 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Okay, maybe you can clear something up for me. I don't see how somebody can say that they don't believe in god(s) but aren't an atheist. I mean, "theist" means "somebody who believes in god(s)," so "atheist" must mean "somebody who does not believe in god(s)," so the two terms ought to cover everybody. A lot of agnostics say "Well I'm not an atheist, because I 'doubt' the existence of god(s), unlike the atheists who 'don't believe' in the existence of god(s)," or something along those lines. But isn't doubt the opposite of belief? Are they saying that they don't believe in the existence of god(s) but that it makes them uncomfortable to say so, or what? Or that they believe in god(s) every other day, and the rest of the time they don't? Could you explain the difference between "not believing" in god(s) and "doubting" god(s)? Because they certainly seem like the exact same thing to me... |
Well, I can't speak for all agnostics, but for me it goes like this: I see nothing that has proven God exists. I have also seen nothing that disproves God's existence. In fact, I believe it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God, because the nature of any omnipotent, omnipresent being who made all and is all is something beyond the realm of human comprehension. We could see something that convinces it is God (kinda like Q on Star Trek, I suppose), but we would have no way of being certain it was the real God and not just some super powerful being toying with us.
Likewise, no matter how hard someone tries, they can't disprove the existence of God. Any omnipotent being should have the power to cover his tracks so well that humans could reasonably convince themselves God does not exist, but he could just be beyonf the reach of our comprehension. You could rationally explain every single law of the universe down to the interaction of the tiniest sub sub sub atomic whatever, and it still wouldn't change whatsoever the odds of there being an omnipotent being behind it (50/50).
So no matter what, it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist. As an agnostic, I can't exclude either possibility, and choose not to put any definite faith either way. I see no reason to do so, either. What does it matter if someone chooses to believe in God or not, when it's impossible to know anyway? So then it just comes down to a person choice about what makes the individual more comfortable in happy. Some people have faith in God to help them get by and be happy. Some people have faith there is no God to do the same. Me, I have neither faith nor doubt in God--I don't know, and I see no point in making a meaningless choice based on the either/or proposition you're positing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So no matter what, it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist. |
Only if you artificially add meaning to the term "atheist." Theists believes in god(s), and atheists are the set of people who are not theists. Therefore, an "atheist" is somebody who asserts (has faith) that there is no god or is somebody who makes no assertion whatsoever, somebody who neither believes in god nor believes in no-god. Neither person qualifies to be a theist, thus they're both atheists.
quote:
Me, I have neither faith nor doubt in God--I don't know, and I see no point in making a meaningless choice based on the either/or proposition you're positing. |
But it is an either/or proposition, and it's hardly meaningless. Either somebody believes in god(s) (in which case they're a theist), or they do not (in which case they're an atheist). If ~A == B, and A+B == U, then an element is either in A or B.
The question is: do you believe in god(s)? If the answer is "yes," then you're a theist. If the answer is "no," "indeterminate," or "undefined," then you're an atheist. By definition, you're either in the set or you're in its complement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
So you believe that the probability of there being a "God" is 50%? Doesn't that take faith? At least as much faith as believing the probability of there being a "God" is insignificant (as us atheists generally believe) or practically certain (as theists generally believe), perhaps? |
No. Now, to clarify, we're acting under the assumption of an all-powerful, omnipotent God. The way I see it, if God is such, then the chance of his existence is always going to be 50/50. That's because, as I said, no amount of scientific knowledge or observation will prove or disprove God. It's an impossibility. And no amount of evidence-gathering on either side changes the probability one jot.
quote:
Do you think that those who don't believe in the tooth fairy have as much "faith" as those who do? |
Now now, let's not throw in irrelevant things like this. First, the tooth fairy is a specific myth that is disproven by simple observation. Now, while that may be like disproving, say, Jehovah by proving aspects of the Bible untrue, it is not the same as disproving God, as such an entity would have no specific attributes we know of and be impossible to comprehend.
quote:
I don't think many atheists believe anyone can "disprove" God. |
I can't argue one way or the other there, but I know some who do.
quote:
As loinburger pointed out, the only condition for being an atheist is to not be a theist; in other words, to not believe in God. In no way does lack of belief in the existence of a God imply absolute certainty in the non-existence of a God. |
Well (and this can answer loinburger's following post too), I am not into mathematical definitions and such (isn't it a little silly to use a mathematical formula in reference to something as intangible as personal religious philosophy?), but I go by what are the generally accepted definitions used in modern language, and in modern English, there is a distinction between agnostics and atheists. Atheists, at least in the dictionary I have, are defined as people who don't believe in god. Agnostics are people who believe the truth is unknowable. I fall into the second set.
I do not consider myself an atheist because I believe there is an exactly even chance of there being a god or not being a god. Perhaps I'm being simplistic in my terms, but to ascribe to either being a theist or an atheist would, IMO, be a betrayal of what I believe.
It's not a mathematical equation of either/or, it's a question of linguistic definition of a cultural group. To say I was an atheist would immediately mean, to most people, I didn't believe in God. That would be misleading. Since Agnostic is the most accurate description of my beliefs, it is therefore what I use.
Oh, and I think one can be a theist and have doubt about the existence of God. I think there are plenty of theists who believe God exists, but also accept there is a possibility God does not exist. To then label such people automatically atheist would be ludicrous, wouldn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Oh, and I think one can be a theist and have doubt about the existence of God. I think there are plenty of theists who believe God exists, but also accept there is a possibility God does not exist. To then label such people automatically atheist would be ludicrous, wouldn't it? |
It's a question of worldview more than anything else, which is exactly why things like Pascal's Wager are so useless (since worldview cannot simply be changed on a whim). It's largely irrelevant what people say they believe, or what doubts they profess to have--what primarily matters with regards to people's beliefs is how they shape their worldview to which they act in accord. A professed theist can say "I acknowledge that there is a possibility that God does not exist" all day long, but if they still go through life acting in accord to the assumption/belief that God does in fact exist then their professions of doubt are irrelevant. Similarly, somebody can claim to be an agnostic and have a completely open mind, but (as is generally the case with agnostics) if they go through life acting in accord to the assumption/belief that there is no God then their professions of non-atheism are irrelevant.
A worldview cannot incorporate "doubt" as such, except with regards to introspection (soul searching) and/or mental masturbation. I acknowledge the possibility that I might not even exist, but I must choose to either live my life in accordance to the assumption that I exist (as I have) or I must (attempt to) live my life in accordance to the assumption that I don't exist. A theist may acknowledge the possibility that God might not exist (or an atheist may acknowledge the possibility that God might exist) in the same manner that I acknowledge the possiblity that I might not exist--acknowledging the possibility that one's worldview might be wrong does not generally change one's worldview, especially with regards to metaphysical quandaries that are impossible to prove or disprove (and which are often, in this day and age, of negligible importance).
So, long story short, either somebody lives their life in accordance to the belief that god(s) exist or they do not. I can see how there can be varying levels of importance that god(s) hold in somebody's worldview, but this is in correspondence to the varying levels of faith/devotion/fanaticism/whatever in theists. I just don't see where "agnostics" significantly differ from "atheists" in their practical worldview.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
No. Now, to clarify, we're acting under the assumption of an all-powerful, omnipotent God. The way I see it, if God is such, then the chance of his existence is always going to be 50/50. That's because, as I said, no amount of scientific knowledge or observation will prove or disprove God. It's an impossibility. And no amount of evidence-gathering on either side changes the probability one jot. |
No amount of scientific knowledge or observation can ever prove or disprove Santa Claus (there's always a possibility that any observation is flawed, since there's always a possibility that the observer is flawed). Does that imply there's a 50% chance Santa exists?
quote:
First, the tooth fairy is a specific myth that is disproven by simple observation. |
What sort of observation can disprove it absolutely?
