RE: On the topic of atheism.
Robert Seeberger wrote: OK! That's fair then. I urge everyone (who cares about the subject) to provide some sort of justification for their beliefs. Without getting into the details of my beliefs or how they have changed and enlarged over the years, I'll start with stating that I believe in the existence of God. Organised religion has always seemed like too much work to me but the notion of God is one which I enjoy. And that is the only justification I have ever been able to come up with for my belief: I *enjoy* the notion and, therefore, I have adopted it. It seems to me that everything else just boils down to this one fact. There have been times when I have felt the presence of God and there have been times when I have seen Her in Her creation but looking back, I have never been able to say for sure that my perceptions and my analysis of them hadn't been coloured by what I *wish* to believe. There have been recurring experiences that cannot be explained in terms of present day science but that still doesn't necessitate the presence or existence of God. The reason for these experiences, if it is ever found, may have nothing to do with God. Also, given two of the characteristics of human groups, i.e. a need for order and a tendency towards chaos, it is easy to appreciate the necessity which would anyway have given rise to such a notion, regardless of the facts. Still, I believe. And, as far as I can tell, the *only* reason I believe in God is because I want to. I think it would be wonderful to have a conscious entity which has all the answers to all the questions. From a different point of view, I enjoy the idea of there being somebody who, when looking upon the universe and all its myriad wonders, can lean back in satisfaction and say, 'Now, *that* was well-designed, even if I say so Myself'. Now if there were proof positive that God doesn't exist, I'd effect a change in my belief system, although with regret. But as far as I know, all we have is an absence of evidence. To interpret that as evidence of absence seemed to require as much of a leap of faith as the belief in God. And frankly, I have more fun with the latter [ I have same attitude towards other issues, the existence of aliens, fr'ex]. Also, about the only difference adopting the notion of god makes to my life is that some people tend to think of me as a kook. That, imho, is insufficient reason to give up an intriguing concept. At least that is what I decided at the end of the 4-5 year period when I experimented with atheism and I still feel the same way. Ritu GCU All Questions Are Welcome ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
Robert Seeberger wrote: Uh.I'm asking a serious question here Doug. And to be perfectly honest, I would trust Erik to give a straightforward answer (if there actually is one) more than anyone else participating in this discussion. If the answer is Its never actually been done or Its not possible to perform such an experiment and get meaningful results it might change the discussion a little, but that has to be accepted. BTW, WTF an IPU? But mine is a serious question too. I know it sounds like I'm being sarcastic or flippant, but you seem to have been convinced at some point by something you consider factual or actual, and I'm curious as to what it was you found to be convincing. I would say that the burden of proof is on those who claim that something exists despite a complete absence of credible evidence. I would think that since a majority (at least it appears this way correct me if I'm wrong) of the world believes in some sort of deity and since 'deities have been a dominant meme throughout history, that the burden of proof falls on both sides equally. Why? Well, you aren't going to change 10,000+ years of Theism with sophistry, no matter how compelling, with out some proof of your own. Thats not exactly fair, and not really scientific, but it sure beats the hell out of yes it is/no it isn't type arguments repeated ad infinitum. Bungee Cord Type Argument Theists have 10 millenium long traditions that include miracles, supernatural events, avatars of deities, ascensions, holy books, holy men, prophesies.. ect yadda yadda yadda that reinforce theists belief (rightly or wrongly) Athiests have... lots of arguments Agnostics are unsure /Bungee Cord Type Argument When peole are looking at the world and trying to decide what to believe, what will they find convincing, something presented as an argument or something presented as history? Can you see where my question is coming from? Question for yourself and the rest of the believers on the list: If you believe in a god, why? What convinced you? 1 Why would you ask others to do something you are unwilling to do? 2 I stated my case earlier in the thread. But I don't know what to call my position. I can send you that post if you missed it. xponent May God Bless You Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 2:47 PM Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Robert Seeberger wrote: Uh.I'm asking a serious question here Doug. And to be perfectly honest, I would trust Erik to give a straightforward answer (if there actually is one) more than anyone else participating in this discussion. If the answer is Its never actually been done or Its not possible to perform such an experiment and get meaningful results it might change the discussion a little, but that has to be accepted. BTW, WTF an IPU? But mine is a serious question too. OK! That's fair then. I urge everyone (who cares about the subject) to provide some sort of justification for their beliefs. I'm going to give this some thought. xponent Belief Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: An Invisible Pink Unicorn. But this is a false impression, as The Unicorn Who Watches Over the World is *not* pink, but a silvery grey with 'blue roan'-type points. No its not! 8^) Is too!...INFINITY! grin It's fun to look back over your little created universelet [I suspect the majority of listmembers have made up their own worlds and wrote about them at some point in their lives], and see Oh, here I'd just read _Black Beauty_ -- and yep, that's _Just So Stories_... My own sentient-horse-world (oh, what a surprise!) began before first grade, and evolved from magic horses to ones who'd been genetically engineered (Andre Norton's _Breed To Come_, in sixth grade), and their 'angel-equivalent unicorns' became the 'leaders of the rebellion against the evil Controllers' - here the Tolkien influence rises, WRT inventing a language, a mythology etc. ... What fun! Debbi Pink Is Fine For Roses Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Yet we live in a marvelous world, with such a variety of living things: snow algae! snip and us...the singing apes. All of us made out of stardust. Frickin' *amazing*... I could have written almost everything you did in the