Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
St. Anselm Move Over—Here Come Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron!
St. Anselm's famous ontological proof of God's existence runs something like this:
I can conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, God exists.
Unfortunately, some benighted souls (I among them) have found the argument somewhat less than convincing. However, Ray Comfort, author of the best-selling God Doesn't Believe in Atheists and ex-atheist side-kick Kirk Cameron promise to prove the existence of the Most High Lord in a debate in New York City on May 5. ABC television is recording the debate and will apparently broadcast it later on Nightline. Comfort claims:
"Most people equate atheism with intellectualism, but it's actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God's existence is a matter of faith. It's not, and I will prove it at the debate - once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists."
For more alleged proofs of God's existence than you can shake a stick at look here.
Disclosure: Some of my best friends are Christians.
|4.26.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Disclosure: Some of my best friends are
Christians.
Therein lies your problem...
|4.26.07 @ 1:06PM|#
As a christian from the conservative side of the church, I hate seeing these types of things. While Kirk and Ray may have good intentions, they're not elijah and fire is not coming down from heaven. So if they fail to prove God, then they've set the Christian community up for attacks and possibly turned folks away.
Fluffy|4.26.07 @ 1:11PM|#
I know philosophy professors who to this day assert that
Anselm's proof is valid, and that if I have a problem with it I
have a problem with logic.
Never mind the fact that the whole "one aspect of perfection is
existence" part is nonsensical. Perfect at what? Perfect for
whom?
|4.26.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Of course God exists!
I'm right here.
Please send cash with all prayers and requests for absolution.
z|4.26.07 @ 1:12PM|#
The best "proof" that God exists is that so many people believe it to be true for so long a time. That's not to say they couldn't all be wrong, but there really is no way to prove it. My favorite goes is the old 'the universe is too complex to have been created by chance, therefore, God must exist'. But um, if God is capable of creating the universe, then certainly he is more complex than the universe, and therefore God could not have been created by chance, therefore, a meta-God must exist who can create Gods, and so on and so on.
|4.26.07 @ 1:14PM|#
...I will prove it at the debate...
I hope they check these guys and all of their equipment for
explosives, WMDs, etc...
"You don't believe in God? I'll show you God, sons of
bitches!"...KABOOM!!
As much as I despise her, Rosie had a point in saying that extreme
"Christians" parallel extreme "Muslims".
Bhh|4.26.07 @ 1:16PM|#
I took a philosophy of religion class at a local college when I was still in high school. I thought Anselm's proof was pretty cool. Although I was 17 and baked at the time.
ed|4.26.07 @ 1:18PM|#
OK, how about this:
I can't conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of imperfection is existence.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
|4.26.07 @ 1:22PM|#
True Atheism is an irrational belief as it is an adherance to a negative. How does one prove that god does not exist?
Sal Paradise|4.26.07 @ 1:23PM|#
I'm not going to make up my mind until Boner weighs in on this matter.
|4.26.07 @ 1:25PM|#
I'm not entirely sure one can conceive of a perfect God. All the
conceptions I see are rather less than perfect. I'm also not sure
what Anselm's definition of perfection is. That's two objections to
the first part of the syllogism.
Given that perfection does not exist in the real world, and is
almost always used as an abstraction or a yardstick against which
everything fails, I'd suggest that non-existence could be
considered a property of perfection.
So the premises are questionable at best. The conclusion must also
be suspect.
|4.26.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
|4.26.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Eryk Boston,
do you believe in tooth fairys? Is it 'irrational' to adhere to the
'belief' that tooth fairys dont exist?
|4.26.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Which fucking god(s) are we talking about again? Oh yeah, the
one these assholes already happen to believe in,
"pre-logically".
Happens over and over--see Pasqual's Wager. Some bogus intellectual
construct magically points to a god (supposedly), and it is always
the same fucking god they already believed in. Otherwise how would
you get to Jesus and his wacky sidekick, the Holy Ghost? And
without them you might as well be a (gasp!) Jew or something.
Same shit, different day--the Christers can't help embarrassing
themselves over and over.
|4.26.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Eryck- One recognizes that those asserting the existence of god
are making a claim that demands evidence, and suggests that the
current evidence is not convincing.
In other words, atheism is not a belief in a negative, it is a
denial of a positive statement.
biologist|4.26.07 @ 1:29PM|#
"a banana is just the right shape for a human mouth"
Grotius, you just know Comfort is going to be the next Christian
conservative to be outed as a gay man, when the video of him
fellating Kirk Cameron is posted on YouTube.
Sandy|4.26.07 @ 1:31PM|#
I like how this "debate" mentions no one on the opposing side. I can prove lots of things if left utterly unchallenged, too.
Rat Tomago|4.26.07 @ 1:31PM|#
"when God made man, glasses weren't invented...but look where He
put our ears!"
~Benny Hill
|4.26.07 @ 1:32PM|#
By the way: at this point, I've screwed up twice. I keep vowing to myself that I will not engage in discussions where everyone's mind is made up, and where dialog is fruitless. In other words, I'm out of this thread. Enjoy the shouting match.
|4.26.07 @ 1:35PM|#
"As much as I despise her, Rosie had a point in saying that
extreme 'Christians' parallel extreme 'Muslims'."
Why? Because you can make up a scenario where they blow up NY? All
the shameful abortion-clinic bombings combined don't equal one
month of extremist Muslim terror. Your posts I've seen are
thoughtful, so please beef up this claim for me!
"I'm not going to make up my mind until Boner weighs in on this
matter."
I bow to your sublime allusion, sir.
|4.26.07 @ 1:35PM|#
""" I can conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, God exists."""
I guess this was St. Anselm's lame attempt at a syllogism.
|4.26.07 @ 1:35PM|#
"Is he able (to prevent evil), but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."
Hey, scottp just called libertarians malevolent!
|4.26.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Matt, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If
you say there is a tooth fairy, you must show evidence. If you say
there is none, you must do likewise. If you say there is no proof
that there is a tooth fairy and that is highly likely to be
nonsense you do not have the same burden as when you catagoricaly
declare her non-existence.
If you say you have faith and that you choose to believe regardless
of proof that is not the same as the stance of the atheist who does
not merely say they doubt or that there is no proof but that god
definitively does not exist. It is logically impossible to prove
such a negative.
|4.26.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Here's a link to a helpful article on ontological
arguments:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
|4.26.07 @ 1:38PM|#
"Is he able (to prevent evil), but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."
If seen this phrased as "not omni-benevolent" Not the same thing as
malevolent.
cant be allpowerful, allknowing, and allgood given the situation on
the ground. Unless you believe the miserable and selfserving
platitude 'god works in mysterious ways', when some bad S@#$
happens to you.
|4.26.07 @ 1:39PM|#
I'm so looking forward to watching this. I'll set my TIVO. I didn't have one before, but then I conceived one to be so perfect that it suddenly existed, and now I can watch this program. Thank you oh great TIVO.
|4.26.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Number 6, "I don't know" or "I'm not/can't be sure" is the stance of an agnostic. "There is no god" is the stance of the atheist.
|4.26.07 @ 1:40PM|#
"""True Atheism is an irrational belief as it is an adherance to
a negative. How does one prove that god does not exist?"""
How is it "negative"?
Those who claim something as fact have the responsibiltiy to
support that claim and give evidence as to its truth. It is not the
responsibility of the listener to dis-prove the claim.
If you claim God exists, you have the burden of proof. You are not
right until proven wrong.
Grotius|4.26.07 @ 1:42PM|#
R.C. Dean,
Yeah, the banana claim left me speechless.
biologist,
I ain't even going there.
|4.26.07 @ 1:43PM|#
In other words, atheism is not a belief in a negative, it is
a denial of a positive statement.
Well, if you by into the Strong
vs. Weak paradigm, the Strong Atheists (such as myself) do
believe in the negative.
|4.26.07 @ 1:43PM|#
On balance, I should add that religious persons who insist on trying to prove god's existence are declaring that they need proof and are thus lacking in true faith which is supposed to be the cornerstone of practicing a "faith".
Grotius|4.26.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Alright, back to square one.
Agnosticism speaks to knowledge. I am an agnostic.
Atheism speaks to belief. I am an atheist.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Most people, whether they are theists or atheists, are
agnostics.
VM|4.26.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Reinmoose,
wonderful! Welcome to the world of thinking like an
economist.
[scene changes. desert island with a mechanical engineer,
physicist, and an economist. They're trying to open a can of
food]
ME: okay. I can build this rig that will cut at the exact angle to
open the can.
P: well I can open the can by strking it at the exact angle
E: here's how we open it. Assume a can opener...
|4.26.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Eryk, im going to post your original statement again.
"True Atheism is an irrational belief as it is an adherance to a
negative. How does one prove that god does not exist?'
for the sake of arguement, I'll grant you atheism is a belief. your
characterization of it as irrational is silly. Given the lack of
evidence you yourself allude to in this statement "Matt, the burden
of proof is on the person making the claim" it is quite rational to
become an Atheist.
Prove to me that tooth fairys dont exist. Until then I will say
that tooth fairys dont exist. I hope you'll agree people will think
me the sane one.
|4.26.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Ahhh Eryk, I got ya. By a "true athiest" making the claim that no god exist he would have to support or prove that claim. I agree.
|4.26.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Number 6, "I don't know" or "I'm not/can't be sure" is the
stance of an agnostic. "There is no god" is the stance of the
atheist.
I see the terminology problem has arisen once more, with theists
telling atheists what atheism means. Before this goes any further,
please refer to my post here, so
that we can get past problems of definition.
And by "we", I mean "you". My haiku brigade emergency pager just
went off, so I have work to do.
MattXIV|4.26.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Eryk,
"How does one prove that god does not exist?"
Define for me "god" and I'll tell you how to determine if one is
out there.
GILMORE|4.26.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Disclosure: Some of my best friends are
Christians.
Unfortunately Ron that doesnt make your approach to the topic of
religion any less consistently smarmy and condescending. It sounds
like you're being nice to them by letting them live with
illusions
Actually i normally get as much joy from your disclosures as
reciting suras of the q'uran, but this one seemed a little
gayzorz.
I can prove to anyone that God exists by taking them to Junior's
for cheesecake and coffee.
JG*
*Not a christian, but personally think libertarians are more
annoying and one-dimensional about religion than the bible beaters
i went to college with. They at least saw a spectrum to it rather
than the black/white nonsense about 'reason vs. religion'
|4.26.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Certainly no Syllogism would prove the existance of God, or the non-existance of God. Therefore it is an inductive argument. However if you look at the premises that either side could use, the non-existance of God would probably win. I would think there are far more true statments on the no god side than the pro god side.
|4.26.07 @ 1:55PM|#
"How does one prove that god does not exist?"
The burdon of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I will not
believe in gods unless somebody proves they exist just as I will
not believe in elves unless somebody proves their existance to
me.
VM|4.26.07 @ 1:58PM|#
Rallying to Jake!
Contributes much to these threads!
Definitions - key!
Different forms of Faith
Collide in religious thought
hard philosophy!
Matt D's DEMAND KURV
Cannot penetrate this thread
Moose no understand.
|4.26.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Lupito41 | April 26, 2007, 1:35pm | #
"As much as I despise her, Rosie had a point in saying that extreme
'Christians' parallel extreme 'Muslims'."
Why? Because you can make up a scenario where they blow up
NY? All the shameful abortion-clinic bombings combined don't equal
one month of extremist Muslim terror. Your posts I've seen are
thoughtful, so please beef up this claim for
me!
I meant that they see themselves committing murder in the name of
their God. The quantity of lives taken becomes irrelevant as soon
as a single human being is murdered in the name of whatever God you
chose to believe in.
To elaborate further, the targets of extreme "Muslims" are usually
members of another tribe or race who often congregate together in
large numbers. If all abortion proponents and homosexuals did the
same (congregate), extreme "Christians" would almost certainly
resort to the same style of mass killings.
At least that's the way I see it...feel free to counter.
|4.26.07 @ 2:03PM|#
"It sounds like you're being nice to them by letting them live
with illusions."
Uh, that is exactly what we are doing, to the extent we do it. See
The Grand Inquisitor chapter of The Brothers Karamazov for a fuller
explanation.
|4.26.07 @ 2:04PM|#
VM:
I love that joke, only I've heard it with the 3 people being in a
hole and the economist says "assume a ladder."
|4.26.07 @ 2:07PM|#
"when God made man, glasses weren't invented...but look where He
put our ears!"
