This I Believe There is / is not a God

RVCA · 01-31-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

Atheism as a concept points to the lack of belief in deity, nothing less, nothing more

Agnosticism... is a position where one avoids making a decision at all, although in the process you end up in a theist position since the possibility of a higher deity is by no means rejected.

Lack of belief in deities is in no way mutually exclusive from avoiding to make a decision about deities. While you can lack belief because you haven't had the opportunity to form an opinion on the matter at hand (being unaware of said matter), you can also reject to form an opinion which results in lack of belief.

This video sums it up excellently.

"There is more than one way to lack belief in deities."

Dotoar · 01-31-2011, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

Lack of belief in deities is in no way mutually exclusive from avoiding to make a decision about deities. While you can lack belief because you haven't had the opportunity to form an opinion on the matter at hand (being unaware of said matter), you can also reject to form an opinion which results in lack of belief.

My point was and is that being an atheist you have made the decision already, which eliminates the agnostic position by definition. Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but the mutual exclusion between agnosticism and atheism is not based on that they are referring to two different concepts - gnosticism and theism respectively - but what underlying concept they both are referring to, i.e. a deity. The atheist has made a decision visavi the concept of a deity, the agnostic has not, that's the difference.

Of course, one may use the term 'agnosticism' in a wider perspective than just theism, but in such case we're not discussing god's being or not being exclusively and the concept of atheism is no longer useful. That is to say there may as well be a lot of phenomena we cannot explain and know for sure are the way we think they are, and as far as I'm concerned there are. Enter epistemology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I think you missed the point. I don't see love in your list of elements there

As Pratchett might put it, even if you'd grind the universe to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve, you won't find one atom of "love".

It's a name we put on a set of feelings which have an existence entirely dependent on our highly advanced biology and not a force of nature.

Well, our advanced biology and its ontology is indeed a force of nature itself. Love is a human concept, entirely dependent on our consciousness and freewill, all being a part of our nature and thus part of the universal laws applied on us. I'd say that love, in the most universal understanding of it, is when we choose to acknowledge the existence, seek to identify the nature of the objects within it and the rules by which they exist and work, and to acknowledge the very nature of ourselves and the relation between us. In short, love is the perpetual quest for ultimate understanding and the ideal of living on par with existence, the universe, everything. Love is knowledge is understanding is harmony is peace.

That's what "Close to the edge" is about, by the way. I know. I wrote a whole B-level essay about it.

The Batlord · 01-31-2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

I agree with that as a matter of practicality, but my point was 'fact means something only to our perceptions'. So at some point, we acknowledge that we believe what we know is a matter of faith in our own perceptions and experiences. While we can logically work out the state of things, even as a whole, our perception of fact has to rely on faith in our mechanism of arriving at fact to begin with.

I realize this isn't relevant in a discussion about belief in god, but that's what I meant by my passing sentence you responded to.

I underastand your point, and it is basically sound, but I think that we are operating on two conflicting definitions of "faith". That was the point of my post. To say that we believe in the evidence of our perceptions is not equatable to believing in a god for which their is no evidence or justification.

I think that the popular use of the word "faith" has equated it with belief. Belief is not faith. Belief is a proposition one holds to be true, "I am wearing a shirt". If you justify this belief with evidence then you get knowledge, "My eyes and nerve endings and the opinions of others leads me to believe that I am wearing a shirt". You can not prove that some mystical "god" or The Matrix is making you think that you are wearing a shirt when you are not, but without any evidence, this is merely pointless what-ifing.

Faith does not require, nor does it ask for evidence for it to be percieved as knowledge by those who practice faith.

It is true that you can not prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the facts that we percieve with our senses are true, we have reason to believe that they are, while faith has no such reason.