above post, less the references to the divine. For myself it is not necessary to attach spirituality or numinous experiences to the notion of a god. smile Not *necessity,* rather 'organically grown out of.' It isn't that I *require* a god to have created the universe, but that I *experience* what I can only call Divinity. In case it wasn't clear, my notion of godhood - divinity has evolved and changed radically from what I grew up with: I started out as a bred-and-born Lutheran, found part of the doctrine of Christianity incompatible with what I learned in college (about people and what I consider 'fair just', not coursework or book-learning; IOW I never saw science and God as incompatible, but church doctrine and humankind 'did not compute' for me), and have been altering/refining/redefining my concept of the Divine ever since. And you didn't ask, but did I ever think of the possibility that there was no such Entity? Yes. In a nutshell, I quit experiencing the numinous for a time; then it resumed. Bottom line: my experience and concept of the Divine makes me strive to be a more understanding, kind and involved person. I frequently fail, but I do keep trying. wry That still doesn't answer your question, does it? Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Yet we live in a marvelous world, with such a variety of living things: snow algae! snip and us...the singing apes. All of us made out of stardust. Frickin' *amazing*... I could have written almost everything you did in the above post, less the references to the divine. For myself it is not necessary to attach spirituality or numinous experiences to the notion of a god. smile Not *necessity,* rather 'organically grown out of.' It isn't that I *require* a god to have created the universe, but that I *experience* what I can only call Divinity. In case it wasn't clear, my notion of godhood - divinity has evolved and changed radically from what I grew up with: I started out as a bred-and-born Lutheran, found part of the doctrine of Christianity incompatible with what I learned in college (about people and what I consider 'fair just', not coursework or book-learning; IOW I never saw science and God as incompatible, but church doctrine and humankind 'did not compute' for me), and have been altering/refining/redefining my concept of the Divine ever since. And you didn't ask, but did I ever think of the possibility that there was no such Entity? Yes. In a nutshell, I quit experiencing the numinous for a time; then it resumed. Bottom line: my experience and concept of the Divine makes me strive to be a more understanding, kind and involved person. I frequently fail, but I do keep trying. wry That still doesn't answer your question, does it? Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
Robert Seeberger wrote: OK! That's fair then. I urge everyone (who cares about the subject) to provide some sort of justification for their beliefs. I care about the subject, but not enough that I want to take the time this month to really get into it. I think that if you read various posts of mine, you'll get a feel for what I believe; if anyone has specific questions for me, I'll be happy to consider them. I'm going to give this some thought. I'll be interested in reading what you, and what a number of other people, have to say on the subject, though. (And if you want to know what is occupying my time, you can ask that, as well.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: massive snippage BTW, WTF an IPU? An Invisible Pink Unicorn. But this is a false impression, as The Unicorn Who Watches Over the World is *not* pink, but a silvery grey with 'blue roan'-type points. As proof of the existence of The One Who Watches, there is a hymn dedicated to Er: On invisible wings Thou bear'st me aloft Brow shining crystalline Against the darkness arching Thy neck Eyes proud Filled with love And deep grief of knowing that I will not stay For I, ever-seeking, would fly on alone Pinions shattered and flailing from that dark day Crippled love Heart proud Against fate cries passion without check Aches to laugh in Thy shine Whilst Thou, pacing by my side unseen, sing soft First Chapel Of The IOU Maru ;) (Invisible Omniscient Unicorn) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
Deborah Harrell wrote: Yet we live in a marvelous world, with such a variety of living things: snow algae! tube worms at volcanic vents in the bottom of the sea! terns that migrate practically Pole-to-Pole! wildebeasts in their herds-of-thousands! and us...the singing apes. All of us made out of stardust. Frickin' *amazing*... I could have written almost everything you did in the above post, less the references to the divine. For myself it is not necessary to attach spirituality or numinous experiences to the notion of a god. Debbi If I Claim To Be A Heretic Lutheran Deist, Will You Call Me A Witch? Maru ;) Hell, I have no idea what I'd call myself so who am I to criticize? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
Deborah Harrell wrote: An Invisible Pink Unicorn. But this is a false impression, as The Unicorn Who Watches Over the World is *not* pink, but a silvery grey with 'blue roan'-type points. No its not! 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 08:13 am, Doug Pensinger wrote: The reason I term myself Agnostic rather than Atheist is that though I have no doubt that there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god that watches over us and listens to our prayers, and absolutely no doubt that the idea of heaven is hogwash, So you are an atheist! I can't know without a doubt that there may be vastly superior beings - on the order of being gods. So you're an atheist on the matter of actual god(s), but agnostic on the possibility of god-like (But not god(s)) beings. That would still be an atheist position I think. I have no way of being sure that the origins of life on this planet were not initialized by such a being either. I doubt it, but cannot verify my mistrust. We might all be in the Matrix, but I don't worry about it :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:51 PM Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Robert Seeberger wrote: Erik, could you give me a brief rundown on the repeatable experiments performed in the past that tried to prove or disprove the existence of deities or Deity. I'd also like to hear your opinion on the qualities that would make or not make them good science. And while you're at it, how about a rundown on the repeatable experiments performed in the past that tried to prove or disprove the existence of The easter bunny, the tooth fairy, santa claus and, for that matter, IPUs. Uh.I'm asking a serious question here Doug. And to be perfectly honest, I would trust Erik to give a straightforward answer (if there actually is one) more than anyone else participating in this discussion. If the answer is Its never actually been done or Its not possible to perform such an experiment and get meaningful results it might change the discussion a little, but that has to be accepted. BTW, WTF an IPU? I know it sounds like I'm being sarcastic or flippant, but you seem to have been convinced at some point by something you consider factual or actual, and I'm curious as to what it was you found to be convincing. I would say that the burden of proof is on those who claim that something exists despite a complete absence of credible evidence. I would think that since a majority (at least it appears this way correct me if I'm wrong) of the world believes in some sort of deity and since 'deities have been a dominant meme throughout history, that the burden of proof falls on both sides equally. Why? Well, you aren't going to change 10,000+ years of Theism with sophistry, no matter how compelling, with out some proof of your own. Thats not exactly fair, and not really scientific, but it sure beats the hell out of yes it is/no it isn't type arguments repeated ad infinitum. Bungee Cord Type Argument Theists have 10 millenium long traditions that include miracles, supernatural events, avatars of deities, ascensions, holy books, holy men, prophesies.. ect yadda yadda yadda that reinforce theists belief (rightly or wrongly) Athiests have... lots of arguments Agnostics are unsure /Bungee Cord Type Argument When peole are looking at the world and trying to decide what to believe, what will they find convincing, something presented as an argument or something presented as history? Can you see where my question is coming from? Question for yourself and the rest of the believers on the list: If you believe in a god, why? What convinced you? 1 Why would you ask others to do something you are unwilling to do? 2 I stated my case earlier in the thread. But I don't know what to call my position. I can send you that post if you missed it. xponent May God Bless You Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I do believe that since our scientific capacities and capabilities are increasing each day (and with them, our knowledge of the universe) that it is perfectly possible and imo, likely that science will one day identify God. But I don't personally need such proof to believe that God exists or see his handiwork. I see God in everything from the intricate details of an insect's wing to the complexity of the human hand. But I can't *prove* it. I just *know*. That's my faith. And I honestly don't care who disagrees with me. :) Great big ditto, right down to the 'marvelous human hand - behold!' which, when I truly think of what 'lies behind' it, inspires such awe that I get goosebumps. Mirabile dictu indeed! Semantics/clarification: do you mean *know* in the sense that it's a bone-deep certainty which you _believe_, despite no scientific proof? That is my own sense of my faith/belief. So it's more of a sensation or feeling than hard knowledge. A RL kind-of-analagous situation is loving another person, and *knowing* that they love you in return; that's really more a deep belief, since we truly cannot know exactly what the other is thinking/feeling, except by how they behave. We might be dead wrong - humans can be very good at deceiving others as well as themselves. But I nevertheless *know* that my parents and friends love me, just as they *know* how I love them. Doug wrote: I would say that the burden of proof is on those who claim that something exists despite a complete absence of credible evidence. Question for yourself and the rest of the believers on the list: If you believe in a god, why? What convinced you? From my own POV (not claiming that my experience is applicable to anyone else), the first statement is a complete non sequitur#: the Divine does not require me to prove Ers existence -- and I have no desire or need to convert anyone to my personal belief, so I don't need to prove it to another person either. # This might not be the right Latin phrase here - I just mean that this is an issue not even 'on my radar screen.' From my Lutheran background comes Faith alone, which I have expanded to encompass the entire Divine-mortal relationship; this is *not* what M Luther himself meant, as he was referring to how one is justified before God (by faith - in Jesus, in the divine sacrifice -- not by good works. This was all in the context of his indignation over the selling of indulgences, and the corruption of what he thought ought to be the relationship between an individual man and God, etc.). So my own belief is based on my experiencing the Divine in numinous moments. These aren't visions, or voices, or the sensation that Somebody Is Watching Me (the latter do occur, but then the somebody is another human who has set off my Danger, Will Robinson! sense). Mine are moments of profound connectedness to others or a place; they can be joyous or grievous; I may be alone or with others; I may have 'invited' the experience by meditating, or it may simply occur suddenly, without any effort on my part. So nothing convinced me or proved that God Existed to me; I just experience(d) -- profound connectedness. This is, I am sure, an unsatisfying response to one who does not experience such moments. I'm sorry that I can't parse it out for you better - I truly would if I knew how. But to those who say how comforting it must be to believe that Somebody is looking out for you - like daddy or mommy --oh, not at all. The Divine Presence has nothing to do with safety, or wealth, or certainty. It is a constant challenge to try to see the Divine in the world and each other, to live as if I can always sense the interconnection, when so often I just want to 'smack some sense into that fool head!' I have to commit *daily* to what I say I believe, WRT how to interact with others; my belief requires that I respond to 'my corner of the world' as if I and others are part of the Divine. And as I've written before, I scream (silently!) at the Divine on a regular basis, b/c so many things/situations in this world just STINK. I do not 'worship out of fear or a desire to please.' Like numinous moments, I sometimes consciously choose to 'address the Divine,' and sometimes it's just a spontaneous outpouring of delight, as unexpected as sudden laughter. I don't believe in a physical hell; I think hell is complete disconnection from the Divine (and thus from everything). I have no idea what 'heaven' might be, or what might happen to my consciousness/spirit/soul after I die -- and frankly _it_doesn't_ matter_. It's how I live *now* and whether some part of the world is a better place for my being in it that's important. My belief system doesn't make me superior to anyone, or more knowledgable; I don't have to belong to some exclusive club to gain self-worth. And whenever I do become presumptuously over-proud, sooner or later
Re: On the topic of atheism.
