Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-15-2015, 08:04 AM #1
~Proto~
Jan 2k6'r
 
~Proto~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SEPA
~Proto~ plays in the USPL
~Proto~ helped look for balloons
~Proto~ owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
~Proto~ has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
The truth about religion

First off I would like to start off by saying i was born and raised catholic and attended 3 years of a catholic high school. I have received all my sacraments and attended church up to senior year of high school.

Leading to my point that after 17 years its opened my eyes to alot about religion. Has anyone heard the game whisper down the lane? prime example here

The truth is, religion is a bunch of ****ing bull ****.

Your telling me in the catholic/christian faith that someone who can make a whole god damn universe cant show his face to a bunch of puny humans. When has their ever been SOLID proof of a god?

The bible for example, is a book or morals and fairytails. I dont need religion to tell me that I shouldnt steal from others and I shouldnt kill. My parents taught me that before I even knew what religion was. Ironically no one has been resurrected or water hasnt been turned into wine in 2000 years. i cant beleive that

Whos to say whos religion is the one? how can their be multiple GODS. People kill for their relgion, in the name of their god. are you ****ting me, your going to waste a beautiful world over someone or something that doesnt even exist? Is that what some peoples religions about?

The truth is we dont need religion, no one needs to be told what to do by a 2000 year old book and a imaginary fairy tale character. I am a good person because intellectually i know better from right and wrong. I dont need to confess my sins to a preist who is going to go home and jack off to it later. There is so much corruption in the church its insane. Theres a billion questions unsolved, why would an ALL LOVNG, ALL CARING GOD BRING SUCH HATE AND MISERY TO THIS WORLD? Why would someone so selfish take away our loved ones? Where the dinosaurs religious? If you want to be a virgin untill you get married and live a perfect life (which no one does anyway) your going to miss out on a **** ton in life.

There is ZERO proof of religion before man kind, it is man made, it is all in our minds.
__________________
****

Last edited by ~Proto~ : 04-15-2015 at 08:07 AM.
~Proto~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 04-15-2015, 08:15 AM #2
$h@key J0nEZ
Kiss my rebel ***
 
$h@key J0nEZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixieland
I believe in God.
__________________
$h@key J0nEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2015, 08:20 AM #3
Pump Scout
Old gun,new gun,whatever
 
Pump Scout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Central Wisconsin
Annual Supporting Member
Pump Scout is a Mega Moderator
Pump Scout is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Pump Scout is BST Legit
Pump Scout is playing at Living Legends VIII
Pump Scout is one of the top 100 posters on PbNation
This is a topic worth talking about, but also one worth treading very lightly on. People of faith will tend to be as aggressive in defending their faith and belief as much as those who do not travel that path.

One particular topic mentioned is proof of God. The idea of religious faith is belief without proof. That's kind of the cornerstone of faith. The flip side is that there's plenty of things people don't believe in where there is legitimate proof. Who's to say, if there were "proof of God's existence", that some would still not believe?

The Bible is its own whole topic. A very interesting one, and one I'd think is probably very misunderstood, maybe even by both sides of the faith argument.

By the way, let's call this "warning delivered". I'm going to watch this as closely as I can. Discussion and disagreement is fine, taking personal shots at folks, not OK. Stay within the rules, and we're cool to have what could be a very interesting conversation on this.
__________________
WISCONSIN NAVARONE
Secret Squirret stuff going on
Inception Designs . . . Empire Paintball

Flying to events? Check out BHTP to protect your travel and your bags!
Pump Scout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2015, 12:47 PM #4
snoopay700
 
 
snoopay700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
To start off, I'll label myself. I'm an agnostic atheist. I will touch on this more in a second.

The absence of proof for a god does not disprove the existence of a god. A theist could turn right back around and say that there's no proof that there's no god, and therefore your argument that it is all definitively in our minds has no basis, and they would be right.

Now then, if you were to look at morals from an anthropological/evolutionary standpoint, it could be argued that morals exist because it is in the best interest of the tribe not to alienate others by acting out against them in any way and not to dwindle your numbers. Personally this is the conclusion that I have come to, so I would agree that there's no evidence that religion is necessary for a person to have morals.

