Principia Discordia

I found this interesting:

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2010/10/25/skeptic-groups-try-to-exorcise-their-atheists/

QuoteThose of you who read this blog on a regular basis probably have an idea about my schedule and why I'm not as active with local skeptical groups as I probably should be. But I'm still active enough to hear things coming from older skeptical organizations and their complaints about kids today. Primarily that too many of them stick to computers and social media, not enough go to meetings and events sponsored by these skeptical groups, and that there are just too many of those darn atheists showing up at meetings and wanting to talk about their atheism thanks for Hitchens and Dawkins and Myers. And for some, that last problem is so bad, they try their hardest to declare that their skeptical groups do not endorse atheists or atheism lest any would-be member have to bear the horrible, terrible social stigma of being thought an atheist. One wonders if they'll start putting how few atheists there should be at their meetings right on the flyers advertising their next big meet-up...

Here's the issue. We all know that there's been a steep rise in atheists thanks to today's trendy atheist books and campaigns urging them to come out and give theists a piece of their mind. And often times, new converts tend to be the most zealous and vocal while those who've lived with a certain worldview for a while are usually more relaxed. I've written about the pros and cons of uptick in new atheists before, and I'm aware that there are plenty of young, amped up atheists on the warpath and so focused on their newfound or newly reinvented atheism that it's all they want to talk about. These are the people old guard skeptics would like to keep farther away from their meetings because they don't want their groups turning into an atheist book club. And to some extent, that's perfectly fair. Skeptical groups are supposed to teach critical thinking and apply it to topics where very little of it is being shown, from old and repugnant frauds like psychics who claim to talk to the dead, to the modern pseudoscientific, quasi-religious UFOlogists and alien conspiracy theorists. Skeptics are under no obligation to let atheists hijack the proceedings to talk about, say, Hitchens' latest columns and we need to be aware of the fact. We're not excused from having some basic social graces because we're atheists.

More at the link.  Seems there is plenty of blame on both sides, mostly stemming from new atheists being all fired up on converting the unbeliever and not shutting up about it, and skeptic groups snubbing them in the least tactful way possible.

I've always been one of those that find militant atheists just as irritating as their theist counterparts.

Theres only so much I can hear about atheism before I don't need to hear any more.

"We disbelieve in any and all gods" is enough.

Anything more than that is simply redundant. Atheists who find it hard to talk about anything else are annoying.

Edit: Notice that's all PZ Myers talks about anymore? Yeah. So much for science blogging.

Exactly.  There is only so much you can say on the topic.  Even though I essentially agree with atheists, I'm hesitant to label myself that way simply because it's a very minor comment on who I am and what I believve.

That's why I tend to be more sympathetic to skeptics, though even they set their aim a little too low, I believe (alien conspiracies?  homoepathy?  bah, we need historical revisionism and economic skeptics)

Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:09:02 PM
Exactly.  There is only so much you can say on the topic.  Even though I essentially agree with atheists, I'm hesitant to label myself that way simply because it's a very minor comment on who I am and what I believe.

That's why I tend to be more sympathetic to skeptics, though even they set their aim a little too low, I believe (alien conspiracies?  homeopathy?  bah, we need historical revisionism and economic skeptics)

Isn't that kind of what we do here?
Atheism is unfortunately the new fashion and attracts a lot of people who rebel to one degree from the norm and then stop thinking. Which is a shame because some older atheists have incredibly strange and interesting views on the topic.
I consider myself agnostic only because the word 'god' doesn't have a proper definition, its not rooted to any observable effect or quality that can be tested so to debate for or against the existence of one is meaningless and goes against intellectual honesty.

Quote from: eighteen buddha strike on October 25, 2010, 06:54:15 PM
I've always been one of those that find militant atheists just as irritating as their theist counterparts.

Obligatory comic: http://xkcd.com/774/

Perhaps I'm only repeating what Faust just said, but I usually consider myself an Agnostic because there are far more things that I don't know than things I do know.

Quote from: Faust on October 25, 2010, 07:25:26 PM

Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:09:02 PM
Exactly.  There is only so much you can say on the topic.  Even though I essentially agree with atheists, I'm hesitant to label myself that way simply because it's a very minor comment on who I am and what I believe.

That's why I tend to be more sympathetic to skeptics, though even they set their aim a little too low, I believe (alien conspiracies?  homeopathy?  bah, we need historical revisionism and economic skeptics)

Isn't that kind of what we do here?

Kind of, but not as well as many people could, I'm sure.

If we replace Skeptic Meetings with PD.com and Atheists with Pinealists... I think we see some interesting similarities.

Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:47:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

I concur with Dok. Science is good at answering questions with observable data. There is nothing observable in the God Debate, therefore there is nothing science can say... other than "Uhhh, can't observe/measure it."

Skeptics, take a 'prove it' position. If you make a claim, you must provide adequate proof of that claim. "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are both claims, neither of which have anything approaching proof. Therefore the skeptical position is "Come back when you've got some proof to go with your claim, we're busy skewering Sylvia Browne right now."

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 25, 2010, 10:20:29 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:47:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

I concur with Dok. Science is good at answering questions with observable data. There is nothing observable in the God Debate, therefore there is nothing science can say... other than "Uhhh, can't observe/measure it."

Skeptics, take a 'prove it' position. If you make a claim, you must provide adequate proof of that claim. "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are both claims, neither of which have anything approaching proof. Therefore the skeptical position is "Come back when you've got some proof to go with your claim, we're busy skewering Sylvia Browne right now."

:motorcycle:

THIS.  EXACTLY, PRECISELY THIS.

Debunking psuedoscience is important for society.  Attacking peoples' religious beliefs doesn't serve that end, and in fact makes it fucking impossible to get 80% of the population to listen to any other argument you may have.

It's nice to see some people who share my view, I always get accused of fence sitting when I try to explain my view. As dok said, it cannot be tested via the scientific method so to me it would be violating intellecual honesty to assume a position. 
It's not like either position should they be true changes anything at all.

Quote from: Faust on October 25, 2010, 10:47:49 PM
It's nice to see some people who share my view, I always get accused of fence sitting when I try to explain my view. As dok said, it cannot be tested via the scientific method so to me it would be violating intellecual honesty to assume a position. 
It's not like either position should they be true changes anything at all.