William T Goodall wrote: On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 11:23 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: It is impossible to prove that God either exists or does not exist somewhere, anywhere in the universe with the exception of anecdotal examples. Therefore, both belief *and* nonbelief in God are the result of faith and not scientific principle. So, one may accurately say that both Atheists and Theists rely on faith to support their conclusions. Only agnostics do not. It seems to me it makes more sense to be agnostic about whether woolly mammoths are extinct than about whether god(s) exist. After all, we have evidence that woolly mammoths *did* survive until relatively recently, and the world is a big place... There is no evidence at all that god(s) exist or ever did. So why be agnostic about that and not woolly mammoths? The reason I term myself Agnostic rather than Atheist is that though I have no doubt that there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god that watches over us and listens to our prayers, and absolutely no doubt that the idea of heaven is hogwash, I can't know without a doubt that there may be vastly superior beings - on the order of being gods. I have no way of being sure that the origins of life on this planet were not initialized by such a being either. I doubt it, but cannot verify my mistrust. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 06:24:21PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: It's just not evidence that lends itself easily to scientific study. And is therefore very poor information, not really evidence at all, just anecdotes. One of the most important things about science is that anyone, anytime who can perform an experiment can verify some bit of scientific knowledge. If they perform the same experiment as anyone else, they will get the same result. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
---Original Message--- From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Saying that for hundreds or thousands of years, no one has publicized a repeatable experiment demonstrating the existence of some god, therefore, for all practical purposes, god does not exist seems much closer to a scientific statement than a faith statement. What about the Divine Clockmaker theory of God? i.e. that God set the universe into motion with some kind of divine plan, but essentially does not interfere in day-to-day existence on Earth. I believe that this theory is also compatible with belief in life-ever-after and salvation (but I'm sure Dan M. will correct me if I am wrong.) I would characterize this theory of God as being religious, and I also believe that most atheists would disagree with this theory. Yet, doesn't disagreement with this theory require a measure of faith, as Jon has suggested? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: On the topic of atheism.
---Original Message--- From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is impossible to prove that God ...exists... with the exception of anecdotal examples. Why does belief in anecdotal examples constitute faith? Is there some kind of critical mass of anecdotal examples that constitutes proof? Or do you consider belief in evolution to require a similar type of faith as you attribute to being required for belief in God? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 05:50:47AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Saying that for hundreds or thousands of years, no one has publicized a repeatable experiment demonstrating the existence of some god, therefore, for all practical purposes, god does not exist seems much closer to a scientific statement than a faith statement. What about the Divine Clockmaker theory of God? i.e. that God set the universe into motion with some kind of divine plan, but essentially does not interfere in day-to-day existence on Earth. I believe that this theory is also compatible with belief in life-ever-after and salvation (but I'm sure Dan M. will correct me if I am wrong.) I would characterize this theory of God as being religious, and I also believe that most atheists would disagree with this theory. Yet, doesn't disagreement with this theory require a measure of faith, as Jon has suggested? Disagreement with that (I promised to be more precise in my word choice so I can't use theory here) hypothesis does not require faith. Saying the hypotheis is definitely wrong might, but since, as I said, no repeatable experiments are known to support the hypothesis, disagreement is reasonable. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 05:53:46AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is impossible to prove that God ...exists... with the exception of anecdotal examples. Why does belief in anecdotal examples constitute faith? Is there some kind of critical mass of anecdotal examples that constitutes proof? Or do you consider belief in evolution to require a similar type of faith as you attribute to being required for belief in God? Because repeatable experiments that give the same results when done by anyone, anytime result in reliable knowledge. Anecdotes and folk tales are not reliable or repeatable. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
---Original Message--- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't necessary) then god(s) don't exist. Unforunately Wllliam, you aren't the final arbiter for humanity on the definition of convincing. To use just one example, some 70% of Americans seem to have found the evidence convincing - as has a significant supermajority of the entire worlds population... So, I'd guess that there is some other standard here for conclusion than convincing - since on that standard alone, I'd argue that God seems to win. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 06:02:02AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: To use just one example, some 70% of Americans seem to have found the evidence convincing - as has a significant supermajority of the entire worlds population... No, many of them believe different, contradictory things. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 12:24 am, Reggie Bautista wrote: As was discussed in another branch of this thread, many people *do* feel they have evidence of the divine, in the form of numinous experiences and apparitions and what some people see as a guiding hand in their life, etc. It's just not evidence that lends itself easily to scientific study. Reggie Bautista A feeling you have some evidence is not at all the same thing as actually having some evidence. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 11:02 am, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't necessary) then god(s) don't exist. Unforunately Wllliam, you aren't the final arbiter for humanity on the definition of convincing. And see what a mess resulted from that? :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:59:35 -0400 On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 05:50:47AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Saying that for hundreds or thousands of years, no one has publicized a repeatable experiment demonstrating the existence of some god, therefore, for all practical purposes, god does not exist seems much closer to a scientific statement than a faith statement. What about the Divine Clockmaker theory of God? i.e. that God set the universe into motion with some kind of divine plan, but essentially does not interfere in day-to-day existence on Earth. I believe that this theory is also compatible with belief in life-ever-after and salvation (but I'm sure Dan M. will correct me if I am wrong.) I would characterize this theory of God as being religious, and I also believe that most atheists would disagree with this theory. Yet, doesn't disagreement with this theory require a measure of faith, as Jon has suggested? Disagreement with that (I promised to be more precise in my word choice so I can't use theory here) hypothesis does not require faith. Saying the hypotheis is definitely wrong might, but since, as I said, no repeatable experiments are known to support the hypothesis, disagreement is reasonable. So as long as it's not an absolute disagreement (it could 'never' happen) versus an open-ended one (i could be wrong but it's highly unlikely) it's not faith? Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:28:26 +0100 On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 12:24 am, Reggie Bautista wrote: As was discussed in another branch of this thread, many people *do* feel they have evidence of the divine, in the form of numinous experiences and apparitions and what some people see as a guiding hand in their life, etc. It's just not evidence that lends itself easily to scientific study. Reggie Bautista A feeling you have some evidence is not at all the same thing as actually having some evidence. Just ask Lamarck. :) Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: On the topic of atheism.
