Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 132133134135136 189>
Author
Message
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 18:04
Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

^To equality

You are differentiating concept from objective conditions. Religion doesn't exist as a concept detached from history.
You don't try to trace the origin in some time period of a thought in a human head. It is the material conditions of history which determine everything humans think, although what they think is in the subjective forms which try to eliminate contradictions and make reality consistent - i.e. concepts like Tree, Democracy, Good, Evil. In reality, these do not exist, they are super-historical, non-changing, consistent where reality is contradictory and in constant flux. They are abstract, categorical: this is a human creation.  A Tiger is not a good analogy to religion. You can understand Tigers by understanding the forces of which it is an expression, environment, evolution... etc. etc. Religion is a social concept, a human subjective attempt to make reality consistent with human values in the concrete circumstances humanity found itself.


What I said had nothing to do with tigers. It's about objective reality separate from the origin of a statement or concept.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 18:21
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

we generally accept that when we use the word agnostic we're referring to those that are hedging their bets and are open to the possibility of gods existing if proof could be found (foxhole theists).


Well shouldn't everyone?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 18:30
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

we generally accept that when we use the word agnostic we're referring to those that are hedging their bets and are open to the possibility of gods existing if proof could be found (foxhole theists).


Well shouldn't everyone?
Not on this world. Wink
 
I think there is a good chance that even with proof some people would still choose not to accept that proof, just as if there was conclusive proof that gods do not exist there would still be believers.
 


Edited by Dean - April 07 2012 at 18:34


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 18:38
Oh I most certainly agree with that. I'm just saying why wouldn't you be open to proof of something? 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 18:54
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Oh I most certainly agree with that. I'm just saying why wouldn't you be open to proof of something? 
That wasn't really my concern when I wrote the sentence, which was merely setting the scene for playing with words (atheists and agnostics only exist because theists exist, not because god doesn't exist). I can think of lots of reasons why people wouldn't be open to proof of something (aside from self-interest) - the quality and rigour of the proof would have a lot to do with it - some people accept iffy proof without question, some do not - the global warming/climate change debate being a case in point for both sides are capable of accepting questionable proof as long as it supports their position - pragmatically the evidence either way is open to interpretation and debate from my limited understanding.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 19:00
I liked what you had to say, but I guess I took that sentence as somewhat of a veiled insult at the agnostic. If satisfying proof of a god-like being is produced in the future, though I doubt that such evidence could even exist, I see no reason that people shouldn't give it consideration. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 19:22
It was never intended to be an insult, veiled or otherwise - I was trying to point out that agnostics are without knowledge of the proof of gods rather than without knowledge of the disproof of gods and their agnosticism would tend towards belief rather than away from it and so demonstrate that atheists are not agnostic in that sense.
 
I also suspect (given human nature and the vast number of disparate religions) that proof of a god-like being would not be satisfying enough for most believers, let alone non-believers.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 19:42
Could you elaborate on that. The burden of proof clearly lies on those postulating a god, so why would the agnostic tend towards theism in the absence of evidence?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 20:52
I'll try. Two things, firstly the burden of proof may lay with those that postulate the existence of gods, but since they are arguing from a belief that gods do exist they disregard the burden of proof (which means they are not looking for proof, if proof comes then the gods will provide it) and secondly agnostics accept that proof will not be forthcoming (as you said, it is doubtful that such evidence could even exist), yet they still hold with the possibility that it may - without being too flipant, it would appear that they are waiting for a reason to believe rather than a proof (hence the foxhole joke).


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 20:59
I must disagree. I'll never exclaim that gravity exists the way that I will say that its impossible to double a cube. I'm not waiting for an alternative theory to gravity, It's just the matter of being accurate about the level of proof existing. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 21:28

Religion isn't science - you do not have a variety of disparate physicists where some state that objects are repelled by gravity or that gravity waves can be bent by light or that the Earth sucks - all physicists agree on what gravity does even if they cannot agree on how it does it and we can judge the effects of gravity for ourselves even if we cannot explain or fully understand it so we can use our observations of the effects of gravity to make models and predictions - you cannot do that with religion therefore you cannot hold it to the same assessment criteria. If nothing else, any proof of religion would still fail because it would ultimately lack repeatability, just as all supernatural phenomena lack repeatability.



If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15429
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 07 2012 at 21:34
The things you mention are subject to change though. We can't say absolutely that something  lacks repeatability. At the present moment yes, but that says nothing of future possibilities.

I don't understand the value in an approach which says, "All religion is absolutely bunk and this statement is not subject to change under any circumstances."
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2012 at 06:09
I cannot disagree with anything you have said, and I don't think I said anything that disagrees either.
 
