Definition of Atheism
Quote: WizardEarlier this week I put an atheist on this board, who shall remain nameless, to the test. He is the kind of atheist who believes there is no god in the same way a theist believes there is one. The other kind of atheist, like me, does not believe either way, because of a perceived lack of evidence either way.
If you don't believe either way, then wouldn't you be agnostic?
Anyway, I don't believe in God (or any type of deity) because there is no evidence to support His (or their) existence. I am open to such evidence, should any ever be found. I also don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, the chupacabra, the tooth fairy, etc etc for the same reason.
Quote: WizardThe other kind of atheist, like me, does not believe either way, because of a perceived lack of evidence either way.
You are not an atheist then, rather an agnostic.
Quote:Does this contract look fair? I welcome all comments.
Item #3 does not make very much sense to me. If you buy something, you should be able to do what you please with it. As it is, it looks more like a soul loan contract with $10 as collateral, than a purchase and sale agreement.
Quote: weaselmanYou are not an atheist then, rather an agnostic.
Without weighing in on the rest of the topic, this is an important distinction. A lack of belief in one or more deities is different than a belief in zero deities. Atheism is technically the latter, though the word is often used to describe either. Agnosticism holds that the answer to whether a deity exists is unknowable (either way). It boils down to an epistemological position - both theism and atheism are predicated on the question of deism being answerable (one affirmatively, one negatively), while agnosticism holds that "not only do I not know whether a deity exists but there's no way to find out".
Quote: MathExtremistWithout weighing in on the rest of the topic, this is an important distinction. A lack of belief in one or more deities is different than a belief in zero deities. Atheism is technically the latter, though the word is often used to describe either. Agnosticism holds that the answer to whether a deity exists is unknowable (either way). It boils down to an epistemological position - both theism and atheism are predicated on the question of deism being answerable (one affirmatively, one negatively), while agnosticism holds that "not only do I not know whether a deity exists but there's no way to find out".
a- as a prefix: lacking something, without something, as in "amoral" or "anaemic".
So "atheism" means without "theism", i.e., without belief in a deity or deities. The semantic question is, therefore, whether a lack of belief in a deity equates to belief that there is no deity. This is where the agnostic comes in (I believe, heh, heh). The atheist who rejects religious belief does not necessarily advocate the nonexistence of a deity, only that he rejects the idea of such a thing existing without proof. Logically, for such a person, there would be no reason to "believe" that there is no God, either---no evidence of THAT.
The distinction is that the agnostic says that there is no evidence one way or another; the atheist says that lacking such evidence, the burden of proof is on those who say the Man in the Sky exists, and until such proof is forthcoming, the default setting should be disbelief, AS IT SHOULD BE for ANY fantastical claim.
----------------------
In Greek, the prefix of a at the beginning of a word means "not." So atheism should mean without theism. However, I would have to grant that popular usage has caused some confusion. Let's look at the dictionary:
a·the·ist –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. -- Websters.com.' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist]Websters.com.
Denies is a stronger word that disbelieves. I would say the "denies" atheist specifically believes there isn't a god. The "disbelieves" believes atheist (like me) could mean the person either denies or is on the fence.
Now let's look at the definition of agnostic.
ag·nos·tic –noun
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
That could describe me too. However, in popular usage, I've known people who believed in god, but didn't subscribe to any particular religion, call themselves agnostics.
I prefer atheist for myself. However, if I'm incorrect about these definitions am open to correction.
Quote: WizardI prefer atheist for myself. However, if I'm incorrect about these definitions am open to correction.
For myself, I prefer "Godless commie". And "Oregonian".
Quote: mkl654321The distinction is that the agnostic says that there is no evidence one way or another; the atheist says that lacking such evidence, the burden of proof is on those who say the Man in the Sky exists, and until such proof is forthcoming, the default setting should be disbelief, AS IT SHOULD BE for ANY fantastical claim.
This puts my position perfectly. I view belief in a supreme being like belief in Bigfoot or Santa Claus. While I don't rule out any of them 100%, I am highly skeptical until I seem some strong evidence, and I don't think it is worthy of much of my time discussing it until such evidence is presented.