Thing is, when a particular position (ie, skepticism) becomes popular or even well-known, fanatics in search of a cause line right up to jump in.  Within 6 months at best, if you aren't in complete agreement with the fanatics' take on the subject (or whatever they've hijacked it into), then you're a fucking blasphemer, and all of their efforts will be put into attacking you until you change your tune or leave.

It's a monkey thing.

Quote from: Faust on October 25, 2010, 10:47:49 PM
It's nice to see some people who share my view, I always get accused of fence sitting when I try to explain my view. As dok said, it cannot be tested via the scientific method so to me it would be violating intellecual honesty to assume a position. 
It's not like either position should they be true changes anything at all.

I'd also be in complete agreement, especially on the intellectual honesty part, if I were to be completely honest and rational about it.

Fact of the matter is, I usually find myself unable to answer the question with a straight face, one way or another.

Hence, Discordianism.

What's it called when you believe in god but think he's dead

Quote from: eighteen buddha strike on October 25, 2010, 06:54:15 PM
I've always been one of those that find militant atheists just as irritating as their theist counterparts.

Yeah, but I think they are even more fun to troll.  They always seem to be itching for an e-fight at the slightest whiff of religious sentiment.

Quote from: Faust on October 25, 2010, 07:25:26 PMI consider myself agnostic only because the word 'god' doesn't have a proper definition, its not rooted to any observable effect or quality that can be tested so to debate for or against the existence of one is meaningless and goes against intellectual honesty.

If asked whether I believe in "god", I can't answer without knowing what the asker means by that word.  If by "believe in god", they mean do I feel a sense of awe and reverence when I consider the majesty and splendor of the universe, then yes.  If they mean do I believe there is a healing power within ourselves that we can get in touch with through meditation, prayer, or visualization, then yes again.  If they mean do I believe there is an invisible man who lives on a cloud, watches me when I pee, and sentences me to eternal torment if I shake one too many times when I'm done, then no.

Pretty sure Dok's hammer found the nail's head.

"No evidence of God" is not the same thing as "Evidence of no God."


Cainad,
trying to be all succinct and witty and shit

I agree with what has been said regarding the tendancies of atheists to be self defeating as useful skeptics, but it strikes me as odd that you can say one can't be a skeptical atheist.  the non-existence of god can be taken as an article of belief without being an article of faith by virtue of the extreme improbability of a sky daddy in conjunction with lack of any evidence.

I would guess that if most of the atheists were to come in contact with some tremendous power of proportions that dwarf anything in their imagination, and it claimed to be god, they would become true believers. (despite the fact that it isn't really iron clad proof that what they experienced was the alpha and the omega...)
This is as opposed to what the religious zealots might do if they encountered a similar entity that made a claim counter to their articles of faith.  i.e. they might think it was a test, or the devil, or what-not...

Quote from: Iptuous on October 26, 2010, 03:06:43 AM
I agree with what has been said regarding the tendancies of atheists to be self defeating as useful skeptics, but it strikes me as odd that you can say one can't be a skeptical atheist. 

You can be a skeptical WICCAN for all I give a shit.

But if you're an atheist, then you aren't a skeptic with any credibility concerning religion.  You can still pick on truthers, though.

Quote from: Pēleus on October 26, 2010, 12:39:39 AM
What's it called when you believe in god but think he's dead

Roman Catholicism.

Dok, maybe it's my understanding of the terms.
i would have said that if someone were to claim, "given my experiences, i do not see any reason to believe in a deity, and given the seeming absurdity of the claim, i am willing to say that i do not believe in a deity", they would be an atheist,  whereas an agnostic would adamantly stick to the position of "i cannot know whether there is a deity or not, and therefore do not have any belief one way or the other"
both reasonable positions, and both that wouldn't blow skepticism cred in my estimation.

also, do you think the hypothetical that i put out in my previous post is naive, or doesn't illustrate a difference for some reason?

(personally, i am of the same mind as Faust, in that the term is meaningless as nobody can ever nail down the definition of 'god' when pressed on the topic...)

Quote from: Iptuous on October 26, 2010, 03:28:05 AM
Dok, maybe it's my understanding of the terms.
i would have said that if someone were to claim, "given my experiences, i do not see any reason to believe in a deity, and given the seeming absurdity of the claim, i am willing to say that i do not believe in a deity", they would be an atheist,  whereas an agnostic would adamantly stick to the position of "i cannot know whether there is a deity or not, and therefore do not have any belief one way or the other"
both reasonable positions, and both that wouldn't blow skepticism cred in my estimation.

also, do you think the hypothetical that i put out in my previous post is naive, or doesn't illustrate a difference for some reason?

(personally, i am of the same mind as Faust, in that the term is meaningless as nobody can ever nail down the definition of 'god' when pressed on the topic...)

1.  Absurdity isn't evidence of absence (the proof of which is that the US government is absurd as fuck, yet seems to exist).  Either you base your beliefs on evidence, or you don't.  If you don't, you're not really a skeptic.

2.  Atheists base their (usually shrill) beliefs on the idea that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is patently a fallacy.

If you say "Given my experiences, I do not see any reason to believe in a deity, and given the seeming absurdity of the claim, I am willing to say that i do not believe in a deity", then great.  You're an atheist.  And you might even be a skeptic...On any other subject.

What is this god thing you're all talking about? I don't have a clue.

Time to change the subject, maybe?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:08:26 AMBut if you're an atheist, then you aren't a skeptic with any credibility concerning religion.  You can still pick on truthers, though.

Heh.

PMZ,
has a friend who is both an atheist and a truther.  Oh, and also against vaccines.

Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 03:45:13 AM
What is this god thing you're all talking about? I don't have a clue.

Time to change the subject, maybe?

God is this really big dude with an anger management problem.  His kid was pretty cool, but he fell in with a bad crowd, and now apparently hates homosexuals.  Or so I am told by - I shit you not - The Cool Church.

http://www.thecoolchurch.com/

Run by a jackass named David Mcallister, who is at once a self-loathing homosexual, and a horrible example of a mid-life crisis gone horribly horribly wrong.

He's a Tucson legend.  And by "legend", I mean, "target for horrible pranks".

Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on October 26, 2010, 03:50:14 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:08:26 AMBut if you're an atheist, then you aren't a skeptic with any credibility concerning religion.  You can still pick on truthers, though.

Heh.

PMZ,
has a friend who is both an atheist and a truther.  Oh, and also against vaccines.

Wow.  That's like the trifecta of poor logic.

