|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Super Ivan Drago Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:31 am
Moving the conversation from this thread. Please note that some of these quotes are a bit out of context. I only reposted them to provide the 'gist' of the conversation. Tarquin Aluclaire In a metaphysical sense God might exist but we would have no way of knowing, just as all we can be sure of is that our mind exists. Of course much of the debate over the existence of God has to do with defining what it means for a being to be considered God, which is still under debate. Of course I also like watching the blindly faithful make poor arguments although I personally believe that if one wishes to take on an attitude of true rationality the only conclusion can be that we can never know whether God exists or not so we should all be agnostics. Semper Fiasco Just for shits and giggles... Theist: I believe that the universe was created by Oprah last week. Don't try and convince me otherwise; I have faith! Atheist: I cannot believe that the universe was created by Oprah last week unless you can show me some sound evidence to back up your claims. Agnostic: Well, there's really no way to be sure whether the universe was created by Oprah or not. We can't prove it was, and we can't prove it wasn't. It might have been... but I'm not sure. Super Ivan Drago I believe the form of Agnosticism Tarquin Aluclaire is talking about is the mentality that they have no reason to believe in a god, but if soild evidence were to be presented, the would believe. Now, I know that sounds an awful like like the definition of Atheism you provided. But I have personally found that the definitions between the two are often blurred. I have told many people what I believe to be true and people come to different conclusions as to what I am. My views are that if testable evidence of god were to be shown, I would believe it. And while I consider myself an Atheist, seeing how no testable proof of god has ever been shown, I have been told that my views are actually defined under Agnosticism. It's odd and somewhat aggravating that it's still a blurred line even after a definition has been assigned, but it happens quite often. Tarquin Aluclaire The demand for sound evidence promoting suspension of belief would actually make the "Athiest" an agnostic. By demanding evidence he is allowing a possibility that perhaps Oprah did create the universe last week but due to the metaphysical reality we live in we could never know since the only known belief in metaphysical philosophy is "the thinker exists." Please, continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:00 pm
I think that Tarquin Aluclaire states that we would need a reason to disbelieve in a supernatural force.
I, on the other hand, think that we are all born Atheistic, without belief in any supernatural. Are children born knowing there is a Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, etc? I'm of the opinion that God is a trained thought, and that all are Atheists by default.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:16 pm
Theophrastus I think that Tarquin Aluclaire states that we would need a reason to disbelieve in a supernatural force. I, on the other hand, think that we are all born Atheistic, without belief in any supernatural. Are children born knowing there is a Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, etc? I'm of the opinion that God is a trained thought, and that all are Atheists by default. It's hard to wax philosophical with an infant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:32 pm
dementedfellow It's hard to wax philosophical with an infant. What's the benefit of that statement? Allow me to expound; were you born knowing there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet? Was I born believing that behind the Hale-Bopp comet were aliens waiting to whisk me away? No; always religious doctrine is revealed by those who hold the secret knowledge (however loosely) of the potential convert's salvation. I just find it a very grandiose claim to assert that children are born with inherent knowledge of God, in whatever form the asserter holds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:40 am
Theophrastus dementedfellow It's hard to wax philosophical with an infant. What's the benefit of that statement? Allow me to extrapolate; were you born knowing there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet? Was I born believing that behind the Hale-Bopp comet were aliens waiting to whisk me away? No; always religious doctrine is revealed by those who hold the secret knowledge (however loosely) of the potential convert's salvation. I just find it a very grandiose claim to assert that children are born with inherent knowledge of God, in whatever form the asserter holds. What's the benefit of my statement? You can't be sure of it. Sure you have a point, but my point is the notion of God comes from SOMEWHERE, as almost every culture has a belief that there is a reason why we are here. So unless you can ask an infant if it is atheist, we will never know what they believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:19 pm