Those of you that have been paying attention, know that I am a Reverend. A very non-traditional Reverend.
The Church of Spiritual Humanism, thru which I was ordained, has beliefs similar to Nareed's position:
When I talk to my wedding clients, I say that the religion believes spirituality comes from within, and not from a higher power.Quote: NareedI don't believe in God (or any type of deity) because there is no evidence to support His (or their) existence. I am open to such evidence, should any ever be found.
However, it does hold that "Humanism" is different than "Atheism" or "Agnostic" - but don't ask me what or how.
By coincidence, I was talking about this very topic with my wife today. Basically I boiled it down to: God is an invention of man, not the other way around.
Quote: MoscaI think any scientific atheist would look at evidence for a god,
For most atheists, the denial of a god IS their religion. They are far more passionate about it than most religious people are about their religions, which makes no sense. Why be passionate about something you claim doesn't exist? I don't believe in Bigfoot or extraterrestrials, but I don't get all worked up about it when faced with people who do. I could care less.
I think it was Voltaire who claimed, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." I also think it has long been debated whether the introductory clause means Voltaire was a believer or the remainder of the sentence means he was a doubter using irony/sarcasm.Quote: DJTeddyBear... Basically I boiled it down to: God is an invention of man, not the other way around.
I suspect that the problem with establishing evidence or "proof" of this matter is that there are many cases of believers presenting "evidence" which is essentially their interpretation of events/conditions/etc. based upon their belief. If actual, genuine, non-faith-based evidence were to be discovered, it would likely be widely discredited among atheists and agnostics as a distortion of the truth just being perpetrated by the believers -- non-believers have seen such things so often, they would be unlikely to accept something new as being any more real than what they had seen before.Quote: MoscaI think any scientific atheist would look at evidence for a god, if it were convincing. But I don't think that makes them agnostics, except in the way the sets overlap. It might be better to say that agnostics think that evidence might someday come up, and atheists are pretty convinced it won't.
Of course, if some day a bush bursts into gigantic flames and begins speaking in a language understood by everyone on the planet, telling us we are sinners and that the judgment day has arrived, we'd likely all crap in our pants and suddenly become believers. Until that day, I highly doubt there will be agreement on evidence.
Quote: EvenBobFor most atheists, the denial of a god IS their religion. They are far more passionate about it than most religious people are about their religions, which makes no sense. Why be passionate about something you claim doesn't exist? I don't believe in Bigfoot or extraterrestrials, but I don't get all worked up about it when faced with people who do. I could care less.
Like all such blanket statements, this one is wrong; I've seen all sides of the spectrum, from indifferent atheists to passionate ones. The ones who are passionate are usually so because they despise religion for all the war, misery and death it has caused. Belief in Bigfoot or extraterrestrials hasn't had that effect.
And those people aren't "passionate about something that doesn't exist", which, as you say, makes no sense--as in, your description of what makes them passionate makes no sense. What they are passionate about is the harm that OTHER PEOPLE's beliefs about something that doesn't exist can cause.
Quote: DocIf actual, genuine, non-faith-based evidence were to be discovered, it would likely be widely discredited among atheists and agnostics as a distortion of the truth just being perpetrated by the believers -- non-believers have seen such things so often, they would be unlikely to accept something new as being any more real than what they had seen before.
I think if such genuine, non-faith-based evidence did in fact present itself, atheists and agnostics would carefully vet it, then if it survived such vetting, they would acknowledge that evidence, and modify their views accordingly. Atheists and agnostics refuse to value the unreal; it follows that they value and acknowledge the real, and would embrace it for the EXACT same reasons that they repudiate the unreal.
Quote: EvenBobFor most atheists, the denial of a god IS their religion. They are far more passionate about it than most religious people are about their religions, which makes no sense. Why be passionate about something you claim doesn't exist? I don't believe in Bigfoot or extraterrestrials, but I don't get all worked up about it when faced with people who do. I could care less.
