 |
|
child of Thor
|
|
cutting edge science is full of it isn't it? dark matter, singularities, big bang etc? Atleast that stuff does make me think of a 'god' type thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moral Hazard
|
 |
of jack
Jul 1999
time: 01:17
|
|
Ad Hominem Time:
The last three athiest posters all have recently suffered from depression. I believe pointed this out is appropriate, stemming from my own experience that a belief in a higher power is healthy for our mental state. Flame away.
Last edited by Moral Hazard on 21-03-2005 at 05:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
Nice sig MOBIUS... trying to get banned, are you?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Occams razor is just a method of thinking... it's not a proven truth
You shouldn't rely on it to disprove the existence of God. IMO, using Occams razor is a weak argument. And I'd much rather see arguments against the existence of God be strong. 
 |
Partly yes and partly no. I was being overly flippant earlier, I should elaborate. In simple terms, in order to show something = true, you need to have valid positive arguments. Say you have your proposition, which is God. For God to = true, you need true arguments. Now I am aware of no argument for the existence of God that has not been thoroughly pwned, so unless I am wrong, there are no valid positive arguments.
What about valid negative arguments, needed to categorically disprove God? Well there are many, most that I know of have holes in them. I know of several that are watertight but they're kinda complex so we'll save that for a rainy day. Assume for the moment that there are no valid negative arguments.
So what are we left with? Nothing to swing *for* God, and nothing to swing *against*, so in this sense, God might exist. What Occams razor shows us is that the dialectic proposition "God might exist" translates as God = zero. As opposed to +1 = true, or -1 = false.
To introduce God violates Occams razor because it is unnecessary for any rational explanation of the universe, and there is no supporting evidence. I might as well invoke the wrath of the "triple breasted nun of Saggittarius", something self-evidently absurd and ficticious, and it has the same logical validity as God.
Now there is the uncertainty principle recourse but I think we can ignore this, both because it contradicts the supposed nature of God and it takes us back towards "God might exist", so God has a net value of zero.
quote:
Historically I always felt that statement was incorrect and thought that heavy drinking was more the opiate for the masses.
I might be deluded but I can't know that; and when it boils down to it, I really don't care if Im wrong. My belief works, which is all I can ask for.
|
The quote is meant to be "religion is the opiate of the masses". If your belief system works for you, then that's great, just discourage those of the same belief from forcing it on others. You seem to be pretty cool with it yourself so to that; it's not my place to tell you that something you've believed in all of your life is wrong, since you only have my sayso for that which only *has* to work for me.
quote:
The last three athiest posters all have recently suffered from depression. I believe pointed this out is appropriate, stemming from my own experience that a belief in a higher power is healthy for our mental state. Flame away.
|
Note that atheism doesn't mean lack of belief, of lack of faith. It simply means a belief that there is no theological God. It even allows for a belief in a "personal" God, nature worship or anything transcendental... a common mistake is when people call it "sciencism", or something completely devoid of spiritualism... that's a falsehood. I am not trying to oppose science and faith/spirit, it is my belief that science has a correct context and faith does too... rather like emotion for the latter.
However yes there are many atheists that reject spiritualism, either greatly or completely. Yes they are more likely to be depressed. That atheism could have negative consequences does not make it false, or even less desireable if it has the best claim to being true. It could well have positive consequences, be they intellectual, humanistic or creative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
But prove that there is not a divine creator or some such force in the universe. How did it all start. How does the universe that we know all come from nothing, scientificaly speaking? |
If you don't mind, I'll quote something I wrote on a different forum just a few days ago.
quote:
Fifteen billion lightyears away is the edge of the universe. Beyond it, nothing exists. It is void. It is null. There is no notion of distance, because distance is an internal property of the universe.
Does anyone assert that God exists because all objects are contained in other objects, and therefore the Universe must need a Container? That God must be that Container? I have never heard it stated. No, the idea of something not being contained in anything else is easy to grasp. The Universe needs no Container. (Most likely that's because we habitually don't think of vacuum or even air as something.)
Similarly, fifteen billion years ago is another edge of the universe. Beyond it, nothing occurs. It is void and null. There is no time, because time is an internal property of the universe.
And yet people assert that the Universe needs a cause. Why? Cause and effect? sequence of events? Those are all the result of our internal interpretation of the passage of time. But there is no time outside the Universe. The notion of a cause is absurd.
The Universe is the ultimate cause just as much as it is the ultimate container. It is not sentient or teleological. It is mindless, and yet awesome. There is no purpose to its meanderings, but there is a bifurcating pattern. The Universe has no will. It is a tool. It is elaborate, by extremely simple too.
There is no Creator. There are no gods. Humans aren't gods either, and neither shall we ever evolve into them. We are just an edifice in the eddies of time and space. Not special and not accursed. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Moral Hazard
|
|
of jack
Jul 1999
time: 01:17
|
|
quote:
The quote is meant to be "religion is the opiate of the masses". |
I know the original quote, and contend that alcohol suits the role better.
quote:
If your belief system works for you, then that's great, just discourage those of the same belief from forcing it on others. |
No worries there, I generally follow the teachings of Swedenborg, an 18th century theologian. Belief is not essential to salvation^1 or making us a better person, action and motive are.
The love of ourselves though can damn us. So I will 'preach' against that. Despite being unable to know if it's true.
It's not something I've believed all my life I was a complete hedonist/agnostic through out college.
^1 It does state that we eventually have to accept Christ, but it isn't necessary to accept Him until after death.
quote:
Note that atheism doesn't mean lack of belief, of lack of faith. It simply means a belief that there is no theological God. It even allows for a belief in a "personal" God, nature worship or anything transcendental. |
Enlightening, thank you.
quote:
However yes there are many atheists that reject spiritualism, either greatly or completely. Yes they are more likely to be depressed. That atheism could have negative consequences does not make it false, or even less desireable if it has the best claim to being true. It could well have positive consequences, be they intellectual, humanistic or creative. |
It doesn't make it false, but still it's less desirable; unless the gains outweigh the decreased happiness. The same can be said of a Christian faith as it does, if followed, deprive us of certain pleasures. Of course I've been known to slip often. What's the quote "give me chastity and purity, but not yet."
Sava:
People can get lung cancer without smoking cigarettes, and lung cancer isn't alway caused by smoking, in those who do smoke. I wasn't saying that your depression was caused by atheism/agnosticism, I was noting the correlation. I'm pretty sure although; I lack the data to back up my assertion that depression is less common in religious people. And far less common in those who feel they have a purpose in life.
In truth a true humanist, (one who devouts their lives to betterment of humanity) has my admiration and envy; I wasn't strong enough to work toward the betterment of humanity without an invisible presence.
Also purpose and action will solve most depression. (not all of course)
quote:
6. I'd rather be depressed than stuck in a dillusion |
Honestly, I don't believe you. You wouldn't want to live a full life believing in a few 'possibly' false things.
Gian:
Friends can be fleeting, especially as we become more involved in own personal lives. (Work / Family) We also shouldn't depend on others completely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moral Hazard
|
|
of jack
Jul 1999
time: 01:17
|
|
quote:
A person that has true faith has no reason to try and convince anyone of what they believe |
If that faith believes that if you aren't a member of it (thankfully mine doesn't) that they are going to hell. Than it would be completely uncharitable not to try and convert others. Hence why I have no problems with Jehovah's Witnesses etc. In fact I feel bad for them.
By the By I'm not trying to convince anyone here more explaining my own beliefs which is nice to do, for myself. Edit: I do have to add that my faith does put an emphasis on motives (loves) so I feel it is right to try to convince others that they should believe and do things for a cause greater than themselves. (Which could be anything Humanity, Christ, The Proles, the Environment, their country, their company.)
Last edited by Moral Hazard on 21-03-2005 at 09:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
I know the original quote, and contend that alcohol suits the role better.
|
You may have a point ...insert sedative/stimulant/laxative here!
quote:
It does state that we eventually have to accept Christ, but it isn't necessary to accept Him until after death
|
Ah that's convenient! (in a Pascal's bet kind of way )
quote:
It doesn't make it false, but still it's less desirable; unless the gains outweigh the decreased happiness. The same can be said of a Christian faith as it does, if followed, deprive us of certain pleasures. Of course I've been known to slip often. What's the quote "give me chastity and purity, but not yet."
|
 I'd be lying if I said I hadn't had similar thoughts running through my head at times. As for less desireable... well I suppose in these matters it's not a question of pick-and-mix a theology (or lack thereof) that suits, rather what one considers to be the "truth" one accepts, in the same way I accept that there is a coffee stain on my desk whether I like it or not.
quote:
Honestly, I don't believe you. You wouldn't want to live a full life believing in a few 'possibly' false things.
|
I'm very willing to entertain the possibility that atheism could be a consequence of the same thing that could cause "existential depression", and that is perhaps intellect. I don't mean to sound elitist (I know some over the years here have had a problem with what they perceive to be elitism on my part), because you can get some very intelligent people that are theists and some very dumb atheists, but that there is a correlation between, shall we say, a philosophical mindset, and atheism. In that sense, I would rather live without delusion. However, give me a choice between illusion and despair, my intellect and my integrity says I should choose despair, whereas my heart and the bit of my brain that's fed up of SSRI's says I must choose illusion. IMO, different parts of people choose different things, we're complex beasts us humans; existential conflict is hardly surprising, and not limited to questions of faith.
quote:
If that faith believes that if you aren't a member of it (thankfully mine doesn't) that they are going to hell. Than it would be completely uncharitable not to try and convert others. Hence why I have no problems with Jehovah's Witnesses etc. In fact I feel bad for them.
By the By I'm not trying to convince anyone here more explaining my own beliefs which is nice to do, for myself.
|
Appreciated  . You have a courteous and friendly manner that can't have gone unnoticed; it's refreshing even though we're coming at it from different angles. I certainly understand how evangelicals (in that sense, people that want to save souls etc) would work, though the concept of one mans faith telling him that his faith is superior to anothers (or lack of) finds me a little uncomfortable.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-03-2005 04:48
but since neither of the two of you have proven to be a god i dont think thats gonna fly
) should be taken into account in human activity.
|