Quote from: Iptuous on October 26, 2010, 03:28:05 AM
Dok, maybe it's my understanding of the terms.
i would have said that if someone were to claim, "given my experiences, i do not see any reason to believe in a deity, and given the seeming absurdity of the claim, i am willing to say that i do not believe in a deity", they would be an atheist,  whereas an agnostic would adamantly stick to the position of "i cannot know whether there is a deity or not, and therefore do not have any belief one way or the other"
both reasonable positions, and both that wouldn't blow skepticism cred in my estimation.

Yeah, this. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Most agnostics are also atheists because they don't have a belief in any gods. Some people take it too far and become anti-theists. Fuck those guys.

Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on October 26, 2010, 03:50:14 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:08:26 AMBut if you're an atheist, then you aren't a skeptic with any credibility concerning religion.  You can still pick on truthers, though.

Heh.

PMZ,
has a friend who is both an atheist and a truther.  Oh, and also against vaccines.

:facepalm:

Why have you not kicked him in the balls yet?

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 03:53:59 AM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 26, 2010, 03:28:05 AM
Dok, maybe it's my understanding of the terms.
i would have said that if someone were to claim, "given my experiences, i do not see any reason to believe in a deity, and given the seeming absurdity of the claim, i am willing to say that i do not believe in a deity", they would be an atheist,  whereas an agnostic would adamantly stick to the position of "i cannot know whether there is a deity or not, and therefore do not have any belief one way or the other"
both reasonable positions, and both that wouldn't blow skepticism cred in my estimation.

Yeah, this. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Most agnostics are also atheists because they don't have a belief in any gods. Some people take it too far and become anti-theists. Fuck those guys.

Which group were we discussing?  I was under the impression we were talking about the Dawkins tards.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:54:58 AM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 03:53:59 AM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 26, 2010, 03:28:05 AM
Dok, maybe it's my understanding of the terms.
i would have said that if someone were to claim, "given my experiences, i do not see any reason to believe in a deity, and given the seeming absurdity of the claim, i am willing to say that i do not believe in a deity", they would be an atheist,  whereas an agnostic would adamantly stick to the position of "i cannot know whether there is a deity or not, and therefore do not have any belief one way or the other"
both reasonable positions, and both that wouldn't blow skepticism cred in my estimation.

Yeah, this. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Most agnostics are also atheists because they don't have a belief in any gods. Some people take it too far and become anti-theists. Fuck those guys.

Which group were we discussing?  I was under the impression we were talking about the Dawkins tards.

Anti-theists. Atheism isn't a group, just like theism isn't a group.

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 03:57:18 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:54:58 AM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 03:53:59 AM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 26, 2010, 03:28:05 AM
Dok, maybe it's my understanding of the terms.
i would have said that if someone were to claim, "given my experiences, i do not see any reason to believe in a deity, and given the seeming absurdity of the claim, i am willing to say that i do not believe in a deity", they would be an atheist,  whereas an agnostic would adamantly stick to the position of "i cannot know whether there is a deity or not, and therefore do not have any belief one way or the other"
both reasonable positions, and both that wouldn't blow skepticism cred in my estimation.

Yeah, this. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Most agnostics are also atheists because they don't have a belief in any gods. Some people take it too far and become anti-theists. Fuck those guys.

Which group were we discussing?  I was under the impression we were talking about the Dawkins tards.

Anti-theists. Atheism isn't a group, just like theism isn't a group.

Well, too late now.  That's like trying to argue that Democrats aren't actually liberal.

The tards at CoG and Veganza have coopted the word.  You'll have to go get it back.

"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

Quote from: Iptuous on October 26, 2010, 03:06:43 AM
I agree with what has been said regarding the tendancies of atheists to be self defeating as useful skeptics, but it strikes me as odd that you can say one can't be a skeptical atheist.  the non-existence of god can be taken as an article of belief without being an article of faith by virtue of the extreme improbability of a sky daddy in conjunction with lack of any evidence.

You are mistaking 'there is a God' with 'there is this specific concept of God,'  There are a hell of a lot of those, and some are more absurd than others.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:59:57 AM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 03:57:18 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:54:58 AM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 03:53:59 AM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 26, 2010, 03:28:05 AM
Dok, maybe it's my understanding of the terms.
i would have said that if someone were to claim, "given my experiences, i do not see any reason to believe in a deity, and given the seeming absurdity of the claim, i am willing to say that i do not believe in a deity", they would be an atheist,  whereas an agnostic would adamantly stick to the position of "i cannot know whether there is a deity or not, and therefore do not have any belief one way or the other"
both reasonable positions, and both that wouldn't blow skepticism cred in my estimation.

Yeah, this. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Most agnostics are also atheists because they don't have a belief in any gods. Some people take it too far and become anti-theists. Fuck those guys.

Which group were we discussing?  I was under the impression we were talking about the Dawkins tards.

Anti-theists. Atheism isn't a group, just like theism isn't a group.

Well, too late now.  That's like trying to argue that Democrats aren't actually liberal.

The tards at CoG and Veganza have coopted the word.  You'll have to go get it back.

Sad but true. Can we at least get rid of the term "militant atheist"? That is just so retarded. No one is taking up arms and killing people for being religious. The people who bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings are militant. People arguing about atheism on the internet are just evangelical assholes.

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 04:33:18 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:59:57 AM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 03:57:18 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 03:54:58 AM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 26, 2010, 03:53:59 AM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 26, 2010, 03:28:05 AM
Dok, maybe it's my understanding of the terms.
i would have said that if someone were to claim, "given my experiences, i do not see any reason to believe in a deity, and given the seeming absurdity of the claim, i am willing to say that i do not believe in a deity", they would be an atheist,  whereas an agnostic would adamantly stick to the position of "i cannot know whether there is a deity or not, and therefore do not have any belief one way or the other"
both reasonable positions, and both that wouldn't blow skepticism cred in my estimation.

Yeah, this. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Most agnostics are also atheists because they don't have a belief in any gods. Some people take it too far and become anti-theists. Fuck those guys.

Which group were we discussing?  I was under the impression we were talking about the Dawkins tards.

Anti-theists. Atheism isn't a group, just like theism isn't a group.

Well, too late now.  That's like trying to argue that Democrats aren't actually liberal.

The tards at CoG and Veganza have coopted the word.  You'll have to go get it back.

Sad but true. Can we at least get rid of the term "militant atheist"? That is just so retarded. No one is taking up arms and killing people for being religious. The people who bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings are militant. People arguing about atheism on the internet are just evangelical assholes.