quote:
Now, while that may be like disproving, say, Jehovah by proving aspects of the Bible untrue, |
How does that work? If an idea is in a flawed book, it is automatically flawed? And how would you absolutely determine aspects of the Bible are untrue?
quote:
it is not the same as disproving God, as such an entity would have no specific attributes we know of and be impossible to comprehend. |
We know God is omni-potent since that's generally the definition of God. I agree that it is impossible to disprove It. Then again, I think it's impossible to disprove anything without making "unprovable" assumptions beforehand.
quote:
I can't argue one way or the other there, but I know some who do. |
But it certainly is not universal among atheists. And it is not inherent in the definition of an atheist.
quote:
Well (and this can answer loinburger's following post too), I am not into mathematical definitions and such (isn't it a little silly to use a mathematical formula in reference to something as intangible as personal religious philosophy?), |
Well, philosophy is nothing but math. 
quote:
Atheists, at least in the dictionary I have, are defined as people who don't believe in god. Agnostics are people who believe the truth is unknowable. |
Those are bad definitions, seeing as how someone who doesn't "believe in a God" may also believe "the truth is unknowable." In other words, under your definition, an atheist may be an agnostic (in fact, under your definition, I would be both).
On a practical level, and given that agnostics generally want to be wishy-washy and non-confrontational, I think the best definitions are:
An atheist is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is insignificant.
An agnostic is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is significant, but not close to certain.
A theist is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is near certain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
No amount of scientific knowledge or observation can ever prove or disprove Santa Claus (there's always a possibility that any observation is flawed, since there's always a possibility that the observer is flawed). Does that imply there's a 50% chance Santa exists? |
No, because no definition of Santa Claus, or the Toothfairy, makes either to be an omnipotent, all-powerful being. That makes a key difference...while we can use empiral evidence to show how likely or unlikely it is these two things exist or not (observing the Xmas tree all night and seeing the parents put the gifts, catching the dad putting the coin under the pillow, etc.), no amount of empirical evidence can be gathered to prove or disprove God. Evidence is, in fact, irrelevant when talking omnipotent beings.
quote:
What sort of observation can disprove it absolutely? |
I never said absolute, but we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty to make it practical to say disproven. Certainly beyong the 50/50 threshold for an omnipoten, all-powerful being.
quote:
How does that work? If an idea is in a flawed book, it is automatically flawed? And how would you absolutely determine aspects of the Bible are untrue? |
That's just it--Jehovah is the depiction of God given in the Bible. That particulary image of God can reasonably be said to be false, as we know certain things in the Bible are simply not true or contradictory or whatever. And since the Bible is supposedly the word of Jehovah, we can deduce that showing aspects of the Bible untrue dispel Jehovah as being a realistic image of God.
Can we absolutely prove or disprove anything? No, if you want to be technical. But as with all matters of proof, we go by reasonable deduction based on evidence. And we have a vast amount of reasoned evidence that the Great Flood didn't happen as the Bible says, nor did Creation happen (based on the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution), etc. So that does it for Jehovah.
quote:
We know God is omni-potent since that's generally the definition of God. I agree that it is impossible to disprove It. Then again, I think it's impossible to disprove anything without making "unprovable" assumptions beforehand. |
Well, of course, if God is unknowable, then he would have to be omniscient and omnipotent. If he had limits, he'd become knowable. That's in a sense part of being Agnostic: There is a 50/50 chance God exists, and if he does exist, he is unknowable. Ergo, speculation on or attempts to prove or disprove the existence of God are futile exercises in intellectual ****ing.
quote:
But it certainly is not universal among atheists. And it is not inherent in the definition of an atheist. |
Like I said, I can't argue that.
quote:
Well, philosophy is nothing but math. |
Ha.