We cannot say anything absolutely - everything is asymptotic to absolutely, what we have to gauge is when close enough is good enough (pragmatism). When the probability of the possibility of change approaches the probability of change then we are fast approaching a "good enough" situation. There is little point in building machines whose operation relies on inverse gravity when the probability of gravity changing from attraction to repulsion and the probability of the circumstance where that could occur both tend to zero, however that has never prevented people from trying. (one of the most disappointing being when one of my schoolboy "heroes" Professor Eric Laithwaite essentially ended an illustrious career with his theories of gyroscopic propulsion [the claim being that gyroscope weigh less when spinning... ie since their mass is unchanged then gravity must have changed]).
 
Each statement involving religion and absolutes is fallacious to somebody. My statement that "... all the evidence suggests that all gods were created by Man" contains no absolutes and is subject to change - all future evidence will either support it or refute it, but can never prove it... just like every other valid hypothesis.


Edited by Dean - April 08 2012 at 06:15


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2012 at 09:00
I do not believe in any religion.
 
I'm a strong supporter of the scientific method but I doubt that it can ever give us the answers to all the big questions, at least within the foreseeable future with humans being the kind of beings we are.
 
It is provincial to think that what we know about the universe is all what there is. The very existence of our universe is extremely thought-challenging and even if we have theories which can explain its existence out of nothing, they are far from satisfactory. At the very least, why sould the physical laws of our universe come out of nothing is largely misterious. Even random-quantum multi-universe theories in which the explanation is that anything can happen and we just happen to live in a universe where the laws and conditions for our existence happened, unavoidably reach an infinite regression in which you are bound to wonder: OK but why did "anything" happen rather than "nothing" happening?  Where did the possibility of anything happening come from in the first place?
 
I tend to think that humankind and humans as individuals are not trascendental, not different from what we think about earthworms, no afterlife, when we die we die and that's it.
Therefore no religion on a human level. Nobody is watching us, nobody is gonna help us, nobody is gonna punish us.
 
But I fancy thinking that life as a phenomenon is trascentendal. It is the way how the universe will eventually get full circle and realise itself. Quantum theory and in particular John Wheeler's views suggest that the universe looks to us as it does only because we experience it. More extremely even if controversial, it exists only because life has evolved in it.
 
Freeman Dyson also forwarded the idea that life gathers information, in principle without limit, to the point when eventually long far away in the future (when life would be something quite different from current humans) life would posses the information required to understand itself. In some sense, life would close the circle by making itself happen.
 
Even if these are ideas far removed from our human lifespans these are the kind of ideas I am more comfortable with rather than traditional religious teachings.
 


Edited by Gerinski - April 08 2012 at 17:13
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 16448
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2012 at 13:32
Talking about agnostics and how their existence supposedly depends on the existence of the theists, how do you call those who stop caring about the issue? Those who don't give a damn about whether god exists or not and don't even waste time thinking on the issue? Wouldn't those be the truly "a-religious" (if this is the wrong word please correct) people, those for whom religion just doesn't enter their sphere of cognition in any way? Because even atheists and agnostics are religious-minded people, a lot of their worldview is shaped by their religious beliefs (or lack thereof, which doesn't mean they don't care about religious issues). 

Edited by The T - April 08 2012 at 13:34
Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RoyFairbank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2012 at 13:50
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by RoyFairbank RoyFairbank wrote:

^To equality

You are differentiating concept from objective conditions. Religion doesn't exist as a concept detached from history.
You don't try to trace the origin in some time period of a thought in a human head. It is the material conditions of history which determine everything humans think, although what they think is in the subjective forms which try to eliminate contradictions and make reality consistent - i.e. concepts like Tree, Democracy, Good, Evil. In reality, these do not exist, they are super-historical, non-changing, consistent where reality is contradictory and in constant flux. They are abstract, categorical: this is a human creation.  A Tiger is not a good analogy to religion. You can understand Tigers by understanding the forces of which it is an expression, environment, evolution... etc. etc. Religion is a social concept, a human subjective attempt to make reality consistent with human values in the concrete circumstances humanity found itself.


What I said had nothing to do with tigers. It's about objective reality separate from the origin of a statement or concept.


*Tears Out Hair*

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE REALITY SEPARATE FROM THE MATERIAL REALITY (HISTORY) OF A PHENOMENON

Nothing to do with when a statement originates, or when a concept is inside someone's head

Q: What is time?

A: Matter In Motion

Q: What is history?

A: Material Reality In It's Constant And Linear Evolution And Flux (History) Embodied In Its Present Form

I.e. History is the content of the form of reality


Q: What creates concepts? Where do concepts come from?

A: Concepts are the subjective form, of reality, whose content is material history experienced by the human race

Q: What is religion?

A: Religion is a concept, a subjective form of reality whose content is material reality experienced by the human race

A: Why does religion posit X ideas?
B: X ideas are a subjective form of Y factors of the material reality experienced by humans

A: What is the truth of X ideas of religion?
B: their truth is that they are subjective forms of Y factors of the material reality experienced by humans

A: that is to say they are not objectively true?
B: they are only subjectively true, they are subjective forms of reality whose content is material history experienced by the human race

A: what are the X ideas of Religion objectively?
B: They are the content which is manifest in the subjective forms of the material experience of humanity
i.e., the struggle for survival, anthropomorphized nature, attributing of human values to nature

A: How do we know this?
B: By recognizing matter, and matter in motion, and subsequently that material history determines each thing, that human history determines human beliefs, that human beliefs are subjective, and their objective nature is human history, that therefore the objective nature of religion is human history and the subjective needs it engendered. Recognizing the historical content of religion, objectifies it, and reveals the subjective ideas engendered, to be false. To claim the subjective ideas are true, or could be true, is to say material history is not true, or could be not true. 


BONUS:


 Anticipating...

A: Why are ideas religious ideas
B: Because they are metaphysical, anti-historical, and posit reality beyond material history.







Edited by RoyFairbank - April 08 2012 at 14:02
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2012 at 13:54
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Talking about agnostics and how their existence supposedly depends on the existence of the theists, how do you call those who stop caring about the issue? Those who don't give a damn about whether god exists or not and don't even waste time thinking on the issue? Wouldn't those be the truly "a-religious" (if this is the wrong word please correct) people, those for whom religion just doesn't enter their sphere of cognition in any way? Because even atheists and agnostics are religious-minded people, a lot of their worldview is shaped by their religious beliefs (or lack thereof, which doesn't mean they don't care about religious issues). 
 
 since those people wouldn't read this thread in a million years I think we can safely call them whatever we like - they ain't listening.
 
Having said that, I don't think such a person truly exists on this world - once you become aware that such a concept of "religion" exists then it is impossible for it to be expunged from your sphere of cognition (as you put it) - As I said earlier,the worldview of an atheist is not shaped by religious beliefs (or disbeliefs) - their view of religion is shaped by their worldview. But if you didn't get that the first time around a second telling won't change anything.
 
 


Edited by Dean - April 08 2012 at 13:55


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
PyramidMeetsTheEye View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 02 2012
Location: Slovenia
Status: Offline
Points: 118
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PyramidMeetsTheEye Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2012 at 14:32
 Well im in the church of Flying Spagghety Monster for 4 years now and they are going to elect me the pope of FSM 



flying spaghetti monster really opened my mind and showed me the troth. 


Join us,and we will free you with our religion.


Damn religion  sucks in slovenia christian democrat party is in parlement whahaha what an joke 5 f**king % my country is full of idiots even the most redneck countries cant compare to us.  


P.S: is there a poll about religion on this forum im really curious how many atheist are here. (so if there are alot of atheist here i can stop beeing on that ahteistforum and spend all my time here) 



Edited by PyramidMeetsTheEye - April 08 2012 at 14:35
Back to Top
PyramidMeetsTheEye View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 02 2012
Location: Slovenia
Status: Offline
Points: 118
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PyramidMeetsTheEye Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2012 at 15:41
uu what does this button do 












ups sorry it slipped see you 




Edited by PyramidMeetsTheEye - April 08 2012 at 15:43
Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RoyFairbank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2012 at 17:06
Originally posted by PyramidMeetsTheEye PyramidMeetsTheEye wrote:

 Well im in the church of Flying Spagghety Monster for 4 years now and they are going to elect me the pope of FSM 



flying spaghetti monster really opened my mind and showed me the troth. 


Join us,and we will free you with our religion.


Damn religion  sucks in slovenia christian democrat party is in parlement whahaha what an joke 5 f**king % my country is full of idiots even the most redneck countries cant compare to us.  


P.S: is there a poll about religion on this forum im really curious how many atheist are here. (so if there are alot of atheist here i can stop beeing on that ahteistforum and spend all my time here) 



FSM is a good idea, but it will take more than that to rid the world of religion. You have to actively explain the Universe to people, and how eternal death and relativity isn't really such a bad thing, and that relative truth can be fulfilling. Not that that is easy, even for Atheists, but if you just show people how ridiculous their attempts to explain away the universe are, they still won't have a positive idea of what the universe is. This will leave them as nihilists or weak agnostics, and they will idealize other things, like capitalism and nationalism.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 132133134135136 189>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.725 seconds.