Nope.  It stuck, like when a kid gets nicknamed "Stinky" when they're 9.

Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 04:01:16 AM
"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

And lo, there was a motorcycle, and it's parts thereof were correct.

Quote from: Cain on October 26, 2010, 04:53:20 AM

Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 04:01:16 AM
"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

And lo, there was a motorcycle, and it's parts thereof were correct.

:motorcycle:

*(possibly) Angelic Choir*

Is it really so silly for someone to dismiss religion/gods/deities?

What if someone (like myself) just thinks the whole idea of it all is dumb and doesn't want to think about it, doesn't want to believe it, doesn't want others preaching to them (me) about it?

Does it make me some kind of friggin tard to call myself atheist if someone asks me about it? I mean it's not like I go around standing on a soap box yelling to the world that "god ain't real, y'all!". I just don't care enough about the shit to bring it up unless someone's talking about it (like here) or asks me about it.

But I guess I would have to label it as such, since skeptic doesn't work when you just don't want to bother questioning it.

Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on October 26, 2010, 05:47:27 AM
Is it really so silly for someone to dismiss religion/gods/deities?

What if someone (like myself) just thinks the whole idea of it all is dumb and doesn't want to think about it, doesn't want to believe it, doesn't want others preaching to them (me) about it?

Does it make me some kind of friggin tard to call myself atheist if someone asks me about it? I mean it's not like I go around standing on a soap box yelling to the world that "god ain't real, y'all!". I just don't care enough about the shit to bring it up unless someone's talking about it (like here) or asks me about it.

But I guess I would have to label it as such, since skeptic doesn't work when you just don't want to bother questioning it.

I think that the idea is that if you say that there are no gods, you may be correct, but it can't be scientifically verified, and that atheism is irrelevant to a skeptics club, since atheism is a specific claim that cannot be proven.

The skeptics may agree, but disproving theism is not their purpose.

I can't prove there isn't a god, but I think I can prove certain gods don't exist.

Quote from: Risus on October 26, 2010, 06:03:52 AM
I can't prove there isn't a god, but I think I can prove certain gods don't exist.

prove it. :lulz:

Quote from: Risus on October 26, 2010, 06:03:52 AM
I can't prove there isn't a god, but I think I can prove certain gods don't exist.

At best you can prove that people's understandings of a particular deity aren't possible.

Existence of Yahweh is not provable or disprovable, but events in the Old Testament are. For all we know, he does exist, and really likes lying to us about creating the Universe in 6 days. Hell, he might actually be just one particularly wussy god out of many, and is just very butthurt. The other gods let him dominate world religions because they don't actually give a crap about any of us. Or it guarantees he's too busy showing them all that he doesn't show up at their parties anymore.

You can't prove or disprove this idea.

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 06:28:08 AM

Quote from: Risus on October 26, 2010, 06:03:52 AM
I can't prove there isn't a god, but I think I can prove certain gods don't exist.

At best you can prove that people's understandings of a particular deity aren't possible.

Existence of Yahweh is not provable or disprovable, but events in the Old Testament are. For all we know, he does exist, and really likes lying to us about creating the Universe in 6 days. Hell, he might actually be just one particularly wussy god out of many, and is just very butthurt. The other gods let him dominate world religions because they don't actually give a crap about any of us. Or it guarantees he's too busy showing them all that he doesn't show up at their parties anymore.

You can't prove or disprove this idea.

I agree with your first sentence, but after that, I think you might be going about it backwards.

If you break from the story of what Yahweh is supposed to be, you're talking about a new god.
If Yahweh has certain measurable requirements and does not fulfill them, then that particular Yahweh does not exist.

Quote from: Risus on October 26, 2010, 06:42:26 AM

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 06:28:08 AM

Quote from: Risus on October 26, 2010, 06:03:52 AM
I can't prove there isn't a god, but I think I can prove certain gods don't exist.

At best you can prove that people's understandings of a particular deity aren't possible.

Existence of Yahweh is not provable or disprovable, but events in the Old Testament are. For all we know, he does exist, and really likes lying to us about creating the Universe in 6 days. Hell, he might actually be just one particularly wussy god out of many, and is just very butthurt. The other gods let him dominate world religions because they don't actually give a crap about any of us. Or it guarantees he's too busy showing them all that he doesn't show up at their parties anymore.

You can't prove or disprove this idea.

I agree with your first sentence, but after that, I think you might be going about it backwards.

If you break from the story of what Yahweh is supposed to be, you're talking about a new god.
If Yahweh has certain measurable requirements and does not fulfill them, then that particular Yahweh does not exist.

Not necessarily. I could tell you all sorts of stuff about me that aren't true, and maybe you'll take it on faith that I'm telling the truth. It doesn't mean that I don't exist, only that I have deliberately misrepresented myself. Why would a hypothetical god be any different, especially if it is humanlike and seems to have just as many of our bad qualities.

Also, Christians have a different idea of what their god is, but yet it is still the same god that Jewish people worship.

Six days could have been how long it took to terraform a dead planet

Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 26, 2010, 06:25:34 AM

Quote from: Risus on October 26, 2010, 06:03:52 AM
I can't prove there isn't a god, but I think I can prove certain gods don't exist.

prove it. :lulz:

(http://richardathome.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/epicurus-quote.jpg)

And that dude's been dead for over 2000 years.

Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on October 26, 2010, 05:47:27 AM
Is it really so silly for someone to dismiss religion/gods/deities?

What if someone (like myself) just thinks the whole idea of it all is dumb and doesn't want to think about it, doesn't want to believe it, doesn't want others preaching to them (me) about it?

Does it make me some kind of friggin tard to call myself atheist if someone asks me about it? I mean it's not like I go around standing on a soap box yelling to the world that "god ain't real, y'all!". I just don't care enough about the shit to bring it up unless someone's talking about it (like here) or asks me about it.

But I guess I would have to label it as such, since skeptic doesn't work when you just don't want to bother questioning it.

I feel like that might be a version of Kai's position, since I seem to agree with both of you. Or maybe I'm just dumb.

I avoid religious/theological jibba-jabba 90% of the time, and another 9% I draw the word "DISCORDIAN" on my forehead and make idiotic jokes. The remaining 1% is spent trying to express my ambivalence towards the whole thing.

I think the key issue here is the definition of skepticism, not of atheism.

For example, perfectly normal humans go about their lives being entirely rational until Sunday, when they think they're eating 2000 year dead Jew and a cup of blood. Or, perfectly normal, rational, intelligent people go through their lives basing decisions on logic and reason, until it comes to creation... then they think God poofed it all into existence in 6 days or 6000 years or some nonsense like that. Those may be fine humans... but one would not consider them logical, rational or skeptical on the topic of dead flesh on Sundays or God inventing dinosaur bones and oil. Yet, they may make logical, rational and sane decisions in most other parts of their lives.

Atheists may be fine humans... but on the topic of atheism they are not  holding a skeptical position.  If they don't care about being skeptical, or claiming that they are entirely logical, or accusing the scientific method of providing them with facts about the non-existence of God then they can stick with their beliefs, no harm, no foul. However, if they hold the position of atheism, they cannot claim to be skeptical on the topic of God, Gods, Deities, Magical Invisible Unicorns, Flying Pasta OR goddamned teapots on the wrong side of the Sun*.



* After all, where do you think Eris makes her Shroom tea?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:47:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:47:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 04:01:16 AM
"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

So if I say "I don't believe in one-winged purple monkeys", then by this logic I have a belief about one-winged purple monkeys.... ooooook.

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 26, 2010, 04:18:01 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:47:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:19:47 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 26, 2010, 04:18:01 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:47:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

I did read what you wrote. However you seem stuck in an either/or as though people believed only in two static extremes. Either you secretly believe in God or you don't.

Yet, for skeptics the point not to believe in your heart one way or the other, until there is evidence. Otherwise, its not skepticism... its just belief.

I am open to the possibility of God. I don't believe any particular system that claims a God. Until there is evidence though, the question is silly.
God may exist. God may not exist. I don't know. No secret belief necessary.

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 26, 2010, 04:25:26 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:19:47 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 26, 2010, 04:18:01 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:47:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

I did read what you wrote. However you seem stuck in an either/or as though people believed only in two static extremes. Either you secretly believe in God or you don't.

Yet, for skeptics the point not to believe in your heart one way or the other, until there is evidence. Otherwise, its not skepticism... its just belief.

I am open to the possibility of God. I don't believe any particular system that claims a God. Until there is evidence though, the question is silly.
God may exist. God may not exist. I don't know. No secret belief necessary.

But I think you are still dodging the actual question.  Ok, let's leave what your belief is out of it, but what about what seems likely?  Does it seem more or less likely that a god exists? And we will take the "we can't know" as a given, since it is blatantly obvious to any 5 year old.  And leave "skepticism" out of it, since I never brought it up to begin with.

If I ask you whether you think it's likely that there is, or would be, a god, and you answer "we can't know it" after its been taken as a given isn't your answer really just a more polite version of "fuck you I don't want to talk to you"?  How do you live your life on a daily basis?  Do you live your life acting as though you believe in a god?  If not, it seems to me, and I fully admit that I may just be wrong, but it seems to me if you act as if there is no god then your belief is probably that you don't find it very likely.  In which case I would say you would fit as an agnostic atheist, someone who thinks we cannot ultimately ever know the answer, but doesn't feel its very likely.

If it is blatantly obvious to an innocent child then where did this delusion spring forth?

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:18:46 PM

Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 04:01:16 AM
"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

So if I say "I don't believe in one-winged purple monkeys", then by this logic I have a belief about one-winged purple monkeys.... ooooook.

Actually, no.  What Kai is stating comes from the Less Wrong Sequences.  Stating "I believe in" is having a belief about a belief.  And in these instances, "~belief" is the same as "belief".

"I don't anticipate any one-winged purple monkeys" states something about the outside universe.  "I don't believe in one-winged purple monkeys" states something about yourself.

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:32:10 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 26, 2010, 04:25:26 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:19:47 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 26, 2010, 04:18:01 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:47:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

I did read what you wrote. However you seem stuck in an either/or as though people believed only in two static extremes. Either you secretly believe in God or you don't.

Yet, for skeptics the point not to believe in your heart one way or the other, until there is evidence. Otherwise, its not skepticism... its just belief.

I am open to the possibility of God. I don't believe any particular system that claims a God. Until there is evidence though, the question is silly.
God may exist. God may not exist. I don't know. No secret belief necessary.

But I think you are still dodging the actual question.  Ok, let's leave what your belief is out of it, but what about what seems likely?  Does it seem more or less likely that a god exists? And we will take the "we can't know" as a given, since it is blatantly obvious to any 5 year old.  And leave "skepticism" out of it, since I never brought it up to begin with.

If I ask you whether you think it's likely that there is, or would be, a god, and you answer "we can't know it" after its been taken as a given isn't your answer really just a more polite version of "fuck you I don't want to talk to you"?  How do you live your life on a daily basis?  Do you live your life acting as though you believe in a god?  If not, it seems to me, and I fully admit that I may just be wrong, but it seems to me if you act as if there is no god then your belief is probably that you don't find it very likely.  In which case I would say you would fit as an agnostic atheist, someone who thinks we cannot ultimately ever know the answer, but doesn't feel its very likely.

Hahahahaha oh you ask the wrong Nut that question ;-)

In my life, some days I worship Eris. Some days I invoke Therion. Some days I don't give a fuck. Some days I do rituals and talk to the Holy Guardian Angels. Some days I invoke animal spirits and drink Yage.

In all of my experiences, I have found that if I act like I believe in a certain belief system, I experience things as expected in that system. I have had experiences that indicate to me that there might be something ... some kind of lowest common denominator that's inspired all this God stuff. Is it a real God, or some trick of human consciousness, or aliens, or something I haven't yet even fathomed? I DON'T KNOW.

Since no God has bothered to tell me what they expect (with the exception of Eris), then I live my life as though none of these Gods in potentia have bothered to tell me what they think I should do. If none of them ever bother to communicate with me, then I will die with no particular position on the topic other than "Dunno, the Universe is a crazy place... There may well be Gods out there... or aliens... but they never showed up to talk to me, so I couldn't do much about it."

Your premise is flawed.

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:47:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

I disagree entirely.  In my gut, I have no idea if there's a God or not.

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PM

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position. 

There is no default position.  You are dealing with the beliefs of monkeys, and a universe that has not chosen to settle the question, so to speak.

Further thought:

We could discuss specific Gods "Do you believe in the Baptist God?" "Do you believe in the Catholic God?" "Do you believe in the Greek Gods?" etc.