The Batlord · 01-31-2011, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

But understanding cosmology, Earth history, Human History can only answers how we got here, not why are we here. If one looked at the whole history of the universe and understand what took place before man appear on Earth one could appreciate the near infinite variables that it took to have the Earth the way it is for it to be inhabitable. I don't think that you could only use science to fully understand the meaning of life, certain science only have a strict system they study, and nothing outside of it pertains to what is being studied. So you need something more then Astrophysics, that encompasses more then one specific system, like the universe. Science is only good for answering how things work in the universe, not why things are....If one believes in God, then one can understand what done for us to be alive.

Why must there be a why? Why must life have a meaning? Wouldn't any reason or meaning that god gave to life or the universe be just as arbitrary as any reason I or Paris Hilton or Mao Zedung gave?

~~RandyMarsh~~ · 01-31-2011, 04:49 PM

Do not believe in or support any religion.

cardboard adolescent · 01-31-2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boozinbloozin

I think I may have posted in this thread before reguarding a question on the Moses movie. Ive read a lot of different peoples very knowledgeable insight from both aspects of the topic. Honestly each year I get older I find more reasons to lose what faith I have left for beleiving in God. Its been a slow continious battle..I think its more just wanting something more concrete to justify the miracle of things that are good. For instance witnessing the birth of my son. So now that is the last of the reasons for me conjuring the hope of an after life. Just hoping that if something that miraculous could take place. That somehow I could be reunited in a happier place than Earth one day after ive perished. Or that a higher power is somehow watching over my child and protecting him. Other than that ive all but given up my religion. To much contradiction,hypocracy,greed, lust and other every day challenges of life. The only difference is I have yet to really find anyone who on a daily basis isnt guilty of some glitch they have and cover it up with being judgmental of others. There isnt anything that hasnt been said before on this topic im sure and nobody can prove either point. For me im just having less and less to hold onto the more I see how corrupt and hypocritic Christianity can be. Power and corruption play a role in every walk of life and in every life to some extent. Only some dont pretend to hide it by pointing out the flaws of others. Then sitting in judgment and condeming our so called souls to hell. When all along the one doing the accusing is in no position to set in judgment of anyone. Ive seen this all my life and have just grown tired of the same justifacations of the cliche excuses given. Everyone hides their shades of shame by hoping someone worse will over shadow their own. This has been weighing on me for some time now and just thought id share it. The thought of there not being a God is scary for me to say. I want there to be a better place but it just seems more like a fairy tale the older I get. Honestly I dont know what I beleive anymore. Any good argument given from either side is merley opinion and nothing more.

Go find a Zen/Taoist Master / Buddha / Old Teacher and witness someone who is in the world but not of it. The idea of a "better place" is very misleading. Most people aren't content doing nothing. They get bored and look for something to do. But really, having nothing to do is the best place you can be. Pleasure builds and fades, and where pleasure has been pain is sure to follow. It's only when we can be totally content doing nothing that pleasure and pain begin to lose their hold on us. Religion isn't about the "happily ever after" or having someone else fix all your problems for you. Religiousness is about finding yourself, learning to flow with the world, seeing the perfection in creation. Find a master--the true teaching isn't a teaching at all. It isn't an idea or a way to behave. The true teaching is just an invitation into the perfection that's already there. Don't hold on to your faith--you are free to feel however you feel. You are free to believe what you believe, don't let fear keep you from being who you are. Just relax into yourself and let the world take you where you need to go. Have faith in existence, have faith that every experience holds something to teach you, whether you think it's a good experience or bad experience. And, of course, love.

**Janszoon** · 01-31-2011, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

No, and for the very reasons ou point out. Atheism as a concept points to the lack of belief in deity, nothing less, nothing more, although its common extension is a viewpoint of knowledge, but not necessarily and not by definition. Agnosticism is the viewpoint where one believe we cannot know wether or not there is a deity, or to put it more crassly, a position where one avoids making a decision at all, although in the process you end up in a theist position since the possibility of a higher deity is by no means rejected. Thus, the two concepts are incompatible, because the very moment where one, even on a theroetical basis, takes a stand even for the mere possibility of a higher deity, one is rejecting the concept of atheism.

