Agnosticism sound logical - I think it means that either the agnostic doesn't know which god of many is the true one, and is looking to find the truth. Or it means that people can't know if there's a true god or not, so why bother?
But strong atheists say there is no true god. How do they know? Aren't they as illogical as a theist who says there is a true god, even though he can't prove it? ********************************************************* 02-07-07, 02:21 PM juanruiz Your premise seems to be that atheists should be worried about proving god doesn't exist. That task is illogical.
02-07-07, 03:18 PM faber When atheists try to prove god does not exist, I think they want try to make a point, Mr.Spock.
02-07-07, 03:36 PM juanruiz Thing is, you really can't prove god doesn't exist. Further, I, as an atheist, don't care to try (won't speak for others here). I think it's a problem of perspective: theists are generally so into their god(s), they can't understand why atheists have no interest.
02-07-07, 04:24 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by faber: But strong atheists say there is no true god. How do they know? Aren't they as illogical as a theist who says there is a true god, even though he can't prove it?
No, I don't think so. Not really.
Whatever the reason for coming to the conclusion that god doesn't exists, the atheist is not under any burden to prove the point. Science doesn't work by disproving things proposed to it.
It is up to the theist to propose evidence that god exists, at which point the atheist can examine the evidence and see if it is viable. So far theists have not been successful in proving that god exists.
So it seems to me that by rejecting spurious "evidence" put forward by theists, atheism is a more logical approach.
02-07-07, 07:23 PM babthrower First we need to define what 'god' is, before we say we can/can't believe in it.
Gods are objects of veneration and reverence for human beings.
e.g. “The worshippers in the temple bowed down before their god represented by a golden calf.”
Therefore we know that there are literally thousands of gods. I believe they exist, if only in statue form, or in the imaginations of their adorers, who use them to explain mysteries and rationalize human experience. So in that sense I am a theist.
But to the questions
- "Does one or more of these gods exist independently of human imaginings, and
- Act as a creative force in the universe?
- Decide what is moral in human behavior?
- Pay attention judgementally (or for diversion) to our internal states and motives, and our daily actions?
- Reward or punish us for our choices (or for our attributes) during our lives?
- Create a method whereby our memories and consciousness can persist after the dissolution of our brains?
- Give a damn one way or another whether we pray, kill and burn animals in it's honor, or perform rituals?"
I for one have to answer 'no'. I do that with the same certainty that I have when I say that there exists a 'material' world apart from my own consciousness, or that life requires a source of energy in order to arise or to persist.
In other words, I don't know absolutely that my opinion is correct; but I think it the probability that I am wrong is vanishingly unlikely .
That is why I call myself a 'hard' atheist. I am as sure that there is no real presence behind any notion of 'god' as I am that I exist.
Only people who believe there is such a thing as absolute truth think atheism is illogical.
And Agnostics are wimps. Big Grin
02-07-07, 07:31 PM frankvan
quote: Agnosticism sound logical - I think it means that either the agnostic doesn't know which god of many is the true one, and is looking to find the truth. Or it means that people can't know if there's a true god or not, so why bother?
If your definition of an agnostic is correct, then I must be an atheist as I suspected all along. I certainly am not "looking to find which god of many is the true one". I see no reason to be doing the research for the theists who are making all the conflicting claims. I'm not looking to prove the none-existence of the little green leprechauns, or ghosts, or unicorns either. Labels aren't that important anyway, and there is no end to the number of screwball beliefs and unproven theories. Life is too short to waste time trying to debunk them all. Wink
02-08-07, 05:56 AM Kendor I'm tending to agree with faber's point that athieism is just as illogical as theism. If there must be a need to prove or disprove something in order to proclaim one's 'logicalness', then I'd have to ask the athiest to prove that our mere existence is happenstance.
02-08-07, 08:09 AM VelvetVoice This question and others like it really are irritating. Just as bad as atheists saying 'Christians believe out of fear'.
Atheists don't have faith, I don't like it but that is the way it is. There is no physical proof and there never will be until Judgement Day.
02-09-07, 02:11 AM tsaeb
quote: But strong atheists say there is no true god. How do they know? Aren't they as illogical as a theist who says there is a true god, even though he can't prove it?
Yes! Yes! Yes! Instead of justifying their reasoning for their defiant position that God does not exist, atheists resort to pushing the burden of convincing proof that God exists onto theists. Witness GarColga's comment:
"It is up to the theist to propose evidence that god exists, at which point the atheist can examine the evidence and see if it is viable. So far theists have not been successful in proving that god exists."
