Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 05:44pm PT
|
I'm with Locker. Claiming that there is a god is based on faith. Claiming that there is not a god is based on faith.
And, I'm with Locker in the 99.99% thing, too. The belief in an anthropomorphic god that listens to everyone's prayers and alters the laws of nature and cause and effect to satisfy all our individual wish lists is simply silly.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 05:49pm PT
|
No, it's based on lack of evidence.
**a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/Submit
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.**
I don't claim that there is no God. That would assign that objective reality to others. I claim only that I do not believe in a God - that subjective viewpoint is limited to me and me alone. I don't claim that I believe that I do not know if there is a God or not, because I do not believe there is. Therefore I'm not an agnostic.
Given that one cannot know anything for certain, even the reality of one's own existence, any discussion of such an a priori condition has little meaning. It's always true - for everything. This a priori condition does not make all unbelievers agnostics. If you are 99.9% sure there is no God, rather than me being an agnostic, you are, in fact, an atheist. Agnosticism requires ambivalence. I'm not ambivalent, and neither are you two. It's about belief - not certainty, which, of course, is not possible for anything. It's a continuous spectrum, of course - how sure are you that you do not believe in a God? As with any spectrum, there is a grey area between agnosticism and atheism, so there's some subjectivity as to how you self identify. Mostly, people self identify as agnostic because they do not understand either definition, or because they simply want to get along. I'm nowhere near that grey area, however, and really, neither are you.
For example, I also do not believe there is a squirrel in my head. Now, there could be a squirrel in my head, but the probability in my view, based on lack of evidence, is low.
About equal to the probability, in my view, that there is a God.
I don't subscribe to the view that I cannot choose a belief based on evidence here, therefore I'm an atheist, not an agnostic. There is a difference.
Conversely, I do believe in evolution. There is a high probability, based on evidence, that evolution happens.
I might also be a coppertop in the Matrix, and evolution may just be a sub-routine. Back to the low evidence category...
Most people are confused by the objective/subjective distinction, but it's really not that hard.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 06:05pm PT
|
Yes atheist is good if don't know and have no evidence.
Then you do no harm to others with stupid misleading nonsense in the name of religion.
The theists can ultimately be far more dangerous when not following correctly.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 06:07pm PT
|
Tvash, you appear to have faith that your lack of belief about a thing existing without evidence for your position makes it so. My position is that I have no proof for an absolute position on the question regardless of my feelings about it and am therefor agnostic.
I am 99.99% sure there is no Jehovah sitting on a throne in the clouds listening to my prayers and directly intervening on my behalf or a heaven where I get to hang out with my embodied loved ones. But, I am a good 90% sure there is a vitalist aspect to reality based upon my observation and experience; an intelligent, conscious at some level, and organizing phenomenon that is not accounted for in our mechanistic models for the explicate order we call reality. But, I don't claim it as the truth because I don't have proof.
You can readily prove there aren't squirrels in your head. You can't prove that our scientific models and measures account for all phenomena.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 06:18pm PT
|
Some agnostics seem to believe in a strange limbo of "possible existence" where all things begin. Then the agnostic imagines herself plucking items out of this limbo and sorting them into two bins labeled "real" and "non-existent" based on the evidence. Some things, like God, they say there is no evidence for or against, and so God stays floating in the limbo of possible existence.
But this isn't how it actually works. There's no such thing as 'evidence against somethings existence'. At best, you can only have a total lack of evidence for it. So then, the "non-existent" bin stays completely empty (and one wonders what's the point of even having it there in the first place?). Although in practice, your average agnostic carelessly throws many items into the non-existant bin, such as witches and the "God of the Old Testement", without stopping to consider that these have no more evidence for or against them than the God of modernity: 'designer of the universe and it's laws of physics, whose steady hand guides all things', whom they have kindly left floating out there in limbo.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 06:25pm PT
|
"Tvash, you appear to have faith that your lack of belief about a thing existing without evidence for your position makes it so."
This all-too-common, erroneous supposition violates the basic rules of logic.
Lack of belief in something requires no positive evidence of any kind above and beyond a lack of evidence. That lack of evidence is all that is required to suspend belief.
Substitute FSM for squirrel in my head, or Great Big Fuzzy Kitty Way Up In the Sky - neither of which, like God, are testable hypotheses. A lack of belief in these entities is therefore well founded due to lack of evidence.
In contrast, there is much evidence to support the competing hypothesis that God is of human construction. The evolved propensity for projecting human consciousness into the universe. The plethora of various Gods throughout human existence - despite claims of exclusive authenticity for most of them. The evolutionary advantage of religion to bind societies together for survival. The disagreement, even within Christianity, as to the nature of God. The improbability, based on observation, of entities that operate without causality - outside the laws of physics. The apparent usefulness of religion to control societies, legitimize authority, concentrate wealth, and make war. The satisfying of basic evolved needs - a salve for the fear of death, the need to be loved, the need for community, the need for status (to be 'chosen' or 'saved') - supplied by religion, which after all, requires only an idea. All of these bear the characteristic imprint of human invention. This list is much longer than this, of course.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 06:39pm PT
|
Thrash, there is a difference between having a lack of belief that something is so and believing that something is not so. Your belief is that god in any iteration is not so.
