john5746 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I must admit, after reading this thread I nearly deleted this site from my bookmarks. Only Lucaspa's posts prevented me from doing so. Since the rest of us are not worthy of your intelligence, why don't you delete the bookmark and just email Lucaspa? Try to reduce irritation in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Since the rest of us are not worthy of your intelligence, why don't you delete the bookmark and just email Lucaspa? Try to reduce irritation in the world. Sounds like a good idea. Maybe I will do that (expect for the emailing Lucaspa bit). That would give me more time to discuss science, rather than wasting my time with the usual atheist delusions and semantic navel-gazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Sounds like a good idea. Maybe I will do that (expect for the emailing Lucaspa bit). That would give me more time to discuss science, rather than wasting my time with the usual atheist delusions and semantic navel-gazing. That's really too bad. I was really hoping you would add to the discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 But if we look at the definition of supernatural, we realize it's definition relies on our degree of total understanding of natural law. In other words, the laws of nature are subjective, relative to what we know about them. Anything that exists beyond that, is supernatural to us. Nothing is really supernatural, not even deity, if you had the knowledge of everything. "Supernatural" just describes things that we don't yet understand, or can't comprehend. If I don't understand weather, then I might think it's supernatural that you can predict rain or storm. If no one understands weather, then weather prediction doesn't follow our understanding of the laws of nature, so it's supernatural that you can. I guess I see it as much a measurement of how much we know, as it is a statement of phenomena. Well, actually, supernatural means, quite literally, beyond nature or exceeding nature. It comprises of forces and things that are beyond nature and is firmly outside scientific explanation because they simply cannot be brought into empirical observation or experimentation. While most people usually associate supernatural with a deity, it also comprises the idea of a soul, non-material mind, reincarnation, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veedo Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Since the rest of us are not worthy of your intelligence, why don't you delete the bookmark and just email Lucaspa? Try to reduce irritation in the world.I agree with john5746. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Sounds like a good idea. Maybe I will do that (expect for the emailing Lucaspa bit). That would give me more time to discuss science, rather than wasting my time with the usual atheist delusions and semantic navel-gazing. yes, i can see how this thread is quite a waste of your time. sorry to bother you with our delusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I would appreciate it if we cut the hostility and got back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 yes, i can see how this thread is quite a waste of your time. The Star Wars vs Star Trek thread has a lot more reasoned debate than this one. I would appreciate it if we cut the hostility and got back on topic. The trouble is, there is no topic. The atheists will never concede that their religion is based on faith, and the theists will never abandon their beliefs, so what is the point of discussion? The OP was to determine the proportion of theists to atheists; that has been established, so it is time to close the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 The atheists will never concede that their religion is based on faith.. So simple skepticism is based on faith? If you withhold judgement for a lack of supporting evidence you do so on faith? You're right, I will never conceed that either of these is based on faith since they are based on logic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 The atheists will never concede that their religion is based on faith, and the theists will never abandon their beliefs... But will the theists concede that atheism is not a belief? That one wasn't in your example, and is still left to discuss. I entered this discussion as an agnostic believing atheism to be a faith. After several pages of discussion, I see the dual definition inherent in atheism and the faith contained in agnosticism - despite Lucaspa's thoughtful posts. Not at all what I expected going into this, but then, that's why I come here. If we had dropped the discussion based on your reasoning, I wouldn't have changed my mind. Maybe you're ok with that since I'm sure it doesn't compliment your particular position on all this, but I'm not. I thought this thread was handled quite well by everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 The trouble is, there is no topic. The atheists will never concede that their religion is based on faith, 1. i have no religion. 2. we've actually already established that its based on faith, seeing as how everything we ever think is based on faith. and the theists will never abandon their beliefs, so what is the point of discussion? thats true of just about every debate ever. your not going to convince the other side that they are wrong, it just doesnt happen. discussion is for the sake of discussion. you do know what the title of the website is, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abskebabs Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 2. we've actually already established that its based on faith, seeing as how everything we ever think is based on faith. thats true of just about every debate ever. your not going to convince the other side that they are wrong, it just doesnt happen. discussion is for the sake of discussion. you do know what the title of the website is, right? I have to admit for a while when reading this thread that my thoughts were similar to Severian's, and lucaspa's posts were the ones that seemed to fit in with my own thoughts and reasoning on this subject. Nevertheless, I didn't consider leaving this website at least not for something as trivial as a thread in General discussion. You, and others have made a good point however on how basically all our reasoning is based on faith to differing degrees. Even the word "faith", may need a little revision of its understood meaning within this context. The situation seems paradoxical in a sense, you cannot come to any conclusion or "position", without first taking a faith based assumption about your own reasoning(referred to as sanity earlier). In a way I feel this whole philosophical discussion is null and futile in a way, as it does not seem likely we will ever verify or disqualify anything we are discussing in way that is scientific. I'm glad this thread has made me think, but from reading it, I'm under the impression that a question I thought was slightly pointless at one point is not even worth discussion now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 ... Before I start, let me say that you're a smart guy and you shouldn't let these kinds of discussions get to you so much. They certainly don't get to me in that manner. The atheists will never concede that their religion is based on faith So you're saying they have faith in not having faith in God? That's a fairly odd sentiment. and the theists will never abandon their beliefs, so what is the point of discussion? People change their minds all the time. Both Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort say they used to be atheists who started believing in God. People lose their faith every day. I don't think opinions about religion are as static as you seem to think they are. The OP was to determine the proportion of theists to atheists; that has been established, so it is time to close the discussion. What's the harm in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I don't see this thread changing many people's minds (a few perhaps) but I'm not sure that's likely to be its biggests achievement. I hope that it provides some ideas for those who are not sure about religion. Anyway, I say I'm an atheist. Some people say I that means I have faith. I say that my "faith" in the absense of God is comparable with my faith in the absense of fairies at the bottom of my garden. There's no evidence for either of them so I don't believe in either of them. Perhaps someone would like to tell me what exactly I have faith in? And why they think it is comparable to the faith shown by those who get up early on Sundays and go to church or who start crusades to kill the infidels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Perhaps someone would like to tell me what exactly I have faith in? Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for anyone to show how skepticism requires faith. It certainly seems to me that any skeptic withholding judgement on anything to be fact because there is no evidence to support such a judgement does so with a complete lack of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for anyone to show how skepticism requires faith.Skepticism about an unobservable phenomenon, ANY unobservable phenomenon, does NOT require faith, just an open mind. That's the beauty of it. ANY firm pro or con stance regarding unobservable phenomenon requires faith. You can't ask for evidence to support something that can't be observed. That would be involving science and you just can't do that with God. The skeptic is king in science and when you leave the realm of the observable you leave the realm of science. All atheists AND theists need to stop invoking science by either asking for proof or explaining nature with supernatural means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Skepticism about an unobservable phenomenon, ANY unobservable phenomenon, does NOT require faith, just an open mind. That's the beauty of it. Yeah, tell Severian that... The atheists will never concede that their religion is based on faith, and the theists will never abandon their beliefs.... Skeptics about God are atheists even though they don't deny the possibility of God... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Yeah, tell Severian that...Severian is saying that theists and atheists are both making absolute statements about a power that is supernatural, therefore neither can use natural physical science to support their arguments; both must, by definition, be using faith instead. Yet atheists still ask for scientific proof and theists insist that God can transcend physical laws and neither seems likely to give up their stance.Skeptics about God are atheists even though they don't deny the possibility of God...This seems to contradict itself. Why would someone who doesn't deny the possibility of God be called an atheist (no-God)? If you define atheism as a state of being without theistic beliefs, you are still saying there is no God, which forces you to either use scientific methods (a big no-no) or make a judgment based on faith, which is just as valid as a theists claims. Skeptics are not atheists because they don't discount the possibility of a God while ignoring any use of science or religion to prove or disprove one another. Literary critics can't use the same criteria they employ to measure the worth of a book to measure the gases composing a distant nebula, and it's much the same way with religion and science. When faced with a theistic question, the skeptical scientist should merely shrug and say, "Could be, but I have nothing to observe yet." Or be willing to admit that any opinion they have on the matter is purely faith-based. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abskebabs Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Severian is saying that theists and atheists are both making absolute statements about a power that is supernatural, therefore neither can use natural physical science to support their arguments; both must, by definition, be using faith instead. Yet atheists still ask for scientific proof and theists insist that God can transcend physical laws and neither seems likely to give up their stance.This seems to contradict itself. Why would someone who doesn't deny the possibility of God be called an atheist (no-God)? If you define atheism as a state of being without theistic beliefs, you are still saying there is no God, which forces you to either use scientific methods (a big no-no) or make a judgment based on faith, which is just as valid as a theists claims. Skeptics are not atheists because they don't discount the possibility of a God while ignoring any use of science or religion to prove or disprove one another. Literary critics can't use the same criteria they employ to measure the worth of a book to measure the gases composing a distant nebula, and it's much the same way with religion and science. When faced with a theistic question, the skeptical scientist should merely shrug and say, "Could be, but I have nothing to observe yet." Or be willing to admit that any opinion they have on the matter is purely faith-based. Hallelujah! I concur;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Yeah, tell Severian that... Skeptics about God are atheists even though they don't deny the possibility of God... Indeed. Theists often caricature atheists as all being strong atheists(similar to an argument that all theists are Mormons) with no moral compass, and thus have given the word a sort of social stigma. It has, in fact been quite successful. One only has to see the abundance of various words atheists will use to describe themselves while dancing around the word "atheist." The core of atheism is just a response to theism. Theists say "One or more deities exist". And atheism is just people saying "I don't believe you." This can take on varying degrees of forcefulness(ranging from Weak Atheism: "I don't believe deities exist" to Strong Atheism:"I believe that no deities exist.") Weak Atheism(the core of atheism) obviously requires no faith and as such is often blatantly ignored by theists. Strong Atheism, on the other hand, requires just as much faith as theism. "Agnostic" is a term that is misused as nausium. I suspect that it is mostly due to the social stigma(which is thankfully somewhat receding) that I wrote of above. Agnostic is a modifier of the terms Theist and Atheist, and as such cannot stand on it's own. You either believe in the existence of one or more deities, or you don't; there is no middle ground. Atheism and Theism are the only options. Agnosticism is merely one flavour of the choices. "Agnostic" merely means that one believe that one cannot know whether or not deities exist. Thus, one can be an Agnostic Theist(believe one or more deities exist, but it is impossible to know for a fact that this is the truth) or one can be an Agnostic Atheist(lack a belief in deities, but also believe it is impossible to know whether or not deities exist), but one cannot JUST be an Agnostic. There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief; you either believe or you lack belief. That's enough ranting for one post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 This seems to contradict itself. Why would someone who doesn't deny the possibility of God be called an atheist (no-God)? Simply because one must affirmatively believe in God to be a theist and everyone else is a not-theist or atheist. Atheists include everyone that affirmatively denies the existence of God(s) and those that simply withhold judgement on the truth or falsity of the God hypothesis. I am the later, I do not claim that there could not be a God but I refuse to accept Gods existence as fact because there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. That makes me an atheist becauuse of my skepticism, or lack of faith, instead of a faith that God does not exist, the other kind of atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abskebabs Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Thus, one can be an Agnostic Theist(believe one or more deities exist, but it is impossible to know for a fact that this is the truth) I'm not sure if this works the other way round, but basically to be an agnostic theist you have to believe in something you're not sure of. Isn't such a stance contradictory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Weak Atheism(the core of atheism) obviously requires no faith and as such is often blatantly ignored by theists. Not completely ignored though. The most faithful theists like to label the weak atheists as faithless with an implied derogatory intent. As you said, thankfully this is receding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I'm not sure if this works the other way round, but basically to be an agnostic theist you have to believe in something you're not sure of. Isn't such a stance contradictory? I think you misunderstand. For instance: You believe that there are WMDs hidden somewhere on Earth, but due to financial limitations, you cannot search every cubic cenimetre to find out; thus you believe but you know you cannot know for sure. Is that contradictory? In much a similar fashion, one can believe in god(s) but also believe that it is impossible to know for an empirical fact that such god(s) exist(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I'm not sure if this works the other way round, but basically to be an agnostic theist you have to believe in something you're not sure of. Isn't such a stance contradictory? No. Anyone that believes in deities is a theist. Anyone that believes there could never be any proof of the existence or non-existence of deities is agnostic. An agnostic theist believes in God even though they do not believe there could ever be any proof of God.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now