They most certainly are compatible, for the reasons I have already described. Your logic is based on misperceptions that, while common, are nevertheless incorrect. There's a nice little explanation of how they're compatible here that might clarify things a bit.

Neapolitan · 01-31-2011, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

The quote you're having trouble grasphing was based on a quote from a book where a character has a dialogue with Death. Let me fetch it for you :

It's not the trouble of grasping of what is said, I just don't know what the quote means to you. To me it sounds like you want to disprove love by saying it is not a tangible object, that it can not be found in the physical universe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

This is light fantasy fiction, not a philosophical book, but Death points out that without people or other intelligent things (it's fantasy after all) to dream it up, justice and mercy do not exist. You could say the same for love. That's the point really, not to say something which you're supposed to interpret literally about sieves and mortars.

Well even though it is not a philosophical book it does expound some of the writer's philosophy.

Strange to me you would say love, justice and mercy do not exist, because they are things that are attributed to God, God is Just and Merciful, and God is Love. But then you do not believe in God so to you all four are dreamt up God, Love, Mercy and Justice?

Guybrush · 02-01-2011, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

It's not the trouble of grasping of what is said, I just don't know what the quote means to you. To me it sounds like you want to disprove love by saying it is not a tangible object, that it can not be found in the physical universe.

The point of the quote is that people think mercy and justice are forces of nature, but they are not. They only exist because we conceptualize and believe in them. I remembered the quote and thought Pratchett might say the same about love. In a universe without life, there would be no love. Accepting that, if certain scientific predictions about our universe are true - that most matter will be swallowed by black holes etc. and our universe will no longer support life, then there will be no love. Ergo, love is not a force of nature that infuses everything.

Arguing whether gravity is love or not is, to me, just stupid. I could say okay, if gravity is love, then people made up of more matter should love eachother more or love should be affected by f.ex speed and the proximity to mass. But in the end, it's a romantic, spiritual idea and not a scientific one. I understand the idea, love is attraction is gravity, but I don't like to think of love as being defined as a law of gravity. That's gravity's job. Love to me is not a force of nature, but something who's existence is entirely dependent on biological processes in our bodies. However, arguing that will degenerate into a discussion of semantics which is a real bore.

edit :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Strange to me you would say love, justice and mercy do not exist, because they are things that are attributed to God, God is Just and Merciful, and God is Love. But then you do not believe in God so to you all four are dreamt up God, Love, Mercy and Justice?

They clearly exist. They are good strategies and evolutionary sound, for example justice helps us live together in society and love makes us get together to have sex and raise kids. But I don't believe these concepts infuse our universe in any way. CA writes that what could be more just then a ball falling down when you throw it into the air (provided acceleration is not too much I should add)? Then you say again that justice is a law of causality or a law of gravity. That's law of causality/gravity's job. I would say how does this philosophical idea relate to some poor kid who loses both his his parents in Haiti or some african girl who gets raped for months by some guerilla? I think "justice" loses it's practical meaning when you treat it like some universal law or constant, so I don't.

Dotoar · 02-01-2011, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

They most certainly are compatible, for the reasons I have already described. Your logic is based on misperceptions that, while common, are nevertheless incorrect. There's a nice little explanation of how they're compatible here that might clarify things a bit.

I see where the running point lies here, and it may be that I myself am an atheist and thus reject the existence of a deity. I reckon that the concept of a deity itself implies a belief thoroughly which renders every stand that implies even the mere possibility of a god as theist. An agnostic, by the definition of someone who claims not to have the capabilities to know wether or not there is a god and thus within the theist context does not exclude the possibility of a god, is therefore subject of a non-atheist position, i.e. a theist position as a result of that. It's a negative exclusion, not a positive which may cause misinterpretation.

01-31-2011, 04:49 PM	#735 (permalink)
~~RandyMarsh~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 130	Do not believe in or support any religion.