Quote unquote skepticism

[IAmZamzam]

skeptic:

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4.
(initial capital letter) Philosophy.
4a.a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
4b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.
6. (initial capital letter ) pertaining to the Skeptics.

Synonyms. 3. doubter. See atheist.

That is the definition of the word “skeptic” from dictionary.com, derived from the Random House Unabridged. It’s also the definition that everyone—repeat, everyone—who does not brand themselves skeptics as a philosophical lifestyle choice universally uses. For their own ulterior purposes they have redefined the word so as to mean “someone who does not believe in something without evidence”. The very best of these purposes is to make the notion of the inherently negative and tendentious nature of being a doubter just in general palatable by defining skepticism itself—instead of by what it itself actually is—with an alleged positive trait possessed by the skeptics themselves in their mindset or motivation or reasoning. Had I defined belief in Islam the same way they would, of course, have been deeply offended at my bigotry. There is no viewpoint in the world that it is not just as possible to come to by way of believing (truly or falsely) that the evidence supports it as by any other way. What criteria a person may or may not be using for determining what they believe is entirely a different matter from what the belief itself is. (And yes, it is a belief, like every disbelief is. Every negative is also a positive and vice versa. Disbelieving in X is just another way of saying believing in not-X, just as believing in Y is just another way of saying disbelieving in not-Y.)

I would like to think that I can chock the trend up entirely to the modern need for buzzwords with their own lingo-based special definition, or a semi-subconscious uneasiness about the massive fluke involved in “just so happening” to find no reason to believe in any of ten thousand supernatural or religious ideas; it is much easier on the mind to think that your approach is by definition rational and even defines you than to admit to yourself the possibility that you’re just biased against certain types of things. I would very much like to think that, and I am sure that with many people both factors are involved, but the simple truth of the matter, I fear, is plain ol’ arrogance. We are, after all, talking about the same intelligentsia that has also redefined the term “freethinker” to refer to themselves exclusively for exactly the same reasons. Such a practice makes the mere act of dignifying it with rebuttal make you feel dirty. At least when they redefine “atheist” to mean “anyone who ‘lacks belief’ [what a phrase!] in God” so as to be able to include in their group irrelevant people with them who have never heard of God they are only dodging or pushing the “burden of proof” controversy. When you try to force a word the dictionary defines as “maintaining a doubting attitude” to mean “entering into a belief only when you see good reason to do so” you are being as asinine as you are disingenuous, and if there is anything in this world more loftily obnoxious than using the term “freethinking” to mean “agreeing with me” then it is not easy for me to think of it off the top of my head.

From now on I just may refer to Muslims or theists as “reasoners” every time I hear those terms being misused so. Let’s see they how they like it!

[Woodrow]

Thread is now open for discussion

[zoro]

That is the definition of the word “skeptic” from dictionary.com, derived from the Random House Unabridged. It’s also the definition that everyone—repeat, everyone—who does not brand themselves skeptics as a philosophical lifestyle choice universally uses. For their own ulterior purposes they have redefined the word so as to mean “someone who does not believe in something without evidence”. The very best of these purposes is to make the notion of the inherently negative and tendentious nature of being a doubter just in general palatable by defining skepticism itself—instead of by what it itself actually is—with an alleged positive trait possessed by the skeptics themselves in their mindset or motivation or reasoning. Had I defined belief in Islam the same way they would, of course, have been deeply offended at my bigotry. There is no viewpoint in the world that it is not just as possible to come to by way of believing (truly or falsely) that the evidence supports it as by any other way. What criteria a person may or may not be using for determining what they believe is entirely a different matter from what the belief itself is. (And yes, it is a belief, like every disbelief is. Every negative is also a positive and vice versa. Disbelieving in X is just another way of saying believing in not-X, just as believing in Y is just another way of saying disbelieving in not-Y.)

I would like to think that I can chock the trend up entirely to the modern need for buzzwords with their own lingo-based special definition, or a semi-subconscious uneasiness about the massive fluke involved in “just so happening” to find no reason to believe in any of ten thousand supernatural or religious ideas; it is much easier on the mind to think that your approach is by definition rational and even defines you than to admit to yourself the possibility that you’re just biased against certain types of things. I would very much like to think that, and I am sure that with many people both factors are involved, but the simple truth of the matter, I fear, is plain ol’ arrogance. We are, after all, talking about the same intelligentsia that has also redefined the term “freethinker” to refer to themselves exclusively for exactly the same reasons. Such a practice makes the mere act of dignifying it with rebuttal make you feel dirty. At least when they redefine “atheist” to mean “anyone who ‘lacks belief’ [what a phrase!] in God” so as to be able to include in their group irrelevant people with them who have never heard of God they are only dodging or pushing the “burden of proof” controversy. When you try to force a word the dictionary defines as “maintaining a doubting attitude” to mean “entering into a belief only when you see good reason to do so” you are being as asinine as you are disingenuous, and if there is anything in this world more loftily obnoxious than using the term “freethinking” to mean “agreeing with me” then it is not easy for me to think of it off the top of my head.

From now on I just may refer to Muslims or theists as “reasoners” every time I hear those terms being misused so. Let’s see they how they like it!

The Opening Post (OP), quoted above, contains errors, revealing misunderstandings by the poster. In turn, the poster’s misunderstandings seem to have led him to compound his ignorance with arrogance, which unfortunately is an all-too-common pattern. Below, I’ll provide some details supporting my assessments.

To start and for now, I’ll accept the dictionary definition of the word ‘skeptic’ quoted in the OP. The poster then states:

For their own ulterior purposes they [skeptics] have redefined the word [‘skeptic’] so as to mean “someone who does not believe in something without evidence”.

That’s doubly wrong. First, not a single skeptic (of literally thousand of skeptics) with whom I’ve had the good fortune to interact has had some “ulterior [i.e., hidden] purposes” in being skeptics. We are skeptics simply because (as the quoted, dictionary definition states) we “maintain a doubting attitude” and “question the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.”

Second, the poster’s claim is wrong that we skeptics have, “redefined the word [‘skeptic’] so as to mean ‘someone who does not believe in something without evidence’.” What follows are some examples of what skeptics mean. After displaying these quotations, I’ll provide a summary of what it means to be a ‘skeptic’, correcting the poster’s error – and perhaps even improving on the definition that he quoted from not-the-world’s-best dictionary:

Believe nothing… merely because you have been told it… or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide. [The Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), c.500 BCE]

The foolish reject what they see and not what they think; the wise reject what they think and not what they see. [Huang Po (a Zen master who died in about 850)]

A wise [person]… proportions his belief to the evidence. [David Hume]

To believe without evidence and demonstration is an act of ignorance and folly. [Volney]

In religion and politics, people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. [Mark Twain]

The house of delusions is cheap to build but drafty to live in. [A.E. Housman]

For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said “Think”; the many have said “Believe!” [Robert Ingersoll]

Faith [is] belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce]

It is wrong always and everywhere for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence. [William Kingdon Clifford]

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin… The foundation of morality is to… give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge. [Thomas Henry Huxley]

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. [Aldous Huxley]

We should be agnostic about those things for which there is no evidence. We should not hold beliefs merely because they gratify our desires for afterlife, immortality, heaven, hell, etc. [Julian Huxley]

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way… So long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence [italics added], they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest charlatans. To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues. [Bertrand Russell]

Credulity is belief in slight evidence, with no evidence, or against evidence.
[Tryon Edwards]

In spite of all the yearnings of men, no one can produce a single fact or reason to support the belief in God and in personal immortality. [Clarence Darrow]

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. [Richard Dawkins]

I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief. [Dan Barker]

We ought to do what we can towards eradicating the evil habit of believing without regard to evidence. [Richard Robinson]

The importance of the strength of our conviction is only to provide a proportionately strong incentive to find out if the hypothesis will stand up to critical examination. [Peter B. Medawar]

Conviction is something you need in order to act… But your action needs to be proportional to the depth of evidence that underlies your conviction. [Paul O’Neill]

Don’t believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under “Low Probability”, and the things that seem most plausible, you put under “High Probability”. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So, put things on a scale or probability and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely. [Robert A. Wilson]

Believe nothing with more conviction than the evidence warrants.
[Arthur M. Jackson]

In summary, I think that the succinct summaries by David Hume, “A wise [person]… proportions his belief to the evidence”, and by Arthur Jackson, “Believe nothing with more conviction than the evidence warrants”, well summarize the meaning of ‘skepticism’.

Again, the poster’s claim that for our own “ulterior purposes” we skeptics have redefined the word [‘skeptic’] so as to mean “someone who does not believe in something without evidence” is wrong. A more nearly correct statement would be that we define ‘skepticism’ as holding beliefs only as strongly as relevant evidence warrants. From his error and displaying both ignorance and arrogance, the poster then proceeds to insult skeptics. Thus, first he claims that, in fact, he knows what our “ulterior purposes” are:

The very best of these purposes is to make the notion of the inherently negative and tendentious nature of being a doubter just in general palatable by defining skepticism itself – instead of by what it itself actually is – with an alleged positive trait possessed by the skeptics themselves in their mindset or motivation or reasoning.

Therein, he disparagingly describes skepticism as “inherently negative and tendentious”. Hello? The purpose of skepticism (as revealed even in his quoted, dictionary definition) is to determine what is “factual” and what is “truth”. Since when is such an attitude “inherently negative”?! And as for it being “tendentious” (i.e., “expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view”), I certain hope that everyone would seek to determine what is “factual” and “true”!

In the same quotation, the poster states that we skeptics seek to make skepticism “palatable by defining skepticism itself… with an alleged positive trait.” But again, that’s wrong: not only do we NOT redefine ‘skepticism’, but also, skepticism IS a “positive trait”! Further, most skeptics (including Socrates, Confucius, and the Buddha) would argue that skepticism is one of the most important mental traits (if not the most important mental trait) that humans can possess. Socrates said it well: not only that “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance” but also:

And is not this the most reprehensible form of ignorance, that of thinking one knows what one does not know?

In contrast to adopting such a “reprehensible form of ignorance”, skeptics admit their ignorance. As Confucius said (approximately a hundred years earlier than Socrates):

When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it – this is the beginning of wisdom.

Further into his post, we can begin to see some of the sources of the poster’s misconceptions. He states:

There is no viewpoint in the world that it is not just as possible to come to by way of believing (truly or falsely) that the evidence supports it as by any other way. What criteria a person may or may not be using for determining what they believe is entirely a different matter from what the belief itself is. (And yes, it is a belief, like every disbelief is. Every negative is also a positive and vice versa. Disbelieving in X is just another way of saying believing in not-X, just as believing in Y is just another way of saying disbelieving in not-Y.)

Now, first, it’s easy to agree with his statement:

There is no viewpoint in the world that it is not just as possible to come to by way of believing… that the evidence supports it as by any other way.

It’s a long-winded way of saying “people can make mistakes”! Second, it’s also easy to agree with his:

What criteria a person may or may not be using for determining what they believe is entirely a different matter from what the belief itself is.

In fact, it’s such an obvious statement that it’s rather superfluous. But then there’s his statement that begins to reveal his errors, derived from ignorance:

And yes, it is a belief, like every disbelief is. Every negative is also a positive and vice versa. Disbelieving in X is just another way of saying believing in not-X, just as believing in Y is just another way of saying disbelieving in not-Y.

In my book ( at http://zenofzero.net/ ), I tried to caution readers against such errors by advising them to avoid people who have an “on-off switch” instead of a brain! Thus, the poster’s blatant error, here, is to assume that there are only two states: belief vs. unbelief, which in turn reveals that he knows nothing about skepticism, nothing about probabilities, and therefore nothing about the scientific method.

To begin to illustrate what I mean, I’ll again quote Robert Wilson’s statement (already quoted in the list of potential meaning for ‘skepticism’):

Don’t believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under “Low Probability”, and the things that seem most plausible, you put under “High Probability”. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So, put things on a scale or probability and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely.

Further, in another thread at this forum (dealing with Pascal’s Wager), I recently tried to stimulate the same poster to see that, the most humans are able to determine in and about reality is the probability that some statement is true. I provided him with references to my more complete explanations (at http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf and http://zenofzero.net/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf ); he responded (to another poster) that

I haven't even read his pamphlet. That Venn diagram he presented at the beginning kind of turned me off to it.

That “Venn diagram” that he mentions is on the first page! And apparently from this current post, the poster still hasn’t got beyond the first page, or if he has, he still fails to understand the concept that, in open systems” (e.g., reality) as opposed to the case for “closed systems” (e.g., all games, pure mathematics, and religions), the most we can determine is the probability that any claim is true.

Along the same line, but further, the poster obviously fails to understand the scientific method, which can be crudely described as “guess, test, and reassess”. In slightly more detail: we gain knowledge about the world external to our minds by observing, collecting data, summarizing the data with succinct hypotheses that yield predictions, testing the predictions by performing new experiments, collecting data, and so on, without end. In each step of the process, the “soul of the method” is skepticism. The products of the scientific method are estimates for the probability that some hypothesis is true, based on the evidence (by application of a mathematical procedure known as Bayes’ method).

The poster, however, reveals that he doesn’t understand that a statement of a belief is a statement about probabilities, for he obviously doesn’t understand the concept of probability, let alone Bayes’ method, the scientific method, or skepticism. As an illustration of such ignorance, he adds the belligerent statement:

I would like to think that I can chock the trend up entirely to the modern need for buzzwords with their own lingo-based special definition, or a semi-subconscious uneasiness about the massive fluke involved in “just so happening” to find no reason to believe in any of ten thousand supernatural or religious ideas; it is much easier on the mind to think that your approach is by definition rational and even defines you than to admit to yourself the possibility that you’re just biased against certain types of things. I would very much like to think that, and I am sure that with many people both factors are involved, but the simple truth of the matter, I fear, is plain ol’ arrogance.

No. It’s not arrogance; it’s called “the scientific method”. Further, the poster additionally displays his ignorance about the scientific method (and associated skepticism and methods for estimating probabilities) in his arrogant comments about atheism:

At least when they redefine “atheist” to mean “anyone who ‘lacks belief’ [what a phrase!] in God” so as to be able to include in their group irrelevant people with them who have never heard of God they are only dodging or pushing the “burden of proof” controversy.

In a (probably forlorn) attempt to provide him with still another opportunity to understand, I’ll provide the following guidance and references.

For cases for which no relevant evidence is available (such as in the case for the proposal that any god exists or has ever existed), then as I show elsewhere (at http://zenofzero.net/docs/IhHypothes...babilities.pdf ), Bayes’ method fails. Thereby, as I also show in the same reference, Stephen Unwin’s attempt to use Bayes’ method in his book “The Probability of God” is not only wrong but futile. Yet, methods for estimating the probability of the existence of the Abrahamic god can be made (based on the probability that such a god could come into existence plus the lack of evidence for such existence), and as I show still elsewhere (at http://zenofzero.net/docs/IiIndoctri...nIgnorance.pdf ), the probability that such a god does exist is the smallest probability that I have ever encountered, namely, less that one chance in about 10^500.

Consequently, since someone is an “atheist” (with respect to a particular god) who considers the probability that such a god exists to be less than 50% (whereas a theist is someone who estimates the probability to be greater than 50%, and an agnostic, exactly 50%), then with my estimate for the probability of the existence of the Abrahamic god to be less than 0.000…[continue for a total of about 500 zeros]…01%, then no doubt the poster would label me as an atheist. It would be much more appropriate, however, and probably result in much less animosity, to abandon all such labels (theist, atheist, scientific humanist, unscientific anti-humans, etc.) and, instead, simply relay a person’s estimate for the probability of the existence of a particular god.

Additionally, in the same paragraph, there’s the poster’s belligerent, arrogant, ignorant attack on “freethinkers”:

We are, after all, talking about the same intelligentsia that has also redefined the term “freethinker” to refer to themselves exclusively for exactly the same reasons. Such a practice makes the mere act of dignifying it with rebuttal make you feel dirty… if there is anything in this world more loftily obnoxious than using the term “freethinking” to mean “agreeing with me” then it is not easy for me to think of it off the top of my head.

Talk about obnoxious! Of course, again the poster is wrong to say that we freethinkers have redefined the term ‘freethinker’. No wonder he “feel[s] dirty”! To cleanse such dirt, I would suggest that he start by reading the following statement by one of America’s and the world’s greatest (if not the greatest) free thinkers, Robert Ingersoll (1833–1899):

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural – that all the ghosts and gods are myths – there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world – not even in infinite space.

I was free: free to think, to express my thoughts – free to live to my own ideal – free to live for myself and those I loved – free to use all my faculties, all my senses – free to spread imagination’s wings – free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope – free to judge and determine for myself – free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the “inspired” books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past – free from popes and priests – free from all the “called” and “set apart” – free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies – free from the fear of eternal pain – free from the winged monsters of night – free from devils, ghosts, and gods.

For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of my thought – no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings – no chains for my limbs – no lashes for my back – no fires for my flesh – no master’s frown or threat – no following another’s steps – no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words.

