[iNub]

Since when is God a big old man in the sky? I believe in God as a creator and life giver, something to pray to when you need help or feel thankful. I can't say I believe that I agree with any church, and I actually don't agree with most religious people about God. To me, God is part of me, and I am part of him. Or Her. Or It. God is probably unknowable to me, because God is something much bigger than my brain can understand. But the brain is just a piece of matter, and that can be measured and weighed.

To me, God is the unmeasurable. The distance to the end of the universe. The definition of love. The depth of a black hole. To me, God is what exists outside the limits of the human imagination.

I do not have any one single set of beliefs, because a belief is a ritual, and a ritual limits the scope of your dreams. I understand that God is bigger than me, that God is more than my small mind can understand. But my mind is not my soul, and my soul can understand whatever I want it to understand.

I don't think I am self-aware because of some primitive part of my brain. I think I am self-aware because I was designed that way. Yet I still believe in evolution. Crazy, eh? Well, I like to look at it this way: Any great work of art takes a long time to complete. How long did it take Michelangelo to get David perfect?

Converseley, I do not take the bible as historical fact. I can't say this enough in a discussion about religion. It just makes so much sense. If you look at a painting of a room, you know that the canvas is a 2-dimensional surface. But the picture represents a 3-dimensional area. The bible works like that. It describes, in the scope of our own understanding, something that we cannot otherwise understand. It is the canvas that the painting of God is painted on. It is not historical fact. It is a guide, a manual, on how to live.

And that brings me to the end of my very long post. I hope that somebody gained something from my post. While my intention is not to change anybodys' religious beliefs, I do hope a few of you who discredit the existence of anything bigger than yourself could perhaps expand your mind a bit and look at all the possibilities. Even the ones that can't be explained. Like my drug-addicted friends would say, "It's all about the feeling, man."

PS. I have a lot more to say, but it's late, and I forget what I wanted to type.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by iNub:
While my intention is not to change anybodys' religious beliefs, I do hope a few of you who discredit the existence of anything bigger than yourself could perhaps expand your mind a bit and look at all the possibilities. Even the ones that can't be explained.

That's not a problem for me - I don't discredit the existence of something bigger than myself, I just think of it as nature/life/the universe - as is - rather than a Supreme Being that requires a name (as you give it), much less a face (as so many others give it).

This is where a lot of the disconnect occurs - some people of faith think that all atheists are narcissists, and some atheists think that all people of faith are superstitious fools. It's true in many cases, but hardly all. Each camp covers a broad range of beliefs. This is easily lost in all the noise.

[phinx]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I suppose I'm somewhere in between - I don't completely foreclose the possibility of a Supreme Being, nor (as long as it isn't imposed on me) do I campaign against the idea, but if asked whether I think there is one, I'm very much inclined to say "No." So I guess that makes me more atheist than agnostic, at least according to common usage. But, as long as it isn't imposed on me, I try to be diplomatic about it.

I'm actually interested in what you, and others here, use as your standard(s) to determine if someone is imposing their beliefs on you.

[iNub]

Originally posted by phinx:
I'm actually interested in what you, and others here, use as your standard(s) to determine if someone is imposing their beliefs on you.

If you don't believe what I believe, you are an idiot and you don't know anything.

That kind of thing...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by phinx:
I'm actually interested in what you, and others here, use as your standard(s) to determine if someone is imposing their beliefs on you.

Speaking only for myself, it would include matters of public policy first and foremost. I'm very touchy about church/state separation.

That would extend to the public education arena - I don't have children of my own, but I would object if my children or my nieces and nephews were subjected to any form of indoctrination or ostracization in connection with religious beliefs or lack thereof.

I would be prefer to see religious references removed from our currency and the Pledge of Allegiance and so forth, but this seems to be a lost cause so I don't get worked up about it.

In the private realm, I object to being proselytized, just as I object to phone solicitors, but I accept it as one of life's inconveniences. I just ignore it.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
First, prove to me that you exist, I don't want to waste my time, after all.



BG

Golden.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ROTFLMAO!

my point <=====a millions miles=====> you.

You have proof of galaxies moving...woohoo! hold me back!

you do NOT have evidence where the bigbang came from....where did the matter come from in the universe? if bigbang is the single cause, did it create itself? Do you even want to relax your scientific antitheism long enough to even try to understand my point? Did you even read the part about "proof"?

Non-believe away. You've proven the anti-theist "blindspot" theory better than I could have.

thanks for a good laugh before I go to bed.

Lerk, I hope you're joking. I sincerely do.

I'm not gonna bother responding to the questions you ask, as BlackGriffin did largely, and others have; I'm just going to make two points.

