sex and appreciated but also ignored when it comes down to the nitty gritty.

Quote from: Asmodean on October 28, 2011, 09:09:06 PMThat said, a vast number of atheists did consider the possibility of gods, having once believed in such themselves... Was that not what you claimed to have done, except in reverse?

Yes. But I had the sense to know very early on that all people are full of shit and none more so than the religious. Its a cultural thing more than anything. Religion.

Here it is, for your reading pleasure: the Earthling miracle or how to espouse a view ... and its contrary on the same thread! ??? ??? ??? Step right up.
Exhibit A: Reply #33 on: 27-10-2011, 20:51:08

QuoteAlmost everyone I know is atheist, and they all have three things in common. They don't believe in evolution, they are apolitical, and they don't care to discuss or contemplate the existence of gods.

Exhibit B:  Reply #86 on: Today at 02:54:52

QuoteMost atheists that I have encountered, I would say, about 90% of them, are political in nature.

You couldn't make this up. As for the claim most atheists "don't believe in evolution". Does E-ling mean they do not accept (the theory of) evolution on faith? Then the statement is certainly true. If he means that most atheists deny that evolution by natural selection is a theory with considerable empirical support and, accordingly, worth studying until such time as a superior theory comes along and that they reject creationism or intelligent design as unscientific and having no empirical support then he is most certainly not an earthling. I couldn't possible conjecture on what planet Earthling inhabits.
But all this is neither here nor there except to support may claim that you cannot have a dialogue with a "person of faith".

Quote from: Attila on October 29, 2011, 05:28:50 AM
Here it is, for your reading pleasure: the Earthling miracle or how to espouse a view ... and its contrary on the same thread! ??? ??? ??? Step right up.
Exhibit A: Reply #33 on: 27-10-2011, 20:51:08

QuoteAlmost everyone I know is atheist, and they all have three things in common. They don't believe in evolution, they are apolitical, and they don't care to discuss or contemplate the existence of gods.

Exhibit B:  Reply #86 on: Today at 02:54:52

QuoteMost atheists that I have encountered, I would say, about 90% of them, are political in nature.

You couldn't make this up. As for the claim most atheists "don't believe in evolution". Does E-ling mean they do not accept (the theory of) evolution on faith? Then the statement is certainly true. If he means that most atheists deny that evolution by natural selection is a theory with considerable empirical support and, accordingly, worth studying until such time as a superior theory comes along and that they reject creationism or intelligent design as unscientific and having no empirical support then he is most certainly not an earthling. I couldn't possible conjecture on what planet Earthling inhabits.
But all this is neither here nor there except to support may claim that you cannot have a dialogue with a "person of faith".

You old dog, you! Sheesh! Look who's paying attention . . . to me! Give me a hug?!

Okay. My mistake. I should have clarified. All of the people I know, except one, are "atheists." Meaning they don't care about, don't want to know about, don't want to talk about anything to do with god. They also don't believe in evolution, they see it as just more bullshit they were taught in school, and they are apolitical. You won't see anyone from my family or circle of friends on the internet expressing their disbelief in God. Not interested.

Those people, I believe, are the majority of atheists.

What I call the militant, meaning outspoken, vocal, actively participating in an expression of their disbelief in Gods, I consider the minority. Those are the people that you see in forums like this, or doing the talk show circuit selling their new books of profound ignorance on the subject of God which Attila has no interest in. Repeatedly.

Those people are, in my experience, in my opinion, usually very political.

Quote from: Earthling on October 29, 2011, 01:54:52 AM
You think of primitive men as being stupid and superstitious because they didn't have Wikipedia and cell phones.

Well... Yes. Also, because they didn't know what the sun was, nor how to make proper music.  8)

Quote from: Earthling on October 28, 2011, 06:54:45 PM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 28, 2011, 07:26:12 AMSpeaking for myself, I call myself an ignostic atheist, but the a-theist part is just meaningful to counter any theistic version of god, as in I don't see sufficient evidence to back up any theistic claim. The word 'god' is a meaningless concept, and until believers firstly define or describe what their god is, it's pointless to call myself an atheist. I don't see myself as an apatheist because...ahem...theists exist.

As much as I think terms such as these only complicate rather than clarify ones position, my favorite term, the one I see as the most accurate and intellectually honest, is the term popularized by Christopher Hitchins, who I respect a great deal for his integrity and intellectual capabilities. He knows religious history but not the Bible, unfortunately. The term is anti-theist.

Yes, I would call myself an anti-theist as well,but since you yourself acknowledge that labels don't necessarily give one a better understanding of other people, there's no point in beating that dead horse.

Quote

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 28, 2011, 07:26:12 AMAnd speaking of words, your usage of "believe in evolution" is wrong, IMO. There's nothing to believe in, since, as Attila said, it's not based on faith. "Accept", perhaps?