I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds. And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought – to those who fell on the fierce fields of war – to those who died in dungeons bound with chains – to those who proudly mounted scaffold’s stairs – to those whose bones were crushed, whose flesh was scarred and torn – to those by fire consumed – to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.

Such is the freedom and commitment of perhaps the greatest freethinker the world has ever known.

Finally, there’s the poster’s final sentence:

From now on I just may refer to Muslims or theists as “reasoners” every time I hear those terms being misused so. Let’s see they how they like it!

What amazes me about such a statement is that the poster doesn’t realize how horribly he thereby insults all theists, including all Muslims! But to explain what I mean would take too long; therefore, I’ll simply provide a reference to still another chapter of my book, namely http://zenofzero.net/docs/R_Reason_versus_Reality.pdf ). If the poster manages to get beyond the first page of that “pamphlet”, then perhaps he’ll begin to understand why reasoning is unable (even theoretically) to provide new information (only knowledge about existing information) and, therefore, why it’s impossible for any “logical proofs” for the existence of anything to be valid. Further, he may then understand why Aristotle’s stated goal of “living a life of reason”, Spinoza’s assessment, “I call him free who is led solely by reason”, and all theists who follow such recommendations and assessments have made and are making enormous errors. As I wrote in that chapter (explicitly written to my teenage granddaughter, but implicitly written for all youngsters):

If you do attempt to live a life of reason, almost certainly you’ll make even greater mistakes in your life than did Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, and many others. Instead of relying on reason, rely on data; instead of relying on reason, rely on the scientific method; instead of relying on reason, use your head as best you can – which includes not only checking all reasoned results to determine if they’re in agreement with reality but also (and extremely importantly) using the scientific method to test the predictions of your reasoning…

As a summary, let me say that “the big deal” is not just that millions of people have been murdered because of reliance on reasoning rather than on the scientific method (though they have), nor that tens of millions of people have been killed in wars because of reliance on reasoning rather than on the scientific method (though they have), nor that hundreds of millions of people have experienced various types of enslavement because of reliance on reasoning rather than on the scientific method (though they have), nor even that billions of people are now living in delusions, poverty, and misery because of reliance on reasoning rather than on the scientific method (though they are). Instead… the “big deal” is that I want to do what I can to help children… so they won’t make the same mistake of relying on reason, rather than using their brains as best they can (by applying the scientific method in their daily lives).

[IAmZamzam]

It's always in equal parts funny and frustrating when I see people freely, even proudly, admit that reason is not one's top priority and primary guiding light (or perhaps that it should even be one's last consideration) when ascribing to the dogmatism of "the scientific method". Unreason apparently isn't fine if it's religious, but it's certainly fine if it's scientific, never mind that it's still unreason! If I just have one dollar for every time I've heard someone cheerfully, defiantly admit that science "frequently goes against common sense".....

If I had much doubt that your post, zoro, was anything other than an unnecessarily loquatious advertisement for your pamphlet, which you seem incapable of posting without linking to at least once per post, I might attempt a full, point-by-point shattering of all your straw man attacks. As it is, I don't debate those pop-up ads that pretend to be rational discourse and I see no reason why this would be significantly different.

Suffice to say, my problem (which I think was painfully clear in the OP, but I'll gladly restate it) is not with people believing in things only when they think there's evidence, nor certainly with freethinking, which is my favorite thing in the world, but with people using these expressions synonymously with their own particular viewpoint on something. If atheists can call themselves exclusively "freethinkers" and define their position as meaning the same thing as believing in something only when you have a good reason to, then I am allowed to do the same. I and all other Reasoners. You can't have it both ways.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Pygoscelis]

It's always in equal parts funny and frustrating when I see people freely, even proudly, admit that reason is not one's top priority

Um, but you are advocating religion and faith, are you not?

but it's certainly fine if it's scientific, never mind that it's still unreason!

How is the scientific method "unreason"? The scientific method is specifically designed to remove our biases and desires when examining the wolrd, to do experiments, to replicate results and to eliminate as many extraneous factors as possible. The scientific method IS reason. Scientists have biases and sometimes try to fudge results, but that is human frailty and the result of NOT following the scientific method. The scientific method can also lead us to wrong ideas, but only if we extrapolate too much from the data; only if faith creeps in.

If I just have one dollar for every time I've heard someone cheerfully, defiantly admit that science "frequently goes against common sense".....

Because "common sense" can be misleading. Common sense would tell you that the world is flat and that the sun goes around the earth. Philosophy is about what makes sense. Science is about what actually is.

If I had much doubt that your post, zoro, was anything other than an unnecessarily loquatious advertisement for your pamphlet, which you seem incapable of posting without linking to at least once per post

He does sneak in a gratuitous bit of self advertising in there. But the quotes are directly on topic and his points are valid, and you are falling into an adhom here. Address the points, not the poster.

I might attempt a full, point-by-point shattering of all your straw man attacks.

That seems to be exactly what he just did.

Suffice to say, my problem (which I think was painfully clear in the OP, but I'll gladly restate it) is not with people believing in things only when they think there's evidence, nor certainly with freethinking, which is my favorite thing in the world

Um no, that isn't clear at all in your post. Go re-read it. You directly attack this and now say it isn't your problem. You only make any mention of the group you now target (which doesn't even include most atheists) much later on.

If atheists can call themselves exclusively "freethinkers" and define their position as meaning the same thing as believing in something only when you have a good reason to, then I am allowed to do the same. I and all other Reasoners. You can't have it both ways.

Atheists can define themselves that way because that IS the reason they do not believe in God(s). Theists like to pretend there are other reasons, but there really aren't. I for one would allow the "Free thinker" label to be put upon anybody who doesn't name "Faith" (the opposite of reason), "tradition", or "reverence" (ie, believing out of obedience or respect) as their motivating forces. If you read the quotes above re what skepticism is, you can see each of these forces addressed. You can't really call somebody "reasoner" if they are proudly flaunting its opposite (faith).

[IAmZamzam]

Um, but you are advocating religion and faith, are you not?

Now there's a loaded question if ever I heard one!

How is the scientific method "unreason"? The scientific method is specifically designed to remove our biases and desires when examining the wolrd, to do experiments, to replicate results and to eliminate as many extraneous factors as possible. The scientific method IS reason. Scientists have biases and sometimes try to fudge results, but that is human frailty and the result of NOT following the scientific method. The scientific method can also lead us to wrong ideas, but only if we extrapolate too much from the data; only if faith creeps in.

Which is why I put the phrase in quote marks. The actual scientific method is--get this--a method of science for scientists, and not this ill-defined general philosophy that people like zoro use the term to describe.

Because "common sense" can be misleading. Common sense would tell you that the world is flat and that the sun goes around the earth. Philosophy is about what makes sense. Science is about what actually is.

Philosophy almost never makes sense. And how is it common sense to believe something to be flat when the clouds move over it and around the horizon in a way clearly indicating curvature--a curvature which can also be seen from any high enough point, and in the sinking of ships (which later return) out of sight on the horizon? If you would just trust in common sense a little more then you would see how silly it is to deny it under almost any conditions. In any case you're not going to win any people over to your position by confessing that it frequently contradicts common sense.

He does sneak in a gratuitous bit of self advertising in there. But the quotes are directly on topic and his points are valid, and you are falling into an adhom here. Address the points, not the poster.

Anyone who actually bothered to read my post, and read it carefully, will not need an explanation of any kind. I am gravely doubtful that you would have thought zoro responded well at all if you did not agree with his position of "skepticism" to begin with. You're almost right about one thing: probably I shouldn't have responded to zoro's post at all in the first place. vale's lily was probably right that we should all just ignore zoro all the time.

Um no, that isn't clear at all in your post. Go re-read it. You directly attack this and now say it isn't your problem. You only make any mention of the group you now target (which doesn't even include most atheists) much later on.

I dare you to tell me where I have attacked the attitude that people should believe in things only with good reason, which I propagate constantly. And just in case anyone would be misled otherwise, here is what I did say, read it and weep:

That is the definition of the word “skeptic” from dictionary.com, derived from the Random House Unabridged. It’s also the definition that everyone—repeat, everyone—who does not brand themselves skeptics as a philosophical lifestyle choice universally uses. For their own ulterior purposes they have redefined the word so as to mean “someone who does not believe in something without evidence”. The very best of these purposes is to make the notion of the inherently negative and tendentious nature of being a doubter just in general palatable by defining skepticism itself instead of by what it itself actually is, with an alleged positive trait possessed by the skeptics themselves in their mindset or motivation or reasoning. Had I defined belief in Islam the same way they would, of course, have been deeply offended at my bigotry. There is no viewpoint in the world that it is not just as possible to come to by way of believing (truly or falsely) that the evidence supports it as by any other way. What criteria a person may or may not be using for determining what they believe is entirely a different matter from what the belief itself is. (And yes, it is a belief, like every disbelief is. Every negative is also a positive and vice versa. Disbelieving in X is just another way of saying believing in not-X, just as believing in Y is just another way of saying disbelieving in not-Y.)

I would like to think that I can chock the trend up entirely to the modern need for buzzwords with their own lingo-based special definition, or a semi-subconscious uneasiness about the massive fluke involved in just so happening to find no reason to believe in any of ten thousand supernatural or religious ideas; it is much easier on the mind to think that your approach is by definition rational and even defines you than to admit to yourself the possibility that you’re just biased against certain types of things. I would very much like to think that, and I am sure that with many people both factors are involved, but the simple truth of the matter, I fear, is plain ol’ arrogance. We are, after all, talking about the same intelligentsia that has also redefined the term “freethinker” to refer to themselves exclusively for exactly the same reasons. Such a practice makes the mere act of dignifying it with rebuttal make you feel dirty. At least when they redefine “atheist”; to mean “anyone who ‘lacks belief’ [what a phrase!] in God” so as to be able to include in their group irrelevant people with them who have never heard of God they are only dodging or pushing the “burden of proof” controversy. When you try to force a word the dictionary defines as “maintaining a doubting attitude” to mean “entering into a belief only when you see good reason to do so” you are being as asinine as you are disingenuous, and if there is anything in this world more loftily obnoxious than using the term “freethinking” to mean “agreeing with me” then it is not easy for me to think of it off the top of my head.

From now on I just may refer to Muslims or theists as “reasoners”; every time I hear those terms being misused so. Let’s see they how they like it!

Atheists can define themselves that way because that IS the reason they do not believe in God(s). Theists like to pretend there are other reasons, but there really aren't. I for one would allow the "Free thinker" label to be put upon anybody who doesn't push "Faith" (the opposite of reason), "tradition", or "reverence" (ie, believing out of obedience or respect) as their motivating forces. If you read the quotes above re what skepticism is, you can see each of these forces addressed.

If I spent an hour pondering I couldn’t come up with a better hypothetical statement you could possibly make to betray your own prejudice and closed-mindedness than that. So we Reasoners (again I use the word for the reason I listed above: in protest) only make believe about atheists because we all are well aware that the only reason any of the millions and millions and millions of them ever disbelieve in God is because there very well is indeed no good reason to? Or do you just mean “theists like to make believe that there are any other considerations to be made than whether or not there is good reason for believing in something”? Yeah, because as a theist I say that there are alternatives all the time, don’t I?

This has gone far enough. It is an extremely well known fact that a debate has already been won (though in the most unfortunate and infuriating way possible) when nobody on a given side of it is even capable of responding with anything except rebuttals to points never made and statements which basically amount to, “I’m right, I’m the one who’s being reasonable, and you know it, you just won’t admit it!” I mention ulterior motives in atheists redefining a word for their own purposes, I am accused of attributing ulterior motives for their very atheism itself; I make a statement about my idea to refer to theists as “Reasoners” in protest; in response I get a statement about “logical proofs” being impossible. I attack the elitist redefinition of a term to exclusively refer to one side of a debate and to mean “believing in something only with good reason”; I am accused of attacking the very practice of holding to the “believing only with good reason” criterion!

I am wasting too much time responding to all these pathetic straw men and it’s making me too angry. This may be my last post in this thread.

[Pygoscelis]

I am wasting too much time responding to all these pathetic straw men and it’s making me too angry. This may be my last post in this thread.

He started a thread with an OP full of straw men and arrogant/aggressive posturing and now he complains about straw men (his own? I'm can't really tell here) and runs away from his own thread. I think nothing more really needs to be said.

[IAmZamzam]

If you really think that any unbiased party reading this thread is going to take your side, go ahead and keep thinking that. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss, I guess. I made myself abundantly clear in the OP and every single rebuttal has only been a deliberate(?) misunderstanding of what the OP said, as I have listed only a few examples of in my previous post. If any more rebuttals come, experience teaches that they will be more of the same. Like I said, this is always a good sign that I have succeeded: whenever I'm any likelier to be wrong and there are any even moderately intelligent dissenters about, there are generally at least a few people actually addressing the real points, and with relevant rebuttals, fallacious or not. But suspiciously, every time I really hit the nail on the head with something, the thread is always exactly like this one, it's just the oddest thing.

[Pygoscelis]

If you really think that any unbiased party reading this thread is going to take your side, go ahead and keep thinking that. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss, I guess. I made myself abundantly clear in the OP and every single rebuttal has only been a deliberate(?) misunderstanding of what the OP said, as I have listed only a few examples of in my previous post. If any more rebuttals come, experience teaches that they will be more of the same. Like I said, this is always a good sign that I have succeeded: whenever I'm any likelier to be wrong and there are any even moderately intelligent dissenters about, there are generally at least a few people actually addressing the real points, and with relevant rebuttals, fallacious or not. But suspiciously, every time I really hit the nail on the head with something, the thread is always exactly like this one, it's just the oddest thing.

You may have hit a nerve in zorro (prompting him to reply to a post the rest of us chose to ignore for a few days) but you didn't hit a nail. There are no real points that haven't been addressed already in the posts above, and whatever point you were attempting to make has been lost.

Perhaps with more civility and coherency it would have come across. But here I only see a bunch of strawmen and adhoms. I honestly do not know what it is you think you suceeded at proving.

That you refer to "your side" is pretty telling here as to your motivation but not the substance of your argument.

[IAmZamzam]

If there is any lack of clarity or coherency in the OP, you are always free to ask questions about what such-and-such meant. But you haven't done so: you've just said that its point is "lost". If you had any interest in it being "found" you would or should have asked for clarification by now, and if you don't care then you have no reason to be posting here at all.

[جوري]

But here I only see a bunch of strawmen and adhoms

I don't think anyone of us have ever seen you write much beyond those words plus 'tribalism' and 'faeries' of course-- it gets tedious, either get new material & focus on the topic at hand or simply give us the much needed relief by imparting silence on every thread as your presence contributes little to nothing else.. there is so much of a spin you can add to your two word armament, and well the guy that is trying to split the zero and inject where it is neither suitable nor of relevance or even bears a semblance to some logical consistency would be best suited for quetiapine that is if we are to address coherency and disturbed thinking alone talk about a False consensus effect.. beyond zoro's atheism which has incited you to come to the defense in that tribal fashion you seem to project more than encounter what else do you admire of him as to circumvent the subject of the topic and pound extra hard on your chest? perhaps the coarse manner he uses to introduce his worthless pamphlet on every thread?

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

I don't think anyone of us have ever seen you write much beyond those words plus 'tribalism' and 'faeries' of course-- it gets tedious.

It's not like it's a unique tactic of Pygoscelis. Have you not noticed that it's impossible to use the term "straw man" at all, even legitimately, without someone automatically responding that no you're the one making the straw man, not them? It's the most overused and inevitable form of retaliation on the board, if not in the whole intellectual world. Not that it's immensely less likely that the term will pop up anyway even if you don't say it first: any excuse to (mis)use the expressions "straw man" and "ad hominem" is a good enough one for most of the types you'll run into in places like this. Apparently the words just make people feel smart or something. I should probably stop using them at all myself, even though I use them correctly: it just feeds the beast.

P.S. If you don't want to hear childish comparisons of theism or theistic concepts to fairies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, Santa Claus, etc., just don't talk to atheists. There's no other way of avoiding that dreck.

[جوري]

It's not like it's a unique tactic of Pygoscelis. Have you not noticed that it's impossible to use the term "straw man" at all, even legitimately, without someone automatically responding that no you're the one making the straw man, not them? It's the most overused and inevitable form of retaliation on the board, if not in the whole intellectual world. Not that it's immensely less likely that the term will pop up anyway even if you don't say it first: any excuse to (mis)use the expressions "straw man" and "ad hominem" is a good enough one for most of the types you'll run into in places like this. Apparently the words just make people feel smart or something. I should probably stop using them at all myself, even though I use them correctly: it just feeds the beast.

P.S. If you don't want to hear childish comparisons of theism or theistic concepts to fairies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, Santa Claus, etc., just don't talk to atheists. There's no other way of avoiding that dreck.

