Atheism vs. Theism

[quankanne]

you're not putting your faith in God, you are putting your faith in the people that told you the story of jesus, you yourself did not see jesus do these things. you put your faith in some unknown middle easterns who wrote the gospels 2000 years ago

 

those stories gave me the introduction to that person called Jesus; I've had my own personal encounter with Him. I don't put my trust in what anyone tells me, but what I have discovered for myself. The fact that I've been given the gift of faith greatly adds to it

 

I'd personally argue that religion has caused much against its favor -- much of the world's most brutal savageries. Regardless, what I am after is not so much the best way to grease human and cultural proceedings, but an underlying truth to the universe.

 

religion itself, or people who ACTED in the name of religion/God? Remember, religion is just a vehicle that a person uses/takes on his spiritual journey. It's neither good nor bad, merely a belief system that depends on someone living it out. IMO, that's when it gets screwy, when the human element is added, because of our desires, our wants, our needs, our demands multiplied a million times over. It only takes one person to screw it up for everyone else (think of the Inquisition, the clergy bring scandal to the rest of the Church by their unrepentent/incessant sinning, etc); we cannot fairly judge the whole based on poor examples. After all, you wouldn't base knowledge on faulty or inconclusive evidence, would you?

 

Science is an impersonal thing, but that is the beauty of it. If it's true for you, it's true for me, and true for everyone.

 

I don't refute that there is a beauty in the certainty of knowledge, but I also cannot deny that man is more than just a machine that soaks up knowledge, he has a spiritual side. Whether he represses or encourages it, that spiritual side exists.

[Vertex]

those stories gave me the introduction to that person called Jesus; I've had my own personal encounter with Him. I don't put my trust in what anyone tells me, but what I have discovered for myself. The fact that I've been given the gift of faith greatly adds to it

 

This is where I also have to furrow my brow a bit. So many people say they've had personal encounters, but I also ask why people don't consider the possibility that these counters are potentially hallucinations/confirmation biases/potential scenarios describable through other possibilities/etc. What was your encounter?

 

religion itself, or people who ACTED in the name of religion/God? Remember, religion is just a vehicle that a person uses/takes on his spiritual journey. It's neither good nor bad, merely a belief system that depends on someone living it out. IMO, that's when it gets screwy, when the human element is added, because of our desires, our wants, our needs, our demands multiplied a million times over. It only takes one person to screw it up for everyone else (think of the Inquisition, the clergy bring scandal to the rest of the Church by their unrepentent/incessant sinning, etc); we cannot fairly judge the whole based on poor examples. After all, you wouldn't base knowledge on faulty or inconclusive evidence, would you?

 

Of course -- the people who act in the name of religion. However, it would seem that religion, if meant to have a good side for making life smoother, also has a rather nasty side where people use it to misinterpret and justify brutal slaughter. Even the Qur'an doesn't say specifically that it is okay to slaughter infidels unless it is "just," and yet we see so many people blatantly doing so and searching for reasons to justify their actions through the ambiguity of the texts. Either way, it's a very high-variance entity.

 

 

I don't refute that there is a beauty in the certainty of knowledge, but I also cannot deny that man is more than just a machine that soaks up knowledge, he has a spiritual side. Whether he represses or encourages it, that spiritual side exists.

 

How would you respond if I said that man is purely a machine? I can describe "spirituality" in a purely physical, intellectualized way. How are we any different? Purely because we are sentient and capable of intellectualizing? Because we are capable of attaching "meaning" to things (which in itself is an evolutionary construct)? What about a computer? We could argue that a human is just a different form of computer with self-replication and extremely dynamic templating and associative memory storage. And yet I don't think you'd say a computer has a spirit.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Vertex

[TheLoneSock]

This is where I also have to furrow my brow a bit. So many people say they've had personal encounters, but I also ask why people don't consider the possibility that these counters are potentially hallucinations/confirmation biases/potential scenarios describable through other possibilities/etc. What was your encounter?

 

You are faithless and would never understand anyway. What would her explaining her encounter to you accomplish? NOTHING. You would merely pick it apart and try to convince her she is wrong for believing what she does. It's easy to sit back and armchair quarterback something after the fact with explanations as to what they could have been. You would never simply take her word for it as to what happened.

 

Of course -- the people who act in the name of religion. However, it would seem that religion, if meant to have a good side for making life smoother, also has a rather nasty side where people use it to misinterpret and justify brutal slaughter. Even the Qur'an doesn't say specifically that it is okay to slaughter infidels unless it is "just," and yet we see so many people blatantly doing so and searching for reasons to justify their actions through the ambiguity of the texts. Either way, it's a very high-variance entity.