~Benny Hill
George Carlin also pointed out how God made bugers brown so they
could be camoflaged under wooden desks.
VM|4.26.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Rein -
agreed it's a fun one. In B-school I actually got to use it - we
were teamed up based on concentration/ background. I was in a group
with an MIS type, a marketing type, and an ACTG type. We had a
blast. But for the presentation (each of us presented a unique
solution based on our disciplines), that's exactly what I did,
"assume a rescue helicopter"...
As usual, I was much more amused than the others there.
:)
|4.26.07 @ 2:11PM|#
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim? That's a
double-edged sword, friends and others.
Can you prove that the universe came into being without God? (I
mean God defined broadly, ie as something/someone outside the
universe and not subject to its laws.) Note that this entails not
only proving that the Big Bang or something similar happened;
you'll have to prove that something non-divine caused the Big Bang,
etc.
And if you're going to quote Hume that causality is a meaningless
concept, keep in mind that you're destroying the basis of science
even more than that of religion.
dhex|4.26.07 @ 2:12PM|#
http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/graphics/books/bambam.jpg
WHAT?
WHHAAAAAAAAT
man, it's so good it's nearly......god.
|4.26.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Um, doesn't that just prove that St. Anselm can conceive of
a God that exists?
Yes, that's basically it.
The Jesuit priest who taught my logic class at Saint Louis U.
introduced this "proof," then let us stew in it a bit. Then he
explained why it was bogus. This is the day I learned the word
"tautology."
Also: If it was possible to prove that God exists, then faith would
no longer be a virtue, because faith would no longer have a
purpose.
|4.26.07 @ 2:13PM|#
O.K. I'm convinced by the argument.
Now what do I do about the people who think I believe in the wrong
God? Or believe in the right one, but not in the right way? Or in
the right one, in the right way, but wear a blue hat instead of a
gray one?
Actually, my view is the same as Nietzchke's : the trouble with
Christians is that you can't tell them from anybody else. The
selfproclaimed don't act any better than the rest of us. I'll take
talk of God seriously when the churched start behaving like it.
dhex|4.26.07 @ 2:14PM|#
and goddamnit one day we'll figure out a way to divide the
rational and the pre-rational and have everyone be mildly happy. or
at least back away from x-treme mountain dew ad hominems. our
children will be slightly less foolish for it, or at least a little
more polite.
i have the feeling we're going to need a giant bonfire though. and
probably a lot of guns. and some labor camps! yeah! labor
camps!
Grotius|4.26.07 @ 2:16PM|#
crimethink,
Can you prove that the universe came into being without
God?
Would one have to? If one can discern a sufficiently reasonable
explanation based on natural processes one wonders why God has to
be involved in the process.
ktc2|4.26.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Oh no! Not again!
I wish Douglas Adams were still alive to actually write those three
philosophical blockbusters he referenced:
1) Where God Went Wrong
2) More of God's Greatest Mistakes
3) Who is this God Person Anyway?
VM|4.26.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Gro -
when there was all of those arguments about minimum wage, someone
kept bringing up a demand curve, probably from poorly understood
Econ 79 (not even 101!).
So that got turned, by Mr. Steven Crane and I, into Matt Damon's
character in "Team America" saying "DEMAND KURV" instead of "MATT
DAMON", because the guy's argument was basically retarded.
So it's an obnoxious catch all for the über simplistic "the market
will take care of it" style of argument. (Especially when the
current state, defined by the argurer as "free market" somehow
incorporates a "might makes right" or a "big corporations do it.
I'm for it. That settles it" theme)
The other day you (correctly) noted that it is obnoxious, in a
little brother sort of way. I agree, but some of the snarking here
merited a little "younger brothering".
:)
Stevo - excellent post. As usual, your presence elevates the
thread!!!!!!!
now a short haiku
roses are read (!) underground
THE JAM still is best!
A non sequitur,
nonsensical, fun haiku
makes for nonplussed group
|4.26.07 @ 2:19PM|#
If VT happened
Because "God was not let in"
One could postulate:
"In God We Trust" is
On all U.S. currency;
God is everywhere.
Surely, students in
Classroom had money on hand
When tragedy struck
VM|4.26.07 @ 2:22PM|#
but too much money
made fucking loon named cho
do all that killing
There once was a poster named Crane
Twaddlenocks' existence was he their bane
He cause many to grin
But their heads did spin
And they became batshit insane!
|4.26.07 @ 2:23PM|#
"If you say you have faith and that you choose to believe
regardless of proof"
Is it a logical position to believe something just because you want
it to be true? Is it a logical positition to believe something
because somebody told you it's true even though they have nothing
in which to prove it and you have nothing in which to prove it?
That makes you a knee-jerk reactionary.
|4.26.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Can you prove that the universe came into being without God?
(I mean God defined broadly, ie as something/someone outside the
universe and not subject to its laws.)
No. Personally, I've never made that claim. (If anyone insists on
tagging my with a label, I propose Spinozan/Einsteinian weak deist
agnostic.) But I can certainly prove that the literal
interpretation of the bible (and therefore, of Yehweh) is almost
certainly bullshit.
I'm not familiar with the Hume argument you mention, but I will
point out that the Aristotelian Prime Mover argument (I assume
you're headed that way) fails for reasons other than whether or not
causation is meaningful.
And I've done it again. Ok. This time I mean it...I will no longer
argue this point.
|4.26.07 @ 2:26PM|#
re: the ontological argument
joe:
There is a part missing in the description. The essence is :
A) God is defined to be something/someone greater than all
else.
B) I can conceive of God.
D) That which exists is greater than that which does does
not.
E) If God exists in my conception and God is by defninition greater
than everything else and real existence is greater than imaginary
existence, God must exist outside my imagination.
The real problem to me lies in A and B. You can't conceive of the
infinitely "great" in any clear terms. You only have a fuzzy view
of what you are talking about, so you can't take the next step
regarding existence.
|4.26.07 @ 2:29PM|#
James Cameron
Claims to Have Jesus' Tomb
Kirk Cameron Wept
--------
The result of this
A new sitcom Cameron
versus Cameron
|4.26.07 @ 2:30PM|#
I can conceive of a perfect holiday fruitcake.
I can conceive of a halfway decent comic book or SF film.
I can conceive of Steve Hackett being part of the Genesis reunion,
and only pre-Duke material being played.
None of the above exist.
|4.26.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Jason- That version (which is the one I'm familiar with) also
demands that we ask why "real existence" is greater than the
alternative, and what sense it makes to describe a being that is by
definition non-corporeal and outside of time (and therefore the
physical universe) as possessing real existence.
Ok. Really. I'm done.
|4.26.07 @ 2:32PM|#
"Can you prove that the universe came into being without
God?"
Can you prove that it did come into existence through God? How did
he do it? Does he have a brain, hands? I can conceive of a
multiverse that has always been here. Perhaps big bangs have been
going on for an infinity. Saying a god created all this is to take
it back unecessarily an extra step.
dhex|4.26.07 @ 2:32PM|#
"Is it a logical positition to believe something because
somebody told you it's true even though they have nothing in which
to prove it and you have nothing in which to prove it?"
do you believe in love?
(no, serious question. because love generally satisfies the above.
i'm also presuming you're not ron hardin.)
|4.26.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Add this to the collection:
1. I sing off key
2. I sang "He's got the whole world in his hands."
3. My performance did not deserve an ovation from God.
4. We have not been flattened by hand clapping.
Therefore, God exists.
Silliness aside, I have been on both sides. I know I can't use my
anecdotal experiences to prove something to anyone else, but since
having been slapped up along side the head (to get my attention)
and the presence of Ruach HaKodesh (Holy spirit) was revealed to
me, my migraine headaches and depressions are cured within a few
minutes of prayer.
Does anyone want to argue that the rational thing for me to do is
to disavow my belief in God, stop praying, and start paying for
ergotamine and elavil prescriptions?
|4.26.07 @ 2:34PM|#
"I can conceive of a perfect holiday fruitcake.
I can conceive of a halfway decent comic book or SF film.
I can conceive of Steve Hackett being part of the Genesis reunion,
and only pre-Duke material being played."
But I can conceive of an alternate universe where all of the above
exist.
Therefore, in an alternate universe, they exist!
biologist|4.26.07 @ 2:34PM|#
crimethink:
No, nor can we prove that God brought the universe into existence.
One cannot use natural phenomena to prove OR disprove supernatural
phenomena.
Popperian practitioners of science would also say that properly,
scientists don't prove anything, we advance knowledge by disproving
and eliminating false hypotheses.
God could have been responsible for the big bang, or not. There's
no way to know.
dhex|4.26.07 @ 2:34PM|#
cheat answer: that's because the rational and the pre-rational are not the same thing. confusing the two leads to chest pain, constipation, headaches, nausea and kirk cameron.
|4.26.07 @ 2:35PM|#
"a banana is just the right shape for a human
mouth"
I've always been much more persuaded by the correlation between the
diameters of nostrils and those of forefingers.
|4.26.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Rattlesnake,
Within my lifetime there were proponents of the "Steady-State"
theory of cosmology. They held that the universe always was and was
not created, therefore god was superfluous.
You should have seen the mad scramble to set up new barricades
against god when the big bang was discovered.
|4.26.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Mediageek, Can you prove that you can conceive or is this just an unfounded assertion?
|4.26.07 @ 2:42PM|#
"do you believe in love?"
Love is a feeling that most of us have experienced so it's not a
case of having to accept somebody's word for it.
dhex|4.26.07 @ 2:44PM|#
"Love is a feeling that most of us have experienced so it's not
a case of having to accept somebody's word for it."
do you believe in reciprocal love, then? have you ever been wrong
about it?
it's a kind of faith, no doubt.
|4.26.07 @ 2:44PM|#
"The Jesuit priest who taught my logic class at Saint Louis U.
introduced this "proof," then let us stew in it a bit. Then he
explained why it was bogus."
You realize that today's Jesuits (at least in America) have pretty
much gone native, and have become highly critical of Church
doctrines and traditions? So a Jesuit criticizing a Father of the
Church is about as shocking as Kenny Rogers smoking dope. Shouldn't
even be newsworthy.
|4.26.07 @ 2:45PM|#
"since having been slapped up along side the head (to get my
attention) and the presence of Ruach HaKodesh (Holy spirit) was
revealed to me, my migraine headaches and depressions are cured
within a few minutes of prayer."
Psychosomatics
|4.26.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Anselm's version was rough, Leibniz's was clear, and Goddel's
was formal.
Goddel didn't publish his during his life IIRC because he was
afraid it would be received as an attempt on his part to prove the
existence of God in fact, which to his mind it did not. He was
seeking only to formalize an ontological style argument.
|4.26.07 @ 2:48PM|#
I believe in God.
Some people don't.
I am okay with that now.
I truly wish everyone a beautiful day.
Just so you know, here is my philosophy:
I married,
therefore I drink.
|4.26.07 @ 2:49PM|#
jimmydageek:
Thanks for the extra beef. I get your point, but gay pride parades
and N.O.W. rallies on the Hill have never been targeted by
Christian terrorists. It seems to me -- not a bit Christian or
Muslim myself -- that extreme Islam teaches in churches and schools
the killing of "infidels", while for Christians it is the miniscule
kook fringe, immediately disavowed by the moderate center. And even
those kooks have been almost nonexistant in the last decade.
Perhaps, as you said, identifiable gay communities would be more
readily attacked, but the evidence we have seems to indicate
otherwise.
This threat has sprawled. Feel free to email me, or to simply look
forward to another exchange in the future.
|4.26.07 @ 2:51PM|#
I can conceive of a perfect Burrito.
One of the qualities of perfection is Good Green Chile.
Therefore, Burrito's exist. And I'm having one for lunch
|4.26.07 @ 2:52PM|#
"Mediageek, Can you prove that you can conceive or is this
just an unfounded assertion?"
Thus far in my life, I'm completely happy to have not
conceived...
|4.26.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Ah yes, Ray "Argumentum ad Banana" Comfort.
A banana is
Also the exact right shape
To put somewhere else.
|4.26.07 @ 2:55PM|#
Mister Twister-
Can God Himself microwave a burrito so hot that not even He can eat
it?