I figured I'd give you about two weeks to see how much your patience and pleasant countenance can withstand. Now multiply the replies or rather non-replies you've received times 1825 and quite so, that is how long the majority of them have lingered here peddling the same M.O with unwavering enthusiasm....

:w:

[IAmZamzam]

Funny, that's probably the first time in my life that I've been told I have patience and a pleasant countenance.

[جوري]

Funny, that's probably the first time in my life that I've been told I have patience and a pleasant countenance.

well it is all relative of course but let's say in comparison to mine..

:w:

[Pygoscelis]

It's the most overused and inevitable form of retaliation on the board, if not in the whole intellectual world.

If you see it as "retaliation" then it was probably an adhom the person is responding to. To retaliate, somebody has to have been attacked. We need to stop seeing this all as some kind of fight between posters, and instead see it as an exploration of the ideas themselves. I don't matter, neither do you. The topic is what matters. Personalizing it and attacking people instead of points (which I maintain is what you did above with Zorro and is what lily does in 99% of her posts) is the adhom fallacy - and it SHOULD be brought up when people engage in it. We all do from time to time, but cooler heads and reason should prevail. Otherwise we'll never have discussions. We'll only have bickering, which is what this thread has become.

P.S. If you don't want to hear childish comparisons of theism or theistic concepts to fairies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, Santa Claus, etc., just don't talk to atheists. There's no other way of avoiding that dreck.

Perhaps they are over imflamatory but those comparisons are usually used to illustrate a point (such as being unable to prove a negative or refraining believing in something without convincing evidence). What comparisons would you prefer? Should we instead compare to Zeus and Thor?

[جوري]

(which I maintain is what you did above with Zorro and is what lily does in 99% of her posts

much like the 'tribalism' you so often project and your all too frequent drive by shootings with your BB gun that the 99% is an adequate assessment of yourself and ability or rather lack thereof to carry any topic beyond your self-professed Muslim hating. Pls. don't insult the intelligence of the 11 year olds on board by pretending you are here to exchange ideas. If you were, you'd not be meandering the post on your laundry list of complaints and have lingered this long on a forum carrying the same ignorance of 2006!

all the best

[zoro]

Sulaiman, you started this thread. The usual purpose for initiating a thread is not to post a rant but to start a discussion. In the OP you made what in my view are many unsubstantiated, erroneous, and belligerent statements.

In my response, I provided evidence and explanations that undermine every one of those statements. Not incidentally, in those explanations, I use my dictionary’s sole meaning for the mental activity known as ‘reason’: “think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic”. You have not responded to any of the points I made, except with your ad hominem:

If I had much doubt that your post, zoro, was anything other than an unnecessarily loquatious advertisement for your pamphlet, which you seem incapable of posting without linking to at least once per post, I might attempt a full, point-by-point shattering of all your straw man attacks. As it is, I don't debate those pop-up ads that pretend to be rational discourse and I see no reason why this would be significantly different.

Incidentally, in response to your attempt to insult, I would ask: why is it that, on every one of your posts, you advertise your website? Pot: meet kettle! Further, apparently your advertisements needn’t have anything to do with the thread’s subject. Interesting. Maybe I should try that. On every post, I could just type in http://zenofzero.net/ , http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/ , and http://meansnends.blogspot.com/ . Nah, I don’t think so. I think I’ll just provide any readers of particular posts of mine with links to where I address the concepts under discussion more completely. It would seem to be potentially more useful to the reader.

But of more relevance and in spite of your obvious hostility and admitted “anger”, I invite you to proceed with your “full, point-by-point shattering of all [my] straw man attacks.” If you don’t, you should realize that a common consequence of dragging around red herrings is that the dragger’s odor becomes quite intolerable.

[IAmZamzam]

If you see it as "retaliation" then it was probably an adhom the person is responding to. To retaliate, somebody has to have been attacked. We need to stop seeing this all as some kind of fight between posters, and instead see it as an exploration of the ideas themselves. I don't matter, neither do you. The topic is what matters. Personalizing it and attacking people instead of points (which I maintain is what you did above with Zorro and is what lily does in 99% of her posts) is the adhom fallacy - and it SHOULD be brought up when people engage in it.

No, it is not the ad hom fallacy. I have explained this over and over and over, and still nobody gets it. Is the difference between mere mudslinging (attacking a person instead of their argument) and ad hominems (attacking the person to refute the argument when the alleged personal traits in question have nothing to do with it) really such a fine distinction???

We all do from time to time, but cooler heads and reason should prevail. Otherwise we'll never have discussions. We'll only have bickering, which is what this thread has become.

You're right. For once I actually wish the mods would close this mother down when ordinarily I view them as locking threads willy nilly. Does that make me a hypocrite, I wonder?

Perhaps they are over imflamatory but those comparisons are usually used to illustrate a point (such as being unable to prove a negative or refraining believing in something without convincing evidence). What comparisons would you prefer? Should we instead compare to Zeus and Thor?

If I thought you had the slightest respect for the ideas of the existence of Zeus and Thor then I might consider it. I hear a lot from atheists about all gods being equally unlikely in their eyes but given the context, tone, and wording this almost never seems to be expressed as a rational follow through of their own belief but instead their nine hundredth means of scoffing and scorning. The idea is, I think, that we are expected to find the idea of Zeus just as "primitive" as they do (even though "Zeus" really is just the Greek word for "God", and would automatically be translated into Arabic as "Allah"), and therefore are expected to empathize with their snobbery. I don't buy it. As for a better analogy, the only one amongst the endless line of nontheistic cliches that I've ever heard which doesn't sound like it was dreamed up by a four-year-old schoolyard bully is the "mile run" one. It's misconceived (or rather perhaps I should say misapplied), but at least it's not insulting and infantile.

[IAmZamzam]

zoro, you already do link to your pamphlet in every post you make, or at least every one that I can remember seeing. The ones you gave in the very post I'm responding to--your previous post--are the closest to subtle you've yet got.

I do keep my website's url in my signature, yes (though you'll notice it's not the only one), but I don't openly advertise it in my very textual post contents every single chance I get.

Flooding the page with quotations as emotional appeals is not the same thing as rebutting. My OP made a very simple point, that nobody has the right to reserve terms that mean "believing in something only when you think you have good reason to" and "thinking freely" so as to refer exclusively to themselves at the behest of everyone in the world who happens to hold a different viewpoint from their own. If you people are The Freethinkers, then that automatically implicates everyone who disagrees with you as not thinking freely, one of the surest and most common signs of human prejudice and closed-mindedness. If a believer thinks (as I'm sure most do) that he has come to his belief only because some evidence or other supports it then whether he is right or not he has just as much right to define his position as "believing in something only when the evidence supports it" as disbelievers do. That is to say, no right. It is elitist, it is narrow-minded, it is haughty, it is offensive, and it is stupid. There is no justification for such a snooty practice either in linguistics or in logic. I predicted several posts ago that everyone would just keep dancing around this point and I was right (the only thing I forgot being Pygoscelis's inevitable tactic of acting like the point hasn't been made clearly at all, even though Pygoscelis's previous posts on the matter as always act like they understand it very well), and I predict again that if the thread continues then they will still do so. This is getting so pointless.

[zoro]

Well, Sulaiman, I’d agree that it’s “pointless”, so long as you continue to beat away at your own straw men and refuse (or are unable) to see the points raised by others.

For example, I know of no scientific humanists who “reserve terms that mean ‘believing in something only when you think you have good reason to” and ‘thinking freely’ so as to refer exclusively to themselves.” Of course it’s the case that everyone thinks that they think freely and have good reasons for their beliefs. Most also think that the Sun will rise tomorrow. You’re beating at your own straw men.

What you seem to refuse to see (or maybe are unable to see) is that beliefs in various gods are estimates for the probabilities that such gods exist. If you did see that, then you wouldn’t complain that people making claims about holding a belief “when the evidence supports it” is “elitist… narrow-minded… haughty… offensive, and… stupid.” That is, if you understood the scientific method, then you would know that, using Bayes’ method, evidence is used to generate estimates for the probability that any particular claim is true. In that light, what’s “stupid” is to state that you believe (or don’t believe) in something; what’s more intelligent is to provide details about your estimate for the probability that some claim is correct – or at least (if you don’t provide details of your estimate) provide your estimate for the probability.

Furthermore, with your comment that “there is no justification for such a snooty practice either in linguistics or logic”, it appears that you still fail to understand the limitations of logic: as I outlined in my first response (and provided you with additional references for details), logic is totally incapable of producing new information (e.g., about the existence of any god). To gain new information, you must collect new data (aka evidence). That’s why all “logical proofs of God” are, as Kant said, “So much labor lost.”

[IAmZamzam]

I know of no scientific humanists who “reserve terms that mean ‘believing in something only when you think you have good reason to” and ‘thinking freely’ so as to refer exclusively to themselves.”

When you use "freethinker" synonymously with "nontheist", how is anyone to avoid drawing that inference? How would you feel if theists did the same thing? PUT YOURSELF IN OUR SHOES ALREADY.

EDIT: You know what? I'm not going to leave that question rhetorical. Unless your next post contains an answer as to how you would feel if theists used the term "freethinking" to mean "theism", I'm not dignifying your nonsense with another response.

Of course it’s the case that everyone thinks that they think freely and have good reasons for their beliefs. Most also think that the Sun will rise tomorrow. You’re beating at your own straw men.

...says the guy who is intentionally overlooking the fact that I'm not talking about whether or not anyone actually is doing those things but whether it is sensible or ethical to define their very opinion itself that way.

What you seem to refuse to see (or maybe are unable to see) is that beliefs in various gods are estimates for the probabilities that such gods exist.

Yes, the probabilities, in whatever amount, obviously do exist. That does not mean that they can be reckoned to thousandths of a degree in a mathematical formula!

If you did see that, then you wouldn’t complain that people making claims about holding a belief “when the evidence supports it” is “elitist… narrow-minded… haughty… offensive, and… stupid.” That is, if you understood the scientific method, then you would know that, using Bayes’ method, evidence is used to generate estimates for the probability that any particular claim is true.

You keep accusing me of being the one making the straw men, yet over and over and over again you FORCE yourself to miss the point like this. I'm tired of repeating myself. Go ahead and misunderstand.

In that light, what’s “stupid” is to state that you believe (or don’t believe) in something; what’s more intelligent is to provide details about your estimate for the probability that some claim is correct – or at least (if you don’t provide details of your estimate) provide your estimate for the probability.

And what is not intelligent is to presume such precision as to be able to state said probability (of God's existence) mathematically. Aren't you the one who quoted Socrates on the beginning of wisdom being to accept what you can and can't know?

Furthermore, with your comment that “there is no justification for such a snooty practice either in linguistics or logic”, it appears that you still fail to understand the limitations of logic: as I outlined in my first response (and provided you with additional references for details), logic is totally incapable of producing new information (e.g., about the existence of any god). To gain new information, you must collect new data (aka evidence). That’s why all “logical proofs of God” are, as Kant said, “So much labor lost.”

Nobody ever said that logic had to provide new information in order to have any worth. It's more about helping us to interpret existing information. So is the scientific method, yes, but there is only so much it can be used for. Everyday life consists of relatively few situations wherein it is the least bit feasible to perform experiments with control groups and all, over measurable and physically provable things. It would be awesome if that were the case, but it's not, and so we may as well accept it. Irrelevant appeals to "the scientific method" as an alternative to or refutation of reason are just the nearest acceptable atheistic equivalent to religious people doing the same thing with appeals to faith (usually misusing the term "faith" just as much as the atheists are misusing the term "the scientific method"), and is no more convincing to anyone not already blinded by bias.

[CosmicPathos]

When I read zoro's propaganda on his site, his usage of the word "Dear" made me LOL so hard that my Latissimus dorsi are willing to adduct my arms with such velocity that they penetrate zoro's face.

[IAmZamzam]

When I read zoro's propaganda on his site, his usage of the word "Dear" made me LOL so hard that my Latissimus dorsi are willing to adduct my arms with such velocity that they penetrate zoro's face.

I don't know what you're talking about. But to the degree that I follow you it sounds like you're just flaming zoro instead of contributing to the thread. Then again, what is there left to contribute? They're never going to allow themselves to understand my point, and like I said that's just a sign for me that the point was good enough to warrant such self-obfuscation in the first place. I just don't like what it means for them and wish there were something I could do about it.

[zoro]

In response to Sulaiman:

When you use "freethinker" synonymously with "nontheist", how is anyone to avoid drawing that inference?

I never did that! I simply gave you an example of a freethinker.

Yes, the probabilities, in whatever amount, obviously do exist. That does not mean that they can be reckoned to thousandths of a degree in a mathematical formula!

Wow, you really don’t understand science, do you?! You name the belief about something in nature external to people’s minds (and eventually, I suspect, as neuroscience develops, even within people’s minds), then if you can get the funding, the probability that any claim is true can be “reckoned to the thousandths of a degree” using Bayes’ method. In fact, if you can continue to supply the funding, the probability can be evaluated to any degree of accuracy (save for limitations imposed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle).

And what is not intelligent is to presume such precision as to be able to state said probability (of God's existence) mathematically.

Wrong again! I’ve already provided you with a reference to details about how to estimate the probability of God’s existence mathematically. Apparently I dare not provide you with the reference again, since it sends you off on one of your tangents. Yet, I admit that my estimate is extremely crude (no funding, doncha know), but I’m quite certain that the probability is much less than 1 part in 10^500.

Aren't you the one who quoted Socrates on the beginning of wisdom being to accept what you can and can't know?

Well, actually, it was Confucius who said it, but what are you trying to say: that you can’t know the probability that God exists? Hmmm, interesting. That would make you an agnostic! (That is, if you have no knowledge of something, then as with the outcome of tossing a coin, the probability of a specific outcome is exactly 50%).

Nobody ever said that logic had to provide new information in order to have any worth. It's more about helping us to interpret existing information. So is the scientific method, yes, but there is only so much it can be used for. Everyday life consists of relatively few situations wherein it is the least bit feasible to perform experiments with control groups and all, over measurable and physically provable things. It would be awesome if that were the case, but it's not, and so we may as well accept it.

No, no, no, no! Go learn some science! The scientific method DOES provide new information. That’s the data collection phase. Go back to that “Venn diagram” (in a now-unspecified reference) that you said “put you off”.

Further, you have multiple errors in your “everyday life consists of relatively few situations wherein it is the least bit feasible to perform experiments with control groups and all, over measurable and physically provable things.” First, “control groups” are needed in relatively few science studies; they’re needed only when all the variables can’t be controlled. Second, and more importantly, in fact it IS feasible to perform experiments on essentially everything: a monkey wonders if he could use a rock to break a nut, he experiments, and it works; a seagull wants to know if she can break a mussel by dropping it on the rocks, she experiments, and it works; a human wonders if he could shoot a projectile using a taught string of gut tied to a bendable rod, he experiments, and it works. And so on it has gone, for the past multiple millions of years, to include all that humans have learned about nature.

But I do agree with your suggestion that many people are “blinded by bias”.

[IAmZamzam]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

[Pygoscelis]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

Yahya, I would have no problem whatsoever if a theist called themself a "reasoner", but to do that they'd have to let go of Faith, because faith is the opposite of reason, it is the opposite of skepticism. If somebody came to their religion through reason, with their own ideas and concepts of God, instead of looking to a holy book or prophet or preacher and believing what they are told by authority or faith, that would be very refreshing to me and I'd be proud to call them a free thinker or "reasoner" (as you suggest). The answer they came to is less important than how they got to it in regard to whether or not we can call them a "reasoner" or "free thinker".

[CosmicPathos]

yes i am not contributing to this thread whatsoever as there is nothing to contribute but i can still make comments for fun.

[Pygoscelis]

If I thought you had the slightest respect for the ideas of the existence of Zeus and Thor then I might consider it. I hear a lot from atheists about all gods being equally unlikely in their eyes but given the context, tone, and wording this almost never seems to be expressed as a rational follow through of their own belief but instead their nine hundredth means of scoffing and scorning.

Sometimes this happens, yes. People get tired of being talked down to and being told they deserve torture for not believing as others. And yes people also scoff at others who believe in things they find ridiculus. This happens with atheists towards theists, just as it happens with others towards those who believe in space alien plots. And yes, sometimes the comparisons to santa claus and faeries is done in scorn.

But more often than not it is used to illustrate a point, by using the comparison, as I noted above. Bertram Russel's "celestial teapot", the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all got their start as comparison points in showing that just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean you should believe it. The Santa comparison is also often used to show the fallacy of believing in something by authority. Other points are also used via these comparisons. I'd rather make these points without evoking the defensive response, but I sense that no matter what I use for comparison I'm going to get it. I think people simply get offended when you don't buy into their beliefs and show them fallacies in their arguments for it.

I don't buy it. As for a better analogy, the only one amongst the endless line of nontheistic cliches that I've ever heard which doesn't sound like it was dreamed up by a four-year-old schoolyard bully is the "mile run" one

Never heard that one. What is the "mile run" one?