 

You're still blaming religion for the actions of people. Just like guns don't kill people, neither does religion. PEOPLE kill people. For every bad instance of someone misinterpreting religion there are millions of good deeds done at the guidance of religion. The same argument can be made for this too, religion doesn't do good deeds, people do good deeds. But many times it's their interpretation of faith that leads them to do it. It ALL comes down to personal interpretation, it ALL comes down to the person.

 

How would you respond if I said that man is purely a machine? I can describe "spirituality" in a purely physical, intellectualized way. How are we any different? Purely because we are sentient and capable of intellectualizing? Because we are capable of attaching "meaning" to things (which in itself is an evolutionary construct)? What about a computer? We could argue that a human is just a different form of computer with self-replication and extremely dynamic templating and associative memory storage. And yet I don't think you'd say a computer has a spirit.

 

Someone has been watching The Matrix too much.

 

I will say this though, many things drive people closer to God. And many things drive people away. Atheism is one of the things that drive people away. Hardship and suffering is one of the things that drive people closer. Ironic don't you think that the people who are full of resolve and resillience choose to put their faith behind Him, even under dire circumstances? Meanwhile the Atheist thinks instead "Surely there cannot be a God, otherwise why would he allow me to go through such pain?". That or you look to science and think it must refute God. If God were here making miracles happen every day in a grand and obvious way, you would believe. But that is not faith, you are no different than the cynics of Christ's time. I am a stronger man than you, not only because of the **** I have been through, but because I have faith in something above myself. That is something you will most likely never understand.

 

Maybe you haven't been tested enough in life, up there at the University of PA? You have had the luxery of not having to endure some of the things others have, and you can remain safe up there playing the role of young philosopher.

 

In short you have been given no REASON to believe. Life has been generous to you. Perhaps if you spent a few months in Afghanistan you might change your views. I bet a few bullets flying over your head in the heat of battle would get a prayer or two out of you.

 

There is a reason most of the military is religious in some way. Are we to assume it's because they are all duped and blind to logic? No, it's because they believe.

 

I would add more but I have to go soon.

[Vertex]

You are faithless and would never understand anyway. What would her explaining her encounter to you accomplish? NOTHING. You would merely pick it apart and try to convince her she is wrong for believing what she does. It's easy to sit back and armchair quarterback something after the fact with explanations as to what they could have been. You would never simply take her word for it as to what happened.

 

Simply "taking someone's word" is basically saying "Alright, I have no way to verify your claim, but I'll assume it's true." If I make such a claim with science, I can prove it to be true for anyone. We already know that there is much personal bias involved in stories, and not considering alternate possibilities is a dangerous logical fallacy to begin with if your quest is truth.

 

 

You're still blaming religion for the actions of people. Just like guns don't kill people, neither does religion. PEOPLE kill people. For every bad instance of someone misinterpreting religion there are millions of good deeds done at the guidance of religion. The same argument can be made for this too, religion doesn't do good deeds, people do good deeds. But many times it's their interpretation of faith that leads them to do it. It ALL comes down to personal interpretation, it ALL comes down to the person.

 

I agree -- it is indeed all about the person. People do kill people, but guns certainly make it easier. Much like religion. I won't deny that it does a lot of people a lot of good, but you can't deny that it has also caused much atrocity. I think we can agree that it is a double-edged sword, here. If it ALL comes down to personal interpretation as you claim, how can you say that this truth is true for everyone regarding our universe and our origin?

 

Someone has been watching The Matrix too much.

 

Hey, the Matrix is a great movie!

 

I will say this though, many things drive people closer to God. And many things drive people away. Atheism is one of the things that drive people away. Hardship and suffering is one of the things that drive people closer. Ironic don't you think that the people who are full of resolve and resillience choose to put their faith behind Him, even under dire circumstances? Meanwhile the Atheist thinks instead "Surely there cannot be a God, otherwise why would he allow me to go through such pain?". That or you look to science and think it must refute God. If God were here making miracles happen every day in a grand and obvious way, you would believe. But that is not faith, you are no different than the cynics of Christ's time. I am a stronger man than you, not only because of the **** I have been through, but because I have faith in something above myself. That is something you will most likely never understand.

 

Keep this conversation civil, please -- you don't know anything about my history and so please don't resort to statements such as "I'm stronger than you." On topic though, again, the idea is NOT to DISPROVE God. I'll say it again. The idea is NOT to DISPROVE God. You can say "I'll never understand faith" but I can just as easily say "You don't understand why God is not necessary to explain" or "There is nothing above man because all constructs of humanity derive from purely physical and evolutionary processes which we can describe with science."