With that said, I dislike evangelical atheists (or any evangelical really) who say that the world would be better off without religion. Yes religion can cause problems, but anything can cause problems in the right hands. I have seen numerous people who have changed their lives for the better because religion gave them some sense of purpose or community and without it they would not be contributing to society anywhere near as much. Religion can be a GOOD thing. There are some people who legitimately need religion in their lives, and I don't see a problem with that, everyone should be able to live as they want.

Now then, back to the agnostic atheist comment I made earlier. It appears that Thomas Huxley coined this term because at the time atheism was seen as being very radical. If you look at it logically though, if you answer the question "Are you agnostic?" and you answer yes, all you are saying is that you don't believe whether or not there is a god can be proven definitively. It says nothing about whether or not you think there is a god; it is answering an entirely different question.

If you were to ask most people, both atheists and theists, whether they believe that a god can be proven definitively to a third party, the majority of them will likely say no. Outside of that, based on the evidence they have seen, whether or not they think there is a god will classify them as a theist or an atheist. With this in mind, I would venture to guess that the majority of people are agnostic; I could be entirely wrong since I've not actually looked into it, but given my interactions with people throughout my life that is the impression I get.

Given this conclusion then, why does it matter whether or not there is definitive proof? Most people are in agreement on whether it can be proven, and yet they still have the same stances, and that's not going to change.
__________________
Best analysis of hoppers today:
http://www.automags.org/forums/showp...33&postcount=5

Who is DLX Audrey? Find out!:
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=2766709

Il n'y a point de sots si incommodes que ceux qui ont de l'esprit.
snoopay700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2015, 12:55 PM #5
Pump Scout
Old gun,new gun,whatever
 
Pump Scout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Central Wisconsin
Annual Supporting Member
Pump Scout is a Mega Moderator
Pump Scout is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Pump Scout is BST Legit
Pump Scout is playing at Living Legends VIII
Pump Scout is one of the top 100 posters on PbNation
Proof is a funny thing. I had an attorney just a couple days ago bring up a concept to me about "disproving a negative". The idea was, it's very hard to prove something doesn't exist. The reverse could also be true of something that's never been seen. Tough to prove the existence of something that's never been undeniably seen. Little food for thought.
__________________
WISCONSIN NAVARONE
Secret Squirret stuff going on
Inception Designs . . . Empire Paintball

Flying to events? Check out BHTP to protect your travel and your bags!
Pump Scout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2015, 01:59 PM #6
Savage Mikey
 
 
Savage Mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vancouver, WA
Proto,
If your intent is to get people to realize your points...this method doesn't work very well. It's not that I disagree, I am an Atheist also, but its the delivery. The topic of religion and the actions that some religious people take can be very frustrating to both sides. Unfortunately getting people to understand things like these takes time. In some parts of the world, traditional religions are in decline but in others parts they are on the rise (mainly Muslim). If your in America, the good news is the message is getting out there via many sources. In another 50 to 100 years it will probably be much different in religious demographics.
Savage Mikey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2015, 09:51 PM #7
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
Weighing in on the agnostic/atheist thing..

If you believe in at least one god, you are a theist. If you do not hold the positive belief that a god exists, what are you called? A-theist. Just the same that something that is not symmetrical, is termed, asymmetrical.

In regards to not being able to prove a negative, I find the term agnostic (When it means the acceptance of not being able to prove something either way) useless. Everyone must then not claim that they don't believe in unicorns, ferries, gnomes, dragons, vampires, etc. They must be agnostic-avampirists, if you will. Provided, people who usually aren't swayed by the type of 'arguments' or methods of persuasion used by most Christians (Scholars/philosopher types excluded) disbelieve in the validity of the lore on the above mythical entities for the same underlying reasons (Mysticism, blind faith, human incompetence in their perceptions/understandings, what have you). Adding the agnostic qualifier to atheist doesn't add much unless you are actually on the fence in the debate.

For myself, I see no justified reason to think a god could exists, let alone does or must exist. So, I do not hold the positive belief in a god entity, and thus, do not fit the criteria to be called a theist.