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:01 AM Subject: Re: Re: On the topic of atheism. On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 05:53:46AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is impossible to prove that God ...exists... with the exception of anecdotal examples. Why does belief in anecdotal examples constitute faith? Is there some kind of critical mass of anecdotal examples that constitutes proof? Or do you consider belief in evolution to require a similar type of faith as you attribute to being required for belief in God? Because repeatable experiments that give the same results when done by anyone, anytime result in reliable knowledge. Anecdotes and folk tales are not reliable or repeatable. Erik, could you give me a brief rundown on the repeatable experiments performed in the past that tried to prove or disprove the existence of deities or Deity. I'd also like to hear your opinion on the qualities that would make or not make them good science. I know it sounds like I'm being sarcastic or flippant, but you seem to have been convinced at some point by something you consider factual or actual, and I'm curious as to what it was you found to be convincing. xponent Broaden My Horizons Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
Robert Seeberger wrote: Erik, could you give me a brief rundown on the repeatable experiments performed in the past that tried to prove or disprove the existence of deities or Deity. I'd also like to hear your opinion on the qualities that would make or not make them good science. And while you're at it, how about a rundown on the repeatable experiments performed in the past that tried to prove or disprove the existence of The easter bunny, the tooth fairy, santa claus and, for that matter, IPUs. I know it sounds like I'm being sarcastic or flippant, but you seem to have been convinced at some point by something you consider factual or actual, and I'm curious as to what it was you found to be convincing. I would say that the burden of proof is on those who claim that something exists despite a complete absence of credible evidence. Question for yourself and the rest of the believers on the list: If you believe in a god, why? What convinced you? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
William T Goodall wrote: What does the coelacanth is extinct mean? And what did it mean 100 years ago? Exactly! You seem to have grasped the point. Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't necessary) But it would be helpful! 8^) then god(s) don't exist. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:31:01PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: The statement is flawed. Saying a person is deluding themself simply because the evidence they make their judgement on is unscientific is wrong. If an atheist wants to say There is no scientific evidence of any god therefore belief in god is *unscientific*. That is a valid statement that is not based on any faith. Turning unscientific to delusional changes the meaning significantly though. Unscientific simply means the belief is not based in science, delusional means the belief has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. So again, someone who says everyone who believes in a god is delusional (regardless as to what precedes the statement to qualify it) is making a declaration of faith. Since science is the best way we have of understanding and testing reality, then unscientific DOES mean that it has no basis in reality. So the statement There is no scientific evidence of any god therefore belief in god is delusional is NOT a decleration of faith. You miss (or deliberately dodge) the whole point of what I wrote. Your own words say it: ...science is the *best* way we have of understanding and testing reality... (emphasis added) Is it our only way though? No it is not: We have philosophy; We have *speculation* based on available evidence when scientific evidence is not yet available (which ::gasp:: is the first part of the scientific method); We even have a legal system in effect that *does not* use scientific method or strictly scientific evidence to find guilt or innocence. Therefore unscientific belief does not equate to delusional belief. But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original point. I don't think so. You are arguing that there is some reality that cannot be tested by science. I disagree, and that is not just semnatics. No, this is very much getting away from my original point... You know, the one that you snipped at the end that was about atheism, not religion. That being the reason for the subject line. I'll post it again in this post in case you accidentally missed it. I wrote: -- But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original point. Basically the line between logic based and faith based athiesm is between one who says I don't believe any god exists. and one who says No god exists. The first being a statement of opinion based on that person's judgement, and the other being a statement of deffinity, declaring an unprovable belief to be certainty. -- How is this not in accordance with my original post? Moreover, how is the direction you have steered the discussion in any way in accordance with the point of my original post? In case you have forgoten, here is the original post.: -- JDG said that atheism requires faith. I both agree and disagree with that statement. For an atheist to say I don't believe that any sort of god exists, because I have seen no evidence of the existence of any god. Requires no faith at all. They are only stating that they don't believe something because they have seen no evidence of it. That doesn't require faith. For an atheist to say There is no god, and people who believe in any god or gods are just deluding themselves. Requires faith. This statement, while possibly true, cannot be proven, and anyone who makes such a definitive statement on something that cannot be proven does so out of faith in what they believe. So really, it depends on what kind of atheist you are as to whether or not your beliefs are based in faith. -- You are turning this discussion into a justification of religion and avoiding its original intent. How about I turn it back around on you then. Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Based on *your* standard of proof, the only non-delusional person is the person who says I don't know if any god exists. Anyone who believes in any god or believes in no god, by your standards, is delusional. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:05:37AM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: You miss (or deliberately dodge) the whole point of what I wrote. Your own words say it: ...science is the *best* way we have of understanding and testing reality... (emphasis added) No, I understood what you said, it is just wrong. Is it our only way though? No it is not: We have philosophy; We have *speculation* based on available evidence when scientific evidence is not yet available (which ::gasp:: is the first part of the scientific method); If philosophy disagrees with a repeatable scientific experiment, then philosophy is wrong. Speculation in science is clearly labeled as speculation (hypothesis, not knowledge). One does not say my hypothesis, even though I have no evidence, IS KNOWLEDGE. We even have a legal system in effect that *does not* use scientific method or strictly scientific evidence to find guilt or innocence. If there is not enough evidence presented, convincing beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the person is found NOT GUILTY, but more precisely, what is meant is that there isn't enough evidence to reasonably conclude that guilt exists. And the evidence must not be convincing to a number of different people -- a single eyewitness account without supporting hard evidence or establishment of the trustworthiness of the witness will usually be discounted by the jury (although occasionally it may not be, I would argue that is a mistake and the people are fooling themselves). To complete the metaphor you started, if there is not any evidence for god, then one suspends judgement and does not conclude that god exists. To do otherwise is unreasonable, or delusional. Perhaps part of our disagreement