1. What little proof we have, it is still infinitely more than what anybody has on God.

2. We don't pretend to HAVE all the answers. Instead we continue to learn and question, rather than just saying "eh, I dunno - just chalk that one up to God".

[wataru]

Do you theists have any rebuttals to scientific evidence (redshift, etc.) other than "you are missing the point" or "you are too closed-minded" or "ROTFLMAO?"

How about alternate hypotheses that are testable, not just the usual cop-out "God made it that way" or "that's irrelevant?"

And re: atheists belittling theists' beliefs... I see plenty of theists pulling the "LMAO" card in this thread, Lerkfish included (which particularly disappointed me). I think both camps are guilty of such belittling and a holier-than-thou attitude. I know I'm always frustrated by theists' apparent lack of ability to think rationally; I don't want to be a part of a system where rational thought, evidence, and peer review is discouraged.

And if you're wondering why I'm posting at 6AM, it's because I had to get up early to protect my bid in an eBay auction that just ended... I won a 12" iBook, but didn't hit the reserve price. I've got my fingers crossed!

[Sven G]

Atheism <--- Agnosticism ---> Faith

"Agnostics" get the best of both worlds, while not succumbing to any of the "extremes"!

[boots]

Originally posted by wataru:
Do you theists have any rebuttals to scientific evidence (redshift, etc.) other than "you are missing the point" or "you are too closed-minded" or "ROTFLMAO?"

I think people still missed Lerk's underlying idea...Big-Bang may be a good theory that fits the data we have, but the causality of the singularity is still in question. Take religion out of it, and it is still interesting to think about. In physics class, we talked about the possibility that it is a cyclical event...at that time we still hadn't determined if the matter moving away from the center had reached escape velocity. There was a very real possibility that the universe would collapse on itself again and cause another Big-Bang. (Have physicists determined this yet? My class was in '91, and a lot of stuff has been discovered since then.)

But the simple idea that we can observe anything prior to the BB is, as far as I know, false. We simply don't know.

It is this: What caused the big bang, and where did all the energy/matter come from to set it off?

Not: We don't have any evidence suggesting the validity of the theory.

BG's response that asking where the energy came from is simply a flaw of temporal thinking and it just existed is exactly the same as saying "God just did it." It is a cop out on the other side. The answer is that we don't understand. It is one of the lingering questions of science.

I think, and not to put word lin Lerk's mouth, that he was simply poiting out that the BB is theory. Just like evolution. We have data, and we construct a theory that fits. That's fine. The problem comes when people extrapolate the theory to areas where we don't have data and claim that it is fact. That's not how science works, and those who subscribe to this kind of practice are putting a lot of faith into the theory.

How about alternate hypotheses that are testable, not just the usual cop-out "God made it that way" or "that's irrelevant?"

Some times even our best theories can't be tested in areas we'd like them to be. So, science goes on, and very clever people devise experiments to try to fill in the missing data.

Religion is based on faith. This is true. I would never argue that it isn't. Is there some possible "test" to reproducibly observe a deity? I doubt it, and I can't think of one, but that doesn't mean it will never happen.

One of the problems I see in this discussion is that science deals with elucidating mechanism. Evolution is a theory of mechanism, not cause. BB is a theory of mechanism, not cause. Science asks how.

Religion tries to deal with "ultimate" cause. Science can never do that because the paradigm always assumes something prior. Religion (aside from a few onthe fringe) does not. (Though the argument can be turned against religion too.) Religion doesn't ask how, it asks why.

And re: atheists belittling theists' beliefs... I see plenty of theists pulling the "LMAO" card in this thread, Lerkfish included (which particularly disappointed me). I think both camps are guilty of such belittling and a holier-than-thou attitude. I know I'm always frustrated by theists' apparent lack of ability to think rationally; I don't want to be a part of a system where rational thought, evidence, and peer review is discouraged.

Yes, it is unfortunate that discussions get bogged down in ugliness. That is an unfortunate side effect of empassioned debate. And pure science has had its share of ugliness in debates as well. All one can do is watch how s/he behaves and try not to get sucked into the less constructive side-tracks.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
As for where the matter came from, I would retort, does it matter? In reality, matter and energy are like the universe, they simply are. Also, requiring that they come from somewhere before the big bang is applying flawed temporal thinking to an event that supposedly marks the beginning of time: there is no before, only after.

no, that is the crux of my point. as a scientist you accept the above statement as fact, but it is, in fact, unsupported by evidence. So, you just retort "does it matter?".
You are accepting that on faith.