 

Maybe you haven't been tested enough in life, up there at the University of PA? You have had the luxery of not having to endure some of the things others have, and you can remain safe up there playing the role of young philosopher.

 

WHOA. WHOA. Alright, that's not cool. Again, please keep this civil. There was no reason for you to throw that type of comment at me. For your clarification, I came from a very poor family that wasn't educated, and put myself through a difficult and expensive college working fulltime with an additional part-time job, in the end earning two separate degrees from my undergrad experience, while handling the deaths of my father and brother and some major life problems with an ex-girlfriend of mine. I've been "tested" plenty and don't need that kind of baseless assumption on your behalf. I have not attacked you at all in any of my posts and I expect the same level of courtesy. Life's been anything but generous to me except for the fact that I have been gifted with a strong mind and the ability to seek out resources and keep myself on a strong life track with no outside help.

 

In short you have been given no REASON to believe. Life has been generous to you. Perhaps if you spent a few months in Afghanistan you might change your views. I bet a few bullets flying over your head in the heat of battle would get a prayer or two out of you.

 

I've had PLENTY of chances to "believe," and yet I still choose atheism. I believe strength comes from within. It comes from those we love, and it comes from making yourself a stronger man than before. I don't need a God to do this. If I were fighting in a war with bullets flying past my head, praying would be the last thing on my list. I'd be wondering why humans have to resort to this kind of destruction. Besides, I wouldn't go to war in the first place because I think war is an awful idea -- the end result of a game theory conditional that is truly saddening. Despite the sad occurrences that I've encountered in life, not once did I feel the need to hand everything over to a God. It would have been easier for me to do so, sure. It would have felt nice to know someone was watching out for me up there. However, there's no reason for me to believe that to be the case. Sometimes the easy way out is not the truthful one, in my opinion.

 

I can still love life, love people, and appreciate all the beauty and natural wonders and emotions that life has to offer -- and yet I can still claim that they're all derived from the science you find so boring. I would argue that science is the driving force behind all that is interesting. My "spirituality" -- my source of internal meaning -- I can find with my relationships with friends and family and self-progression/self-actualization. And yet, again, these things are still physically-bound and derived from what we know with science. We can't necessarily explain WHY we feel what we do or what SPECIFICALLY causes the end outputs of what we deem a spiritual journey or intuitive emotional instinct, but my point is that they are all functions of the mind -- a huge combination of variables underneath it all. These variables are, again, physically-bound, and, again, are functions of science.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Vertex

[Vertex]

Also an interesting video to check out:

 

I really advise all of you to watch the whole thing -- lots of good points.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Vertex

[johan]

It bothers me as well when pro-Creationists say "What, you think we're here by random chance?" Evolution is not random at ALL, but rather deterministic.

 

What created evolution?

[Vertex]

What created evolution?

 

Evolution is a process of all other interacting variables -- it's a process of change and adaptability over time. It isn't something "created" by anything. That's like asking "what created mathematics?" It's an attribute -- an underlying concept.

[johan]

Evolution is a process of all other interacting variables -- it's a process of change and adaptability over time. It isn't something "created" by anything. That's like asking "what created mathematics?" It's an attribute -- an underlying concept.

 

So it always existed as a universal law?

[Peaceful Guy]

most of the theists here are christians, I hope someone will answer me on my first post here, about the things I said

 

and answer me on these set of questions please

it seems accordign to christianity(and to so many other religions) God has like a double personnality

he wants you to believe in him, but he made science and logic against him

he wants you to know he is there for you but he makes no miracles and no effort at all to show it

he wants you to find him but he will not drop you any clear signs

life is a test, except every human got a different one with different difficulty

you pray asking for something, if it happenes, God made it happen, if it doesn't, it's God's will

he knows what you want before you ask it, and he might not give it to you regardless of whether you pray or not, why bother?

 

I have seen the ceremonies in church on sunday(what's the word for that again?) basicly the priest repeats the same set of words(like magic words) and actions at precise given moments, holding a cross and wearing some weird clothe around an alter with a cup in the middle

what sets you apart from the heathens that used to sacrifice goats and dance around the fire? (when I was a kid I remember they gave us examples of heathens and we laughed at the idea, now I see there is no difference)

would jesus not come to the ceremony and bless you all if you actualy changed the way the ceremony goes?

why do the people need to go to church every sunday? there is nothing new, I already memorised everything after 3 years of attending, ironicly the priest who has been hosting the ceremony for decades, still needs to read the words from the book

 

most say that they do not worship objects but the holy God they do not see, yet if a picture of the blond guy with green eyes that is assumed to be the middle eastern jesus, gets torn a bit, many would not dare throw it in the trash

if you step on the picture of the blue eyes guy with blond hair, you will pick up the picture, kiss it, say you're sorry and then pray for forgiveness

 

in church you kneel and pray in front of a statue, many would not dare come up to the alter and pray from there, I want to see a true believer in God, that would come to church and kneel with his back turned to the alter and the statue, that is when I will respect the believer as someone who knows what he is doing...

 

so many questions, so many illogical things

 

you sound a little preachy! couldn't resist!

[Vertex]

So it always existed as a universal law?

 

It's a process that is used to describe how things change depending on the variables of interaction -- hence, "evolving." It depends on all outside conditions.

[Toki]

So it always existed as a universal law?

 

Would it be such a terrible thing if it was?

[johan]

It's a process that is used to describe how things change depending on the variables of interaction -- hence, "evolving." It depends on all outside conditions.

 

I'm not asking for a definition of it. I know what it is. I'm asking how it came about. Did it exist before life existed?

 

Would it be such a terrible thing if it was?

 

No.

[Vertex]

I'm not asking for a definition of it. I know what it is. I'm asking how it came about. Did it exist before life existed?

 

Sure -- evolution in general is just a concept of change and adaptation over time. It also happens to describe how lifeforms change, which is how we generally associate the term. However, the underlying concepts of evolution have always been around.

[johan]

Sure -- evolution in general is just a concept of change and adaptation over time. It also happens to describe how lifeforms change, which is how we generally associate the term. However, the underlying concepts of evolution have always been around.

 

No kidding. So evolution existed before life existed? Interesting. So something must have created it. Or are you saying there are things that can exist but were never actually created.

[Vertex]

No kidding. So evolution existed before life existed? Interesting. So something must have created it. Or are you saying there are things that can exist but were never actually created.

 

Why do you make the assumption that a process has to be "created" for it to exist?

 

Creation arguments have been hammered to dust time and time again. I can provide you with sources/material if you'd like.

[Peaceful Guy]

You cannot disprove a God. You can't disprove Zeus, or Apollo, or Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. How can we disprove something if we're always moving the goalposts away? "God" is deliberately defined in a way that is impossible to disprove with science because he is always defined to fall outside of it -- he's always the "possible variable we may not know yet, but it could exist, and we have faith in it." How can you disprove a God if people are going to insist that no matter how much proof we amass, he could always fall outside of that proof?

 

ah, do you need proof of the sun? no, because you've experienced it.

 

This isn't a matter of misquoting -- it's a logical problem of how God is even defined. As for "direct experience," you're going to need to elaborate and show beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't some sort of hindsight bias/hallucination/scenario with another possible explanation, and it must be a truth that is true for all -- otherwise it can't be true, and therefore can't be the correct explanation.

 

okay, that first part took me a minute. but i think that the difficulty in defining god is more your problem than mine. direct experience of god sounds unbelievable to you, right? its not fair to say that if i cant explain something to you, then it didn't happen. i mean, i think your looking for something more tangible, more concrete.. how would you explain love to a robot?

 

-- he's always the "possible variable we may not know yet, but it could exist, and we have faith in it."

 

please don't color what im saying with what other people have said before.. especially when using absolutes.. let me speak for myself. im not offended by any means, i just want to have this conversation with you, not you and the last guy you had it with.

[Vertex]

ah, do you need proof of the sun? no, because you've experienced it.

 

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Of course we need proof of the sun if we're going to make the claim that it exists.

 

okay, that first part took me a minute. but i think that the difficulty in defining god is more your problem than mine. direct experience of god sounds unbelievable to you, right? its not fair to say that if i cant explain something to you, then it didn't happen. i mean, i think your looking for something more tangible, more concrete.. how would you explain love to a robot?

 

If I told you I had a personal experience with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what would you say to that?

 

please don't color what im saying with what other people have said before.. especially when using absolutes.. let me speak for myself. im not offended by any means, i just want to have this conversation with you, not you and the last guy you had it with.

 

I wasn't speaking to your personal beliefs (my apologies if it came across that way), but rather the general notions I tend to hear regarding God.

[Peaceful Guy]

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Of course we need proof of the sun if we're going to make the claim that it exists.

 

well, the sun exists, and im not going to prove it to you.

 

If I told you I had a personal experience with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what would you say to that?

 

that you read something someone else wrote, and you think my belief in god is just as silly as believing in a spaghetti monster.. which i, by the way, do NOT believe in!

 

I wasn't speaking to your personal beliefs (my apologies if it came across that way), but rather the general notions I tend to hear regarding God.

