Definition of Atheism
Quote: mkl654321"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.
There is reasonably-compelling evidence that our ancestors are those who ran away upon "feeling" the tiger rather than those who looked around and finally saw the predator just as it was pouncing upon them, and as a result our evolution favored the intuitive in at least some circumstances. There are obvious limits to rational human cognition and especially the speed at which that cognition can occur. On the other hand, we do many things via reflex or intuition which would not ordinarily seem rational. E.g. the patellar reflex, which medicine understands to help humans balance while walking, but which isn't something that would typically seem rational given an average education or experience.
The counterpoint is that a fuller understanding of brain physiology may render the distinction you're making moot, since a person's beliefs and behaviors may be considered fully "rational" given that person's neurochemistry, etc. And that would have all sorts of interesting consequences for morality...
Quote: Docmkl, compare this post of yours to the very last paragraph of my post at the top of page 2, here.
(Dang it, how do you politely accuse an English major of plagiarism?) ;-)
My understanding is that it's OK as long as you quote the source. I shoulda done that. ("As Doc would say...")
But wait--was that really you making that post, or were you divinely inspired?
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerAt 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.
Sometimes it's good to be silent. Frequently I see alot of comments that I really don't agree with, but don't say anything because I don't want to raise a war.
That said, I somehow have the affliction of being a strong believer in science and a believer in God as well, and I know fellow scientists that are as well. I have an old friend who was a principle writer on the IPCC paper that won the Nobel Prize in 2007, has a doctorate in Physics who strongly believes in a Christian God despite all of the evidence contrary to this. I'm not a fanatic Christian by any stretch of the imagination and I believe that other religions and athiests can be right because there really is no proof of the existence of God. No proof does not mean "does not exist". Certainly the bible that states that the earth was created 6000 years ago doesn't work and the historical record, fossil records, and the scientific principles in determining the ages of objects are sound. I can't prove that there's a God however, and I acknowledge that. But you can't prove that there isn't a god either. Proving that everything else BUT god exists does not mean that god does not exist.
Quote: boymimboNo proof does not mean "does not exist". Certainly the bible that states that the earth was created 6000 years ago doesn't work and the historical record, fossil records, and the scientific principles in determining the ages of objects are sound. I can't prove that there's a God however, and I acknowledge that. But you can't prove that there isn't a god either. Proving that everything else BUT god exists does not mean that god does not exist.
It is, famously, logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of something, so the fashionable believer argument that God cannot be logically disproved is less than compelling as an argument for his existence. In other words, you can't say that God is impossible. But so what? Very, very improbable is good enough for me. Given that the burden of proof is on the believer (and, it is), that reasonable degree of certainty is all that is needed.
@ItsCalledSoccer : The number of degrees from Stanford is less important than what those degrees are in, when it comes to climate change. I have degrees too, but my knowledge of climate science is small. I realize you academic background may well be in that discipline, but that fact is more important than where they are from and to what level.
I'd not want a astrophysicist lecture me on the Oracle condition of Software Quality :)
Do irrational, prime numbers exist? I suspect a mathematician could create a simple proof of their non-existence.Quote: mkl654321It is, famously, logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of something, ...
Yes, mkl, I'm just trying to yank you around in Jerry's absence. I wouldn't want you to get bored.
Quote: mkl654321It is, famously, logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of something, so the fashionable believer argument that God cannot be logically disproved is less than compelling as an argument for his existence. In other words, you can't say that God is impossible. But so what? Very, very improbable is good enough for me. Given that the burden of proof is on the believer (and, it is), that reasonable degree of certainty is all that is needed.
"Very, very improbable" is a statement as to degree of knowledge which an honest agnostic would never make. If you're willing to admit that you simply cannot know whether God exists, then you must also admit that the likelihood of God existing is also unknowable. Regardless of whatever else you may believe, God is not a random variable.
On the other hand, there are a multitude of interpretations of God/gods/dieties/spirits/etc., and those can be examined relatively. Science now has an explanation for the sun crossing the sky that is (to me) significantly more plausible than the story of Apollo and his chariot. But even explaining with science all the attributes of a deity isn't the same as disproving the deity. If something is truly unknowable, scientific progress doesn't matter.
Quote: mkl654321It is, famously, logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of something, so the fashionable believer argument that God cannot be logically disproved is less than compelling as an argument for his existence. In other words, you can't say that God is impossible. But so what? Very, very improbable is good enough for me. Given that the burden of proof is on the believer (and, it is), that reasonable degree of certainty is all that is needed.
Good. So sell your soul to Mike then.
I would dare to say that most "believers" know that there isn't a shred of evidence that God exists. So, tell me what started the big bang? All science points to that point in time as to the creation of the Universe, but what started it? I'm not saying that it was God, but I am wondering if science will ever come up with the answer, or even if there is an answer. It's the believer's last hope.