And to each of those I can answer "No", not because I don't believe that some entity might exist... but because I can examine the belief system involved and reject that specific belief system.

A theist rejects all Gods except the God they believe in.

An atheist rejects all Gods.

I reject belief systems that make no sense, but I hold no position on the concept of deity.

Food for thought.

I suspect the presence of a deity, because a number of years ago, I got my tongue stuck in an Epson tractor feed printer.

That doesn't happen in a random universe.  It requires a malign intelligence at work.

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:48:44 PM
Food for thought.

Excellent.

As the Non-Prophet said "Tis an ill wind that blows no minds".

I think that I'm pretty in line with Rat here. If I were to consider myself anything, it would be a polytheist. The problem is, what is a god? If it's an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and all loving deity, well, that's a hard sell since some of these things contradict. But that dexcribes the Christian god. What about Zeus? He's not omnipotent, he was chained up by his wife. He's not omnipresent or those chains would be meaningless. He's not omniscient because he didn't see those chains coming. He's not all loving because he knocks you up and leaves you and your baby at Hera's whim. But he is nevertheless defined as a god.

Also, atheism is not a default position. Lack of indoctrination into a faith means nothing. A child will come up with supernatural explanations for things on their own. I used to conceive of a giant "Grandfather Bee" to explain the loud buzzing of insects in the summer. It made sense to me. I conceived of this Grandfather Bee to be an immortal bee god that worked for bees whilst I had my anthropomorphic "God" figure out of Catholicism.

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PMThe problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Not really. By declaring myself agnostic, I'm taking a third option because the dichotomy posed by your question did not reflect the reality of my situation.

Actually, scratch that. It is a dodge of the question, I'm just pointing out that there's not necessarily anything wrong with dodging a question like that, if the only choices I'm being given are inadequate.

Quote from: Cainad on October 26, 2010, 05:48:22 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PMThe problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Not really. By declaring myself agnostic, I'm taking a third option because the dichotomy posed by your question did not reflect the reality of my situation.

Actually, scratch that. It is a dodge of the question, I'm just pointing out that there's not necessarily anything wrong with dodging a question like that, if the only choices I'm being given are inadequate.

That makes you a skeptic. You don't have enough data to work with.

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 06:19:22 PM

Quote from: Cainad on October 26, 2010, 05:48:22 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PMThe problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Not really. By declaring myself agnostic, I'm taking a third option because the dichotomy posed by your question did not reflect the reality of my situation.

Actually, scratch that. It is a dodge of the question, I'm just pointing out that there's not necessarily anything wrong with dodging a question like that, if the only choices I'm being given are inadequate.

That makes you a skeptic. You don't have enough data to work with.

You would think that as more people understood science and the scientific method... saying "I don't know" would become easier.

Ah monkeys :)

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 26, 2010, 06:22:57 PM
You would think that as more people understood science and the scientific method...

Where is your world?  I want to live in it.

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 26, 2010, 06:22:57 PM

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 06:19:22 PM

Quote from: Cainad on October 26, 2010, 05:48:22 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PMThe problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Not really. By declaring myself agnostic, I'm taking a third option because the dichotomy posed by your question did not reflect the reality of my situation.

Actually, scratch that. It is a dodge of the question, I'm just pointing out that there's not necessarily anything wrong with dodging a question like that, if the only choices I'm being given are inadequate.

That makes you a skeptic. You don't have enough data to work with.

You would think that as more people understood science and the scientific method... saying "I don't know" would become easier.

Ah monkeys :)

There's nothing wrong with saying "I just don't fucking know, therefore, I have no opinion on the topic. Come back with some numbers."

Hard atheism is not a religion, but it is a belief system. Like others have said, most atheists just go, "I don't expect the existence of deity" and leave it at that.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:53:58 AM

Quote from: Cain on October 26, 2010, 04:53:20 AM

Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 04:01:16 AM
"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

And lo, there was a motorcycle, and it's parts thereof were correct.

:motorcycle:

*(possibly) Angelic Choir*

An entirely unanticipated Angelic Choir.

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:32:10 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 26, 2010, 04:25:26 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:19:47 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on October 26, 2010, 04:18:01 PM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:10:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:47:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on October 25, 2010, 09:43:35 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
Atheists aren't actually skeptics, anyway.  They have taken something on faith (the non-existence of a God), and defend it in the exact same manner that religious nutbags do.

what type of evidence do you think should  be sufficient for proof of god that they would deny on faith?

You can't prove or disprove God's existence using anything remotely like the scientific method.  That was my whole point.

1.  You can't prove a negative.

2.  You can't take a God detector to a no-God zone to zero it out (ie, there is no control area).

Since they aren't using science to "disprove" (or prove) God's existence, they are expressing belief and/or opinion.

The only real position for an actual skeptic is that of an agnostic ("I have observed the following data, and there is no indication either way that a God does or does not exist".).  Unless God shows up, in which case the argument is pretty much settled...However, he's been quite the absentee landlord, and I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

The problem with this thinking is that it forgets that atheism is the default position.  Nobody is born a theist, babies know no god.

And the whole "agnostic" thing is just a dodge, when somebody asks you if you believe in god and you say you are agnostic, you have dodged their question.  They didn't ask if you believed it was possible to know if there was a god, they asked you what you truly believe in your heart and your gut.  Which would mean that agnostics are either atheistic agnostics or theistic agnostics.

Humans are not born skeptical, they must learn HOW to be skeptical. If you want to stick with a default position of a baby on the topic, that's cool... but its not skepticism.

Agnosticism is not a dodge, its the position that a skeptic would hold on any topic until there was evidence. Currently there is no evidence for or against deity, therefore agnosticism is a rational position for a skeptic.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote?  Because your response seems to indicate you didn't.

I did read what you wrote. However you seem stuck in an either/or as though people believed only in two static extremes. Either you secretly believe in God or you don't.

Yet, for skeptics the point not to believe in your heart one way or the other, until there is evidence. Otherwise, its not skepticism... its just belief.

I am open to the possibility of God. I don't believe any particular system that claims a God. Until there is evidence though, the question is silly.
God may exist. God may not exist. I don't know. No secret belief necessary.

But I think you are still dodging the actual question.  Ok, let's leave what your belief is out of it, but what about what seems likely?  Does it seem more or less likely that a god exists? And we will take the "we can't know" as a given, since it is blatantly obvious to any 5 year old.  And leave "skepticism" out of it, since I never brought it up to begin with.