I'm not arguing that galaxies are moving, obviously they are. The fact that you felt compelled to "prove" that means I'm getting worse at getting my point across, apparently.

There could even have been a singular event referred to as bigbang...I'm not asking to prove there was or wasnt....but the frame of this thread is whether God exists, and my point is that with both god and bigbang there are fundamental questions that cannot be answered and therefore REQUIRE an element of faith to accept. Everyone keeps dancing around my point and never seeming to grasp it. Is that selective reading comprehension, or what?

And btw, bigbang could also have a definite beginning because it was the moment of creation of the empirical universe by a supreme being. Nothing in the evidence provided negates that possibility.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by wataru:
Do you theists have any rebuttals to scientific evidence (redshift, etc.) other than "you are missing the point" or "you are too closed-minded" or "ROTFLMAO?"

How about alternate hypotheses that are testable, not just the usual cop-out "God made it that way" or "that's irrelevant?"

And re: atheists belittling theists' beliefs... I see plenty of theists pulling the "LMAO" card in this thread, Lerkfish included (which particularly disappointed me). I think both camps are guilty of such belittling and a holier-than-thou attitude. I know I'm always frustrated by theists' apparent lack of ability to think rationally; I don't want to be a part of a system where rational thought, evidence, and peer review is discouraged.

And if you're wondering why I'm posting at 6AM, it's because I had to get up early to protect my bid in an eBay auction that just ended... I won a 12" iBook, but didn't hit the reserve price. I've got my fingers crossed!

Sorry I disappointed you...there have been several of these threads where dozens of you have disappointed me...count us even. Everyone seems overly concerned about how I post, and how I don't meet their standards...what a crock. You accept without badgering other posters whose behaviour makes me look like a boy scout.

My LMAO card is played because everyone seems to be MISSING MY POINT entirely. So much so, its comical. I'm sorry, but how can being a rationalist have eroded reading comprehension to such a sorry state?

I could keep reiterating the point I thought I had made fairly well (and boots understood), but what is the point? If you have a blindspot conceptually and didn't get it, I doubt repetition would change that.
So...since you seem predisposed to not listen to my points, reread boots' post above this one, where he restates my point. Maybe you'll finally understand it.

[gadster]

Can any christians enlighten me as to why it was such a big deal for Jesus to die? I mean, surely he would go straight home to papa god? A few hours of discomfort, then home and hosed. What a hero. Worse things happen to hundreds of thousands of god's people every day, wtf is he doing up there? Smoking crack?

[gadster]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<snip> with both god and bigbang there are fundamental questions that cannot be answered and therefore REQUIRE an element of faith to accept.<snip>

Unless you have agnostic tendencies, in which case, both viewpoints are moot. Can we just be OK with the concept of 'we honestly, really have no clue, but would like to believe...' Is that so hard?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
I think people still missed Lerk's underlying idea...Big-Bang may be a good theory that fits the data we have, but the causality of the singularity is still in question. ....(and the rest of a really good post)

thank you, thank you, Sam I am, for understanding correctly my points.

Now, the real question is, why can't other people understand my points?
obviously, I need to reexamine my communication skills....and my patience levels need to be restocked, too, apparently, since I'm not allowed to use sarcasm without everyone getting up in arms.

I'm only supposed to post within a narrow band of emotion, apparently...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
Unless you have agnostic tendencies, in which case, both viewpoints are moot. Can we just be OK with the concept of 'we honestly, really have no clue, but would like to believe...' Is that so hard?

Its not hard for me, I've always been there. Its the other side which insists they have hard proof of fact that need to accept your advice.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
Can any christians enlighten me as to why it was such a big deal for Jesus to die? I mean, surely he would go straight home to papa god? A few hours of discomfort, then home and hosed. What a hero. Worse things happen to hundreds of thousands of god's people every day, wtf is he doing up there? Smoking crack?

what kind of response would you like? for me to answer this rhetorical loaded question would be pointless.

[boots]

Originally posted by gadster:
Can any christians enlighten me as to why it was such a big deal for Jesus to die? I mean, surely he would go straight home to papa god? A few hours of discomfort, then home and hosed. What a hero. Worse things happen to hundreds of thousands of god's people every day, wtf is he doing up there? Smoking crack?

Another of the $64,000 questions.

There is a schism in theology, and about as many opnions as there are christians.

For context, one must understand the culture of sacrafice that comes from the hebrew traditions. Reread Abrahams account of "sacraficing" Isaac. Pay very close attention to the fact that G-d stops the act, and G-d offers a sacrafice to seal the "I am your G-d, and you are my people" deal.