I think maybe the best point of comparison for many of these points may actually be space aliens. Some people believe that space aliens are watching us and have infiltrated our governments and plan to take over. They further believe that if we don't act promptly in a particular manner (to repel the aliens or whatever) we will suffer, and deserve to. As they buiild their special shelters they feel that they are saved and that the rest of us are rightly doomed for our arrogant dismissal of their beliefs. To continue the analogy in the Christian setting, maybe one of them volunteered to be abducted so the rest of us could be saved, if only we would accept his sacrifice and live a certain way.

My question to you: If you met somebody who honestly and earnestly believed in the above would you go out of your way to respect their beliefs? Remember as wrong as they may sound, they do hold these beliefs honestly and want to be taken seriously. Or would you call them tin foilers and engage in the kind of attitude you're concerned here with some atheists towards theists?

What comparison would you use to show them that just because you can't disprove aliens watching over us it isn't reasonable for you to believe that they are?

[IAmZamzam]

Yahya, I would have no problem whatsoever if a theist called themself a "reasoner", but to do that they'd have to let go of Faith, because faith is the opposite of reason, it is the opposite of skepticism. If somebody came to their religion through reason, with their own ideas and concepts of God, instead of looking to a holy book or prophet or preacher and believing what they are told by authority or faith, that would be very refreshing to me and I'd be proud to call them a free thinker or "reasoner" (as you suggest).

One again you seem bent on missing the point. Merely calling yourself a reasoner or a freethinker is one thing; using the very terms as SYNONYMS for your own view on something is another thing altogether. Would it be fair to liberals if conservatives started calling themselves The Freethinking Party? How would you take that if you were a liberal? Would you feel any differently from how I feel now? Would you not be disgusted by the bigotry and elitism involved?

Sometimes this happens, yes. People get tired of being talked down to and being told they deserve torture for not believing as others. And yes people also scoff at others who believe in things they find ridiculus. This happens with atheists towards theists, just as it happens with others towards those who believe in space alien plots. And yes, sometimes the comparisons to santa claus and faeries is done in scorn. But more often than not it is used to illustrate a point, by using the comparison, as I noted above. Bertram Russel's "celestial teapot", the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all got their start as comparison points in showing that just becasue you can't disprove something doesn't mean you should believe it. The Santa comparison is also often used to show the fallacy of believing in something by authority. Other points are also used via these comparisons.

I had forgotten about the celestial teapot. It’s a much older form of awful behavior than Russell, though. In fact, it seems to have been a trend for as long as there have been atheists:

When Our signs were being recited to them, they said, “We have already heard; if we wished, we could say the like of this; this is naught but the fairy-tales of the ancients.” (Koran 8:31, Arberry)

If their sole purpose with these analogies is to “instruct” and not to mock, that hardly excuses them, as there are much less bellicose and immature ways to get the point across. That they so often have to demand that I think up ways for them because they’re so incapable of finding such a way themselves is extremely telling.

I'd rather make these points without evoking the defensive response, but I sense that no matter what I use for comparison I'm going to get it. I think people simply get offended when you don't buy into their beliefs and show them fallacies in their arguments for it.

Even if they do, comparing their god to Santa Claus is still hardly going to help the existing problem, now is it? I have very strong doubts that their intentions are usually as pure as you think, given that mockery is the chief hallmarks of their behavior toward theists anyway.

Never heard that one. What is the "mile run" one?

A common analogy usually about that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” stuff. Never mind.

I think maybe the best point of comparison for many of these points may actually be space aliens. Some people believe that space aliens are watching us and have infiltrated our governments. I have not seen good evidence to convince me of this besides stories and "eye witness" accoutns, but it COULD be true. Just very unlikely. I see your God the same way.

That is better, yes. It at least sounds like it was thought up by someone who has graduated from middle school.

My question to you: If you met somebody who honestly and earnestly believed in the above space aliens would you go as out of your way to respect their beliefs as I am here? Remember as wrong as they may sound, they do hold these beliefs honestly and want to be taken seriously. Or would you call them tin foilers and engage in the kind of attitude you're concerned with re atheists and gods?

I most certainly would not call them that! I don’t know if you think so little of me to begin with or are just so used to pointing and laughing at anyone whose beliefs you find incredible that you find it difficult to imagine anyone ever not being so inclined, but either way the question avoids being offensive only by being so out of the left field. I have a very good reason (I think) for not believing in close encounters (and I have been thinking lately of maybe starting a thread on it) but unlike your average spokesperson for atheism I have grown at least beyond the level where making fun of them would be a natural reaction for me (and even if it was I would know that to suppress it is the right thing to do), and if I found their story convincing then I would consider revising my opinion on the alien matter. Funny you should mention it: just earlier today I read this article at randi.org, which was so singularly morally horrendous and juvenile even for the people of that site that I was as relieved as I was surprised to find any people at all in the comments section decrying it. Though they were in a minority and had a very mistaken notion of the site and forum “not being what they used to be” when in fact I do not know of any time when it was any better, it always helps to occasionally see a bit of fairness, open-mindedness, and compassion from an atheist. I think it is plain after reading that article just how debatable it really is that it’s okay to be a complete jerk toward someone whose claims seem to you to be ridiculous.

[Pygoscelis]

One again you seem bent on missing the point. Merely calling yourself a reasoner or a freethinker is one thing; using the very terms as SYNONYMS for your own view on something is another thing altogether.

I think the reason why nobody has been addressing that is because nobody here had done what you complain about. I would never say that "Free thinking" is synonymous with atheism. But I *WOULD* say that most who follow organized religions and tout faith and follow preachers, prophets, and holy books are displaying signs AGAINST free thought, reason and skepticism. Faith and reason are opposites. And if somebody proudly proclaims their "faith" in something and that they know something through "faith"... we can't say they are reasoning.

If their sole purpose with these analogies is to “instruct” and not to mock

There is no unified "them". Some people DO use these things to mock. Others use them to illustrate a point.

that hardly excuses them, as there are much less bellicose and immature ways to get the point across. That they so often have to demand that I think up ways for them because they’re so incapable of finding such a way themselves is extremely telling.

They just don't want to go through the effort of thinking something up only to find that it too offends your sensibilities. Seems simpler to see if you grasp the point they are trying to make and then provide them with a more palatable way to say it. Many of us would be happy to use whatever comparison you like, so long as it makes the point.

I have very strong doubts that their intentions are usually as pure as you think, given that mockery is the chief hallmarks of their behavior toward theists anyway.

I think this is selective memory. Do you realize that many theists have the exact same attitude towards atheists? Do you realize how many times we get told that we are too blind, too "proud", that we can have no sense of morality, that we are "ungrateful", that we deserve to suffer? Should I attribute that ugly attitude to anyone and everyone who believes in a God? No. Just as you should not so broad brush atheists.

A common analogy usually about that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” stuff. Never mind.

Well extraordinary claims *DO* require extraordinary evidence. Is this disputed?

I most certainly would not call them that! I don’t know if you think so little of me to begin with or are just so used to pointing and laughing at anyone whose beliefs you find incredible that you find it difficult to imagine anyone ever not being so inclined

Not at all. If you'll notice I haven't been calling you names, mocking you or laughing at you. Zorro maybe a little, but you started this thread with a flippant and belicose attitude. Not a surprise that he may respond the same way.

It always helps to occasionally see a bit of fairness, open-mindedness, and compassion from an atheist.

Ditto for a theist. You do know that theists have been hating, scorning, and burning atheist "heathens" and "infidels" for a few thousand years, across most cultures from pagan to modern, yes?
Some civility and compassion is good all around.

I think it is plain after reading that article just how debatable it really is that it’s okay to be a complete jerk toward someone whose claims seem to you to be ridiculous.

Indeed.

I actually think I could have actually agreed with what I now understand to be the central point of your OP had you written it with the approach you are now advocating for.

[IAmZamzam]

Maybe you don't use terms like "freethinking" and "skepticism" in such an arrogant fashion, Pygoscelis, but if not then I really don't see what your beef is in the first place, and these are the generally accepted meanings of the words in nontheistic jargon. Do you really not hear them used in such a way all the time?

As for extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, maybe they do, but the argument never seems to be used as anything except an excuse not to think and a way of sounding all intellectual about having a closed mind. You'll notice that no one ever seems to bother actually defining what would constitute "extraordinary" evidence and what would not. Convenient, eh? Not to mention that it's one of the tactics (like the phrase "lack of belief") that is used to tilt the argument in natural favor of atheism and make it sound like some kind of default. It's not really the notion of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence itself that's the problem, although it does presuppose that theism is more extraordinary than atheism.

[Pygoscelis]

Maybe you don't use terms like "freethinking" and "skepticism" in such an arrogant fashion, Pygoscelis, but if not then I really don't see what your beef is in the first place, and these are the generally accepted meanings of the words in nontheistic jargon. Do you really not hear them used in such a way all the time?

No. I really don't. But then I'm not a believer so it wouldn't be targeted at me. You may not see the hateful attitude so often put to atheists for the same reason (you not being one).

As for my beef, I have no real beef. Its a bit annoying that you took on such a hostile attitude in your OP but I'm used to that here and really don't have any animosity from it. I only entered this thread to make the points I made in my first response and since then have been caught up in the conversation.

Not to mention that it's one of the tactics (like the phrase "lack of belief") that is used to tilt the argument in natural favor of atheism and make it sound like some kind of default.

Atheism is the default, just like a-astrology (not believing in astrology) is the default. We can bicker over semantics if you like but I will define atheist as a-theist - not theist. Somebody who doesn't hold a theistic beleif. Babies do not come into the world theistic. They may instinctively seek to imprint on a parent, authority figure or even "higher power", but the specific concept of a deity (and certainly any particular deity you'd care to name) is well beyond that and takes some teaching. This teaching usually takes place in one's impressionable youth, which is why adult conversions to religion are pretty rare.

If you want to avoid the whole "atheist means non-belief" line from atheists just say "materialist" instead of atheist. Even though most atheists are materialists (it isn't required though and not all are - spiritual atheists do exist and some believe in the paranormal like ghosts etc) the distinction between the two things is an important one to them.

As to what extraordinary evidence I'd need to turn theist, that is a good question. It would have to be something beyond books and people claiming to be prophets. It would have to be something only a God could do. Come to think of it, no need for a sign or physical evidence. A God could simply make me know he's real. That he hasn't shows that for some reason he doesn't want to or that he can't (because either he doesn't exist or isn't all powerful).

[zoro]

Pygoscelis: It was a pleasure to again read your intelligent and calming ideas. You are a credit to your fellow Humanists. With respect to your space-alien analogy, it reminded me of what Feynman said:

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers – because I am scientific, I know all about flying saucers! I said, “I don’t think there are flying saucers.” So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely.” At that he said, “You aren’t very scientific. If you can’t prove it’s impossible, then how can you say what’s more likely and what’s less likely?” But that’s the way that IS scientific. It’s scientific only to say what’s more likely and what’s less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, “Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it’s much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.” It’s just more likely; that’s all.

Yahya Sulaiman: I have been reading at your website, and conclude that you are obviously intelligent, with impressive linguistic and logical capabilities. For your own sake and for humanity’s, I do hope that you expand your knowledge about the limits of logic and the capabilities of science, for if you were to do so, I expect that you, too, would become a Humanist.

Mad Scientist: You’d probably find that you’d be able to communicate more effectively without your foot in your mouth.

The Vale’s Lily: My sincere hope for you is that you experience love.

Woodrow: You did fare well! Farewell, again.

[جوري]

Yahya Sulaiman: I have been reading at your website, and conclude that you are obviously intelligent. The Vale’s Lily: My sincere hope for you is that you experience love. Woodrow: You did fare well! Farewell, again.

Nice piece of protracted propaganda there-- if only you were lucid enough not to come across as a complete paranoid schizophrenic-- do take your stench out of here for good and live out those things you personally can neither define nor prove with your divisible zeros!

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

I have been reading at your website, and conclude that you are obviously intelligent, with impressive linguistic and logical capabilities. For your own sake and for humanity’s, I do hope that you expand your knowledge about the limits of logic and the capabilities of science, for if you were to do so, I expect that you, too, would become a Humanist.

Thank you for the compliments; no thanks for the old "I'm sure that if you just studied enough then you would agree with me" routine, which is only a deceptively congenial version of, "You obviously can't be intelligent and disagree with me unless you're ignorant."

[Ramadhan]

Babies do not come into the world theistic. They may instinctively seek to imprint on a parent, authority figure or even "higher power",

Has there been any research or studies done on this, or is it just your opinion?

If you want to avoid the whole "atheist means non-belief" line from atheists just say "materialist" instead of atheist. Even though most atheists are materialists (it isn't required though and not all are - spiritual atheists do exist and some believe in the paranormal like ghosts etc) the distinction between the two things is an important one to them.

Isn't true though that the unifying trait among all atheists are that they do not believe a creator of the universe exists?

Or are there atheists that believe our universe is created?

[Pygoscelis]

Or are there atheists that believe our universe is created?

I once met a fellow who believed that our universe was created by beings in another universe. I did not ask if he also believed in gods, but if he did not then he certainly would fit your query.

Most atheists I have spoken to will frankly admit to not knowing how the universe came to be. The big bang is our best scientific guess but what sparked it? An oscilating universe (the big crunch) some guess. A spin off from another universe others wonder. But really most will admit (as I myself admit) they simply do not know.

You don't have to know the right answer to a question to view a proposed answer as wrong.

[Ramadhan]

I once met a fellow who believed that our universe was created by beings in another universe. I did not ask if he also believed in gods, but if he did not then he certainly would fit your query.

Most atheists I have spoken to will frankly admit to not knowing how the universe came to be. The big bang is our best scientific guess but what sparked it? An oscilating universe (the big crunch) some guess. A spin off from another universe others wonder. But really most will admit (as I myself admit) they simply do not know.

I am now a bit confused about the meaning of atheist.
I always thought that atheists do not believe in the existence of the creator of the universe (in other words, atheists do not believe that the universe is created). But now it seems atheists are not sure what to believe.

You don't have to know the right answer to a question to view a proposed answer as wrong.

what is the question? what is the proposed answer?
what are the yardsticks to determine whether the proposed answer right or wrong?

[IAmZamzam]

Atheism is the default, just like a-astrology (not believing in astrology) is the default. We can bicker over semantics if you like but I will define atheist as a-theist - not theist. Somebody who doesn't hold a theistic beleif. Babies do not come into the world theistic.

No it isn't the default! For crying out loud, whether you (and ONLY you atheists EVER do this) choose by own accord to use the same word "atheism" to include people who have never heard of God, that doesn't change the fact that, semantics aside, they're still a different group of people from those who disbelieve in God! You can't just say, "Babies don't come into the world theistic; therefore they come into the world atheistic": that excludes more middles than just the one babies appear to belong to (those who don't know about the situation at all)!

Nobody ever disbelieves in astrology who doesn't know about astrology. Babies, for example, are not born knowing about it. If somebody decided to make "those who have never heard of astrology" into an alternate possible meaning or category of your term "a-astrologer", how silly do you think you would find it if they made the argument that therefore "a-astrology is the default" and therefore disbelief in it is the natural position? It wouldn't change the fact that people do disbelieve in astrology and people who have never heard of it are still two very different, mutually exclusive groups, would it? Equivocation fallacy much?

I am certain that you are going to duck and dodge that too, probably with the ambiguity in your term "a-astrologer". So let me give you another analogy in a vain attempt to convince you to let yourself understand. Let's say that I defined "theism" the same way. Let's say that it was even a commonly accepted and universally dictionary-approved definition of "theism" that one of its meanings or sub-groups was those who don't know about God at all. Now let's say that I used that as an argument to support the idea that people are born theistic. What would you think?

Never mind, it's useless.

If you want to avoid the whole "atheist means non-belief" line from atheists just say "materialist" instead of atheist. Even though most atheists are materialists (it isn't required though and not all are - spiritual atheists do exist and some believe in the paranormal like ghosts etc) the distinction between the two things is an important one to them.

What difference does it make?? What does materialism have to do with it?? People are not born disbelieving in anything; therefore it is dishonest to say that those who do disbelieve just so happen to be included in the same category, expressed by a select few with the same word, and therefore atheism itself is the default. Materialism is a complete non-sequitur here.

Why do I always keep trying even when I know that what I'm trying to accomplish is useless???

As to what extraordinary evidence I'd need to turn theist, that is a good question.

Which I didn't ask.

It would have to be something beyond books and people claiming to be prophets. It would have to be something only a God could do. Come to think of it, no need for a sign or physical evidence. A God could simply make me know he's real. That he hasn't shows that for some reason he doesn't want to or that he can't (because either he doesn't exist or isn't all powerful).

Would you please read that link I gave about the appeal to probability? Whether you're familiar with fallacy or not, you seem to need brushing up.

[IAmZamzam]

I figured I'd give you about two weeks to see how much your patience and pleasant countenance can withstand. Now multiply the replies or rather non-replies you've received times 1825 and quite so, that is how long the majority of them have lingered here peddling the same M.O with unwavering enthusiasm....

I think I'm starting to see your point. I would hate to see what I might be like when I reach 1,825 times the number of responses I have now.

[Pygoscelis]

I am now a bit confused about the meaning of atheist.
I always thought that atheists do not believe in the existence of the creator of the universe (in other words, atheists do not believe that the universe is created). But now it seems atheists are not sure what to believe.

Let me explain to you what I and other atheists mean by the terms we use.

"Theism" is belief God(s). "Theists" are people who have theism. "Atheists" are people who do not have theism (a-theism, literally meaning without theism).

Atheists therefore technically do include those who have not addressed the question as to Gods, though as Yayha has pointed out these people would not know to call themselves atheists or recognize themselves as being atheists, just as people who have never heard of astrology do not recognize their lack of belief in it.

There are different kinds of theists and different kinds of atheists.

Some theists have theism but nothing more. They don't claim to know much about the God they believe in and don't beleive he/she/it/they interferes with human affairs. We call those people "Deists". They include many of the founding fathers of the USA.

Other theists have grouped together into very regimented belief systems with established dogma, holy books, rituals and beliefs that God requires particular things of them. This can be narrow or very wide encompasing much of one's life and society. Islam is a good example of this.

Of the atheists, you have those who lack theism but are not materialists. These people believe in the spiritual but not in Gods. They may believe in ghosts and the like, or they may believe in spiritual forces, such as chi or tao. Taoism and some other far east "religions" are good examples of this, as are some of the new age folks.

Other atheists are materialists, meaning they do not believe in anything beyond matter and energy. This would include most western atheists you hear about.

Some atheists, though they do not believe in gods (and are therefore atheists), find the idea of God plausible enough that they do not dismiss it out of hand. These are the people we call "Agnostics" (literally a-gnostic, without knowledge). Agnostics often also believe that not only do they not know, but that it is impossible to know.

Then you have the atheists who find the idea of Gods so implausible that they do dismiss the idea out of hand. Most of them would reconsider with better evidence, but given what they have seen they view the existence of Gods as likely as there being space aliens monitoring us and walking amongst us, as there being faeries etc. They find it really really implausible. This strong lack of belief can be insulting to theists who don't like to be thought of as outlandish.

Some atheists (though certainly a minority) mock and deride theists as Yahya noted in his OP, the same way they mock and deride those who believe in other claims they find extremely unlikely, like those who tell us about alien abductions, crop circles, etc.

You then have "anti-theists" who not only lack belief in God(s) but find the religions that have been proposed to be distasteful and harmful. These are the atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. They are the ones who make the news and who you have probably heard about and associate with the word "atheist".

And that ends our brief discussion of what atheists mean when they use the words they do.

Now returning to your question about if atheists believe the universe is created: Atheists are not one unified group. Atheism just means the lack of theism, nothing more. Theism isn't the only way the universe could have been created, so atheists are quite able to believe the universe was created. They'd just name different agents, such as people in other universes or time loops or whatever.

[Pygoscelis]

No it isn't the default! For crying out loud, whether you (and ONLY you atheists EVER do this) choose by own accord to use the same word "atheism" to include people who have never heard of God, that doesn't change the fact that, semantics aside,

Not semantics aside. Semantics is exactly what you are objecting to.

they're still a different group of people from those who disbelieve in God!

Correct. Just as those who have never heard of astrology are different from those who have heard of it and are not convinced to believe in it. They are still both people who lack belief in astrology. Even those who have hard of it but are not convinced to believe in it, may become convinced if they learn more about it and get better evidence for it. This is not a dichotomy, it is a sliding scale. But again.... this is just semantics you object to here. I have used too broad a definition of "atheism" for your comfort.

You can't just say, "Babies don't come into the world theistic; therefore they come into the world atheistic"

I sure can since I define atheism as the a-theism, the lack of theism.

I am certain that you are going to duck and dodge that too,

No ducking. No dodging. Though I am thankful for your boat of confidence.

in a vain attempt to convince you to let yourself understand.

Again with the belligerent attitude. Can't we move beyond this?

Let's say that it was even a commonly accepted and universally dictionary-approved definition of "theism" that one of its meanings or sub-groups was those who don't know about God at all. Now let's say that I used that as an argument to support the idea that people are born theistic. What would you think?

I would agree with you. People are born neither believing nor believing against a God existing. So if you define theism the way you suggest, it would include this group. It would not make the point that anybody is born believing though.

Materialism is a complete non-sequitur here.

I suggested you address materialism just as a way for you to get around atheists who define atheism as I do, which is many, and which seems to bother you.

Why do I always keep trying even when I know that what I'm trying to accomplish is useless???

Probably for the same reason I do.

[IAmZamzam]

Pygoscelis: you're the one making a point of an equivocation fallacy relying entirely on the supposed ambiguity of the word. I am the one arguing against semantics by pointing out that, whatever word you use, the objective fact still remains that you belong to a completely different group of people from those who do not know about God, and therefore to consider your own group the default just because it happens to have the same word associated with it is purely and utterly arguing semantics, and just as fallaciously as a liberal arguing that since people who are neither liberal nor conservative are also "non-liberals", that makes liberals too fall under a "default" position.

naidamar: atheism is by definition a disbelief that a supernatural creator exists, but some atheists like Richard Dawkins have said that it's theoretically possible that this world was created by some kind of natural alien beings.

[جوري]

Richard Dawkins have said that it's theoretically possible that this world was created by some kind of natural alien beings.

here is his quote:

“I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” He can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”

I found it rather amusing how far he stretched the powers of his allegedly militonic brain to come up with that morsel and in the end still sounded like a deluded buffoon!

:w:

[IAmZamzam]

What else but buffoonery would you expect from him, lily? He's Richard Dawkins.

It is part of a general pattern, of course, and not just with him. Many people seem to be atheists mostly because they insist that the real truth has to be more complex than a god. Although of course they will also spit out Ockham's Razor every other minute--strictly when it is in response to theism. Like so many other things, it just depends on what alternate viewpoint happens to suit their fancies at the given moment.

[جوري]

What else but buffoonery would you expect from him, lily? He's Richard Dawkins. It is part of a general pattern, of course, and not just with him. Many people seem to be atheists mostly because they insist that the real truth has to be more complex than a god. Although of course they will also spit out Ockham's Razor every other minute--strictly when it is in response to theism. Like so many other things, it just depends on what alternate viewpoint happens to suit their fancies at the given moment.

The irony is that I don't find their alternative and allegedly more reasoned explanation(s) to have that desired complexity let alone believability-- it is rather inconsistent with logic and common sense. The concept of a creator should be quite natural and instinctual not a convoluted and tortuous mess. Sadder still is that their concept of God has to otherwise fall within the confines of their undoubtedly christian upbringing --they can't bring themselves to understand that there are others whose reasoning and tenets don't follow the fallacy of the god of a 'chosen select few' one who wrestles David and loses or an ineffectual meek and enfeebled god who self-immolated. So naturally whatever 'bigger god' they're looking for has to come from some alien planet or whatever other nonsense they spew when herbed up to end up with the exact militant and zealous attitude they so often fight against..

try as they may they're still slaves to the human condition and the linear thought processes that inevitably ensues!


:w:

[IAmZamzam]

The irony is that I don't find their alternative and allegedly more reasoned explanation(s) to have that desired complexity let alone believability-- it is rather inconsistent with logic and common sense.

I think that Ockham's Razor itself is too, as experience universally teaches that things are always more complex than they appear, not less. You’d think that scientists would know this better than anyone. I suppose it’s one of those things where convenience or workability in method trumps plausibility in actual fact (or so they think). Not that it matters even if I’m wrong since appeals to Ockham’s Razor outside of science are always just another excuse for dismissing arguments for other reasons than on their own merits.

In any case it's impossible to be logical while touting a principle of seeking the simpler explanations one minute and then going and insisting that things must be more complex than we know the next, depending entirely on whether or not any of it happens to agree with your own biased views.

The concept of a creator should be quite natural and instinctual not a convoluted and tortuous mess.

It’s not a simple one, either: there are many things about God that we will never understand, no matter how much we advance and pool our knowledge. But that brings us to…

Sadder still is that their concept of God has to otherwise fall within the confines of their undoubtedly christian upbringing --they can't bring themselves to understand that there are others whose reasoning and tenets don't follow the fallacy of the god of a 'chosen select few' one who wrestles David and loses or an ineffectual meek and enfeebled god who self-immolated. So naturally whatever 'bigger god' they're looking for has to come from some alien planet or whatever other nonsense they spew when herbed up to end up with the exact militant and zealous attitude they so often fight against..

Except when they are from Muslim lands, of course, in which case every single detail of Allah is the very notion of the theistic God itself. Western atheistic writers write almost exclusively about the Christian conception of God, and use that as their straw man. (Oops, I said the phrase again: this might be trouble.) It seems universal. I guess there just aren’t enough arguments to be made about the mere idea of a supernatural cosmic creator to sustain their book sales and they need to let off their steam about the religions they were brought up with somehow!

try as they may they're still slaves to the human condition and the linear thought processes that inevitably ensues!

As are we all.

[جوري]

I think that Ockham's Razor itself is too, as experience universally teaches that things are always more complex than they appear, not less. You’d think that scientists would know this better than anyone. I suppose it’s one of those things where convenience or workability in method trumps plausibility in actual fact (or so they think). Not that it matters even if I’m wrong since appeals to Ockham’s Razor outside of science are always just another excuse for dismissing arguments for other reasons than on their own merits.

The simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred-- and I have encountered one atheist who said the simplest here is that there is 'No God' I don't see how that can be the simpler of two theories?.. the problem therein is that they'll have to account for everything in existence under one umbrella that they are yet to give definition to and in a reproducible scientific patters. I haven't see any of them able to do that.
For instance they have their contentions against the A(dam and Eve 'myth') they call it. Yet humans as we know them haven't always been in existence, and what they propose as an origin to life is not only more absurd but when they work the mechanics from a single celled organism all the way to a complex sentient being and do it for every species. They are still dealing with the exact same odds. Notice that beyond proposing said theory or theories there no real effort is made to substantiate it as a fact.

In any case it's impossible to be logical while touting a principle of seeking the simpler explanations one minute and then going and insisting that things must be more complex than we know the next, depending entirely on whether or not any of it happens to agree with your own biased views.

I agree!

It’s not a simple one, either: there are many things about God that we will never understand, no matter how much we advance and pool our knowledge. But that brings us to…

I am not speaking of the being of God.. of course how can we as created understand the creator. Merely that when anyone reflects about the universe and creation, it will not be satisfactory to heart and mind to come up with lesser beings or convoluted beings as God. if you subscribe to the idea of fitrah which I believe is instinctive to all mankind!

Except when they are from Muslim lands, of course, in which case every single detail of Allah is the very notion of the theistic God itself. Western atheistic writers write almost exclusively about the Christian conception of God, and use that as their straw man. (Oops, I said the phrase again: this might be trouble.) It seems universal. I guess there just aren’t enough arguments to be made about the mere idea of a supernatural cosmic creator to sustain their book sales and they need to let off their steam about the religions they were brought up with somehow!

agree..

As are we all.

absolutely for that is what we are-- Human!

[Pygoscelis]

I am the one arguing against semantics by pointing out that, whatever word you use, the objective fact still remains that you belong to a completely different group of people from those who do not know about God

I do not disagree that these people belong to a different group than I do. They do not decline belief in God like I do. We are not the same. I don't pretend that we are.

What we do have in common is that neither of us do believe in God. Believing in God is what makes somebody a theist. Both they and I do not believe in God, so we are not theist, a-theist, atheist.

You seem to dislike that I define "atheist" so broadly. That is a semantic issue.

Look in regard to a specific religion. A person is either following Islam or they are not. Those who are not may be not following Islam because they reject it or they may not be following it because they've never heard of it. In either case, they are non-Muslims. Same goes for those who are not theists, they are atheists.

We have only a semantic disagreement from what I can see so far.

and therefore to consider your own group the default just because it happens to have the same word

I do NOT consider the default to be my particular beliefs. What made you think that? I don't think many people subscribe to my particular set of beliefs. One of the things about atheists is that we agree on so little (see the above run down I gave the other fellow). This is because atheism is nothing more than a lack of theism. That said, even with this broad definition, atheists are a much smaller group than theists, so the distinction is between theist and atheist is useful.

[Pygoscelis]

I found it rather amusing how far he stretched the powers of his allegedly militonic brain to come up with that morsel and in the end still sounded like a deluded buffoon!
:w:

So, Yahya, would you join lily here in mocking the idea that we may be created by some alien intelligence as part of some computer simulation and call that buffoonery? Or do you recognize that such mockery is just as small minded and petty as the mockery you were complaining about earlier from some atheists towards your religious beliefs (which they regard as even more unlikely)?

[Pygoscelis]

Except when they are from Muslim lands, of course, in which case every single detail of Allah is the very notion of the theistic God itself. Western atheistic writers write almost exclusively about the Christian conception of God, and use that as their straw man.

This is true. People are going to argue against what they see as the problem. When Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens argue against religion, you're right they are almost always arguing specifically against Chrsitanity or Islam. That is because this is where they feel religion is causing problems for the societies they live in. It would be odd for them to address ancient egyptian religion when it has no impact on and poses no threat to their societies. There is no impetus.

But there are plenty of arguments made against God concepts in general. It really depends on who one is arguing against. You need to put something forward before somebody can argue against it. If somebody presents an argument for a particular religion or for belief in their God, of course they are going to get a specific response. If somebody argues for theism in general then they are more likely to evoke arguments against theism in general.

Even when they do make arguments for theism in general, such as the watch maker argument (that complexity requires creation, usually evoking the "then who created the creator" reply - one not specific to any religion) they usually then somehow try to skip from this to their particular belief system, either explicitly or implicitly. They don't seem to recognize that even if they somehow managed to prove a creation force, that doesn't mean it is a God, and even if they proved it was a God, that doesn't mean it is their God. Prove the universe is created, and the theist still has all their work ahead of them. When religious people argue for theism in general it is important to note this to undercut the implied overstep above, and when we do point this out the theists almost always balk.

[جوري]

would you join lily

Your desire for a stamp of approval and to be granted some respectability when championing complete nonsense merely for being uttered by a fellow atheist whose otherwise 'well proven dictum' usually goes unchallenged is as puerile and down right hilarious as being a product that has ''evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of''. .. not only for your unfortunate inability to rise beyond the defeatist temper tantrum as a last resort and after a thousand times repeating a very ailing argument that hasn't been nor would it be able to sustain you in a juvenile match. What are you exactly comparing and/or championing here by eliciting sympathy and emotional blackmail?--That is if anyone is petty enough to be ensnared by your defective disposition!

more funnies from the resident atheists..

[IAmZamzam]

So, Yahya, would you join lily here in mocking the idea that we may be created by some alien intelligence as part of some computer simulation and call that buffoonery? Or do you recognize that such mockery is just as small minded and petty as the mockery you were complaining about earlier from some atheists towards your religious beliefs (which they regard as even more unlikely)?

I'm sick and tired of the rest, and of this thread, so let's stick to this, the only real question or direct address. I was not mocking the specific bit of speculation that Dawkins made about alien intelligences doing the supercomputer thing, which I don't particularly care about; I was insulting Dawkins himself, his general pattern of buffoonery, and I wouldn't have done it had sister lily not given me such an obvious set-up. The hypocrisy of his attitude sickened me as it sickened sister lily and I overreacted. When that kind of thing starts happening I probably shouldn't continue talking at all because I know that what little patience I have tends to turn to callousness when it runs out and such an event is typically the first indication.

[tango92]

So, Yahya, would you join lily here in mocking the idea that we may be created by some alien intelligence as part of some computer simulation and call that buffoonery? Or do you recognize that such mockery is just as small minded and petty as the mockery you were complaining about earlier from some atheists towards your religious beliefs (which they regard as even more unlikely)?

your example does sound remarkably like what God is. theres no mocking here, however it can be ruled out as a possibility....

[Ramadhan]

Now returning to your question about if atheists believe the universe is created: Atheists are not one unified group. Atheism just means the lack of theism, nothing more. Theism isn't the only way the universe could have been created, so atheists are quite able to believe the universe was created. They'd just name different agents, such as people in other universes or time loops or whatever.

I see.
So atheists can also believe that the universe is created.
They just object to a particular name of the creator (ie. God)

Is my understanding correct?

[Pygoscelis]

Different atheists object to different things regarding religions and regarding the idea of creation. But taken as a whole, that is all atheists object to, correct. They can believe the universe was created, they just can't believe it was created by a deity.

[tango92]

Different atheists object to different things regarding religions and regarding the idea of creation. But taken as a whole, that is all atheists object to, correct. They can believe the universe was created, they just can't believe it was created by a deity.

i disagree. we recenty had a professor from oxford come in for a debate at uni. ultimately he lost simply for failing to provide a reasonable alternative to the existence of the universe other than being created. ie he refused to accept it could be created by anything.

have you heard of Occams razor? (if i spelt that right) well God can easily be known using it. first if you are a person of logic you must accept the universe had a cause. ie a source. now we can begin to make deductions about the source. the primary one being it must be of equal if not greater power than the creation. there you have a crude concept of God.

this argument continues until we get to the point where you must logically accpet the islamic model. if you so wish i will continue...