If I ask you whether you think it's likely that there is, or would be, a god, and you answer "we can't know it" after its been taken as a given isn't your answer really just a more polite version of "fuck you I don't want to talk to you"?  How do you live your life on a daily basis?  Do you live your life acting as though you believe in a god?  If not, it seems to me, and I fully admit that I may just be wrong, but it seems to me if you act as if there is no god then your belief is probably that you don't find it very likely.  In which case I would say you would fit as an agnostic atheist, someone who thinks we cannot ultimately ever know the answer, but doesn't feel its very likely.

What is god?

...Jesus don't hurt me.... don't hurt me... no more...

Sorry had to.

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 06:28:08 AM

Quote from: Risus on October 26, 2010, 06:03:52 AM
I can't prove there isn't a god, but I think I can prove certain gods don't exist.

At best you can prove that people's understandings of a particular deity aren't possible.

Existence of Yahweh is not provable or disprovable, but events in the Old Testament are. For all we know, he does exist, and really likes lying to us about creating the Universe in 6 days. Hell, he might actually be just one particularly wussy god out of many, and is just very butthurt. The other gods let him dominate world religions because they don't actually give a crap about any of us. Or it guarantees he's too busy showing them all that he doesn't show up at their parties anymore.

You can't prove or disprove this idea.

The latter part of that central paragraph sounds a lot like Gnosticism. You might want to look into it if you haven't already.

How exactly does that have anything to do with Gnosticism?

The penultimate sentence in the second paragraph could be a rough assesment of the Gospel of Judas.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on October 26, 2010, 08:43:45 PM
The penultimate sentence in the second paragraph could be a rough assesment of the Gospel of Judas.

A pity that bits of it are missing.

Yeah, what LMNO said. Looked into Gnosticism out of historical curiosity. Basically, Old Testament God is still a god, and created the material universe, but is evil. Jesus is a manifestation of the "Good" god. Again oversimplification, but it gives you the gist.

I've already decided, though, that whatever ultimate reality/high god/whatever may or may not exist is just amoral, in that, it does not share the same values we do.

My greatest fear is that there IS a God, and he thinks just like I do.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 08:49:57 PM
My greatest fear is that there IS a God, and he thinks just like I do.

Doktor howl=reluctant messiah  :lulz:

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on October 26, 2010, 08:43:45 PM
The penultimate sentence in the second paragraph could be a rough assesment of the Gospel of Judas.

Nowhere in Judas does it say that God lets the Archons run things out of apathy.

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 08:52:33 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 08:49:57 PM
My greatest fear is that there IS a God, and he thinks just like I do.

Doktor howl=reluctant messiah  :lulz:

No, I just know what I'd do to you bastards if I had Godlike powers.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 26, 2010, 08:53:36 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on October 26, 2010, 08:43:45 PM
The penultimate sentence in the second paragraph could be a rough assesment of the Gospel of Judas.

Nowhere in Judas does it say that God lets the Archons run things out of apathy.

It was in one of the missing bits.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 08:54:20 PM

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 08:52:33 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 08:49:57 PM
My greatest fear is that there IS a God, and he thinks just like I do.

Doktor howl=reluctant messiah  :lulz:

No, I just know what I'd do to you bastards if I had Godlike powers.

Pleasant things?  :scared:

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 08:56:09 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 08:54:20 PM

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 08:52:33 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 08:49:57 PM
My greatest fear is that there IS a God, and he thinks just like I do.

Doktor howl=reluctant messiah  :lulz:

No, I just know what I'd do to you bastards if I had Godlike powers.

Pleasant things?  :scared:

Depends.  Is there any pleasant way to use the word "flense"?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 08:57:45 PM

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 08:56:09 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 08:54:20 PM

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 08:52:33 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 08:49:57 PM
My greatest fear is that there IS a God, and he thinks just like I do.

Doktor howl=reluctant messiah  :lulz:

No, I just know what I'd do to you bastards if I had Godlike powers.

Pleasant things?  :scared:

Depends.  Is there any pleasant way to use the word "flense"?

He flensegasmically flensed the whales?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 08:49:57 PM
My greatest fear is that there IS a God, and he thinks just like I do.

And thus we come down to "God is a Crazy Woman"

:lulz:

I like to think of it as "A crazy woman is raping God and he's powerless to stop it, providing that he finds the experience unpleasant"

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 08:49:02 PM
Yeah, what LMNO said. Looked into Gnosticism out of historical curiosity. Basically, Old Testament God is still a god, and created the material universe, but is evil. Jesus is a manifestation of the "Good" god. Again oversimplification, but it gives you the gist.

I've already decided, though, that whatever ultimate reality/high god/whatever may or may not exist is just amoral, in that, it does not share the same values we do.

Why should it? By projecting morality onto it we're forcing our own anthropomorphism onto it. I always felt that if something akin to a deity exists, its essentially nothing more than the singularity that exists at the beginning of the universe, at the moment of big-bang, and at the end... the logical conclusion of entropic decay and expansion.

Assuming some kind of creation mythology, the very act of creating free will negates omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience; introducing any kind of random element means sacrificing all of those things. Such a deity could only exist alone, otherwise any kind of free-will doesnt exist.

Perhaps there is some kind over-arching pattern which defines the universe, patterns within patterns, things that could be expressed mathematically that can help us understand the universe as we see it. Such a pattern could be deified, but its not an anthropomorphic being.

We're so hung up on the minutiae of our definitions here that we miss out on the big picture. Religious belief has been, in the past, a kind of bridge for us to be able to attempt to understand some of these things on an intuitive level. Religious dogmaticism and religious institution, has traditionally been a means of societal control, and usually not one that promotes understanding on any level.

In modern times, the entire atheistic movement has less to do with understanding, and more to do with backlash against the religious control of the past, kind of like black metal. Understanding of religious thought itself is something that might benefit us, and various thinkers have pursued this (I'm looking at you Jung), but just brushing religion completely to the side dismisses the fact that it has (at least in a few stages of human history) been a beneficial force to our development. Its hindered us too, and we're beginning to develop to the point where our religious beliefs can be bridged with science. The two dont have to be mutually exclusive.

As much as I dislike religious institutions, the extremist elements of the Atheist movement do more to fomenting dissent than they do to advance human intellect. You know, people like Dawkins and Sagan express a great deal of wonderment at the sheer majesty of the universe, and its great... I imagine they share the same kind of emotional impact when they look at a giraffe, that is expressed by ICP, but the difference is simply that they are willing to try and understand how that giraffe came about. It doesn't hurt their brain to ask questions. The people who carry the torch for these people, dont always have the same approach, they're just accepting a different flavor of dogmatic stigmas.