I think I'll take issue with your blanket use of "most"; I don't think you know enough atheists to use the word that way. I don't think you know .0001% of the world's atheists, let alone 50%. I'll grant you that there are some atheists who believe that the only proper action is to preach against religion with the same fervor that religion is preached, but they are far, far outnumbered by religious people who try to convert people to religion. Just compare the atheist literature in any Barnes & Noble to the religious literature; there are a few Dawkins titles, in the science section, vs an entire set of shelves devoted to religious thought (and most of that Christian).
I think I'll also disagree with your claim that "They are far more passionate about it than most religious people are about their religions"; there are no atheist megachurches, no atheist televangelists. There are no atheist missions to convert the heathens. There are no atheist conventions like there are for, say Promise Keepers.
There are many points available for your argument, but IMO you haven't made any of them with what you wrote.
Quote: mkl654321What they are passionate about is the harm that OTHER PEOPLE's beliefs about something that doesn't exist can cause.
What a pantload of horse manure. They're passionate about it because they aren't really sure if they're right, so they blast away at religious people trying to convince them their beliefs are stupid. They hope if they can convince others, they themselves will really believe it too. I get a hoot out of atheists, they get so hot and bothered over something they say is nothing.
Quote: MoscaI think I'll take issue with your blanket use of "most"; I don't think you know enough atheists .
I know the ones that I know, I can't speak for the ones I don't.
Quote: EvenBobI don't believe in Bigfoot or extraterrestrials, but I don't get all worked up about it when faced with people who do. I could care less.
I've never had a bigfoot or alien believer knock on my door, or ask if they could tell me about the bigfoot/alien. In fact, I have yet to meet one of those in person, WHEREAS...
Quote: EvenBobI know the ones that I know, I can't speak for the ones I don't.
But by saying things about "most" atheists, you ARE speaking for the ones you don't know, as in, speaking without knowledge. That's the whole point.
Quote: EvenBobWhat a pantload of horse manure. They're passionate about it because they aren't really sure if they're right, so they blast away at religious people trying to convince them their beliefs are stupid. They hope if they can convince others, they themselves will really believe it too. I get a hoot out of atheists, they get so hot and bothered over something they say is nothing.
I disagree with this assertion as well. Dawkins in particular is passionate about it because he sees religion as one of the worst things to ever happen to humans. Most atheists I know don't think or talk about it much, if at all, just like most religious people I know don't think or talk about it much, if at all. Just about anyone who does, on either side, is usually walked away from quickly (unless you got cornered on a bus or something).
Quote: EvenBobWhat a pantload of horse manure. They're passionate about it because they aren't really sure if they're right, so they blast away at religious people trying to convince them their beliefs are stupid. They hope if they can convince others, they themselves will really believe it too. I get a hoot out of atheists, they get so hot and bothered over something they say is nothing.
Actually, Bob, you're the one that seems hot and bothered here.
And after all, if all the atheists are wrong, God will punish them, so why worry about them? Right? The more they say, the further along they take themselves on The Road to Eternal Damnation.
Quote: MoscaI disagree with this assertion as well.
Try hanging out on religious forums for awhile. You'll find atheists by the dozens, foaming at the mouth and screaming at the top of their lungs. Over nothing.
Quote: rxwineReligious belief is very important, because those people vote too.
And boy, THAT'S a shame. It should be an automatic disqualifier. Irrational people shouldn't choose leaders and determine laws, any more than someone who doesn't believe in hygiene should prepare food.
Quote: EvenBobTry hanging out on religious forums for awhile. You'll find atheists by the dozens, foaming at the mouth and screaming at the top of their lungs. Over nothing.
Yeah, but that's like it is here. There are what, a couple dozen regular people here? Max? If that. The internet magnifies everything inside our heads. A couple dozen people screaming about gambling, and advantage play, and the evil casinos, while in the real world hundreds of millions of bets are placed, as we type feverishly, by people who don't give a shit. Same at the religion boards, a few folks screaming about god while the rest of us are listening to sports radio and thinking about what's for dinner.
