Atheism vs Theism round 9000

[thalassa]

Re: Human Sacrifice

I think I got suckered in to being up a wee bit longer by unicorns pooping candy.

The only reason I respond after your bed time is that I do not want you to be the only one embarrassed in the morning, for I, too, am juiced enough to get all philosophical and all.

Why don't we be honest? We don't know. Admitting we don't know is where we should begin thinking.

Admitting that we don't know is the philosophy of "Solipsism."

"Existentialism" begins where Solipsism ends. It asks "since we don't know, what then?" and answers with "we're on our own to make our decisions as best we can, and fully responsible for everything we do, because, admitting we don't know, we can't honestly blame anything else.

Everything else you hear or read about Existentialism is elaboration.

Yup, I'm down with this.

[thalassa]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

I can sorta go along with that. Except for the stuff that's already been proven. I won't be agnostic on that. Earth age. Stuff like that. I'ma side with the scientists on this one. They've probably read more than one book. Just a hunch.


Unicorns poop candy!

Oh, I forgot about the second half of that statement... Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position in the absence of evidence.


That's a Thalassa original...its my version of Huxley's long quote of "something something not a creed! A principle! blah blah blah... Follow reason! Don't pretend shit is true when its impossible to demonstrate it (or not) in the first place! something something..." that I said in the other thread.

Here's the whole thing...well, really not the whole thing, the whole thing is sort of long and boring...here's the important part:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

I've always had a crush on his mutton chops.


Mutton chops are the Unicorn Poop!

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Human Sacrifice

The only reason I respond after your bed time is that I do not want you to be the only one embarrassed in the morning, for I, too, am juiced enough to get all philosophical and all.

Why don't we be honest? We don't know. Admitting we don't know is where we should begin thinking.

Admitting that we don't know is the philosophy of "Solipsism."

"Existentialism" begins where Solipsism ends. It asks "since we don't know, what then?" and answers with "we're on our own to make our decisions as best we can, and fully responsible for everything we do, because, admitting we don't know, we can't honestly blame anything else.

Everything else you hear or read about Existentialism is elaboration.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Human Sacrifice

I only read Plato while I'm sauced...and you supposedly remember things best when you are in the same state in which you learned them.

Philosophy makes more sense when one has been drinking.


But anyhow... Huxley says something like "Agnosticism is not a creed it is a method--something something, apply a single principle. Blah blah blah, in the positive, follow your reason, period. Negatively--do not pretend that things that cannot be demonstrated or demonstrable are true. Blah, blah, blah." Not an exact quote I think. But you get the idea.

The intellectually honest position on pretty much everything (until there is evidence) is agnosticism.



And when it comes to god, it all depends on what god is. Which comes to Aristotle's essential vs accidental traits or qualities or whatever.

I'll probably be embarrassed by this in the morning.

Anyhow. Aristotle says that somethings are essential--in humans he says that reason is essential, but (for example) a pug nose is accidental. Problem with this is that if you change enough accidental traits, they impact the essential...but according to Aristotle, it wouldn't then be essential. While I don't agree with Aristotle, I think it drives a good point in this discussion on things that don't have definitions. What are the essential traits of god? How do we know we are all talking about the same thing to say whether it exists or not. We can't. So, how can you look for evidence of something you can't define anyhow? But you also can't say that something undefinable definitely doesn't exist. Because what is existence, reality, truth anyway?

Also, science is a very anti-Aristotlean idea. To Aristotle et al, knowledge is a finality, an absolute...but IRL, knowledge is never finished (its wabi-sabi!!) there is no proof in science (except in maths). I think that's paraphrasing Popper.



I'm going to bed now.



ETA...just realized I was a bad girl. MO, can you split this? I'm having fun... I love debates.

brought here by Thal's request. I may drop other stuff in.

[Medusa]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position.

I'm not sure if unicorns exist or not, but I'ma worship them anyhow for they are filled with candy.

I can sorta go along with that. Except for the stuff that's already been proven. I won't be agnostic on that. Earth age. Stuff like that. I'ma side with the scientists on this one. They've probably read more than one book. Just a hunch.


Unicorns poop candy!

[thalassa]

Re: Atheism vs Theism round 9000

Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position.

I'm not sure if unicorns exist or not, but I'ma worship them anyhow for they are filled with candy.

[thalassa]

Re: Human Sacrifice

Support? Evidence? Data?

The difference between an atheist and a believer isn't that atheists don't believe in deity - that is largely a side effect.

The difference is that a believer can not offer evidence to support his/her claims, but an atheist can, and expects anybody who makes claims of truth to do the same.

i.e.: a believer says whatever he/she wants to be true is true. An atheist wants proof of truth, and can offer proof of truth. Prove to me that you are right, and I can not deny it. Without proof of existence, the default option is non-existence.

In other words, atheism represent reason, while non-atheism represents non-reason.

Example?

I believe in paramecium because I can scoop one up and look at it, and anybody who so chooses can do so as well. I can say that pink unicorns living under my bed do not exist because nobody who believes in them has ever been able to show them to anyone else, except in cartoons.

I only read Plato while I'm sauced...and you supposedly remember things best when you are in the same state in which you learned them.

Philosophy makes more sense when one has been drinking.


But anyhow... Huxley says something like "Agnosticism is not a creed it is a method--something something, apply a single principle. Blah blah blah, in the positive, follow your reason, period. Negatively--do not pretend that things that cannot be demonstrated or demonstrable are true. Blah, blah, blah." Not an exact quote I think. But you get the idea.

The intellectually honest position on pretty much everything (until there is evidence) is agnosticism.



And when it comes to god, it all depends on what god is. Which comes to Aristotle's essential vs accidental traits or qualities or whatever.

I'll probably be embarrassed by this in the morning.

Anyhow. Aristotle says that somethings are essential--in humans he says that reason is essential, but (for example) a pug nose is accidental. Problem with this is that if you change enough accidental traits, they impact the essential...but according to Aristotle, it wouldn't then be essential. While I don't agree with Aristotle, I think it drives a good point in this discussion on things that don't have definitions. What are the essential traits of god? How do we know we are all talking about the same thing to say whether it exists or not. We can't. So, how can you look for evidence of something you can't define anyhow? But you also can't say that something undefinable definitely doesn't exist. Because what is existence, reality, truth anyway?

Also, science is a very anti-Aristotlean idea. To Aristotle et al, knowledge is a finality, an absolute...but IRL, knowledge is never finished (its wabi-sabi!!) there is no proof in science (except in maths). I think that's paraphrasing Popper.



I'm going to bed now.



ETA...just realized I was a bad girl. MO, can you split this? I'm having fun... I love debates.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Human Sacrifice

Ah, my friend, and that is just the thing. Everything is in a creation to one higher power. When Frigg created living creatures and substance, they were in her being, that is to say, her life structure. So, when that bear cannot consciously offer to the gods. It was, however, that of Friggs intention for it to do so, unconsciously, by living and eating, and surviving. By doing those said things, it is absolutely praising the gods, for that bear is apart of a higher circle of things. It was made to do so, just as we were. Just as that pizza sits in front of you, the wheat in which its dough was born, the tomatoes that the sauce was created from, and the cheese in which was transformed by a byproduct of a cow, it was all in a cycle of creation. I feel the part you miss, and what you will continue to miss is that science has its say, and I do not doubt or shun its truths. The part what I am trying to get at you is that there are gods, not in heavens above, nor sitting on a throne amidst desolation and fire, but living deep inside of us all. Inside of that cow that produced the cheese that sits atop your pizza, inside that bear who hunts for its next meal, and inside of you, who sits behind a computer, trying to deny the existence of force within your very soul.
Now, I will not hate you for having your own opinions. That's what makes life fun, for if we were all the same, it would be bland and repetitive. I do not feel as if anything I can say will make you think differently on the world around you. But, what I would like very much, is a slice of your pizza, as we are all human, as the sun chases the moon, we are born into a never ending cycle of self discovery. The worst we can do is to shun others beliefs in a way of ignorance, or in a way that seems hateful, or menacing.

Support? Evidence? Data?

The difference between an atheist and a believer isn't that atheists don't believe in deity - that is largely a side effect.

The difference is that a believer can not offer evidence to support his/her claims, but an atheist can, and expects anybody who makes claims of truth to do the same.

i.e.: a believer says whatever he/she wants to be true is true. An atheist wants proof of truth, and can offer proof of truth. Prove to me that you are right, and I can not deny it. Without proof of existence, the default option is non-existence.

In other words, atheism represent reason, while non-atheism represents non-reason.

Example?

I believe in paramecium because I can scoop one up and look at it, and anybody who so chooses can do so as well. I can say that pink unicorns living under my bed do not exist because nobody who believes in them has ever been able to show them to anyone else, except in cartoons.

[Medusa]

Re: Human Sacrifice

Now I know this thread was pretty much in gest. I mean I really don't think people contemplate child sacrifice anymore (at least I hope not).

I have no problem with theists believing in any creation story they want. In any morals they want. In any dietary conditions they want. But the world was not created soley for them. And they need to learn that they cannot push their opinion of the world they live in (and it's only opinion) on the rest of us. And that's what they do on a daily basis.

See here's the thing. People used religion to explain things they could not understand. And slowly...ever so slowly people started finding out the facts to a lot of those things. And now we know a lot about the things we just placed on god's shoulder. I can't pretend to still live in Disneyland to comfort them. Theists *and not all. In no way am I saying this. And you know exactly the group of people I'm referring to* want to push all the world to their way of thinking.

I as an atheist, am not. I'm just saying let me be. Without your version of the world pushed into my eyes. Because when you push enough..someone's gonna smack the crap out of you.

I just want to live in this world and see with my eyes what I want to see. Not what you want me to not see, read, eat, wear, or believe. That's the difference.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Human Sacrifice

Corbin settles in with two bowls of popcorn. One is atheist, the other a believer.

Can you choose between them?

[thalassa]

Re: Human Sacrifice

How come all the non human atheists of the world just get it?


Technically I try to use the default position of the nature of the earth. I don't kill things because I know when they die, they die. I don't worship gods because none of the other atheist animals of the world do it. The default of all of us outweighs the default of a few humans in a species who believe in deity. Humans are an animal. So far the only animal where part of the species is theistic for whatever reason floats their boat. But that is not the default view of Earth.

So...you grok earth? You can communicate with amobeas? You speak whale?

I don't know what a dog thinks (well, sometimes I do), or an elephant, or an ant hive. As far as I know, science has not yet figured that out. Sure, we can measure what *we* consider cognition, but we don't know what other life forms actually think or say to one another. We are burdened by what we se see (less than 1% of the spectrum) what we hear (probably about the same as what we see), and what we can smell, taste, etc...our senses aren't equipped to interpret the full range of human communication, perception and interaction interaction, muchless millions of other species (and that is just one planet in one solar system in one galaxy).

[MaskedOne]

Re: Human Sacrifice

How come all the non human atheists of the world just get it?


Technically I try to use the default position of the nature of the earth. I don't kill things because I know when they die, they die. I don't worship gods because none of the other atheist animals of the world do it. The default of all of us outweighs the default of a few humans in a species who believe in deity. Humans are an animal. So far the only animal where part of the species is theistic for whatever reason floats their boat. But that is not the default view of Earth.

I'm pretty sure that if I ask my dog

"What's 2+2?"

and

"Is there a god?"

I'm gonna get slobbered on in pretty much the same way in both cases. As 2+2 != slobber, I see no reason to think the answer to "Is there a god?" is slobber. When the default mindset of the animal kingdom is capable of math farore advanced than 2 + 2 = slobber than I will be happy to ask them more complex questions about reality.

[anunitu]

Re: Human Sacrifice

I would guess I fall in the "I do not really care",unless you send an actual angel that can fly and turn water into wine to prove you really can do stuff. I am open if you can do that with no tricks or props. I am also open to science and such as long as the proof makes sense and the data makes for a good argument that it works.

But mainly I really do not think about it ether way unless it becomes a needed thing.

[Medusa]

Re: Human Sacrifice

How come all the non human atheists of the world just get it?


Technically I try to use the default position of the nature of the earth. I don't kill things because I know when they die, they die. I don't worship gods because none of the other atheist animals of the world do it. The default of all of us outweighs the default of a few humans in a species who believe in deity. Humans are an animal. So far the only animal where part of the species is theistic for whatever reason floats their boat. But that is not the default view of Earth.

[thalassa]

They don't involve you. So don't involve us.

But in technicality, this isn't true. That's why there are parents trying to ban books and get disclaimers in biology classes about evolution. Why are atheists trying to push their godless heresy on good Christian children? That's the atheist agenda, after all.

The thing is, you treat atheism as if it were a default position. And you use that idea to inform your actions and decisions and point of view...which are connected to your own morals and how you treat others and how you impact the world. And because of that, you count your opinion as being more logical, more reasoned, and well...better... And that's perfectly reasonable, if you didn't, why would you be an atheist? But that makes you no different than most theists when it comes down to using the respective filters through which you view the world.

The idea that atheism is a default position is no more a fact than a theist considering theism a default position...its an opinion. Its not scientific. There is no proof, because you can't prove a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Atheism is still a belief...

The default position on god isn't that it exists, or that it doesn't exist, but rather that it doesn't matter...its not a scientific idea either way.