I suppose people could call me a "not a theist" if that is more palatable than me being called an atheist..
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 04-15-2015 at 09:54 PM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2015, 10:41 PM #8
underdog2987
superhero for hire
 
underdog2987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minnesota
Lol. OP's mad he didnt get the pony he prayed for.
__________________
Ride¯¯\----/¯¯ Bmx
"You cannot please both God and the world at the same time. They are utterly opposed to each other in their thoughts, their desires, and their actions. -- St. John Vianney"
underdog2987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2015, 12:34 PM #9
snoopay700
 
 
snoopay700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by spracks21 View Post
Weighing in on the agnostic/atheist thing..

If you believe in at least one god, you are a theist. If you do not hold the positive belief that a god exists, what are you called? A-theist. Just the same that something that is not symmetrical, is termed, asymmetrical...Adding the agnostic qualifier to atheist doesn't add much unless you are actually on the fence in the debate.
I'd completely agree with that, but when it comes to religion, there are those that say both atheists and theists have it wrong and label themselves as an agnostic, which is effectively saying nothing. It also helps to put things into perspective and eliminate that label from being used since almost everyone falls into this category. I also feel like i had a more pertinent point that got lost somewhere along the line...

It wasn't until I started being told by people that my views were "more agnostic than atheist" or telling me I was foolish for being an atheist that i felt it pays to use that adjective.
__________________
Best analysis of hoppers today:
http://www.automags.org/forums/showp...33&postcount=5

Who is DLX Audrey? Find out!:
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=2766709

Il n'y a point de sots si incommodes que ceux qui ont de l'esprit.
snoopay700 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2015, 05:09 PM #10
Subterfuge
Arctic Wolf
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alaska
 has been a member for 10 years
Someone who has faith in a God that created the entire universe sees God as right in front of him. Some (very few) Christians believe more than that and believe God is not only the creator of the reality in front of them, but is also living inside of them. The spiritual connection could simply come with awareness. Receiving everything in not just symbols, numbers, and words, but in feeling and emotion to receive the power of the universe to the fullest extent a human body can detect. A speck of a speck of a speck floating in colossal billions of light years universe above and below. Stars bigger than our solar system annihilating each other in supernovas, planets destroyed in a blink of an eye. It is quite insane to believe the Holy Spirit of this God lives inside of someone. If it were indeed true, there would be super human powers. But I suppose people don't respect reality for what it is. It is far more powerful than any one human brain can contain or dream up. Our debates are vibrations that move out into infinite nothingness. Mere vapors in the winds of eternity.

Why does anyone really need to defend the existence of God? That is for the individual to decide for himself. Why does anyone's beliefs matter to you at all? Are you afraid of believing in things alone? Or do you believe because this guy said something and now you feel more comfortable grasping onto tiny little straws that seem to make sense of this horrifying or awesome reality we live in.

So do you know when someone says God, what that being is? A tooth fairy that sprinkles little pixie dust you read in a book? Or the power that is in everything screaming at you that this is beyond what you can comprehend.

So I sometimes entertain both thoughts. That we are just randomness created by chaotic super colossal explosions. It is comfort, knowing that when I die, there will be no comprehension of the eternity that passes, just like I can't remember when I was born. I can never seem to fully grasp what is going on.

Last edited by Subterfuge : 04-17-2015 at 05:31 PM.
Subterfuge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2015, 05:25 PM #11
Umami
AFK IRL
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Baltimore
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pump Scout View Post
Proof is a funny thing. I had an attorney just a couple days ago bring up a concept to me about "disproving a negative". The idea was, it's very hard to prove something doesn't exist. The reverse could also be true of something that's never been seen. Tough to prove the existence of something that's never been undeniably seen. Little food for thought.
I also think it's important to keep in mind that just because something can't be rigorously quantified by our current paradigms of empiricism, doesn't mean it's not real. Our emotions, for example, cannot be well-quantified by current scientific methods. But they are still as real as the air we breathe or the ground we stand on.

Obligatory:


A person's perception of the numinous should not be wholly discredited. Approached with skepticism, perhaps, but to call it nothing is to call something that is real, nothing. If anything that's explicitly anti-scientific.

"Everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that there's more to life than just matter."

-Christopher Hitchens
__________________
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.


Last edited by Umami : 04-17-2015 at 05:35 PM.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2015, 06:50 PM #12
vijil
Giant Paintball Robot
 
vijil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Zealand
Proto, the nature of your post suggests that something bad has happened to you? If so, hope it's not too bad and you'll be ok

"The idea of religious faith is belief without proof. That's kind of the cornerstone of faith."

It's really not. Faith can exist with or without proof, and the absence thereof is neither here nor there. Faith in a Christian sense is defined closer to the term "trust". A good definition is "believing something enough to act on it". So we all have faith in our cars, our houses, our spouses, etc.

Some folks have tried to hijack the term "belief" in a similar way.

"If you do not hold the positive belief that a god exists, what are you called? A-theist"

I think maybe folks like to use this definition of "atheist" as it gets them out of the burden of proof when making truth claims. Several problems with it. One, it's not the historically used definition. Two, it's not the widely used modern definition. Three, it's an impractical definition. A baby or a monkey counts as an atheist under such a term - there is no clear distinction between someone who simply happens to not believe and someone who has considered things and decided not to believe. For that reason the definition we theists use for the term "atheist" refers to the latter, ie. someone who has actively decided not to be a theist. For the former we would simply call them neutral/undecided.

Any party making a claim, whether "there is a God", "there is no God", "religion is made up BS" or "morality can't exist without God" - carries a burden of proof. We should all stop trying to let ourselves off the hook and realise that everyone needs to be able to justify their ideas when debating.

"You can't prove a negative"

I'm not sure where this comes from either :p Certain types of negatives are difficult to prove when we don't have complete information, however it's pretty easy to prove that there is no coffee in my mug right now.
__________________
A better way to do speedball

http://vijil.daportfolio.com/
Christ Krew #16

Last edited by vijil : 04-17-2015 at 08:57 PM.
vijil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2015, 10:30 PM #13
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
Quote:
Originally Posted by vijil View Post
Proto, the nature of your post suggests that something bad has happened to you? If so, hope it's not too bad and you'll be ok

"The idea of religious faith is belief without proof. That's kind of the cornerstone of faith."

It's really not. Faith can exist with or without proof, and the absence thereof is neither here nor there. Faith in a Christian sense is defined closer to the term "trust". A good definition is "believing something enough to act on it". So we all have faith in our cars, our houses, our spouses, etc.

Some folks have tried to hijack the term "belief" in a similar way.

"If you do not hold the positive belief that a god exists, what are you called? A-theist"

I think maybe folks like to use this definition of "atheist" as it gets them out of the burden of proof when making truth claims. Several problems with it. One, it's not the historically used definition. Two, it's not the widely used modern definition. Three, it's an impractical definition. A baby or a monkey counts as an atheist under such a term - there is no clear distinction between someone who simply happens to not believe and someone who has considered things and decided not to believe. For that reason the definition we theists use for the term "atheist" refers to the latter, ie. someone who has actively decided not to be a theist. For the former we would simply call them neutral/undecided.

Any party making a claim, whether "there is a God", "there is no God", "religion is made up BS" or "morality can't exist without God" - carries a burden of proof. We should all stop trying to let ourselves off the hook and realise that everyone needs to be able to justify their ideas when debating.

"You can't prove a negative"

I'm not sure where this comes from either :p Certain types of negatives are difficult to prove when we don't have complete information, however it's pretty easy to prove that there is no coffee in my mug right now.
Curious, what is your evidence that my definition of atheist is not historically used? I agree that there have been atheists who have had varying levels of skepticism, and there certainly are some today who make the positive claim of God being logically impossible, but they are merely varying types of atheists. Words derive their meaning from us. I am offering what I believe to be the best meaning, and explaining why. And clearly, as you seem to think there are many of "us" trying to weasel out of the burden of proof, there are other who use a similar definition. That said, I feel compelled to elaborate.