here is semantics, if you do not agree that unreasonable and delusional are the same in this context. Therefore unscientific belief does not equate to delusional belief. Therefore, unscientific belief DOES equate to delusional belief. Humans are very good at fooling themselves and others. Science is the best way we have to check our knowledge so that we don't fool ourselves. If science disagrees or is unable to be used on some idea, then that idea is really not useful knowledge. If something isn't useful knowledge, but when claims that it IS true (or useful), then it is delusional. The reasonable conclusion in the absence of evidence is to suspend judgement, not to find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original point. I don't think so. You are arguing that there is some reality that cannot be tested by science. I disagree, and that is not just semnatics. No, this is very much getting away from my original point... You know, the one that you snipped at the end that was about atheism, not religion. That being the reason for the subject line. Again, I don't think so. If I've understood what William has said before, then your statements about the thinking of atheists are incorrect. Or at least, I think they do not agree with William's definitions. William, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. True enough. You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Why oops? There is no problem there. Based on *your* standard of proof, the only non-delusional person is the person who says I don't know if any god exists. It is not MY standard. Science is everyone's standard. One of the most useful scientific ideas is that for knowledge to be valid, anyone who repeats an experiment, anytime, should obtain the same results as anyone else. That is what makes scientific knowledge high-quality knowledge, not delusion. Anyone who believes in any god or believes in no god, by your standards, is delusional. Yes to the first part, yes or no to the second, depending on what exactly is meant by believes in no god. If someone says, I don't believe in any god because there is no scientific evidence then they are not delusional, they are withholding judgement. If they say, there is no evidence for god so I will base my actions on the non-existence of god then they are not delusional. In the absence of any evidence, a reasonable thing to do is to act as if the phenomenon does not exist. That is not delusional. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 07:05 am, Michael Harney wrote: Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Science proves negatives all the time. That's what experiments are for. No evidence for X *is* evidence against X. Cold fusion for example. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:48:18AM +0100, William T Goodall wrote: Science proves negatives all the time. That's what experiments are for. No evidence for X *is* evidence against X. I would agree with the last statement, but not the first. Science does not PROVE negatives, how is it possible to prove that something does not exist? If I try for 100 years to prove the existence of something, and I find no evidence to prove it, can I say I have proved the non-existence? What if I do say it, and then the next experiment I do finds evidence of existence? Then I have falsified my previous statement that I proved non-existence. If you replaced proves with provides support for, then I would agree completely. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 06:39:50AM -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Perhaps part of our disagreement here is semantics, if you do not agree that unreasonable and delusional are the same in this context. I should clarify what delusional means when I use it. Suppose I were to claim that I am constantly surrounded by invisible pink unicorns who tell me what to do and listen to what I say, and sometime even speak to me (I might even say that the unicorns are in control of everything, including life and death). I tell this to a number of psychiatrists. They will all conclude I am delusional, since they cannot themselves find any scientific evidence that such creatures exist, and yet I claim that they do. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Off on a minor tangent Re: On the topic of atheism.
Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:01:36PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: But if one is describing a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and infinite, then minds such as ours could not encompass even the scope of such a being. Speak for yourself, man! My mind is certainly capable of the concepts of infinity, eternity, and omni-. I recently saw an argument that Google is God. With wireless technology, Google can be accessed from anywhere, hence is omnipresent. Google gives access to a lot of information, hence is omniscient. Now, I can poke holes in each of these arguments with specific examples -- but the clincher is, I don't see (and the argument didn't claim) that Google is omnipotent. So Google fails the God test, as far as I'm concerned. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 12:13 pm, Erik Reuter wrote: If you replaced proves with provides support for, then I would agree completely. That's all 'scientific proof' means anyway, isn't it? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Actually, you can prove a negative. For example, I can state that there are no large, visible pink elephants in the room with me right now, and you and others can come and look; and if you do, you and the others will not see any large, visible pink elephants. (Of course, you will not be able to see the invisible, tiny pink elephant that I can see in my mind's eye; but I am not talking about him.) I suspect what you are trying to say is that you cannot prove a universal negative, such as there are no pink elephants, not even those that have been painted pink. The latter problem occurs because the universe is bigger than the volume you and others can investigate, so you don't know whether a counter example could occur. But for a constrained space, such as my room, it is possible to determine whether a large, visible entity inhabits it. And for an unconstrained search space, depending on your confidence regarding the `usualness' or `unusualness' of the part you have searched, you can make a statement that may not be absolute, but is strong enough to bet your life on, such as `it is highly unlikely there are any naturally green elephants, although there may be albino elephants that look pinkish because their blood is somewhat visible.' -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:05:37 -0600 Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Hi Michael, Just wanted to clarify something: I don't believe that it is possible to prove *this* example of a negative scientifically, but I'm almost positive (no pun intended) that you can prove negatives scientifically. For example: You can prove that a man is not a plank of wood scientifically. No? I don't know where I saw it, but I've seen this argument referred to in the past as the 'universal existential negative' argument, which basically says you cannot prove that something (God) doesn't exist. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:31 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: I don't know where I saw it, but I've seen this argument referred to in the past as the 'universal existential negative' argument, which basically says you cannot prove that something (God) doesn't exist. So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:11:55 +0100 On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:31 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: I don't know where I saw it, but I've seen this argument referred to in the past as the 'universal existential negative' argument, which basically says you cannot prove that something (God) doesn't exist. So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? The sentence is an assumption and not a proven fact because it is currently impossible to scientifically show that all Dodos, everywhere in the universe are extinct. That's what the 'universal' refers to. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: On the topic of atheism.