Tarquin Aluclaire The demand for sound evidence promoting suspension of belief would actually make the "Athiest" an agnostic. By demanding evidence he is allowing a possibility that perhaps Oprah did create the universe last week but due to the metaphysical reality we live in we could never know since the only known belief in metaphysical philosophy is "the thinker exists." The only objection I have to this line of thought - leaving aside that annoying misspelling of the word "atheist" - is that the agnostic, while claiming to suspend judgment on matters of the supernatural, claims to know for certain that the nature of the supernatural is unknowable. In other words, by the agnostic's own logic, there is no way to prove or disprove the knowability of the supernatural. Thus, the agnostic should suspend judgment. Besides, agnosticism is not a position on theistic belief. Theism and atheism refer to the respective presence and absence of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a stance on possible knowledge of the supernatural. Thus, we have divisions known as agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. Now, I have to ask you... what if the knowability of the supernatural could be proven?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:46 am
Semper Fiasco Tarquin Aluclaire The demand for sound evidence promoting suspension of belief would actually make the "Athiest" an agnostic. By demanding evidence he is allowing a possibility that perhaps Oprah did create the universe last week but due to the metaphysical reality we live in we could never know since the only known belief in metaphysical philosophy is "the thinker exists." The only objection I have to this line of thought - leaving aside that annoying misspelling of the word "atheist" - is that the agnostic, while claiming to suspend judgment on matters of the supernatural, claims to know for certain that the nature of the supernatural is unknowable. In other words, by the agnostic's own logic, there is no way to prove or disprove the knowability of the supernatural. Thus, the agnostic should suspend judgment. Besides, agnosticism is not a position on theistic belief. Theism and atheism refer to the respective presence and absence of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a stance on possible knowledge of the supernatural. Thus, we have divisions known as agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. Now, I have to ask you... what if the knowability of the supernatural could be proven?Then it would cease to be supernatural and be "natural" since all that exists and occurs is technically a part of nature. By most common Abrahemic descriptions of God, He is outside the limits of humanity's ability to perceive the universe. If we cannot comprehend such a being who can apparently act outside the physical laws which we can comprehend then an empirical effort to prove or disprove the existence of such a being would be impossible. That would mean that the existence of God is impossible to prove or disprove and that the only scientifically reasonable position to take would be one of agnosticism. Atheism requires just as much faith as Theism does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:22 pm
Tarquin Aluclaire Semper Fiasco Tarquin Aluclaire The demand for sound evidence promoting suspension of belief would actually make the "Athiest" an agnostic. By demanding evidence he is allowing a possibility that perhaps Oprah did create the universe last week but due to the metaphysical reality we live in we could never know since the only known belief in metaphysical philosophy is "the thinker exists." The only objection I have to this line of thought - leaving aside that annoying misspelling of the word "atheist" - is that the agnostic, while claiming to suspend judgment on matters of the supernatural, claims to know for certain that the nature of the supernatural is unknowable. In other words, by the agnostic's own logic, there is no way to prove or disprove the knowability of the supernatural. Thus, the agnostic should suspend judgment. Besides, agnosticism is not a position on theistic belief. Theism and atheism refer to the respective presence and absence of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a stance on possible knowledge of the supernatural. Thus, we have divisions known as agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. Now, I have to ask you... what if the knowability of the supernatural could be proven?Then it would cease to be supernatural and be "natural" since all that exists and occurs is technically a part of nature. Putting aside the fact that you're just assigning the label "supernatural" to anything that we are currently unable to understand, you seem to be saying that supernatural existence is incomprehensible. This is to be distinguished from "unknowable." Supposing there does exist a supernatural being of any kind, it would, by definition, have to be without a specific nature. It can't specifically be anything. So, without being able to assign certain attributes to this being, how can we assume even the possibility that it exists? Tarquin Aluclaire By most common Abrahemic descriptions of God, He is outside the limits of humanity's ability to perceive the universe. How do you know this? I thought God was inherently unknowable... but here you are telling me that if there is a god, then it exists beyond the scope of human perception. Yet, by stating this fact, you imply that the existence of God is, to some extent, knowable. Hmm... Tarquin Aluclaire If we cannot comprehend such a being who can apparently