(stolen from some movie or something.)
|4.26.07 @ 2:55PM|#
"do you believe in reciprocal love, then? have you ever been
wrong about it?"
"it's a kind of faith, no doubt."
I'm not sure I know where you're coming from? There is reciprocal
love, nothing supernatural about that. Sometimes there is
nonrequited love. I've been there before. Nothing supernatural
about that either.
Bhh|4.26.07 @ 3:01PM|#
How about the proof from nitrous oxide: I was having my wisdom teeth taken out and . . . wow, man.
|4.26.07 @ 3:02PM|#
"Thanks for the extra beef. I get your point, but gay pride
parades and N.O.W. rallies on the Hill have never been targeted by
Christian terrorists. It seems to me -- not a bit Christian or
Muslim myself -- that extreme Islam teaches in churches and schools
the killing of "infidels", while for Christians it is the miniscule
kook fringe, immediately disavowed by the moderate center. And even
those kooks have been almost nonexistant in the last decade."
The only reason Christianity isn't as bad as the Muslim religion
now is that Christianity has been secularized. Thank goodness we
are no longer living in medieval times.
Fluffy|4.26.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Changing the argument from "perfect" to "greater" doesn't really
help it.
Unless the meaning of "greater" being invoked is "larger", we're
ultimately talking about a value judgment.
Greater when applied to what end? Greater when compared to what
state? Greater for whom?
|4.26.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Oh, this No Star idiot again, with same argument:
Science is subject to change (i.e. falsifiable), therefore it is
impermanent and may be "wrong"--unlike the "God" he conveniently
found when his life got too pathetic. Since "He" is a belief beyond
falsification, he can never fail! QED, God is better than
science.
Zzzzzzz. Won't these losers ever shut the fuck up, for Christ's
sake? And I mean that literally--these "dopes for Christ" are the
worst imaginable advertisement for Him.
dhex|4.26.07 @ 3:03PM|#
referring to the original statement:
"Is it a logical positition to believe something because somebody
told you it's true even though they have nothing in which to prove
it and you have nothing in which to prove it?"
what i'm saying is that there's a line between the rational and the
pre-rational (or intuitive or whatever you want to call it) that
everyone engages in. some people take it a bit further and form
communities around it, is all.
i mean, personally i'm a discordian apagnostic (and i'm not even
sure about that).
|4.26.07 @ 3:08PM|#
#6,
But I can certainly prove that the literal interpretation of
the bible (and therefore, of Yehweh) is almost certainly
bullshit.
Well, you did put in that qualifier 'almost'.
The commonly accepted literal interpretation of the translated
Bible is not worth defending. The Hebrew original given in several
accounts are forms that should be recognized as poetry.
The word bara (bet, resh, aleph) translated as created actually
means to fatten up or to fill a void such as grain fills a stomach.
So, the Bible does not say that God created (in the western sense)
the heavens and the earth from nothing. It is a poetic portayal
that He expanded it and filled up the nothingness.
Five senturies before the doppler shifts were understood, a 15th
century rabbi proposed an expanding universe based on his reading
and understanding of Tenach.
|4.26.07 @ 3:11PM|#
So a Jesuit criticizing a Father of the Church is about as
shocking as Kenny Rogers smoking dope.
Actually, not just Jesuits, but "the great majority of scholastic
philosophers have rejected the ontological argument as propounded
by St. Anselm and Descartes"
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm#IBf).
And by the way, St. Anselm is a Doctor, not a Father, of the
Church.
VM|4.26.07 @ 3:13PM|#
"The Hebrew original given in several accounts are forms that
should be recognized as poetry."
definitely!
MattXIV|4.26.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Ugh, the love example.
"Love" is a cluster of emotions that share aspects of subjective
experiences, behavioral responses, and neurological underpinings.
It's existence is not an issue of controversy as it can readily be
directly and indirectly observed by a variety of means, for
personal experience to running an fMRI on people who are shown
pictures of people they have some form of love towards vs those
they don't know.
cgee|4.26.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Never mind the shape of the banana...the important thing is to
learn how to defend oneself from someone wielding a banana.
MadMax re. Jesuits in the U.S. - if by "gone native" you mean
"apply rational thought to the study and practice of theology,"
then I guess I would agree. As someone who was educated by Jesuits
during high school, I can attest to the high value the Society of
Jesus places on intelligence. Sorry, but unlike yourself, I cannot
perceive this as a flaw in the organization.
|4.26.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake:
"The only reason Christianity isn't as bad as the Muslim religion
now is that Christianity has been secularized. Thank goodness we
are no longer living in medieval times."
Glad to see you agree that Islam is more dangerous than
Christianity, since, indeed, we do not live in medieval times.
VM|4.26.07 @ 3:20PM|#
cgee! Mr. Apricot Harrison warned us about
that!
To believe in Love
all one need do is crouch down
and hug a brown lab
(pure potery there, Reinmoose. The cutest beagle lived across from
us and would make really sincere, intense eye contact. very
cute)
|4.26.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Oh, henry,
Your argument from rudeness
"Shut the fuck up" no more disproves God than any argument has
proven him.
I was once where you are now. Believe me I understand your
frustration. I feel your pain.
|4.26.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Nothing more to say
except that the filter is
a beautiful thing
Name calling even by
people sort of kinda right
trip to nowheresville
|4.26.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Never mind the shape of the banana...the important thing is
to learn how to defend oneself from someone wielding a
banana.
What about a poin-ted stick?
|4.26.07 @ 3:23PM|#
The thing about God and religion is that God's existence is not
about proof, it's about faith.
God does not need or want proof. God wants faith. There is no need
to try to argue his existence because that is not his will. He
demands that we surrender to him by faith, not by facts. Faith is
the test. I'm not a religious man but I'm pretty sure the Bible
backs me up on this one.
ANYONE that truly believes should feel no need to convince others.
What others believe is not important. It's what you believe that
matters.
Men of science will never have proof, God meant for it to be that
way.
|4.26.07 @ 3:27PM|#
God does not need or want proof. God wants faith.
Ah, the old existential trap. God gives us reason, but doesn't want
us to use it to question his existence. He set us up with every
reason to disbelieve, and will punish us when we do doubt. By
hellfire and eternal agony. Because he loves us.
biologist|4.26.07 @ 3:28PM|#
the argument from nitrous
compelling but argument
from pot...where was I?
|4.26.07 @ 3:33PM|#
"a 15th century rabbi proposed an expanding universe based on
his reading and understanding of Tenach."
Now what is it in Genesis that can be interpreted in that way and
where is the evidence that this is exactly what the rabbi believed
was in the Tenach?
VM|4.26.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Vic - Stevo beatcha to it above :)
Bio's arguement
is from nitrus - didja see
the blower! BLOWER!
The nitrus blower!
last of the interceptors
kicks Knightrider's ass.
Jake Boone how about
bemerkined fairy sky man
I'll donate merkin!
|4.26.07 @ 3:34PM|#
The only reason Christianity isn't as bad as the Muslim
religion now is that Christianity has been secularized.
I don't think it's so much that Christianity has become
secularized, as it is that the appearance of devout Christianity
has ceased to be a means of gaining power in most places. Any time
people who want to exercise power over others find an advantage in
professing a religion, that religion is going to be misused.
This is how Judaism, for instance, has been able to present itself
as a peaceful religion, since it hadn't been a majority religion in
any nation for milennia. Now that they actually do have a state of
their own, it's become clear that Jews can oppress in the name of
religion as well as anyone else. Mentioning this above a whisper,
however, is bound to lead to accusations of anti-semitism, which
I'm sure will be forthcoming here.
|4.26.07 @ 3:38PM|#
God is full of love
but will make you burn for doubt
because he loves you.
God loves children
except ones who masturbate
they must suffer hell
God is forgiving
He showed his love allowing
his son to suffer
Not a single sparrow falls
That the diety doesn't knew about
So why do we get cancer?
|4.26.07 @ 3:39PM|#
I wouldn't call it tricky because I'm simply acknowledging what
it is at the core of their belief.
I'm merely pointing out that a true follower of God could care less
about the arugment of the existence of God. The concept of proof is
irrelevent when following the doctrine.
That changes nothing. If you try to impress upon me the existence
of God, I will still ask for proof, knowing I'm not going to get
any. But if you tell me he exists, you still have the
responsibility to prove it, Otherwise, I don't have to believe
you.
s.m. koppelman|4.26.07 @ 3:39PM|#
HEY! I WANNA TRY!!!
I can conceive of a perfect flying pig that has a knack for writing
catchy three-minute pop songs -- in Ladino, the language of
medieval Spanish Jewry.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, a flying pig that has a knack for writing catchy
three-minute pop songs -- in Ladino, the language of medieval
Spanish Jewry -- exists.
Whoa, it works.
|4.26.07 @ 3:42PM|#
"I was once where you are now."
And I was once where you are NoStar. Christianity brought nothing
but sorrow for me. Now I'm free!
|4.26.07 @ 3:43PM|#
NoStar,
I was not criticizing God--only you. You so easily conflate the
two.
So, how big of a loser did you become before God bailed you
out--Drunk? Dope fiend? Pedophile? You're not on Death Row, are
you? That is a popular place for God to show up. God loves the
losers, for sure--for they tell us so incessantly.
|4.26.07 @ 3:46PM|#
"He demands that we surrender to him by faith, not by facts.
Faith is the test."
Why is this important? What is the value in it? What is the virtue
in it?
|4.26.07 @ 3:50PM|#
"""Ah, the old existential trap. God gives us reason, but
doesn't want us to use it to question his existence. He set us up
with every reason to disbelieve, and will punish us when we do
doubt. By hellfire and eternal agony. Because he loves
us.""""
Close. My understanding is that God wants us to have freewill, to
make our own choices, under our own motivations. That is the only
way we can be free to choose him. Without freewill you would not
have the choice to believe or not. The Bible says the choice must
be yours to make.
It's not a trap at all, because it not about proof, it's about
belief. Proof is not necessary for belief, that seems to be true
for many of us in the secular world too. I can't say that's good
thing. I personally need proof, and that seems to annoy alot of
people in my life. :-) I will not apologize for that either.
|4.26.07 @ 3:53PM|#
"""Why is this important? What is the value in it? What is the
virtue in it?"""
It's probably not important, has no value, or virtue to you, and no
one should care it if does nor not. If your really interested in
the answer, read the Bible.
|4.26.07 @ 3:53PM|#
"I don't think it's so much that Christianity has become
secularized"
Actually, what I meant was that Western society has become more
secularized, which has weakened Christianity. Christianity is no
longer in power. We wouldn't stand for it in Western society. So
Christianity has had to tone itself down if it wants to get any
converts at all.
|4.26.07 @ 3:54PM|#
MacPimp | April 26, 2007, 2:54pm | #
Ah yes, Ray "Argumentum ad Banana" Comfort.
A banana is
Also the exact right shape
To put somewhere else.
Like the back of a Volkwagen?
|4.26.07 @ 4:00PM|#
There is no free will with a omniscient, omnipotent Creator God.
He made the universe knowing every jot and tittle in advance.
Forever before creation He knew He would create a world just so it
would produce a Hitler that would toss people into into ovens. If
God knew all beforehand, then Hitler really had no other choice
than to do what he did--the fact that he did it (and God knew about
it before the world was wrought, yet wrought the world exactly that
way) proves it.
We are all God's little poseable dolls--and we can adopt no pose he
was not forseen and preordained by the very structure of His
Creation.
Hallelujah!
|4.26.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Our senses and science can only detect what is in our 4
dimensional universe. I have read that gravition equations indicate
that other dimensions do exist.
It is not so much that God demands our faith, it's just that there
is no other way to probe into the other dimensions.
|4.26.07 @ 4:04PM|#
"My understanding is that God wants us to have freewill, to make
our own choices, under our own motivations. That is the only way we
can be free to choose him. Without freewill you would not have the
choice to believe or not."
So God would rather us have free will than to save us from Hell.
Why did he invent Hell? Why should we be punished for an eternity
in Hell for not accepting a certain belief on faith? How is that
such a bad thing that it deserves eternal damnation? I'm sorry, but
there's no way that I can worship such a monster.
|4.26.07 @ 4:06PM|#
and the joe six pack commenter anti-proof
I can conceive of a libertarian society
I once got pissed at a Christian once
therefor libertarians can't believe in god.
disclosure: I am an atheist.
|4.26.07 @ 4:09PM|#
"If your really interested in the answer, read the Bible."