---Original Message--- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? What does the coelacanth is extinct mean? And what did it mean 100 years ago? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 06:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? It means you haven't read The Ugly Chickens. ;) I have! -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:42 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? What does the coelacanth is extinct mean? And what did it mean 100 years ago? Exactly! You seem to have grasped the point. Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't necessary) then god(s) don't exist. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:01:33 +0100 On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 08:18 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? The sentence is an assumption and not a proven fact because it is currently impossible to scientifically show that all Dodos, everywhere in the universe are extinct. That's what the 'universal' refers to. It isn't usually stated in a context that would lead one to assume that it was intended to be read as an assumption rather than a statement of fact. So? Don't you have a sig quote that says something to the effect of even if a million people believe something is right when it's wrong they are still wrong? In science and in language accuracy is important. It is impossible to prove that God either exists or does not exist somewhere, anywhere in the universe with the exception of anecdotal examples. Therefore, both belief *and* nonbelief in God are the result of faith and not scientific principle. So, one may accurately say that both Atheists and Theists rely on faith to support their conclusions. Only agnostics do not. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:30:19 +0100 On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:42 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? What does the coelacanth is extinct mean? And what did it mean 100 years ago? Exactly! You seem to have grasped the point. Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't necessary) then god(s) don't exist. So we should take that on faith then? :) Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 11:27 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:30:19 +0100 On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:42 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? What does the coelacanth is extinct mean? And what did it mean 100 years ago? Exactly! You seem to have grasped the point. Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't necessary) then god(s) don't exist. So we should take that on faith then? No, it's the best available information, no faith required. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 06:23:55PM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: So, one may accurately say that both Atheists and Theists rely on faith to support their conclusions. No, I don't think that is true for any but the most extreme atheists. Saying that for hundreds or thousands of years, no one has publicized a repeatable experiment demonstrating the existence of some god, therefore, for all practical purposes, god does not exist seems much closer to a scientific statement than a faith statement. Only saying, I am absolutely certain that no (well-hidden) god exists anywhere in the universe requires faith. But I don't see many atheists making such a statement. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 11:23 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: It is impossible to prove that God either exists or does not exist somewhere, anywhere in the universe with the exception of anecdotal examples. Therefore, both belief *and* nonbelief in God are the result of faith and not scientific principle. So, one may accurately say that both Atheists and Theists rely on faith to support their conclusions. Only agnostics do not. It seems to me it makes more sense to be agnostic about whether woolly mammoths are extinct than about whether god(s) exist. After all, we have evidence that woolly mammoths *did* survive until relatively recently, and the world is a big place... There is no evidence at all that god(s) exist or ever did. So why be agnostic about that and not woolly mammoths? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
William T. Goodall wrote: It seems to me it makes more sense to be agnostic about whether woolly mammoths are extinct than about whether god(s) exist. After all, we have evidence that woolly mammoths *did* survive until relatively recently, and the world is a big place... There is no evidence at all that god(s) exist or ever did. So why be agnostic about that and not woolly mammoths? As was discussed in another branch of this thread, many people *do* feel they have evidence of the divine, in the form of numinous experiences and apparitions and what some people see as a guiding hand in their life, etc. It's just not evidence that lends itself easily to scientific study. Reggie Bautista _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:33:28PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: For an atheist to say There is no god, and people who believe in any god or gods are just deluding themselves. Requires faith. This statement, while On the other hand, a slight change in your statement to: There is no evidence for god, and people who believe in any god or gods (without evidence) are just deluding themselves. does not require faith. Wrong, that's faith based as well. The problem with that wording is that there *is* evidence of a god. Documentation and reports of apparitions, stigmata, healing of uncurable conditions through prayer, other miracles, personal revelations, etc. How *credible* the evidence is is a value jugdement. Someone saying their is no evidence of a god is is making a faith based declaration saying that the evidence is invalid or fabricated without prooving it invalid or fabricated. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 08:48:07PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: Wrong, that's faith based as well. The problem with that wording is that there *is* evidence of a god. Documentation and reports of apparitions, stigmata, healing of uncurable conditions through prayer, other miracles, personal revelations, etc. How *credible* the evidence is is a value jugdement. Someone saying their is no evidence of a god is is making a faith based declaration saying that the evidence is invalid or fabricated without prooving it invalid or fabricated. Fine, add the word scientific before evidence. The evidence you are talking about is not something that can be empirically verified by anyone -- it is really poor evidence, if it is even evidence at all. I'd call it anecdotes, but I don't want to argue semantics, so just add the word scientific. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:02 PM Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:33:28PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: For an atheist to say There is no god, and people who believe in any god or gods are just deluding themselves. Requires faith. This statement, while On the other hand, a slight change in your statement to: There is no evidence for god, and people who believe in any god or gods (without evidence) are just deluding themselves. does not require faith. I think it depends completely on what one means by God. If one is thinking about some being that has any constraints or limitations, I would agree with you. But if one is describing a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and infinite, then minds such as ours could not encompass even the scope of such a being. We may not even be able to recognize evidence of Gods existence for what it is, considering how little we actually know about the universe and the nature of reality. In such a case, the facts are unavailable, the truth is unknowable, and any adherence to the polar extremes of the question Does God exist? is absolutely a matter of faith. Lately I've seen discussion about faith, atheism, and agnosticism. Count me as a 4th category. I say it doesn't matter. I believe that whether god exists or not, we are still required to observe a common morality and ethics. Required by