quote:
Those are bad definitions, seeing as how someone who doesn't "believe in a God" may also believe "the truth is unknowable." In other words, under your definition, an atheist may be an agnostic (in fact, under your definition, I would be both). |
But that, in essence, makes your lack of belief purely unsupported speculation, doesn't it? If the truth is unknowable, then why would you say you don't believe in God? Just to feel like you're being a bold decision maker?
quote:
On a practical level, and given that agnostics generally want to be wishy-washy and non-confrontational, I think the best definitions are: |
Now who is making unfounded generalizations of people? Most agnostics I know aren't wishy-washy at all, and I certainly am not. And as for non-confrontational--well, if one believes arguing the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant since the truth cannot be known, isn't that rather inherent?
quote:
An atheist is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is insignificant.
An agnostic is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is significant, but not close to certain.
A theist is someone who believes the probability of the existence of a God is near certain. |
Hmm, nope, I'd change agnostic to someone who believes the probability for the existence or non-existence of God is even. A 50% chance of existing is not more significant than the 50% chance God doesn't exist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
I'm an atheist (since I don't believe in God) and I'm also an agnostic (since I don't believe that it is possible to (dis)prove the existence of God). Atheism is a metaphysical term, and agnosticism is an epistemological term that's been hijacked into becoming a (extraneous) metaphysical term. It's not too uncommon for somebody to be both an atheist and an agnostic--most professed agnostics fall under both categories, for example. |
I agree. But agnostics want to feel metaphysically seperate from atheists, so I think there should be a practical redefinition of terms to reflect their beliefs.
quote:
No, because no definition of Santa Claus, or the Toothfairy, makes either to be an omnipotent, all-powerful being. That makes a key difference...while we can use empiral evidence to show how likely or unlikely it is these two things exist or not (observing the Xmas tree all night and seeing the parents put the gifts, catching the dad putting the coin under the pillow, etc.) |
Why do you trust this evidence?
quote:
, no amount of empirical evidence can be gathered to prove or disprove God. Evidence is, in fact, irrelevant when talking omnipotent beings. |
Ok, what about an invisible unicorn on the dark side of moon that comes into existence for one second every 5.6 million years. Is there a 50% chance that it exists?
quote:
I never said absolute, but we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty to make it practical to say disproven. Certainly beyong the 50/50 threshold for an omnipoten, all-powerful being. |
I don't see the logic behind this 50% assertion.
Do you believe that the probability distribution of anything not empirically determinable is uniform?
For instance, since the uncertainty of the position of a particle is on the order of 1/ the uncertainty of its wave vector, it's impossible to know certain paired quantities of a particle, the position and momentum or energy and time. So, if I know the position of a particle precisely, I can't possibly know its momentum. It's not a limit of technology or antyhign like that; it's physically impossible. But we know that its momentum probability distributuion is not necessarily uniform, and only in very very few special cases would be.
quote:
And since the Bible is supposedly the word of Jehovah, we can deduce that showing aspects of the Bible untrue dispel Jehovah as being a realistic image of God. |
How do we know Jehovah didn't lie in the Bible? How do we know that what Jehovah wrote wasn't mistranslated, etc.?
quote:
But that, in essence, makes your lack of belief purely unsupported speculation, doesn't it? |
Nope, it's based on a few assumptions (i.e. my vision is a valid accurate reflection of reality, etc.). Given my experiences of no apparant divine intervention, I think it's reasonable to assume no diety exists.
quote:
If the truth is unknowable, then why would you say you don't believe in God? Just to feel like you're being a bold decision maker? |
Not believing something exists is not the same thing as believing something does not exist.
quote:
Well, of course, if God is unknowable, then he would have to be omniscient and omnipotent. If he had limits, he'd become knowable. |
By knowable, do you mean provable?
quote:
Now who is making unfounded generalizations of people? |
Not me. 