This must also be considered with the context of "Adam and the apple" and "Cain and Able"...violence (and "sin") originated here, with us. We (for whatever reasons) fall into bad relation with each other and with G-d, so we break the pact that G-d made with Abraham and his decendants.

To correct this, the hebrews believed in sacrafice. By the "laws" and the covenant with Abraham, when we break this relationship our lives are forfeit. So an animal was substituted in our place.

Flash forward to the NT. A movement was begining in which many of the players were discontent with the power vested in the high priests. Particularly that the "law" was so restrictive that it was used as a means of oppression, not the liberation it was intended to be. The end of this movement was a sacrafice to ultimately atone for breaking the covenant. In essence making a new covenant.

In one thread of christian thought, G-d makes a sacrafice of his son to make a new covenant that supposedly liberates the people from the legalism that was running rampant, and creates a new paradigm of grace.

In another thread, we continue to screw up and end up killing G-d's son. Regardless, G-d resurrects his son (Easter) and demonstrates the vastness of G-d's love and ability to forgive.

These are over simplified to be sure, but it all comes down to an act of supreme grace. It is the realization of this grace and the acceptance of the grace that is common to and key for both threads of thought. People have been pondering this exact questin since the event. And they will continue to for millenia to come (G-d willing )

[Timo]

[note to everyone: I'm only following the thread casually b/c questions of strong belief are not generally influenced by dry reason, except among the most self-actualized of us all.]

Originally posted by iNub:
Since when is God a big old man in the sky?

Everybody knows that sage Bj�rk and company have already weighed in on this point. See "Deus" from the Sugarcube's 1988 effort "Life's Too Good":

Bj�rk
Deus does not exist.
But if he does, he lives in the sky above me,
In the fattest largest cloud up there.
He's whiter than white and cleaner then clean.
He wants to reach me.

Deus does not exist.
But if he does I always notice him.
Getting ready in his airy room.
He's picking his gloves so gently off.
He wants to touch me.

I'm walking humbly down a tiny street
Pulling my collar it gets bigger, woooh

Einar
I once met him,
It really surprised me,
He put me in a bath tub,
Made me squeeky clean,
Really clean.

Bj�rk
To create a universe
You must taste
The forbidden fruit.

Einar
He said hi. I said hi,
I was still clean.

Bj�rk
Deus does not exist,
But if he does he'd want to get down from that cloud,
First marzipan fingers then marble hands,
More silent than silence and slower than slow,
Diving towards me.

My collar is huge room for two hands,
They start at the chest and move slowly down.

Einar
I thought I had seen everything,
He wasn't white and fluffy,
He just had side burns,
He just had side burns,
And a quiff,
He said hi.
I said hi. I was still clean,
I was squeeky clean.
I was surprised.
Just as you would be.

Einar & Bj�rk
Deus, Deus, Deus, Deus
Bj�rk
He does not exist

I'd like to point out Einar's wise words:

I thought I had seen everything...
I was surprised.
Just as you would be.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I don't believe in God, by name, the Christian God, and I don't fear "Him".

If I'm wrong, and He exists, as Christians tell it, then I believe I'll still be rewarded because I'm a good person.

If I'm a good person, and I get sent to hell even though I was nice, and good, and blah blah blah bullshit, JUST because I didn't believe in him, then I think I'd like Lucifer better anyway, and God is an *******.

Hee hee, this is an inverted Pascal's wager. Connected to history you are.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and my point is that with both god and bigbang there are fundamental questions that cannot be answered and therefore REQUIRE an element of faith to accept. Everyone keeps dancing around my point and never seeming to grasp it.

oooh oooh ooooh

::raises hand, waives it madly in the air::

call on me Lerk! I know!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
oooh oooh ooooh

::raises hand, waives it madly in the air::

call on me Lerk! I know!

um.....(adjusts glassses.... points).....Timo.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Sorry I disappointed you...there have been several of these threads where dozens of you have disappointed me...count us even. Everyone seems overly concerned about how I post, and how I don't meet their standards...what a crock. You accept without badgering other posters whose behaviour makes me look like a boy scout.

Lerk, you raised my expectations by being eloquent and to-the-point in so many threads before this. I don't expect much more than drivel from most other posters. Now you know the price of greatness

Regarding your point of "where did the supposed singularity come from?", I have no f*ing clue. But God seems just as rational an explanation as that Alpha Centaurian monkey. I prefer to say "I don't know" than "God did it."

