Slashdot Mirror
Magician & Investigator James Randi Talks Directly to You (Video)
Last week James Randi answered your questions. But that was text, and he's a performer ("The Amazing Randi"), so you need to hear the man talk to get his full flavor. He's a good talker, too. So Rob Rozeboom (samzenpus) got on Skype with The Amazing Randi to talk about his exploits, including his debunking of a whole bunch of (alleged) frauds, ranging from Uri Geller to Sylvia Browne. The resulting interview was so long and so strong that we cut it in half. Today you see Part One. Tomorrow you'll see Part Two. (The video's here now; sorry about the delay.)
Content unavailable....what gives?
! CONTENT UNAVAILABLE Unknown content specified.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Is nothing because Slashdot keeps using technology from two decades ago.
DEATH TO FLASH!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
- make me sad :-(
Kind of pointless, since the events that happen in the book are taken for granted as "natural", and so anything which the author writes about would not be seen as anything other than normal to those characters, even though the author still actually wrote it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I wish I got a word in. See, I'm a very scientific person with an actual degree in this "Science" stuff. Yet, I realize that science falls short in explaining that which can't be quantified, measured, or repeated.
As a 15 year old young man, I did live in a house where things moved, occasionally right in front of our eyes. Thankfully, it was only for a one year, and I have never experienced such disturbing events again.
At least four other people (all men) also witnessed these events within our house.
Of course, after leaving, I found out that there was a violent relationship (and death) in the house. It's like some imprint was left on the place and there was a constant hostility towards all men within the house. When you see 3 inch nails flying across a room, more than once, that sends a message.
Though James Randi is very much against supernatural things, I wonder if he is able to admit that there are things that we do not have the disciplines to explain yet?
Part of scientific thinking is that "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer for that which science can not yet measure or identify.
Really. This stuff did happen to me, my father, two friends and a repairman.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
He made it disappear!
You claim the interview is "too long" to post in one go, so you cut in half (it's not even half an hour, but ok). Yet you didn't use these cutting abilities to edit out the bit where Randi had to go turn off his TV in the other room, making us watch at his empty chair for over a minute.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
You can edit it into two parts but refuse to edit out the dead air, really?
Half of the clip features an empty chair. The interview is cut off in mid sentence. Can't imagine why there were even credits! In addition, Randi was obviously trying to make the most of the rather poor questions being asked...
One can, however, ask for proof for particular claims about a God who defies the apparent "natural" order. When claims are made that, e.g., God created the world 6,000 years ago, with all species as immutable types --- proof, please? God sent a hurricane New Orleans to punish the gays --- proof, please? God will cure your cancer if you pray hard enough --- proof, please? While a God who acts through creating the entirety of empirical and intelligible reality is an untestable proposition, many more specific claims (in which the "finger of God" comes out of the sky to nudge an off-track cosmos back onto course) are often made. I actually happen to believe in God; but, willingness to ask what is amenable to "hard proof" (and noting its consistent resulting lack) considerably refines/constrains my picture of how God operates in the world.
That's The Amaz!ng Randi to you.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
No one can sue you for claiming their supernatural ability is a fraud, because unless it's advertised as entertainment, it is fucking fraud! They can never prove otherwise, that's the fucking point. Cowardly editors and submitter?
Anyone else notice that he says " I am now 84, going on 100 as I like to say." and then shortly thereafter says "as I say, I'm 85"
I'm not busting his balls or anything; I like the guy. Just struck me as odd. He either doesn't know how old he is or that video took a long time to make :P
p.s. According the Wikipedia, he's 85.
Old people like warmer climate and take any chance to again be able to do the sins of their youth.
So... I think of a cozy feeling and a bit of excitement.
Mundus Vult Decipi
I dunno... I'd just feel more comfortable going with a guild approved magician.
It's not this guy, is it?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If there were a god, I would imagine that all of what we consider real existence to be little but an imaginary tale to such a being. We "believe" we have existence, but the only actual existence we would actually have is by virtue of being sustained by the ongoing imaginary events that are happening in the mind of god. If god forgot about us, we would wink out of existence and we would never even know it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
At least he is going to be in good company. Traditional Christian heaven looks like a refined type of torture to me, with the aggravation that the company is dull, boring and utterly immoral. What kind of prick can experience bliss knowing that fellow humans -some times their own loved ones- are being tortured for eternity by the same deity they keep fawning to?
>> He's a good talker, too.
OK - you sold me. I'll watch an old man talk to me. (Er...not really.)
Wouldn't a more accurate analogy would be the characters asking one another to prove there is an author??
You can never prove or disprove a definition.
Captcha: artwork
Good point
Actually, I suppose so... since the author might write conditions within the book which could appear to them such that any book they might be a part of may conceivably have written itself.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The problem with your statement is that militant theists don't recognize the existence of any other type of non-believer than atheists. That view is an epic fail.
That view doesn't cover things, and by a very long distance.
I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist though, I just don't care about the existence of God, or not. The reason is simple, as my tag line says, I have no need for that hypothesis. Other approaches to the problems posed by reality require simpler hypotheses, and hypothesis that are testable. God is not admissible as a hypothesis under these conditions.
When somebody is able to pose a problem that I think is reasonable to want an answer for and that answer requires the hypothesis of the existence of God, or alternatively the opposite, the hypothesis that God does not exist then I'll become more interested.
Right now though it's a waste of time. God, existence or not, is not a useful concept.
Indeed, can you prove that there isn't a giraffe sitting behind that keyboard? While we all haven't seen any giraffe that can type coherent English, can you prove that one doesn't exist?
I'm an atheist myself, but I don't set out to convince anybody else to be one, so I don't bother to try to prove my viewpoint to anybody. If a conservative tells me to observe the sabbath, I'll tell them the same thing I'll tell a liberal who tells me that it is immoral to own firearms. But at the same time, I'm not going to tell them that they should agree with me, rather just ask that they respect my position.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
You are confused, young man.
All they do is, when someone makes a claim, say, "Let's prove it."
They create tests that merely rule out known forms of trickery (this is why you need skilled magicians like Randi) and, Lo! The phenomenon suddenly disappears.
Repeat that to yourself: When known forms of trickery are watched for, the phenomenon never manifests.
Make of that what you will...if you are intellectually honest.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Actually, if Christian heaven is close to how they really describe it, none of them are ever going to see it first hand, anyway.
And, that, is completely indistinguishable from an atheistic opinion. Atheism just means not actively supporting bad hypotheses on religious grounds.
In the philosophical sense, maybe not. But you can definitely prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which is funny, because it means under any objective burden of legal proof, God clearly doesn't exist, and it only useful as a concept to philosophers.
There simply is no data... either way.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There are three gaps in the transcript; here's what belongs in two of them. I'm still having trouble making sense of the other.
~6:45 "they should be able to cheat people and lie to them and fake their results"
~11:26 "giving them things like, be sure to take their lecithin; I can sense from the vibrations"
God, existence or not, is not a useful concept.
To you, maybe. But to the leaders of various political, religious, and terrorist groups it's a very useful concept. The history of Judeo-Christian organized religion has always been centered on control, and it has worked remarkably well for that purpose.
The problem with your statement is that militant theists don't recognize the existence of any other type of non-believer than atheists. That view is an epic fail.
Hell, most militant theists don't recognize the existence of other types of theists! For example, I submit Jihadist Muslims and the WBC - according to both groups, if you're not among their ranks, you're a filthy non-believer.
I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist though,
If the first part of that statement is true, then yes, you are an atheist by definition. However, the rest of that paragraph makes me think what you meant to say is something to the effect of, "I do not necessarily believe in a God, but I will not acknowledge nor deny the existence of such," which would technically make you an "agnostic atheist." At least, according to Wikipedia; personally, I hate labels.
Right now though it's a waste of time. God, existence or not, is not a useful concept.
Fuckin' A, man. We, as a species, have more important shit to do than waste our lives arguing about an unknowable.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It could be an interesting literary challenge, I think, for an author to try to write a fictional conversation which somehow logically proved the existence of the author to the fictional characters.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
/.../, atheism is also a faith-based belief structure.
In exactly the same way that avoiding playing football is a sport.
Thus you should at least strive to make sure such a god stays really pissed at you (just below the immediate smiting threshold, but plenty to not slip out of mind).
So, the editor believes that James Randi's interview was long and strong, does that necessarily imply that the editor or Mr. Randi are 'down to get the friction on'? It just seems to logically follow, or so I've been told.
/sarcasm)
(This put Sir Mix-a-lot in my head, thank you ever so much.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist though, I just don't care about the existence of God, or not.
This position is either agnostic atheism or apatheism, depending on whether you find the existence of God to be at all worthy of any of your attention. It's basically either "I don't know, so I'll act like there isn't a God", or "I don't know and I really don't care".
That's a different position from strong atheism, which specifically declares that there is no God.
I am officially gone from
What difference would that possibly make? While I have no desire to slip out of existence, if that were to actually happen, I would not ever know it anyways, so relative to my own well-being, it is a moot point.
It therefore makes more sense to make sure such a god likes you... so that at least you have the possibility of incurring favor.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Gods will "is" the natural order. Having a perfect understanding of God's will would mean having a perfect scientific understanding of the universe. They're different words for the same thing.
Nobody has a perfect understanding of either, but many people will lie to you about these things if there's money to be made. Thing is, once you realize these things are synonymous, you can stop wasting time arguing with someone about God being real and argue instead that they are mistaken in their understanding of God.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I think of it more as methodological naturalism.
But has that purpose been useful to me? I think not.
So the radio star would be avenged, albeit posthumously?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Atheism just means not actively supporting bad hypotheses on religious grounds.
What?
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god. That's all. There's nothing extra. No add-ons. There's no "because", further ramifications, or requirements.
The parent is undoubtedly an atheist. He seems to dislike the term, however, likely due to the association with the vile cesspool that is the online atheist community.
Required reading for internet skeptics
> If the first part of that statement is true, then yes, you are an atheist by definition.
NO. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
That is not the same as saying you do not believe in God.
In your analogy, how would either character come to the know that there is an author?
How could they tell what they know is real? Even if the author imbued special knowledge, how can you know it's true? ", this is speaking. I am all knowing and created this book. I am a Giraffe with wings attached at my knees." vs. "The thought themselves to be in a book written by a giraffe with wings on it's knees." In the end the character would have the same "knowledge" but it's completely unprovable, both are false, and neither are useful in any way.
Your analogy also completely removes any free action from the characters. If the author stops writing the characters do nothing.
This is what I find endlessly hilarious about certain theists - they'll prattle on and on about how their faith in a magical sky daddy is just as good and reasonable as the assumptions an atheist accepts in order to function properly in the real world.
Also applies to certain idiots.
One of my favorite Mark Twain quotes is "I want to go to heaven for the climate, and hell for the company."
I don't know how exactly I've got that, but it is the gist...
No... under any objective burden of legal proof, even under the notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt", there is no assessment made about whether or not god exists one way or the other, any more than under a notion of legal proof, you could somehow come to any conclusion about whether or not the events of today either would or would not ever actually happen.
There simply is no data... either way.
Yes there is. There is a tremendous amount of data supporting the fact that gods (where properly defined so as to be a coherent concept) are made up by humans. There is especially more evidence when a god is spoken of in an incoherent manner that it is simply imagination. There is no evidence of the existence of these god-concepts -- either coherent or incoherent -- outside of imagination.
This isn't a 50-50 kinda deal and it's a mistake to think it is.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Well, it's an analogy... of course it falls apart at some point. But if the characters do nothing because the writer stops writing, the characters don't know about it either.
My point being that the very concept of being just a book, there is no possible way that any kind of rational proof can be established within it that things exist outside of it, even though that may very well be true because the author is outside of the book, but all of reality for the characters only contains what is in the book.
God, if such a being exists... I think would have simply imagined creation, in a not entirely dissimilar way to how an author writes a story... the biggest difference that I would see is that as characters in this imaginary tale of his, living organisms with what we would classify as a mind (or at least one of sufficient complexity) would have somehow been imbued with an independent free will so that they can supposedly be accountable for their own choices. And even if this notion were entirely true, the information density in the entirety of creation, from the big bang until the universe burns out could still not contain sufficient data to prove, or even establish any degree of likelihood, of the existence of such a being.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yeah, that's what I meant by the first sentence, but it may not have been worded that clearly... anyway, it was nothing against your comment except to point out ignoring it entirely doesn't mean it can't affect you greatly (and probably not in a good way).
Can you please define "supernatural" for us?
Can Randi?
Deckard Cain
What evidence was there a thousand years ago that we would have this conversation today? There was certainly none, at all... should the fact that there was absolutely no evidence that we were to have this conversation somehow be taken as even circumstantial evidence that, within the framework of what could have ever been possibly known at the turn of the 11th century, that this conversation today most probably would not have occurred? Nope. You can't even assign a probability to it at all. let alone measure which outcome is even slightly more probable.
Now multiply that thousand years by 14 million.
That's what trying to argue about which is the more probable situation when it comes to the existence of God is like. Zero basis... either way.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
My post above was intended in jest (nonetheless, see Luke 11:5-11 for components of an "annoy the heck out of God to get what you want" theology in one religious tradition). One's "possibility of incurring favor" are very "model dependent," to say the least --- since currying favor with one potential set of gods is likely to be damning idolatry to another. Coming from the Christian tradition (by way of Lutheranism), I personally hold to a perspective in which favor is offered (undeservedly) to us by God, rather than incurred through out own actions; YMMV.
But in the end you have a useless exercise. None of the characters can know the truth of their beliefs about said entity. Claims that there is an author are as unimportant as claims there is not.
As they completely lack any free actions, there's nothing that can be done with the knowledge. In your analogy, there is no interaction between the author and characters that can be bidirectional, it's all at the authors will. The claims that there is an important connection between the characters and the author (or humans and god) are not addressed in the analogy, and so it doesn't apply to said claims.
My objection is that it fails to even address why someone claiming there is a god should be taken seriously.
They can't test if the author exists or not, although that is only relevant to a very small portion of the theist versus atheist argument these days. However, if trying to test whether there is a very specific kind of author, there are situations that would run into contradictions. Suppose testing for say an author that makes character's thoughts & actions follow logically, and additionally the author has a thing that does not allow them to say anything bad about cheese ever in their books. A sufficiently determined, observant, and skeptical character is going to run into a problem eventually, either noting that there is always a contrived situation preventing cheese being portrayed in a bad light, or an out of character change will happen to make the character disregard their previous questions and thoughts. Or in a different case, a character that goes through some well contained, significant adventure/story without having sex at any point could argue that they are at least not in a story written by one of those authors that needs a sex scene with the main character in every book.
Well, okay, if you want to ignore the totality of what I said to slice out that chunk, please be my guest. However, that's where the evidence leads: god-concepts that people believe are real and have some existence are made up things.
Also -- a thousand years from now, ten thousand years from now -- there will not suddenly spring forth evidence that the Abrahimic god of the Christian bible is real and has some sort of empirical existence as claimed by believers. Science (the methodology as well as the body of knowledge) has already shown that god to be made up.
Please trot out any logical, coherent and meaningful definition of a god and we'll test it now; today. Not a thousand years from now.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
They could not prove the author's existence if the author didn't want them to. If he did want them to, he could just write that they suddenly became fully aware that they are in fact characters in a book. The moment you allow omnipotent beings on the scene all bets are off and nothing makes sense anymore except as that omnipotent being wills it to - exactly like the situation with a book and its author. Omnipotent beings is like the universe dividing by zero.
An omnipotent being is indistinguishable from a really powerful alien - it's really just a special kind of really powerful alien. You could certainly have good reasons to believe that a really powerful alien exists. Without being somehow omniscient you probably couldn't be sure that there really was nothing that the supposedly omnipotent being couldn't do, but you could know that he could do a whole lot. Are you really suggesting that it is outside the powers of an omnipotent god to give other creatures good evidence that he exists? An author could not have his characters know that he exists or at least have good reason to suspect? The real reason you can't prove that something is a "god" is that "god" is such a nebulous concept that it isn't clear what it is supposed to mean in the first place and just because of that it isn't clear what would be needed to be proven.
Suggestion for future videos: Make sure the speaker is not sitting in front of a white background.
The assumption you are making, however, is that anything which we can't establish any proof for is real somehow constitutes a greater likelihood that it is made up.
I'm not suggesting that a thousand years from now or even a trillion years from now there will suddenly be some sort of objective evidence to support the notion that god exists, I'm suggesting that the mere fact that the universe doesn't contain enough information to establish with any certainty either way about the notion doesn't prove the non-existence of god unless you constrain the notion of god to be something that is actually *PART* of the universe in the first place... if you want to simply state that it should somehow be considered an axiom fact that anything which is not part of the comprehensible universe does not actually exist, then that's fine, but then the credibility of the likelihood that a god who transcends such concepts doesn't exist is limited by the credibility of that assumption.
When you don't assume anything, in the end you just have to say "I don't know, nor can I begin to know... at least from where I am right now", and that's okay. Trying to convince yourself that you have even a smidgen of a chance greater likelihood of being right that there isn't a god just because we haven't been able to ascertain objective evidence of one I'm afraid... is only self delusion. The universe doesn't care if you are right or wrong about it, and the sooner you get over spending time worrying about it, thinking that anybody might ever have somehow a better chance of being right about something that may very well be so transcendent that we can't begin to fathom it anyways by trying to apply our own feeble little brains to the task, or believing that somehow the concepts that we call logic can actually adequately encapsulate the entirety of existence, the more time you'll have to actually enjoy this brief instant in time that we call life.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If said really powerful alien at one point imagined the universe to exist, and everything actually did exist, but only as a direct result of that alien imagining it... sure.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This is a great guest, especially relevant to the view of the greater Slashdot community. But this is a horrible interview. Please listen to NPR to understand how real interviews are done. A real interviewer knows how draw out the "goods" from their guest. For example, this guy has a pretty even-keeled vocal delivery of information, so a questions that help connect to his passions might be a good idea. "Why are you writing that book", why did you feel debunking was important to do", "what is the most tragic con you know about", etc. I don't wish to be cruel, but this guy asking the questions does not sound like he has a natural gift for talking. Can I do the rest of the interview?
Part of what I enjoy is debate and reading other people's thoughts and insights.
I don't particularly care one way or the other; my point is that there is nothing credible that points to some sort of existence that is meaningful. There is an almost limitless quantity of meaningless talk, thoughts, concepts with which one may enjoy oneself. I also don't particularly care if people think these fantasies have any basis in reality except when they make testable claims. I, among many, like to test those claims and they are always coming up short.
If these god-concepts have some kind of existence that humans cannot comprehend then why are they able to speak coherently about them? If these god-concepts are not part of the comprehensible universe, then for all intents and purposes, they do not exist and again, it's incoherent for believers to make truth-claims about them.
We also know that the source of these god-concepts stem from the emergent properties of the brain.
Anyway, even if later today there is found evidence beyond question that something like a god does exist, it's cool by me. I'll most likely treat it like I treat every other discovery like the Higgs boson. It's cool, it's evidenced, it's there, but I'm still not gonna worship it.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Another good one (para):'They say I'm going to hell. I'm not sure, but I'm glad I'm going someplace different from where they're going.'
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Kind of pointless, since the events that happen in the book are taken for granted as "natural", and so anything which the author writes about would not be seen as anything other than normal to those characters, even though the author still actually wrote it.
The old "everything is natural" canard. That's not what I mean when I ask to see something supernatural. What I mean is that I want to see something that has intelligence behind it but shouldn't. Make the stars line up to say "God wuz here" and I'll be a believer, regardless of whether or not that's still strictly "natural".
I think you will be surprised by what Christians really think heaven is going to be like: http://thecity.org/series/heavenseries
Atheism is the negation of theism. The denial of the existence of God.
Here is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the topic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
And Dr William Craig, a well known theistic philosopher.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism
Atheism is NOT the same thing as not having belief in God.
I think he is an agnostic. But you probably believe there are no agnostics, and... well really I don't care.
I don't expect you to take on the global warming hoax.
I'm an atheist myself, but I don't set out to convince anybody else to be one, so I don't bother to try to prove my viewpoint to anybody.
That's because you're not an asshole.
There are evangelical atheists who are on a crusade to spread their Godless worldview to others and they tend to use confrontation and ridicule as their means, when those don't work they resort to shunning.
I'm a believer but it's not my place to convince you of something that there is no proof for. I walk a fine line with my children, Their mother is a Christian and if I HAD to put a label on my beliefs, I'm a Pagan so I don't preach to them and when they ask me religious questions I preface my answers with "I believe...". What it comes down to is what we choose to believe, be it because of experience, circumstance or conscious decision. Demanding proof of something that can not be proved is like demanding that someone prove to you that their favorite color is the best possible color.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god.
In theory, perhaps but in practice, that is often not the case. Some atheists are in essence atheists and not atheists.
The parent is undoubtedly an atheist. He seems to dislike the term, however, likely due to the association with the vile cesspool that is the online atheist community.
He or She strikes me more as an agnostic.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
People who believe in these god concepts tend to assume that there is some real effect upon us, albeit not necessarily one that we can communicate about, since the most significant effects supposedly happen to a person some time after death, and where these effects can somehow distinguish between people who die and do not come back to life and those who do.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I sure wish that Slashdot was more conducive to deeper issues and discussions because I think we could at least have good conversation!
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
This sounds like Ignosticism.
You are an idiot, then.
Atheists aren't the ones making an assertion about anything. Religious people are the ones making baseless assertions and it is therefore upon them to back those assertions up. People need to stop trying to defend their inability to justify their irrational beliefs by finding some absurd tenuous string by which they can attach "I do not believe in something" to "believing in something". Not believing in a religion is a natural default. Not believing in astrology is a natural default. Not believing in magic is a natural default. Stating a belief in something (magic, astrology, mind-reading, religion, etc) is an assertion. It is an active claim.
Anyone claiming that "atheism" is a belief or a religion or anything of the sort fails to comprehend how language works and what the 'a' prefix to the word means. An atheist is no more religious or "faith" based or "belief based" than a non-astronomer is an astronomer (or than a non-astronomer is making a statement against astronomy).
However, it's understandable. When people operate without any logic and have nothing to back their statements up (and they insist on foisting them on everyone else, simultaneously), one of their only remaining tactics is to try and tether their boat to other things and change the definition of these other things.
Sorry, but you are confusing two things.
In a world where the religious have seeped into every aspect of politics, life, government, and law and where people who do not believe in a religion (or, sometimes, just believe in a different one) are persecuted and mistreated (death threats, problems at work if someone discovers you don't believe, problems if your significant other's family finds out you don't believe, etc) and religious beliefs and assertions are imposed upon everyone else in the form of laws and policies (hello, gay marriage rights like any other "all men are created equal" fairness?). . . . do you really think that the side that is guilty of nothing more than simply not believing should just shut the fuck up and eat it?
Your comment sounds an awfully lot like when people used to refer to "uppity negroes" or talk about how women asserting their rights and marching and boycotting and organizing were so "militant" and "aggressive". It's the same kind of shit we hear all the time when someone calls a group on their intolerance and their response is "oh ho ho ho! so the one complaining about intolerance is intolerance of intolerance! How ironic durp durp durp!".
There really are not a lot of people out there trying to convince you that there is no god. Guess what? Nobody really cares. However, there are a lot of angry and "militant" people out there who are pissed off that they have to walk on egg-shells and worry that someone might discover that they're an atheist, because it will be held against them in potential relationships, friendships, employment, community standing, and so forth. I know that religious people think those people should just "shut up and not care", but that's bullshit. When there are people going around wishing that people would be killed for simply not having a believe that they have, I'm pretty god damn glad there are some guys out there who make it their living to be "militant" about combating that.
Guess what? I don't believe in anything. I don't care if you do or not. I only care that you not impose your shit on me. I don't mean "don't show up at my door and give me a Watch Tower magazine", because I don't mind that and am kind tot hose people. I mean, don't make me worry about how I'm going to be treated in various aspects of life simply because I don't share some weird subscription to various mythologies and don't make the rest of the world who doesn't agree with you submit to your narrow views, despite their protection as an equal by our constitution. Everyone should be allowed to believe (or not believe) in whatever the fuck they like. They also should not have to be subjected to the results of other people's beliefs.
Captcha: artwork
Nobody gives a fuck.
By definition, you are an atheist if you do not believe in a god or a religion. I used to be an agnostic, because "I can't prove anything and don't care", but then I realized an "agnostic" is just what you call yourself when you want other people to be less judgmental of you. I've had people wish me dead, simply because they found out I don't believe. I've been harangued by family. I've been judged by parents of girlfriends. This is why I keep that shit close to the vest as much as possible in real life. But I'm not going to call myself an agnostic, anymore, because that's just sort of catering to people who are so angry and obsessed with what I do or do not think.
I spend about 0.0000000001% of my life giving the slightest fuck about religion or lack thereof, except when it is foisted upon me. The fact that I'm not out there telling other people "you should stop believing in crazy shit!" doesn't mean I'm not an atheist. You know, that's the whole "a" part of the word. I'm also not an astronomer or a race-car driver, but I guess they don't have a word for not being one of those things.
I do, however, find it kind of pathetic how religious people often act like you should keep being poked with the stick of religion and then act like you're somehow "militant" when you finally get tired of that stick and turn around and knock the person holding it across the head. As if not believing in their religion means you should not care about anything ever involving it, even when it directly impacts you. It's about as transparent and disingenuous as you can get.
If standing up for things like, you know, not being discriminated based on lack of religion or standing up for the right of people to be married since "all men are created equal" under our form of government and the only reason we disallow it is on the grounds of "the bible durp durp!" makes one "militant", then I guess I'm militant. I would just suggest that I'm a human being that doesn't believe in a thing and also doesn't stand by and let that thing disrupt other people's lives.
I'm sorry, but this is bullshit nitpicking.
If you give me a bag full of 0s, my statement that the bag has no 1s is the same as my statement that there are no 1s in the bag. They both sit at the default position of "that bag does not contain 1s". All you have to do to change that view is to pull a 1 out of that bag.
And there is the distinction, after all. People who "believe there isn't a deity" and "do not believe there is a deity" (same fucking thing) would change their mind if data proved otherwise. Because it is not a belief. It is not an assertion. It is the default position which remains when you are not making an assertion that there is a thing. It is religion that makes an assertion (and that does not give a rip about data and evidence and would never change that assertion under any circumstances). Trying to equate the two -- as so many here seem to be doing -- is pretty disingenuous.
Drawing a distinction between the two is rather disingenuous. Agnostics and atheists both lack belief in religion, because the assertions that religion makes can not be proven, by their nature. Neither beliefs in a thing that is asserted and can not be proven. To suggest there is a meaningful difference (other than one is more socially acceptable and therefore adopted by those more concerned with not being judged or shunned) is to suggest that there is any validity to unprovable assertions, simply because they can't be disproved. "You can't prove that we are not stacked on the back of a massive cosmic turtle" does not give the idea of a massive cosmic turtle any sort of validity. My not believing in massive cosmic turtle is not any active assertion. It is simply not believing in something that someone else is asserting and can't prove.
I mean, by this logic used by a number of people, we must accept all possibilities -- no matter how fucking absurd -- as equally possible. Negating any logic, experience, knowledge, or common sense. And if you don't accept them all as possible because you can't disprove them, then you are not simply someone who "does not subscribe to those beliefs", but are somehow actively asserting the opposite of those things . . . instead of simply remaining in the default position you were at in the beginning of it all -- of not subscribing to any random unprovable assertions.
Of course, the whole conversation ends up being kind of dumb, because who gives a fuck?
Your right to believe whatever you like doesn't include a stipulation that no one can hold that against you.
Coworkers are just as likely to avoid the asshole atheist as they are to avoid the asshole Jesus freak.
Your constitutional protections under the first amendment do not protect you from the disdain of a significant other's family. You are just as free to say "fuck them" because you think that their beliefs are silly.
Most believers will still befriend an atheist, so long as he or she isn't an asshole about it.
When a believer mentions to you that he or she can't make plans with you because of a religious obligation, do you say the equivalent of "ok, talk to you later" or do you go off on a rant about how useless, backwards and primitive their religious rituals are? If you do the latter, you're an asshole and people tend to avoid interactions with assholes.
You are grateful for the "militant" atheists, I like to call them evangelicals because I find them to be just as annoying as any other in your face type. Is it because they're doing what you deep down want to do but that part of you that wants to be liked by others prevents you from doing?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
There is an enormous difference between the two. Agnostics do not deny the possibility that there is more to existence than the physical world that we perceive. They refuse to believe without proof. I find that to be very intellectually honest.
Atheists have what could be called negative faith. They believe that there is no God. An affirmative belief in some idea with no evidence is faith.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Sorry, it is. I reject your definition, and substitute the Latin.
a: without
theism: belief in God
atheism: without the belief in God
Also, WIkipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
There's also the "everything is artificial" variant, where "God" turns out to be someone with system privileges to the universe simulator, and the noobs go their merry way believing that woah, God really does exist. Meanwhile:
superuser2: "So, does God really exist?"
superuser1: "Not a clue. Last I checked, the agents we built were at 10^96 iterations and it's still simulations all the way up."
Atheists lack a belied in god(s). It is not the same as a denial.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Pretty much my point... although it does have me wondering, whether or not it's possible, within the confines of a book, for an author to write up any sort of rational proof that they existed that could reasonably prove the existence of the author to a hypothetically free-willed character who the author intended to be initially skeptical to the notion, and could only be convinced of the existence of such an author by the judicious application of flawless reasoning? Or is the limitation of having to only communicate with such a character strictly through fictional writing necessarily so limiting that no proof that the character could ever hope to comprehend would actually be effective?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Go back a chapter in the book. How did they ever get to the point where the topic comes up? What happened within their perception and experience, which caused them to suspect they might be characters? All the interesting and relevant stuff happens before any of them even begin to attempt a proof; you can even leave the proof dialog out of the story altogether.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Not if, just like agnostics, they don't deny the possibility. We all know it's possible that elves exist. But lacking any evidence of elves, most of us "aelvists" and believe elves do not exist. The affirmative belief-without-evidence in the nonexistence of elves, isn't faith; it's whitelisting, the strategy of rejecting unfounded ideas by default.
If there's faith here (maybe this is what you're talking about?), it's this: reality can be observed.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
You're basing your definition of the term "atheist" on a contrived scheme, using a set of tokens that can be mentally counted and otherwise manipulated for purposes of illustration; in other words, you're employing a test engineered to operate in support of your personal definition of the term. This is precisely what agnostics tend to avoid, on suspicion that they do not have all available information in hand, and atheists tend to embrace. The latter tendency is quite a bit more vain in nature, and operates against the spirit of scientific investigation merely by presumption that you can fit the expanse of the topic into a bag to begin with. That sort of narrow thinking works well enough for trivialities like rote engineering estimates, but doesn't typically result in ideas like general relativity, for example.
This is the groundwork you need to understand to be able to grasp the fact that in support of your personal worldview, you are manufacturing a default position when no such construct exists. The expressions "believe there isn't a deity" (active denial) and "do not believe there is a deity" (absence of belief) are not equivalent in any sense, whether examined against logical or literary standards. To haul scientific principles into the mix again, your problem is primarily one of scope. Good day.
Write failed: Broken pipe
Replying to my own post for purposes of clarification; please substitute "agnostic" for "atheist" in the first sentence. The balance of the post stands.
Write failed: Broken pipe
One can, however, ask for proof for particular claims about a God who defies the apparent "natural" order.
And that is perfectly reasonable too. If God is real and a person, then it should be simple and straightforward to determine that it is so. I mean, it is not as if he is supposed to be on the run or hiding.
Christians and other theists are trying to hide the lack of reality in their beliefs behind the "faith" label; but faith doesn't mean believing in something despite the lack of evidence. It is something that involves trust - that you are willing to base your actions on your faith.
Let me tell how that worked out for me: Many years ago, I desperately wanted God to be real, so I tried to believe in Christianity. I tried the mainline churches, but they were too woolly-mouthed and vague; I tried the charismatics, but I realised that they were simply going "Lalalala I can't hear you" with their fingers in the ears. In the end I did what I should have done from the beginning: I decided that since God was supposed to be Truth, I would follow the truth no matter where that took me. That, I think, was real faith: truth is not always easy or simple, but we have tools that anybody can use to determine whether something is true or not: logic, common sense etc.
I have never, since that time, come across anything that would stand up as evidence that God is real or that miracles are real. I am still very open to the possibility that I may be wrong, but: evidence, please, give me some evidence. And have faith.
That's what I find endlessly hilarious about militant atheists - they'll prattle on and on about how religious types are "idiots" for basing their entire belief structure on pure faith, completely ignoring the fact that, since it's impossible to prove a negative, atheism is also a faith-based belief structure.
No, atheism says "show me some evidence that God exists." It's called the scientific method. You come up with theories that match with available evidence and which can be tested against future events or be disproved by them. I am baffled by how apparently intelligent nerds can simply wave away the framework of science when it comes to religion.
Atheists don't believe in the existence of God for the same reason they don't believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus or a teapot orbiting the Earth. If you want to believe in those things, I can't stop you, but you need something concrete to persuade me you're not just wrong.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Indeed, can you prove that there isn't a giraffe sitting behind that keyboard? While we all haven't seen any giraffe that can type coherent English, can you prove that one doesn't exist?
Well OK then, can you prove that time/FTL travel is and always will be impossible?
As with God, all you would have to do is provide ONE example of time travel (or God existing) for it to be proved. But all you can actually do is rely on logic, the evidence of your own senses, and the accumulated weight of mathematical and scientific evidence about how the universe works.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'm suggesting that the mere fact that the universe doesn't contain enough information to establish with any certainty either way about the notion doesn't prove the non-existence of god
No, your argument was that it was 50/50 either way and therefore just as logical to believe in god as not.
In fact, what you have is an overwhelming mass of negative evidence that there is no god, and the only positive evidence that there is god is in the minds of believers. Logically you can't prove a negative, but logically you can't be 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. That doesn't mean that you organise your life as though it will end tonight.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
When a believer mentions to you that he or she can't make plans with you because of a religious obligation, do you say the equivalent of "ok, talk to you later" or do you go off on a rant about how useless, backwards and primitive their religious rituals are? If you do the latter, you're an asshole and people tend to avoid interactions with assholes.
You seem to be mixing up Truth with Social Skills. They are orthogonal.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist though
Yes, you are.
An agnostic could say "I am unable to decide whether God exists or not" but it is illogical to say "I do not believe in God even though He exists".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Your friend Dr Craig chooses to define an atheist as someone who is not a theist, as though they are two equally plausible descriptions of the universe which it is simply a matter of taste to decide between. This is simply untrue, unless you want to make the extraordinary claim that people should choose to believe whatever they like in the face of any amount of evidence to the contrary (which is pretty much a definition of insanity).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Of course, the whole conversation ends up being kind of dumb, because who gives a fuck?
As an atheist, I give a fuck for the very simple reason that theists do not simply sit in their rooms reading their holy books and being nice and cool.
They influence laws and wars in places like the USA, Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. Their representatives appear on TV criticising couples who want to have sex without producing babies, women who want to control their own bodies, people who want to have relationships outside marriage, gay people and so on. Here in the UK, Bishops get a place in the House of Lords and I am restricted from doing certain things on a Sunday.
Their authority comes from the fact that they are taken seriously as somehow representing the word of god, so it is a pretty big deal if their whole house of cards is built on sand (as it were).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
> If the first part of that statement is true, then yes, you are an atheist by definition.
NO. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
That is not the same as saying you do not believe in God.
I assume from all the quibbling over this that a lot of people are living somewhere where it is dangerous to identify yourself as an atheist, so presumably the US or Iran.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It's just word-play and false equivalence.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The expressions "believe there isn't a deity" (active denial) and "do not believe there is a deity" (absence of belief) are not equivalent in any sense
But if I say "I believe there isn't a Tooth Fairy" and you say "I do not believe there is a Tooth Fairy" aren't we both going to hurt Her feelings (if She exists)?
Sorry, I think that your thinking and language is theistically-slanted, and you are making a distinction where there is none. Saying "I believe there isn't an X" does not have to mean that I am opposed to the very idea of X.
If I say "I believe there isn't such a supernatural deity as the Flying Spaghetti Monster in actuality" I mean no more or less than "I do not believe there is such a supernatural deity as the Flying Spaghetti Monster in actuality". It is only religious people who take the word "believe" so seriously, since it is used to describe their faith.
In normal everyday English if I say "I believe Man Utd are going to win the Premiership this year" it's not some almighty pronouncement or declaration of clairvoyance, it's just an opinion based on past and present facts, i.e. they're 15 points ahead with only 8 games left to play. And I certainly don't need to support Man Utd to say it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Labelling someone as "militant" or "fanatical" is one of the standard tactics used by those in power to smear those who aren't.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
All they do is ridicule and attack anything related to paranormal and psychic phenomena, holistic medicine, and conspiracies.
And the problem is...?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Try reading/watching Six Characters In Search of An Author.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
But if I say "I believe there isn't a Tooth Fairy" and you say "I do not believe there is a Tooth Fairy" aren't we both going to hurt Her feelings (if She exists)?
The statements are not equivalent. Per my original post, the first statement is an affirmation of the Tooth Fairy's absence. The second statement is one of mere absence of belief, which is a separate logical construct with a different target. If I say "I believe 1 BTC will never be valued at USD $1000," the message conveyed carries different referential weight than the statement "I do not believe 1 BTC will be valued at USD $1000." The latter statement isn't affirming anything, instead conveying a message of mere present lack of belief; no valuation judgement is made. As for any feelings or lack thereof on the part of any supposed deity, I really couldn't offer an opinion either way.
Sorry, I think that your thinking and language is theistically-slanted
It's really not the topic of discussion here, but perhaps it will help to understand that I am not a religious man.
does not have to mean that I am opposed to the very idea of X
Especially in terms of common literary devices and societal norms, that is absolutely what it means. There is a reason the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" are separate words, and they are not to be taken as synonyms in all but the most inexact of contexts. Therefore, to attempt to subvert this reality for the sake of imposition of your particular personal interpretation of these words in general conversation is to hazard being misunderstood.
Write failed: Broken pipe
You seem to be mixing up Truth with Social Skills. They are orthogonal.
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that sometimes, when people don't like you, it's not for the reason that you think it is.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Agnostics lack a belief in gods(s). Atheists disbelieve in god(s).
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
All the god-botherers are having to come out in support of ghosties and stuff in this thread.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If they don't deny the possibility, then they're agnostics.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Yep. It's like accepting the validity of the christian terms "pagan" or "heathen" to refer to nonchristians as being inferior. Simply the use of the term implies the use of a point of view in which christianity is "the correct religion" and the superiority of the validity of one religion over others. In a similar vein, the use of "Dutch" and "English" by the "Pennsylvania Dutch" Amish to refer to those within their own group (the "Dutch" / deutsch speakers) and to those outside of their own group (the "English" being non-Dutch, whether they speak english or not). I've seen Spaniards being called "English" by Pennsylvia Dutch. /sarcasm
.
Words take on a cultural meaning and nuancing that may be very different from the literal meanings of those words. That's also a reason why new religions often use the name or wording of an established religion in their names: e.g. "Christian Science" or the LDS/Mormons calling themselves "Christians". sarcasm begins: Why any right-minded Christian knows that neither Mormons or Christian Scientists are christian at all. Why even them durned Catholics aren't christians!
If you're using a binary system they are; if you don't believe there is, then all that's left is to believe that there isn't.
But if you're using a ternary one they aren't. You can believe there is, believe there isn't, or take the third option - agnosticism.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The assumption you are making, however, is that anything which we can't establish any proof for is real somehow constitutes a greater likelihood that it is made up.
I'd argue that discussion about the likelihood of it being made up is the wrong direction to take. I think the important question is, in the complete absence of evidence, what is the sensible course of action? And that answer is obviously to act as if the undetectable doesn't exist.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
I've always thought, assuming the existence of heaven and hell, that both would be either bad or good based on the people in them. So ignoring holy rollers and those who spout fire and brimstone, heaven would be good because those there would be good/enjoyable to be around. Hell would be full of pompous windbags, douchy bosses, etc.
Labelling someone as "militant" or "fanatical" is one of the standard tactics used by those in power to smear those who aren't.
It's also a standard tactic of normal people who aren't in power, to label groups who are, for lack of a better term, batshit crazy.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Ever heard the term 'non sequitur?'
Because that's what you've posited here.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
"Atheist" is no more a requirement to march in lock step than "Christian" is.
Put another way - not all Christians have identical belief structures. Similarly, not all atheists have identical belief structures. Thus, while many atheists likely posit their beliefs in the manner you've proscribed, still others insist on shoving their philosophy down throats, just like the fundamentalists those same individuals continually lambast. Hence, my use of the clarifying term, "militant atheists."
There is a difference, which I'm certain you understand and recognize.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You are an idiot, then.
Great way to open the dialog, dickface.
Atheists aren't the ones making an assertion about anything.
Atheism is non-dogmatic. Thus, to claim a generalization about atheism is wildly inaccurate, and belies a fundamental ignorance of the topic at hand.
Obviously your reading comprehension skills aren't the best, so I'll try and boil my point down to terms you can understand: An atheist who claims, "you're an idiot for believing in a divine creator" is no different than a fundamental Christian/Muslim/whathaveyou that says, "you're an idiot for not believing in a divine creator," and for the exact same reason.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You guys do realize, that by downvoting my post, you're only serving to prove me right, right?
That guy's questioning our faith! Quick, destroy his karma!
Irony - it cracks me up!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Is the analogy really that hard to understand, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
If I say, 'I do not have a faith, in your or any other God', you seem to reply 'Well, that's a faith too.' How, precisely, is that different from my saying 'I do not participate in any sports' and your replying, 'Well, not participating is your sport.'?
Unless you really don't know the difference between 'belief' and 'faith', you're merely juggling semantics, using words like the great philological authority Humpty Dumpty, to make them mean what you'd like them to. That can be fun, but is basically a form of mental masturbation: something you really shouldn't indulge in publically.
I spend about 0.0000000001% of my life giving the slightest fuck about religion or lack thereof
That's about 25 ms, you're a fast typer!
I reject your bizzaro Latin and substitute an authoritative ENGLISH source to further back up the philosophic citations I made previously:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
And from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm
By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God.
Sorry folks but I've supplied MULTIPLE sources for my defintion, both from modern language and multiple philisophical and theistic sources. The idea that atheism is the same thing as a lack of belief in God is preposterous.
We cannot detect the future, but can still be highly unwise to act as if the future does not exist, because it will eventually affect us.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Only for semantically absurd definitions of "disbelieve". You mistake "There is absolutely no reasonable cause to believe" as "actively believe the opposite", and it reflects an incredibly small minded perception of human thought. Put mathematically, the set of things that are not true is much larger than the set of things that are true, and it's more reasonable, barring evidence, to place ideas in the former rather than the latter.
An atheist who claims, "you're an idiot for believing in a divine creator" is no different than a fundamental Christian/Muslim/whathaveyou that says, "you're an idiot for not believing in a divine creator," and for the exact same reason.
I sort of disagree, but I don't think that theists are necessarily idiots (depends on the theist). An atheist might think a theist is an idiot because he/she believes it is unreasonable to believe in a god when there is no evidence that one exists, not because he/she is certain that a god does not exist. That could be seen as quite a huge difference from theists who call others idiots for not believing in a god when there is no evidence that one exists.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You cannot and will not make a factual argument supporting this statement.
I think that frequently these arguments between atheists and agnostics theists get confusing because there are so many different types of atheists, agnostics, and theists, and these words mean different things to different people. The confusion can lead to hostility where one side thinks they are under attack, when really there is just a lack of communication.
From my point of view, which others are free to disagree with, an atheist is someone who believes that god can not possibly exist and that anyone who believes in god is definitely wrong. a-theist being short for anti-theist, not a is in "without belief". If somebody simply says "I don't know if god exists or not because I need proof", then he is an agnostic. If atheism and agnosticism are the same thing, then why do we have two different words?
I don't think it is useful to get hung up on the semantics. Some people are sure that god does not exist, some people are sure that god does exist. Some people are in between. It is more interesting to discuss what we actually believe, rather than on what label we should use.
My personal opinion is that religions are supposed to be built on faith, not on proof and evidence. Proof is for math, evidence is for science. An intelligent, rational person may choose to believe in something that makes them happy and supports them in their life. If that person is truly intelligent and rational, he or she will not choose to believe in something that conflicts with reality or can be disproven by experiment. This also means that it probably can't be proven by science either. My ideal religion would do nothing other than give me nice pleasing thoughts to think about, and has no bearing on history or science. For example, it seems probable that we will never really know what happens after we die. This might make a good area to have a belief, if living with the unknown is too unbearable. I personally have not found a religion that meets my stringent criteria, nor do I know how to get my mind how to believe something just because I wish I could, so I currently consider myself an agnostic but am willing to change if I discover a suitable belief system.
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix
Personification metaphors have been used by human beings from a multitude of cultures over thousands of years of known history as a way to convey "knowledge". This "knowledge" comes from human experiences of the natural world. I build knowledge systems for a living, I know one when I see one. One man says "You must cover your head or God will strike you dead", another says "You must cover your head or you will die of heatstroke", but the important thing is that people cover their heads and not die off.
You might think the difference is important, but really, the universe is irreducible, you are not sufficiently complex to contain it, there is no "junk data", and all of them are incomplete and thus wrong when you get right down to it. Whats actually important is the effect a perspective has on the people. Perspectives are tools, and using the wrong tool at the wrong time will kill you.
I'm sorry you can't understand this stuff, Coward.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The future is a function of time, which is very well documented and observed. Thinking about the future requires some assumptions about time continuing as it has been, but since time is a key component of our universe I don't think that's unreasonable. To call an aspect of time undetectable in the same way a divine being is undetectable is an analogy I don't accept.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
If atheism and agnosticism are the same thing, then why do we have two different words?
I don't think they're the same thing, but the way I see it is that if you claim to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, you're saying that you're not completely sure whether a god exists or not.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
That... or my original contention is correct, and fundamental atheists are just as unreasonable and childish as fundamental theists.
Let's face it, nobody likes having their blind faith questioned. The current -1 mod on my original post serves as evidence enough.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Atheism is the negation of theism. The denial of the existence of God.
That would be antitheism.
You would not say that "amoral" is the opposite of "moral" (hint: "immoral" is), would you?
Unfortunately, the word "atheism" has been co-opted by so many that nowadays it basically means what you want it to mean. It's worse than the hacker/cracker mess and the debate whether a republic is a democracy (there is such a thing as "indirect democracy").
Seriously, start with the Wikipedia article and follow the citations. If you still want to argue that point *after* you've read it, do explain why exactly you reject the other definitions. Otherwise, you're just being dogmatic (I dare say "religious") about it.
Cherry picking two sources that support your definition out of a myriad of differing ones and ignoring the rest is disingenuous.
That aside, If you want to avoid misunderstanding, you can use "non-religious" instead, although even that can be problematic.
Personally, I don't generally advertise my lack of belief, but if the subject comes up, I try to avoid labels.
If somebody asks me if I'm an atheist, I ask them to first define "atheist". Then, I would say something like "according to your definition of the term, yes/no".
If they ask me if I believe in god, I usually ask "which one?" Then, if they pick the usual Judo-Christian one, I ask "which version".
If they say "any god", I ask them to define "god".
Then, if the conversation reaches this point, I ask them to define the belief part in the "believe in god" context.
Finally, I would say that, according to the definitions they provided, I do not.
However, at that point, the dialog is no longer an argument but rather a philosophical discussion that often gets quite interesting.
For example, there was one person who felt quite pleased with himself for "winning the argument" by getting me to admit (readily) that I do not reject the possibility that the universe was created and set in motion by a non-personal supernatural entity (although I do not accept it either). That is, until I asked him the same question...
Oxford: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You will do better if you don't accept that people who call themselves "atheists" may have a different definition than yours in mind.
Even if yours was the only true one, it still boils down to bickering over labels instead of understanding the world-views.
Agnostics and atheists both lack belief in religion
Not so.
Agnostics lack knowledge, they may still choose to believe.
Atheists lack belief, whether they feel their approach is based on knowledge or the absence of it is orthogonal.
You know, the one common thing that I observed in all religious people that I have met, regardless of their chosen religion, is their fervent insistence that they are right. They could not accept the possibility that their beliefs were not the absolute truth.
So I guess you're right, you're not an atheist after all.
I know that all Christians I've ever seen either: 1. Don't truly believe in heaven 2. Think it's a horrible place 3. believe no one will be allowed in or some other similar thing. How do I know? They always, always cry at funerals. That's like loosing you shit because your loved one is going to have to spend a couple years overseas or something. If they had any faith at all, they'd just kind of chuck 'em in the ground, say "see ya soon" and go cook some dinner.
Or read "If On a Winter's Night, A Traveler..." by Italo Calvino. It's interesting and written in second-person narrative. In other words, the book is about you, the reader. Rather cool.
1 + 1 = 3
If you mod me down, that will somehow prove that I'm right!
Seriously, I'm a gay guy into older men and I'd love a night with Randi.
I've had people wish me dead, simply because they found out I don't believe. I've been harangued by family. I've been judged by parents of girlfriends. ...
I spend about 0.0000000001% of my life giving the slightest fuck about religion or lack thereof
religious people often act like you should keep being poked with the stick of religion and then act like you're somehow "militant" when you finally get tired of that stick and turn around and knock the person holding it across the head
You're so full of shit and so self-righteous you're totally blind to what a complete asshat you are.
Very interesting indeed. Sorry I have no mod points.
I'll bite...and I'm not a strong Christian, but I also believe in God. I think most of your questions stem from the ignorance and fear that many people of high faith and low intelligence bring to the table. I find that people that follow that logic and call themselves Christians are little more than bigots. My understanding of Jesus was that his disdain was only for those that sought to take advantage of or for those who were intolerant of others (enter current US-centric Christian conservatism).
God created the world 6000 years ago (well really about 5800): Many theological scholars, both Jewish and Christian, have rectified this statement by referring to Psalm 90:4 and 2Peter 3:8. Paraphrasing, to god a day is like a thousand years and a day a thousand years. Accepting that science is proven observation, that the timeline is not literal, and taking into account the cooling of the universe and relativistic effect on gravity and the perception of time, theological scholars actually put the biblical age of the universe at 15.3 billion years. I believe our (science's) best guess is currently 13.8 billion years, pretty damn close if you ask me.
Immutable types: God created man in his image. Well, God really created everything in his image. If you reduce every living thing (or even non-living collection) down to its basic form, you come up with a shape not dissimilar to that of an atom...whether it is a galaxy, a star-system, or a living-cell. Everything seems to organize itself in that basic shape. And from different organizations of those cells comes the various species. Nowhere in the bible, that I am aware of, says that God made these immutable. From what I know of the bible, the stories outline dynamic people who go through cycles of change and rebirth...evolution if you will...it seems to me that all of the universe, and all its creatures, would follow this formula. I think it is hard for people to understand how anything could think so far ahead as to account for the dynamic processes which may have caused one trait or another to be naturally selected in an animal or plant, but isn't this exactly what a God could do?
God punishes Gays: Really? Just closed minded people would think this. People often point to Leviticus..."to lay with another man is an abomination." Unfortunately, the entire book was specifically a guide for those who wished to serve as God's priests. To me, the book is not meant to be a doctrine for common man. And then there is translation accuracy...does the usage of the word "man" refer to the sex of a person, or the common grouping of both men and women (which it is commonly used as). In which case, for a priest to lay with any man or woman could be considered a violation of the power bestowed upon the priest...which is an abomination. I'm not saying that a priest must remain celibate, just that power corrupts and a degree of caution should be taken by the priest.
God will cure your cancer: Personally, I find praying for yourself self-serving. It is my belief that God setup the universe in such a way as to favor those people that live in the service of others...karma. It is my personal experience that being a "good" person has provided for me. I often do not seem to get what I want, but I always seem to get what I need. That being said, life is only a ride, one that you were allowed to endure on borrowed time...when the ride is over, its time to get off. God already knows you want to stay...hell, its a pretty cool fucking ride...instead pray for the ones that must remain on the ride.
"There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
I'm not quite sure what in my post you are "biting" on. I thought from the context that it was clear that the "claims" made were things that I disagree with (in the form claimed), but that (unfortunately) some vocal ignoramuses might proclaim. My point was that, from the scientific side, such claims become amenable to scientific inquiry (unlike sufficiently vague "God made the universe to operate according to the observed physical laws of the universe" claims, which are untestable), and fail under such scrutiny. I agree with you that from the religious side such claims can also be addressed on theological/scriptural grounds (as you have done, though I might quibble on some minor points), and re-cast in forms that are not scientifically invalidated (what I meant by my own picture of God being "refined/constrained," to work within a framework that need not be antagonistic to scientific observations).
I understood your context, I was biting at the hook to invalidate these common claims by using the same vehicle from which they are often derived, rather than asking for the scientific evidence to support their claim. Asking for proof only seems to stoke the embers of discontent, and invariably the claimant proclaims the proof-seeker as godless. In their eyes, one may believe in creationism or evolution and never the two shall meet. Educating people with such claims to theories and ideas that align biblical metaphor with observable science allows them to self-invalidate the claims through alternative logical conclusions.
"There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
I wish this would get posted and modded up first, and stop all the "well here's *MY* definition of what atheism is" back-and-forth that comes up every time. I would say the bickering over definition might be helpful if people learned from it, but I see the same names posting the same things over and over. I also wish people who didn't self-identify as part of a group would stop thinking they've got useful definitions of that group, whether it's atheist, feminist, or alien life form.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
I think that frequently these arguments between atheists and agnostics theists get confusing because there are so many different types of atheists, agnostics, and theists, and these words mean different things to different people. ... If somebody simply says "I don't know if god exists or not because I need proof", then he is an agnostic.
There seems to be a roughly even split between the "agnostics are sensible and atheists are militant" camp and the "agnostics are wishy-washy and atheists are sensible" camp. I see a lot of pointless semantic bickering among people who almost entirely agree with each other on all the actual key points.
My ideal religion would do nothing other than give me nice pleasing thoughts to think about, and has no bearing on history or science. For example, it seems probable that we will never really know what happens after we die. This might make a good area to have a belief, if living with the unknown is too unbearable. I personally have not found a religion that meets my stringent criteria, nor do I know how to get my mind how to believe something just because I wish I could, so I currently consider myself an agnostic but am willing to change if I discover a suitable belief system.
If you can make sure it also stays out of politics, let me know when you find it because I'll be the next to sign up. And if you haven't seen it, you might enjoy the movie "The Invention of Lying," which is a goofy romantic comedy but is wrapped around the concept of a character trying to deal with a similar situation.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
I understand it perfectly. But it's wrong. You could not and did not make a factual argument supporting your statement.