I was just making a cheap shot with that. What I really think is that agnostics just want to feel intellectually superior when they aren't. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
I agree. But agnostics want to feel metaphysically seperate from atheists, so I think there should be a practical redefinition of terms to reflect their beliefs. |
They want to feel metaphysically separate (usually by ascribing beliefs to atheists that many atheists don't even have, like Boris has done by falsely equating "doesn't believe in God" to "believes in no-god"), and every time there's an OTF "what religion are you" poll that has an atheist option but no agnostic option there's always a slew of agnostics saying "I refuse to vote, because I'm not an atheist." I'm just trying to figure out how agnostics are metaphysically separate from atheists. I mean, Boris is claiming that he 50% believes in God and 50% doesn't believe in God, but professions of belief are largely irrelevant, and I don't see how it's possible to incorporate "half believes in God and half doesn't believe in God" into one's worldview. Does he only believe in God every other day of the week or something? Does he only confess half of his sins, or eat half of the communion wafer, or whatever? Or does he (like most agnostics) have a worldview that is fundamentally identical to the atheist worldview (e.g. doesn't pray, doesn't go to church/temple/etc., doesn't blame God for his bad fortune or praise God for his good fortune)? If someone can explain how it's possible to have a worldview that is fundamentally different from both the atheistic and theistic worldviews, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, I don't see how there is any merit whatsoever to the distinction between atheists and agnostics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
flash9286
|
|
1. New Thought (100%)
2. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (96%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (95%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (93%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (85%)
6. Scientology (81%)
7. Liberal Quakers (80%)
8. Mahayana Buddhism (80%)
9. Neo-Pagan (71%)
10. Bahá'í Faith (69%)
11. New Age (69%)
12. Secular Humanism (68%)
13. Hinduism (64%)
14. Nontheist (61%)
15. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (60%)
16. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (58%)
17. Reform Judaism (57%)
18. Sikhism (55%)
19. Orthodox Judaism (54%)
20. Taoism (51%)
21. Jainism (50%)
22. Jehovah's Witness (45%)
23. Islam (44%)
24. Orthodox Quaker (44%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (33%)
26. Roman Catholic (33%)
27. Seventh Day Adventist (19%)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
I agree. But agnostics want to feel metaphysically seperate from atheists, so I think there should be a practical redefinition of terms to reflect their beliefs.
|
Ok, I think we agree here...
quote:
Why do you trust this evidence? |
The same reasons you do, but as below:
quote:
Ok, what about an invisible unicorn on the dark side of moon that comes into existence for one second every 5.6 million years. Is there a 50% chance that it exists? |
Drake was quite right when he pointed out that, unless the unicorn is omnipotent, this is irrelevant. You established a clear boundary for the unicorn--it is indeed a unicorn, it is invisible, it stays on the dark side, ir appears once every 5.6 million years. With all those boundaries, I can reasonably assume, by what I know of the laws of nature and science, etc., and by the fact I know you just made up the unicorn yourself, that it doesn not exist. It's possible, but very very improbable.
That doesn't apply to God, because God has no limits.
quote:
I don't see the logic behind this 50% assertion.
Do you believe that the probability distribution of anything not empirically determinable is uniform?
|
Blah blah blah more science speak. The logic is simple...you can't compare it to an electron. An electron, or any other scientific thing, is something of which we know certain qualities and limits on its behavior. We know nothing of the nature of God, and can't put any sort of limit on God's existence, because god is unknowable, if he exists.
quote:
How do we know Jehovah didn't lie in the Bible? How do we know that what Jehovah wrote wasn't mistranslated, etc.? |
Because Jehovah claims the words in the Bible are his words. If he lied, he wouldn't be Jehovah (Jehovah isn't supposed to lie), and if the words in the Bible are mistranslated/in error/etc., that would contradict the idea that those who are writing the words are divinely inspired.