I have, and it's nothing but nonsense. I can see where faith is
important to some people because they have an emotional need to
delude themselves, but when they entertain the belief that those of
us who don't believe like them are going to suffer an eternity in
Hell because of our nonbelief, I just don't see how any loving
person can embrace such a monstrous philosophy.
|4.26.07 @ 4:10PM|#
"It is not so much that God demands our faith, it's just that
there is no other way to probe into the other dimensions."
Uh, which "God" is that, by the way. I am goung to take a wild
guess you are referring to the Christian conception of God (if
singular one of those can be posited--a dubious notion).
But why should we limit ourselves to the Christian God? You made
yourself Exhibit "A" here--offering up your life as some kind of
proof of your God. But many Muslims could do exactly the same for
Allah. There are untold masses who lead lives of misery,
criminality, etc., until they found "the truth" through Islam. What
should the rest of us choose your God over Allah? Because of the
geographical accident of our births that makes your God more
familiar to us? Christmas, Easter and that happy horseshit?
NoStar, believe any shit you like. Just stop believing you can talk
meaningfully about your beliefs--you can't.
|4.26.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Oh henry,
None of those states of depravity laid me low. Truth is, my wife
died. Her spirit came to me and not only comforted me, but she
showed me where she had hidden some of her possessions that I
didn't even know existed.
Then just before she left for good, she said, "There is someone I
want you to meet."
As I felt her spirit leave, I felt the Spirit of God envelope
me.
Since then God has shown me many ways how I have been blessed both
before and after having saw the light.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|4.26.07 @ 4:16PM|#
For all of you christians that are trying the funz of logic
today:
If each of you were born in Saudi Arabia, to Saudi muslim parents
xx years ago, would you all still believe in your Christian
god?
|4.26.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Another point along henry's reasoning is that if God is omniscient, he knew before he created us that some of us would not accept him on faith (I'm speaking of the Christian God), so why did he create us knowing that we would reject him and end up going to Hell? It seems cruel to have created us in the first place. This has led some Christian apologists to reject the concept of God's omniscience.
|4.26.07 @ 4:22PM|#
"""He made the universe knowing every jot and tittle in
advance.""""
Where in the Bible does it say that? Christians do believe God can
change your/their life, I think they call it testifying. If their
doctrine was so static, they could not hold that belief.
Of course the Bible is loaded with contadictions, that's why it's
easy for seculars to tear it apart. I know a few people that went
full blow athiest after reading it. It's not unreasonable to argue
that something that contradicts its self, often, is not a reliable
source for the truth.
|4.26.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Of course G_d exists. Because anything less would not have been able to create ME.
|4.26.07 @ 4:22PM|#
crimethink "The burden of proof is on the one making the
claim?"
Uh, yes. Why is this even controversial? At all?
You advance a claim and expect me to take it seriously, then you'd
better provide reasons.
Note that for virtually any problem at all you claim to explain,
resorting to God is always just creating a bigger problem to solve
a smaller one. If something like God that deliberately chooses to
create a universe that looks like ours can "just" exist, then there
is no problem at all with having a universe that looks like ours
just existing either, no extra help or explanation required. Either
you are incredulous about why or you aren't, but you can't beg off
a question like "why is what is the way it is" for God that you
just demanded we explain for the universe.
|4.26.07 @ 4:24PM|#
"It's not unreasonable to argue that something that contradicts
its self, often, is not a reliable source for the truth."
Leave Harry Reid out of this.
|4.26.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Oh henry,
How can you talk meaningfully about a God that you cannot conceive
of?
You might however appreciate this joke from Irish comedian Dave
Allen:
The Pope and an atheist were arguing about God. The Pope threw up
his hands in despair and said "Your situation is as hopeless as a
blind man in a pitch dark room looking for a black cat that isn't
there."
The atheist replied, "Then we are not dissimilar, for your
situation is also like the blind man in a pitch dark room looking
for a black cat that isn't there. The only difference is, you think
you've found it.
|4.26.07 @ 4:26PM|#
NoStar,
OK, you had what you perceived to be a mystical experience--one
which lead you to the Christian God. I cannot argue "against"
that--it is basis for belief that is not falsifiable. Or as Swift
said, you cannot reason a man out of something he was not reasoned
into to begin with.
However, as I said, many others can and do claim equally powerful
experiences--which lead them to different gods and different
beliefs. Why should I accept yours and not theirs?
In short, I say--enjoy your life with your beliefs. You seem
happier for them. But quit kidding yourself about what your words
about your beliefs can do. Perhaps "the witness" of your life might
influence those who know you in the real world--but dumb arguments
about the impermanence of science (which you have made here
repeatedly) do more harm than good for your type.
|4.26.07 @ 4:27PM|#
It's not a trap at all, because it not about proof, it's
about belief.
Non Sequitur
|4.26.07 @ 4:28PM|#
"""but when they entertain the belief that those of us who don't
believe like them are going to suffer an eternity in Hell because
of our nonbelief, I just don't see how any loving person can
embrace such a monstrous philosophy.
"""
Sure, I agree. Not only do I not see how any loving person could
embrace that, I do not see how a loving deity would force that
condition on his "children".
Enter the Mormon's belief that everyone goes to some level of
heaven. I just want to know on which level is the executive
bathroom.
|4.26.07 @ 4:30PM|#
TV, Christers hold all kinds of contradictory beliefs--this is
news to you?
Ask any born again type if God is omniscient. I don't contend any
such thing--they do.
mikeyes|4.26.07 @ 4:30PM|#
The NSA decided to show the president their new computer which
apparently was the world's most powerful becaue it linked all the
computers in the world and contained all the world's
knowledge.
"Just ask it any question", said the head of NSA.
"Is there a God?", asked the president.
The computer buzzed and whirred for a while and finally came back
with a question of its own:
*Define God.*
"The all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe", wrote the
president.
The computer buzzed and whirled for a little while longer and
finally put this on the screen:
*There Is Now*
|4.26.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Oh henry,
How can you talk meaningfully about a God that you cannot conceive
of?
One could ask you the same thing.
|4.26.07 @ 4:38PM|#
BREAKING NEWS: This just in.
"Ayn" Rand does not exist. She admitted as much when she named
herself Ayn which in Hebrew means "non-existant."
|4.26.07 @ 4:39PM|#
plunge,
You're quite right. In trying to answer the question of why there
is something rather than nothing, both the theist and atheist wind
up at a point where they can't explain any further.
My problem is with those who claim that atheism should be the
default belief, and anything else requires proof. I question why
atheism should be granted such special status among opinions on
this issue.
|4.26.07 @ 4:48PM|#
"[A] nothing would serve just as well as a something about which nothing could be said."
|4.26.07 @ 4:51PM|#
"""TV, Christers hold all kinds of contradictory beliefs--this
is news to you?""
Not news to me at all. I'm originally from the Bible belt.
|4.26.07 @ 4:52PM|#
henry,
I have no answer for why you should pick one God over another. In
fact, one of the first things I said was that I understood that my
anecdotal evidence is not proof.
Have you noticed that no one has attempted to answer the question
that I asked in my first post?
Does anyone want to argue that the rational thing for me to do
is to disavow my belief in God, stop praying, and start paying for
ergotamine and elavil prescriptions?
|4.26.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Reinmoose,
Where did god come from?
Born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth.
No need to thank me, I'm happy to be of assistance.
|4.26.07 @ 4:56PM|#
NoStar... that's where JESUS came from. I'm talking about the one that created the Heavens and the Earth
|4.26.07 @ 5:03PM|#
"Does anyone want to argue that the rational thing for me to do
is to disavow my belief in God, stop praying, and start paying for
ergotamine and elavil prescriptions?"
It would be neither rational nor irrational to do that. You are out
in arationality, so defining your actions by the standards of
reason is a futile endeavor.
|4.26.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Same guy. He did the creating in his pre-incarnate form.
String theory says it all began with a vibration. The gospel of
John says it began with a word. John goes on to say that the word
was with god and was god. Yeshua is the word. In fact the Hebrew
for of Alpha and Omega is Aleph V'Tav. Aleph Vav Tav spells a word
"Ote" which means word.
The creator, the act of creation, and the created, all one and the
same.
|4.26.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Crimethink- Even if the default position were some sort of theism, there is no way to logically get from "Some being created all that is," to "And that being is the Christian god."
|4.26.07 @ 5:06PM|#
"Does anyone want to argue that the rational thing for me to
do is to disavow my belief in God, stop praying, and start paying
for ergotamine and elavil prescriptions?"
I would argue that the most rational thing for you to do is to keep
doing what you're doing, as it clearly makes you happy to do
so.
|4.26.07 @ 5:13PM|#
henry,
Fair enough. It is refreshing to hear, in these parts at least, an
admission that there are limits to what science or rational thought
can address.
|4.26.07 @ 5:19PM|#
He didn't say that, NoStar. None the less, I don't think anyone here would presume to say that reason and science are omniscient. That, in fact, is the difference between secularist and religious worldviews; secularists do not believe that the existence of those limits necessitates the belief in a particular god, or any god.
GOD|4.26.07 @ 5:20PM|#
If it was possible to prove that God exists, then faith
would no longer be a virtue, because faith would no longer have a
purpose.
Dude, you just won yourself a free ticket to the VIP section of
heaven as long as you dont fucking convert to Mormonism. Those guys
so get on my nerves. I keep making their wives have like 15 kids,
thinking it will drive them nuts, but dammit if they dont all end
up so *nice* about it. The biggest myth about me is that I'm like,
'Beneficent' and shit. Didnt they read the #(*$@_$ Bible? I get mad
pissed. I drop a plaugue on a mother like whoa. I make people kill
their kids in front of me....*as a practical joke*. Seriously. I
dont trust a Christian who dont drink.
Catch you on the flipside
|4.26.07 @ 5:22PM|#
But God created science and rational thought as a means to
better understand his world. Does god want to keep us dumb by
limiting our knowledge of the universe? Is limiting the education
of your children the way of God? Honestly, he allows us to learn
about the ugly side of the universe, war, poverty, starvation and
such, would he not want us to learn about the beauty of all the
universe? Why the limit?
NoStar, if god said have sex with your mother, would you?
Tricky|4.26.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Regarding the "what value or virtue" question, I think the
question is why the demonstration of faith has value TO GOD. Why
would God consider a virtue? To what end?
God hides, but then is pleased when you see through his trick and
have faith in him anyway. WHY does this please him? What difference
could it possibly make to him? Why would my failure to do so not
please him?
If his reasons are inscrutable, how can we pretend to understand
what he wants enough to build a religion around it?
Fluffy|4.26.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Sorry, I meant to type that message TO Tricky, but somehow zoned out and typed Tricky in the name slot instead. My bad.
Grotius|4.26.07 @ 5:26PM|#
crimethink,
I question why atheism should be granted such special status
among opinions on this issue.
We get special status because we have no leaders and even if we did
they wouldn't wear funny hats. ;)
Grotius|4.26.07 @ 5:28PM|#
All the atheists here now join me in air guitaring to Rush's "Freewill." Of course i'm pretty skeptical about the idea of free will, but still, its a good song.
|4.26.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Would anyone care to point out to me the flaw in the following
that is not present in the God version above?
I can conceive of a perfect [unicorn].
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, [unicorns] exist.
|4.26.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Fluffy, you talking to me?
""" I think the question is why the demonstration of faith has
value TO GOD."""
I refer that question to God.
What, no answer? He must be out of the office.
I have no idea, but that is their belief. I could speculate that
after reading all the contradictions in the Bible he was well aware
that reason would not work. My better guess is that at some point
in assembling the bible it became obvious that they need to build
it around faith or no one would take them serious.
|4.26.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Ok Grotius:
A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot percieve
Kicked in the face, you can pray
for a place
in heaven's unearthly estate..
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice...
etc.
But since I'm a drummer, I'll be trying (and failing) to air drum
along with the professor.
|4.26.07 @ 5:39PM|#
As i know that to contradict His teachings, I wouldn't believe
it to be God speaking.
If I did believe it was God speaking, lock me up. I've gone off
deep end.
|4.26.07 @ 5:42PM|#
"You're quite right. In trying to answer the question of why
there is something rather than nothing, both the theist and atheist
wind up at a point where they can't explain any further."
