I'm an atheist, and lover of science.. but I had to wonder, what if there is something beyond our p

reply to post by daskakik


The state of affairs you describe leaves the disbelief based on what is clearly non-factual evidence.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by miniatus
I can disbelieve in a deity simply because I find it completely without evidence and entirely unlikely.. In that sort of reasoning there would be no such thing as religious or atheist because simply not knowing would make you agnostic by default.. that's clearly not the case..

I am still science minded .. I will state that I'm 99.9% confident there is no God but because I cannot disprove something that doesn't exist will force me to take that scientific view that I cannot be 100% .. that's well within scientific reasoning.. I just personally reject the idea that there is a God ..there is no conflict there and that doesn't make me Agnostic in my view point, though I take no particular issue of those who want to label me as such either.

Good points.

What would it be called if I say that I am not opposed to the idea of a creator, but this creator is a man of science in another realm and definitely not a god as we define a god?

Then the God isn't really a deity .. he's no more than a scientist and we are all in one giant petri dish.. even fire looked like magic until we understood it.. I think that's the beauty of science and learning.. It's always been a driving force of our race to understand what we don't and I think that drives the invention of deities in our culture.. it's merely filling in the gaps for what we haven't yet figured out on our own .. Story telling, fairy tales.. that's my belief anyway.

But hey, we might very well learn one day that we're one big science experiment...

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by daskakik

 

The state of affairs you describe leaves the disbelief based on what is clearly non-factual evidence.

That is what we have, what else can it be based on?

Originally posted by ottobot

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
reply to post by totallackey

 

Exactly. Therefore we must also leave open the possibility the existence of unicorns, mermaids, magic, vampires and a Stephen King book with a satisfying ending.

Sometimes you just have to use common sense.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa... I liked the end of the Dark Tower Series. I thought it was quite satisfying. Thus, all of the aforementioned items on your list may possibly exist.

BAM.

Look, folks, why is this argument still going on?

The universe is subjective.

One can choose to believe "proofs" or not. The fact is: Proof is not actually Proof because Proof is subjective.

We can argue about logic and rationality and belief and truth until the cows come home.

But, really, we can only believe what our own experiences and egos allow us to believe.

Don't be afraid to examine what other people believe. Don't close the door on other belief systems just because they seem "illogical" to you. We all have different types of logical reason and deduction. What is logical to you may be completely irrational and illogical to me.

We need to try to understand one another, not sit around arguing which of our points of view are "better". We can't know anything for certain.

Belief, Faith, Knowledge, Truth, Science, Proof - these all require one thing to exist: the human mind.

Our minds are powerful, regardless of how we choose to use them. Respect this in one another, and all arguments become null and void.

In closing,

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle

edit on 8/13/12 by ottobot because: (no reason given)

I HAD TO quote this .... This to me is quite intelligent and the ONLY way to view such opinions.... They are all pointless in my opinion.

Understanding one another is KEY to peace and happiness regardless of whether you believe in God or not.

Im a lover of both spirituality and science. Science has used wonderful tools to explain to us our surroundings. Just when you think you have a solid theory you can call fact.... BAM.... Back to the drawing board.

The Universe/ Multiverse is filled with possibilities. Why be arrogant to think " your" way of reasoning is any better than another.

Point is none of us KNOW what lies ahead of us when we exit the body we inhabit on earth. We CAN try and learn from people who have experienced life after death who come back to tell a story. We can choose to believe or not to believe... Its a choice.

I think this is the first time a thread of mine has gone this long and remained active .. 3 days!

And it's not gotten out of control despite the fact it's migrated away from the original topic to a large extent =)

The scientist in me could say to you.... Go outside yourself and inside yourself and there is your proof of God.

God has been defined as Love.

Do we have proof of Love?

I mean..... We can go in circles ALL DAY LONG.

reply to post by miniatus


Thank you for your response. I appreciate the fact you have tolerated our participation in your thread.

The only issue i have with the term, "atheism," is the very first word used in its definition. Disbelief. The primary reason I have encountered (there may be more, but I cannot remember them) for the disbelief proffered by those claiming atheism is lack of evidence. To them, it is further stated as illogical to believe in something for which there (as of yet) is no evidence. Granted.

But let us look at what does actually exist. Insofar as all persons are concerned (including scientists), there is a state of existence exclusive of total experience. Since this is an undeniable fact, the disbelief professed by atheists now becomes a state of being (for them) based on intellectual inconsistency.

reply to post by daskakik


I think you miss the point the atheist demands evidence in order to believe. Well, it is quite evident no one person has experienced everything there is to experience.

ETA: It is just as illogical to claim disbelief as it is belief. I guess subjectivity is okay. But the belief, disbelief, and subjectivity, are not based on logical states of existence.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Please. I answered your questions, you answer mine.