 

no apologies necessary (for real, im not who you usually have this conversation with i imagine ).. im having fun with this if you can't tell. look, ill level with you. im willing to accept the possibility that what i experienced was not the truth.. or whatever. i think you should be willing to say the same thing.

[Peaceful Guy]

hey, im going out dancing.. thanks for talking and have a great night!!! :)

[disgracian]

You cannot disprove a God. You can't disprove Zeus, or Apollo, or Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either.

The beauty of it is that you can disprove gods. The "disprovability" is based on the amount and specificity of the claims made about them.

 

The only god that cannot be disproven is the shy and retiring god that hides away somewhere in the cosmos, or in a different dimension or reality. A god that does not interact with us in any way.

 

But in most cases this isn't the god idea being advanced. The two most aggressively expansionistic religions in the world are Christianity and Islam, so if you hear somebody trying to prove god's existence, chances are it's going to be one or the other.

 

In both cases, there are holy books detailing the exploits of very interactive gods. They assist armies in war, heal the sick, punish the wicked, send plagues and natural disasters, impregnate virgins, walk on water, feed thousands with a small basked of fish and bread, and so on. This also provides a greater attack surface for logic and scientific inquiry.

 

Simply put, discredit the claim and you discredit the god to which it is attributed. The only response to this is to, as you go on to point out, shift the goalposts away to the "hermit god" to give room to manoeuvre with lines like "You'd have to know everything about the entire universe to disprove god", then shift them back to Yahweh/Allah in the next breath.

 

Except that, as already pointed out, you don't need to even leave the planet to disprove those two gods because they have already, so it is claimed, come to us. And if any of those claims, no matter how trivial, are defeated then, in the context of claimed infallibility, the entire premise is suspect.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

No kidding. So evolution existed before life existed?

You are not really making it clear what kind of evolution you are referring to.

 

Biological evolution? That describes how living organisms change over time, so it is to a degree dependent on the existence of what it is describing. Political or social evolution? That's something else.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Vertex]

The beauty of it is that you can disprove gods. The "disprovability" is based on the amount and specificity of the claims made about them.

 

The only god that cannot be disproven is the shy and retiring god that hides away somewhere in the cosmos, or in a different dimension or reality. A god that does not interact with us in any way.

 

But in most cases this isn't the god idea being advanced. The two most aggressively expansionistic religions in the world are Christianity and Islam, so if you hear somebody trying to prove god's existence, chances are it's going to be one or the other.

 

In both cases, there are holy books detailing the exploits of very interactive gods. They assist armies in war, heal the sick, punish the wicked, send plagues and natural disasters, impregnate virgins, walk on water, feed thousands with a small basked of fish and bread, and so on. This also provides a greater attack surface for logic and scientific inquiry.

 

Simply put, discredit the claim and you discredit the god to which it is attributed. The only response to this is to, as you go on to point out, shift the goalposts away to the "hermit god" to give room to manoeuvre with lines like "You'd have to know everything about the entire universe to disprove god", then shift them back to Yahweh/Allah in the next breath.

 

Except that, as already pointed out, you don't need to even leave the planet to disprove those two gods because they have already, so it is claimed, come to us. And if any of those claims, no matter how trivial, are defeated then, in the context of claimed infallibility, the entire premise is suspect.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

This is what I was referring to earlier -- we can already show much of the Bible to be demonstratively false. Others will say it's meant to be an interpretive piece. My problem is that it then becomes an issue of moving the goalposts and then referring to God as "outside of whatever you can prove with science," hence the dilemma. Any time you disprove something pertaining to God/the Bible/etc, it seems as if the end result is constantly molded AROUND that instead of the other way around.

[disgracian]

This has been a continuing trend for some time. In millenia past, natural disasters, health and sickness, life and death, the fates of nations were all the domain of god and other supernatural beings. One by one, these events have been dropped from the list as rational inquiry probes deeper and deeper into the unknown.

 

Any believer alive today has to confront this on some level or another. Most of them will seek medical treatment if sick and will put it down to bacteria instead of demons. Most realise that natural disasters are entirely, well, natural.

 

What is the conclusion? That everybody thousands of years ago were wrong about this stuff, and by extension their holy books which state the same? How can they reconcile this?

 

As you say, they shift the goalposts just beyond what is currently explainable. Actually, what they usually do is shift them just past what they think is explainable, and then get quite confused and angry when confronted with evidence to the contrary. That's why there are so many creationists running around who think there are no transitional fossils, or that there have never been any recorded cases of speciesation.

 

This then requires that they deny observable reality. That's why it's so hard to reason with them.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Peaceful Guy]

vertex, are you a computer?

[Peaceful Guy]

its okay if you are, that's awesome!