I love science and the scientific method and am with you on much of what you're saying. Be careful about believing that scientific observations and models are reality. They are our best approximations at any given time. These are things that I use all the time in practice - biochemistry, neurology, physiology, etc.
Yes, based upon the research much of what people attribute to experiencing god is a neurological phenomenon that is internally generated.
The models and methods of science are elegant and beautiful, but don't become too enamored with them. They aren't actually reality, which we can't know absolutely and directly, and that leaves room for uncertainty. Because of that, I am an agnostic and not an atheist.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 06:58pm PT
|
It's no wonder that the Christian God is a lot like us. After all, He is made in our image. He is the embodiment of our aspirations for ourselves. All powerful. All knowing. Untouchable. Eternal. God is, in fact, what we are becoming.
We would not love an alien God. We need a familiar one, like us, for that. To ensure that, God even became one of us.
Would we love God as much if he were just the Holy Spirit - some amorphous presence? No. We love Jesus. The Good Man. The Perfect Man. The Man who will always love and protect you, even with his life. The gentle one we can envision in our minds. The one like us, only perfect.
If Christianity is to credited for inventing anything - given that most of it is recycled from previous myths - it is the creation of a God that Loves You - an invited departure from the wrathful God of the Jews, who wielded his power through fear.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 07:01pm PT
|
Yes and thanks, Malemute!
|
|
Darwin
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 07:23pm PT
|
This thread so needs photos:
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 08:06pm PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 08:08pm PT
|
rather than just defaulting to the dick thing.
LOL... good one!
Glass houses....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 08:23pm PT
|
Most people are confused by the objective/subjective distinction, but it's really not that hard.
ROFL
Ohhhhh my, just wow!
I've gotta say, the arrogance is withering, like I've seen nowhere else on the Taco, and that's saying something!
ROFL
|
|
TYeary
Social climber
State of decay
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 08:24pm PT
|
What's the difference between a cult and a religion?
About a hundred years.
TY
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 08:50pm PT
|
I think I have a new fanboi
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 09:38pm PT
|
For ref, Ken's apparent stance: Any criticism of Islam (after all, Islam's a religion of peace) or criticism of Muslims is out of bounds (after all, the conflict over there is not about religion but politics and poverty).
Not true at all. I just don't support painting with a broad brush, and extrapolating the actions of some, to all members of a group. I don't support that for Christians, either.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 10:59pm PT
|
Get up, stand up
Stand up for your rights
Get up, stand up
Don't give up the fight
You, preacher man don't tell me
Heaven is under the earth
You a duppy and you don't know
What life is really worth
It's not all that glitter is gold
And half the story has never been told
So now we see the light
We gonna stand up for your rights
Come on
Cause you know most people think
A great God will come from the skies
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high
But if you know what life is worth
Then you would look for yours on earth
And now you see the light
We gonna stand up for your rights
We're Sick and tired of the ism-skism game
Dyin' n' goin' to Heaven in a Jesus name
We know and we know and understand
Almighty Jah is a living man
You fool some people sometimes
But you can't fool all the people all the time
And now we see the light
We gonna stand up for our rights
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 11:18pm PT
|
Mark, I can read your words and think back to our conversation in front of that Italian restaurant in Oakdale. I can hear your voice. I had just met you and I admired your patience and acumen. We then proceeded to warp into the wee hours with a bunch of legends of our sport. I'll never forget your story to Bridwell. I think he was kind in his reaction, you made him a little self-conscious. I still appreciate your patience and acumen especially on this thread. Rock on, brother.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2014 - 11:20pm PT
|
If a Christian's child rejects religion, a Christian is REQUIRED to look at their child that way. A lost soul. Sinful. Doomed to death or perdition, depending on the choice of cult. The child's going to feel that disapproval, make no mistake about that. I know plenty of people - plenty - who grew up with and were damaged by that kind of rejection from the very people closest to them. I'm not talking about getting booted out of the house, either. I'm talking about a subtle, palpable, day to day disapproval of who their child really is. The damage that does to a person's ability to trust and love in a healthy manner is incalculable.
Hey man
Atleast you weren't brought up by crack addicts, or parents that were surgeons and never home, or professional athletes who are always on away games, or military parents, and the list goes on. I've heard the same blame put on these types.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2014 - 01:23am PT
|
"agnostic; a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God"...
L
This series of words suffers from the same defect as does
If you are an Atheist and you claim that you KNOW their is no God...
How would anyone "Know that nothing can be known"?
Wordsmithery.
That acts to deflect attention from our lack of evidence supporting the existence of gods. Any gods. After thousands of years of looking for a god and finding none, we have a good chance of safely conducting our lives under the assumption there is none. If no evidence has shown up in thousands of years, none will probably show up while any of us lives. If it does, we all will be free to deal with it rationally.
The idea of Hell had to be ginned up to deal with the overwhelming lack of evidence. Hell is a device whose only purpose seems to be that of confusing.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!