[Ramadhan]

Different atheists object to different things regarding religions and regarding the idea of creation. But taken as a whole, that is all atheists object to, correct. They can believe the universe was created, they just can't believe it was created by a deity.

So atheists believe that the universe can be created by aliens, but it can never be created by God.

Is that correct?

[titus]

No, that is not correct.

Creation does not have to be from a sentient being.

For example the Earth creates volcanoes, or the Sun creates heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens.

[جوري]

No, that is not correct. Creation does not have to be from a sentient being. For example the Earth creates volcanoes, or the Sun creates heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens.

Actually you are the one who is incorrect.. we have every right to draw the conclusions we do about atheists, as this is what they have offered and it is fair game to be taken apart and mocked to the highest degree and deservedly so!

The Earth doesn't 'create' volcanoes, neither does the sun create heat.. those are mere properties that each of these objects may emit.. we may know how it happens but the question of why will always remain. Further what you personally deem 'Natural' is nothing but an imaginary standard by which things are measured or compared. If everyone were born a cyclops then that would be the new definition of 'Natural' -- This 'Natural' order however follows a very specific, intricate and balanced pattern not to mention an aesthetically pleasing one.. if anything is left to its own devices nothing 'Natural' nor orderly nor beautiful would come of it. Leave some clay out with a little sunshine and little wind and a little water and come a thousand years later to see if complexity, sentience or beauty come of it..

all the best

[titus]

Actually you are the one who is incorrect.. we have every right to draw the conclusions we do about atheists, as this is what they have offered and it is fair game to be taken apart and mocked to the highest degree and deservedly so!

I am not mocking anyone, nor am I arguing that anyone should be mocked. You are the one that appears to want to make fun of people for believed differently than you. I am simply explaining my beliefs.

The Earth doesn't 'create' volcanoes, neither does the sun create heat.

The sun doesn't create heat? You can play semantics all you want but only a fool would believe that the sun does not create heat.

we may know how it happens but the question of why will always remain.

And that is a difference between us. I don't believe everything has a "why". I think most things just "are".

You believe that God has always existed and created the Universe and everything that happens is because of him.

I believe the Universe has always existed.

[tango92]

No, that is not correct.

Creation does not have to be from a sentient being.

For example the Earth creates volcanoes, or the Sun creates heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens.

are we agreed then that the universe had to have a source. whether the source may be intelligent or not?

ok this is a starting point at least. now if the earth creates volcanoes, can it create a volcano heavier than itself? no. the earth must be of equal or greater weight than the volcano. yes?

the sun produces energy. however it cannot produce more energy than its own equivalent mass. i hope you can see it logically also applies the same to the universe.

my key point is highlighted in bold, if you are simply hell bent on disbelief you might was well try to rebut this and remove cause and effect from the list of things you believe in aswell...

[IAmZamzam]

You believe that God has always existed and created the Universe and everything that happens is because of him.

I believe the Universe has always existed.

No, we believe that God has "always existed" only in a poetic sense that makes the idea of an eternal entity easier to swallow for a layperson than if we put it any other way. A more accurate word would be that God is omnitemporal. It's like the difference between being omnipresent and happening to be big enough to possess the physical mass and dimensions necessary to fill all of space anyway. You atheists are stuck either thinking that the universe has always existed or that the chain of causation in the interconnected web we call the material cosmos began itself somehow, or that somehow the whole thing is uncaused. And I don't know which of the three makes the less sense. The only logically viable option is that the cause of it all is something not itself part of that web and not subject to the confines of spacetime.

[tango92]

I believe the Universe has always existed.

the universe had to have a starting point. please try to understand this, ill admit it does take a bit of brainpower.

if the universe existed forever it therefore existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. if you can see the fallacy then great if not read on.

we have problems when it comes to infinity in the real world especially when we apply it to the past. if the past was infinite would we even exist? clearly we cannot because imagine this: (sorry my hands are freezing and i cant draw very well)



with an infinite number of events before us, time will never catch up to us there will always be more events before our event. and we know that we do exist and we know that time has caught up to us because we are able to do things. in an infinite sequence of events we simply cannot exist.

i hope you realise at any "point" time begins it can never catch up to us at an infinite distance away. and we know there was definitely something there before we were born.

[جوري]

I am not mocking anyone, nor am I arguing that anyone should be mocked. You are the one that appears to want to make fun of people for believed differently than you. I am simply explaining my beliefs.

And we reserve the right to take those beliefs apart and show why they are faulty!

The sun doesn't create heat? You can play semantics all you want but only a fool would believe that the sun does not create heat.

Actually only a fool can draw such a conclusion using a very simplistic explanation. The sun no more creates heat than we humans create children. Surely even you can tell the difference between creation and production!

And that is a difference between us. I don't believe everything has a "why". I think most things just "are".

outside of you most inquiring minds want to know!

You believe that God has always existed and created the Universe and everything that happens is because of him.

I believe the Universe has always existed.

Glad you admit that you place your faith in something and live in accordance to it!


all the best

[titus]

re we agreed then that the universe had to have a source. whether the source may be intelligent or not?

If by source you mean that there was something that came before us, then yes. If you mean a creator then no.

if the universe existed forever it therefore existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. if you can see the fallacy then great if not read on.

Your logic is flawed. The logic in your argument is similar to the one that says that if you throw a spear at someone then that spear has to go half the distance to the person. Then half again that distance. Then half again that distance, etc. and therefore logically the spear would never hit the man.

Actually only a fool can draw such a conclusion using a very simplistic explanation. The sun no more creates heat than we humans create children. Surely even you can tell the difference between creation and production!

Do you believe that only sentient beings can create, then?

In that case let me rephrase things so that you can understand them better:

No, that is not correct. Production does not have to be from a sentient being. For example the Earth produces volcanoes, or the Sun produces heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens. The fact that humans have been produced is not proof of a God to me.

The only logically viable option is that the cause of it all is something not itself part of that web and not subject to the confines of spacetime.

Exactly the same argument I have seen others make. That belief in God depends on the belief that God does not follow the "rules". It is the only way to make the existence of a God logical.

Everything has to be created by a sentient being.... except for God.

[IAmZamzam]

outside of you most inquiring minds want to know!

A lot of atheists suppress, and even scorn, this natural inclination by claiming (without providing evidence, of course) that our brains are hardwired to have an overabundant sense or need for purpose, and I think that's what he's probably doing. Of course, they also use natural instinct as an excuse for how or why we can be moral without the existence of a higher moral lawgiver. Once again, it's whatever suits them at the moment.

[IAmZamzam]

Exactly the same argument I have seen others make. That belief in God depends on the belief that God does not follow the "rules". It is the only way to make the existence of a God logical.

Everything has to be created by a sentient being.... except for God.

Just a few pages after I mention the "if God created everything then what created God?" evasion, it pops up again. I gave you a sensible, detailed argument as to how we know there has to be a source external to the physical universe and to time (and therefore to causation), and you quote one out-of-context snippet of it so as to make it look like a self-contradictory declaration instead of the natural conclusion of a process of elimination and sneer at it with an issue the omitted context has already made clear (for a thinking person).

I don't know if you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest (I don't want your opinion on the matter, lily) or if you just are so caught up in the ancient evasion in question that it's caused you to simply overlook every other word of my argument. The best I can hope for is if you're just being a sloppy reader.

[جوري]

Do you believe that only sentient beings can create, then?

sentient beings can procreate that differs from creation I believe my above explanation sufficed.. although it needed no explanation since it is simple common sense!

In that case let me rephrase things so that you can understand them better:

I doubt you'll be able to do that!

No, that is not correct. Production does not have to be from a sentient being. For example the Earth produces volcanoes, or the Sun produces heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens. The fact that humans have been produced is not proof of a God to me.

and I was right of my doubts--who said anything about 'sentience'?. You have this incredible ability and almost on every thread to inject it with some piece that is completely irrelevant and doesn't draw from the previous premise. Outside of that what you choose to see or not see as 'evidence' is nonsensical at best since in fact you offered no explanation either way, it is merely your assertion!

Exactly the same argument I have seen others make. That belief in God depends on the belief that God does not follow the "rules". It is the only way to make the existence of a God logical.

what does this mean?

Everything has to be created by a sentient being.... except for God.

The mistake you make here is attribute a sensory faculty to a supreme being, thereby to bring him down to that low common denominator that atheists enjoy building upon The creator doesn't have the same properties of the creation.. God is outside of the laws of our known universe.. once you make that distinction you can have more developed philosophies.. if you insist on attributing human qualities to God then it is best done on a christian forum or an atheist one!

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

The universe had to have a starting point. please try to understand this, ill admit it does take a bit of brainpower.

if the universe existed forever it therefore existed for an infinite amount of time in the past. if you can see the fallacy then great if not read on.

we have problems when it comes to infinity in the real world especially when we apply it to the past. if the past was infinite would we even exist? clearly we cannot because...with an infinite number of events before us, time will never catch up to us there will always be more events before our event. and we know that we do exist and we know that time has caught up to us because we are able to do things. in an infinite sequence of events we simply cannot exist.

Your logic is flawed. The logic in your argument is similar to the one that says that if you throw a spear at someone then that spear has to go half the distance to the person. Then half again that distance. Then half again that distance, etc. and therefore logically the spear would never hit the man.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, titus. The "spear" thing you mention would just be confusing magnification of a finite amount of existing space with an infinite abundance of new space between the spear and its target. The proper analogy would be that we have been stabbed by a spear that has crossed an infinite number of yards in reaching us. Can't happen, can it?

[Pygoscelis]

So atheists believe that the universe can be created by aliens, but it can never be created by God.

Is that correct?

That is correct. Atheism would not prevent a person from believing that aliens created the universe. You can believe in all sorts of things and still be an atheist so long as you do not believe in Gods.

Better question may be do many atheists believe that the universe was created by aliens. The answer would be no. But there may be a few that do.

[Pygoscelis]

are we agreed then that the universe had to have a source. whether the source may be intelligent or not?

That seems to be an unfounded assumption.

I don't pretend to know if the universe had a beginning or has always been. We have observed that it is expanding at an ever increasing rate. But perhaps it oscilates and a big bang is followed by expansion and then by compression and then a big crunch. Perhaps our universe is a spin off from another pre-existing universe. Perhaps our universe is the creation of a super intelligent alien species, or an accident by them. I simply don't know and I don't see any reason to pretend to know.

[tango92]

Your logic is flawed. The logic in your argument is similar to the one that says that if you throw a spear at someone then that spear has to go half the distance to the person. Then half again that distance. Then half again that distance, etc. and therefore logically the spear would never hit the man.

i think bro yahya sulaimans answer is sufficient. your analogy applies only to finite distances not infinite as per your claim. can u accept the universe ie anything within our physical laws must have a beginning?

[tango92]

That seems to be an unfounded assumption.

I don't pretend to know if the universe had a beginning or has always been. We have observed that it is expanding at an ever increasing rate. But perhaps it oscilates and a big bang is followed by expansion and then by compression and then a big crunch. Perhaps our universe is a spin off from another pre-existing universe. Perhaps our universe is the creation of a super intelligent alien species, or an accident by them. I simply don't know and I don't see any reason to pretend to know.

i direct you to the post directed at titus with the picture and timeline. do u have any reasonable answer? if not please agree the universe MUST have a begining. otherwise our line of conversation ends at your irrationality

[Pygoscelis]

how or why we can be moral without the existence of a higher moral lawgiver.

The real question is can you be moral with a "higher moral lawgiver", or is that just a display of obedience and subservience to power?

[Pygoscelis]

i direct you to the post directed at titus with the picture and timeline. do u have any reasonable answer? if not please agree the universe MUST have a begining. otherwise our line of conversation ends at your irrationality

That argument applies to the concept of infinity itself. And yes, when we talk infinity, logic tend to break down. "What is infinity plus one?".

Of course if you want to throw out the concept of infinity then you have to throw it out entirely, including the idea that God is in any way infinite. Brings to mind the old "can god create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it" thing, another argument against infinity.

Also note that one way around infinity is to loop something around on itself (ie, oroboros). Perhaps time is a big loop and our future is our distant past or something crazy like that. Wouldn't that be interesting, if we are to become the beings who create the universe we then are created from. That sounds like it should be in a nifty science fiction novel.

[Lynx]

i direct you to the post directed at titus with the picture and timeline. do u have any reasonable answer? if not please agree the universe MUST have a begining. otherwise our line of conversation ends at your irrationality

The beginning of the universe was the Big Bang and we've known this for quite some time now. I think what the non-muslims are disagreeing about is what came before the Big Bang. Our ideas of time and causality cannot be used to reason about the conditions before the big bang since causality and time, as we know them, might not have existed before the big bang. In other words, every thing we say about prior big bang conditions is mere speculation. "I don't know" is a great answer.

[M.I.A.]

That argument applies to the concept of infinity itself. And yes, when we talk infinity, logic tend to break down. "What is infinity plus one?".

Of course if you want to throw out the concept of infinity then you have to throw it out entirely, including the idea that God is in any way infinite. Brings to mind the old "can god create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it" thing, another argument against infinity.

Also note that one way around infinity is to loop something around on itself (ie, oroboros). Perhaps time is a big loop and our future is our distant past or something crazy like that. Wouldn't that be interesting, if we are to become the beings who create the universe we then are created from. That sounds like it should be in a nifty science fiction novel.

ah well i guess some of you are old enough to remember the beetles.

and those guys that built the pyramids... not personally though.

[IAmZamzam]

The real question is can you be moral with a "higher moral lawgiver", or is that just a display of obedience and subservience to power?

It's obedience to something or other no matter what that something is, even if it's just the laws themselves. But it is not a requisite that you know that it is from a higher moral lawgiver in order to be following it anyway, and if you do then just because you are being obedient to said power doesn't mean that it's just a display.

[IAmZamzam]

The beginning of the universe was the Big Bang and we've known this for quite some time now. I think what the non-muslims are disagreeing about is what came before the Big Bang. Our ideas of time and causality cannot be used to reason about the conditions before the big bang since causality and time, as we know them, might not have existed before the big bang.

Time may not have existed at the time, huh? This is the kind of desperate nonsense I'm talking about.

There you go with that "beginning of time and what was before it", and "time existing before itself", and all those other impossible farragos of words. None of which has anything to do with what any of us have said. Certainly not with what I have said, which is that since an uncaused physical cosmos, a physical cosmos with an infinite regression of events behind it, and a physical cosmos that caused itself are all equally logically impossible, therefore there must have been a cause for the physical cosmos outside itself and therefore outside its confines of spacetime (and, as a corrolary, further causation).

[Pygoscelis]

there must have been a cause for the physical cosmos outside itself and therefore outside its confines of spacetime (and, as a corrolary, further causation).

And of course were this to be the case, it would still in no way suggest deity.

[M.I.A.]

i could totally agree with the concept of an infinite universe but the definition of "time" in this context is not properly defined.
you could go with seconds, minutes, hours. rotations of the moon and sun, changing of the seasons etc etc.
or something else.

what was before man and what was before that etc etc. but in the beggining there was only the creator of the heavens and the earth and all things in between.

[Pygoscelis]

It's obedience to something or other no matter what that something is, even if it's just the laws themselves. But it is not a requisite that you know that it is from a higher moral lawgiver in order to be following it anyway, and if you do then just because you are being obedient to said power doesn't mean that it's just a display.

In regard to a "higher moral lawgiver", what does "higher" mean? Does it just mean more powerful than yourself or is there some other meaning you have in mind?

[IAmZamzam]

And of course were this to be the case, it would still in no way suggest deity.

Not necessarily, perhaps, but that would have to be the subject of another thread, as there is much to be said on it. As is, we're still not past all this.

[IAmZamzam]

In regard to a "higher moral lawgiver", what does "higher" mean? Does it just mean more powerful than yourself or is there some other meaning you have in mind?

You can disregard the word altogether. The imporant thing is the rest.

Actually, no it isn't, since the whole issue is just a sidetracking of a few stray words I made in passing while talking about something else altogether:

A lot of atheists suppress, and even scorn, this natural inclination by claiming (without providing evidence, of course) that our brains are hardwired to have an overabundant sense or need for purpose, and I think that's what he's probably doing. Of course, they also use natural instinct as an excuse for how or why we can be moral without the existence of a higher moral lawgiver. Once again, it's whatever suits them at the moment.

In fact, that post itself was sort of a sidetrack too, I now realize.

[Lynx]

Time may not have existed at the time, huh? This is the kind of desperate nonsense I'm talking about.

There you go with that "beginning of time and what was before it", and "time existing before itself", and all those other impossible farragos of words.