Quote: mkl654321
The distinction is that the agnostic says that there is no evidence one way or another; the atheist says that lacking such evidence, the burden of proof is on those who say the Man in the Sky exists, and until such proof is forthcoming, the default setting should be disbelief, AS IT SHOULD BE for ANY fantastical claim.
Not quite. Not that "there is no evidence", but rather that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW (or to present evidence). You can be agnostic, and believe in God, or you can be an agnostic, and believe in absence of God, or chose not to believe at all.
The real distinction is that the atheist (a gnostic type) claims that he knows God does not exist, while an agnostic admits that he does not (and also suggests that nobody really does).
Quote: JerryLoganWhy is it that people who don't believe in God are almost always the type we find in violent protests against conservative values in the streets along with their brethren: hippies, pot heads, gay folk, system-sponging foreigners, minorities, lifelong students, the unemployed, and those irritatingly stupid "green" people? And why is it that atheists need proof of existence, when we already know He does not exist in any way or form that we could ever imagine, or else it wouldn't be such a mystery? It's like people who don't believe are just looking for a variety of excuses to justify their really dumb existence here.
Oh, Jerry. You're such a card!
Not necessarily.Quote: AsswhoopermcdaddyI think that the atheist's desire to repurchase his "soul" in the contract is a fundamental contradiction to him/her being an atheist. Atheists should not believe in the afterlife and hence having or not having a soul is completely inconsequential. A die-hard atheist would make the bet.
Souls, spirits and afterlife may exist even in "God" does not.
The belief in / evidence of ghosts is not tied to the belief in / evidence of God.
Quote: MoscaIt's an old expression; it means a cut-up, a joker. I'm poking at you. I don't take what you say seriously, and I don't think you intend it to be taken seriously. You just like to argue on the internet. Which is OK, I'll argue with you, a little.
I think Jerry's hatred of all the groups he's mentioned here and elsewhere is quite genuine.
Quote: mkl654321I think Jerry's hatred of all the groups he's mentioned here and elsewhere is quite genuine.
That may be. What I mean is that the reason he posted such was so that it would create an argument. Seeing as how it's the internet, what he actually believes isn't as important as that he got the result he wants. I can play along or ignore; in this instance I chose to play along, but not with much feeling.
Now, you may or may not believe in the literal, physical Jesus reigning for a literal, physical 1,000 years. But that's not the point.
The point is, some people, no matter what and how much proof is put in front of them, will not believe in God. I think that's true. It also makes me think that belief is a matter of the will and not a matter of intelligence ... in other words, smart people and stupid people disbelieve for the exact same reasons, it's just that smart people couch it as a matter of intelligence.
In the meantime, it would be interesting to know what a person would truly consider as "proof;" and it would be even more interesting to see if that person would drop to their knees if that "proof" came about, or if they would require even more "proof."
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerIn the meantime, it would be interesting to know what a person would truly consider as "proof;" and it would be even more interesting to see if that person would drop to their knees if that "proof" came about, or if they would require even more "proof."
For me personally, somebody claiming the James Randi Challenge would certainly pique my curiosity. I don't rule out anything else. If someone were to walk across my swimming pool, and then claim to be a profit [sic] of some kind, I'd have to give that claim some serious respect. Even I wrote about a very bizarre incident involving tire chains a while back that I can't explain.
Edit: I meant "prophet" not "profit," but as DJ noted below, it is an amusing mistake.
As some great philosopher once said, (or maybe it was a Science Fiction writer): "Any sufficiently advanced cluture will appear to be a Diety."
Armed with that quote, there will always be those that, when presented with evidence of God, will argue that it's either trickery, or aliens from a very advanced race. I'd be one of those people.
I'd assume that, sooner or later, he'd try to profit from his claim.Quote: WizardIf someone were to walk across my swimming pool, and then claim to be a profit of some kind....
LOL. The word you're looking for is: prophet.
Quote: DJTeddyBear"Proof", like truth and beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.
As some great philosopher once said, (or maybe it was a Science Fiction writer): "Any sufficiently advanced cluture will appear to be a Diety."