The burden of proof is on the believer, but given the fantastic rewards offered to the believer, it might be a belief worth having.
Quote: boymimboGood. So sell your soul to Mike then.
I would dare to say that most "believers" know that there isn't a shred of evidence that God exists. So, tell me what started the big bang? All science points to that point in time as to the creation of the Universe, but what started it? I'm not saying that it was God, but I am wondering if science will ever come up with the answer, or even if there is an answer. It's the believer's last hope.
The burden of proof is on the believer, but given the fantastic rewards offered to the believer, it might be a belief worth having.
1. I'd buy it.
2. Don't throw stones at big bang believers until you explain what started god.
3. About the fantastic rewards, please see the Pascal's Wager thread.
I think this was basically the strategy of the fairly-early worshipers of Jehovah (Yahweh, Elohim, or whatever name you prefer), in converting the worshipers of Baal and various multi-theist sects. Those religions offered "rewards" for their believers but accepted that it was O.K. to believe in a different god. In contrast, the Jehovah worshipers said that if you didn't believe in their God, you were lost. Doubters and the uncertain converted as a way of hedging their bets -- converting was a no-lose solution.Quote: boymimbo... but given the fantastic rewards offered to the believer, it might be a belief worth having.
Quote: Wizard1. I'd buy it.
2. Don't throw stones at big bang believers until you explain what started god.
3. About the fantastic rewards, please see the Pascal's Wager thread.
With all due respect, I'm a Big Bang believer. It doesn't preclude my belief in the existence of God however. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I'm unreasonable or ignore science. Belief in God for me is indeed blind faith based on absolutely no empirical evidence. I realize that you might find my beliefs abhorrent or absolutely stupid because it is based on nothing, but I'm trying to figure out why you're so bothered by it. Certainly I am not throwing a single stone at science.
Scientists generally use different, more precise terminology.Quote: mkl654321First of all, science refers to the "Theory of Evolution" because...
...
By contrast, religion doesn't call what it believes "The Theory of God"....
On the flip side, there is no "theory" of God, you either believe or don't. And I think that's the definition of the word "faith" - or the lack thereof.
Quote: boymimboWith all due respect, I'm a Big Bang believer. It doesn't preclude my belief in the existence of God however. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I'm unreasonable or ignore science. Belief in God for me is indeed blind faith based on absolutely no empirical evidence. I realize that you might find my beliefs abhorrent or absolutely stupid because it is based on nothing, but I'm trying to figure out why you're so bothered by it. Certainly I am not throwing a single stone at science.
Your belief doesn't bother me. I have never lost a moments sleep over what anybody else believed. It is enough for me to run my own life.
You may not be throwing stones at science, but you are at those who don't acknowledge that the big bang was caused by a higher power. If you're going to ask me what caused the big bang, I'm going to ask you what caused god. If you don't have an answer to my question, don't ask me the same thing.
Quote: boymimboI'm not throwing stones at either. The fact is, the answer is the same: we don't know.
So why ask me for the answer?
Quote: boymimboSo, tell me what started the big bang?
Quote: MathExtremist"Very, very improbable" is a statement as to degree of knowledge which an honest agnostic would never make. If you're willing to admit that you simply cannot know whether God exists, then you must also admit that the likelihood of God existing is also unknowable.
If something is truly unknowable, scientific progress doesn't matter.
Whoa. Those are two separate premises, and one does NOT logically flow from the other. "Willing to admit that you simply cannot know.." does NOT equate to "you must admit that the likelihood..." We cannot know, in this context, means that we cannot know to an absolute certainty. However, that does NOT mean that we do not know the likelihood of God existing. The two statements form a flawed syllogism:
We cannot disprove the existence of God.
Therefore, we cannot deduce the likelihood of his existence.
This is, intuitively, mistaken reasoning. We deal in degrees of certainty; very little of our knowledge is absolute. For that reason, a sufficiently near-certainty is as good as absolute certainty, for practical purposes. It is enough to prove the existence of God as highly improbable; and that is something than we CAN do, despite the fact that we cannot prove him impossible.
Quote: Wizard1. I'd buy it.
2. Don't throw stones at big bang believers until you explain what started god.
3. About the fantastic rewards, please see the Pascal's Wager thread.
1. I'd want a buffet comp in addition to that $10, and not to Circus Circus, either--something really good like M or Bellagio.
2. What started god was the Sears DieHard auto battery.
3. It seems to me that selling your soul for $10 (with or without buffet comp) is making the Pascal's wager in reverse: laying odds rather than taking them. I think that a reverse Pascal's wager, given the likelihood of God's existence, is +EV.
Quote: DJTeddyBearScientists generally use different, more precise terminology.
On the flip side, there is no "theory" of God, you either believe or don't. And I think that's the definition of the word "faith" - or the lack thereof.