Regardless, if those above were true, then the image of Jehovah given in the Bible is false, and that image of God is therefore provably incorrect, which was all I was saying--that particular incarnation of God is provably wrong.
quote:
Nope, it's based on a few assumptions (i.e. my vision is a valid accurate reflection of reality, etc.). Given my experiences of no apparant divine intervention, I think it's reasonable to assume no diety exists. |
I don't think that is reasonable to assume at all. There is no prerequisite that an omnipotent being has to demonstrate his existence to you or I for him to exist. What if God doesn't meddle in worldy affairs? If that is the case, then your assumption is not really rational, is it?
quote:
Not believing something exists is not the same thing as believing something does not exist. |
How would this work with God? "I do not believe God exists," or "I believe God does not exist" seem to me to be hairsplitting...
quote:
By knowable, do you mean provable? |
provable, comprehensible, visible, etc.
quote:
Not me.
I was just making a cheap shot with that. What I really think is that agnostics just want to feel intellectually superior when they aren't. |
Funny, because I think atheists do the same--and also get defensive about agnostics differentiating themselves and then lash out at them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
I mean, Boris is claiming that he 50% believes in God and 50% doesn't believe in God, but professions of belief are largely irrelevant, and I don't see how it's possible to incorporate "half believes in God and half doesn't believe in God" into one's worldview. Does he only believe in God every other day of the week or something? Does he only confess half of his sins, or eat half of the communion wafer, or whatever? |
You use quotes there, but I don't see anywhere where I said that, so who are you quoting? Not me, and I will thank you not to attribute false quotes to me.
That is not at all what I am saying, come on. the 50%/50% is the probability of God's existence, nothing more. As I've said, my own belief is that the existence of God is unknowable and unprovable, so I don't ascribe to either there being a God or there not being a God, and I think the likelihood of God existence is even.
quote:
Or does he (like most agnostics) have a worldview that is fundamentally identical to the atheist worldview (e.g. doesn't pray, doesn't go to church/temple/etc., doesn't blame God for his bad fortune or praise God for his good fortune)? |
So if I believed in God, but didn't pray, go to church, blame/praise God, etc., then by this rationale I would be an atheist? Many people believe in God and do not lead a different life than yours. The difference is that you don't do these things out of lack of belief, whereas someone who believes in God but does not do the things may do it out of belief that such things aren't necessary. You're putting a really narrow definition on theists here.
quote:
If someone can explain how it's possible to have a worldview that is fundamentally different from both the atheistic and theistic worldviews, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, I don't see how there is any merit whatsoever to the distinction between atheists and agnostics. |
Again, a theist and atheist can have the same basic worldview, the only difference one believes in God, the other does not. IMO, worldview is irrelevant to the discussion--it's simply about the belief in the existence of God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How would this work with God? "I do not believe God exists," or "I believe God does not exist" seem to me to be hairsplitting... |
It's not hairsplitting in the least, especially when the assumption that "I do not believe God exists" is equivalent to "I believe God does not exist" causes people to incorrectly ascribe the latter statement to many atheists.
In order to determine somebody's beliefs with regards to the existence of God (only the nature of their beliefs, not necessarily the extent), you need to ask two questions: "Do you believe that God exists" (question 1) and "Do you believe that God does not exist" (question 2). It is possible to answer "no" to both questions. Answering "no" to question 1 does not equate to answering "yes" to question 2, and vice versa.
quote:
You use quotes there, but I don't see anywhere where I said that, so who are you quoting? Not me, and I will thank you not to attribute false quotes to me. |
You're splitting hairs. You said "I'd change agnostic to someone who believes the probability for the existence or non-existence of God is even," in other words, you half believe and half don't. I don't see how you can be offended by my paraphrasing, seeing as how you've said that you're not a theist (thus you don't believe in God) and you're not an atheist (thus you believe in God), which only leaves the possiblity that you both believe and don't believe in God.
quote:
That is not at all what I am saying, come on. the 50%/50% is the probability of God's existence, nothing more. As I've said, my own belief is that the existence of God is unknowable and unprovable, so I don't ascribe to either there being a God or there not being a God, and I think the likelihood of God existence is even. |
Which doesn't answer the question regarding your worldview. Does your worldview incorporate a belief of God, or doesn't it?