Armed with that quote, there will always be those that, when presented with evidence of God, will argue that it's either trickery, or aliens from a very advanced race. I'd be one of those people.
Arthur C Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Quote: DJTeddyBear"Proof", like truth and beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.
As some great philosopher once said, (or maybe it was a Science Fiction writer): "Any sufficiently advanced cluture will appear to be a Diety."
Armed with that quote, there will always be those that, when presented with evidence of God, will argue that it's either trickery, or aliens from a very advanced race. I'd be one of those people.
I think there are things that constitute absolute, irrefutable proof. I think jury members are shown this all the time, but they will still not believe in the guilt of the accused for some reason *other* than the proof ... see also the one juror who hung the jury in the terrorist case recently tried. Proof was irrefutable, but he/she wouldn't cast a "guilty" vote for some reason other than the proof. That juror's irrational will overruled rational proof. It's not a "beholder" thing; it's a "will" thing. People's will enters into it with different threshholds of what they will believe, even "beholding" the same exact evidence. Sometimes, there is real truth, and it is discernable.
Maybe that's what you mean when you say it's a "beholder" thing? Maybe that's one way to describe it, but I think something like beauty is truly in the eye - my friend's wife doesn't do it for me but he just thinks she's the most beautiful thing ever - as opposed to, say, a video of a guy in the act of murdering somebody but some juror just not willing to vote guilty.
Anyway ... some people of Jesus's day attributed his miracles to the devil. They didn't deny the existence of God, but their will still managed to assign the miracles to something other than God because they didn't want to believe Jesus at his word.
Whoever you decide Jesus to be is beside this point. My point is, no matter what's put in front of some people, they *WILL NOT* believe, and it has nothing to do with intelligence.
PS - you could say that the people of Jesus's day were not as "intelligent" as the people of today. I might just say that they had significantly fewer scientific advancements and/or historical examples. I would also say that, compared to 2,000 years from now, *WE* have significantly fewer scientific advances/historical advances than those folks will, so everything we think now is so "smart" may not really be so "smart." In other words, give the ancients a break.
Quote: WizardFor me personally, somebody claiming the James Randi Challenge would certainly pique my curiosity. I don't rule out anything else. If someone were to walk across my swimming pool, and then claim to be a profit of some kind, I'd have to give that claim some serious respect. Even I wrote about a very bizarre incident involving tire chains a while back that I can't explain.
I suppose if God wrote his message in ten-thousand-foot-high flaming letters across the sky, saying, "EVERYBODY OBEY MY COMMANDMENTS OR YOU'RE ALL TOAST!!!", more people might pay attention--makes you wonder why an omnipotent being would be so subtle as he's purported to be.
Oh wait...it wouldn't do that much good...the message would be written in Hebrew.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThe point is, some people, no matter what and how much proof is put in front of them, will not believe in God. I think that's true. It also makes me think that belief is a matter of the will and not a matter of intelligence ... in other words, smart people and stupid people disbelieve for the exact same reasons, it's just that smart people couch it as a matter of intelligence.
Not exactly. Gauging the existence or nonexistence of someone or something on the basis of "belief" is a matter of lack of intelligence. The fact that any person or persons really really really believe something with every ounce of their being does not increase the likelihood of that something's existence by one iota--even if that number of persons is in the billions.
The intelligent person--hopefully--will view evidence as the only reason to think--NOT "believe"--that something exists. And the corroboration of that evidence would be if other, multiple, disinterested observers verify it. I have yet to see any evidence of God so corroborated, therefore I think that he does not exist. I will think the opposite if compelling, verifiable evidence that is reported and corroborated by numerous observers comes to light. And by that I mean REAL evidence (like the ten-thousand-foot high flaming letters I alluded to elsewhere), not ridiculous circular arguments like, "You can't tell me how the universe was created if God didn't create it, so therefore, God must have created the universe." (Most such arguments sound even stupider than that one.)