But since atheists are almost never trying to make any absolute
claims about being able to explain the entire universe, they have
nothing to defend. Theists are. Burden: theirs.
"My problem is with those who claim that atheism should be the
default belief, and anything else requires proof. I question why
atheism should be granted such special status among opinions on
this issue."
Your problem is that you just aren't appreciating the implication
of the idea that atheism ISN'T A BELIEF. Atheism isn't a default
"belief": non-belief in a claim is the default and atheism is a
description of non-belief in regards to god. I don't believe in
god. Would you agree that that makes me an atheist. If so, then
good: there's you answer. I DON'T believe. That isn't itself a
belief: it's at most a statement about the contents of my own
mind.
|4.26.07 @ 5:45PM|#
NoStar--I think you overstate the "scienticism" that exists
here. It's just that some of us decide that, as to the questions we
can't hope science and reason can ever address, these are really
questions that may not be worth asking, however deeply satisfying
an answer to them would be--hence my earlier quote from
Wittgenstein ("[A] nothing would serve just as well as a something
about which nothing could be said."). In short, some of the "gaps"
you have filled in through other means, we are content to leave
open, not being willing to take the leap into arationality you
have. Candidly, and without hurling any personal insult your way,
we often find such leaps indistinguishable from madness. Your
choices seem harmless to me--of many others who have made similar
choices, I cannot say the same thing. This applies to non-theistic
choices as well--obsessions about race, for example. Much of Nazism
was desperately arational, although they tried to dress up their
mania in all the language of reason and science--fascists from
other nations just couldn't fathom the intense Antisemitism; it
came from somewhere "out there"--some deeply weird German shit that
left Italian and Spanish fascists baffled. They may have disliked
Jews, but the whole murderous rage thing--it was inexplicable (and
still is, despite the volumes written on the subject).
This thread started about a couple of morons attempting inane
"proofs" of their God, with such "proofs" dressed in the verbiage
of logic, reason and science, the same act the Nazis pulled (leave
Godwin to the side--I am not equating them to Nazis morally). If
somebody wants to proclaim a mystical experience to me as their
basis of deistic belief (as you have), then, as I said, it is
rather pointless to try to "debate" them--it is better to just let
them go in peace. But when intellectual frauds like Mr. Cameron and
Mr. Comfort try to debase what little foundations of thought the
human race has been able to cobble together over the centuries, I
am going to unload on them and their defenders.
Since this is where I came in, I am now going out.
Fluffy|4.26.07 @ 5:55PM|#
Nostar, if you haven't completely left, the gulf between the OT
God who said to kill all the Canannites, even the children and
animals, and the NT God who promulgated the Golden Rule, is so vast
that it makes it at least possible that God will change his mind
again and start commanding us to fuck our mothers.
It's a smaller distance to travel.
|4.26.07 @ 6:02PM|#
NoStar, I hope you're not quite gone yet.
Does anyone want to argue that the rational thing for me to do
is to disavow my belief in God, stop praying, and start paying for
ergotamine and elavil prescriptions?
Not at all. If there's utility in your worship, by all means
continue. I'd love for you to try some experiments, though. Next
time you feel a headache coming on, aim for that same mental state,
but pray to something different, or to nothing. See whether you can
produce the same physiological response.
|4.26.07 @ 6:25PM|#
To discuss the concept of "God" gives the idea more credibility than it deserves. Discussions of gods, leprechauns, unicorns, and other such nonsense should be left to groups of very high people. Now everybody here should either be high, or move onto something more interesting. Jesus!
|4.26.07 @ 6:34PM|#
I was only going to lurk, but....
Maurkov,
I have tried that with generic meditation. Neither the depression,
nor migraines are lessened. To pray to another god would be by
definition blasphemous and therefore a sin. I try to avoid doing
that.
fluffy,
You just don't know what God was punishing them for. NT prophecy
says the Wrathful face of God will make a final appearance. I see
no chasm.
|4.26.07 @ 6:50PM|#
Plunge wrote, Atheism isn't a default "belief": non-belief
in a claim is the default and atheism is a description of
non-belief in regards to god. I don't believe in god. Would you
agree that that makes me an atheist. If so, then good: there's you
answer. I DON'T believe. That isn't itself a belief: it's at most a
statement about the contents of my own mind.
Is your conception that atheism is the same as agnosticism?
|4.26.07 @ 7:09PM|#
God and mystical thinking are the cause of most of humanity's problems, yet we've been living under the god/mysticism regime for so long that adapting to a society based on evidence and truth could destroy the beautiful, yet flawed, society we currently have. I truly believe that the goal of religion is to sap human beings of the very passions that makes us human. Perhaps this was necessary for the survival of the species 2,500 years ago, hell, perhaps it is necessary today, but I tend to think we worship ourselves these days. Even the hardcore religionists seem to have forgotten humility. But if believing in God helps you find your path, who am I to complain?
Grotius|4.26.07 @ 7:20PM|#
Number 6,
As was the case with a lot of atheists in their youth "Freewill"
was something of an anthem for me. The fact that it is the only
"pop song" I know that deals with atheism explains some of
that.
|4.26.07 @ 7:27PM|#
Fluffy, God's actions tell us
Thou shall not kill, unless in a form of punishment or war.
Humm, I guess we are paying attention.
|4.26.07 @ 7:28PM|#
"MadMax re. Jesuits in the U.S. - if by 'gone native' you mean
'apply rational thought to the study and practice of theology,'
then I guess I would agree. As someone who was educated by Jesuits
during high school, I can attest to the high value the Society of
Jesus places on intelligence. Sorry, but unlike yourself, I cannot
perceive this as a flaw in the organization."
The Jesuits have been valuing rational thought since the sixteenth
century. In contrast, they have only been pinkos for a few decades
- this hasn't been long enough to *completely* eradicate the
intellectual traditions of the Order.
"monstrous philosophy."
Wrong.
"happy horseshit"
Wrong from the other direction.
|4.26.07 @ 7:38PM|#
jp:"Is your conception that atheism is the same as
agnosticism?"
No. I don't see what's so hard about this.
Agnosticism concerns the issue of knowledge, atheism of belief.
They "measure" as it were, two different things. One can be
both.
The bottom line is that virtually everyone, even people that claim
that "true" atheism is only the caricatured idea that someone runs
around squinting really hard believing no gods exist, in practice
call people who state they do not believe IN god, atheists. And
that definition is what most well-known atheists use, so it's
generally just an exercise in confusion for theists and hysterical
agnostics to insist otherwise.
|4.26.07 @ 7:53PM|#
plunge -- I think it's useful to distinguish between the statement "no god exists" and the statement "no one has advanced a persuasive argument that a god exists." If someone asserts that no god exists, then he takes upon himself a burden of proof comparable to the one that rests on a person who asserts that a god does exist.
|4.26.07 @ 8:00PM|#
An atheist accepts his belief that no God exists as true.
An agnostic would claim not to know if God exists.
|4.26.07 @ 8:04PM|#
I am proud to call myself an Apatheist.
I do not care if any god exists. If there
is a god and he cares about me caring
about the existence of god, god knows
where to contact me.
|4.26.07 @ 8:07PM|#
plunge,
The default position should be "I don't know whether God exists,"
not "God does not exist" or "God does exist," for that matter.
Atheists profess to believe the latter.
|4.26.07 @ 8:10PM|#
We get special status because we have no leaders and even if
we did they wouldn't wear funny hats.
That is mighty convenient. How many times have you brought up the
dirty deeds committed by my coreligionists of ages past, despite
the fact that my political beliefs are totally different from
theirs? Yet I'm not allowed to pin the sins of Stalin, Hitler, and
Mao on you and your ilk despite the fact that they shared your
religious outlook.
|4.26.07 @ 8:11PM|#
My second-to-last post should end "Atheists profess to believe the second of those."
|4.26.07 @ 8:12PM|#
Apatheist!!! Oh, my!
Did you read my haiku earlier?
I'll post it again!
If there is a god,
I don't care and I don't care
if there is no god.
Did you like it?
|4.26.07 @ 8:13PM|#
I firmly believe that I do not have enough evidence to believe
that a god exists. This does not mean that I do not believe in god,
nor does it mean that I do... I just would never go blowing other
people up or executing them for a reason about which I cannot be
100% certain. As henry said (or as I think he was saying), some of
us don't solicit belief structures to fill gaps in our lives.
I, personally, would LIKE for there to be a god and an eternal
heaven and all that jazz, but that doesn't mean I believe it to be
so. It's not a matter of willingness to believe (as my Mother seems
to think), I am simply incapable of legitimately putting that much
of myself into something I cannot fully justify.
What does that make me?
Agnostic?
Tragic?
Reasonable?
Damned to Hell?
A Christ Denier?
Human?
Sane?
|4.26.07 @ 8:15PM|#
As I tried to explain upthread, there are definitional problems
when talking about agnosticism and atheism, because there are only
two words but more than two positions. Here is the relevant portion
from the earlier thread:
-------------
So many positions... so few words.
I suppose, since I'm pointing out the problem, I should try and
propose a solution. Therefore, I hereby decree (because decreeing
is more fun than proposing) that Atheism refers to
the lack of belief in a supernatural power.
Agnosticism refers to lack of experience of the
supernatural (both "Atheism" and "Agnosticism" will then agree with
the meanings of their root words). Dunnotheism
refers to the "I don't know if there's a god" position, and
Cantknowtheism refers to the position that it's
not possible to know whether there's a god or not.
Certainlynottheism can be used to refer to the
positive belief of no supernatural power.
Note that "Certainlynottheism" must be carefully enunciated to
avoid sounding like "Certainlynaziism," which is a problem I'll
leave to the next person to update the language.
-------------
Please use these neologisms to clearly define your positions rather
than blindly wading in to try and assign one of them to all
atheists. Thank you.
Fluffy|4.26.07 @ 8:18PM|#
"The default position should be "I don't know whether God
exists," not "God does not exist" or "God does exist," for that
matter. Atheists profess to believe the latter."
A number of people are offering variants of this argument here, and
I don't see it.
The default state is the null state. I believe that nothing exists
until evidence of the existence of something is presented.
"There is no God," isn't really an affirmative statement. It's
simply a contingent statement reiterating the null state.
You simply can't equate a statement of absence with a statement of
presence.
|4.26.07 @ 8:21PM|#
The default state is the null state. I believe that nothing
exists until evidence of the existence of something is
presented.
Then you don't believe anything exists. Can you prove that you
yourself exist? Perhaps. Can you prove that anything else exists? I
don't think so.
|4.26.07 @ 8:21PM|#
Sorry, due to the highnumber of comments I jumped to the end and
sumited my two cents
without reading your comment, highnumber.
I have been calling myself an Apatheist for
several years, have never met another Apatheist
and coined the word to dicribe my disinterest in the topic.
Funny thing is, it upsets the Atheists more than the religous.
|4.26.07 @ 8:24PM|#
You simply can't equate a statement of absence with a
statement of presence.
I'm not equating them. Clearly they are not the same statement --
but they both are statements. A statement of absence is not a null
statement, since a null statement says nothing, giving no
information, while a statement of absence does give
information.
|4.26.07 @ 8:26PM|#
Agnosticism comes from the Greek. A meaning "without", and
gnosis meaning "knowledge". (that's knowledge, not experience,
Jake)
Does that help Reinmoose?
|4.26.07 @ 8:32PM|#
that does make it much clearer. That doesn't rule out the other
possibilities though, does it?
And crimethink, I think you're just playing with semantics here. A
lack of existence of and an absence when dealing with a God are
exactly the same thing.
H(0): God = 0
H(1): God =/= 0
Does that help explain it at all? The first IS a claim of nothing
(clearly, as it is equal to zero) and the second is a claim to
something.
|4.26.07 @ 8:32PM|#
Fluffy -- Try it this way:
Statement 1: There is intelligent life on other planets.
Statement 2: We do not know whether there is intelligent life on
other planets.
Statement 3: There is no intelligent life on other planets.
Statements 1 and 3 are equally difficult to
prove.
|4.26.07 @ 8:34PM|#
Agnosticism comes from the Greek. A meaning "without", and
gnosis meaning "knowledge". (that's knowledge, not experience,
Jake)
I stand corrected.
|4.26.07 @ 8:35PM|#
That made sense when I wrote it down...