either God or by our humanity in general, the end result is the same. Speaking honestly, I pray. But I do not claim that I know that my prayers are heard and I have never heard God speak to me. I pray because it makes me feel good, closer to the part of me that cares. Mostly I pray for others and on rare occasions for myself. (Praying for myself seems selfish, I'd rather work for the results I want.) I suppose you might say that for me God is like schroedringers cat, God exists in an indeterminate state, and since I am not in position to observe God, God cannot be collapsed into fact or fiction. But I won't claim that the distinction concerns me beyond the realm of curiosity. xponent The Return Of Freewill Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:01:36PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: But if one is describing a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and infinite, then minds such as ours could not encompass even the scope of such a being. Speak for yourself, man! My mind is certainly capable of the concepts of infinity, eternity, and omni-. We may not even be able to recognize evidence of Gods existence for what it is, considering how little we actually know about the universe and the nature of reality. Then it isn't useful evidence, and certainly isn't scientific evidence. When I talk about knowledge and evidence in this context, I am referring to the best system that has yet been developed for testing our knowledge: science. In such a case, the facts are unavailable, the truth is unknowable, and any adherence to the polar extremes of the question Does God exist? is absolutely a matter of faith. Facts are not unknowable, almost by definition. It doesn't make sense to talk about unknowable facts. All scientific knowledge is testable, and knowledge is knowable, by definition. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 08:48:07PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: Wrong, that's faith based as well. The problem with that wording is that there *is* evidence of a god. Documentation and reports of apparitions, stigmata, healing of uncurable conditions through prayer, other miracles, personal revelations, etc. How *credible* the evidence is is a value jugdement. Someone saying their is no evidence of a god is is making a faith based declaration saying that the evidence is invalid or fabricated without prooving it invalid or fabricated. Fine, add the word scientific before evidence. The evidence you are talking about is not something that can be empirically verified by anyone -- it is really poor evidence, if it is even evidence at all. I'd call it anecdotes, but I don't want to argue semantics, so just add the word scientific. Ok, add the word scientific: There is no scientific evidence that the any god exists, therefore anyone who believes in god is deluding themselves. The statement is flawed. Saying a person is deluding themself simply because the evidence they make their judgement on is unscientific is wrong. If an atheist wants to say There is no scientific evidence of any god therefore belief in god is *unscientific*. That is a valid statement that is not based on any faith. Turning unscientific to delusional changes the meaning significantly though. Unscientific simply means the belief is not based in science, delusional means the belief has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. So again, someone who says everyone who believes in a god is delusional (regardless as to what precedes the statement to qualify it) is making a declaration of faith. But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original point. Basically the line between logic based and faith based athiesm is between one who says I don't believe any god exists. and one who says No god exists. The first being a statement of opinion based on that person's judgement, and the other being a statement of deffinity, declaring an unprovable belief to be certainty. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:01:36PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: But if one is describing a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and infinite, then minds such as ours could not encompass even the scope of such a being. Speak for yourself, man! My mind is certainly capable of the concepts of infinity, eternity, and omni-. Certainly, but neither your mind or mine can *be* those things. I don't think that a gerbil could model human behavior, and in that sense and being that is worth of the title God would be beyond our ability to model. We may not even be able to recognize evidence of Gods existence for what it is, considering how little we actually know about the universe and the nature of reality. Then it isn't useful evidence, and certainly isn't scientific evidence. Absolutely, it isn't really useful knowledge at all, but assuming that God exists, the useless facts would still be true, regardless of our ability to process the evidence. When I talk about knowledge and evidence in this context, I am referring to the best system that has yet been developed for testing our knowledge: science. Don't get me wrong, I agree wholeheartedly. But i do wonder if there are not limitations to what we can know. Maybe the physics folk can chime in on that point. In such a case, the facts are unavailable, the truth is unknowable, and any adherence to the polar extremes of the question Does God exist? is absolutely a matter of faith. Facts are not unknowable, almost by definition. True, but thats not what I said there. There are many facts that are unavailable at any given time. And I know I will get lectured for using the word truth in this kind of discussion won't I Dan!G It doesn't make sense to talk about unknowable facts. All scientific knowledge is testable, and knowledge is knowable, by definition. I would think that anything one might call scientific knowledge has already been tested. But there may be hypothesis that are ultimately untestable. Does God exist? is one I think. Any others? xponent Does Rob Exist? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:31:01PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: The statement is flawed. Saying a person is deluding themself simply because the evidence they make their judgement on is unscientific is wrong. If an atheist wants to say There is no scientific evidence of any god therefore belief in god is *unscientific*. That is a valid statement that is not based on any faith. Turning unscientific to delusional changes the meaning significantly though. Unscientific simply means the belief is not based in science, delusional means the belief has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. So again, someone who says everyone who believes in a god is delusional (regardless as to what precedes the statement to qualify it) is making a declaration of faith. Since science is the best way we have of understanding and testing reality, then unscientific DOES mean that it has no basis in reality. So the statement There is no scientific evidence of any god therefore belief in god is delusional is NOT a decleration of faith. But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original point. I don't think so. You are arguing that there is some reality that cannot be tested by science. I disagree, and that is not just semnatics. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:54:13PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: Certainly, but neither your mind or mine can *be* those things. Human minds are capable of abstraction. One's mind need not be infinite to understand the concept of infinity. I don't think that a gerbil could model human behavior, and in that sense Gerbils minds are not capable of abstraction and reason. and being that is worth of the title God would be beyond our ability to model. That does not follow, since our minds are significantly different than gerbils. But there may be hypothesis that are ultimately untestable. Does God exist? is one I think. Any others? No, that is certainly testable, for any reasonable definition of God. Of course, if you define God as an untestable phenonmenon then you cannot test it, but that is not a reasonable definition. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