quote:
So if I believed in God, but didn't pray, go to church, blame/praise God, etc., then by this rationale I would be an atheist? |
If you believed in God, then you'd incorporate God into your worldview in some way (unless you consider God to be irrelevant, and I don't see how this is possible unless God were to mean something besides "an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent being/force"). This isn't restricted to praying, going to church, or blaiming/praising God (hence the "etc." in my list of activities), of course. If I truly believed, f'rinstance, that some omnipotent being were going to give me a cosmic spanking if I misbehaved, then you bet your ass that my worldview would incorporate some means of avoiding said spankings. However, I don't believe in an omnipotent being who doles out cosmic spankings, and my worldview reflects this.
quote:
Many people believe in God and do not lead a different life than yours. The difference is that you don't do these things out of lack of belief, whereas someone who believes in God but does not do the things may do it out of belief that such things aren't necessary.You're putting a really narrow definition on theists here. |
At no time did I ever say that theists had to take part in all of the religious practices I described, I said that atheists (and practically all agnostics) take part in none of them. I'm in no way putting a narrow definition on "theists," I'm putting a narrow (and accurate) definition on "belief." Belief is the "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something." Simply saying "I believe thus and such" does not actually mean that you believe in thus and such--unless you truly accept the validity and relevance of thus and such, you don't actually believe in it. (I said previously that this is why Pascal's Wager is useless.) "Belief" is not merely another word for "opinion."
quote:
Again, a theist and atheist can have the same basic worldview, the only difference one believes in God, the other does not. IMO, worldview is irrelevant to the discussion--it's simply about the belief in the existence of God. |
In your book, what is a "belief"? If you think that a belief in something as fundamental as the existence of an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent force/being can be irrelevant to somebody's worldview, then I question your definition of the term "belief."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:22
|
|
1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Mahayana Buddhism (99%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (92%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (89%)
5. Liberal Quakers (88%)
6. New Age (87%)
7. Neo-Pagan (87%)
8. Bahá'í Faith (81%)
9. New Thought (80%)
10. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (79%)
11. Jainism (77%)
12. Hinduism (76%)
13. Taoism (73%)
14. Sikhism (71%)
15. Scientology (66%)
16. Secular Humanism (64%)
17. Reform Judaism (57%)
18. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (51%)
19. Orthodox Quaker (50%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (47%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (45%)
22. Nontheist (41%)
23. Jehovah's Witness (38%)
24. Islam (34%)
25. Seventh Day Adventist (25%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (23%)
27. Roman Catholic (23%)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
The same reasons you do, but as below: |
But my reasons (and therefore yours) are based on many tenuous assumptions that by your criteria have a 50% likelyhood of being true (making the probability that the assertions you make on the non-existence of Santa or the tooth fairy astronomically insignificant).
For instance, by your criteria the assertion that I'm not connected to some "Matrix"-type computer simulation has only a 50% chance of being true because it is not testable.
quote:
Drake was quite right when he pointed out that, unless the unicorn is omnipotent, this is irrelevant. You established a clear boundary for the unicorn-- |
You've already given God a boundary - It's omni-potent. Objectively, that's no less clear than the ones I made on the unicorn.
quote:
it is indeed a unicorn, it is invisible, it stays on the dark side, ir appears once every 5.6 million years. With all those boundaries, I can reasonably assume, by what I know of the laws of nature and science, etc., [...] It's possible, but very very improbable. |
Really? How do you know how an invisible unicorn that lives on the dark side of the moon and comes into existence every second out of 5.6 million years behaves? I haven't interacted with one, so I certainly don't know.
Clearly, the existence of this unicorn is not testable or "knowable."
quote:
and by the fact I know you just made up the unicorn yourself, that it doesn not exist. |
That's irrelevant to my point. Imagine that this wasn't the case.