Actually, you did not directly answer mine. You reframed each and every question into ambiguous terms such as anything...You are not any thing, you are some thing. You punted.

1) These aren't intellectually honest answers. We can see that God was a character in a book. Has he been shown to be anything else? No he hasn't.

I answered I do not know. Yes, it is an intellectually honest answer. It is intellectually honest to state the possibility exists that evidence or a deity could exist somewhere where I have not been.

You are correct. The answers to my questions are obvious. Anyone who chooses to, can answer them honestly, dishonestly, or avoid them. You avoided them. You punted. Even though you labeled them as a widening of the goal posts. You must really be lousy at football...

I didn't avoid them, read again sir. I said I agree that no one can know.

Refusing to consider the evidence is not intellectual honesty. It's evasion. It's holding on to something you don't want to let go of for whatever reason. Taking an argumentative stance on a position that doesn't allow for any arguments is somewhat weird, but I recognize that you probably hold a grudge against atheists and wish to show your intellectual might by arguing a position that can't be argued against. You understand that being agnostic means you must also consider that I may be God. Although it is highly unlikely, and spits in the face of every fact known to man, you must hold that the possibility is there if I believe and assert I am. I'm fine with that. And if you try to prove me wrong, I will widen of the goalposts for you.

Agnostics are atheists who refuse to believe their own reasoning in favor of conjecture, anecdote and hearsay. Because I refuse to believe everything I'm told, and have an urge to consider the evidence before believing anything blindly, doesn't make me illogical. Believing in the possibility of something when there is no reason to is quite humorous in my book.

I hate football and lousy metaphors.

reply to post by miniatus


Yeah, it's strange how that works. My threads get few responses but then I'm a little boring......Well, maybe a lot boring. I even bore myself.

i]reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Refusing to consider the evidence is not intellectual honesty. It's evasion. It's holding on to something you don't want to let go of for whatever reason.

I am holding on to the facts in this case. Let me restate the facts in case you missed it before. The facts (i.e., evidence) are neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can lay claim to total experience. How is this evading anything?

Taking an argumentative stance on a position that doesn't allow for any arguments is somewhat weird, but I recognize that you probably hold a grudge against atheists and wish to show your intellectual might by arguing a position that can't be argued against.

Utilizing the facts of the matter, you are more than welcome to tell me why I should adopt a position of total disbelief. I hold no grudges. Honest.

I hate football and lousy metaphors.

Hate is such a strong word. Could we use the word "dislike," or "detest?"

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by daskakik

 

I think you miss the point the atheist demands evidence in order to believe. Well, it is quite evident no one person has experienced everything there is to experience.

I get the point but it is inaccurate. Atheist demand evidence to change their belief. Since no adequate proof is given their belief stays unchanged.

ETA: It is just as illogical to claim disbelief as it is belief. I guess subjectivity is okay. But the belief, disbelief, and subjectivity, are not based on logical states of existence.

Most atheist claim that disbelief is not a belief but then you get a bunch of religious people harping on about it being a belief, a faith and even a religion. I, and probably many others, are flexible enough to go with the flow.

Logical states of existence don't apply to personal beliefs. Told you we would end up going in circles.

reply to post by daskakik

I get the point but it is inaccurate. Atheist demand evidence to change their belief. Since no adequate proof is given their belief stays unchanged.

It is important to remain in context on what we have agreed upon. Utilizing Oxford, the word presented was "disbelief." Not belief. That is important. An atheist's disbelief is based on lack of evidence; however, the disbelief is based on a non-factual state of being. The factual state of being is that of inexperience.

Logical states of existence don't apply to personal beliefs. Told you we would end up going in circles.

An atheist lays claim to evidence and demands logical states.

Do you think if a cat could consciously communicate it would believe in a creator of the universe? a monkey? a mosquito? bacteria? if it would believe in a god would you call it stupid and think it stupid for stating their belief without having enough capacity and information to know that there does not need to be a god? if it believed there is no god and there does not have to be one, would you agree with it because thats what you believe?

the problem i think is if atheists acknowledge the universe itself as the only system that does the creating,, then the universe itself is the "creator",.,. if the universe is the creator of the universe.... its still pretty suspicious how it received this honor and privilege,, and why It creates what it does and what it can.... why it can create what it can...
we are only beginning to understand how it creates what it does... but we came into the projection of an eternal movie somewhere in the middle... and the plot is causally logical,, it has to be,, because the story makes sense,,, but its full of twists and turns,, surprise and suspense,, drama and mystery,, truth and ignorance......

Originally posted by totallackey
It is important to remain in context on what we have agreed upon. Utilizing Oxford, the word presented was "disbelief." Not belief. That is important.

It may be to you but I am working from the POV that language is flexible in the way that it is used to express ideas which are not black and white.

An atheist's disbelief is based on lack of evidence; however, the disbelief is based on a non-factual state of being. The factual state of being is that of inexperience.