Look, the point is that the null hypothesis IS the default. We
assume it is zero unless our hypothesis test proves it to be
otherwise. There, that's what I meant to say.
|4.26.07 @ 8:36PM|#
""
Fluffy
The default state is the null state. I believe that nothing exists
until evidence of the existence of something is presented.
Crimethink
Then you don't believe anything exists. Can you prove that you
yourself exist? Perhaps.
""
I think you missed the part where he said "until evidence of the
existence of something is presented" part.
I would imagine sensory perception of self, others, and environment
would count as evidence. When you hear something you know you
exist. If you didn't exit you wouldn't have heard it.
|4.26.07 @ 8:43PM|#
"""that does make it much clearer. That doesn't rule out the
other possibilities though, does it?"""
Well, if they are possible, I can't rule them out.
After much consideration, I have determined you are human.
|4.26.07 @ 8:43PM|#
TrickyVic -- The waiting-for-evidence stance would be agnosticism, wouldn't it? I.e., a god may or may not exist, and you won't one way or the other until you have persuasive evidence. (As opposed to the stance that one has enough evidence to reach the conclusion that no god exists.)
Fluffy|4.26.07 @ 8:45PM|#
JP, I think it's actually useful to look at your previous
example:
'I think it's useful to distinguish between the statement "no god
exists" and the statement "no one has advanced a persuasive
argument that a god exists."'
My point is that during the time span prior to the advancement of a
persuasive argument that a god exists, the default belief should be
that no god exists.
"No god exists" summarizes the current state of your knowledge, or
in this case lack of knowledge, about a god; "no one has advanced a
persuasive argument that a god exists" is merely the REASON for
that. "But hey, a god MIGHT exist" isn't really relevant and
doesn't change the fact that the default state is still that no god
exists.
Grotius|4.26.07 @ 8:49PM|#
crimethink,
(A) Lighten up; it was a joke. (B) Yeah, but I ain't a commie.
Better dead than red. Now maybe if I professed an allegience to the
regimes of Stalin, Mao, etc. you might have a point. (C) At least
when it comes to the atheists that I know trying to get them to
adopt a leader, join an organization, etc. is a bit like herding
cats.
|4.26.07 @ 8:56PM|#
Fluffy -- I think the statements "a god might exist" and "god does not exist" are contradictory, like the statements "there might be a snapping turtle in this lake" and "there is no snapping turtle in this lake."
|4.26.07 @ 8:57PM|#
""TrickyVic -- The waiting-for-evidence stance would be
agnosticism, wouldn't it?"""
I would say yes. You are "without knowledge", at least not enough
to convince you, so you are waiting for more evidence.
Sure
Grotius|4.26.07 @ 9:00PM|#
TrickyVic,
As I noted above, most folks are agnostics. Most people divide over
whether they are theists or atheists. I am an agnostic atheist.
ktc2|4.26.07 @ 9:04PM|#
Back to the muslim fundy/christian fundy posts, as if in cue
today in the news.
A bomb at an abortion clinic in Texas
&
A bomb making weapon hording "militia" in Alabama.
What are the odds both are doing the "Christian god's work"?
|4.26.07 @ 9:09PM|#
JP, replace the word "null" with the word "zero" it might make
more sense.
I think Fluffy's point is that if you start with zero knowledge,
you have zero knowledge, and if you are asking, are there are
snapping turtles in the lake? The best place to start is with zero
knowledge (I have no knowledge of snapping turtles in the lake) and
look for evidence of their existence.
|4.26.07 @ 9:15PM|#
TrickyVic -- I agree with your formulation, but Fluffy seems to be saying something different (unless I'm misreading her). She seems to be saying that there is no difference between the statements "I don't know whether a god exists" and "no god exists."
|4.26.07 @ 9:59PM|#
I have no evidence that the national flag of Namibia has blue on it. Should I then believe, by default, that there is no blue on the flag of Namibia?
|4.26.07 @ 10:05PM|#
A lack of existence of and an absence when dealing with a
God are exactly the same thing.
H(0): God = 0
H(1): God =/= 0
In math, if you don't know the value of a variable in an
expression, you can't just assume it's zero by default. Likewise,
if you don't know whether a statement is true or false, you can't
assume it's false by default.
If you're looking for a mathematical description of the correct
default position, it would be more like God = 0/0, a number which
can have any or no value.
|4.26.07 @ 10:17PM|#
"The Jesuit priest who taught my logic class at Saint Louis U.
introduced this "proof," then let us stew in it a bit. Then he
explained why it was bogus."
You realize that today's Jesuits (at least in America) have
pretty much gone native, and have become highly critical of Church
doctrines and traditions? So a Jesuit criticizing a Father of the
Church is about as shocking as Kenny Rogers smoking dope. Shouldn't
even be newsworthy.
Yeah, I'm well aware that Jesuits have a reputation for being
rebels and all. I've heard them described as "the Air Force of the
Church" -- a bit freer, less constrained by the discipline and
grunt-work that other orders have to live with. In fact, there was
a time when my dad half-seriously kept telling me I ought to become
a priest -- only he recommended that I join the Jesuits, because I
wouldn't have to be such a grind.
-----------------------------------
Number 6 | April 26, 2007, 3:24pm | #
Jesuits are the
Green Berets of Catholic Church
Mental Chuck Norris
That is beautiful.
|4.26.07 @ 10:19PM|#
Oops, I forgot to continue part 1 of my post, which is why I
mentioned that my logic teacher is a Jesuit in the first
place:
There are some others who post here who are convinced that any
believers must, by definition, be illogical dummies.
|4.26.07 @ 10:26PM|#
Anyway, this is the problem with St. Anselm's "proof":
He presupposes an entity (God) that is presupposed to have a
certain quality (perfection), and on the basis of that latter
quality, thinks he has proved that entity's existence.
However, that's just a tautology. For any entity's ability
to possess any quality hinges on that entity
existing.
You could just as easily claim:
1) Imagine a blue unicorn.
2) Things that don't exist don't have colors.
3) If a blue unicorn didn't exist, then it could not be blue.
4) But for something to be both blue and not blue is a logical
contradiction.
5) Therefore, logically, a blue unicorn must exist.
|4.26.07 @ 11:34PM|#
Sorry, Ron Bailey, you completely botched Anselm's argument (and
it is an ARGUMENT, and not a proof). As an athiest who has read
Anselms's Proslogion, I can tell you that it is, actually, very
sophisticated. The key to the argument, which I don't think anyone
here has yet addressed (and I haven't read all the comments here)
is that Anselm defines god negatively. His entire logical argument
hinges on it. God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
Anselm assigns no perfections to it (you're thinking of Descartes'
argument, or at least Kant's refutation ontological proof, which
doesn't quite touch on Anselm's argument).
If nothing else, Anselm's argument helps one to understand the
outer limits of logic, of categorization, and to probe our implicit
assumptions about the relationship between mind and material, and
between relative and absolute qualities (particularly with respect
to the term 'greater').
Oh, and Stevo: Guanillo, a contemporary of Anselm, had a refutation
of his ontological argument very similar to your unicorn example.
In Anselm's reply to him, he destroyed the so-called refutation.
I'm telling you, it's some subtle fucking shit.
Fluffy|4.27.07 @ 12:17AM|#
Crimethink -
Actually, yes, you should.
Beyond that I would say further that the default state is that
there is no such country as Namibia and no such thing as
flags.
I think the statement "there might be a God" describes a future
possible state of knowledge. The "present" state of knowledge that
would precede that possibility is No-God. If I already know there
is a God, there is no need to consider the possibility that there
might be one.
I don't think your mathematical concept would apply, since an
equation employing such a variable would be dealing with all
possible states of knowledge along the curve, as it were, and the
actual knowledge we can possess at a given moment in time is
discrete.
|4.27.07 @ 2:08AM|#
I read through this whole thread - would have been nice if any of ya had bothered to define your terms. What's this God ya keep talkin' 'bout?
|4.27.07 @ 2:49AM|#
Oh, and Stevo: Guanillo, a contemporary of Anselm, had a
refutation of his ontological argument very similar to your unicorn
example. In Anselm's reply to him, he destroyed the so-called
refutation. I'm telling you, it's some subtle fucking
shit.
Interesting. I'll make a note to look that up someday. But I am
highly skeptical.
|4.27.07 @ 2:50AM|#
By the way, isn't "Guanillo" Spanish for "little bird shit"? But that's neither here nor there.
|4.27.07 @ 3:10AM|#
Oops, it's "Guanilo" with one L. That's different.
My initial investigations make me no less skeptical. It doesn't
matter whether the quality you assign to a posited entity is unique
or necessary; the fact remains that the truth of "an entity
possesses such-and-such characteristic" depends on whether that
entity actually exists, and therefore any argument based on that
characteristic, whatever that characterist is, is
tautological.
Although Anselm's reply to Guanilo is dense and subtle, it's not
obvious to me so far that Anselm "destroyed" Guanilo's
counter-argument.
BTW, there is a difference between saying, "Your argument for the
existence of God is flawed" and saying, "I don't believe in the
existence of God." It looks like Anselm might have been a little
blurry on this distinction when he replied to Guanilo.
I'm tired.
|4.27.07 @ 3:38AM|#
I don't take God's existence very seriously and I assign it a
low probability, in roughly the same way I do with ghosts and
karma. And I think this is a rationally appropriate attitude
towards the question. Am I still an atheist? (I think the answer is
obviously yes.)
T Bone is right that Bailey's presentation is more similar to
Descartes' ontological argument (presented in the fifth Meditation)
than to Anselm's (from the Proslogion). But it's still a distortion
of both arguments.
However, I think T Bone is insinuating that Anselm's response to
Gaunilo is obviously successful. I doubt that.
|4.27.07 @ 3:49AM|#
T Bone,
So sayeth Thomas Williams (a Scotus scholar) in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of philosophy:
"In order to defend himself against Gaunilo's criticism, Anselm
would have to show why Gaunilo's argument about the island is not
in fact analogous to his own argument about that than which nothing
greater can be thought. Surprisingly, he never does this. His
long-winded and indeed somewhat intemperate 'Reply to Gaunilo'
asserts more than once that the island example fails, but
he never explains why it fails. The usual reply given on
Anselm's behalf (and indeed often attributed to Anselm himself) is
that the notion of a greatest conceivable island is incoherent;
however great an island might be, one could always conceive of a
greater. This is a lame response, since it is open to Gaunilo to
say exactly the same thing about the greatest conceivable
being; it is therefore no wonder that Anselm did not say
anything of the sort."
From looking over Anselm's reply right now, it looks to me like
he's relying on the old conflation between eternality and necessary
existence, and in a way that could always be parodied with an
eternal island example.
Don't get me wrong. I'm willing to change my mind and say that
Anselm actually won the dispute. But I don't think it's obvious, as
you seem to insinuate.
|4.27.07 @ 4:29AM|#
Beggin' your pardon, if you please, Mr. Comfort and Mr. Cameron, I would be most indebted to you fine gentlemen if you could be so kind as to refrain from harshin' my buzz.
|4.27.07 @ 8:37AM|#
"Of course G_d exists. Because anything less would not have been
able to create ME."
How did he do it? Does he have hands or a brain? You were created
through genetic mutations and natural selection.
|4.27.07 @ 8:58AM|#
"How can you talk meaningfully about a God that you cannot
conceive of?"
We are not talking about an actual being, but people's concept of a
being which as far as we're concerned is imaginary.
|4.27.07 @ 9:33AM|#
I think the statement "there might be a God" describes a
future possible state of knowledge. The "present" state of
knowledge that would precede that possibility is No-God. If I
already know there is a God, there is no need to consider the
possibility that there might be one.
Fluffy -- If you're still reading this thread, good morning. I
think you're mashing together two distinct propositions: "I don't
know whether a god exists" and "no god exists."
Not knowing is different from knowing. If an assertion is made, the
listener's options aren't only "it's true" and "it's not true."
When the listener doesn't know whether it's true, then the listener
need not (and in practice listeners generally do not) conclude that
it's not true.
For example:
- "Osama Bin Laden is dead." I don't know whether he's dead.
Therefore, am I jusitifed in concluding that a true
statement is "OBL is not dead"?
- Nick says, "Liam Neeson is my uncle." You don't know whether Liam
Neeson is Nick's uncle. Therefore, are you justified in concluding
that a true statement is "Liam Neeson is not Nick's uncle"?