Sure. My point was that science admits to a degree of uncertainty where such exists; religion brooks no such "doubting".
Quote: mkl654321
1. I'd want a buffet comp in addition to that $10, and not to Circus Circus, either--something really good like M or Bellagio.
2. What started god was the Sears DieHard auto battery.
3. It seems to me that selling your soul for $10 (with or without buffet comp) is making the Pascal's wager in reverse: laying odds rather than taking them. I think that a reverse Pascal's wager, given the likelihood of God's existence, is +EV.
1. That is driving a hard bargain. How about $10 plus a bowl of chili at Binion's. However, you have to eat it.
3. Good observation!
Quote: Wizard1. . How about $10 plus a bowl of chili at Binion's. However, you have to eat it.
I'm not sure what's up with the chili at Binions. Is it a trick to send him into the spirit world earlier than he expects?
Quote: rxwineI'm not sure what's up with the chili at Binions. Is it a trick to send him into the spirit world earlier than he expects?
I've heard it is extremely nasty. Once some friends offered to bet me about $100 that I couldn't eat a bowl. They seemed really eager that I take the bet, so I was afraid something must be extremely amiss about it. While tempting, I declined. I still have never tried it.
Either my goal with MKL was entertainment value or cashing in on his soul early; you'll have to decide my motive for yourself.
Quote: Wizard2. Don't throw stones at big bang believers until you explain what started god.
Sagan did a logical algorithm similar to this in his Cosmos series. It's certainly a logical question so long as the universe of your (not Wizard-your, but generic-your) thinking is confined to ... well ... the existing universe. I think that, if there is a God, one who created the universe, then he would be bigger than the universe, so universe-limited thinking and logic probably doesn't apply. And God would be outside of it. Not a perfect analogy, but he would be outside it in the same way an author is outside of a book he wrote.
I guess this is why I think that the whole "belief in God" question is not solely related to intellect, or the "feel" part can't be removed from it, or however is the best way to put that concept.
So, in a universe-limited thinking paradigm, your question #2 is unanswerable. Maybe God is uncreated. Maybe God is created, but since he's outside the universe, it's something we would consider magic (recalling the quote of, anything sufficiently technologically advanced will seem like magic).
I'm not interested in convincing or unconvincing you or anyone else of the existence or non-existence of God. But I do think that Sagan's algorithm is just a way of dodging the question that makes smart guys feel better about dodging it (again with the "feel" part).
Quote: EvenBobI'm not an atheist or a non atheist. I don't believe in god on not believe in god. I just try and accept that everything will go on no matter what I believe, so why believe anything.
I like this.
Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that.
Quote: mkl654321Whoa. Those are two separate premises, and one does NOT logically flow from the other. "Willing to admit that you simply cannot know.." does NOT equate to "you must admit that the likelihood..." We cannot know, in this context, means that we cannot know to an absolute certainty.
I don't think that's what it means. I think it means that we can't even begin to examine the question. Partial knowledge is still knowledge, and if you hold that we can know the likelihood of a deity, that's antithetical to agnosticism. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Quote:It is enough to prove the existence of God as highly improbable; and that is something than we CAN do, despite the fact that we cannot prove him impossible.
That's all fine, but as before, your statement implies that the question of a deity's existence is answerable -- even if not fully, and even if just a little bit. Agnosticism holds that it is not answerable at all, by anyone, ever. I guess the point is that if you believe you can even start to judge the likelihood of whether a deity exists, that puts you squarely in the not-agnostic camp (I hesitate to use the word "gnostic" because that tends to means other things).
Quote: Wizard2. Don't throw stones at big bang believers until you explain what started god.
That's actually a lot easier than explaining the big bang. For example,
Wikipedia article on paleolithic religion
Quote: thecesspit@ItsCalledSoccer : The number of degrees from Stanford is less important than what those degrees are in, when it comes to climate change. I have degrees too, but my knowledge of climate science is small. I realize you academic background may well be in that discipline, but that fact is more important than where they are from and to what level.
I think "what those degrees are in" is a legitimate point, but I was just using global warming as an example. Fill in any topic where there are major spiritual/political departures, and maybe that will help make the point clearer; don't get hung up on the specific topic I used as an example.
But it's worth noting: I think there is little credence given to those who hold high degrees in Theology as opposed to those who hold high degrees in, say, environmental engineering. In other words, even though "what those degrees are in" is exactly what this thread is talking about, theology "experts" are not given expert status on the topic, and are instead generally disregarded. Maybe theology "experts" are wrong, but we know for sure that many environmental engineering "experts" have been wrong with their predictions, and many have even been shown to be outright frauds.
However, there are those who cling to global warming "religiously," accepting as fact something that is still under huge debate, and now the scrutiny associated with "tweaked science" (to coin a phrase) (which is, in the end, no science at all).
