Any atheists in here?
POSTED BY: BlackCollarBrowncoat
UPDATED: Sunday, March 12, 2006 20:19
VIEWED: 38267
PAGE 7 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well if it really was invisible it wouldn’t be “pink,” would it?
That's where the faith element comes in
If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it... etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You cannot prove that a proposition is untrue simply because there is no evidence to assert its truth or untruth. You can assume that it is not true if you do not have evidence to support its truth or untruth, which is often what people do, but that is an assumption, not a proof.
Non-existance doesn't require proof as it is a logical fallacy to expect someone to prove a negative.
Existance however does require proof.
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You cannot prove that a proposition is untrue simply because there is no evidence to assert its truth or untruth. You can assume that it is not true if you do not have evidence to support its truth or untruth, which is often what people do, but that is an assumption, not a proof.
I think we’re miscommunicating concerning proof and rationality. I never claimed to be able to absolutely disprove god’s existence--my contention is that it is irrational, as SergeantX capably pointed out, and that based on what we know and can intelligently opine about, most likely a false belief. Logical proofs don’t account for probability, but probabilities are really what we’re working with when we make most of the claims we do about the world....”Alexander the Great could not fly” is unprovable, and yet I think we can all be sure as sugar it is a true statement.
To further illustrate, I’m aware that the notion of electrons as tiny little balls zapping to and fro is just a quaint little notion left over from grammar school, and I used it as such to be cute. But while however I conceptualize it, the conception is just a construct, the thing itself a measurable entity and has perceivable effects on the world, even if we don’t know exactly why it behaves the way it does and why it stubbornly refuses to have a definite position and velocity at any given moment. God, on the other hand, is a construct of a different type, one that makes use of constructs we have of “intelligence” and directed agency and embodies them in the form of a universal consciousness conducting the universe’s affairs. This is a tremendous leap from saying “electrons exist.”
If you want to equate god with basic laws of the universe, that’s fine, but then we are arguing only over definitions and I don’t see what your point is. If your point was that it is reasonable to conclude from the workings of the world that there is a conscious, purposeful being controlling it all, I’d suggest you’re only pushing a form of the argument by design; there is no reason to presume (for you must presume this) that there is any consciousness capable of omniscience or any other cool tricks a deity is capable of. The only intelligence we are aware of is ourselves, and to project this onto the universe itself is a kind of species-based narcissism....
To posit one further example, I can’t disprove that there is a small magical orb floating around somewhere in the galaxy that grants people’s wishes. Now, I understand the distinction here–this of course would be measurable in theory, though for all practical purposes is impossible to prove/disprove (good luck searching every square inch of the galaxy in a lifetime or a billion lifetimes). My point is that “granting wishes” is a construct completely dependent upon human understanding and imagination and this is why we can say confidently it does not exist....electrons exist, in whatever nebulous fashion they assume, whatever our visualization or understanding of them is, and we know by their effects. god has no such tangible effects on the world–and, again, saying “he’s controlling it all” is either playing with definitions or basing existence directly on human constructs, rather than forming human constructs based on observable phenomena.
This discussion began in response to a claim that disbelief was "faith" of the same sort that belief is. My goal wasn't to logically disprove god (and you're right--good luck doing so) but to undercut that claim, and propose that it is far more likely and reasonable to believe there is no such entity.
my apologies--i tend to be overly verbose. Since I saw an aes rock fan here I'll close with a relevant line:
"I will not bow to a god that I can't look in the face"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal believes in God, he just doesn't like him. I myself tend towards agnosticism rather than athiesm since it's not possible to know for sure one way or another.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Existence through experience (living) is a great equalizer.
Perception and awareness are all relative to oneself, these constitute existence in the sense of consciousness (as one needs to be conscious and cognitive in order to perceive the existence of oneself).
If you suppose that everything is a construct of your own mind, then nothing truly exists but your mind...and that's liable to incite an impractical view of existence. Then that of course leads to yet more questions as to whether anything truly exists...and that very well could be.
This relates to belief and faith much in the same way, if there's no proof that renders a belief or theory true or untrue, then that begs the question concerning perception and belief. If you perceive it as true (presuming that reality and existence are all relative to perception) what evidence says otherwise? And then there's the question of what constitutes proof, as most of what we perceive is based upon assumptions.
And then there is the surmise that everything's empty, just variations of atoms (again, just a theory, this can't be proven by any evidence as of yet) and that everything you thought of as this and that really isn't this and that. In this sense, God is empty, you're empty, reality is empty, and everything is the same; therefore the existence of God is irrelevant and illogical because nothing exists. Perception factors into this as well, on account of the fact that it's required in order to perceive this complex and chaotic, but essentially empty and merciless, variation of atoms.
How does everyone define perception?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BlackCollarBrowncoat:
Like the beloved Cap'n, I'm an atheist, and I was wondering if any of my fellow browncoats are non-believers.
Secular Humanist myself. I haven't read each post, so maybe someone has already covered this. But you asked...so here's 2 cents worth of something i've found to represent my feelings about this subject.
Humanism
Humanism is the belief that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. Humanists make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves. We take responsibility for our actions and work with others for the common good.
What humanists believe
Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason - humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text.
Humanism encompasses atheism and agnosticism but is an active and ethical philosophy far greater than these negative responses to religion.
Humanists believe in individual rights and freedoms but believe that individual responsibility, social cooperation and mutual respect are just as important.
Humanists believe that people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's problems so that quality of life can be improved for everyone.
Humanists are positive gaining inspiration from our lives, art and culture, and a rich natural world.
Humanists believe that we have only one life it is our responsibility to make it a good life, and to live it to the full.
.....and we all shine on......
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I seriously wonder if some of you read the title of the thread. Go ahead, read it. I won't go anywhere.......see? I asked if there were atheists here, nothing else. You didn't need to reply if you do not consider yourself as atheist. Simple right? If someone posted a thread asking if there were any theists here, I would stay away. I wouldn't pop in and try to argue with them about their stance. It's common courtesy, and reason.
I don't know why threads like these have to start logic wars with folks endlessly and futilely trying to "educate" and convince each other with their arguments and opinions. Those of us who have made our minds, don't give a damn. Thanks for ruining a perfectly simple thread
By the way, last time I read this thread (last Saturday I think), I was in agreement with Hotpoint(?) and the Sergeant.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch me soar."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's the way these things work on most, if not all forums, reason plays very little a role when discussing religous beliefs as does courtesy. It's basically just a chaotic free-for-all wherein everybody posts profound and sometimes illuminating, but more or less irrelevant comments. Therefore, carry on in your impotent rage; these comments and debates are an inevitable by-product of threads concerning any religous beliefs. It never fails...it will always wind up that the thread will be speckled with everyone's beliefs. It's just, unreasonable is what it is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like to use the Douglas Adams definition of myself as a "radical atheist". He started referring to himself that way when someone would ask him if he was religious, he would respond "No, I'm atheist", and then said person would inevitably say "Oh, you mean agnostic". He then started answering the question with "I'm a radical atheist" to let people know that he is firmly convinced that there is no god.
When I read the first post in the thread, I assumed BlackCollarBrowncoat was referring to Joss when he said "cap'n", as Joss has stated many times that he is an atheist. I think it is not so cut and dry with the character of Mal, who lost his religion but may find his way back someday.
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in order to prove that you care. Or indeed, why it should be necessary to prove it at all." -Kerr Avon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BlackCollarBrowncoat:
Any atheists in here?
I don't believe so.
---
I don't need a gorram back-spaceship driver!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