Anyone can deny anyone or anything for a number of reasons, but passing the buck when someone else has not done the reasoning for one's denial is more than a copout: it is an indication that such behaviors as laziness, cowardliness, or whatnot of anyone in denial cannot substantiate the denial position with any degree of convincing logic let alone convincing proof. In short, while the atheist will hide his/her dissatisfaction on the matter with some a posteriori (experience) statements of others, he/she fails to offer on the denial position any satisfying a priori (logic) statements from the atheist camp.
02-09-07, 02:35 AM babthrower Kendor says
quote: I'd have to ask the athiest to prove that our mere existence is happenstance.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'happenstance'. But I must remind you of the commonality shared by theists and atheists alike. Each set is trying to deal with the mystery, "Why does anything exist?"
The theist says, "Nothing can come out of nothing. Therefore there must have been some Primal Cause. We'll call him god."
The atheist says, "Nothing can come out of nothing. So there can be no god who created everything, since such a god would have had to come out of nothing. Instead, the universe is eternal."
Go figger.
02-09-07, 02:40 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by VelvetVoice: This question and others like it really are irritating. Just as bad as atheists saying 'Christians believe out of fear'.
Atheists don't have faith, I don't like it but that is the way it is. There is no physical proof and there never will be until Judgement Day.
You are letting atheists off the hook too easily, allowing them to get to you, and making a false statement. It simply is not true that there will be no physical proof for everyone forever until Judgment Day. First, you erroneously imply that one has to be dead to experience that day, but my objection of this viewpoint is not the issue here. Second, it is written in the Bible by Jeremiah that everyone shall come to know God. So while you wait for evidence with baited (by atheists and theists, too) breath, know that it is also written in the Bible by Daniel that knowledge shall increase to cause running to and fro. Knowledge has increased without the running, but when the knowledge of God increases, expect the first runners to be police officers tending to the long lines at Barnes & Noble.
02-09-07, 11:53 AM babthrower VV waits with baited breath? Baited with what? Cheese? Big Grin
02-09-07, 12:26 PM juanruiz
quote: VV waits with baited breath? Baited with what?
Anchovies.
02-10-07, 12:41 PM frankvan
quote: So while you wait for evidence with baited (by atheists and theists, too) breath, know that it is also written in the Bible by Daniel that knowledge shall increase to cause running to and fro. Knowledge has increased without the running, but when the knowledge of God increases, expect the first runners to be police officers tending to the long lines at Barnes & Noble.
Huh?? Does George Bush write your stuff? Confused
02-10-07, 01:06 PM babthrower Especially the running to and fro part. I've seen it many times. First, they get the knowledge. Then, before you know it, running! Running to and fro! AAAAAARRRRRRRRGH!!! Eek
02-10-07, 03:30 PM frankvan Barnes & Noble must be in cahoots with the cops, dontcha think?
02-10-07, 03:41 PM juanruiz If not the cops, they're in cahoots with a lot of universities.
02-10-07, 05:28 PM newnickname I think I must have read something wrong. I tried running to and fro for about half and hour, but it didn't make me feel any smarter.
Why all this insistance on proving things? I'm sure many atheists (like scientists) accept that there can't be absolute proof of anything, and can live their lives reasonably and sensibly with that knowledge.
That any particular deity, out of the billions proposed by various sects and societies over time, doesn't actually exist is as reasonable an opinion as the assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow. Knowing that there's a philosophical doubt about both those propositions does not make one an "agnostic".
Actually isn't it the inadequates and bullies who insist that they have absolute certainty who cause half the trouble in the world?
Back to my running. Does it make a difference if you go fro and to?
02-10-07, 06:12 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: I think I must have read something wrong. I tried running to and fro for about half and hour, but it didn't make me feel any smarter.
Back to my running. Does it make a difference if you go fro and to?
Yup. Catholics run to and fro. Anglicans run fro and to. Quakers don't run because you can't do that without making a noise Wink.
Anyhow the answer is all in the Book written (and revised and retranslated ) by many men thousands of years ago who presented no proof of anything but kept insisting that every word in it was given to them by God thereby proving that God exists.
02-10-07, 08:10 PM babthrower Are atheists illogical? If Barnes and Noble and the cops are in Cahoots (that's somewhere in Nebraska, isn't it?) then who the heck is minding the store? No wonder there's all this running to and fro. It must be some sort of Madness of Crowds phenomenon, like the Dance of Death that afflicted people in the Middle Ages. And now NNN has caught it! We must all stop reading books and watching PBS and Knowledge Network and BBC World, and we must do it right now! If it's not too late! Oh, no! Have to run...
02-10-07, 08:49 PM dance girl Would it be ok if I carried on listening to DNTO and Cross Country Checkup on the CBC babs?
What harm can listening to a few Canadian shows possibly do...oh and I like Tapestry too.
02-10-07, 09:27 PM babthrower puff...puff...pufff... yeah, sure, but forget about Avi Lewis, he's a definite no-no ... oh no gotta go...
02-11-07, 12:15 AM dance girl I will try babs..but look at the site..it's so interesting, and all those subversive books...
02-11-07, 04:26 AM babthrower (Puffffff...) Oh, no! You've actually been to ... THE SITE? In that case, you may have caused your knowledge to (pant! pant!)increase! Unplug everything, and aluminum-foil your entire head and hope that (gasp! choke!)the little hadrons that crawl down the light waves from dangerous knowledge-emitting sites {huge intake of breath} and enter your brain through your pupils and stimulate running-to-and-fro behavior have not yet had a chance to implant into your cortex.(...pant! pant!!!)
Gotta go fro!
02-11-07, 05:03 PM babthrower Should we be concerned? Neither Dance Girl nor NNN has posted since their dangerous flirtation with knowledge as outlined above. Mine wore off after a while -- obviously I had not enough knowledge to pose a real threat. I'm especially concerned about DanceGirl. I told her about the foil but forgot to tell her to remove it after a few hours if she was urge-free. Eek
02-11-07, 06:45 PM dance girl No it's ok babs...I did everything you said..the foil isn't making me look too attractive though. Do I have to wear it outside too?
Actually I was in chat on dp, where we are planning a rebellion ...any chance of a visit from AnnOnymous? We need advice..we are a poorly organised group of individuals.
You too jr, I'm sure you'd have something to contribute and your input is missed!
02-11-07, 08:48 PM juanruiz
quote: You too jr, I'm sure you'd have something to contribute and your input is missed!
I'll show up if babs will. Thing is, she hasn't chatted in eons.
02-11-07, 10:24 PM babthrower That's right, JR. I don't do 'chat'. I only deal with serious subjects in a restrained, dignified manner.
DanceGirl, some people in your position have gone for the Darth Vader look when in public. Not only is it quite easy to make a foil-lined helmet, but it makes it really easy to get a seat if you use public transit.
02-11-07, 11:47 PM dance girl
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: DanceGirl, some people in your position have gone for the Darth Vader look when in public. Not only is it quite easy to make a foil-lined helmet, but it makes it really easy to get a seat if you use public transit.
No, it won't work babs...I can't do the deep American accent. I'm English remember. In fact someone recently told me I sounded just like Mary Poppins (cheek!) .
As for chat, we are leaderless it seems.
02-12-07, 12:30 AM newnickname
quote: I can't do the deep American accent.
'Arguably, [David] Prowse is most famous for playing the physical form of Darth Vader in the original Star Wars trilogy. Although he spoke the dialogue during the production of the films, James Earl Jones overdubbed the character's voice in post-production, a fact which Prowse bears some resentment for towards Star Wars creator George Lucas, since he was never told that his voice was not going to be used. However, Lucas claims he wanted a 'deeper voice' (Lucas has stated that Darth Vader had to have a deep, reverberating voice) that Prowse could not provide and never intended to use Prowse's voice. In the 2004 documentary, Empire of Dreams, actress Carrie Fisher, who played Princess Leia Organa in the original trilogy films, quipped that they nicknamed Prowse "Darth Farmer" because of his un-intimidating West Country accent...
...Within the United Kingdom, Prowse is also well-known as the Green Cross Code Man, as a result of his association with the Green Cross Code road safety campaign for children which ran between 1971 and 1990 and for which he received the MBE in 2000...' wikipedia
"But you, Daniel, keep these words secret, and seal the book until the end times. Many will travel everywhere, and knowledge will grow." (GOD'S WORD®)
"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." KJV
Actually, with the Internet and so on we can increase knowledge while sitting like lumps in our pajamas, eating potato chips. The prophecy couldn't (gasp) be wrong, could it?
02-12-07, 12:57 AM dance girl
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Actually, with the Internet and so on we can increase knowledge while sitting like lumps in our pajamas, eating potato chips. The prophecy couldn't (gasp) be wrong, could it?
Wow..I thought for a moment that you could somehow see me..then I realised I was smoking a cigarette while wearing my pink nighty.
Hmm..I don't think I trust you..aren't you supposed to be running somewhere, instead of peering into the computer?
Babs..we need an intervention here.
02-12-07, 05:52 AM Karrow Confused
02-12-07, 08:19 AM babthrower I wonder how the bible scholars here would handle "travel everywhere" (my personal fave) vs. "to and fro" (Tsaeb's)?
DanceG: Ummm, I think that's already happened. Karrow is about to ... well, let's just say that I hear the whistle blowing. EekBig Grin
02-12-07, 11:36 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
Actually isn't it the inadequates and bullies who insist that they have absolute certainty who cause half the trouble in the world?
I agree with that statement, when applied to both sides. If a given atheist won't agree that he/she is actually and 'agnostic atheist', then he/she is certain there's no God, and therefore must be labeled as one of those inadequates or bullies.
02-12-07, 11:42 AM Xanadu
quote: Originally posted by Kendor: If a given atheist won't agree that he/she is actually and 'agnostic atheist', then he/she is certain there's no God, and therefore must be labeled as one of those inadequates or bullies.
Why should an atheist be automatically labeled inadequate or a bully? I'm sure there are atheists who are one or bothe of these, just as there are agnostics, theists etc etc who are also one or both of these. I cannot see why an atheist is automatically a bully or an inadequate though. Confused
Now that we've got that cleared up, I think I'll go back to sitting on the fence in my wimpy way.
02-12-07, 04:14 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by Xanadu: I cannot see why an atheist is automatically a bully or an inadequate though.
Uh, he said "therefore"! So that's it.
02-12-07, 06:00 PM Kendor Atheist = One who is certain there is no God = illogical
Theist = One who is certain there is a God = illogical
Agnostic = One who realizes that he/she can never be certain whether there is, or is not, a God. = Logical = Sane
Agnostic Theist = one who does not claim certainty to the existence of a God, but still believe in such an existence = Logical, but fearful
Agnostic Atheist = one who does not claim certainty to the non-existence of a God, and does not believe in such an existence = Logical, but hopeless (not demeaning, just 'with no hope')
I haven't come across a label that describes my personal beliefs.
02-12-07, 06:18 PM babthrower Maybe you haven't been able to think of a sufficiently flattering term. Cool
02-12-07, 07:14 PM frankvan Are atheists illogical? I propose a new group of stalwarts: let's call them the nit-picking label-lovers.
02-12-07, 08:44 PM GarColga Smile
02-12-07, 09:26 PM newnickname The problem with those Nit-Picking Label-Lovers is that they're so gullible. We Nit-Picking Label-Afficionados are a little more agnostic, realising, for example, that there is some philosophical doubt about whether or not labels really exist. You can't be sure they exist, because you can't be sure of anything.
And don't get me started on the Nit-Picking Label-Fanatics. They're almost as bad as the Pettifogging Label-Afficionados. *#@&*@^s!
02-13-07, 04:30 AM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: I propose a new group of stalwarts: let's call them the nit-picking label-lovers.
You have me all wrong frank. I am not a stalwart (I can prove it) and I despise labeling. That's why I apply none to myself.
02-13-07, 08:29 AM aminator2002 That's just plain funny.
Being a terrible wimp, I do hope that all realize my first post in this thread was meant in jest... I neither love labels nor hate them, I'm not really sure and I don't think anyone can be. Furthermore people who claim to have an absolute stand on labels really scare me... since I'm a wimp. Wink
02-13-07, 09:08 AM babthrower I neither love nor hate labels, but I absolutely demand truth in advertising. So if someone who is really a theist or an atheist is more than 49% Wimp, then it better be there, in print big enough to read without a magnifying glass, right on the label. Mad
02-13-07, 09:12 AM Sarai I think the world would be a nicer place if everyone were just a wee bit wimpier. Big Grin
02-13-07, 10:46 AM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Sarai: I think the world would be a nicer place if everyone were just a wee bit wimpier. Big Grin
Amen to that. I'll match my wimpiness with anybodies. But, as to labels. We all resort to the use of labels because it saves time and long-winded explanations and apologies. For instance: if the desk person at St. Joseph's hospital asks my religious affiliation, I call myself a protestant, so that the nuns won't sic the priests on me, or otherwise expend unnecessary effort on saving my immortal soul. In some situations I'm "agnostic" because most people who tend to recoil in horror at the word "atheist" find "agnostic" slightly less repugnant. Sarai has given me a new euphemism which almost everyone prefers to the word atheist and that is "Buddhist". As soon as I have an opportunity, or need, to conceal my real religious non-affiliation, I shall be a Buddhist.
I think labels are not completely avoidable, but they lack the flexibility we all take refuge in. I think atheists get a bad rap from theists of every stripe, because they think we must all belong to the same god-denying conspiracy. I can't speak for Babs or Juan, or Gar, but I don't attend meetings, pay dues, or do anything except I just don't find some very popular beliefs BELIEVABLE! Thank you for your time. Wink
02-13-07, 11:08 AM VelvetVoice I don't like labels either, since people automatically put a whole bunch of stereotypes on you. People can define me as crazy, but it is not my religious fanaticism that made me that way. Also, people feel comfortable with labels they carried their whole life, as if identifying with that group. I think it is healthy to at least explore outside of your comfort zone, at least in college (which sort of happens anyway), and as a mature adult. I have more respoect for people who've thought about this, and asked themselves the deeper questions.
02-17-07, 02:04 AM tsaeb I hope we don't see any more questions with the word "illogical" in them.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