- A researcher comes up with the hypothesis "sustained high
cholesterol is a contributing cause of Alzheimer's disease." He
doesn't know whether sustained high cholesterol is a contributing
cause of Alzheimer's disease. Therefore, is he justified in
concluding that a true statement is "sustained high cholesterol is
not a contributing cause of Alzheimer's disease"?
|4.27.07 @ 10:07AM|#
"Same guy. He did the creating in his pre-incarnate form."
How do you know that, NoStar? Or is it the case you believe in
Christianity because you were born in America? If you were born in
Iran, you would probably be Muslim.
|4.27.07 @ 10:28AM|#
"As i know that to contradict His teachings, I wouldn't believe
it to be God speaking."
NoStar, what if God told you to take your rebellious child to the
city gate and have him stoned to death? Believe it or not, it says
that in the Bible plus many other idiotic things. Do you obey
everything that is in the Bible? That's one big reason I left
Christianity.
|4.27.07 @ 10:45AM|#
"You just don't know what God was punishing them for."
NoStar, God commanded the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites so
there would be none left to influence the Israelites on matters of
religion after the Isralites gained control of the land.
|4.27.07 @ 12:31PM|#
God commanded the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites so
there would be none left to influence the Israelites on matters of
religion after the Isralites gained control of the land.
It was my understanding that He told them they could let the virgin
women and girls live.
|4.27.07 @ 1:44PM|#
It was my understanding that He told them they could let the
virgin women and girls live.
Now, that's my kind of a God!
|4.27.07 @ 1:56PM|#
"It was my understanding that He told them they could let the
virgin women and girls live."
That's true in one case in Samuel. The Israelites were told to
spare the virgins for their own use.
|4.27.07 @ 1:59PM|#
"As was the case with a lot of atheists in their youth
"Freewill" was something of an anthem for me. The fact that it is
the only "pop song" I know that deals with atheism explains some of
that"
What about John Lennon's "Imagine"?
|4.27.07 @ 2:03PM|#
"Fluffy, God's actions tell us
Thou shall not kill, unless in a form of punishment or war."
Actually, the commandment not to kill applied only to the killing
of other Jews. It was still ok to kill gentiles.
|4.27.07 @ 2:15PM|#
"If someone asserts that no god exists, then he takes upon
himself a burden of proof comparable to the one that rests on a
person who asserts that a god does exist."
Which would be the more rational, to say that I don't know whether
or not unicorns exist or that unicorns don't exist? If it is
rational to say that unicorns don't exist, then why isn't it
rational to say that God doesn't exist? I will assume that unicorns
don't exist unless somebody can prove otherwise to me and likewise,
I will assume that gods or God doesn't exist unless somebody can
prove otherwise to me.
|4.27.07 @ 2:21PM|#
"Yet I'm not allowed to pin the sins of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao
on you and your ilk despite the fact that they shared your
religious outlook."
Hitler wasn't an atheist, he was a Christian. He even required
prayer and Bible reading in schools.
|4.27.07 @ 2:31PM|#
"Can you prove that you yourself exist? Perhaps. Can you prove
that anything else exists? I don't think so."
We can only go with what our senses tell us. If my senses don't
reveal to me that God exists, then I can't say he exists.
|4.27.07 @ 2:45PM|#
I once called myself agnostic because I reasoned along the same lines that jp is arguing. I now call myself atheist because I don't see how a God can exist. If God is a spiritual being, how can he think if he doesn't have a physical brain? If God is physical, why can't we see him? If he is physical and is so far away that we can't see him, how can he communicate with us? How can he communicate with one person without all of us hearing him. There are just too many insurmountable problems with the concept of a god, so it actually seems more foolish to me to consider the possibility of a god as it does to consider the possibility of a unicorn.
|4.27.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Rattlesnake -- I don't think it's irrational to conclude that no
god exists. You looked at the data around you and drew an inductive
conclusion that the non-existence of a god is likely -- so likely,
in fact, as to be a virtual certainty. That makes perfect
sense.
What I've taken issue with is the argument by Fluffy and perhaps
some others that the "I don't know if there's a god" state is the
same as the "I've concluded there is no god" state. Or, to put it
differently, the argument that the asserted non-existence of a god
requires no proof in order to be given credence, while the asserted
existence of god must be proven to be given credence. Neither
proposition is self-evident.
|4.27.07 @ 7:10PM|#
jp, maybe we agree on this: There's nothing in itself irrational
about believing in God and there's nothing in itself irrational
about believing that there is no God. If someone takes up the
issue, reads about it, talks about it with others, thinks about it,
and ends up reaching a conclusion, then that's all rationally okay.
Probably some conclusions are more reasonable than others, but the
basic procedure is okay.
The problem is when people have strong convictions without any
considered reasoning to back it up. And this is irrational whether
you're a blindly dogmatic theist, a blindly dogmatic atheist, or a
blindly dogmatic agnostic (this last variety is surprisingly
common).
|4.28.07 @ 12:25AM|#
Dave2, Stevo (doubt you're still here):
Anselm implies that Guanilo's argument fails b/c "that than which a
greater cannot be thought" has the unique property of (shown in
part III of the Proslogion) that in cannot be thought of not
existing. If you think of it as not existing, then you are not
thinking of "that than which a greater cannot be thought" because
one can think of "that than which a greater cannot be thought, and
which exists", which is greater. Unicorns and islands don't have
this property. Indeed, one can think of an island so great (defined
however you like, so long as you use the word 'great' honestly)
that it cannot possibly exist.
|4.28.07 @ 12:35AM|#
It seem that Anselm is not ultimately arguing that "that than
which a greater cannot be thought" exists, but rather that it must
be thought of as existing. Which means what,
exactly?
Funny stuff.
|4.28.07 @ 2:20AM|#
"It was my understanding that He told them they could let
the virgin women and girls live."
That's true in one case in Samuel. The Israelites were told to
spare the virgins for their own use.
What about the Midianites in Numbers 31 or the inhabitants of
Jabesh-gilead in Judges 21?
|4.28.07 @ 3:09AM|#
T Bone, I think Gaunilo still has the obvious rejoinder: the
lost island also cannot be thought of not existing, for
exactly the same reasons.
After all, if you thought of the lost island as not existing, then
you must not be thinking of that island than which none greater
can be thought -- after all, one could always think of
something just like it except that it exists. (You write that this
doesn't work for islands, but I fail to see why. It works just the
same way as with that than which none greater can be
thought.)
So I don't see how this move helps defuse the parody.
|4.29.07 @ 3:09AM|#
"Yet I'm not allowed to pin the sins of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao
on you and your ilk despite the fact that they shared your
religious outlook."
This statement is just plain stupid (even the Hitler inaccuracy
aside).
Atheists do not share "an outlook." THEISTS share, at least,
minimally, an outlook. Atheists share only the fact that they are
not theists. Claiming that a non-believer has anything particularly
in common with Stalin just because both were not religious is as
stupid as claiming that the Pope shares in the sin of John Hinkley
because both are non-professional baseball players.
The fact that people bring up such stupid arguments just goes to
show that they haven't thought seriously about what it means to be
religious or not.
|4.29.07 @ 3:21AM|#
jp:"I think it's useful to distinguish between the statement "no
god exists" and the statement "no one has advanced a persuasive
argument that a god exists." If someone asserts that no god exists,
then he takes upon himself a burden of proof comparable to the one
that rests on a person who asserts that a god does exist."
You are 100% correct sir. Note however that the statement "I do not
believe in a god," a statement which virtually anyone would
conclude that the speaker is an atheist, does not incurr an such
burden. Either you believe in a god or you don't: there is no
"middle ground." Belief is an assertive activity: if you aren't
engaged in it, then you aren't a believer, and that's that.
crimethink: "The default position should be "I don't know whether
God exists,""
You are confusing yourself here. Knowledge and belief are two
different things. The default state of an knowledge claim is
ignorance. The default state of belief claim is the lack of
belief.
"not "God does not exist" or "God does exist," for that matter.
Atheists profess to believe the latter."
Nope. Atheists, writ large, are non-believers. SOME atheists
profess the latter, just like SOME theists are female.
But at basic, atheists are folks that lack god belief. Most of us
have considered god belief arguments to some degree and found them
wanting, and as such have either simply remained without god
belief, or discarded previously held beliefs. Some atheists go
farther and claim, for various reasons, that God does not
exist.
Of course, if you want to insist that atheists are ONLY those folks
that positively assert that there are definitely no gods period,
then it raises the question of why you give so much attention to
those people and ignore the seeming majority of us here that do not
believe in gods. I would suggest that this neglect and attempt to
define us out of the debate is because we are a bigger rhetorical
threat, since by our skepticism we don't incurr any burden, and so
aren't easily subjected to caricature and pre-emptive attacks.
|4.29.07 @ 10:20AM|#
plunge -- I think what you're saying is that you're an agnostic
and a practical atheist. In other words, you don't have sufficient
evidence to conclude that there is a god, and unless that situation
changes, you're going to proceed on the assumption that no god
exists. Makes sense to me.
This is different from what fluffy is saying -- that lack of
certainty about the existence of a god compels certainty about the
non-existence of a god. Fluffy's position strikes me as not
rational (at least, not rational in the way she's stated it).
|4.29.07 @ 10:45AM|#
"plunge -- I think what you're saying is that you're an agnostic
and a practical atheist. In other words, you don't have sufficient
evidence to conclude that there is a god, and unless that situation
changes, you're going to proceed on the assumption that no god
exists."
No. No "assumption" is necessary. The claim that god exists is an
assumption. Not buying that assumption is not, itself an
assumption. The claim that god exists is not so presumptively true
that not believing in it somehow requires one to run around
actively straining to not believe it and building a worldview not
believing it. In fact, it requires no effort at all. Belief
requires effort. Lacking a particular belief requires no effort
whatsoever.
"This is different from what fluffy is saying -- that lack of
certainty about the existence of a god compels certainty about the
non-existence of a god."
If that is really what fluffy is saying then you're right, lack of
evidence and certainty alone does not warrant jumping to
conclusions like "God does not exist." But then, fluffys confusion
may just stem from the confusion deliberately spread by theists:
that the only positions are believe in god, say maybe god exists
but you don't really know, or positively assert that no gods exist.
The perfectly rational "I don't believe in a god" is left off the
map. That, I suspect, is why so many theists insist on a very
circumscribed definition of "atheism."
|4.29.07 @ 1:53PM|#
plunge -- If your agnostic/atheist state of mind does not
involve an assumption, then this is how I think your argument plays
out. I'd be interested in knowing where I go astray:
1. Begin with the statement "I don't believe in a god."
2. That belief is either based on reasoning or it's not.
3. If it's not based on reasoning, then it's just a blind
conviction -- in essence, I don't care what evidence may be
forthcoming, I will not ever believe in a god. It's at the opposite
extreme from the position of the unthinking believer (e.g., "God
said it, I believe it, and that settles it").
4. If belief #1 is based on reasoning, then that reasoning most
likely took the form of on an inductive process. (I agree that
formal proofs like Anselm's haven't cut it.) For example, the
person who holds belief #1 looked at the evidence for
existence of a god (such as the persistence of belief, the
intelligence of certain believers, and the accounts of apparently
trustworthy people who claim to have had firsthand experience of a
god), and he looked at the evidence against the existence
of a god (such as the absence of supernatural agency in everyday
life and the problem of evil), and he then determined that the con
evidence sufficiently outweighed the pro evidence that he was
justified in concluding (or adopting the belief) that a god
probably does not exist. He may even conclude that the balance
between the pro and con evidence is so one-sided that the
non-existence of a god is almost indistinguishable from a
certainty.
5. The reasoning process in #4 results in a belief, a conclusion --
the belief that with some degree of probability god does not exist.
Reaching this belief may seem effortless, as you say, because the
evidence on one side is so persuasive and the evidence on the other
side is so unpersuasive that no conscious thought is needed to
conclude what is most likely to be the case. But a reasoning
process is still there if the belief does not come within #3.
|4.30.07 @ 2:01AM|#
Your reasoning goes wrong right at the start.
Not believing in god is not "a belief." The lack of a particular
belief is not "a belief." There is no particular reasoning required
to support not believing in something: that is almost 180degrees
backwards. Reasoning is required to support an affirmative BELIEF,
not the lack of a particular belief. Lacking convincing reasons,
one isn't compelled to believe.
