Religion.. Again.. (beat that horse dead-er)

[-Spector-]

I've reached a point where I just want one religion to "win". And by win I mean everyone converts to that religion.

If that were to happen, maybe, by some divine force (See: oxymoron) people involved in religious activity would realize that nothing would change. People would still fight, still kill each other, still be retarded, etc.

I vote for Scientology.

[Demosthenes]

I've reached a point where I just want one religion to "win". And by win I mean everyone converts to that religion.

If that were to happen, maybe, by some divine force (See: oxymoron) people involved in religious activity would realize that nothing would change. People would still fight, still kill each other, still be retarded, etc.

I vote for Scientology.

The Allied Atheist Alliance shall prevail! This is the dawning of the sea otter!

[D3V]

Agnosticism is the only relevant assumption based on facts. Nobody knows.

Christians, Jews, Muslims are all wrong. They can prove nothing.
Athiests and multiple theists are all wrong, they can prove nothing.

The only thing that makes rational sense is Agnosticism. If you are an Atheist, you are just as big of a problem as anybody who claim religion.

edit: I guess there's a church of 'Apathetic Agnostic'. They must pay a lot in Google Search engine optimization.

[Wallow]

I've reached a point where I just want one religion to "win". And by win I mean everyone converts to that religion.

If that were to happen, maybe, by some divine force (See: oxymoron) people involved in religious activity would realize that nothing would change. People would still fight, still kill each other, still be retarded, etc.


This is sort of a paradox. People fight for different religions or beliefs. Conforming to one religion would cause people to see why people fight for different religions.

Although this would never come to pass. Humanity thrives in individuality over conformity.

[Demosthenes]

Dev, you're using the common yet insidious definition of atheism and agnosticism. The atheist from your definition is a straw-man that is easily attacked and brought down. In reality the vast majority of people who self-identify as atheists fit your definition of agnostic. Let's first clarify how I, and most of the self-identified atheists, would define the term and then look at why I label the definition you're using as insidious.

The common definition of these terms assumes a religiosity spectrum with atheism and theism diametrically opposed and with agnosticism as a middle ground. Instead, let's define atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism as two binaries that answer completely separate questions. If you are asked whether or not you believed in God you would use the first binary, and if asked whether or not you are certain of God's existence/nonexistence you would use the second binary.

In other words, a theist is someone who believes in God. If you are asked the question, "Do you believe in God," unless you can answer with an affirmation, you are an atheist. If you are certain of your answer to the previous question you are a gnostic. Otherwise, you are an agnostic. So you can either be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. At this point it should be pointed out that those who express gnosticism are almost exclusively theists.

Now that my definition of these terms is clear, let's address why my definition is superior to yours. First of all, it is etymologically correct. If you break the word atheism apart it literally means without theism. Furthermore, if you look at the word gnosticism it means pertaining to knowledge. Theism and gnosticism inherently address fundamentally different things, so your definition seems incorrect to use them as part of the same spectrum. Secondly, my definition is more consistent with the way things actually are since my definition of atheist includes both gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists, whereas your definition of atheist is limited to just gnostic atheists. As I've already pointed out, the gnostic atheist is a beast not really found in nature. Thirdly, my definition provides more information than your definition as your definition offers a triad of options about your knowledge/faith whereas my definition offers a tetrad of options. Finally, my definition does not allow the straw-man fallacy to be used as I show below.

Since the etymology of the terms has been established, it should be clear that the theists have hijacked the word "atheist" for their own purposes. Because, as you correctly identified, the certainty of the nonexistence of God is as illogical as the certainty of his existence, your definition allows the theist to put atheism on a philosophical foundation as questionable as theism itself. The almost nonexistent (gnostic) atheist is easily brought down, and then the claim is made that (both gnostic and agnostic) atheism is philosophically foolish. This is obviously a pernicious abuse of language, and should not be allowed to stand. This is why I have long advocated for the use of my definition, and why I call your definition insidious.

So in light of what we've discussed, it seems to be the gnostics that are the issue according to you, not the atheist or the theist. I point out again, however, that gnosticism is implicitly linked with faith. You can't definitively say anything about the supernatural without a rigid belief in something. All atheists say is that we have no evidence for God. So if gnosticism is the problem, the theists are exponentially worse than the atheists.

But what about the agnostics? Are the agnostic atheists as bad as the agnostic theists? Even here, I would argue that the theists are on epistemically shakier grounds than atheists. I could point out things like burden of proof, or use science in conjunction with Occam's Razor to make this point, however that is a discussion for a different thread.

But ultimately the point to this post is that atheism and theism are different. They make entirely different points using entirely different arguments. Equating the two is specious.

[D3V]

Denying the existence of God is Atheism, right. I get the definition. Having no proof is still the same regardless of how much you want to regurgitate hipster ideologies.