Some atheists may have thought a lot about philosophy to reach their worldview, while others may dismiss the idea of a god absent of much consideration at all. But all points on the spectrum (God is impossible---------don't know/care---------*God exists*-------God must exist) cannot be called theists, as they lack the one requirement. And to just use the term agnostic by itself seems to suggest that the person is undecided, on the fence, or thinks the answer unknowable. But let's think. To be a theist, you have to hold the positive belief of the existence of at least one god, agree? And if you are not sure if a god exists, you can't be said to hold that belief to be true, correct? Therefore, this sort of person cannot be called an agnostic theist, right? So they must be an agnostic-...."not a theist"? What term do you like?

I am aware that there are many modern atheists who treat the term/worldview nearly as a religious view itself. However, I assert that most do not. I argue that most atheists, whether they are vocal about it or not, simply are not persuaded by the arguments/tactics typically used by theists. Many/most may have been born into Christianity, but once they are able to break past the biases from this, and objectively examine the idea of theism, they realize it makes no sense to them. So, they don't believe in a god anymore, and thus, can no longer be called a theist.

My definition of atheism is not intended to get out of the burden of proof. It just does that, because it is not a positive belief. You can try to twist it to mean, "I believe there is no god" or "I believe that God doesn't exist." And in conversation, I would agree with those statements. However, the fact is that I could not disbelieve in any god if these gods were not first asserted in the first place, by myself or by others.

You're just twisting language here, to try to get out of the positive burden of proof that you inarguabley have, so you can say essentially, "Neither side can prove it, so it's a toss up! (Or equally reasonable to believe)" This is very flawed reasoning.

If I argued that there was an invisible elephant standing behind you right now, what would you say to me? Speaking honestly, would you really concede to me that there might be? And if so, is the kind of certainty/doubt involved here really meaningful in any way? Would you really not agree that the burden of proof was on me here?

A key difference with your coffee idea, which makes it useless in the god debate, is that we are starting with the agreement of the existence of coffee, and "arguing" about whether or not it is present in a specific place. It is also a verifiable claim, where as the god claim is not.


Lastly, and light heartedly
Monkeys and babies are atheists, if we can know for certain they don't hold the belief in a god. It seems rather hard to believe in a god if the concept is entirely unknown to you. Again though, I'm not overly attached to the label, though I do find it the most correct term to use. As I said, you are more than welcome to call me a "notta-theist" if you prefer. Personally, I see it most accurate as an umbrella term, just as theist is. If you want to get more specific, and find positive beliefs/attitudes of a person, you need other qualifiers. Just as a Christian theist, I argue, is to a physicalist atheist.

Disclaimer: Tones can often be hard to get through text. Just so we are clear, I don't mean to offend by anything I say, though I can see how some things above to some people may seem offensive. But It is my position, and I am merely trying to explain it
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 04-17-2015 at 10:55 PM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2015, 11:02 PM #14
vijil
Giant Paintball Robot
 
vijil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Zealand
I think perhaps you think I am saying something that I am not.

You are an atheist because you have thought about it and decided that you are not a theist.

That's it.

In your case (and in the case of most atheists) you go further and say you believe there is not a God.

There is no need to refer to levels of scepticism etc.. You are distinct from a baby or a monkey in the sense that you have arrived at a conscious position on the subject, such that you can call yourself an atheist.

" "I believe there is no god" or "I believe that God doesn't exist." And in conversation, I would agree with those statements"

- But surely you'll concede that most folks who call themselves atheists would agree with you here, and hold a positive view as you do that god does not exist. If that's your view, you hold a burden of proof since you are making an assertion about a truth claim. Stating that you don't have a burden of proof because you call yourself something that doesn't adequately define your view doesn't work. We're not the ones trying to weasel out of the burden here - in fact we embrace it. Perhaps we could call you (and most modern atheists) an "anti-theist". "Anti-theist" is closer to the historical meaning of the word "atheist", hence our usage of both interchangeably.

Hence the distinction between atheist and non-theist that we use. A non-theist holds no burden. An atheist (in particular one who believes there is no God) holds a burden.

Likewise, I'm a theist because I have thought about it and decided there probably is a "god" (or superbeing fitting something like the definition).