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI always wondered on questions like this ... what would someone consider "proof" of the existence of God? "
What would it take to convince people of Evolution? And perhaps we should demand an equal amount of proof and resolution of skeptical arguments for those wanting us to believe in God?
Quote: rxwineWhat would it take to convince people of Evolution? And perhaps we should demand an equal amount of proof and resolution of skeptical arguments for those wanting us to believe in God?
First of all, science refers to the "Theory of Evolution" because though the evidence for evolution is compelling, it is only INFERENTIAL, not direct evidence--the fossil record, and observations of present-day species. This does NOT mean, however, that it is any less probable--the degree of probability of its essential correctness is something like 99.999%. But science is honest in calling a strong inference a theory when it cannot be directly verified (i.e., without a time machine); similarly, science still refers to the "Theory of Gravity", though gravity is something that seems obvious to all: the reason is that scientists cannot yet identify the NATURE of the gravitational force, which is probably awaiting the creation of the Unified Field Theory.
The point I'm trying to make is that a very strong probability of a "theory's" correctness is enough to treat it as fact, at least until something comes along to suggest otherwise (many of Einstein's theories were taken as fact until some time later, observations which couldn't have been made at that time suggested that there were flaws in his theories).
By contrast, religion doesn't call what it believes "The Theory of God", even though there exists far less proof (zero) for God's existence than for evolution or gravity. Religion deals in absolutes, because faith/belief is expected to trump reason, when reason suggests that there is at least significant cause to doubt the existence of God.
What would it take to convince people of evolution? The existing evidence, for those with open minds; it would be impossible to convince a closed mind.
Quote: mkl654321The fact that any person or persons really really really believe something with every ounce of their being does not increase the likelihood of that something's existence by one iota--even if that number of persons is in the billions.
I think that's probably correct on a small scale. We've all seen that reality can be significantly disconnected from a person's belief, and we've seen it extend into the hundreds (Jim Jones massacre) and maybe even thousands (German Nazis, the true believers, not just the ones who went with the flow). But it never lasts long, and it's always exposed in the end, just like Jones and Hitler.
I think, though, this train of thought runs into trouble when we're talking about billions and billions over ages and ages. I don't think any scam can be so effective with so many people over thousands and thousands of years. And, to discount the collective experience of humankind in the name of "they were all just too stupid to figure it out" seems arrogant in the extreme to me.
Quote: mkl654321Gauging the existence or nonexistence of someone or something on the basis of "belief" is a matter of lack of intelligence.
Einstein believed in God. Sagan didn't. Did Einstein suffer from a lack of intelligence? I doubt it. I can see that aligning themselves with like-minded superintelligent people like Sagan can provide a rationalization for some people, but in the end, it just comes across as a smoke screen, and maybe a non-willingness to confront the question for themselves.
Quote: mkl654321The intelligent person--hopefully--will view evidence as the only reason to think--NOT "believe"--that something exists. And the corroboration of that evidence would be if other, multiple, disinterested observers verify it.
I think there are some people that, no matter what evidence disinterested observers verify, will cling to to what they want to believe ... see also the Birthers and the Truthers. Some of those folks are really intelligent, but their will gets in the way of the evidence and what disinterested observers conclude. In other words, they don't believe for the same reason an idiot doesn't ... he doesn't want to.
Quote: mkl654321I have yet to see any evidence of God so corroborated, therefore I think that he does not exist. I will think the opposite if compelling, verifiable evidence that is reported and corroborated by numerous observers comes to light. And by that I mean REAL evidence (like the ten-thousand-foot high flaming letters I alluded to elsewhere), not ridiculous circular arguments like, "You can't tell me how the universe was created if God didn't create it, so therefore, God must have created the universe." (Most such arguments sound even stupider than that one.)
What you believe is your business and I'm not really interested in changing that. It is a little interesting, though, that in one sentence you say that "billions" believe in God; in the next two you say that corroboration of multiple disinterested observers verifying something lends truth to it, and the next say that you're disregarding the testimony of "billions" of people since you don't believe. It comes across as a little discordant to me, unless you mean to say that, when it comes to the issue of God's existence, the only truly disinterested people are those that don't believe ... but those people have already decided, so they're not really disinterested, since everything they've invested their point-of-view on begins with, "God doesn't exist." Oh yes, they're VERY interested in the question!