If you don't claim to have the answer, you should "self-identify" as an agnostic.

agnostic
- a person who does not have a deifnite belief about whether God exists or not
-a person who does not believe or is unsure of something



I myself do not believe in God in a biblical sense, but I won't deny that some superior intelligence could have created the universe - I have no knowledge either way. Claiming to have knowledge that you don't is just moronic, you should know this.


"Do you believe in God," unless you can answer with an affirmation, you are an atheist.

This isn't true. You can choose to not have a definite belief whether God exists or not. That is literally called being agnostic. You do not have to identify yourself as a theist or an atheist, because nobody gives two shits about your or my philosophy.

And why are you arguing definitions? You completely avoided my point and context.

Christians, Jews, Muslims are all wrong. They can prove nothing.
Athiests and multiple theists are all wrong, they can prove nothing.

This is the summing it all up. Atheism says all religions are wrong and they are right. Agnostics say nobody knows shit.

[Skurai]

This is the summing it all up. Atheism says all religions are wrong and they are right. Agnostics say nobody knows shit.
It's where Occam's Razor comes in.
Until we can conduct more experiments on the subject of the Big Bang, we can't prove much. And even then, a simple play on words will make literally any religion match up, such as "how long IS Seven Days in God's eyes?" or any religion where a deity ejaculated, and the universe was born.
If I'm correct, Islam scientists, and Buddhism both do their best to match proven science with their own ideas, and any newage group is basically just a rewrite of old ideas with news ideas thrown in.

tl;dr
Agnostic is the way to go, since death is the only proof atm.

[Skurai]

This is sort of a paradox. People fight for different religions or beliefs. Conforming to one religion would cause people to see why people fight for different religions.

Although this would never come to pass. Humanity thrives in individuality over conformity.

Well, I mean, you can find 100 other reasons to fight.
Religion is just a way to get soldiers into the army; after that the army doesn't care why they kill.

9/11 = muslim = hate all muslims = go get oil
The war was over oil, the warriors were religious. Assuming the world was all one religion, or non-religious, we would just be more open about it. "We want oil, let's go fuck a nigger country in the ass"

[!King_Amazon!]

Agnosticism is the only relevant assumption based on facts. Nobody knows.

Christians, Jews, Muslims are all wrong. They can prove nothing.
Athiests and multiple theists are all wrong, they can prove nothing.

The only thing that makes rational sense is Agnosticism. If you are an Atheist, you are just as big of a problem as anybody who claim religion.

edit: I guess there's a church of 'Apathetic Agnostic'. They must pay a lot in Google Search engine optimization.
You talk about atheism and agnosticism as if they are mutually exclusive. They are not. I'm an agnostic atheist. It's an easy mistake to make, because a lot of people use the terms improperly.

[D3V]

I guess I don't understand the difference of saying that "God doesn't exist" and "I have no knowledge if God exists or not"

[!King_Amazon!]

This and similar charts explain it pretty well.

http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/files/2013/08/nb2mO.jpg

Basically, a/gnostic determines whether you claim to have proof/knowledge, while a/theist determines whether you claim a belief. I don't believe God (or a God) exists, but I don't claim to have proof/knowledge of that, therefore agnostic atheist.

The types that argue that God does not exist as if that statement is somehow factual would be considered gnostic atheists. Desmethones seemed to be approximately that in the past IIRC, though I could be recalling incorrectly and I wouldn't be surprised if his views have shifted over time (as mine have.)

[Demosthenes]

You completely avoided my point and context.

I think KA's post explains it pretty well, but let me try a different approach.

When an atheist says, "there is no God," it is not meant to be taken as an epistemologically rigorous statement. This is the main difference in the thought process between an atheist and many theists. When a theist states that, "God exists," he can mean that to be an epistemologically rigorous statement since theists believe that a priori knowledge exists. In other words, they believe knowledge can come by means other than empiricism, such as revelation. The typical atheist is not willing to accept this. This epistemological difference is why atheism is more logical than that particular brand of (gnostic) theism. Your problem isn't with atheism's logic, which makes no assertions of certainty. Your problem is with our PR department, which has not yet corrected this colloquial misconception. That's what I was trying to point out in my previous post.

In your initial post you seemed to be insisting that the atheist's statement is epistemologically rigorous. My response was meant to point out that your statement was incorrect with respect to the vast majority of atheists. It is why I went off on the seemingly tangential discussion about definitions. The equivocation inherent to your definition of atheist, along with the other reasons I listed, is why I insist on using my definition.

Desmethones seemed to be approximately that in the past IIRC

With respect to a logically inconsistent theology I might claim to be an epistemologically rigorous gnostic atheist. With theologies that grossly contradict science, I believe they're incorrect in the same way I believe that I live in the United States. For a more generic theology I have only ever claimed agnostic atheism.

[D3V]

The types that argue that God does not exist as if that statement is somehow factual would be considered gnostic atheists. Desmethones seemed to be approximately that in the past IIRC, though I could be recalling incorrectly and I wouldn't be surprised if his views have shifted over time (as mine have.)

Ah, what a lovely chart. Now it all makes sense (definitions wise).

Your problem is with our PR department, which has not yet corrected this colloquial misconception. That's what I was trying to point out in my previous post.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't even think I have a problem with the PR department. I just don't believe in God, and I don't not believe in God. (sorry for le double negative). I fall firmly into the blue category in that proof does not exist. On either spectrum. I don't speculate into either theism, because of the lack of evidence. This isn't a troll, but I merely don't care for theism or atheism. I feel they are both wrong, because neither has proof. I like questioning everything.

This is why I feel Athiests and Theists are legitimately the same problem. They all claim to know without proof, and gnostics are even worse because they claim to have evidence when it's all conjecture.

[!King_Amazon!]

They all claim to know without proof, and gnostics are even worse because they claim to have evidence when it's all conjecture.

This statement would indicate that you are still confused on definitions. Not "all" atheists and theists claim to "know" without proof, only gnostic atheists/theists do.

The evidence that I have available leads me to believe that no supreme being (AKA God) exists. I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist, I just claim the belief. Thus I'm agnostic atheist. If I were claiming that the evidence I have available is proof that God doesn't exist (or at least proof enough for me) then I'd be a gnostic atheist.

[D3V]

I think where you're trying to get at is philosophical. I don't care about philosophy when it comes to this, I'm basing my philosophy on evidence. There is no evidence in favor and there is no evidence against. Until there is I will remain with the same mindset.

I believe that God could potentially exist and feel that it is absolutely pointless to identify oneself particularly on either spectrum given that the evidence is insufficient. I am agnostic.

I have a hard time believing that as infinite as our Universe is, fuck - even our galaxy, completely beyond any human comprehension (currently) on a scale so grand that it seems unfathomable to consider that there is nothing above our realm of existence. But again, this divulges into philosophy, and ain't nobody got time for dat.



Edit: I apologize if this is aggravating because you feel as I'm missing the point. I promise, I'm not. I choose not to address either belief or claim either one BECAUSE of the lack of knowledge.

[Demosthenes]

D3V, I think this has less to do with philosophy and more to do with definitions. Most atheists such as myself (and I believe KA) define an atheist as anyone who is not a theist. In other words, if one cannot affirmatively answer the question, "Do you believe in God," then he is an atheist. By that definition, based on what you've said in this thread, you are an atheist whether you reject that label or not.

You seem to take the position that there is no evidence for nor against God. Fair enough. However, KA and I have repeatedly pointed out that an atheist is not one who rejects the possibility of God. Therefore, it seems to me you want to reject that label because of the connotations associated with that word. However, by accepting those connotations you are perpetuating a negative and false stereotype of what an atheist is.

My recommendation is to accept that label. Correct any misconceptions people have of that label. Wear it with pride. Hold on to your agnosticism, but be proud of your atheism too. It is the logical position on the question regarding belief precisely because there is no evidence one way or the other. I really would challenge you to look at my initial reply to you and actually address what I said there. I put forth plenty of reasons as to why I think my definition is more appropriate. If you disagree with my reasoning, I'm interested as to why.

[Demosthenes]

Another point of yours that nobody seems to be addressing is this

There is no evidence in favor and there is no evidence against.

Are you familiar with the Russell's teapot analogy? If not, please look it up. At this point there are only three possible viewpoints you can take that I can see.

1.) You have accepted the idea that a lack of evidence disproving something need not be present to not believe in it. In that case, welcome to our ranks.

2.) You believe that the idea of Russell's teapot is ludicrous, however the idea of God is not. However, the argument based on your quote is exactly the same against God as it is against the teapot. So in this case, there has to be some argument beyond just, "There is no evidence in favor and there is no evidence against," that causes you to not find the idea of God ludicrous if you wish to remain logically consistent. I'm interested in what that argument would be.

3.) You believe that a cosmic teapot is a very real possibility. In this case, I give up.

[D3V]

The evidence that I have available leads me to believe that no supreme being (AKA God) exists.

You have experimental evidence to stand on or personal theoretical evidence? Not wanting to question your beliefs, but your facts.

However, KA and I have repeatedly pointed out that an atheist is not one who rejects the possibility of God.

Correct - I read that! I just don't understand why it is necessary to combine a theory of thought and a belief system. Why does somebody who feels there is a lack of evidence have to identify with either Atheism or Theism? I feel it is a 50/50 split of probability given there is no evidence to persuade myself in either direction.

if one cannot affirmatively answer the question, "Do you believe in God," then he is an atheist. By that definition, based on what you've said in this thread, you are an atheist whether you reject that label or not.

The question itself, is loaded, contextually different from who asks it and unfair to claim if you can't answer the question you are an athiest. I understand that you cannot be half theist and half athiest, becuase that in itself is retarded, obviously.

I understand the definition, I understand the difference between theism and atheism; However, implying that it has to applied or you are either one or the other is false. It's not a black and white issue, it's a belief system. It's completely philosophical to one on how they individually decide to view the two sides.

http://www.irreligion.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/wGl13.jpg

I choose not to definite myself as atheist or theist because I feel 50/50 on the issue. Which would make it irrelevant to call myself an Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist. I'm just agnostic. I don't identify with a belief system.

it seems to me you want to reject that label because of the connotations associated with that word

I don't mind any label. Claiming "idk" as an Agnostic isn't any worse than Atheism. I like stigmatism, if anything - I should embrace the title. But I don't. Because I don't see either as viable, one way or the other.

But since you guys are obsessed with having to identify more than 50/50 because God forbid something isn't stereotyped - I would claim Theism over Atheism for the sheer fact of how little we know, might not ever know and will never know. I feel the debate slows down progress of the human race creating false divides that are unnecessary and could hamper, if even for a spec of time in the grand scheme of our existence.

Saying "I don't know" seems reasonably plausible instead of saying "Yes God" or "No God" [Theism / Atheism]

[!King_Amazon!]

You have experimental evidence to stand on or personal theoretical evidence? Not wanting to question your beliefs, but your facts.

I have no evidence. In this case, my "evidence" is a lack of evidence.

[D3V]

I believe that is called circular logic, the same that Christians use to justify God:
http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/break-the-cycle4.jpg

Which is 100% why I choose not to claim Atheism or Theism. It's equally retarded. I'm Agnostic and nothing else.

[Skurai]

I believe that is called circular logic, the same that Christians use to justify God:
http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/break-the-cycle4.jpg

Which is 100% why I choose not to claim Atheism or Theism. It's equally retarded. I'm Agnostic and nothing else.
Which is funny, because The Bible contradicts itself, until you start to think things that would, in the Church's eyes, be blasphemous.

Like the whole "Yahweh is Satan, Jesus is God" thing.
Personally, I go with Agnostic, too. Agnostic Theist, for the sake of "Heaven sounds like a nice thought".
There's nothing science says that proves God, gods, or something like that CAN'T be real. It just has no evidence that it IS.
Not to mention, in 100 years, we'll be rewriting out science text books, after one discovery disproves half of our "facts", and we need to go make new ones. Like what happens every 100 years or so.

[-Spector-]

I'm gay .

[!King_Amazon!]

I believe that is called circular logic, the same that Christians use to justify God
You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong.

[D3V]

circular reasoning
noun
a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic

I have no evidence. In this case, my "evidence" is a lack of evidence.

All my wut.

[!King_Amazon!]

There's nothing circular about my logic/reasoning. I am faced with a question, does God exist? When I'm attempting to assess this question (regardless of what the subject is), I don't see either possible answer as equivalently probable (which is apparently your view, which IMO is a pretty retarded view; this isn't a fucking coin flip.) If I have no evidence that something exists, I have no reason to believe that it exists. I have no evidence that Santa exists, which is why I don't believe that Santa exists. I don't need evidence that he doesn't exist to defend my belief that he doesn't exist, or to arrive at said belief. The lack of evidence is effectively my evidence. Now shoo troll, don't bother me.

[D3V]

I said about 100 times now that I believe it is neither probably or not probably. You said it is not probable, and have nothing to base it on.
aaaaaand I'm the retard

Saying that Santa doesn't exist is fundamentally different because it's something that we knew we created. There is proof Santa doesn't exist, because proof exists that we created him. As for God? How can you comprehend something that is seemingly infinite. At this point in our technological forefront we can not comprehend how the universe was created. We can map out how we think it exploded, but what happened before that? And before that? And before that?

Claiming God doesn't exist because you are upset at the Bible, or Qu'ran, or whatever silly scrolls Jews read is just as bad as being in favor. God is both plausible and not plausible. Maybe the concept of God is a paradox that contradicts our way of thinking and it would be impossible at this point in time to know.

But one day, we might.

[Demosthenes]

Saying that Santa doesn't exist is fundamentally different because it's something that we knew we created.

Do you believe the concept of God comes from something other than the human mind?

[Demosthenes]

Also, relevant xkcd:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

[D3V]

Do you believe the concept of God comes from something other than the human mind?

I would argue that it's a paradox as mathematics is and we are incapable of understanding.

[Skurai]

I have no evidence that Santa exists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas
Actually, K_A, what you lack is evidence that Santa is MAGIC and still alive. He does/did in fact, exist.
In fact, through this evidence, we have more proof of Santa than God.

[Skurai]

I would argue that it's a paradox as mathematics is and we are incapable of understanding.In this, specific post, I agree with D3V. If God existed, it would certainly not be something we understand, and therefore, any God we've made up would be nothing like it.
If God is real, we didn't make it.

[D3V]

I have no conflicts in believing that concept. I have a very hard time believing anything any religious texts say, and I also have a very hard time believing our existence, time itself, was created spontaneously from nothing. I feel it is as equally plausible for a "God" to exist (something above our realm of existence) as it is for nothing to exist like that.

[Skurai]

I have a very hard time believing anything any religious texts say
This is why mythological texts are better. None of that "thal shalt not" shit in the way of the story being told.
Because then you start to realize that at the very least, the entire world agreed on at least one thing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth)

[Demosthenes]

The question itself, is loaded, contextually different from who asks it and unfair to claim if you can't answer the question you are an athiest.

This is a fair criticism. However, I can't see myself answering yes to that question under any context. What context would your answer to that question be yes?


I understand the definition, I understand the difference between theism and atheism; However, implying that it has to applied or you are either one or the other is false. It's not a black and white issue, it's a belief system. It's completely philosophical to one on how they individually decide to view the two sides.

I understand that beliefs about morality, the universe, and everything else that religion encompasses vary widely, as does the degree with which people are committed to those beliefs. However, whether or not you believe in God (once context is established to address your above point) seems to have a dichotomous answer set. "I don't know," doesn't answer the question, because the question isn't about what you know, it's about what you believe. Therefore, unless you can truthfully answer that question with a "yes," you're not a believer. I know this sounds redundant, and I'm not saying this to sound sarcastic or condescending, but a believer is someone who believes in some concept or idea. If you do not believe in said concept or idea, you're not a believer in that concept or idea. You're not rejecting the concept or idea, you're simply not accepting the concept or idea. And if you're not a believer, then by definition you are a non-believer. And when said idea or concept is God (again, with proper concept), the non-believer is typically termed atheist. Not an anti-believer, but a non-believer. It's not a vote for the antithesis to the God concept, it's abstinence from the vote.

I choose not to definite myself as atheist or theist because I feel 50/50 on the issue.

Therefore, based on my above paragraph, you do not believe in the God concept, because by definition someone who is 50/50 on the veracity of a concept does not believe in that concept. To believe that a concept is true you must be at least 51/49 in favor of it given integer percentages. You have failed to reach that mark. Since you are not a believer in the God-concept, you are a non-believer in the God concept. Since the term for a non-believer in the God-concept is atheist, that makes you an atheist. Not someone who believes in a naturalistic version of creation, not someone who believes in evolution or the big bang, or anything else. It simply makes you a non-believer in the God concept.

Which would make it irrelevant to call myself an Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist. I'm just agnostic. I don't identify with a belief system.

You are certainly agnostic since you're not 100/0% or 0/100%, but you're an agnostic non-believer based on what you wrote above. I am aware that what you wrote below negates what I've said above regarding you in particular, but nevertheless it's true in general.

But since you guys are obsessed with having to identify more than 50/50 because God forbid something isn't stereotyped - I would claim Theism over Atheism for the sheer fact of how little we know, might not ever know and will never know.

I once again implore you to address the Russell's teapot argument that I hinted at above. It really is a nice little thought-experiment. It gets rid of all the baggage associated with real-world issues, and forces you to confront the logic of your argument directly. If you can answer my previous post regarding the teapot, I think it would clarify your position significantly.

I feel the debate slows down progress of the human race creating false divides that are unnecessary and could hamper, if even for a spec of time in the grand scheme of our existence.

Yes! As do the mindless inter-religion and intra-religion theological debates that are far more commonplace.

I would argue that it's a paradox as mathematics is and we are incapable of understanding.

The only reason mathematics seems paradoxical is because we know it to be a creation of the human mind, yet is has proven itself to also describe the universe. If God could prove himself to apply to the universe just as blatantly, then I would buy your analogy.

[D3V]

However, whether or not you believe in God (once context is established to address your above point) seems to have a dichotomous answer set. "I don't know," doesn't answer the question, because the question isn't about what you know, it's about what you believe.

I don't believe one way or the other. I don't know summarizes that up quite well, I do believe.

Therefore, unless you can truthfully answer that question with a "yes," you're not a believer.

How come this only applies to theism? I believe that the concept of God is equal as it is to not being believable. If it is abstinence from the so-called vote then, yes, I would subscribe to being an atheist. But I don't feel that it does. There is no singular person who defines these theories.

Therefore, based on my above paragraph, you do not believe in the God concept, because by definition someone who is 50/50 on the veracity of a concept does not believe in that concept. To believe that a concept is true you must be at least 51/49 in favor of it given integer percentages

As I've said, I would actually claim 51/49 in lieu of believing that a higher entity, deity, being probably does exist - but we will never know. But I do not want to claim being theistic, or atheistic.

It gets rid of all the baggage associated with real-world issues, and forces you to confront the logic of your argument directly

I've been thinking about the concept of God since I was a child. It's kept me awake at night, dreaming about endless possibilities and hypotheticals that I will never be able to prove. And that exact thought process is what leads me to believe that I may never know, and probably will not ever know - because our logic is irrelevant to something that is impossible to understand.

Russell teapot theory

His nice logical puns, and quirks/parodies are a good read. But none of that matters to me - because greater questions seem important to me and everything is plausible until proven otherwise.

How did the Universe come from the big bang? We can measure it back quite accurately - or so astrophysicists say - and we can get it to a tiny, exponentially dense ball of energy/matter that explodes. Okay. But where did that come from? What happened before the big bang? What happened before time came into existence? I feel focusing on theism or atheism is a waste of time is all. I don't care about my label.

Yes! As do the mindless inter-religion and intra-religion theological debates that are far more commonplace.

Exactly, it's just the same as Atheists trying to convert people on a title that is irrelevant to the greater quandaries of our existence. The existence of everything.

The only reason mathematics seems paradoxical is because we know it to be a creation of the human mind, yet is has proven itself to also describe the universe. If God could prove himself to apply to the universe just as blatantly, then I would buy your analogy.

Well, what if God doesn't apply to the universe. What if they operate under totally different variables. What if mathematics that make sense within our dimension, realm, whatever you want to call it - don't apply somewhere that is outside our realm. Or stretch of time, or space - no matter what you want to call it.

[Skurai]

Well, what if God doesn't apply to the universe. What if they operate under totally different variables. What if mathematics that make sense within our dimension, realm, whatever you want to call it - don't apply somewhere that is outside our realm. Or stretch of time, or space - no matter what you want to call it.

Sort of like how no matter how good a computer programmer gets, they can't physically walk into the data.

[D3V]

Not yet. But in the future? Possibly.

I've been reading some nice literature on transhumanism and it makes me optimistic on some of these theories - but the actual technology needed to achieve anything on a Matrix level probably isn't even within our lifetime, but it could be.

[Skurai]

Not yet. But in the future? Possibly.

I've been reading some nice literature on transhumanism and it makes me optimistic on some of these theories - but the actual technology needed to achieve anything on a Matrix level probably isn't even within our lifetime, but it could be.

yeah but that isn't turning into data, that's brains interpreting data how it interprets reality. Virtual reality/Matrix is not Digimon-level shit, man. I'm talking, I literally turn into data, my physical body is in that internet wiggly tube.

The statement "we cannot interpret God" suggests we only can if we become godlike. Without becoming godlike, all we can do is manually interpret god, which results it...? You guess it; religion.

[Demosthenes]

I don't believe one way or the other. I don't know summarizes that up quite well, I do believe.

Colloquially, yes, "I don't know," is a fine answer. But more formally, it doesn't answer the question about belief. My main objection to you is that the colloquial conflation between knowledge and belief forces you to misrepresent the position of atheism in practice. This is why I'm pushing so hard about using my definition. It's not so much the label I care about, but the misrepresentation of the people who identify as atheists.

How come this only applies to theism? I believe that the concept of God is equal as it is to not being believable.

Let's use an analogy. If I had a completely fair coin and I asked you, "Do you believe the next flip will be heads," the formal logical answer should be no. That doesn't mean you subscribe to the belief that it will be tails. You can abstain from believing it will be either one of those outcomes while knowing full well that it must be one of those two outcomes. And abstaining from believing in either one of those outcomes is the logical choice since there is no reason to believe it will be either one of those outcomes: the chance is purely 50-50. To bring this analogy back to the topic at hand, theism is a belief in God. Based on the prefix, atheism is then a lack of belief in God. This ranges from an abstinence from belief, to actively disbelieving in God.

Again, I know this is not how we speak colloquially, but formally my reasoning above is correct. And the reason I insist on being so formal about this regarding atheism is because without recognizing what we mean by atheist, we risk ascribing them beliefs and positions that are unfair, and that they don't subscribe to. That has happened here, and in the other thread in the flame forum. With that in mind, clarification seems important.

If it is abstinence from the so-called vote then, yes, I would subscribe to being an atheist. But I don't feel that it does. There is no singular person who defines these theories.

You're right, there is no single person who makes these definitions. However, what I'm saying in practice is true. The people who identify as atheists are not making a claim about knowledge, they are making a claim about belief. Atheists would welcome anyone who doesn't believe in God into our ranks, including those who are 50-50.

When you look at the various atheist groups that have sprouted up in the last ten years, we have a whole range of people that join. There are plenty of people that join that are put off by the forcefulness of the church, yet are unsure about whether they believe or not. They're often merely looking for a secular social group to replace the function church served. Then there are others, such as myself, who would be more like 99-1 regarding belief in God, and then there are those in between and beyond. However, to date, I don’t think I have met anyone who claims to be certain that God doesn’t exist.

So with regards to having such a diverse membership, your definition of atheist just doesn't fit. It's not about some authority that defines those words, it's about how well those words fit. And yours simply doesn't fit.

I feel focusing on theism or atheism is a waste of time is all. I don't care about my label.

I agree! What you mean precisely by a word is not important as long as you're not using that word to mischaracterize people. So as long as we can agree on what self-identified atheists are and are not in practice, let's put this relatively meaningless squabble about definitions behind us and focus on the crux of the argument.

I've been thinking about the concept of God since I was a child. It's kept me awake at night, dreaming about endless possibilities and hypotheticals that I will never be able to prove. And that exact thought process is what leads me to believe that I may never know, and probably will not ever know - because our logic is irrelevant to something that is impossible to understand.

The problem, again, D3V, lies with definitions. On the one hand, you're using the word "know" in an epistemological sense, and other hand you're using it in the colloquial sense. In the epistemological sense, can you truly know anything about the real world? In the epistemological sense, science doesn't prove anything. In the epistemological sense, even your senses don't prove anything about the external world. What if I'm a brain in a vat. What if solipsism is the true description of reality? The epistemological answer to, "Do we know anything?" is easy. No. However, while these questions are interesting to ponder, they don't really lead anywhere.

To operate on a day-to-day basis we make the simplifying assumption that what we perceive is real. When we talk about what we know, we talk about it under that assumption. You might think that we're nothing more than a brain in a vat, but I know you look both ways before you cross the street. For all practical purposes, everyone bases their thoughts and actions on this assumption.

This simplifying assumption goes beyond just how we operate in day-to-day life, though. It is an assumption that underlies all of science. And science has told us a lot about the external world, with tangible results. For instance, the idea behind the big bang is the same idea that underlies our GPS satellites. If the big bang turns out to be faulty in any significant way, then the fact that our satellites stay in orbit is mere serendipity. We would have no way of explaining how they stay in orbit. Virtually every technological advancement in our society is intertwined with some fundamental underlying scientific principle in a similar way. And we were capable of developing all of this science because of the simplifying assumption. If we tried to explain observations regarding the external world through metaphysical hyperrealities the human race would be perpetually stuck in its infancy.

The point in all this is that people, and the human race as a whole, operate under this simplifying assumption for everything except when it comes to God. This is quintessential special pleading. If you make this exception for God, then you can make the exact same argument for any mythical creature or object you want. Fairies? They might exist in a realm beyond our understanding. Thor's hammer? Same thing. Since it's in a realm beyond our understanding it's inherently unknowable. Are you really prepared to admit to these things have a 50% chance of being possible to remain consistent in your beliefs? If not, but you're willing to make an exception for God to be 50-50 because he exists in some kind of metaphysical hyperreality you have to at least be able to explain why you don't make the same exception for other things.

Let's briefly consider a hyperreality that we know exists: our minds. We can imagine things. We can even do this subconsciously as dreams. We know dreams exist. However, we don't consider the objects or situations we encounter in our dreams real in any way, because those objects or situations don't interact with the physical world in any way. So even though we have a hyperreality that most people experience, we don't consider its content real because it doesn't interact with the physical world beyond what goes on in our thoughts. To be consistent with this, we should not consider the contents of any hyperreality real unless it at least interacts with the physical world in some way. So to be consistent in what we consider real or not, if God is real he should have interacted with our physical universe in some way at some point in time.

I usually state this intuitively: We can play the what-if game all day, so let's not consider anything real unless it conforms to our simplifying assumption. Postulating something imperceptible to the entire universe does not further our understanding about anything in any way. That said, I think the above paragraph provides a concrete example about why we should think this way. People don't consider anything real unless it interacts with the physical world in practice, and to demand anything less for God to be considered real is special pleading. And since the reality of God is now judged, as it ought to be, by the standard of interacting with our world, Russell's teapot still applies. So I once again pose the following question to you: since you admit that there is no evidence for God, why should a lack of evidence for God not demand disbelief when the same lack of evidence demands disbelief in Russell's teapot. Or do you truly believe that it is possible that there is a cosmic teapot floating around somewhere out there simply because we haven’t been able to disprove it?

Let's change directions and discuss probabilities briefly. Without any a priori knowledge about a probability distribution, all possible outcomes to an experiment must be considered equally likely. I could pose the question to you, "what is the probability that I will roll a six on a six-sided die?" If you answer that, “well, you can either roll a six or something else, therefore the chance is one-half,” this is obviously faulty reasoning. You have to consider all the possibilities, and they ought to be weighted equally. Now if it turns out that the die was loaded, we could experimentally determine this and adjust the probability distribution as needed, but it would not make sense to assume the die was loaded. Before performing any measurements, the logical answer to, “what is the probability that I will roll a six,” is one-sixth.

Again, let’s bring this analogy back to the topic at hand. For the following paragraph I will define God as simply and with as few strings attached as possible: a sentient being that created the universe. We can ask the question, “what is the probability that a hyperreality with God in it is real?” It is obvious that the creation of the universe must be logically consistent as it involves the physical universe. Therefore, two hyperrealities that offer contradictory accounts of the creation of the universe cannot coexist.

I can think of multiple possible ways the universe was created. Perhaps our universe stems from something akin to mitotic division from a parent universe. Perhaps our universe is what’s beyond the event horizon in another universe. Perhaps the universe stems from fluctuating quantum fields. The point in all this is that there are a myriad, perhaps an infinitude, of conceivable ways that the universe could have come into existence. The subset of such hyperrealities containing a God would therefore be infinitesimally small. Now when we talk about believing in any particular one of these hyperrealities, we are talking about a human concept: belief. And belief is intrinsically related to what we consider probable. But based on our discussion before, unless we have a priori knowledge about our observations we should assume all possible outcomes evenly likely. As you’ve said, we have no knowledge about hyperrealities. Therefore, believing in one over the other simply does not make sense. If you choose to believe in one particular hyperreality you must justify that belief, otherwise this is special pleading. This is why the atheistic position, even the 99-1 atheistic position makes more sense than the theistic position.

To summarize, when we discuss hyperrealities we simply don’t know which is correct. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to prefer one over the other, given the myriad of potential hyperrealities consistent with the creation of our universe. Furthermore, when we talk about what is real and what is not, or what we know and what we don’t we make the simplifying assumption that what we perceive is real. Even if we choose to prefer one hyperreality over another, it makes no sense to define its contents as real unless they interact with our perceivable universe somehow. I have shown this by analogy to dreams: they are a distinct, real hyperreality, yet it makes no sense to consider their contents real as they don’t interact with our physical world. Therefore, for any hyperreality to be considered real they should interact with out physical universe at least more than dreams do. And if they interact with our physical world then those interactions are in principle testable by science. Let’s turn to that.

How did the Universe come from the big bang? We can measure it back quite accurately - or so astrophysicists say - and we can get it to a tiny, exponentially dense ball of energy/matter that explodes. Okay. But where did that come from? What happened before the big bang? What happened before time came into existence?

Now we’re getting somewhere. You favor a hyperreality explanation, particularly the God explanation, because you think our universe is not self-explanatory. You must realize that this is a God of the gaps argument. Historically, such justification of God has shrunk, and by all signs will continue to do so. People used to not be able to explain lightning, therefore Zeus must have done it. People couldn’t explain life, therefore God must have done it. Now that we’re close to being able to explain life, it’s shifted to we people can’t (allegedly) explain the universe, therefore God must have done it. What if one day we can explain the beginning of the universe? What if one day we can show that the universe could have come about from purely physical principles? Would you be willing to abandon the God, and any other hyperreality explanation then? You should, because thus far this is the only justification you’ve offered in it making sense to believe in something as grandiose as a hyperreality without any evidence in favor of it.

That said, we do have purely physical explanations for the beginning of the universe consistent with what we know about it without having to postulate any hyperreality. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed beyond the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Recognize that at its heart this is a mathematically precise statement, and there are times when it will be inconsistent with your intuition about what conservation of mass-energy means. We have shown that matter, along with everything else in the universe, can come out of seemingly nothing through changes in the configuration of quantum fields. These fields fluctuate spontaneously between configurations, corresponding to the appearance and disappearance of particle-pairs as long as they obey the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that if a field fluctuation changes the energy of the configuration considerably, then the time that the fluctuation lasts is short. Conversely, if the fluctuation changes the energy very little then the time of that fluctuation can be long. The vacuum state of the quantum fields is one where there are no particles. What if there was a quantum fluctuation that created particles, however did not change the energy at all. Such a fluctuation could last for an arbitrarily long time. Our universe could be such a fluctuation, considering that gravitational energy is negative and therefore it is very possible that if we add all the positive energy in the universe with the negative energy it may very well sum to zero. This is a plausible explanation for the appearance of our universe consistent with what we know about it.

Exactly, it's just the same as Atheists trying to convert people on a title that is irrelevant to the greater quandaries of our existence. The existence of everything.

The difference is that militant Muslims fly planes into building, militant Christians bomb abortion clinics, whereas militant atheists argue with you on the internet. If we could get people away from religious violence and stop religion from corrupting our education system, I’m pretty sure atheists wouldn’t care what silly things people chose to believe.

So thus far, I have agreed to stop debating the definition of atheist as long as you stop mischaracterizing what atheists believe in practice. I have shown that any particular hyperreality is as unlikely as any other one, so it makes no sense to actively believe in a hyperreality with God. I have shown that real must be defined as something that interacts with our physical world, so any hyperreality that exists ought to have this property. For God to be real, he must have at some point in time interacted with our world, and therefore his existence can be discussed using logic and reason. I have then shown a plausible way that the universe could have come into existence without postulating any hyperreality at all. Given all this, I simply can’t see how you can assert that the existence of God is just as likely as his nonexistence.

[Skurai]

Given all this, I simply can’t see how you can assert that the existence of God is just as likely as his nonexistence.

"Assert nothing, be calm." - a Buddist dude or something