I am not attempting to get out of any kind of burden of proof. In fact, I specifically stated that I do have a burden of proof. I disagree strongly with the view that " "Neither side can prove it, so it's a toss up! (Or equally reasonable to believe)""

I believe that I absolutely have a burden of proof when making positive claims about the existence of a God, and I absolutely do not believe that your position is as reasonable as mine

In any case it's all semantics and doesn't overly affect thing besides being a pet peeve of mine. We theists will continue to use the term "atheist" to refer to those who have either consciously decided not to be theists, or like most who are atheist enough to actually call themselves one, have a positive belief that there is no God. It works better.
__________________
A better way to do speedball

http://vijil.daportfolio.com/
Christ Krew #16

Last edited by vijil : 04-17-2015 at 11:09 PM.
vijil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2015, 11:28 PM #15
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
Please respond to my elephant example. It was not rhetorical.

Also, when you say your definition of atheist "works better," you seem to mean that it is easier to argue against, due to your thinking that all atheists must be asserting something positive, and thus, have burden of proof.

This is not the case, as I spelled out in my post. I know it is long, but I encourage you to read it, and not just skim over it.

If I simply do not hold the positive belief in a god existing (God being a concept you are bringing forward, hence it being a positive idea), then the statement "I believe there is no god" is just a twist of language, and a poor way of stating the position of the atheist, in order to lessen their leverage in the debate (Not having to prove something, where as we agree you must).

Again, as I've said, the important thing to note is that I could not "believe there is no god" if you did not first conjure the idea of a god that exists in the first place. So despite colloquial speak, the correct phrasing is actually, "I do not hold the belief in a god, which is an idea you put forth."

If you disagree, I again ask you, prove that my invisible elephant doesn't exist.

Edit: I don't like anti-theist here, that word seems to be more in regards to political attitude. Likes/dislikes, not about what is reasonable to believe true, or logically valid. And non-theist is fine with me too I guess, although I don't see it any more correct than atheist, as an umbrella term, for all of the reasons I have already provided. But I suppose, tomato-tomato (I suppose this works better when the two words are audible). Call me what you like.
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 04-18-2015 at 12:45 AM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2015, 11:54 PM #16
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
I also think it's important to keep in mind that just because something can't be rigorously quantified by our current paradigms of empiricism, doesn't mean it's not real. Our emotions, for example, cannot be well-quantified by current scientific methods. But they are still as real as the air we breathe or the ground we stand on.

Obligatory:


A person's perception of the numinous should not be wholly discredited. Approached with skepticism, perhaps, but to call it nothing is to call something that is real, nothing. If anything that's explicitly anti-scientific.

"Everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that there's more to life than just matter."

-Christopher Hitchens
Not saying I agree with this, but there are many philosophers who would actually question the bold. It may largely depend on how you define the term real. Just one example of one of these schools of thought, behaviorists would say emotions, as mental states, are merely displayed behaviors. Happiness IS smiling, for example. So then, would happiness actually exist as more than a categorical concept of behavior? If existing as a concept is enough to be said to exist, then I guess God, Santa, and vampires also exist.

Behaviorists tend to view the "official doctrine" (That the mind and body are merely two different things/substances, but both are of the same category of being "things" which exist) as a categorical mistake, and that it only serves as a useful metaphor for "visualizing the concepts." A paraphrased famous example below:

A man wants to visit a university. He takes a tour of Harvard, and is shown the quad, the union, the dorms, the athletics facilities, etc. He is shown some students, given statistics about Harvard, and given his own Harvard coffee mug from the gift shop. But at the end of the tour, he still asks, "But where is the University?" The point here is that the man in the has committed a category mistake similar to the one a behaviorist might say we make when we think of our mental states as "extra things." A similar example can be found with "School Spirit" as well, if you would like to think about what that is exactly.

I am not a behaviorist btw, and have written multiple papers against the likes of Ryle, Watson, and Skinner to name a few
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 04-18-2015 at 12:27 AM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2015, 12:42 AM #17
vijil
Giant Paintball Robot
 
vijil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Zealand
Quote:
If I argued that there was an invisible elephant standing behind you right now, what would you say to me? Speaking honestly, would you really concede to me that there might be? And if so, is the kind of certainty/doubt involved here really meaningful in any way? Would you really not agree that the burden of proof was on me here?
If I came back and said "no there's not" - I have shouldered a burden of proof, and we both have it. If I remain silent or say "oh?" then I haven't. But that's not the case here. If we're including non-theists with atheists then yeah, sure, most atheists have no burden of proof. But I'm not.

The point I'm making is that you do not simply lack belief, so you can't lump yourself in with non-theists and say you have nothing to prove. You hold a positive belief that god does not exist, which you've admitted. You may not be utterly 100% convinced or believe it's possible to prove it, but you are of that opinion enough to act on it (see the post on faith). We use the term "atheist" to refer to you, and the term "non-theist" to refer to a baby monkey. The distinction isn't just for debates - it's actually useful, because it's using language to point out a category difference. The *technical* definition of the term "atheist" doesn't define its usage.

We could always agree to your redefinition and use the term "anti-theist" to mean what used to be called atheist, "non-theist" for what you call atheist, and "theist" as usual, sure. It wouldn't make a difference so long as people were honest about where they sat. And I'm asserting, and you've admitted, that you fit into the anti-theist category. Or, the traditional atheist category.

You therefore have a burden of proof just like me, and denying that is dishonest.
__________________
A better way to do speedball

http://vijil.daportfolio.com/
Christ Krew #16

Last edited by vijil : 04-18-2015 at 12:48 AM.
vijil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2015, 01:19 AM #18
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
Where did I admit to a positive belief? I have argued that you are twisting language to make it seem like I am making a positive belief. Also, I don't know where in my words you got your described definition of anti-theist that you attribute to me. Reread my posts if you need to..

Do you believe you live in a world without an invisible elephant? I think this, again, is just bad language. I would say you lack this belief, because there is no reasonable cause to hold it, so your worldview is without invisible elephants. This is where I am at.

Answer me, could I "disbelieve" (bad language again, but I'll go with it here if you insist) in God without you first having conjured the concept to begin with?

For clarity: My position is that I do not hold the belief in the existence of God. I am as confident in this world-view as I am with the non-existence of fairies vampires. So, I am of the position that there is 0 valid reason to believe God exists. I don't find any argument for God compelling. I'm not sure how else to say this.

I am not an anti-theist anymore than you are a hubjub (A term I just now gave the meaning of, "a very tan albino").

Your use of the prefixes "a" and "anti" seem terribly flawed. I would very much also like to hear your thoughts on what you think words like, "anti-establishment" and "asymmetrical" mean in your world. To me, those words seem meaningless without the concepts of symmetrical and establishment.

I am confident with everything I have posted, and it is late, so I'm going to call it a night. I will close with the reiteration of the point that you are the one trying to conjure something into existence. My rejection of that idea could not occur without you first asserting that positive entity. Notice you can't even state my position (Even with bad language) without using negative words like "not, no, without, reject, disbelief, etc.).

God is your idea you wish to bring to the table, so it is on you to support your claim.
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 04-18-2015 at 01:23 AM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2015, 02:01 AM #19
vijil
Giant Paintball Robot
 
vijil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Zealand
And I think you're using semantics to weasel out of having to properly respond to theistic ideas, because that makes debates easier - to use your own terms.

You did state that you would say that there is no god in your first response I think. So you're now denying that you believe "there is no God"?

The burden of proof is on the one the one making a claim contrary to the ideas (or lack thereof) of the listener/s. If I approach an atheist or non-theist in the street and say "there is a God" - it's on me. If you wander into a church and say "there is no God" or even "you're all wrong" it's on you. In the specific case of this thread where the OP is making a claim, it's on him. The fact that one idea has to exist in order for the opposing position to be taken doesn't affect us here.

Of course you'll say "but I'm not making a positive claim" - and I'll say you are, no matter how carefully you phrase the clarification section. You are being dishonest with yourself.