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI think, though, this train of thought runs into trouble when we're talking about billions and billions over ages and ages. I don't think any scam can be so effective with so many people over thousands and thousands of years. And, to discount the collective experience of humankind in the name of "they were all just too stupid to figure it out" seems arrogant in the extreme to me.
What you believe is your business and I'm not really interested in changing that. It is a little interesting, though, that in one sentence you say that "billions" believe in God; in the next two you say that corroboration of multiple disinterested observers verifying something lends truth to it, and the next say that you're disregarding the testimony of "billions" of people since you don't believe. It comes across as a little discordant to me, unless you mean to say that, when it comes to the issue of God's existence, the only truly disinterested people are those that don't believe ... but those people have already decided, so they're not really disinterested, since everything they've invested their point-of-view on begins with, "God doesn't exist." Oh yes, they're VERY interested in the question!
Humans have a predisposition to believe in the irrational and the supernatural. The fact that the majority of HUMANS, therefore, believe and have believed in God is no reason to think that belief is any more likely to be correct. After all, up until quite recently, the vast majority of humans thought the world was flat, and that the sun and the planets revolved around the earth, despite direct and obvious evidence suggesting the exact opposite.
The key word is "disinterested". I would also give weight to even several thousand people, WHO HAD NOT COMMUNICATED WITH ONE ANOTHER, reporting the same miracle. But someone who already professes faith in a given religion saying that he just saw the Great Pumpkin? I'd have to strongly discount that.
I also disagree with the contention that those who don't believe "have already decided". The refusal to "believe" as a reason for ascertaining the truth of something implies that if rational proof of something does present itself, such a person would regard that as evidence of its truth.
3 posts to clarify, that is all. for now.
I've had several conversations that basically went like this:
ICS: I don't think the activity of mankind is causing the earth to warm or climate to change.
Other: You're an idiot.
ICS: My three degrees from Stanford, including a PhD, say otherwise.
Other: Even Stanford lets in idiots every now and then.
ICS: I guess they let them graduate and then accept them into their graduate program and issue them doctorates as well. But besides that, how do you tell the "smart" Stanford people from the "idiots" from Stanford?
Other: The "smart" ones believe in global warming.
*******
In other words, I don't believe in global warming because I'm smart, I'm smart because I believe in global warming. Upside-down and backwards thinking.
I think I could have a similar conversation on a number of topics. In other words, if I don't believe certain things in certain ways, all of my intelligence, academic credentials, etc. is thrown out the window. There's generally no credence given to those things, and the most closed-minded among us (who generally fancy themselves as the most open-minded, but are fooling themselves) tend to offer ridicule rather than any serious discussion.
Lastly, there seems to be a humongous disregard for the "feel" part of life among academics/intelligencia. While the "feel" part shouldn't be followed to the exclusion of the "think" part; neither should the "think" part be followed to the exclusion of the "feel" part. But the weird part is, academics/intelligencia are (for the most part) DESPERATE for more of the "feel" part, especially when it comes to affirmation of their intelligence. It's hard for me to think of a cohort of folks more needy than academics/intelligencia ... and yet, they *say* they disregard the "feel" part of life.
I call bullshit. These people aren't comforted by their brains, they're comforted by the affirmation of others ... at least for a little while until they need more. But, at least it helps me understand why they use ridicule as their weapon. I guess they feel like they're hurting me somehow if they don't affirm me.
The "feel" part is real and it matters, even though it can't be proven scientifically and can't be quantified. It can't be disregarded from the human experience. Doing so is not only arrogant, but sounds like it could even be pretty self-destructive.
None of this has anything to do with raw intelligence. So, when it comes to these matters, smart people screw up/decide wrong/believe wrong for the same reason dumb ones do. There's no extra-weighted checkmark on the "disbelieve in God" ledger just because some smart guy doesn't. There are plenty of smart guys who do, so the reason *has* to be something other than smarts.