[boots]

Originally posted by wataru:
Lerk, you raised my expectations by being eloquent and to-the-point in so many threads before this. I don't expect much more than drivel from most other posters. Now you know the price of greatness

Regarding your point of "where did the supposed singularity come from?", I have no f*ing clue. But God seems just as rational an explanation as that Alpha Centaurian monkey. I prefer to say "I don't know" than "God did it."

Why do you insist on spanking the (Alpha Centaurian) monkey? I, sir, am insulted!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by wataru:
Lerk, you raised my expectations by being eloquent and to-the-point in so many threads before this. I don't expect much more than drivel from most other posters. Now you know the price of greatness

Regarding your point of "where did the supposed singularity come from?", I have no f*ing clue. But God seems just as rational an explanation as that Alpha Centaurian monkey. I prefer to say "I don't know" than "God did it."

I think that what people aren't seeing is that the religious person says "I don't know, but I CHOOSE to believe in God" If the religious person is being honest, anyways, they should know that even though they feel certain in their heart that their CHOICE is the correct one, the act of making the choice is an act of faith.
If there were incontrovertible evidence of something, it would not be faith to believe in it. Science seeks proof, but religion points out that the strength of belief is to persist independent of proof.

this is why when the atheists or antitheists keep insisting on "proof" that they are missing the point.

And, my pointing out the blindspot is that they are also relying on faith to accept their casuality loopholes, just the same as a religious person...the difference being they keep insisting its "proven fact" because othewise they'd have to admit they are relying on faith at some point...as we all do at some point..we just CHOOSE different things to have faith in.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think that what people aren't seeing is that the religious person says "I don't know, but I CHOOSE to believe in God" If the religious person is being honest, anyways, they should know that even though they feel certain in their heart that their CHOICE is the correct one, the act of making the choice is an act of faith.
If there were incontrovertible evidence of something, it would not be faith to believe in it. Science seeks proof, but religion points out that the strength of belief is to persist independent of proof.

This highlights two places where disconnects occur:

(1) It's not you that the non-religious person fears, because you are, as you say, "honest" about the nature of your faith. It's the ones who aren't so honest about the nature of their faith - the ones who would refute even ordinary scientific findings - that worry the non-faithful.

(2) The other possible disconnect (which is really the same as (1)) is your idea that in religion, "the strength of belief is to persist independent of proof." By this, I assume you don't mean that even if science managed to uncover persuasive evidence that contradicted religious belief, it would be appropriate for the religious belief to persist. This, again, is what the non-religious among us fear - the persistence of faith in things that directly contradict reliable, testable evidence. I don't think that you subscribe to this, but a lot of people do. Thus the hostility towards religion, especially when it enters the public realm.

Since I see an arc of progress in scientific exploration that I don't see in religion, and have not seen any evidence of a supreme being that I consider persuasive, I choose not to subscribe to religious beliefs and give the edge to science and empiricism. However, I agree with you that certain ultimate questions remain unanswered by either contingent.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by zigzag:
(1) It's not you that the non-religious person fears, because you are, as you say, "honest" about the nature of your faith. It's the ones who aren't so honest about the nature of their faith - the ones who would refute even ordinary scientific findings - that worry the non-faithful.

Exactly. The people who say 'the Bible/Torah/Koran/whatever says this, therefore it is undeniably true' are the people who are the problem. The people who claim to be faithful when what they really have is not faith but delusion are the ones that are guilty of oppression and ostracization and all the **** that non-believers take. I have no problem with people who have Lerkfish-style () faith in their religious beliefs, it's the Zimfires, Ashcrofts, and Farrels of the world that I take issue with. And these people are much more common than they should be. It seems to me that they've become so because of the nature that organized religion has taken on in modern society. People separate themselves off into communities of more or less homogenous faith and then feed off each other and encourage each other until, due to never or rarely experiencing any opposing viewpoints, the tendancy is to accept as fact what should be nothing but an article of faith. For this reason I am opposed to religion in general despite the fact that I know it does some good and that many many religious people are good people. I think religion, in general, is more dangerous than it's worth.

Also, what's up with this 'G-d' stuff that I keep seeing?

[Beewee]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
That is such a cop-out answer. The same justification can be used to 'prove' that the giant monkey at Alpha Centauri exists.

Now your just being ridiculous.

I was trying to point out the coincedence, that "if we raise kids by robots, they will ask such questions as "How did I come to be?" ect.
and that particlular bible verse.

You just decided to disect my argument; why don't you respond to the whole thing instead of something you find "easily refutable."

Also, who's to say that "the giant monkey at Alpha Centauri" doesn't exist? Have you been to Alpha Centauri? It is scientifically impossible to prove that something does not exist.

It's easy to heckle someone elses argument while not providing one of your own isn't it?