The theory of evolution is, at best, a metaphysical experiment. It has produced a plethora of observations irrelevant based upon a faulty premise.

I really don't know why you would say that, but to not derail this thread into a debate on whether people are justified in accepting the theory of evolution to be the best model of reality, I would suggest that if you want, to post on the countless threads about evolution in the Creationist/Intelligent design forum.  

QuoteThe difficulty as I see it is an appalling lack of understanding on the very simple primitive meaning of the word god. It simply means anything or anyone that is thought to be mighty or is venerated. So Satan is a god. Eric Clapton is a god. God's don't have to exist to be gods. The skeptic and believer alike think of God as Jehovah, or God as Jesus, or God as exclusively supernatural and all of this is an example of the need for Ockham's Razor.

The simple definition of god negates any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy. It has nothing to do with the questioning of God's existence, which is unnecessary anyway as the definition of God implies. It doesn't matter whether the god in question actually exists unless you are specific about the God in question. The question of "do gods exist" is as moot as "do men exist."

Your very broad definition of 'god' confuses me, if anything that is considered mighty or to be venerated, then what's the point of the word or concept? It becomes meaningless, especially since what is 'mighty' or 'to be venerated' is in the eye of the beholder, in other words, subjective.

What isn't objectively meaningful can easily be dismissed and subjectively unmeaningful by people who don't believe...before negating any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy it negates that of theistic philosophy and without which there's no point of atheology even existing.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 29, 2011, 06:44:48 AM
Yes, I would call myself an anti-theist as well,but since you yourself acknowledge that labels don't necessarily give one a better understanding of other people, there's no point in beating that dead horse.

Fair enough, I suppose.

Quote from: me . . . EarthlingThe theory of evolution is, at best, a metaphysical experiment. It has produced a plethora of observations irrelevant based upon a faulty premise.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 29, 2011, 06:44:48 AMI really don't know why you would say that, but to not derail this thread into a debate on whether people are justified in accepting the theory of evolution to be the best model of reality, I would suggest that if you want, to post on the countless threads about evolution in the Creationist/Intelligent design forum.

I will be posting an article I wrote on Mutations as the Basis of Evolution. Hopefully.  

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 29, 2011, 06:44:48 AMYour very broad definition of 'god' confuses me, if anything that is considered mighty or to be venerated, then what's the point of the word or concept? It becomes meaningless, especially since what is 'mighty' or 'to be venerated' is in the eye of the beholder, in other words, subjective.

EXACTLY!! GOOD JOB!

I'm so happy! You have learned the essence of gods! Its so simple, isn't it! Its true though. Look it up in a good dictionary. All of its meanings.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 29, 2011, 06:44:48 AMWhat isn't objectively meaningful can easily be dismissed and subjectively unmeaningful by people who don't believe...before negating any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy it negates that of theistic philosophy and without which there's no point of atheology even existing.

Uh . . . what?! It must be getting late I have no idea what you just said. Could you elaborate on that?

I thought I'd respond to this just in case Earthling come back.

Quote from: Earthling on October 29, 2011, 07:42:56 AM
I will be posting an article I wrote on Mutations as the Basis of Evolution. Hopefully.

...Ok

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 29, 2011, 06:44:48 AM

QuoteYour very broad definition of 'god' confuses me, if anything that is considered mighty or to be venerated, then what's the point of the word or concept? It becomes meaningless, especially since what is 'mighty' or 'to be venerated' is in the eye of the beholder, in other words, subjective.

EXACTLY!! GOOD JOB!

I'm so happy! You have learned the essence of gods! Its so simple, isn't it! Its true though. Look it up in a good dictionary. All of its meanings.

Quote

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 29, 2011, 06:44:48 AMWhat isn't objectively meaningful can easily be dismissed and (correction: as) subjectively unmeaningful by people who don't believe...before negating any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy it negates that of theistic philosophy and without which there's no point of atheology even existing.

Uh . . . what?! It must be getting late I have no idea what you just said. Could you elaborate on that?

If the word 'god' has so many meanings and can be fluid enough to describe a number of things, then what does it mean, objectively? Any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy is pointless because any serious consideration of theistic philosophy is pointless, due to the word's (god) subjectivity.

Quote from: Attila on October 09, 2011, 10:05:31 AM
For me -- and am I alone in this? -- the question of whether a god or gods exist has absolutely no interest or importance. I can't imagine how any aspect of my life would change if somehow some answer to the question were found. To take one example of a similar issue, I have no interest in whether the the number of molecules in the universe is a prime or or not a prime. Like the existence of some supernatural being, I can't attach any significance to this question. Since I would not identify myself as a  "primist" or an "aprimist" because the issue has no significance to me so I couldn't call myself an atheist for exactly the same reason. I just don't care. By the way, this is not agnosticism. It's not that I don't know (I don't) but rather it wouldn't make any difference whether I knew or not.

