From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Barcs
I honestly do not see many atheists arguing that science is on their side. Atheism is the logical default due to the lack of evidence of god. So atheism is a logical position, but not a scientific one.

Hey Barcs, hope all is well

Shouldn't agnosticism be the more logical default?

Isn't atheism a belief as well? (i.e. a belief in the non existence of a deity of any kind)

I think there is a case to be made for ignosticism as the logical default...

a reply to: Barcs

The "We" is a judgment that cannot be determined except only by oneself... saying another has or has not assumes oneself to be the only experience of phenomenon or the idea as all people instead of oneself.

What is true for ones experience is not true of all experience... so one cannot speak for all beings as that as an impossibility... in such the same manner no words can describe the experience all try to point to... the reason being is the words are an interpretation of that experience not the actual experience.

Tutorials... you can say how to be an atheist etc but you cannot be that for them, you can point to what led you or another to having an experience; but you can't have it for them. But of course you can walk along while they have it... sharing the experience but even side by side? Still a different experience based on the mental discrimination that wishes to voice what cannot be voiced.

...but often is

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Except atheism doesn't apply to dirt, only to the existence god

originally posted by: chr0naut

One might also posit that igtheism is an option, too.

Very true. I may actually lean more towards this. There should be an agreed upon definition or quantification of god before any debate of its existence can take place.

However folks of deep faith wouldn't concern themselves with this, since it is their faith in god's existence that matters most and trumps all

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Which we know will never happen, if for no other reason polytheists like myself will ask the obvious question

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Moot to everything except in belief or disbelief.

As for myself? It doesn't matter either way meaning existing or not moot.

The reason being is objectively observing experience as it rises and passes is relative only to the 5 senses in which they are observed.

If sounds arises in the ear then that's where it resides in consciousness, if it arises in touch? Then that's where it resides in consciousness... etc etc through the senses all of which can be fooled.

So real and tangible means: Experiencing something in as many senses as possible at once to be an actual occurring reality... in observation by consciousness. Not just one of the 5 spheres interpreted by the mind as real and existent... not occurring in all 5 sense spheres at once? Intangible not reality just a perceiving occurring in one of those sense spheres. Sound simply being sound... stopping to say dog or even grandma is not even needed.

Sponge Bob appearing in the eyes and hearing of children makes them real to children... producing a toy or representation of Sponge Bob also adds touch to real or existing yet the representation does not talk... so add a voice box and a string lo and behold Sponge Bob talks but listens to nothing you have to say... add Ai and well now sponge Bob can be similar but then only you move him add robotics and hey he can... Disney has been doing this for years and children objecting have stamped many a foot knowing it wasn't really that character.

Consider atheists doing the very same thing on the character known as gods foot for a very long time and will continue to do so... as there are only perceived representations and representatives of this energy simply known as the creative force which we use in order to make the damned thing come alive our self in reality.

So in actuality harnessing our own power of creativity no matter the form is that essence, harnessing destructive power that same thing only if you believe creation causes destruction.

But neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed just change form... being resistant to change? Resistant to life itself... so embracing change or impermanence of matter and energy changing form which is the only lasting permanent thing there is? Is a good idea as well as making the most of it and as easiest as possible on all life we can not only our own.

originally posted by: Barcs
Agnosticism in it's purest form can claim that we don't know and can't know(some even say we will never know). It's not a default position, it is refusal to take a position. The logical default of anything without evidence is non existence. That's kind of like saying that it would be a logical position to be agnostic toward flying crocodiles.

Sure, we can apply it to all sorts of things like unicorns and aliens. And maybe flying crocs existed during the time of the dinos or could be the future evolutionary outcome of modern crocs... Regardless. it seems logical to still take the "we don't know" position. There's some truth to Carl Sagan's statement I think.

originally posted by: Barcs
It's difficult to really define because most atheists & agnostics out there are actually agnostic atheists, meaning they reject other people's versions of god, but they are still open to the possibility of god being discovered one day.

Perhaps - although as an agnostic (with perhaps ignostic leanings) I've never rejected anyone's version of god. At the end of the day it's someone's faith. If anyone who believes in a god or gods wants to debate the science that they feel is trying to question their god'/s existence, then that person should present some kind of axiom (if you will) by which their god can be said to exist. Otherwise their faith alone should be enough to not bother with what science says.

Not even sure if any of that made sense, but hey, it sounded good to me.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I agree.

a reply to: Noinden

Well, if we're ever able to quantify a god, then that could perhaps provide a formula by which all other gods can be quantified.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Which is why actual science doesn't even bother as it then becomes philosophy.

Belief or faith just talks while reality holds the shovel digging or doing the work... the arms and effort required has no need for a mouth.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

So right after the grand unification equation then?

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Which is why actual science doesn't even bother as it then becomes philosophy.

Belief or faith just talks while reality holds the shovel digging or doing the work... the arms and effort required has no need for a mouth.

There's nothing wrong with faith as long as it doesn't infringe on other's belief systems ("mine is better than yours" crap) or harm anyone. I think faith is an introspective endeavor that if true and deep enough, shouldn't be wavered by what anyone else says.

a reply to: Noinden
Sure.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Indeed but they do all the time... and without secular ethics in the public or dealing with the public sector then they start infringing and impeding the rights of the public and progress in science also creating a lot of war and human misery in their wake...

Often the very excuse of big conglomerates politicians etc to keep saying people are too stupid to care or be concerned in gaining profits off of people or controlling them.

If someone cannot tell the difference between belief and reality it is considered to be delusional thinking.

When so very very many people mistake belief as reality or confuse the two then of course what would their determination be other than look; a huge segment of the population is delusional and cannot separate belief or makebelieve as fiction from reality... so secular ethics has said: Freedom of religion or belief so there is some sort of peace or harmony.

Of course when it leads to wars and societal ills? Influencing and destroying more life than it helps in extremism then is it a very danger to the public and life itself and not the help that it is represented as being.

Those talking it living in tax shelters claiming millions upon millions of dollars giving nothing to people but their own belief back to them and segregating on top of it at that pointing the finger at other groups as the problem... instead of the very tolerance and understanding they are all rooted in.

So how many lessons does one need of don't kill, don't rape, and don't murder? So when they are doing just that in the name of it? Holy Frijoles... time to see it as an issue and a threat to society itself on a whole when represented as truth when it is simply a path to make life better... if that does not accomplish the goal for all life?

Then it is simply preaching hate and causing a divide and those doing it and agreeing with it don't care which is the exact opposite of the message they are at their root supposed to be teaching.

Why do they do this? Because other beliefs are competition to take away control and profits from them when herding masses into their folds instead of their own.

Stop believing and this all becomes seen very clearly; its called reality of the situation and it's effects on society... if someone is too busy defending these labels they have chosen? It is likely they will be a blind subject to that label instead of being able to objectively see what the effects are that arise from holding those very beliefs as ones own...

It of course does not end with believing in religious dogmas but also ideologies themselves or even theory that has yet to be proven fact. These things cease to be subjects of observation and learning when taken as fact and one becomes subject or slave to them when people are way more complex than any singular label could ever wish to identify them other than simply "life" itself.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Let me now when we get there, I'll chime in about the multiplicity of deities

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: TzarChasm

I agree.

Igtheism is very similar to ignosticism.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes I agree they are both labels

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Barcs
I honestly do not see many atheists arguing that science is on their side. Atheism is the logical default due to the lack of evidence of god. So atheism is a logical position, but not a scientific one.

Hey Barcs, hope all is well

Shouldn't agnosticism be the more logical default?

Isn't atheism a belief as well? (i.e. a belief in the non existence of a deity of any kind)

I think there is a case to be made for ignosticism as the logical default...

I like this one. I was unfamiliar with ignosticism before seeing this post. It actually makes perfect sense, and that has been my main beef with the ontological argument and other so called philosophical "proofs" for god. The definition they invoke is always way too ambiguous and presumptive.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Perhaps - although as an agnostic (with perhaps ignostic leanings) I've never rejected anyone's version of god. At the end of the day it's someone's faith. If anyone who believes in a god or gods wants to debate the science that they feel is trying to question their god'/s existence, then that person should present some kind of axiom (if you will) by which their god can be said to exist. Otherwise their faith alone should be enough to not bother with what science says.

Not even sure if any of that made sense, but hey, it sounded good to me.

I agree for the most part, although if you say that you have never rejected anybody's version of god, it's almost the same a saying you believe in them. Even agnosticism involves lack of belief (same as atheism in that sense). That's why I've always considered myself an agnostic atheist. Basically I'll believe it when I see it, but until I do, rejecting other people's beliefs is logical. That doesn't mean I'll go up to them and tell them to their face that they are wrong. It just means I don't personally buy into it and need convincing evidence in order TO believe.

originally posted by: Barcs
.... if you say that you have never rejected anybody's version of god, it's almost the same a saying you believe in them.

I disagree with this part. I'm not aware that a requirement of agnosticism is to reject someone else's belief in a god or gods. It's their belief and they can have it. My position is that we don't and we can't know either way, until at least there is some agreed upon quantification of what god is. Which will most likely not ever happen.