My use of those prefixes is for example mostly, but in the case of the word "atheism" it's entirely correct. You even said why: it's because language is defined by its users, not strict technical definitions. Atheism is normally defined in our culture as active disbelief, not "lack of belief" - though some atheists seem intent to change that for stated reasons, and then I suppose we'll need a new term for active disbelief. Do I really need to point out examples in English where the technical Latin based definition doesn't match common use? In this case the common use version also happens to be the most useful because it helps define clearly distinct categories. We don't find it useful to lump you in with a tomato, philosophically. It would be like denying the difference between a jet and a prop, even if both are planes.

Anyways, night time here too. Laters. Good chat. I think I've stated my case as well as I'm able, so I'll let you have the last word.
__________________
A better way to do speedball

http://vijil.daportfolio.com/
Christ Krew #16

Last edited by vijil : 04-18-2015 at 02:55 AM.
vijil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2015, 08:51 AM #20
Pyrate Jim
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the group W bench
I consider the word "god" to be a convenient monosyllable for what I believe in.
I reject the Zoroastrian dichotomy and the hubris of anthropomorphizing, that's like trying to put a limit on god.
Faith is inherently subjective and exclusive to Homo Sapiens, I'd feel foolish trying to insist that all of creation is subject to a single interpretation of my own meager experience.
__________________
CT co-ordinator, Paintball Marshals
A stockgun club since 1992, now in 16 States & Canada
http://www.pbmarshals.com/
PTI #2691 ~ C1, C2, C5, C5a, C6
http://www.paintball-pti.com/
Pyrate Jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2015, 10:41 AM #21
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
Please use direct quotes when you state what I say I believe. I have tried to be very clear here, but you seem to be intent on seeing things as you wish they would be.

I also disagree that atheism is most commonly used how you mean it. Most atheists I have met always say they don't believe God exists. Theists like you just like to twist it to sound more like a positive claim, and for the most part, it's close enough so atheists don't mind it. But the most correct definition, what you would say is technically correct, is the lack of a belief in any god. There are atheists who ethically oppose religion, and there are some who argue for the logical impossibility of God. These people are often the most vocal, like I've said already. That doesn't make them the majority.

The paper linked below is the most comprehensive survey of what positions people in the field of philosophy take. One of the questions is, "God: theism or atheism." If theism is a belief in God, what is Atheism here? Do you think the researchers are actually only counting people who believe in god, and people who actively oppose the idea of God? What about, as you call them, non theists? These are well renowned researchers in academia, and it seems obvious to me that they use atheism as an umbrella term for those who are not theists. (There are a lot of cool correlations in the paper too, if you want to check them out!)
http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP.pdf

When talking about the existence of something, the person who conjured the entity in the first place is making a positive claim. To doubt/disbelieve in this claim, is to hold a negative belief. For the last time, I could not hold my stance if you did not first assert God exists. Even with twists of language, you cannot state my position on the existence of your god entity without using "not, don't doesn't dis-, etc.

In court, does the defense attorney need to prove their client didn't do the crime? Or is the burden on the prosecutor, who is making the positive claim that the defendant did do the crime? This real world analogy is admittedly a little different, as it is not about the existence of something, but it is still a fine illustration of the logically flawed thinking you are trying to purport.

I don't believe in God, so I live as if there is no god in the world. This makes sense, doesn't it? It would be silly to live as if there were a god, when I don't believe that there is one. So the statement, "I believe there is no god" is just a poor way of stating the former, as I've told you a ****load of times now.

If I took the time to describe my worldview to an alien, I would not mention god at all, since it is a belief I lack, so it plays no part. However, most of the human world does have the god belief, so it is helpful to mention this particular belief that I don't have. It is distinctive.

The law of logic for burden of proof is that you are never called upon to prove a negative. I am not burdened to prove there is no god. I am not burdened to prove that Obama is not the spawn if Satan. If asked, I would say no, I don't believe Obama is the spawn of Satan. And if someone in turn asked me if I "Believe Obama is not the spawn of Satan" I would probably answer yes because I would assume they mean that I don't hold that positive claim to be true in my worldview, but simply used poor language.

I am happy with how I put things in these posts. We likely will not agree here, and that's fine with me. I trust reasonable people who read this will comprehend my words.
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 04-18-2015 at 11:14 AM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump