You are not logged in.
I think it is interesting, but I hope atheists have a more convincing argument than that. Dismissing all available gods and then summarizing that there then must be no god is a fallcy in logic.
If we have no evidence that the earth is round, then it must be flat.
To believe that there is no god is the same as believing that there is a particular god, or multiple gods. They both operate from a basic lack of evidence and then jump to a supposed verifiable conclusion.
The aethists just pretend that they use Reason instead of Faith. the reality is that no one is using Reason in either instance, and the Believers at least admit to having to go on Faith.
Offline
It's a much a fallacy as belief is. I mean, you can decide who you want your god to be. The question is why you chose one god over another. Atheists merely chose no god over all of them. If their justification is reason, so be it. We believe in gods for a variety of things. Some of us hope for immortality. Others hope for riches. Some of us just do it to have inner peace. If atheists wish to believe in no god because most religions require you to ignore all the various gods throughout history, then I see no fallacy. It makes perfect sense, in fact. They're just taking religion one step further.
And I think that atheists have, over time, begun to accept that their position is just as faithful as other religious faiths. Their justification may be reason, but I think they accept that their posistion is ultimately unprovable via reason. Otherwise we'd all be atheists.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
I dont belive in god for many reasons.
1)All the people who claim to speak for god seem to warp the teachings. The Crusades, Jihads, terrorism, etc. are not teaching god would issue. If god existed, i dont think he would allow us to warp his teachings so.
2)How can the people representing god be right on god and wrong on so much else? geocentric universe, evolution, the inquisition, etc.
3)why have there been so many interpretations of god? if god were so omni-potent, one interpretation would be enough.
4) Every religious "miracle" can be explained with science, which seems to refute religion at every turn.
Im a little busy right now, so ill leave it there.
Offline
A belief in no god exsisting is fundamently the same as a belief in A god exsisting. That is my point, and you do seem to agree Josh. Hey, common ground!
Choosing "no god" over one particular god is the same as picking a particular god. It is the same game. It is what I reject.
Soph, a quick reply to your points:
1)You don't know the mind of god, but you presume that He wouldn't let us behave as we do if He did exsist. You are determining how God should be behaving, so this "reason" is just as "bad" as those who interpret the teachings of God (warp the teachings).
2)Just becuase someone is wrong one subject does not mean they are neccessarily wrong on any other. If i know my history, but I don't know my math, is my knowledge regarding history somehow less credible? To assume so is unsubstaniated.
3) everyone has a point of view, and just because some hold differing (and therby wrong) views, does not mean noone in particular is neccessarily incorrect. Many on this board have a different vision of what Mars will be, , does that neccessarily mean that we are all wrong, or we are all right?
4) Not every "miracle" can be explained by science. I would also avoid such bold statements since all it would take is to ofer ONE event that cannot be explained by science and then we have "proof" of a miracle.
Case in point, please explain the scientific reason that people will spontaneously start bleeding from their wrists, ankles, or other parts of their body.
Offline
There could be a number of biological reasons, but i dont seem to be a biologist, or a doctor, so i wont offer an explanation i dont have.
incidentally, i dont think our priests, rabbis, or mullahs have ever personally met with muhammad, or god, in order to explain his frame of mind.
I would expect god to know the alignment of his own universe, wouldnt you?
Offline
This forum really died.
Hey! Aren't fate and chance the gods of Atheists?
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
I dont believe in either.
Offline
I would expect god to know the alignment of his own universe, wouldnt you?
Sure. But I also don't expect my expectations of god to neccessarily be what God is.
Probability is the closest that aethists have to a God.
A firm belief in Probability establishes anything.
Offline
1)All the people who claim to speak for god seem to warp the teachings. The Crusades, Jihads, terrorism, etc. are not teaching god would issue. If god existed, i dont think he would allow us to warp his teachings so.
First, that's why I'm not a Catholic. Second, what's God supposed to do? Reveal himself to all so that he can correct some petty human indifferences? ???
2)How can the people representing god be right on god and wrong on so much else? geocentric universe, evolution, the inquisition, etc.
Essentially the same as my last point.
3)why have there been so many interpretations of god? if god were so omni-potent, one interpretation would be enough.
I've stated it before, but I believe that salvation is only salvation if you came to it out of your own free will. If God was omni-potent, there would be no point in making that decision because God would just be an undisputable fact.
4) Every religious "miracle" can be explained with science, which seems to refute religion at every turn.
I don't recall Einstein feeding 5000 people with a loaf of bread and 3 fish, or Richard Feynman turning water into wine, or Stephen Hawking causing people to bleed spontaneously from their hands and feet.
"Some have met another fate. Let's put it this way... they no longer pose a threat to the US or its allies and friends." -- President Bush, State of the Union Address
Offline
[W]hat's God supposed to do? Reveal himself to all so that he can correct some petty human indifferences?
Why the #$)(#*$)(#@&$@# not?!?
People would worship him so quickly, he wouldn't no what to do! (Until they found out he was actually an alien who wanted to control everyone, ala Stargate!)
BTW, Jesus smoked pot!
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Here's an interesting tidbit by Proudhon, quoting Voltaire, about God (::waves to Cindy::). He later basically calls God a bastard, and denounces his existance completely, but I'll leave that out from this.
"IF GOD DID NOT EXIST,"--it is Voltaire, the enemy of religions, who says so,--"IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO INVENT HIM." Why? "Because," adds the same Voltaire, "if I were dealing with an atheist prince whose interest it might be to have me pounded in a mortar, I am very sure that I should be pounded." Strange aberration of a great mind! And if you were dealing with a pious prince, whose confessor, speaking in the name of God, should command that you be burned alive, would you not be very sure of being burned also? Do you forget, then, anti-Christ, the Inquisition, and the Saint Bartholomew, and the stakes of Vanini and Bruno, and the tortures of Galileo, and the martyrdom of so many free thinkers? Do not try to distinguish here between use and abuse: for I should reply to you that from a mystical and supernatural principle, from a principle which embraces everything, which explains everything, which justifies everything, such as the idea of God, all consequences are legitimate, and that the zeal of the believer is the sole judge of their propriety.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
I for one never saw jesus do any of these things.
Did Jesus pull the sword out of the stone as did Arthur? Oh, wait, theyre both fiction-neither happened, in my view.
Offline
Um, Proudhon wasn't implying that Jesus did.
He was merely suggesting that if people are going to commit atrocities, the supposed morality bestowed to them by their religion is ineffectual to stop them. This may be why he goes on to basically disown God (previously having basically shown that it's ridiculous to not believe in him), for being a sorry bastard. It's kind of funny, because after all the arguments for... well, for God, he suggests that man is best off trying to get over him.
I haven't read the Philosophy of Misery in depth, though. This is all derived from chapter skipping and so on. So I could be misrepreseting his overall view about God.
The stuff he writes would be construed to be quite blasphemous, though. Consider the following:
By what right should God still say to me: BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY? Lying spirit, I will answer him, imbecile God, your reign is over; look to the beasts for other victims. I know that I am not holy and never can become so; and how could you be holy, if I resemble you? Eternal father, Jupiter or Jehovah, we have learned to know you; you are, you were, you ever will be, the jealous rival of Adam, the tyrant of Prometheus.
Wow, calling God an unholy liar!
He then goes on this semi-pitiful tyraid about how God isn't listening to him. It's so dramatic. Which may exlpain why I enjoy reading him so much.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
no, no. I was replying to caltech about loaves, fishes, water, and wine.
Offline
Here's an interesting tidbit by Proudhon, quoting Voltaire, about God (::waves to Cindy::). He later basically calls God a bastard, and denounces his existance completely, but I'll leave that out from this.
"IF GOD DID NOT EXIST,"--it is Voltaire, the enemy of religions, who says so,--"IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO INVENT HIM." Why? "Because," adds the same Voltaire, "if I were dealing with an atheist prince whose interest it might be to have me pounded in a mortar, I am very sure that I should be pounded." Strange aberration of a great mind!
*Checks watch: Hi Josh. It's 6:58 a.m. my time...and I'm behind in my work (self-employed). Nice coincidence that yours is the first post I've read today in this forum...and actually the first -anything- I've read on the internet today.
Voltaire was anti-religious establishment (in his day Church authority meant censorship, imprisonment for tweaking the Holy Roman Catholic Church the wrong way -- which, btw, also owned most of France yet paid little to no taxes, to the detriment of the entire nation...nor did the Church have to play by its own rules, but the slightest aberration of others from those rules could result in imprisonment without formal arrest, deprivation of being able to face one's accusers, and could result in languishing in prison for years, torture, and even death). He decried and detested the abuses perpetrated in the name of religion by religious establishments...same as by secular/clerical establishments.
As for "basically calls God a bastard," this is NOT consistent with material of Voltaire's I have read. He was a deist, and did believe in God. In some of his material he is rather reverent toward God, and even referred to Jesus Christ in a manner of having been a good, humane and compassionate person (though Voltaire didn't believe in the divinity of Christ).
Voltaire's views of religion were complex. To judge him by what Proudhon (I've heard the name, don't know who he is) says, or by one or two little quotes, is absurd.
Voltaire was anti-abuse of power (censorship, cavalier claims of authority, etc.)...not anti-God.
Read Voltaire for yourself; buy _The Portable Voltaire Reader_ at least.
Busy day, I've got to run...
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
By what right should God still say to me: BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY? Lying spirit, I will answer him, imbecile God, your reign is over; look to the beasts for other victims. I know that I am not holy and never can become so; and how could you be holy, if I resemble you? Eternal father, Jupiter or Jehovah, we have learned to know you; you are, you were, you ever will be, the jealous rival of Adam, the tyrant of Prometheus.
I couldn't help getting this image of a 6 year old arguing with their parents becuase they don't understand why they should clean up their room.
I can understand a problem with religion. I can't understand having a problem with God since having a problem denotes a failing of expectations- what can we honestly expect from God? How can we even know those expectations are correct to have, or even the what they should be?
Something to think about
Offline
Am I being "devilish" to suggest that God's thoughts would have to propagate faster than light-speed to enable Him to have any control over the Universe...?
Offline
What is the speed of thought? I didn't know it had been clocked.
I also wasn't aware that humanity had conceived and verified exactly how "god" controls the universe.
But it is a nice guess.
Offline
What is the speed of thought? I didn't know it had been clocked.
I also wasn't aware that humanity had conceived and verified exactly how "god" controls the universe.
But it is a nice guess.
*What's the speed of electricity? Thoughts are electrical impulses in the brain...
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
Not quite.
Thought can be measured as electircal impulses. We measure "thought" as the time it takes to think an "action".
I don't believe there is any way you can quantify the time it takes for you to just "think".
Imagine.
How long did that take you?
Thought is instantly generated, and has no where to really "go". the speed of light is nothing more than the measurment of amount of time it takes for light to be generated and perceived.
Offline
I can understand a problem with religion. I can't understand having a problem with God since having a problem denotes a failing of expectations- what can we honestly expect from God? How can we even know those expectations are correct to have, or even the what they should be?
Have you read the book Night by Elie Wiesel? A young boy with intentions of being a Jewish scholar loses faith in God because of the horrors he experiences in German concentration camps. He battles confusion, but rejects God in the end-how could God allow this?
At one point, when a popular Kapo and his assistant were hung, he says to himself, "God is hanging there on the gallows."
Offline
No, I haven't read that book.
He battles confusion, but rejects God in the end-how could God allow this?
He rejects God becuase God has failed to live up to his personal expectations of what God should be. He is arrogant, plain and simple.
He assumes that he knows how God acts, what God thinks is appropriate and allowable. He believes in his idea of god more than the actual idea of god itself, that is his personal failing.
Offline
No, I haven't read that book.
He battles confusion, but rejects God in the end-how could God allow this?
He rejects God becuase God has failed to live up to his personal expectations of what God should be. He is arrogant, plain and simple.
He assumes that he knows how God acts, what God thinks is appropriate and allowable. He believes in his idea of god more than the actual idea of god itself, that is his personal failing.
*Whoa, Clark. Whoa.
You should read _Night_ by Mr. Wiesel before you make quick and easy statements regarding his being "arrogant" and having "failings."
I've read some pretty intense books, but _Night_ is by far the most wrenching, harrowing book I've yet tackled. I'm generally an emotionally controlled person, but reading about his experiences made me want to almost lose control; I wanted to smash glass, scream, etc.
It is horrible.
Please don't make statements about Mr. Wiesel's reactions until you've read the book. Maybe you'll understand how he could have come to feel as he did, all things considered. I doubt any of us would fare much better.
How that man retained his sanity is beyond me. And I think he did recover his belief in God, though I'm not certain; it's been a while since I read the book or heard anything about him.
I read that book once, and I don't think I could handle reading it again. If you knew me personally, you'd know that says a lot.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
I in no way meant to disparage his experience. Any survivor of the Holocaust has lived a nightmare I can only begin to imagine.
Perhaps my statements would be taken for what is meant if we step back from this individual story andlook at the broader issue of determing the "failure of god" to act as we deem He should. That in essence is the point I am trying to convey.
It is arrogance to assume that our personal moral code should apply to God. It is understandable though becuase everyuone assumes that their morals are ultimetly derived from God to begin with.
I will readily admit I have not read this book, nor do I know the character of the author. What i do have though is a statement by someone who has read the book quoting him as lsoing his faith in God becuase of the horrible suffering he witnessed.
A young boy with intentions of being a Jewish scholar loses faith in God because of the horrors he experiences in German concentration camps. He battles confusion, but rejects God in the end-how could God allow this?
What is being described is the disolution of a belief in God becuase it no longer properly explains how the world works, i.e- bad things happen to bad people, good things happen to good people.
This is why religion was invented in the first place- as a means to understand, and at least give the semblance of control over the completely random.
We can be rational and scientific and agree that random things happen, and that bad things, really bad things, happen to really good people. However, most hold onto in the back of their mind that it will "all equal out" (karma), that it is all for a reason (gods unknowable plan), or some other rationalization that allows us all to walk out that front door every morning.
People question their personal faith when it no longer seems to explain the world. People have a crisis of faith when they lose loved one- why would god punish me? i am a good person, I tithe, I don't sin, etc. etc. Their beleif in god taught them that such suffering shouldn't happen to them unless they were really wicked or some other reason.
yet through all of this, the crisis of faith is a personal event unrelated to any actual idea of God.
Either God is, or God isn't. that is about all we can really conclude. If God is good or bad, or indifferent- that is a matter of conjecture and perspective, not any type of reliable fact.
He experienced some horrible things, witnessed horrible things being done to his family and friends- and from this he concludes that there is no god, or that god has failed him? this attitude assumes that God should act according to how he thinks He should.
I only meant he was arrogant in assuming he knew the mind of God- which is what he would have to do to determine what God should or should not allow.
Offline
Perhaps my statements would be taken for what is meant if we step back from this individual story andlook at the broader issue of determing the "failure of god" to act as we deem He should. That in essence is the point I am trying to convey.
It is arrogance to assume that our personal moral code should apply to God. It is understandable though becuase everyuone assumes that their morals are ultimetly derived from God to begin with.
I only meant he was arrogant in assuming he knew the mind of God- which is what he would have to do to determine what God should or should not allow.
*I should have pointed out, too, that he was just a young boy when he went through all this; around 14 years of age, if I recall correctly. He was raised in a strong religious environment, so his views of what God was, should be, whatever, etc., would have been fostered on him from infancy; thus, any concept of God he had until the point of incarceration in the prison camp had been impressed upon him and he apparently had no previous unpleasant experiences which jolted him into questioning what he'd been led to believe by his family. It's more an issue of a child being traumatically ravaged and torn from his prior insulated belief system (fostered and impressed upon him by his tight-knit family and community) than the reasonings of an older, mature man. Thus, no arrogance on his part.
What a story. :*(
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline