Atheism vs Theism round 9000

[Denarius]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Eh, probably theists. More and better things to talk about regarding religion. This might surprise some people here, but I prefer learning about what people's lives and beliefs are through discussion than debating over talking points.* which is usually what my conversations with other atheists turns into.

*At least when it comes to one on one conversations in person. I'm more of a listener than a talker, I usually only talk when I have something to say.

[Rae'ya]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Is this one of those discussions that's over by the time I get to it?

'Cos I have things to say in response to some stuff here... but the last three pages are heading into the realms of 'we're not seriously discussing this anymore' and I don't wanna be the drag that gets all serious again...

[LunarHarvest]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Just dealing with facts there is no 'right answer'. Simply because a divinity is not provable, and because the lack of the existence of a deity cannot be disproved. While, in my opinion, science and theology are two sides of the same coin, this doesn't mean that one can essentially work on the other. The fact is that the question of deity and spirituality will never be disclosed by fact or theory. It is not something which can be properly addressed by science.

It is improper to display either a theistic or atheistic world-view as the 'default view' of humanity because both are beliefs which cannot be addressed or proven by science.

[Medusa]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Just dealing with facts there is no 'right answer'. Simply because a divinity is not provable, and because the lack of the existence of a deity cannot be disproved. While, in my opinion, science and theology are two sides of the same coin, this doesn't mean that one can essentially work on the other. The fact is that the question of deity and spirituality will never be disclosed by fact or theory. It is not something which can be properly addressed by science.

It is improper to display either a theistic or atheistic world-view as the 'default view' of humanity because both are beliefs which cannot be addressed or proven by science.

I disagree. As an atheist I believe in the scientific explanations of the earth and how it works thus far. Science isn't exactly opinion. If theologists want us to believe...we need something other than 'I just feel it to be true. And this is what I get from this book of my religion'. And it just so happens that my belief is just too awesome to actually be proven. Atheists aren't the bad guys because we want (gasp) actual proof. I mean who would be like yeah give me your money. Yeah I'm a bank. Nah. I have no proof of it. Just give me your money. I'm too awesome to be proven. Oh wait. I have this paper. It says I'm a bank. This paper I made. Its my proof.

Everyone (theists and non) want proof of something before they deal with it. I want proof my money is going to be safe. I want proof this food isn't poison. I want proof you are really a doctor. I want proof this bra will make my boobs look bigger. We want proof on a daily basis of the most mundane things. Is it so implausible we would want actual proof of the ONE most important thing in this universe, its creator?

Theists like to think I'm bashing them. I'm not. I'm simply telling you I make a decision to believe something based on the evidence. I had no idea how gravity worked as a kid till I read up on it and saw the evidence. I had no idea what it's like on other planets till I saw the evidence of it. I learned these things from people who studied such things. Put scrutiny to it and came up with a plausible explanation. I won't say I deny it. I'm not a smarty pants know it all. I simply say prove it. And when it's not proven in how many years are we going on...I get skeptical and move on to the things that are proven.

[LunarHarvest]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

I respectfully must state that, while I can certainly see the value in seeking the maximum amount of proof about the world around us, not everything can be proven because not everything is observable.

I take a car, since that is much more humane than a cat :3, and place it in a box which cannot be opened or seen into when under evaluation, or prior to it. The box does not make any observable indication of there being a car in that box. Under scientific analysis, there is no concrete proof that a car is in said box, yet there is a car in the box.

[volcaniclastic]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

I respectfully must state that, while I can certainly see the value in seeking the maximum amount of proof about the world around us, not everything can be proven because not everything is observable.

I take a car, since that is much more humane than a cat :3, and place it in a box which cannot be opened or seen into when under evaluation, or prior to it. The box does not make any observable indication of there being a car in that box. Under scientific analysis, there is no concrete proof that a car is in said box, yet there is a car in the box.

That's a poor example of Schrodinger's Cat. Schrodinger's principle was more concerned with the state of the cat. Is the cat alive? Or is the cat dead? While the cat is in the box, there is no way of knowing. All we know, is that, indeed, there is a cat in that box. Your example is moot point, because there is a car in a box. Under scientific analysis, if we tried to lift the box, we would know there is a car in the box. But is the car running? Is the car a truck, or a van? Does the car take 10w30 oil in its engine, or does it run on diesel? These are questions we would have no answers for, as long as the car was in the box.

Edit: A better example of what you're trying to show, would be the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states (very loosely) that you cannot know every physical variable about a particle at any given time. ie: If you know the momentum of a butterfly, you cannot know it's exact location, and if you know the exact location of the butterfly, you cannot know its momentum (aka, it's speed).

We can think we know what goes on in the supernatural, but we can never know all the variables.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

When one can not provide evidence that a thing is exists, one can certainly spin whatever wild tales about that thing that one wants. And, if another wants to believe those tales of fancy, that person can certainly do so.

If those people then want to take steps to influence/control/determine the course of MY life based on their unbelievable claims to truth, then I feel entirely justified in laughing at them.

Until that time - meh - live & let live.

[thalassa]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

I respectfully must state that, while I can certainly see the value in seeking the maximum amount of proof about the world around us, not everything can be proven because not everything is observable.

I take a car, since that is much more humane than a cat :3, and place it in a box which cannot be opened or seen into when under evaluation, or prior to it. The box does not make any observable indication of there being a car in that box. Under scientific analysis, there is no concrete proof that a car is in said box, yet there is a car in the box.

The biggest problem with the cat-in-the-box is that Schrodinger was making a statement about the ridiculousness of quantum mechanics's idea that the cat can be both alive and dead...an idea that the current state of quantum mechanics supports. It really has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The problem however, with your assertion--that there is no observation of what is in the box--is that it is just wrong. Scientific analysis, given sufficient technology, can absolutely tell you what is in the box--we can "see" inside of things...its how fish finders and stud finders work, MRI's, CT and PET scans...there are all sorts of ways to "see" what is inside something you can't see. TBH, a dog could tell you there was a car in the box, were it trained to scent to a car. Humans have crappy perceptive capabilities, that's why we have technology...and dogs.

I disagree. As an atheist I believe in the scientific explanations of the earth and how it works thus far. Science isn't exactly opinion. If theologists want us to believe...we need something other than 'I just feel it to be true. And this is what I get from this book of my religion'. And it just so happens that my belief is just too awesome to actually be proven. Atheists aren't the bad guys because we want (gasp) actual proof. I mean who would be like yeah give me your money. Yeah I'm a bank. Nah. I have no proof of it. Just give me your money. I'm too awesome to be proven. Oh wait. I have this paper. It says I'm a bank. This paper I made. Its my proof.

I don't believe in scientific explanations of the earth and how it works. Belief implies faith--a lack of observable (and goodness knows I hate this word) "truth". I know how much of the world works. I also know that I don't know how much of the world works, because its not my area of study...but I know that there are better qualified people out there that could tell me the present limits of their scientific inquiry. In some cases, I may even understand how the world works.

Everyone (theists and non) want proof of something before they deal with it. I want proof my money is going to be safe. I want proof this food isn't poison. I want proof you are really a doctor. I want proof this bra will make my boobs look bigger. We want proof on a daily basis of the most mundane things. Is it so implausible we would want actual proof of the ONE most important thing in this universe, its creator?

I only want proof in math class. Seriously. Science does not offer proof. It has never offered proof. Unless we are playing fast and loose with the English language. There is not proof of gravity, in evolution, in atomic theory. The thing is this... Science isn't what is proven. Science is a process of inquiry. There is no final answer. The details change all the time. And, its a process of inquiry with limits. The mistake that both theists and atheists make all the time is in treating scientific information as if it is the end result of inquiry. TBH, there are an awful lot of atheists that are seemingly guilty of treating science as if it were a (very specific type of) god (infallible, omniscient, etc)...

Theists like to think I'm bashing them. I'm not. I'm simply telling you I make a decision to believe something based on the evidence. I had no idea how gravity worked as a kid till I read up on it and saw the evidence. I had no idea what it's like on other planets till I saw the evidence of it. I learned these things from people who studied such things. Put scrutiny to it and came up with a plausible explanation. I won't say I deny it. I'm not a smarty pants know it all. I simply say prove it. And when it's not proven in how many years are we going on...I get skeptical and move on to the things that are proven.

Eh, I don't think you are bashing theists...I think many of them have a thin skin. But I think plenty of atheists do too. And I think both of them misuse science in what (to me) essentially looks like a poorly executed pissing contest. The question of "does god exist" is dependent on one thing, and one thing alone...one that neither theists or atheists have an answer to, and which makes both of them right and both of them wrong at the same time (its like Schrodinger's Cat).

What is god?

[Medusa]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

I see we are still going strong here. i was sure the drunkies in this thread would have shut it down by now.

Look. I can see why people make the decisions to believe in something after feeling something. I'm not trivializing that at all. I know the powerful pull of feeling.

But then there's me. I have bi polar. I can feel like Wonder Woman and be up for days doing everything on my checklist. I can also feel like wanting to ram my car into the truck in front of me...because I just had a feeling.

Both of the above are not examples. They are actual experiences I have had. Many many times. I have a different understanding of what feelings and emotions can do to a person. Maybe when you live in these bi polar shoes you would see that. Feelings are a chemical. A chemical in the brain and nothing more. There is no supernatural evidence of it. It can make you high. It can alleviate your pain. It can cripple you and paralyze you in fear.

But. You do not live in my shoes. And I don't live in yours. So stop with the if you could only see things as I see them you would understand bullshit mentality. We are all different forms of chemical compositions floating around in this flesh. None of us are going to 'feel' the same thing.

I personally have to logically (as best I can in this illogical mind of mine) scrutinize everything I 'feel'. I have to use evidence found by others of this world to form my opinions on things. I can't do it because it just feels like there is something out there. When in fact I know I'm feeling that out of fear and need.

If I am a person who cannot judge my surroundings by feelings....I think using scientific basic evidence is my best option.

If you were in my shoes, you'd know the power emotions have over reality. How they can twist your vision of things.Just ask those Catholic devotees with their stigmata. See how emotions can turn a body to lie against itself.
No thanks.

Now those are the extremes. Most theists have a good balance of understanding logic and feelings and find a way to get through their life. But when the feeling needs to be fed by the world around you..and you get scared..you start to attack those who don't feel like you. I don't need to world to believe as I do to still believe it. It's ok if people want to believe in things I think are made up. Just don't push that on me or my world. Don't try to dictate and re write how the world works just to calm your fear.

Edit because Thal posted after I hit reply..

You asked that the important question is what is god.
That's not important to me. I don't care. I don't even ask. I stopped asking when I realized that would not affect who or what I am to me. I don't need to track down that question. Ever. atheists who do that are twats. They want to argue it so that they can prove they are right for everyone. They need to prove what god is or isn't. That's not really an atheist if you ask me. That's a scared person not knowing what's going on and feels they have no control over their world.

Then again you must remember I'm also a Satanist. And how I go about my non belief is a bit different then most atheist.

I'm a special dark snowflake. Covered in pink glitter and kitty kat fur.

[anunitu]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Oh,look it is an image of buggs Bunny right there in the moldy bread...(falls on knees and starts to wail) I is saved,saved I tells ya.....damn knees hurt like hell now....tosses moldy bread out in the trash..

[thalassa]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Oh, so relevant to this debate (also, one more reason why I am in all technicality theologically agnostic),

[anunitu]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Scuse me while I kiss the sky.....

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Oh, so relevant to this debate (also, one more reason why I am in all technicality theologically agnostic),

About right.

In the strange world of Corbin's mind, existence/nonexistance of deities is a wrongly phrased question, so any answer to it is meaningless - but I stopped trying to explain because explaining is hopeless to people who insist on phrasing the question in those terms.

I currently call myself an atheist because it is easier than attempting to actually say my thoughts on the subject, I got tired of being called crazy, and it allows me to say certain things in certain ways that I could not say otherwise. It's nice to finally discover that I'm not alone (I never actually thought I was, everything I've ever thought has been thought by others many times before, but sometimes it feels that way).

Oops - cat's outta the bag now.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Oops - cat's outta the bag now.

Is it alive or dead?

[Medusa]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Zombie cat!
Screw science.