[boots]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Also, what's up with this 'G-d' stuff that I keep seeing?

There are quite a few people who are sensitive to blasphemy, and to fully spell then "name" is disrespectful to those beliefs. I'm not one, but it is a habit I got into in college.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Exactly. The people who say 'the Bible/Torah/Koran/whatever says this, therefore it is undeniably true' are the people who are the problem. The people who claim to be faithful when what they really have is not faith but delusion are the ones that are guilty of oppression and ostracization and all the **** that non-believers take. I have no problem with people who have Lerkfish-style () faith in their religious beliefs, it's the Zimfires, Ashcrofts, and Farrels of the world that I take issue with. And these people are much more common than they should be. It seems to me that they've become so because of the nature that organized religion has taken on in modern society. People separate themselves off into communities of more or less homogenous faith and then feed off each other and encourage each other until, due to never or rarely experiencing any opposing viewpoints, the tendancy is to accept as fact what should be nothing but an article of faith. For this reason I am opposed to religion in general despite the fact that I know it does some good and that many many religious people are good people. I think religion, in general, is more dangerous than it's worth.

Also, what's up with this 'G-d' stuff that I keep seeing?

there is a wide spectrum of belief, I don't pretend my wedge of it is any more valid than the next wedge over. A lot has to do with comfort level and tolerance level. An extreme christian who has no tolerance of unbelievers is the mirror of an extreme antitheist who has no tolerance of believers...both are too rigid and uncomfortable with anything except their own little wedge in the spectrum. Both extremes would prefer its mirror would evaporate in some way.
The more towards the middle of the spectrum you drift, the more tolerant you seem to become of other middle wedges, and more uncomfortable with BOTH extremes, even if one extreme is closer to your wedge than the other. A person has a comfort zone, if you will, that expands the closer you get to the middle, and contracts the further you get to an extreme.

interesting. I'm just realizing this is an adjunct to Lerk's Law�. Perhaps I'll codify this at some point.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think that what people aren't seeing is that the religious person says "I don't know, but I CHOOSE to believe in God" If the religious person is being honest, anyways, they should know that even though they feel certain in their heart that their CHOICE is the correct one, the act of making the choice is an act of faith.
If there were incontrovertible evidence of something, it would not be faith to believe in it. Science seeks proof, but religion points out that the strength of belief is to persist independent of proof.

this is why when the atheists or antitheists keep insisting on "proof" that they are missing the point.

And, my pointing out the blindspot is that they are also relying on faith to accept their casuality loopholes, just the same as a religious person...the difference being they keep insisting its "proven fact" because othewise they'd have to admit they are relying on faith at some point...as we all do at some point..we just CHOOSE different things to have faith in.

I understand your point very well. On several occassions I've tried so dissolve the problem by placing it in a more meaningful context. (You can blame Richard Rorty for my interest in recontextualization as a philosophical tool.)

I tried to describe atheism as the "abscence of belief" in the existence of god rather than "disbelief" in the existence of god for precisely this reason.

A person who trusts science to add bricks to the edifice of knowledge doesn't think like that. They don't assume a contrary position because of lack of evidence. They assume a non-position.

Like it says on Rumsfeld's new favorite T-shirt "abscence of proof is not proof of abscence."

I have no belief in the existence of god. Nothing in my life has given me this belief. I see no reason to believe it. That is quite different from feeling that I have proof of god's NON-existence. I don't have any such proof.

Belief requires some form of justification. To my mind, belief in the existence of god is unjustified. So is belief in the non-existence of god. To assume either from my experience is unsubstantiated.

This is not to be confused with agnosticism with is often grossly mischaracterized as someone who merely answers the question of god's existence with "maybe". Agnosticism is skepticism of knowledge itself. The agnostic says that it is impossible to know and therefore meaningless to speculate.

Therefore, please don't ascribe the belief in god's non-existence to atheism. It's not useful to do so. Someone who feels justified in claiming belief in god's non-existence should be required to provide that justificaion. They are anti-theists. By purporting to have an answer to the question of god's existence (they would answer "no" to this question), they should be held to the standard of proof that is required of Theists. Belief requires justification. Disbelief requires justification (because it is still belief, merely to the contrary). Lack of belief does not require justification.

Now does my pickiness about language make sense? Do you see why I find it important to make such distinctions?

I'm erasing the "blindspot" (which you are right to point out) for myself and others like me by insisting that we not be labeled the same way as those who certainly do have it.

<edited to to fit your screen and for content>

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
There are quite a few people who are sensitive to blasphemy, and to fully spell then "name" is disrespectful to those beliefs. I'm not one, but it is a habit I got into in college.