act outside the physical laws which we can comprehend then an empirical effort to prove or disprove the existence of such a being would be impossible. The only problem is that if we can't know or comprehend what that being is, then the word "God" has no meaning. You might as well be an agnostic when it comes to unicorns, fairies, and the god of the middle row of the keyboard, "Ajdkfldjklakafjl;da." Atheists have no obligation to disprove the existence of any supernatural beings. Why would one need to prove, for instance, that leprechauns exist, given the fact that their existence hasn't been proven in the first place? Besides, the word "atheist" doesn't describe what I am; it describes what I'm not. If I am an atheist, then by definition, I am without theism, just as if I am found innocent in court, I am not guilty. Tarquin Aluclaire That would mean that the existence of God is impossible to prove or disprove and that the only scientifically reasonable position to take would be one of agnosticism. Only if agnosticism were a third alternative to theism and atheism, which it isn't. Agnosticism says nothing about belief in God; it entails only his knowability. Thus, we have such divisions as agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. But since the very concept of God is unintelligible, atheism wins by default. Tarquin Aluclaire Atheism requires just as much faith as Theism does. How much faith can it possibly take to reject the notion of an unintelligible being whose existence hasn't been proven? Besides, I could say that agnosticism requires faith in the incomprehensibility of the supernatural. By the agnostic's logic, we must also suspend judgment on the knowability of the supernatural. And the knowability of the knowability of the supernatural, and so on. Is there room in this culture for an a-agnostic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:03 pm
Hmmm... good points.
Now all I have left is what I call the "insurance policy."
I will not deny the existence of God because if I am wrong that might be a factor that would cause Him to kick my a**. It doesn't really effect how I live my life in any other regard though.
I've also seen s**t in my lifetime that I cannot scientifically explain (unless I was suffering from delusions) but that doesn't prove the existence of God. It just proves that I am ignorant of certain aspects of the universe that have yet to be explained by science, if science can explain them that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:12 pm
Tarquin Aluclaire Hmmm... good points. Now all I have left is what I call the "insurance policy." [ADVERTISEMENT] Godco... a fifteen minute conversion could save you 15% or more on eternal salvation. Tarquin Aluclaire I will not deny the existence of God because if I am wrong that might be a factor that would cause Him to kick my a**. It doesn't really effect how I live my life in any other regard though. Could it be... an agnosticized version of Pascal's Wager? There are plenty of other gods to worry about as well; coincidentally, no one has been able to prove the existence of one. I believe that if there is a god, and he really wants people to know that he exists, he would do a much better job of showing it. Tarquin Aluclaire I've also seen s**t in my lifetime that I cannot scientifically explain (unless I was suffering from delusions) but that doesn't prove the existence of God. It just proves that I am ignorant of certain aspects of the universe that have yet to be explained by science, if science can explain them that is. Indeed. Most of us have seen things that are quite difficult to explain. But the fact that we can see them happening and make observations about them implies that they are, at least to some extent, natural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:19 pm
Having read the Old Testament the only other deity that scares me anywhere as much as Yahweh would have to be Shiva since he is the badass ******** to end all badass ********. However, not believing in Shiva just gets you reincarnated depending upon your Karma and fulfillment of duty (dharma) under the Hindu caste system. The worst I would have to worry about in that instance would be coming back as a lower life form.
If I piss off Yahweh apparently he gets prehistoric on my a** and I don't really like the sounds of some of that s**t. Apparently saying He doesn't exist is the largest thing you can do to piss Him off so I would rather not do so because NOT denying the existence of God has no adverse effects on me whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:59 pm
We all know the Bible's a ridiculous ramshackle mess. And God lives there.
However, this is different from a shitty, beat-up pickup being driven by a world-class physicist black belt.
The Bible is our only source of authority and detail regarding God, and it fails in every other task it sets forth to prove save from twisted versions of the golden rule. So why should we still sheepishly give credence and mewling propitiation to the broken God of a broken theology?
As you say, you don't go very far out of your way to please this god so I'm not too worried about you, but I just feel that it's a compromise of one's intellect to leave a god pocket when they have no real reason other than, "what if?"
"What If" is a comic book series, not a viable lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