Besides, I think a bunch of people made up the idea of an omni-potent being, themselves (to help cope with their mortality).
quote:
Blah blah blah more science speak. |
Is there some part of the question you don't understand?
quote:
The logic is simple...you can't compare it to an electron. An electron, or any other scientific thing, is something of which we know certain qualities and limits on its behavior. We know nothing of the nature of God, and can't put any sort of limit on God's existence, because god is unknowable, if he exists. |
You don't seem to understand what science is about. Empiricism is the practice of making assertions based on generalizing similar, previous evidence. Based on all we know about the behavior of electrons, we've constructed a field theory on quantum electro-dynamics, so we can determine a probability distribution of this electron's momentum, despite the fact that it's physically impossible to find it out.
The question of God is no different. I'm only applying my previous experiences to this situation. Since I haven't dealt with any omnipotent beings thus far, nor have I heard of a credible account of such a contact, there's absolutely no reason to believe one such being exists. Just as there's absolutely no reason to believe the unicorn exists.
quote:
Because Jehovah claims the words in the Bible are his words. If he lied, he wouldn't be Jehovah (Jehovah isn't supposed to lie), |
I'm jus curious, does it actually say that? And if he lies, why wouldn't he lie about lying?
quote:
and if the words in the Bible are mistranslated/in error/etc., that would contradict the idea that those who are writing the words are divinely inspired. |
Why? Just because the writing is wrong today doesn't mean it started out that way.
quote:
Regardless, if those above were true, then the image of Jehovah given in the Bible is false, and that image of God is therefore provably incorrect, which was all I was saying--that particular incarnation of God is provably wrong. |
Probably? It's been my experience that those with power tend to lie, and that people tend to distort words over many generations, so I don't find it that much more improbable that Jehovah didn't exist were this true.
quote:
I don't think that is reasonable to assume at all. There is no prerequisite that an omnipotent being has to demonstrate his existence to you or I for him to exist. What if God doesn't meddle in worldy affairs? |
What if the invisible unicorn isn't able to interact with us?
quote:
If that is the case, then your assumption is not really rational, is it? |
It's as rational as any other assertion based on the physical world, I imagine. The only teston which we can judge the physical world is previous experience. And God fails, at least for me.
quote:
How would this work with God? "I do not believe God exists," or "I believe God does not exist" seem to me to be hairsplitting... |
The primary definiton of "believe" from my convenient online dictionary:
"1.
[v] accept as true; take to be true. More..."
To not believe that a God exists, is to not accept as true that a God exists.
To believe a God does not exist is to accept as true that a God does not exist. Or to accept as false that a God exists.
Obviously, those are extremely different assertions.
quote:
They want to feel metaphysically separate (usually by ascribing beliefs to atheists that many atheists don't even have, like Boris has done by falsely equating "doesn't believe in God" to "believes in no-god"), and every time there's an OTF "what religion are you" poll that has an atheist option but no agnostic option there's always a slew of agnostics saying "I refuse to vote, because I'm not an atheist." I'm just trying to figure out how agnostics are metaphysically separate from atheists. I mean, Boris is claiming that he 50% believes in God and 50% doesn't believe in God, but professions of belief are largely irrelevant, and I don't see how it's possible to incorporate "half believes in God and half doesn't believe in God" into one's worldview. Does he only believe in God every other day of the week or something? Does he only confess half of his sins, or eat half of the communion wafer, or whatever? Or does he (like most agnostics) have a worldview that is fundamentally identical to the atheist worldview (e.g. doesn't pray, doesn't go to church/temple/etc., doesn't blame God for his bad fortune or praise God for his good fortune)? If someone can explain how it's possible to have a worldview that is fundamentally different from both the atheistic and theistic worldviews, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, I don't see how there is any merit whatsoever to the distinction between atheists and agnostics. |
I see what you're getting at, but I think that the easiest division between the three beliefs, given that agnostics aren't suddenly going to start calling themselves atheists en masse, is the differing idea on the likelyhood of the existence of God(s).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-09-2002 09:32
|