Luckily for my health, there are many habits I got into in college that I no longer imbibe/inhale/ingest.

[boots]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Luckily for my health, there are many habits I got into in college that I no longer imbibe/inhale/ingest.

heh. Its kind of ironic because the "habit" was intended to keep discussion from tangents...tolerance and blasphemy, for example ... but that same habit has now interjected a side discussion I was (unintentionally) trying to avoid.

I honestly didn't even realize I was doing it until it was pointed out.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I tried to describe atheism as the "abscence of belief" in the existence of god rather than "disbelief" in the existence of god for precisely this reason.

A person who trusts science to add bricks to the edifice of knowledge doesn't think like that. They don't assume a contrary position because of lack of evidence. They assume a non-position.

yes, exactly. That's one of the things I was trying to point out in one of these threads (I forget which, now). If an empiricist (or whatever is the correct term) concludes there is no concrete evidenciary basis for belief in god and therefore choose not to believe...well and good. That would be the proper response within the framework of what they consider evidence or proof.
But once they then feel compelled to DENY the possibility of the existence of god and characterize the believers as unintelligent, backward or insane, they have moved away from their supposed parameters. If there is no evidence to prove god exists, then there is also no evidence to disprove his existence. If you base your paradigm on proofs or evidence only, then you should retreat to a non-position rather than a contrary position.

the rest of your post is well-said also.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yes, exactly. That's one of the things I was trying to point out in one of these threads (I forget which, now). If an empiricist (or whatever is the correct term) concludes there is no concrete evidenciary basis for belief in god and therefore choose not to believe...well and good. That would be the proper response within the framework of what they consider evidence or proof.
But once they then feel compelled to DENY the possibility of the existence of god and characterize the believers as unintelligent, backward or insane, they have moved away from their supposed parameters. If there is no evidence to prove god exists, then there is also no evidence to disprove his existence. If you base your paradigm on proofs or evidence only, then you should retreat to a non-position rather than a contrary position.

the rest of your post is well-said also.

Glad I could finally make my point

We are in total agreement on this. Now I hope you'll forgive all the linguistic, etymology, anti-dictionary-publisher, semantic ranting.

See, there really was a point to it.

[wolfen]

Topic Summary:


Thinking = the process of discerning relevance

Example -- attending to various categories of data to draw a conclusion.


Faith = the thinker's process of discerning that which does not matter to him or her

Example -- deciding to ignore or de-emphasize categories of data which are not subjectively persuasive


It seems to me that everyone's position is dependent on these two concepts.


wolfen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm not arguing that galaxies are moving, obviously they are. The fact that you felt compelled to "prove" that means I'm getting worse at getting my point across, apparently.

I read the following:

You have proof of galaxies moving...woohoo! hold me back!

as a claim that the universe was static. All I did was show you how wrong that statement was on so many levels .

There could even have been a singular event referred to as bigbang...I'm not asking to prove there was or wasnt....but the frame of this thread is whether God exists, and my point is that with both god and bigbang there are fundamental questions that cannot be answered and therefore REQUIRE an element of faith to accept. Everyone keeps dancing around my point and never seeming to grasp it. Is that selective reading comprehension, or what?

I have already explained everything I take on faith (the average accuracy of my senses). The questions I answered concerning the big bang are logical consequences of the current theories. If my answers were wrong, the theories simply need revision, though it will take data to actually show that they are wrong.

And btw, bigbang could also have a definite beginning because it was the moment of creation of the empirical universe by a supreme being. Nothing in the evidence provided negates that possibility.

I agree with the premise that the BBT doesn't rule out a god, but it does require a few things of the nature of any being that created space-time: one, such a being must be completely unfettered by space and time (any being fettered by space-time could not exist before space-time existed); two, to such a being, we in our four dimensional universe would appear static, unless he focused in on only three dimensions and shifted his view (like a flip book).

BlackGriffen

[derien]

Originally posted by wolfen:
Topic Summary:


Thinking = the process of discerning relevance

Example -- attending to various categories of data to draw a conclusion.


Faith = the thinker's process of discerning that which does not matter to him or her

Example -- deciding to ignore or de-emphasize categories of data which are not subjectively persuasive


It seems to me that everyone's position is dependent on these two concepts.


wolfen

A bit cynical perhaps, but probably not entirely unfair.

I think, though, that there are a couple of distinct trends that explain points of contention in this thread. The first is ideological, and I don't think you can do much about that--it's a matter of personal intellectual honesty. The other is a matter of communication, and a calibration of definitions would probably go far towards mitigating those differences.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I read the following:
as a claim that the universe was static. All I did was show you how wrong that statement was on so many levels .

you misread that. (Or I wasn't clear).

I would never claim the universe was static, that's wrong and I know it....it falls under "duh".

What I meant was that the person spent a great deal of time arguing something that had nothing to do with my point.
I said bigbang doesn't answer where all the matter and energy in the universe CAME FROM. The other poster then spent a great deal of time proving that the universe is moving, presumably as proof of the bigbang happening. I was pointing out, as boots discerned, that bigbang sidesteps the question of casuality.

Its like I say "I think its going to rain", and you explain to me that the umbrella works by pressing the little button. Yes, you are correct, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

Boots got my point right off.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I agree with the premise that the BBT doesn't rule out a god, but it does require a few things of the nature of any being that created space-time: one, such a being must be completely unfettered by space and time (any being fettered by space-time could not exist before space-time existed); two, to such a being, we in our four dimensional universe would appear static, unless he focused in on only three dimensions and shifted his view (like a flip book).

BlackGriffen

I was with you until the last part of this paragraph. Yes, god would be independent of space/time.

but how you arrived at why we would appear static to him is unclear, albeit an interesting notion.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Saetre:
Was this from The Onion or something?

BlackGriffen: Have you looked into existentialism? Do you have any objections to it? I think it is very optimistic to think that one can derive a meaningful moral message from a natural process such as evolution... (I was in this boat once too)

Sorry, I think I lost track of your post in the flurry. No, I haven't looked in to existentialism.

Oh, you want a meaningful philosohpy? You probably want it to be clear and unambiguous, too? As far as I can tell, the Darwinian philosophy I mentioned is riddled with opposing forces, ambiguities, and is dependent on both current conditions and ability to predict the future. In other words, even if it's right, it isn't for everyone .

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you misread that. (Or I wasn't clear).

I would never claim the universe was static, that's wrong and I know it....it falls under "duh".

What I meant was that the person spent a great deal of time arguing something that had nothing to do with my point.
I said bigbang doesn't answer where all the matter and energy in the universe CAME FROM. The other poster then spent a great deal of time proving that the universe is moving, presumably as proof of the bigbang happening. I was pointing out, as boots discerned, that bigbang sidesteps the question of casuality.

Its like I say "I think its going to rain", and you explain to me that the umbrella works by pressing the little button. Yes, you are correct, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

Boots got my point right off.

Think of it this way: you said, "I think it's going to rain," and it looked to me like you were holding the umbrella upside down. I got your point (that we need to have faith somewhere), and I wasn't trying to rebut it, I was simply trying to clear up what appeared to be misunderstandings about the content of the theory in question. I also, admittedly misread, this: " you do NOT have evidence where the bigbang came from...." as "You do not have evidence for the big bang theory."

BG

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I was with you until the last part of this paragraph. Yes, god would be independent of space/time.

but how you arrived at why we would appear static to him is unclear, albeit an interesting notion.

That is how we would appear to any observer that could percieve time the same way we perceive space. In fact one of the tools for understanding relativity is what's called a space-time diagram. Basically, you ignore one of the spatial dimensions, and expand time in its place. What appeared to be a moving particle, for instace, becomes a line (a wave, actually). Anything moving through the dimension lopped off will appear to be a point. So, any being that could percieve all four at once would see a static universe with pretty patterns and waves. Unless, of course, such a being were to focus in on only three dimensions and move his own focus along the time line.

BG

[wolfen]

OK, I've been working on this since I was about 12. Really. The whole god thing, reality, meaning of life...let's just say I'm not the life of any party. I'm a bit heavy.


Here's the deal -- and I'm right about this:


If you really can be objective and detached, you can imagine a reality in which some valuable concept of god could exist despite a lack of empirical evidence. You can come up with an amazingly coherent framework why such a universe would be experienced by a human race the way it is. You can "design" a valid and intriguing model for reality that is empirically invisible.

A very easy start is to imagine that you have created reality, and now you must explain your priorities in its design. I promise the exercize, alone, is very rewarding. If you can allow yourself to believe something you made up until you have extracted all its potential, then let it evolve, you will realize how ephemeral your identity really is.

Even if you smugly decide you made a universe of popcorn, you will quickly need to answer "Why doesn't mankind recognize this?" The model which develops will contain...umm...kernels of truth about the relationships between various constructs.

It's about 10 years since I left christianity to work on this little project. Basic physics, psychology, and a lot of humility are a big help. I'm not trying to be pompous or anything, but this is one of those things that will revolutionize your thinking very quickly.


wolfen