In my case, I have, in fact, examined some of the arguments made
that urge me to believe in gods, but I've found them all
unconvincing, and as such, I've not subsequently had any reason to
take up a belief in god. But me doing so is irrelevant: people
could just as well never consider the issue or give it any thought.
They too are unbelievers, and in essentially the same way: lacking
any reason to believe, they don't believe. It's as simple as
that.
When someone states that they do no believe in god, they are making
a statement that is essentially only about themselves, not any sort
of conclusion about the contents of existence. I don't need to
judge any sort of "probability" of god's existence. I don't see any
sufficient reason to believe in god, and thus I don't. I have no
idea if a god exists or not, and I don't see any valid way to
assign a probability to the possibility. All of that is irrelevant
regardless. There COULD at an moment be a bomb in my basement. But
I don't have any reason to believe that there is, and so I'm not
going to go down and check every few seconds.
Belief is an AFFIRMATIVE action a person undertakes. If you don't
believe, it doesn't mean that you run around straining or thinking
about how not to believe, or believing the negation of the claim.
Not believing in god isn't, in that respect, much different from
not playing professional baseball: it requires no effort or
justification.
I've honestly never seen what's so hard to understand about any of
this, but somehow theists, agnostics, and even some atheists seem
to get tied up in knots by it.
|4.30.07 @ 10:37AM|#
plunge --
A couple of thoughts.
- Belief is an AFFIRMATIVE action a person undertakes. If you
don't believe, it doesn't mean that you run around straining or
thinking about how not to believe, or believing the negation of the
claim.
You said above that you do believe the negation of the claim (i.e.,
"I don't believe in god." (5-26-07 at 5:42 pm)). In addition, any
negation of a claim can be reframed as a positive claim: "I don't
believe that O.J. was involved in the murders of Ron and Nicole"
becomes "I believe in O.J.'s innocence of the murders of Ron and
Nicole." "I don't believe in alien abductions" becomes "I believe
that people who claim they were abducted by aliens are deluded or
lying." "I don't believe in a god" becomes "I believe that the
universe was not created by an intelligent being and that human
action is not governed by any kind of providence" (along with
whatever else is entailed by a god-free worldview). Not believing
in x is functionally equivalent to believing in
not-x. Your belief in not-x seems effortless to
you because it's so familiar, and because (I gather) the fact that
not-x represents the true state of things is so patently
obvious to you. Many religious people are of course exactly the
opposite -- their belief in x seems effortless and
natural, and they can't understand why atheists go out of their way
to believe not-x.
- An alternative explanation I can think of for your position would
be that you don't care one way or the other. The question of
whether there is or is not a god doesn't interest you, and so you
go about your business without really thinking about where the
universe came from or what happens to people when they die. That
position is not theist, atheist, or agnostic. It's not really a
"position" at all on the matter, because no thought has been
devoted to it and no conceptions have been formed regarding it.
It's similar to my "position" regarding who assassinated JFK: I
don't believe that Oswald did or didn't do it, nor do I believe
that the issue is ultimately indeterminable. I don't believe
anything about it at all, because it doesn't interest me and I
haven't given it any serious thought or attempted to learn anything
about it.
Perhaps this is what you mean when you say that you've "never seen
what's so hard to understand about any of this." You don't care
whether there's a god or not, and you don't understand why other
people keep insisting that you take a position on the issue.
|4.30.07 @ 11:07AM|#
"You said above that you do believe the negation of the claim
(i.e., "I don't believe in god." (5-26-07 at 5:42 pm)). "
A ha! I think now we've hit upon the problem: you think that a
statement of what a person does or does not believe in is an
existential statement! That's where you go wrong. Let's map this
out in strict logic so it's as clear as possible. The statement "I
do not believe in a god" maps out to ~BG. The statement you
mistakenly believe is equivalent is "I believe there is no god" or
B~G. These two statements are not, in fact, equivalent, and only
the latter is actually even a statement belief (the former is
actually a statement about the presence or absence of a specific
belief, not it's object!).
Would it make it clearer if I pointed out that I also ~B~G, that
is, I don't "believe" in no god either?
Your problem is that you think a person is required to take one
position or the other on a truth claim. They are not. We can see
this by making the claim perfectly conventional: say someone claims
that they have 5 dollars in their pocket. I don't, in fact, know
anything about the contents of their pockets, or know the person at
all and whether to trust them. So it's not rationally justified for
me to commit to either the position that they have 5 dollars or the
position that they don't. You're going to have to convince me
either way. It's not that I'm disinterested, it's that I'm
skeptical and unwilling to just jump to one conclusion or the other
when there is no justified reason to do so.
It's the same in the case of claims about the existence of God.
Theists have failed to convince me that any god exists, so I remain
as I began when I was a baby without any coherent beliefs: a being
without god beliefs, who does not believe in God (though since that
time, I have acquired all sorts of beliefs that have won approval
by seeming to justify themselves). But it isn't necessary for me to
take the position that no gods exist either: if anyone important
ran around claiming that, they'd also have to convince me (and they
haven't done so, but then virtually no one has tried or demanded I
do so in the way theists do).
I think another problem you are having is that you are not fully
separating the object of truth claims (say, God) from the
justifications for those claims. I have lots of strong opinions and
beliefs about the _arguments_ made for god, and none in particular
about god. I am not "disinterested" in the subject as you surmise,
in fact this is a subject that interests me a lot. I just think
your conception of things is a false dilemna caused by confusing
too many different logical concepts.
|4.30.07 @ 12:24PM|#
plunge -- I think we're back where we started.
Theists have failed to convince me that any god exists, so I
remain as I began when I was a baby without any coherent beliefs: a
being without god beliefs, who does not believe in God . . . . But
it isn't necessary for me to take the position that no gods exist
either: if anyone important ran around claiming that, they'd also
have to convince me . . . .
That would make you (at least by the conventional use of the term)
an agnostic -- someone who, without ignoring the issue, neither
believes nor disbelieves. (See for example the definition of
"agnosticism" in The Dictionary of the History of Ideas*:
"We shall then take agnosticism to be the more limited claim that
we either do not or cannot know that God or any other transcendent
reality or state exists and thus we should suspend judgment
concerning the assertion that God exists. That is to say, the
agnostic neither affirms nor denies it. . . . [S]uch a construal
captures in its characterization both what was essentially at issue
in the great agnostic debates in the nineteenth century and the
issue as it has come down to us.").
Some have argued that agnosticism is the same as "weak atheism,"
i.e., the position that there is probably, but not certainly, no
god. But that doesn't seem to be your position.
I suppose that, etymologically, one could argue that "atheist"
(non-theist) should refer to anyone who does not believe
in a god, regardless of whether he doesn't believe because he lacks
sufficient data to decide the issue, or because he has concluded
that there is in fact no god. But (in my limited experience) I
haven't seen anybody in the literature use "atheist" in that broad
way.
*Available online at
http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/ot2www-dhi?specfile=/texts/english/dhi/dhi.o2w&act=text&offset=233116&textreg=0&query=
|4.30.07 @ 12:55PM|#
"That would make you (at least by the conventional use of the
term) an agnostic -- someone who, without ignoring the issue,
neither believes nor disbelieves"
Indeed, I have no problem with anyone calling me an agnostic. I AM
agnostic in the sense that I do not have any knowledge supporting
the idea that God exists.
However, because for me knowledge or rational argument is a
necessary precursor for belief (this is not true for everyone: some
people are agnostic about god but are ALSO theists: they believe on
faith), I cannot believe. Agnosticism does not measure belief, so
it is really not a particularly descriptive category when it comes
to characterizing whether or not I am a believer. Either I believe
in God, or I don't: "agnosticism" is not a "midway" position
because there is no midway position.
I do not believe in a God. Virtually anyone on the planet,
regardless of what creative dictionary definition they hold to,
would call me an atheist. You, in fact, seemed to agree that it
made me an atheist. I am, indeed, the "weak" sort of atheist, but
that seems to encompass the majority of people who say they are
atheists, and all strong atheists are ALSO weak atheists, by
definition. Given that, I don't see why its so hard to accept our
definition.
But honestly, I don't care THAT much how you define atheist. If you
want to claim, against all objections by the majority of atheists
throughout history, against the plain logic and derivation of the
word, and against the good sense to have a set of terms that are
both comprehensive and equal measured, that atheist means ONLY
those who actively claim that they are certain no gods exist, have
at it. Dictionaries have played it either way: sometimes defining
it one way, sometimes another. Dictionaries just measure common
usage: many note that "wicked" is part of what "atheist" means too.
Since there are more theists than atheists, theists are always
going to win the common usage game of defining us any way they
wish. So, given that, I will happily just call myself a
non-believer or non-theist.
However, I think your usage is prone both to equivocation and
generally is used to misrepresent people (not unlike adding
"wicked" to the definition of atheist, or "lazy" to the definition
of Mexican). Virtually, all of the atheists around today use and
understand atheism to include both strong and weak atheists, and so
when you talk about their arguments, you have to understand their
usage even if you don't agree that it is proper: otherwise you will
be misrepresenting them.
And yet, when these people are discussed, people using your narrow
definition often still do include them: misusing the very
terminology they so vehemently insisted on!
I can't tell you how many times I've been asked whether or not I
believe in god, responded that no I don't, and then had the person
characterize me as an atheist... and then go on to demand that I
prove my "claim" that no gods exist. I don't even have to say that
I'm an atheist at any point: the play this game all by
themselves!
This is, I hope you'll agree, ludicrous behavior, and yet I suspect
it is exactly the sort of trap and inconsistency that many
theologians and theists desire to remain: the confusion makes it
easier for them to avoid anything but the most caricatured
positions of some atheists.
|4.30.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Not going to read the whole thread right now.
(Disclosure: Will probably never have time to read the full thread,
so I regret not reading anything who wrote something
interesting...and the odds of that being...well, nevermind)
I can prove to anyone that God exists by taking them to
Junior's for cheesecake and coffee.
Gilmore,
I had Junior's cheesecake when I was in NYC. It was good, but not
that good.
|4.30.07 @ 1:14PM|#
VM | April 26, 2007, 4:27pm | #
"Us Crazy Humans Wrote it. Won't you take a look?"
hier
VM,
That's one of my favorites!
|4.30.07 @ 4:20PM|#
plunge -- Fair enough. It's not for me to tell you how to express yourself. But, seriously, if theists consistently misunderstand you when you say that you don't believe in god, why don't you just say, "I'm an agnostic"? That's what I say, and they all seem to get what I mean.
|4.30.07 @ 6:45PM|#
Except they don't really get what it means, and they routinely
misrepresent what lots of other people mean when they say that they
don't believe in god, or are atheists, or what have you. And, as I
noted, it doesn't matter what I label myself: even if I don't label
myself, they still declare me an atheist and then misapply their
own definition!
The problem is that many people's understanding of the situation is
faulty, and that's only going to cause confusion and
misrepresentation unless someone argues the issue. To far too many
people, there are three choices: believe in god, or positively
assert that there is no god, or just be unsure (agnostic). But this
is badly confuses things, because it mixes together several
different sorts of issues into one bizarre non-continuous
continuum.
I'm a non-theist. A non-believer. There isn't anything wishy-washy
about that: I've looked at the arguments for gods and claims made
about religions, and I'm not undecided on them: I think they are
almost all terrible and unconvincing. But to reject those
arguments, I don't need to do what many confused atheists (atheists
theists to take great delight in confusing!) make any positive
assertions about the non-existence of gods.
There is also the problem of clarity: if someone asks you if you
believe in god, and you say that you are agnostic, then what you've
really done is avoided the question. You've answered a different
question, without answering whether or not you believe in god.
|4.30.07 @ 7:05PM|#
There is also the problem of clarity: if someone asks you if
you believe in god, and you say that you are agnostic, then what
you've really done is avoided the question. You've answered a
different question, without answering whether or not you believe in
god.
I disagree, but maybe we can take that up another day. Thanks for
your thoughtful responses.
|4.30.07 @ 7:59PM|#
"I disagree, but maybe we can take that up another day."
You can't really disagree. "Do you believe in god" is a binary
question. Either you do or you don't. Trying to be coy about it is
like being coy when someone asks you if you can turn into a
cantelope at will. Either you can or you have business saying
anything other than that you can't.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245