I don't know what is exactly confusing about anything I have said, maybe the source of your confusion is wherever you pulled out 'time existing before itself' quote from. In any case the message you should take away from this is that time is a physical property of the universe; it does not necessarily exist before the big bang. the time @ the big bang = 0

None of which has anything to do with what any of us have said.

I can't help you with that

I have said, which is that since an uncaused physical cosmos, a physical cosmos with an infinite regression of events behind it, and a physical cosmos that caused itself are all equally logically impossible,

There is nothing logically impossible about things coming into existence spontaneously and without a prior cause. The only reason you think it's impossible is because our experience has never produced (with the excpetion of quantum physics) things that are causeless but this is a matter of inductive experience which is hardly proof of logical impossibility.

Furthermore, your statement 'an infinite regression of events' can only come from 2 things: 1) you deny the big bang theory or 2) you think there was time before the big bang. The big bang means time started at a certain point so there is no 'infinite regress'. If it's the latter then you need to realize you can't compare how our universe operates with how things were before the big bang. in other words,if you imagine our universe is a-b-c in some temporal order, it does not give you reason to think that's how it was before the big bang.

therefore there must have been a cause for the physical cosmos outside itself and therefore outside its confines of spacetime (and, as a corrolary, further causation).

since the alternatives you dismissed are far from impossible this conclusion does not follow. as others pointed out, even if this was the only possibility, the last thing i'd conclude would be that this outside cause is anything like the God of Islam Christianity or Judaism.

Just want to point out that no matter how theists tinker with the cosmological argument, it can never get around the central objections that have caused its demise in the past. when will people learn?

[M.I.A.]

I don't know what is exactly confusing about anything I have said, maybe the source of your confusion is wherever you pulled out 'time existing before itself' quote from. In any case the message you should take away from this is that time is a physical property of the universe; it does not necessarily exist before the big bang. the time @ the big bang = 0



I can't help you with that



There is nothing logically impossible about things coming into existence spontaneously and without a prior cause. The only reason you think it's impossible is because our experience has never produced (with the excpetion of quantum physics) things that are causeless but this is a matter of inductive experience which is hardly proof of logical impossibility.

Furthermore, your statement 'an infinite regression of events' can only come from 2 things: 1) you deny the big bang theory or 2) you think there was time before the big bang. The big bang means time started at a certain point so there is no 'infinite regress'. If it's the latter then you need to realize you can't compare how our universe operates with how things were before the big bang. in other words,if you imagine our universe is a-b-c in some temporal order, it does not give you reason to think that's how it was before the big bang.




since the alternatives you dismissed are far from impossible this conclusion does not follow. as others pointed out, even if this was the only possibility, the last thing i'd conclude would be that this outside cause is anything like the God of Islam Christianity or Judaism.

Just want to point out that no matter how theists tinker with the cosmological argument, it can never get around the central objections that have caused its demise in the past. when will people learn?

im sure you know that the quran teaches us that. if i have to abandon all logic and reasoning for something beyond belief, then i have done.
unfortunately my beliefs do not negate reality or the laws that govern it.

[IAmZamzam]

Perhaps we'll "learn", Lynx, when dissenters like you will stop treating us like bruha-stick-waving cavemen with our "obsolescent", "dead", etc. arguments, all of which is just another way of saying "disagreed with by us". The snobbery is unbearable.

Time itself could not have started anymore than the very dimension of height itself can have a tallest point, or hemp itself can have a beginning and end just because ropes are made out of it which do. I am sick to death of trying to explain this to people. As with any of this other stuff, it's equally of no use.

[IAmZamzam]

This is getting way too depressing. I can't go on. From now on I'm just going to have to keep myself from clicking on the very link to this thread at all, lest I get drawn back into it again. I seem to be no less capable of getting through to ANYONE about ANYTHING AT ALL when I'm not around at all as when I'm present.

Continue the pointless debate if you like. None of you are accomplishing anything either. GOOD RIDDANCE.

[Trumble]

A lot of atheists suppress, and even scorn, this natural inclination by claiming (without providing evidence, of course) that our brains are hardwired to have an overabundant sense or need for purpose, and I think that's what he's probably doing. Of course, they also use natural instinct as an excuse for how or why we can be moral without the existence of a higher moral lawgiver. Once again, it's whatever suits them at the moment.

The principal reason both how and why we can be moral without the existence of such a higher moral lawgiver is simply that human society functions better, and hence individuals overall fare better if a moral code is (generally) followed. The particulars of such codes vary widely, of course as one would expect in widely diverging cultures. They also evolved over a considerable period of time, starting long before 'civilization' as we understand it.

[Ramadhan]

No, that is not correct.

Creation does not have to be from a sentient being.

For example the Earth creates volcanoes, or the Sun creates heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens.

I see.

So for atheists, the universe is created/caused/uncaused by/from anything, as long as it is not God.

Is my understanding correct?

[Lynx]

Perhaps we'll "learn", Lynx, when dissenters like you will stop treating us like bruha-stick-waving cavemen with our "obsolescent", "dead", etc. arguments, all of which is just another way of saying "disagreed with by us". The snobbery is unbearable.

This is getting way too depressing. I can't go on. From now on I'm just going to have to keep myself from clicking on the very link to this thread at all, lest I get drawn back into it again. I seem to be no less capable of getting through to ANYONE about ANYTHING AT ALL when I'm not around at all as when I'm present.

Continue the pointless debate if you like. None of you are accomplishing anything either. GOOD RIDDANCE.

You've got some issues.

Time itself could not have started anymore than the very dimension of height itself can have a tallest point, or hemp itself can have a beginning and end just because ropes are made out of it which do. I am sick to death of trying to explain this to people. As with any of this other stuff, it's equally of no use.

Your analogies are way off the mark. Read more on the topic please.

[Ramadhan]

First, titus said this:

No, that is not correct

And then you are saying this:

That is correct.

Even when it is clear that you atheists are in confusion or disagremeent as to what to believe/disbelieve, I can now satisfactorily conclude that the unifying trait among atheists is that atheists are allergic to God, either in name or in concept.

[titus]

So for atheists, the universe is created by/from anything, as long as it is not God.

No, your understanding is not correct.

I don't start with the premise that there is no God and try to prove it, as you indicate with what you said. I simply see no evidence of a God therefore do not believe in one.

[Ramadhan]

I don't pretend to know if the universe had a beginning or has always been. We have observed that it is expanding at an ever increasing rate. But perhaps it oscilates and a big bang is followed by expansion and then by compression and then a big crunch. Perhaps our universe is a spin off from another pre-existing universe. Perhaps our universe is the creation of a super intelligent alien species, or an accident by them. I simply don't know and I don't see any reason to pretend to know.

Can I ask you what you think of the Islamic concept of God?
Or what do you find is wrong with the Islamic concept of God?

[titus]

Even when it is clear that you atheists are in confusion or disagremeent as to what to believe/disbelieve, I can now satisfactorily conclude that the unifying trait among atheists is that atheists are allergic to God, either in name or in concept.

Atheists are like Muslims in that they don't all agree on everything. If you read my previous post I am not "allergic" to God, I simply don't believe in him. The only unifying trait among atheists is that they don't believe in God.

Give me evidence and I would change my mind.

[Beardo]

Atheists are like Muslims in that they don't all agree on everything.

That's every religion. :p Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Hence, everyone is unique. No two people, not even identical twins, can have the same philosophy on everything. Or most things, for that matter.

[titus]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, titus. The "spear" thing you mention would just be confusing magnification of a finite amount of existing space with an infinite abundance of new space between the spear and its target. The proper analogy would be that we have been stabbed by a spear that has crossed an infinite number of yards in reaching us. Can't happen, can it?

Using that logic then God must have a beginning also, otherwise he could not exist.

Your mind can almost grasp the concept of timeless infinity going forward, but not going backwards. If one exists then so can the other.

But then most religious people will fall back, again, on the argument that the rules don't apply to God. It is like most arguments for the existence of God in that it is circular.

[titus]

First, titus said this:
No, that is not correct
And then you are saying this:

Quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis View Post
That is correct.
Even when it is clear that you atheists are in confusion or disagremeent as to what to believe/disbelieve, I can now satisfactorily conclude that the unifying trait among atheists is that atheists are allergic to God, either in name or in concept.

One more comment on this. Me and Pygoscelis agree pretty much on this, we just phrased it differently. Pygo's point was simply that, by definition, an atheist does not believe that God created by the universe and that by definition that does not preclude aliens from having done so.

Pygo was debating the semantics where I was debating more of the sentiment of the poster of the question.

[CosmicPathos]

Using that logic then God must have a beginning also, otherwise he could not exist.

Your mind can almost grasp the concept of timeless infinity going forward, but not going backwards. If one exists then so can the other.

But then most religious people will fall back, again, on the argument that the rules don't apply to God. It is like most arguments for the existence of God in that it is circular.

a fallacy by equating definition of God with definition of matter. Essentially severing your own argument by postulating God cannot be infinite because if He can then universe can be. We never argued that God is similar to the universe. your point is BS. A 13 year old blonde can see through it.

[titus]

We never argued that God is similar to the universe

I know. That is why I said "But then most religious people will fall back, again, on the argument that the rules don't apply to God. It is like most arguments for the existence of God in that it is circular. "

Your premise is predicated on the fact that God exists. You give him magical properties that you say don't apply to the rest of the universe and say that that explains everything.

Sorry, I don't agree with that. That logic is what I find to be, to use your term, BS that a 13 year old can see through.

[Ramadhan]

One more comment on this. Me and Pygoscelis agree pretty much on this, we just phrased it differently. Pygo's point was simply that, by definition, an atheist does not believe that God created by the universe and that by definition that does not preclude aliens from having done so.

So, this is my understanding:

someone can believe that the universe is created by aliens, and he is still an atheist.
But as soon as those aliens named God, he becomes a theist.
correct?

So atheism is just an aversion to God, right?

[Ramadhan]

Give me evidence and I would change my mind.

This I know: no amount of evidence will satisfy you.

Thus doth Allah Make clear His Signs to you: In order that ye may understand. (QS. 2:242)

Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise. (QS. 2:164)

Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them. (QS.2:99)

Say those without knowledge: "Why speaketh not Allah unto us? or why cometh not unto us a Sign?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts). (QS2:118)

And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. Even when they come to you arguing with you, those who disbelieve say, "This is not but legends of the former peoples." (QS. 6:25)

[Lynx]

So, this is my understanding:

someone can believe that the universe is created by aliens, and he is still an atheist.
But as soon as those aliens named God, he becomes a theist.
correct?

So atheism is just an aversion to God, right?

Well I think before discussing this topic with an atheist the members of the discussion should agree with a definition of God. Some people might think their computer is God and could successfully argue that their God exists. Does being the creator of the universequalify as God? I think some atheists would want more than just 'the being that created the universe'; perhaps they'd want that being to be omniscient or omnipotent before they can call it God.

[titus]

atheism is just an aversion to God, right?

Not an aversion to God. A disbelief in God.

This I know: no amount of evidence will satisfy you.

You are wrong there.

Certainly, though, quoting from a holy book that claims that God exists is not even remotely evidence.

[جوري]

Certainly, though, quoting from a holy book that claims that God exists is not even remotely evidence.

It isn't evidence for God's non-existence either -- so I wish many of you would stop quoting folks like Dawkings and other equally dead and in the conventional sense 'philosophers' as if their own delusions are evidence for anything!

all the best

[Ramadhan]

You are wrong there.

Maybe I am wrong, but that's my experience with most atheists.

Certainly, though, quoting from a holy book that claims that God exists is not even remotely evidence.

Actually, you are the one who is wrong.
I did not quote those ayats from the qur'an as evidence for the existence of God.
The ayats address mushreekeens (atheists, etc) who stay in disbelief despite the numerous and overwhelming evidence for the existence of God. No amount of evidence is enough for them.
See, Allah in the Qur'an has addressed the likes of you more than 1,400 years ago.

[Ramadhan]

Well I think before discussing this topic with an atheist the members of the discussion should agree with a definition of God. Some people might think their computer is God and could successfully argue that their God exists. Does being the creator of the universequalify as God? I think some atheists would want more than just 'the being that created the universe'; perhaps they'd want that being to be omniscient or omnipotent before they can call it God.

So does this mean that atheists object that the universe is created by omniscient, omnipotent, omnitemporal, eternal being, but may accept that the universe is created by aliens/supercomputer/computer-simulation?

[Pygoscelis]

So, this is my understanding:

someone can believe that the universe is created by aliens, and he is still an atheist.
But as soon as those aliens named God, he becomes a theist.
correct?

Only if those aliens are also supernatural and powerful.

So atheism is just an aversion to God, right?

Not sure what you are meaning here by "aversion".

[Hugo]

It isn't evidence for God's non-existence either -- so I wish many of you would stop quoting folks like Dawkings and other equally dead and in the conventional sense 'philosophers' as if their own delusions are evidence for anything!

It is obvious one cannot have evidence for non-existence so what you say here is meaningless.

[titus]

And since I never quoted Dawkings or any other "philosopher" the rest of the post is meaningless also.

[جوري]

It is obvious one cannot have evidence for non-existence so what you say here is meaningless.

I really can't afford to whittle my time on your linear and often circular thinking and this tedious spoon feeding step by step progression from which you never in fact seem to make progress. It is not only a waste of my time but an utter insult frankly.
One needs not see the bee to know where the honey came from. Until such a time a scientifically sound method offers an explanation for all that is in existence whereby we can render religious texts fairy tales, can we also equally ignore other brands of fairy tales by way of Zoro's zen or Hume or whomever else.

notice no one has actually brought any verses into this topic.. look at the many faulty premises you and atheists alike introduce into topics to steer it into a cul de sac?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Until such a time a scientifically sound method offers an explanation for all that is in existence whereby we can render religious texts fairy tales, can we also equally ignore other brands of fairy tales by way of Zoro's zen or Hume or whomever else.

Just curious: have you ever read anything by David Hume?

notice no one has actually brought any verses into this topic.. look at the many faulty premises you and atheists alike introduce into topics to steer it into a cul de sac?

Naidamar did, right here.

Peace

[جوري]

Just curious: have you ever read anything by David Hume?

Don't you know that all such reading is exclusive to under-paid, down on their luck English teachers?

[Pygoscelis]

So does this mean that atheists object that the universe is created by omniscient, omnipotent, omnitemporal, eternal being, but may accept that the universe is created by aliens/supercomputer/computer-simulation?

Yes. An atheist may believe the latter. If many do is another question, but it isn't atheism that would stop them. Many atheists also happen to be skeptics (where this thread started) and that may stop them.

[Pygoscelis]

Until such a time a scientifically sound method offers an explanation for all that is in existence whereby we can render religious texts fairy tales, can we also equally ignore other brands of fairy tales by way of Zoro's zen or Hume or whomever else.

It is hard to tell what lily means to say here but this appears to either be her equating her religion to fairy tales ( which seems unlikely) or an appeal to god of the gaps thinking. Just because we don't know something doesn't make it reasonable to believe wholeheartedly in a religious explanation. And just because we can not disprove something doesn't make is plausible. This is what the point the celestial teapot analogy was invented to illustrate.

[جوري]

It is hard to tell what lily means here but this appears to either be her equating her religion to fairy tales ( which seems unlikely) or an appeal to god of the gaps thinking. Just because we don't know something doesn't make it reasonable to believe wholeheartedly in a religious explanation. And just because we can not disprove something doesn't make is plausible. This is what the point the celestial teapot analogy was invented to illustrate.

what is more devastating to your argument here than resorting to your brand of religion to affirm your personal beliefs? In fact that is exactly what we are arguing against if you cared to gauge a topic beyond the superficial. The difficult questions seem elusive to the lot of you so why the false pretenses?
Come back when you can compose of your own substance and not rely so much on your own brand of religious texts. Do you believe you can carry a conversation without a reference to a dead philosopher (such as you've done above) with Russell's 'teapot'?

all the best

[Lynx]

So does this mean that atheists object that the universe is created by omniscient, omnipotent, omnitemporal, eternal being, but may accept that the universe is created by aliens/supercomputer/computer-simulation?

hi
i think it means an atheist can accept both. the only difference is the being that created the universe and is omniscient/omnipotent/etc is traditionally defined as God whereas a supercomputer is not God since it's lacking some essential characteristics that we think qualifies something as God. therefore, an atheist would not be an atheist if they accepted the former but an atheist could be an atheist while accepting the latter.

[M.I.A.]

You give him magical properties that you say don't apply to the rest of the universe and say that that explains everything.

the most gracious, the most merciful.

Well I think before discussing this topic with an atheist the members of the discussion should agree with a definition of God. Some people might think their computer is God and could successfully argue that their God exists. Does being the creator of the universequalify as God? I think some atheists would want more than just 'the being that created the universe'; perhaps they'd want that being to be omniscient or omnipotent before they can call it God.

omniscient

your computer did not put the stars in the sky or create anything.. but it links you to people of the world(the creation), so there maybe some truth in the statement.. although the people may beg to differ.

omnipotent

i could argue an omnipotent god by definition would have so much power that the creation would be very hard pressed to comprehend how gods perfect system works.

if you want definate proof that god exists you have to look for god, not in any one person in particular but in your world, there is order in chaos... dont forget there are like six billion people and six billion stories in the world so its not all gonna go your way, but thats life.