At the risk of being banned, it would be hard not to mention that mkl654321 appears to succumb to this. I only know about the guy what I read here, but a guy that needs that kind of affirmation, regardless of how intelligent he may or may not be, is probably not the kind of example we would want to follow, or the kind of friend any of us want.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThe "feel" part is real and it matters, even though it can't be proven scientifically and can't be quantified. It can't be disregarded from the human experience. Doing so is not only arrogant, but sounds like it could even be pretty self-destructive.
None of this has anything to do with raw intelligence. So, when it comes to these matters, smart people screw up/decide wrong/believe wrong for the same reason dumb ones do. There's no extra-weighted checkmark on the "disbelieve in God" ledger just because some smart guy doesn't. There are plenty of smart guys who do, so the reason *has* to be something other than smarts.
At the risk of being banned, it would be hard not to mention that mkl654321 appears to succumb to this. I only know about the guy what I read here, but a guy that needs that kind of affirmation, regardless of how intelligent he may or may not be, is probably not the kind of example we would want to follow, or the kind of friend any of us want.
First of all, though your insinuation is kind of nasty, and pretty condescending and insulting as well as being completely incorrect, I doubt that you have transgressed the rules of this forum. THAT SAID, I would say that your attack is ad hominem, which means that you are trying to refute an idea by attacking the person who holds it, rather than the idea itself. I do believe that there is a rule on the new forum list of rules that advises against doing that. It's also illogical, kind of silly, and does nothing to support your point. I don't need any kind of affirmation, whether you say I do or not. Nor do my ideas need affirmation--greater and wiser men than I hold them, and I find their arguments persuasive. So even if you somehow managed to prove that I am a desperately flawed individual who "isn't the kind of friend any of us would want", that wouldn't advance your argument one millimeter. And for what it's worth, I have a couple of dozen good friends who would disagree with you. Just because I don't share your "faith" doesn't make me a bad or undesirable person.
"Feelings" are no doubt part of the human experience, but they are a terrible tool for finding out the truth about the world in a methodical fashion. One person "feels" something is wrong; another person looks up in the tree and actually sees the tiger. The latter person does that because he's made an attempt to figure out where tigers might be hiding. The former person relies on emotion, which can be unreliable as well as subjective.
Trying to determine the truth of evolution by "feeling" would be pretty futile. Yet, that's the way many people reason, even today. There's a billboard near my house put up by an anti-evolution group--it shows a chimpanzee in a business suit with the caption, "Are they trying to make a monkey out of you?" This is an appeal to emotion--to irrationality. The desired reaction is, "Wait a minute! I'm not an ape!!!!" Of course, evolution never said that; it said that your distant, distant ancestors were. But the billboard-readers use their emotions--indignation, shock, disgust--to form their opinions about evolution. Others read books, attend college lectures, watch PBS, etc. and form their conclusions based on that. Again, opinions about the objective world that are based on emotion are rarely correct.
I agree with you that belief in God has no real correlation to intelligence. That's because we are hard-wired to imagine things like deities and magic. Also, religion is comforting--it provides an illusory escape hatch for that most vexing of all problems of the human condition--mortality. This fear haunts the intelligent and the not-so-intelligent. It is so pervasive and compelling a fear that it causes many intelligent people to flee on board the religion train. Only the smartest AND the most self-aware people will be able to say, "It may make me feel better, but it's nonsense nonetheless, sorry to say." To say so is an act of great moral courage.
mkl, compare this post of yours to the very last paragraph of my post at the top of page 2, here.Quote: mkl654321I suppose if God wrote his message in ten-thousand-foot-high flaming letters across the sky, saying, "EVERYBODY OBEY MY COMMANDMENTS OR YOU'RE ALL TOAST!!!", more people might pay attention--makes you wonder why an omnipotent being would be so subtle as he's purported to be.
Oh wait...it wouldn't do that much good...the message would be written in Hebrew.
(Dang it, how do you politely accuse an English major of plagiarism?) ;-)