Dawkins's discussion of this issue in The God Delusion has raised considerable debate most notable for being boring, moronic and pointless.  This was done at the expense of the many more important and interesting points raised in his book. In any event I much prefer the approach taken by Michael Parenti in his God and his Demons.

I guess I could call myself a "je m'en foutiste" but there wouldn't be much point in it. My reason for posting this is that I wonder if there are others who share this point of view. I confess my ignorance and am quite prepared to blush with embarrassment when informed that it is quite well known and not at all uncommon.

Thanks in advance for the enlightenment.
Attila

I think this is called to be an apatheist, to don't care if exist any deity at all.

Yes, you are quite correct, TG but that doesn't describe my position accurately. If you are interested I suggest the thread "Confessions of an "ex-apathetist" in the Introductions section. It explains the ignosticism and theological noncognitivism positions which I had not heard of before joining this forum. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

A second point is that I don't consider my views about god to be of primary importance. They are derived from my political/moral views which reject authority. God is whatever shape or non-shape, form or non-form is just another authority figure. All religions which seek to impose authority ("obey god=obey us") are my enemies.
I hope that's clear.

Quote from: Attila on October 30, 2011, 04:33:48 AM
Yes, you are quite correct, TG but that doesn't describe my position accurately. If you are interested I suggest the thread "Confessions of an "ex-apathetist" in the Introductions section. It explains the ignosticism and theological noncognitivism positions which I had not heard of before joining this forum. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Here's the intro from the wiki article:

Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure of Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

   1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
   2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

Question One, Attila: If I define "God" as "a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," is that sufficiently coherent to allow for discussion? 

Question Two: Isn't the above definition of God falsifiable if it can be shown that there is positive, conclusive evidence that a personal, intelligent, conscious being was not responsible for the existence of the universe?

Quote from: Attila on October 30, 2011, 04:33:48 AM
A second point is that I don't consider my views about god to be of primary importance. They are derived from my political/moral views which reject authority. God is whatever shape or non-shape, form or non-form is just another authority figure. All religions which seek to impose authority ("obey god=obey us") are my enemies.

So you accept authority from no source whatsoever?  Just as a matter of personal survival, don't you think that authority is necessary to some extent on even a Hobbesian, social contract basis?  At a very basic level, if you visit someone else's home, don't you accept that person's authority over what is allowed in that home?  How could there be any basis for society in the absence of any authority whatsoever?  Are you a true anarchist?  Just askin'. 

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 02:33:31 AM

Quote from: Attila on October 30, 2011, 04:33:48 AM
Yes, you are quite correct, TG but that doesn't describe my position accurately. If you are interested I suggest the thread "Confessions of an "ex-apathetist" in the Introductions section. It explains the ignosticism and theological noncognitivism positions which I had not heard of before joining this forum. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Question One, Attila: If I define "God" as "a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," is that sufficiently coherent to allow for discussion?

First of all (for the 2nd time) welcome back. It's nice to hear from you and this is a most excellent post. Thank you.  :) It's 5:00 here and I have just brewed myself a nice cup of wonderful Italian coffee.
Your teasing me again, right? Even a 5:00 I know that the rub is "responsible for the existence of the universe". I think you know about the fallacies of the cosmological arguments. Do you really want me to repeat them? Also you'll need to define "intelligent" for me. Is it a restrictive part of your definition? Are you saying that if we found a ""a personal, stupid, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," that it wouldn't be a god? Anyway, "responsible for the existence of the universe," is the meaningless bit.

QuoteQuestion Two: Isn't the above definition of God falsifiable if it can be shown that there is positive, conclusive evidence that a personal, intelligent, conscious being was not responsible for the existence of the universe?

I'll go the Popperian route on this one: what evidence will you accept to falsify the claim that there is "a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe,"
assuming you could even make the claim intelligible enough to test?p

Quote

Quote from: Attila on October 30, 2011, 04:33:48 AM
A second point is that I don't consider my views about god to be of primary importance. They are derived from my political/moral views which reject authority. God is whatever shape or non-shape, form or non-form is just another authority figure. All religions which seek to impose authority ("obey god=obey us") are my enemies.

So you accept authority from no source whatsoever?  Just as a matter of personal survival, don't you think that authority is necessary to some extent on even a Hobbesian, social contract basis?  At a very basic level, if you visit someone else's home, don't you accept that person's authority over what is allowed in that home?  How could there be any basis for society in the absence of any authority whatsoever?  Are you a true anarchist?  Just askin'.  

Sure, no problem. You're mixing up "authority" with "expertise, experience, trust". There is a rational, non-arbitrary basis for it. It is content-centred rather than based merely on the position that one holds. There have been books written about this question. I've referred you to one on the "Earthling suspended for 7 days" thread. If you like, I can send you a copy (maybe it's banned where you live  ;) )
Secondly, hatred of authority starts with oneself. My first responsibility is to avoid being the agent of authority myself. I have managed to avoid holding almost any positions of authority in my life. I was PI on a large number of research projects and I was head of department for a couple of months. I resigned from the latter position because I was disgusted by what it was doing to me. Going into someone's house and telling them what to do means I'm the one exercising authority. I think your problems come from using "authority" in a number of metaphorical senses. If a doctor tells me to take a given medicine and I have confidence in her then I'm going to take the medicine. I don't consider that to be a case of authority. If I live in a West African village, I first ask permission to live there, I don't just move in. I follow the rules established by the community. If I'm unhappy with them, I leave. That's one example but let's keep this short. The "A" in HAF stands for "Atheist" and not "Anarchist".

That's a good post, Attila. I'll be following this conversation with interest ;D

Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 04:57:31 AM
First of all (for the 2nd time) welcome back. It's nice to hear from you and this is a most excellent post. Thank you.  :) It's 5:00 here and I have just brewed myself a nice cup of wonderful Italian coffee.
Your teasing me again, right? Even a 5:00 I know that the rub is "responsible for the existence of the universe". I think you know about the fallacies of the cosmological arguments. Do you really want me to repeat them? Also you'll need to define "intelligent" for me. Is it a restrictive part of your definition? Are you saying that if we found a ""a personal, stupid, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," that it wouldn't be a god? Anyway, "responsible for the existence of the universe," is the meaningless bit.

The fallacies of the cosmological arguments are really irrelevant here.  I'm not asserting that there is any logical proof of God from any source. I'm merely attempting to get a definition that is sufficiently coherent that you would feel that a discussion could be had.  Something is responsible for the existence of the universe, whether it be completely inanimate, completely personal, or something in between.  I'm just using "intelligent" in its normal sense - I would refer to anyone posting on this board as being "intelligent", in that they are capable, at some level, of rationality. Same definition for God.  This is just a definition for purposes of discussion.  If you want to conclude that if God is conscious, he must be stupid, that's fine.  I'm just trying to find a starting point for discussion.

Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 04:57:31 AM
I'll go the Popperian route on this one: what evidence will you accept to falsify the claim that there is "a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," assuming you could even make the claim intelligible enough to test?

Science has conclusively proved lots of things, I suppose.  If there was a final, testable conclusion that there is no personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe, I would accept that.  I'm not sure myself what that proof would look like.  I'm not trying to be evasive, but science has discovered a lot and I suppose it could one day prove conclusively that a creator God did not exist.

Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 04:57:31 AM
You're mixing up "authority" with "expertise, experience, trust". There is a rational, non-arbitrary basis for it. It is content-centred rather than based merely on the position that one holds. There have been books written about this question. I've referred you to one on the "Earthling suspended for 7 days" thread. If you like, I can send you a copy (maybe it's banned where you live  ;) )
Secondly, hatred of authority starts with oneself. My first responsibility is to avoid being the agent of authority myself. I have managed to avoid holding almost any positions of authority in my life. I was PI on a large number of research projects and I was head of department for a couple of months. I resigned from the latter position because I was disgusted by what it was doing to me. Going into someone's house and telling them what to do means I'm the one exercising authority. I think your problems come from using "authority" in a number of metaphorical senses. If a doctor tells me to take a given medicine and I have confidence in her then I'm going to take the medicine. I don't consider that to be a case of authority. If I live in a West African village, I first ask permission to live there, I don't just move in. I follow the rules established by the community. If I'm unhappy with them, I leave. That's one example but let's keep this short. The "A" in HAF stands for "Atheist" and not "Anarchist".

Your example of asking permission to live in the village seems more of an acknowledgement of authority than anything else. "Rules established by the community" mean nothing unless there is a mechanism for enforcement, which equals authority.  I assume that you would exercise authority over me if I started taking things out of your house or stealing the clothes off of your back.  That has nothing to do with expertise or experience - it would simply be a matter of one person or group exercising authority over another. "Rules" come from "authority", whether that authority is a Pope, a King, or a group of people living in a village bound together by certain traditions.  Go violate that village's rules, and you will soon meet that village's authority. I just don't see how it could be any other way.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 05:15:16 PM
The fallacies of the cosmological arguments are really irrelevant here.  I'm not asserting that there is any logical proof of God from any source. I'm merely attempting to get a definition that is sufficiently coherent that you would feel that a discussion could be had.  Something is responsible for the existence of the universe, whether it be completely inanimate, completely personal, or something in between.  I'm just using "intelligent" in its normal sense - I would refer to anyone posting on this board as being "intelligent", in that they are capable, at some level, of rationality. Same definition for God.  This is just a definition for purposes of discussion.  If you want to conclude that if God is conscious, he must be stupid, that's fine.  I'm just trying to find a starting point for discussion.

If I understand you personal, conscious  and intelligenct are extraneous to your definition and, for simplicity, should be eliminated. That leaves us with something responsible for the existence of the universe. This, as I suggestion before is precisely your problem area. The expression CAUSE(existence of the universe) is meaningless. But what logic do you deduce that the existence of the  universe could have a cause. I'm am taking your "responsible for" to mean "cause" for simplicity. I don't think that effect that meaningless of your phrase. Causing something to exist means that the universe must have a beginning (a state following non-existence). But this is just gibberish.

Quote
 

Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 04:57:31 AM
I'll go the Popperian route on this one: what evidence will you accept to falsify the claim that there is "a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," assuming you could even make the claim intelligible enough to test?

QuoteScience has conclusively proved lots of things, I suppose.

Actually, no that's not how it works. Your statement is false. In any event I wasn't asking about proof; I was asking about falsification. If your hypothesis is not falsifiable then no scientist will go near it. I has no empirical content and hence is not interesting.

Quote
 If there was a final, testable conclusion that there is no personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe, I would accept that.

Sorry Brucie, that ain't how it works. Your logic is screwed up. That fact that you can't prove something to be false is not evidence that it is true. I cannot prove that the number of molecules in our galaxy is a prime number. From that statement absolutely nothing follows. Now in your case the situation is even worse. Your statement, being unintelligible can not even be assigned a true value; it is neither true nor false. It is meaningless. Sorry about that.  :'(

QuoteI'm not sure myself what that proof would look like.  I'm not trying to be evasive, but science has discovered a lot and I suppose it could one day prove conclusively that a creator God did not exist.

No Bruce, you've got it wrong. "Science" doesn't discover anything. People do that. The formulate hypotheses and then test them. Consider the case of Pluto (whether it's officially a planet or not is irrelevant). Astronomers around 1930 observed gravitational perturbations in our solar system. They hypothesised that a massive object having a particular orbit could account for these perturbations. The problem was that at the time telescopes were not powerful enough to spot the hypothetical object. The prediction was that when such telescopes became available and were pointed at such and such a place, then the object should be observed. And it was. That's pretty much how it works. Your hypothesis is unintelligible and there is no evidence either positive or negative that relates it to the empirical world. Your just out of luck.

In fact a long time ago Tommy Aquinas noted that the road of reason was not going to get you to god no matter how hard you tried. You only get to god through faith. Here endeth the lesson.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 05:25:27 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 04:57:31 AM
You're mixing up "authority" with "expertise, experience, trust". There is a rational, non-arbitrary basis for it. It is content-centred rather than based merely on the position that one holds. There have been books written about this question. I've referred you to one on the "Earthling suspended for 7 days" thread. If you like, I can send you a copy (maybe it's banned where you live  ;) )
Secondly, hatred of authority starts with oneself. My first responsibility is to avoid being the agent of authority myself. I have managed to avoid holding almost any positions of authority in my life. I was PI on a large number of research projects and I was head of department for a couple of months. I resigned from the latter position because I was disgusted by what it was doing to me. Going into someone's house and telling them what to do means I'm the one exercising authority. I think your problems come from using "authority" in a number of metaphorical senses. If a doctor tells me to take a given medicine and I have confidence in her then I'm going to take the medicine. I don't consider that to be a case of authority. If I live in a West African village, I first ask permission to live there, I don't just move in. I follow the rules established by the community. If I'm unhappy with them, I leave. That's one example but let's keep this short. The "A" in HAF stands for "Atheist" and not "Anarchist".

Your example of asking permission to live in the village seems more of an acknowledgement of authority than anything else. "Rules established by the community" mean nothing unless there is a mechanism for enforcement, which equals authority.  I assume that you would exercise authority over me if I started taking things out of your house or stealing the clothes off of your back.  That has nothing to do with expertise or experience - it would simply be a matter of one person or group exercising authority over another. "Rules" come from "authority", whether that authority is a Pope, a King, or a group of people living in a village bound together by certain traditions.  Go violate that village's rules, and you will soon meet that village's authority. I just don't see how it could be any other way.

Again you are using "authority" in an idiosyncratic way. I refer you once more to the works I cited for a clearer idea about authority in an anarchist perspective. I am perfectly free to enter a community and try to convince them to change such and such a practice. If I succeed that's fine. If I don't, I can go along with the group or I can leave. Remember that I cannot impose my view on anyone. To help you think of a typical anarchist situation: a group of friends discussing what to do that evening. Think of what goes on. Now suppose another friend joins the group. That's the situation I'm describing. Authority comes from a Pope or a King, that's certainly true. I trust you can tell the difference between that situation and one that I have described here. If you can't then maybe you need to get some friends.

Ayer ran into that sort of problem with his logical positivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism) when defining what meaningful words are and whether they're true or false.

That's why Popper's approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) is better. Less messy.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 31, 2011, 06:38:51 PM
Ayer ran into that sort of problem with his logical positivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism) when defining what meaningful words are and whether they're true or false.

That's why Popper's approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) is better. Less messy.

I'm into my "wine time" sipping a cabernet franc from Friuli DOC. I raise my glass to you xSP. Everyone reads Popper at some point in their life. Then you  pick up Paul Feyerabend and it's like Popper on crack. Try Against Method. Wait till your feeling depressed. It will cheer you up.

Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 06:20:56 PM
If I understand you personal, conscious  and intelligenct are extraneous to your definition and, for simplicity, should be eliminated. That leaves us with something responsible for the existence of the universe. This, as I suggestion before is precisely your problem area. The expression CAUSE(existence of the universe) is meaningless. But what logic do you deduce that the existence of the  universe could have a cause. I'm am taking your "responsible for" to mean "cause" for simplicity. I don't think that effect that meaningless of your phrase. Causing something to exist means that the universe must have a beginning (a state following non-existence). But this is just gibberish.

So is it gibberish for someone to say that quantum vacuum fluctuations are responsible for the universe?  Because there are scientists who say that.  There are scientists who say that the existence of the universe can be explained in purely natural terms - which means that they are talking at some level about how the universe came into being. I'm not sure why it's gibberish to say that personal intelligence is responsible for the universe, but it's not gibberish to say that quantum vacuum fluctuations are responsible. Remember, I'm not trying to prove anything at this point. I'm merely trying to get a definition of God so we can have a discussion.  You are jumping ahead of yourself by objecting to a cause.  "Cause" is not my word.  I'm not confining "responsible for the existence of the universe" to any formal concept of "cause."  

Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 06:20:56 PM
If your hypothesis is not falsifiable then no scientist will go near it. It has no empirical content and hence is not interesting.

Something is "falsifiable" if in principle it can be disproven by observation.  So the statement that "there is a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe" is falsifiable in principle, as eventually science will be able to make observations that will prove it or disprove it.  The tools may not be available now, as in your Pluto example. But there is no reason to think they will not be available in the future.  

In short, my definition of God is both coherent and falsifiable.  You seem to simply be raising objections to avoid the discussion. But if you find it uninteresting, that's fine.  Just say so and the conversation is over.  

Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 06:30:41 PM
Again you are using "authority" in an idiosyncratic way. I refer you once more to the works I cited for a clearer idea about authority in an anarchist perspective. I am perfectly free to enter a community and try to convince them to change such and such a practice. If I succeed that's fine. If I don't, I can go along with the group or I can leave. Remember that I cannot impose my view on anyone. To help you think of a typical anarchist situation: a group of friends discussing what to do that evening. Think of what goes on. Now suppose another friend joins the group. That's the situation I'm describing. Authority comes from a Pope or a King, that's certainly true. I trust you can tell the difference between that situation and one that I have described here. If you can't then maybe you need to get some friends.

What happens when someone enters the community, refuses to go along, and does not leave? 

From an evolutionary perspective, the reason we have Kings and Popes is because groups realized that they needed strong leadership to survive.  Every nation in the world has authority - it's natural.  You just can't have a large society and not have authority. Can you show me any setting outside of a few friends where leadership (authority) doesn't develop?  Some tribal leader is going to rise to the top.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 09:35:25 PM
What happens when someone enters the community, refuses to go along, and does not leave? 

Er - they get socially ostracised?

Quote from: Ildiko on October 31, 2011, 09:44:33 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 09:35:25 PM
What happens when someone enters the community, refuses to go along, and does not leave? 

Er - they get socially ostracised?

More likely, the group will exercise authority and "vote him off the island."

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 31, 2011, 09:23:41 PM

Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 06:20:56 PM
If I understand you personal, conscious  and intelligenct are extraneous to your definition and, for simplicity, should be eliminated. That leaves us with something responsible for the existence of the universe. This, as I suggestion before is precisely your problem area. The expression CAUSE(existence of the universe) is meaningless. But what logic do you deduce that the existence of the  universe could have a cause. I'm am taking your "responsible for" to mean "cause" for simplicity. I don't think that effect that meaningless of your phrase. Causing something to exist means that the universe must have a beginning (a state following non-existence). But this is just gibberish.

So is it gibberish for someone to say that quantum vacuum fluctuations are responsible for the universe?

Yes, when terms like "cause" (mine) or "responsible for" are used. It would help the discussion if you specified which variety of inflationary cosmology you are referring to.

Quote
 Because there are scientists who say that.  There are scientists who say that the existence of the universe can be explained in purely natural terms - which means that they are talking at some level about how the universe came into being.

There are? Then it's very strange that you don't cite them. I've seen examples (from Guth on) referring to the "early universe" but I can't find anything about "creation" or "existence". That is the bit that is gibberish.

QuoteI'm not sure why it's gibberish to say that personal intelligence is responsible for the universe, but it's not gibberish to say that quantum vacuum fluctuations are responsible.

I'm here to help.  :D It's gibberish in both cases. No one that I'm aware of has claimed that "vacuum fluctuations" are responsible for the existence of the universe.

QuoteRemember, I'm not trying to prove anything at this point. I'm merely trying to get a definition of God so we can have a discussion.  You are jumping ahead of yourself by objecting to a cause.  "Cause" is not my word.  I'm not confining "responsible for the existence of the universe" to any formal concept of "cause."

Then you are back to gibberish again. What does "responsible" mean in your language. If you say that the bankers' exotic bundled credit instruments are responsible for the current financial fiasco does not imply causality to you?  You say, "I'm not confining 'responsible for the existence of the universe' to any formal concept of 'cause.'" Again the descent into gibberish. You expect me to discuss things for which you provide no definition? This was our starting point. If you are not confining "responsible" to any formal concept of "cause" then you are taking your statements out of the domain of rational discussion and into an Alice in wonderland state as in "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." This of course is a definition of gibberish.

Quote from: Attila on October 31, 2011, 06:20:56 PM
If your hypothesis is not falsifiable then no scientist will go near it. It has no empirical content and hence is not interesting.

QuoteSomething is "falsifiable" if in principle it can be disproven by observation.

That is "naive falsificationism" not applicable to science. You'll need to read up a bit on the subject I'm afraid. Theories rather than statements are falsified. "observation" must be understood in a very broad sense. It is not the same as "seeing" but rather observing effects that are consistent with a theoretical model of what is under discussion. Rutherford never actually "saw" atominc nuclei but his experiments demonstrated that something along those lines existed.

Quote
So the statement that "there is a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe" is falsifiable in principle, as eventually science will be able to make observations that will prove it or disprove it.  The tools may not be available now, as in your Pluto example. But there is no reason to think they will not be available in the future.

Sorry Bruce but you have provided zero evidence for your extravagant claim. That has the same empirical status as saying "eventually science will be able to make observations that will prove or disprove the existence of the human soul". You show a touching but entirely misplaced faith in what science can and cannot do.
Your claims have absolutely nothing to do with the Pluto case. Celestial bodies are well-defined objects (stars, planets, comets, black holes, ...) with known properties. If we are looking for one (a planet-like object in the case of Pluto) then we have a good idea of what we're looking for and we will know it when we have found it. Celestial bodies are part of a more general theory which makes verifiable/falsifiable predictions with respect to their behaviour. In sharp contrast, gibberish concerning an agent "responsible for the existence of the universe" forms part of no formal theory. We can devise experiments that could spot Pluto given the means to do so long before we actually spotted it. Can you devise an experiment that would spot something responsible for the existence of the universe? I think not. Would you even claim that such an agent obeys the laws of physics?

Quote
In short, my definition of God is both coherent and falsifiable.

In shorter it is neither.

QuoteYou seem to simply be raising objections to avoid the discussion. But if you find it uninteresting, that's fine.  Just say so and the conversation is over.  

Given the amount of time I've spent trying to instruct you on the fundamentals of scientific argumentation, I'd say your comment is rather unkind. I can't avoid a discussion of something that is demonstrably undiscussable. I'd hope you don't simply repeat that same unfounded claims over and over again. If you come up with something substantive, sure, let me know.

Here is an article in which the author argues that Hawking's cosmology disproves the existence of God.

http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_1_1.htm

The reason that I have posted this is that this articles shows that the concept of God is both coherent and falsifiable.  He is an atheist, and obviously does not find the concept of God to be meaningless.  He has a coherent concept of what "God" means, and proceeds to assemble arguments against the existence of such an entity.

Articles like this exhibit why you are so off base.  You won't even admit the obvious - that the concept of a creator God is a very coherent concept (as this article shows) and that it is a falsifiable concept (as this article shows).  Whether the author is right or not is another question.  But it's clear that he has no problem tackling the issue head-on, as you seem to have.  You try to define God out of existence, while this courageous author accepts the challenge, acknowledges that the term "God" has meaning, and sets about attempting to prove that he does not exist.

Now, you are not able to agree with what this author says, because for you the entire concept of God is meaningless.  If you applaud this author for his argument and his conclusion, it will demonstrate that you truly do acknowledge that the concept of God is coherent and falsifiable.   

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 02:28:56 AM
Here is an article in which the author argues that Hawking's cosmology disproves the existence of God.

http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_1_1.htm

The reason that I have posted this is that this articles shows that the concept of God is both coherent and falsifiable.  He is an atheist, and obviously does not find the concept of God to be meaningless.  He has a coherent concept of what "God" means, and proceeds to assemble arguments against the existence of such an entity.

