|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:12 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Imagine this hypothetical situation. A man develops a computer and the software to run a simulation complex enough to emulate a universe similar to ours. All of the physical laws are identical. This simulation would treat the universe simply as a collection of particles and their properties. (In other words, it's not like some grand game of Age of Empires; it's a basic mathematical recreation of our reality.)
In this simulation, simulated life comes to be on one of the simulated planets. Eventually, some of the simulated life evolves to have self-awareness. Some of the simulated organisms explain the world around them by citing a creator, a higher being.
Alright, hyptothetical-ness over. In that situation, would they not be correct? They were indeed created by something on what could be called a higher plane then themselves. Although he has no involvement in their development, he is watching.
THEREFORE, I POSTULATE THAT one must acknowledge the infinitesimal, minute, super-duper remote chance that there is a God. I reason that most of us do not claim that the existence of a God or gods is impossible, but that it is just plain stupid to assume that as fact with no evidence.
Don't get me wrong. If I am an agnostic, then I am the most atheistic agnostic possible. I believe, I think, I really hope that there is no God, but, for the same reason I can't say that there is, I cannot say that there isn't.
So, being a true atheist requires the leap of faith that this one chance just isn't the way it went down. And since "leaps of faith" are irrational, illogical, and scientifically unsound, that makes them no better than the theists themselves.
I urgently need commentary on this! Please consider your argument carefully. This has been bugging me, and, despite my lifelong claims, I fear I truly am agnostic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:53 pm
|
|
|
|
Ah yes. This is precisely what I was trying to say in a similar topic a while back. It got written off as crap by most everyone else, so I'm glad to hear it from someone else's mouth. I feel it's a bit arrogant to presume we're the highest form of life, but at the same time, I can't pretend to understand what that higher form of life is, should it exist. It's also arrogant to claim to know what this possible "God" is like. I don't think anyone's gotten it right yet, and I don't think it really matters. I'm pretty damn sure there's no one out there watching out for me, but I won't entirely write out the possibility of there being a "god". Essentially, I reserve judgement, because it's a leap of faith for me to totally believe in a god, or lack of god. Perhaps we're part of a very very large organism; the point it, we don't know for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:31 am
|
|
|
|
Hogwash.
DivideByZero14 Don't get me wrong. If I am an agnostic, then I am the most atheistic agnostic possible. I believe, I think, I really hope that there is no God, but, for the same reason I can't say that there is, I cannot say that there isn't.
I'm gunna dig deep for patience, because I am getting sick growing weary of this statement and even more tired of qoting myself. But, that is what this guild is for: for us to exchange ideas in an understanding and open minded atheist environment. Having said that, I'm gunna be as polite as I can.
Zero, you may want to rethink your stance as an Atheist. Athiests can say with 99.99% certainty that there isn't a god/gods or god like beings. The only reason ideal Atheists won't boast 100% confidence is because they are open minded and understand that humans can always be wrong. However, ideal Atheists, although accepting of this possibility, regard it as being so unlikely that it IS NOT worth mentioning. I mean this in the sense that it is so unlikely for me to win the lottery in eight different states at the same time that you could easily say it is a near impossibility.
That is how Atheists idealy feel about the possibility of god, but of course, people are different, and their views may vary. As for your argument in the quoted paragraph above:
I Once "You can't disprove, I can't prove, and you still can't say you know what happens after we die, so you don't know. It's a fifty fifty chance."
No! It's not! The "if you can't disprove it, and I can't prove it means we each have an equal shot" argument is the weakest and most illogical argument ever conceived by thinking man. In no other field, no other profession, no other situation would that argument hold except for religion where people desperately hold on to their beliefs despite the obvious. Just try it out.
Doctor: Well the man doesn't appear to be moving and looks quite dead, but...when you die you'll see he's actually alive and well.
Me: What? Are you serious? He's dead doctor.
Doctor: Hey now. You don't know what happens after you die so there is an equally good chance that he is alive, just in another place.
News reporter: Today the lost city of Atlantis was found, but archeologists say you won't see it until you die.
Bush: I will return all taxes, but you won't get them until you die.
Need I go on? No one can prove any of these examples as being false, but we all know they're ridiculous, and the odds of them being true are on in a gajillion.
Here's how I see it, "Innocent until proven guilty." This ideology has nearly become a world wide accepted way of dealing with an acusation. We say innocent until proven guilty because we go by the situation before the accusation. The accuser has to produce evidence that a change has occurred. Before man made religion, there was no god. That is how it was. Now people claim there is one. Prove it. Otherwise we are innocent. No court would convict a man because he couldn't produce evidence to prove his innocence against a prosecutor who couldn't produce evidence that he's guilty. Therefore I don't believe in god.
The only reason you or anyone believes in the possibility of a god/gods or god like beings is because you've been exposed to religious fiction. If you had never heard of religion or any fiction being presented as fact with god/gods or god like beings, you wouldn't have such notions in your head that they may exists. It doesn't matter how many people believe in a fictional novel uless they can produce hard evidence that it is true it will always be mythology and nothing more.
DivideByZero14 So, being a true atheist requires the leap of faith that this one chance just isn't the way it went down. And since "leaps of faith" are irrational, illogical, and scientifically unsound, that makes them no better than the theists themselves.
shinobikun 11.Atheists have to have faith that God doesn't exist. This claim is so nonsensical it's laughable. Of course Atheists don't have to have faith that there is no god, rather Christians have shown no solid evidence which proves their god exists. If they could, they would, and they wouldn't have to rely on faith to keep beleiving in their god. However, without evidence they must rely solely on faith in order to keep believing. To claim that atheists have faith that God doesn't exist is an attempt to equate the two stances of atheism with theism. The claim of atheist faith stems from the Christian argument that "Atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist" which shifts the burden of proof from the one making the claim to the one they are attempting to convince. As such, it's an invalid argument. At the very least, the claim that atheists have to have faith that God doesn't exist only works if A. God exists, and B. There is evidence to prove that God exists. If A and B were true, then there would be no atheists and it would be like saying that someone has to have faith that the sun doesn't exist.
I Once Evil_Alex37 Athiests need to accept that while Christianity is blind faith in a god, Atheism is just blind disbelief in a god. All Atheism is, is Inverse Christianity, dont' give me "Satanism," that's inverse Bhuddism.
I Once I don't believe Atheists are "presumptuous." We have simple done the math and calculated the odds, and it seems very unlikely that there is a god in the same sense that if you drop a ball it seems very unlikely that it won't fall. This doesn't mean it's impossible. There is a possibility that it may just float, but that possibility is remote. Theists believe that the ball will float because they have faith, Agnostics believe that because there is a chance (dispite how unlikely) that they shouldn't take a diffinitive stance (pussies who lack conviction), and Atheists believe it when they see it.
Furthermore, or just to beat a dead horse, would you say you have faith that there aren't invisable pink flying apes dancing above your head? I would hope not. I would hope you would say "I have no reason to believe this accusation unless I am presented with proof." I have no reason to believe in the existance of god. And neither do you. To have faith is to believe blindly without ever knowing. I know I have never seen a god/gods or god like being. That is what I know. If some one can't see that as knowledge and chooses to call it faith then that is simply thier factless opinion. Call it what you will if it makes you feel better, but this is one subject that it going to require a infinitely better arguement to convince otherwise. So back to my opening satement of you rethinking your stance: If you feel that you have to have faith to be atheist, then you truely are no better than a theist. If I were you, I would do a little soul searching and try to understand the difference between what I believe and what I know.
Now on a different note: why would you hope there is no god? Does it matter?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:58 am
|
|
|
|
iviary Ah yes. This is precisely what I was trying to say in a similar topic a while back. It got written off as crap by most everyone else, so I'm glad to hear it from someone else's mouth. I feel it's a bit arrogant to presume we're the highest form of life, but at the same time, I can't pretend to understand what that higher form of life is, should it exist. It's also arrogant to claim to know what this possible "God" is like. I don't think anyone's gotten it right yet, and I don't think it really matters. I'm pretty damn sure there's no one out there watching out for me, but I won't entirely write out the possibility of there being a "god". Essentially, I reserve judgement, because it's a leap of faith for me to totally believe in a god, or lack of god. Perhaps we're part of a very very large organism; the point it, we don't know for sure.
Yayness!
Dathu The only reason you or anyone believes in the possibility of a god/gods or god like beings is because you've been exposed to religious fiction. If you had never heard of religion or any fiction being presented as fact with god/gods or god like beings, you wouldn't have such notions in your head that they may exists. It doesn't matter how many people believe in a fictional novel uless they can produce hard evidence that it is true it will always be mythology and nothing more.
You're probably right. Who could come up with this crazy stuff on their own? But, whatever the source, it's still here.
Dathu Athiests can say with 99.99% certainty that there isn't a god/gods or god like beings. The only reason ideal Atheists won't boast 100% confidence is because they are open minded and understand that humans can always be wrong. However, ideal Atheists, although accepting of this possibility, regard it as being so unlikely that it IS NOT worth mentioning.
I bed to differ. In any, in every science, something is not true unless it can be proven unequivocally so. If there is ANY chance that it might be wrong, it is submitteed to further testing until it can be proven true. If I was 99.99% sure that 2 + 2 = 4, I'd still have to retest the statement's truth until I know, beyond all doubt, that 2 + 2 = 4.
Dathu Furthermore, or just to beat a dead horse, would you say you have faith that there aren't invisable pink flying apes dancing above your head? I would hope not.
Well, I do. Unless I have evidence there aren't invisible pink fly apes dancing above my head, I will consider it a valid possiblity.
I will not assume that it is true, but I will not discard the notion outright. As I've said, I don't think there is, and I intend to live my life as if there isn't.
But, the only way to know about the nonexistence of these apes without controlled testing is to believe. How did you describe faith?
Dathu To have faith is to believe blindly without ever knowing.
I refuse to believe blindly without ever knowing that there is no God.
Dathu Now on a different note: why would you hope there is no god? Does it matter?
Guess I'm just a control freak. whee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:59 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:38 am
|
|
|
|
DivideByZero14 Dathu The only reason you or anyone believes in the possibility of a god/gods or god like beings is because you've been exposed to religious fiction. If you had never heard of religion or any fiction being presented as fact with god/gods or god like beings, you wouldn't have such notions in your head that they may exists. It doesn't matter how many people believe in a fictional novel uless they can produce hard evidence that it is true it will always be mythology and nothing more. You're probably right. Who could come up with this crazy stuff on their own? But, whatever the source, it's still here.
Humans came up with it.
I Once The first step to understanding atheism is to understand the history of religion. The first forms of religion began in hunter-gather societies. At that time it was simply a creative appreciation of nature. The people, having minds and thoughts, placed similar minds and thoughts into the earth around them, anthropomorphizing them. They believed all things had spirits; rocks, trees, water, whatever. Originally just an abstract thought, it changed dramatically when they found themselves in need of certain things from the spirits. They would pray to the trees when they needed fruit, beg the river to overflow with fish when they were short on game to hunt, or they even asked the sky to rain when the lands became dry. Overtime, "official" people were selected to talk to these sprits. They were chosen because they were very wise, very old, or had luck in making favorable decisions. These people became the first shamans.
Now, so far it was still nature being worshiped, but what happened to change that was favoritism. People who lived in dry lands began to view the spirits of rain as being the most important. Or people who had unfertile crop lands would pray more to the god or gods of harvest (notice how abstract and specific to their needs the spirits are becoming). As their relationship with the spirits became more personal and close, the spirits began to take human form so as to appear easier to approach. As certain gods became more and more favored, a hierarchy appeared in the spiritually realm, and the first seeds of monotheism were sown. Not only were some gods higher in rank, but some actually became gods of gods, though more often than not, they were viewed as parents. An example of this would be the Greek gods with Kronos as the lord of lords. Through time smaller gods simply became fazed out, and new religions began to only offer one all powerful god for worship.
But aside from the role of the gods, the role that these beliefs had in society began to change as well. In its early days religion was a simple way to beg nature for favors, but it eventually became a way to bring about unity. At first it only united small groups such as families, but later it unified entire communities. Now we can see large groups of people being bound by a common belief, and they began to identify themselves through their religion. As their numbers grew, the power of the shaman grew as well, and the first "officials" were born. With this power came a way to control, and the ways of living were the first to be controlled. Lifestyles and philosophies on morals were created to "please the gods." Over time these rules became more and more complicated and needed to be written down (the first bibles). As the number of followers grew more officials were needed (the first orders). And now we have an organized religion and a religion based society. Only at this point religion is primarily a form of order and control where people of power wield the word of the gods like whips. You can see where it goes from there.
DivideByZero14 Dathu Athiests can say with 99.99% certainty that there isn't a god/gods or god like beings. The only reason ideal Atheists won't boast 100% confidence is because they are open minded and understand that humans can always be wrong. However, ideal Atheists, although accepting of this possibility, regard it as being so unlikely that it IS NOT worth mentioning. I bed to differ. In any, in every science, something is not true unless it can be proven unequivocally so. If there is ANY chance that it might be wrong, it is submitteed to further testing until it can be proven true. If I was 99.99% sure that 2 + 2 = 4, I'd still have to retest the statement's truth until I know, beyond all doubt, that 2 + 2 = 4.
I'm not even gunna respond to that.
DivideByZero Dathu Furthermore, or just to beat a dead horse, would you say you have faith that there aren't invisable pink flying apes dancing above your head? I would hope not. Well, I do. Unless I have evidence there aren't invisible pink fly apes dancing above my head, I will consider it a valid possiblity. I will not assume that it is true, but I will not discard the notion outright. As I've said, I don't think there is, and I intend to live my life as if there isn't. But, the only way to know about the nonexistence of these apes without controlled testing is to believe. How did you describe faith? Dathu To have faith is to believe blindly without ever knowing. I refuse to believe blindly without ever knowing that there is no God.
You don't have to. There is evidence to support that god is man made. Which should be enough unless you think man can make a god real.
DivideByZero Dathu Now on a different note: why would you hope there is no god? Does it matter? Guess I'm just a control freak. whee
Basically what you're saying is that you'll accept the possibility of any notion, no matter how rediculous, until you are presented with evidence that it is not possible. Wow. I must say you are very open minded.
@Caustic:
I'm not sure if you were posting to me, so if you weren't, disregard what follows. However, if you were: I don't think I said he should consider agnosticism. I only said that I felt he should rethink his stance as an Atheist. I also intentionally used the words "ideal Atheist" to show that these standards for Atheists were only of my opinion and not of its definition. But having said that, all definitions of an Atheists usually state somewhere that it is a person who does not believe or disbelieves in the existance of a god/gods or god like beings. If you don't believe then you shouldn't seriously accept a possibility, right? Cause if you just think that there may not be one, can you really say you don't believe in god/etc or that you just think it unlikely. That is "faith in atheism," and I really don't think that is an Athiest. The whole "weak" and "strong" Atheist classifications are just for people who don't really fit in athiesm that want to, because they don't really fit anywhere else. I am just of the opinion that "faith" is for people who lack confidence and conviction in their philosophical views. The deffinition of an atheists doesn't say "one who has faith that there is no god" it says one who "disbelieves the existance god." My "strong Atheistic" or, as I prefer to call it, strict view on this issue may be unpopular, but I am confident that it is a true and logical assertation of what an Atheist is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:34 pm
|
|
|
|
I'd just like to make a general statement here:
Unless we can find real proof that there is no god, then it would be a logical fallacy to claim as such. On the other hand, saying that god exists because there is no evidence to disprove his existance is just as fallacious.
Both of these arguments are a fallacy known as an "Appeal to Ignorance" (Argument from Ignorance, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) in rhetoric. The basic form of this is:
There is no evidence against a.
Therefore, a.
Or
There is no evidence for a.
Therefore, not a.
Both statements are equally false becuase lack of evidence is just that. It proves nothing.
This is only accpetable if there is a burden of proof put on one side of the argument. Which raises the question: Who does the burden of proof fall on in this case. Certainly most of us would say that it falls on the theists. Conversly, they would place the burden of proof on us. Really the burden of proof falls to neither side, because everyone will think what they want, especially with this lack of evidence.
No matter how strongly I feel otherwise, I have to accept all possibilities until real proof is put in front of me.
More info if you want it: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:06 pm
|
|
|
|
Orichalcon I'd just like to make a general statement here: Unless we can find real proof that there is no god, then it would be a logical fallacy to claim as such. On the other hand, saying that god exists because there is no evidence to disprove his existance is just as fallacious. Both of these arguments are a fallacy known as an "Appeal to Ignorance" (Argument from Ignorance, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) in rhetoric. The basic form of this is: There is no evidence against a. Therefore, a. Or There is no evidence for a. Therefore, not a. Both statements are equally false becuase lack of evidence is just that. It proves nothing. This is only accpetable if there is a burden of proof put on one side of the argument. Which raises the question: Who does the burden of proof fall on in this case. Certainly most of us would say that it falls on the theists. Conversly, they would place the burden of proof on us. Really the burden of proof falls to neither side, because everyone will think what they want, especially with this lack of evidence. No matter how strongly I feel otherwise, I have to accept all possibilities until real proof is put in front of me. More info if you want it: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
Thus, why I say it doesn't really matter.
We can't know with certainty either way, so believe what you wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:19 pm
|
|
|
|
Orichalcon I'd just like to make a general statement here: Unless we can find real proof that there is no god, then it would be a logical fallacy to claim as such. On the other hand, saying that god exists because there is no evidence to disprove his existance is just as fallacious. Both of these arguments are a fallacy known as an "Appeal to Ignorance" (Argument from Ignorance, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) in rhetoric. The basic form of this is: There is no evidence against a. Therefore, a. Or There is no evidence for a. Therefore, not a. Both statements are equally false becuase lack of evidence is just that. It proves nothing. This is only accpetable if there is a burden of proof put on one side of the argument. Which raises the question: Who does the burden of proof fall on in this case. Certainly most of us would say that it falls on the theists. Conversly, they would place the burden of proof on us. Really the burden of proof falls to neither side, because everyone will think what they want, especially with this lack of evidence. No matter how strongly I feel otherwise, I have to accept all possibilities until real proof is put in front of me. More info if you want it: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
The reason why I feel the burden of proof belongs to theists is because there is evidence to show that religions are man made. We have found countless documents and artifacts showing the "evolution" of religion. This means that there was a time when man existed with out any religious beliefs. Then at some point in time religion was introduced. Therefore, theists presented religion. They are making the claim. They are the prosecutors, and I am the defendant. If they can not produce convincing evidence that a god exists, then it would only seem logical assume the situation before the accusation: no god. I think this to be logical, and I would hope that most would agree since it is based off our legal system. I think the innocent until proven guilty approach is a logical one. If we followed the no proof either way means we could both be right, then any man could be accused of anything with out any evidence to show his guilt, and he would be concidered just as likely to be guilty as innocent unless proven innocent with concrete evidence. That just doesn't make sense to me. I would not agree with that mentality in a court. What if someone with no real evidence accused you of murder, and because you couldn't produce any evidence that you didn't commit the murder, you were seen by everyone, including the court, as being likely of commiting the crime. That is unacceptable. And it would seem that the only time this ideology is aceptable is when in reference to religion, which to me is either hypocritical or biased. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:42 pm
|
|
|
|
meh, the way I see it, it is of little importance whom the burden of proof of the existence or nonexistence of God lies upon, as it is utterly impossible to fulfill that burden in any acceptable manner. Being an Atheist, I will live under the assumption that God is, in fact, not real. Even if he were, it would have no effect on me as there would be no way for him or any other to communicate his existence to me in a manner that would, in the least bit, sway my beliefs. That being the case, for all intents and purposes regarding myself, God is not real. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:12 am
|
|
|
|
DivideByZero14 Imagine this hypothetical situation. A man develops a computer and the software to run a simulation complex enough to emulate a universe similar to ours. All of the physical laws are identical. This simulation would treat the universe simply as a collection of particles and their properties. (In other words, it's not like some grand game of Age of Empires; it's a basic mathematical recreation of our reality.) In this simulation, simulated life comes to be on one of the simulated planets. Eventually, some of the simulated life evolves to have self-awareness. Some of the simulated organisms explain the world around them by citing a creator, a higher being. Alright, hyptothetical-ness over. In that situation, would they not be correct? They were indeed created by something on what could be called a higher plane then themselves. Although he has no involvement in their development, he is watching. THEREFORE, I POSTULATE THAT one must acknowledge the infinitesimal, minute, super-duper remote chance that there is a God. I reason that most of us do not claim that the existence of a God or gods is impossible, but that it is just plain stupid to assume that as fact with no evidence. Don't get me wrong. If I am an agnostic, then I am the most atheistic agnostic possible. I believe, I think, I really hope that there is no God, but, for the same reason I can't say that there is, I cannot say that there isn't. So, being a true atheist requires the leap of faith that this one chance just isn't the way it went down. And since "leaps of faith" are irrational, illogical, and scientifically unsound, that makes them no better than the theists themselves. I urgently need commentary on this! Please consider your argument carefully. This has been bugging me, and, despite my lifelong claims, I fear I truly am agnostic.
Its the fine line between Weak Atheism and Strong Atheism.
Weak Atheism is partially agnostic with a strong leaning towards there not being a God.
They simply see it as very unlikely, but refuse to point to it as an irrefutable fact.
After all there isn't actually any real proof against the existance of a diety and/or dieties.
A Strong Atheist is the one that requires faith. They point to the concept of God and state, "I know this does not exist."
But since there is no proof for or against, them knowing that is not scientific, it is faith based. And therefore on the same level as religion.
sidenote: (There is a difference between pure Agnosticism and Agnosticism with Leanings.
With a leaning, you think that a certain set of beliefs is very likely, however you agnostically admit that you could be very wrong and that you don't truly know.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:19 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