[Ramadhan]

Only if those aliens are also supernatural and powerful.

So this universe cannot be possibly created by a supernatural and powerful being?

[Ramadhan]

hi
i think it means an atheist can accept both. the only difference is the being that created the universe and is omniscient/omnipotent/etc is traditionally defined as God whereas a supercomputer is not God since it's lacking some essential characteristics that we think qualifies something as God. therefore, an atheist would not be an atheist if they accepted the former but an atheist could be an atheist while accepting the latter.

What aspects or essential characteristics of God that atheists find objectionable?

[Pygoscelis]

Each atheist here could only answer that question for themselves. As far as atheists in general go... they may or may not find anything objectionable. They simply don't believe in such a being.

If you want to know what the particular atheists here find objectionable about a God, you'll have to describe the God you have in mind.

[Lynx]

Each atheist here could only answer that question for themselves. As far as atheists in general go... they may or may not find anything objectionable. They simply don't believe in such a being.

If you want to know what the particular atheists here find objectionable about a God, you'll have to describe the God you have in mind.

+1

What aspects or essential characteristics of God that atheists find objectionable?

I think there are two general camps that lots of atheists fall into (though I may be wrong in this as I am not atheist; they are free to correct me). One group thinks there's just no good reason to believe in God anymore than there's a good reason to believe in Thor or Ra. The second group actively maintains that a God (as depicted by religions) is impossible because of x philosophical argument where x could be the problem of evil or some other reason. As pygo rightly points out each person has an individual answer so you wil probably hear many different things. I personally don't take the Gods of Islam and Christianity and Judaism too seriously for several reasons. The strongest reason for me I imagine is the existence of heaven/hell as it 1) presumes without justification that all morals are black/white & that there is some objective criteria of determining what these are; 2) presumes without justification that people have a choice in what they believe and believing the wrong thing is something to be punished for and 3) these Gods are reminiscent of tyrant kings of the medieval ages and I suspect Allah/Jehova etc are incarnations of how people thought kings/emperors were.

[Hugo]

What aspects or essential characteristics of God that atheists find objectionable?

I think you miss the point, to find a person (God) objectionable one has to have some evidence they exist and although I believe in God I am not aware of any material evidence for his existence. Of course one can object about the kind of God some people believe in and what that belief drives them on to do in his name both good and bad. One cannot rationally take any other position unless you can suggest a test of some kind - do you have such a test?

[Ramadhan]

I think you miss the point, to find a person (God) objectionable one has to have some evidence they exist and although I believe in God I am not aware of any material evidence for his existence. Of course one can object about the kind of God some people believe in and what that belief drives them on to do in his name both good and bad. One cannot rationally take any other position unless you can suggest a test of some kind - do you have such a test?

Hugo, did you ACTUALLY read my post?
Here, let me repost it for you, and this time I hope you read carefully, and then spend a few minutes or so to really understand what I meant in my simple sentence, and internalize it, before you blabber your mouth and embarrass yourself, AGAIN.

What aspects or essential characteristics of God that atheists find objectionable?

I did NOT ask atheists why they find God objectionable. Get it now?
Even Pygo and Lynx understood completely my simple question. And everyone else, I presume, except you.

Now, do you just like arguing just for the sake of it?
In atheism threads you like being devil's advocate and pretend you don't believe in God.
(well, if I were to worship an absurd idea of a 1+1+1=1 god who came down to earth to humiliate himself and suffering from amnesia, I might as well not believe in one).
You don't even have the conviction in your belief, which makes you a pure hypocrite.

[M.I.A.]

I think you miss the point, to find a person (God) objectionable one has to have some evidence they exist and although I believe in God I am not aware of any material evidence for his existence. Of course one can object about the kind of God some people believe in and what that belief drives them on to do in his name both good and bad. One cannot rationally take any other position unless you can suggest a test of some kind - do you have such a test?

lol i see what you did there,
let me tell you where most of us would stand on the point.. we believe every person on the earth belongs to the same god.. and god belongs to no particular person in the world..
to claim guidance would be shamefull as we are not prophets.
to claim that we are never wronge would be a blemish on ones character that would be plane for most to see.

a person is judged by his peers and if he feels hard done by then he waits patiently untill he can be judged by his god.
i cant provide physical proof of a god but his signs are manifest unto all of his creation. if they are objectionable to you then have patients and wait until you find something to believe in, id point you to the quran every day of the week.

[Hugo]

a person is judged by his peers and if he feels hard done by then he waits patiently untill he can be judged by his god. i cant provide physical proof of a god but his signs are manifest unto all of his creation. if they are objectionable to you then have patients and wait until you find something to believe in, id point you to the quran every day of the week.

I don't think I said that I find God objectionable as such but I might find the God you or someone else objectionable because of the acts that that person might commit in the name of his God. So if I see a suicide bomber claim authority from his God to blow up a Mosque in Iraq I think I am a least entitled to say that his god is not one I feel any respect for.

[Hugo]

Here, let me repost it for you, and this time I hope you read carefully, and then spend a few minutes or so to really understand what I meant in my simple sentence, and internalize it, before you blabber your mouth and embarrass yourself, AGAIN.

My point such as it was that it is all very well to talks about God being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and so one and it is easy to look these words up in a dictionary but its an absolute fallacy to then even think that now you understand God. It is also rather odd that one the one hand Muslims will say God is all powerful but then say he cannot become a man - one cannot have it both ways otherwise you make your own tiny mind the measure of all things.

My other point is that that one can suggest a list such as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient etc that purport to describe God and one might think of them as tests, ways to prove he exists but its a false dawn as what possible test could you define to see for example if an unseen God is all knowing? Perhaps instead we should confine our self more towards seeing how people who believe in God live; in this board we might ask are those who post as evidenced by what they say: loving, kind, honest, trustworthy, loyal or are they slanderers, dishonest, hateful, conceited?

[جوري]

slanderers, dishonest, hateful, conceited?

That adequately describes you indeed- and I welcome anyone to purchase A history of Quranic text from which you consistently distort the truth to be deceitful which is another thing we should add to the above list!


all the best

[Hugo]

That adequately describes you indeed- and I welcome anyone to purchase A history of Quranic text from which you consistently distort the truth to be deceitful which is another thing we should add to the above list!

Well I am happy for any one to read through my posts and look at what I say and how I say it, then do the same with yours and see what conclusion they come to

[جوري]

Well I am happy for any one to read through my posts and look at what I say and how I say it, then do the same with yours and see what conclusion they come to

Indeed most people do just that much to your dismay, and hence you were banned once before- although most of us would have wished for a more permanent solution to someone so overtly deceitful, the mods still have to exercise Islamic tolerance even toward those clearly undeserving of it :

5:8 (Asad) O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any-one [19] lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do.


too bad your religion hasn't taught you basic principles, like honestly and equity!
all the best

[Zafran]

My point such as it was that it is all very well to talks about God being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and so one and it is easy to look these words up in a dictionary but its an absolute fallacy to then even think that now you understand God. It is also rather odd that one the one hand Muslims will say God is all powerful but then say he cannot become a man - one cannot have it both ways otherwise you make your own tiny mind the measure of all things.

My other point is that that one can suggest a list such as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient etc that purport to describe God and one might think of them as tests, ways to prove he exists but its a false dawn as what possible test could you define to see for example if an unseen God is all knowing? Perhaps instead we should confine our self more towards seeing how people who believe in God live; in this board we might ask are those who post as evidenced by what they say: loving, kind, honest, trustworthy, loyal or are they slanderers, dishonest, hateful, conceited?

On your first point - by definition Man is not all powerful - he is limited has dirty aspects etc etc - God is non of these things therefore Man is not God - the same argument a pagan could make - God can do anything as hes all powerful so he can turn into an stone or rock or is the idol etc etc - as muslims God is unlike us and far superior. God is greater then anything we can imagine. Ultimatly worshipping a man is worshipping an Idol. By making God into a man - hes become an idol which is shirk.

On your second point where do you get those criterias from - eg a Godly person is trustworthy, loyal, kind? etc is it empathy? or is this from your own religion you follow? The morals have to come from somewhere - For muslims it would have to be from God's prophets eg Abhrahm, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, Isa, Muahmmad, PBUTA etc. - which Muslims trust and have faith were God's people. There lives show that they lived and died for God.

For muslims prophets, laws, the universe etc etc are signs of God.

[Hugo]

On your first point - by definition Man is not all powerful - he is limited has dirty aspects etc etc - God is non of these things therefore Man is not God - the same argument a pagan could make - God can do anything as hes all powerful so he can turn into an stone or rock or is the idol etc etc - as muslims God is unlike us and far superior. God is greater then anything we can imagine. Ultimatly worshipping a man is worshipping an Idol. By making God into a man - hes become an idol which is shirk.

I am not sure if we agree or not from what you say here. Certainly God has attributes that perhaps we can name but He is beyond our understanding. At the same time man can and does manufacture God to suit their needs and none of us are immune from that.

On your second point where do you get those criterias from - eg a Godly person is trustworthy, loyal, kind? etc is it empathy? or is this from your own religion you follow? The morals have to come from somewhere - For muslims it would have to be from God's prophets eg Abhrahm, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, Isa, Muahmmad, PBUTA etc. - which Muslims trust and have faith were God's people. There lives show that they lived and died for God. For muslims prophets, laws, the universe etc etc are signs of God.

Biblically we are told there are visible signs that God is or is not at work in your life:

In Colossians chapter 3 we have "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Lists like this are common in the Bible and often summed up by what some people call the 'Golden Rule' which is usually stated as "do as you would be done by" or in less prosaic terms, treat other as you would want them to treat you or you can also say love your neighbour as yourself. These injunctions come from God by way of his prophets and unless you show the characteristics listed in the second list then one can wonder if God has any effect on your life and if you show the characteristics in the first list then God is certainly not at work in you.

[جوري]

"do as you would be done by"

When do you think ''Christians'' will live by that golden rule beyond lip service?

all the best

[Hugo]

When do you think ''Christians'' will live by that golden rule beyond lip service?

Sadly this is true and all Christians will admit to it that exercising compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience, bearing with each other, forgiving one another and love is true wisdom but these standards set by God are high and so it is often a daily struggle with out own selfishness and pride if not conceit - perhaps you find it easier?

In contrast, I noticed that Liv Ullmann at the Nobel prize ceremony that Liu Xiaobo the peace prize winner said "hatred can rot away at a persons's intelligence and conscience - the enemy mentality will poison the spirit of a nation, incite cruel mortal struggles, destroy a society's tolerance and humanity, and hinders a nations progress towards freedom"

[جوري]

Sadly this is true and all Christians will admit to it that exercising compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience, bearing with each other, forgiving one another and love is true wisdom but these standards set by God are high and so it is often a daily struggle with out own selfishness and pride if not conceit - perhaps you find it easier?

I do indeed find it easier, and glad you admit to centuries of hatred, warmongering and deceit.. Perhaps that recognition will serve as an impetus for improvement although I very much doubt it. There is no end to the evolution of morality per your scriptures to fit the tides!

all the best

[Zafran]

I am not sure if we agree or not from what you say here. Certainly God has attributes that perhaps we can name but He is beyond our understanding. At the same time man can and does manufacture God to suit their needs and none of us are immune from that.

Not entirely - as christainty is a call to worshipping Jesus pbuh as God thats the main thing that I was talking about - a direct reply to your first point. We can be sure that God is no Idol like a stone, man, a tree ect. I'm sure thats within our understanding.

Those men are astray who do that.

Biblically we are told there are visible signs that God is or is not at work in your life:

In Colossians chapter 3 we have "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Lists like this are common in the Bible and often summed up by what some people call the 'Golden Rule' which is usually stated as "do as you would be done by" or in less prosaic terms, treat other as you would want them to treat you or you can also say love your neighbour as yourself. These injunctions come from God by way of his prophets and unless you show the characteristics listed in the second list then one can wonder if God has any effect on your life and if you show the characteristics in the first list then God is certainly not at work in you.

Preety much agreed on these morals.

[M.I.A.]

I don't think I said that I find God objectionable as such but I might find the God you or someone else objectionable because of the acts that that person might commit in the name of his God. So if I see a suicide bomber claim authority from his God to blow up a Mosque in Iraq I think I am a least entitled to say that his god is not one I feel any respect for.

the quran says that the only thing you can do in this world is wrong your own soul. so bombing yourself might not be the way to go.

My point such as it was that it is all very well to talks about God being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and so one and it is easy to look these words up in a dictionary but its an absolute fallacy to then even think that now you understand God. It is also rather odd that one the one hand Muslims will say God is all powerful but then say he cannot become a man - one cannot have it both ways otherwise you make your own tiny mind the measure of all things.

My other point is that that one can suggest a list such as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient etc that purport to describe God and one might think of them as tests, ways to prove he exists but its a false dawn as what possible test could you define to see for example if an unseen God is all knowing? Perhaps instead we should confine our self more towards seeing how people who believe in God live; in this board we might ask are those who post as evidenced by what they say: loving, kind, honest, trustworthy, loyal or are they slanderers, dishonest, hateful, conceited?

i can propose a test for you that would allow you some insight into something that is not tangeble or material. it has nothing to do with spoken words but would utterly shatter your world... you would not like it... i do not like it.
it is not proof of god but it is a world changer none the less.

[Hugo]

Not entirely - as christainty is a call to worshipping Jesus pbuh as God thats the main thing that I was talking about - a direct reply to your first point. We can be sure that God is no Idol like a stone, man, a tree ect. I'm sure thats within our understanding. Those men are astray who do that.

That of course is your opinion but Christians would look at the evidence connected with Jesus. But what is your image of God, do you have any image, is he in one place or everywhere so perhaps it is wise to not decide what God can be or is because our minds are perhaps far to limited for that

Preety much agreed on these morals.

Yes, I doubt we have any room for disagreement on things like compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience, bearing with each other, forgiving one another and love since I think any sane person would see the deep wisdom behind them. What though is startling is the standard set for exercise of these morals for Jesus said in Matthew 5:43-47 (NIV) “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven." - would you agree with this?

Interestingly, in a recent book by Mosab Hassan Yousef (Son of HAMAS, ISBN 9781 85078 8782), a Palestinian who was locked up and tortured by the Israelis and witnessed Palestinians killing and tutoring themselves came to realize after reading the above verse that the only real enemy was, as he put it, the "enemy inside"; evil desires and greed, anger, rage, malice, slander, lying ... in simple terms Mosab realized it was possible to love anyone just as God does.

[Hugo]

i can propose a test for you that would allow you some insight into something that is not tangeble or material. it has nothing to do with spoken words but would utterly shatter your world... you would not like it... i do not like it.
it is not proof of god but it is a world changer none the less.

I am intrigued, well if it really is a test then don't keep it secret tell us what it is and we can use it?

[M.I.A.]

I am intrigued, well if it really is a test then don't keep it secret tell us what it is and we can use it?

not a chance, it was a joke.

anybody willing to give up there freedom of choice and there life would be nuts, if anybody ever offered you such a deal you would be stupid to accept...mental health is not an easy thing to fix if ever broken.

increasing awareness is key though, when you stop putting yourself first then you can start seeing what others are doing (to each other (and in whos name.).)
its a start at least.

maybe in a few months or years you can tell me how your views of this world have changed.

[M.I.A.]

I am intrigued, well if it really is a test then don't keep it secret tell us what it is and we can use it?

not a chance, it was a joke.

anybody willing to give up/submit there freedom of choice and there life would be nuts, if anybody ever offered you such a deal you would be stupid to accept...mental health is not an easy thing to fix if ever broken.

increasing awareness is key though, when you stop putting yourself first then you can start seeing what others are doing (to each other (and in whos name.).)
its a start at least.

maybe in a few months or years you can tell me how your views of this world have changed.

actually let me give you the next step in advance in case you are a quick learner.

the quran says that loosly paraphrased (you may want to read the quoted section in its entirity to make sure im not misguiding you)

those that consider every cry as against them, they are your enemies.

well whats the worst that could happen, good luck.



edit,
for the muslims, any disagreement with what i have said should be corrected as soon as possible.

6. O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done.
(Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan translation)

[Pygoscelis]

not a chance, it was a joke.

So you have a test you wanted to tell us about, but it is a joke, so you don't want to tell us about it? And you ressurected a thread that has been inactive for 5 days just to tell us this.

This is incoherent.

[M.I.A.]

So you have a test you wanted to tell us about, but it is a joke, so you don't want to tell us about it? And you ressurected a thread that has been inactive for 5 days just to tell us this.

This is incoherent.

lol i typed as i talked, if we had that conversation face to face thats how it would have gone...natural progression.
never mind im often incoherent, forgive and forget i hope.