Ah Brucie. Sometimes I despair for you very survival. How can one person be so mixed up about so many different things. Let's get a couple of boring preliminaries out of the way and then get into the heavier stuff.
1. To clarify things, Quentin Smith is a philosopher and not a physicist. That's neither here nor there but it does orient his and our discussion in a particular direction.
2. You claim that his concept of a creator god is a coherent concept. Can you show me his definition of this concept in the article?
3. You claim that the proposition that god exists is falsifiable and yet neither you nor Quentin Smith offer any experimental design that could decide the issue.
4. Q.S. seems to think that his work is done. His concluding paragraph is:

Quote from: QuentinSmithThe moral of this story is that quantum cosmology and classical theism cannot both be true. One has two choices: become an atheist or else argue that science, in the form of quantum cosmology, is false. However, since Copernicus and Galileo, any time that religion has opposed science, religion has lost.

5. So Brucie, since you claim to be a rationalist, I assume you have renounced god along with your job as pastor and joined the ranks of the godless. Oh and another question.
6. Does god obey the laws of physics e.g. can god travel faster than light speed (don't talk to me about hardon colliders please)
Delving into the quantum cosmology (your call not mine) I think I can illustrating quite clearly that your proffered definition is meaningless gibberish. I'll wait for your answers before proceeding to do just that.
It may be worthy of comment that AFAIK no theist has forsaken theism based on Hawking's book. So much for your rational approach.  :)

Reminder...HAF has a civility rule; cut out the condescending tone.

Quote from: Attila on November 02, 2011, 06:30:43 AM
(don't talk to me about hardon colliders please)

Possibly the best typo I've seen in a long time  :D

Quote from: Tank on November 02, 2011, 09:55:02 AM

Quote from: Attila on November 02, 2011, 06:30:43 AM
(don't talk to me about hardon colliders please)

Possibly the best typo I've seen in a long time  :D

..?
... ..!
:o

A haRDon collider. Asmodean approves!  ;D

Quote from: Attila on November 02, 2011, 06:30:43 AM
1. To clarify things, Quentin Smith is a philosopher and not a physicist. That's neither here nor there but it does orient his and our discussion in a particular direction.

If it's neither here nor there, why mention it, except to muddy the waters?

Quote from: Attila on November 02, 2011, 06:30:43 AM
2. You claim that his concept of a creator god is a coherent concept. Can you show me his definition of this concept in the article?

He very clearly adopts the concept of God that is found in classical theism/Christianity. That would make it quite similar to my concept, except that I speak in terms of God being "responsible" for the universe, rather than "caused" the universe, as the latter term carries too much religious baggage. But the point is that he does not claim that "God" is an incoherent concept, but argues instead that the God of classical theism cannot exist.  

On the matter of cause, Hawking argues that the universe had no beginning, but emerged from nothing other than the laws of physics.  But the laws of physics, of mathematics, of probabilities, of logic, all describe a state of affairs from which the universe emerged. I see nothing that would prevent those laws themselves (as descriptions of reality) from emerging from a source, which, for purposes of our discussion, I refer to as "God."  The existence of those laws, all operating together to allow a universe to emerge, fits in quite nicely with my concept of God as being intelligent.  

Quote from: Attila on November 02, 2011, 06:30:43 AM
3. You claim that the proposition that god exists is falsifiable and yet neither you nor Quentin Smith offer any experimental design that could decide the issue.

According to Smith, God is logically inconsistent with Hawking's explanation of the beginnings of the universe.  So once Hawking's hypothesis is empirically proven (assuming it is), God will automatically be disproven, or falsified. That is, according to Smith - I'm not saying I agree with Smith, but that is how I understand him to portray the concept of God as being falisifiable.

Quote from: Attila on November 02, 2011, 06:30:43 AM
4. Q.S. seems to think that his work is done. His concluding paragraph is:

Quote from: QuentinSmithThe moral of this story is that quantum cosmology and classical theism cannot both be true. One has two choices: become an atheist or else argue that science, in the form of quantum cosmology, is false. However, since Copernicus and Galileo, any time that religion has opposed science, religion has lost.

5. So Brucie, since you claim to be a rationalist, I assume you have renounced god along with your job as pastor and joined the ranks of the godless.

What I claim to be is a Christian, and I further claim that being a Christian is not necessarily irrational.  I don't think I've called myself a "rationalist," as I think that there are certain things that can be experienced which are real, but not fully explained by reason - the existence of God being one of them.

Quote from: Attila on November 02, 2011, 06:30:43 AM
6. Does god obey the laws of physics e.g. can god travel faster than light speed (don't talk to me about hardon colliders please)

You've already suffered enough for the "hardon" reference, so I won't add anything to that. As to what God can do with respect to the laws of physics, I don't claim to know.  I don't argue that God is omnipotent, but my current belief is that God is responsible for the laws of physics.  So if he made the speed of light absolute, he may be limited by it.  On the other hand, in the inflationary period of the early universe, right after the Big Bang, the universe expanded much, much faster than the speed of light.  So maybe the whole idea of God traveling faster than the speed of light is "incoherent" and "meaningless."