I think we already agreed to this. That is why it's a personal belief.

An atheist lays claim to evidence and demands logical states.

Atheist can do anything they please but it doesn't make them right.

Originally posted by totallackey
i]reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Refusing to consider the evidence is not intellectual honesty. It's evasion. It's holding on to something you don't want to let go of for whatever reason.

I am holding on to the facts in this case. Let me restate the facts in case you missed it before. The facts (i.e., evidence) are neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can lay claim to total experience. How is this evading anything?

Taking an argumentative stance on a position that doesn't allow for any arguments is somewhat weird, but I recognize that you probably hold a grudge against atheists and wish to show your intellectual might by arguing a position that can't be argued against.

Utilizing the facts of the matter, you are more than welcome to tell me why I should adopt a position of total disbelief. I hold no grudges. Honest.

I hate football and lousy metaphors.

Hate is such a strong word. Could we use the word "dislike," or "detest?"

edit on 13-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

Good discussion. Your logic is sound. I was merely playing devil's advocate because I saw your use of logic. I enjoy logical arguments so I jumped in. I personally don't pigeon hole myself under any theist, atheist or agnostic banners. I realize that these are all interpretations and opinions. I just like arguing from different viewpoints to test not only my own beliefs, but those of others. Call it philosophizing with a hammer.

By definition, I would have to be agnostic. But I also admit I do hold onto the fact that the probability of there being a god is slim to none. It's a conclusion based on fuzzy logic or probabilistic-logic mixed with common sense. I am not wicked because of it. I am 100% secular. I think any agnostic would agree that even the probability of there being a god is slim to none.

I don't agree with your definition of atheism and how it is a belief in non-existence. If belief in an absence of God is the definition of atheism, then it would be safe to say that theists, who pray to an absent God, are also atheist. And if agnostics believe in the possibility of a God, not an existent god, they too should be atheists. Maybe the labels themselves are absurd.

The only thing that worries me about my own agnosticism, is that even if god did show his face and proved he was god, by definition I would still have to remain agnostic, because the possibility of that god not being the real god is still there. As agnostics, we apply Cartesian doubt to everything but their own Cartesian doubt, which is a contradiction. Does it ever end? I suppose we'll never know.

Bertrand Russel wrote a great essay I'm sure most agnostics have read: What is an Agnostic? This should aslo be read along with his Why I'm not a Christian. Even though he shows himself that there is no god, or rather that God is highly unlikely, he reserves the thought that the possibility is there because he is a man of logic. I agree with Bertrand Russel on pretty much every argument. And in the end, and I agree with you.

I apologize for my deception, but you must admit, these arguments are quite fun.

I am consciousness. I am not my personality, intellect or beliefs. If my intelligence changes, and/or beliefs change and/or my personality changes I am the same person.
The things I feel ( emotions, personality) , the things I think * ( ideas, words, etc) and the things I believe in ( political , religious, philosophical positions etc) are observed by me. They are not me.
I also, like the author of the OP am a skeptic but also a speculator. I am convinced of what I said at the beginning of this post. However, now for the speculation part. If my personality, beliefs etc are not me, then the fact that they can be altered ( thru brain manipulation) is not proof that I am my brain. Perhaps, our brain is like a radio. Damage a radio and the music comes out garbled. However, that does not mean that the radio has altered the original transmission.
Similarly, damage a remote sensor and you will receive damaged data from it. However, that does not mean that you are damaged.



* Considering that we think different thoughts every minute, if we = our thoughts we would be different people every minute!

"The point of the parable is clear but it is usually neglected. Syntax by itself is not sufficient for semantic content. In all of the attacks on the Chinese room argument [plato.stanford.edu... ] I have never seen anyone come out baldly and say they think that syntax is sufficient for semantic content…
The computational model of consciousness stands to consciousness in the same way the computational model of anything stands to the domain being modelled. Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases."
FROM
users.ecs.soton.ac.uk...

In other words, what I observe (my beliefs, personality, en.wikipedia.org... ) are mere signifiers.* They cannot explain the existence of signifieds. Only consciousness (plato.stanford.edu...) can explain the existence of signifieds.
* andromeda.rutgers.edu...

reply to post by daskakik

It may be to you but I am working from the POV that language is flexible in the way that it is used to express ideas which are not black and white.

And this is why it is important to agree on what constitutes "A," at the beginning. This is called shared contextual understanding. Once the shared context is agreed upon, there is no more changing of the horse midstream. It avoids the circle you find yourself in. I am merely trying to lead you out. There is no reason for the spoken language to be anymore flexible than math. In math, 1 is 1. In language, once A is determined to be A, then that is it. Had I known you would agree to Oxford, and then adopt flexibility in mid concept, then I would have ceased explanations, because no explanation would ever be satisfying to you.

You are perfectly welcome to view things in grey, but this does not constitute atheism according to Oxford.