Anyway, I think others in this thread have put more succinctly why the label of Skeptic is more beneficial and appropriate to scientific thought than the label of Atheist. Why Agnosticism is less biased than Atheism, because both Atheists and Theists essentially are at odds over the definition of a word, which in and of itself, is vague and multifaceted.... not to mention completely irrelevant.

Quotewhile you were typing 10 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Wait? What?
Aww, fuck it, lets just hit post.

Quote from: eighteen buddha strike on October 26, 2010, 09:13:08 PM

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 08:49:02 PM
Yeah, what LMNO said. Looked into Gnosticism out of historical curiosity. Basically, Old Testament God is still a god, and created the material universe, but is evil. Jesus is a manifestation of the "Good" god. Again oversimplification, but it gives you the gist.

I've already decided, though, that whatever ultimate reality/high god/whatever may or may not exist is just amoral, in that, it does not share the same values we do.

Why should it? By projecting morality onto it we're forcing our own anthropomorphism onto it. I always felt that if something akin to a deity exists, its essentially nothing more than the singularity that exists at the beginning of the universe, at the moment of big-bang, and at the end... the logical conclusion of entropic decay and expansion.

Assuming some kind of creation mythology, the very act of creating free will negates omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience; introducing any kind of random element means sacrificing all of those things. Such a deity could only exist alone, otherwise any kind of free-will doesnt exist.

Perhaps there is some kind over-arching pattern which defines the universe, patterns within patterns, things that could be expressed mathematically that can help us understand the universe as we see it. Such a pattern could be deified, but its not an anthropomorphic being.

We're so hung up on the minutiae of our definitions here that we miss out on the big picture. Religious belief has been, in the past, a kind of bridge for us to be able to attempt to understand some of these things on an intuitive level. Religious dogmaticism and religious institution, has traditionally been a means of societal control, and usually not one that promotes understanding on any level.

In modern times, the entire atheistic movement has less to do with understanding, and more to do with backlash against the religious control of the past, kind of like black metal. Understanding of religious thought itself is something that might benefit us, and various thinkers have pursued this (I'm looking at you Jung), but just brushing religion completely to the side dismisses the fact that it has (at least in a few stages of human history) been a beneficial force to our development. Its hindered us too, and we're beginning to develop to the point where our religious beliefs can be bridged with science. The two dont have to be mutually exclusive.

As much as I dislike religious institutions, the extremist elements of the Atheist movement do more to fomenting dissent than they do to advance human intellect. You know, people like Dawkins and Sagan express a great deal of wonderment at the sheer majesty of the universe, and its great... I imagine they share the same kind of emotional impact when they look at a giraffe, that is expressed by ICP, but the difference is simply that they are willing to try and understand how that giraffe came about. It doesn't hurt their brain to ask questions. The people who carry the torch for these people, dont always have the same approach, they're just accepting a different flavor of dogmatic stigmas.

Anyway, I think others in this thread have put more succinctly why the label of Skeptic is more beneficial and appropriate to scientific thought than the label of Atheist. Why Agnosticism is less biased than Atheism, because both Atheists and Theists essentially are at odds over the definition of a word, which in and of itself, is vague and multifaceted.... not to mention completely irrelevant.

Quotewhile you were typing 10 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Wait? What?
Aww, fuck it, lets just hit post.

Hell... if our existence were created by some alien grad student who decided to build a complex Game of Life in the empty Universe next door... that alien would be 'God' in a very real sense. And I doubt it would tell us what to do.... most likely it would just be making notes on what we do for its thesis.

Quote from: eighteen buddha strike on October 26, 2010, 09:13:08 PM

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 08:49:02 PM
Yeah, what LMNO said. Looked into Gnosticism out of historical curiosity. Basically, Old Testament God is still a god, and created the material universe, but is evil. Jesus is a manifestation of the "Good" god. Again oversimplification, but it gives you the gist.

I've already decided, though, that whatever ultimate reality/high god/whatever may or may not exist is just amoral, in that, it does not share the same values we do.

Why should it? By projecting morality onto it we're forcing our own anthropomorphism onto it. I always felt that if something akin to a deity exists, its essentially nothing more than the singularity that exists at the beginning of the universe, at the moment of big-bang, and at the end... the logical conclusion of entropic decay and expansion.

Assuming some kind of creation mythology, the very act of creating free will negates omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience; introducing any kind of random element means sacrificing all of those things. Such a deity could only exist alone, otherwise any kind of free-will doesnt exist.

Perhaps there is some kind over-arching pattern which defines the universe, patterns within patterns, things that could be expressed mathematically that can help us understand the universe as we see it. Such a pattern could be deified, but its not an anthropomorphic being.

We're so hung up on the minutiae of our definitions here that we miss out on the big picture. Religious belief has been, in the past, a kind of bridge for us to be able to attempt to understand some of these things on an intuitive level. Religious dogmaticism and religious institution, has traditionally been a means of societal control, and usually not one that promotes understanding on any level.

In modern times, the entire atheistic movement has less to do with understanding, and more to do with backlash against the religious control of the past, kind of like black metal. Understanding of religious thought itself is something that might benefit us, and various thinkers have pursued this (I'm looking at you Jung), but just brushing religion completely to the side dismisses the fact that it has (at least in a few stages of human history) been a beneficial force to our development. Its hindered us too, and we're beginning to develop to the point where our religious beliefs can be bridged with science. The two dont have to be mutually exclusive.

As much as I dislike religious institutions, the extremist elements of the Atheist movement do more to fomenting dissent than they do to advance human intellect. You know, people like Dawkins and Sagan express a great deal of wonderment at the sheer majesty of the universe, and its great... I imagine they share the same kind of emotional impact when they look at a giraffe, that is expressed by ICP, but the difference is simply that they are willing to try and understand how that giraffe came about. It doesn't hurt their brain to ask questions. The people who carry the torch for these people, dont always have the same approach, they're just accepting a different flavor of dogmatic stigmas.

Anyway, I think others in this thread have put more succinctly why the label of Skeptic is more beneficial and appropriate to scientific thought than the label of Atheist. Why Agnosticism is less biased than Atheism, because both Atheists and Theists essentially are at odds over the definition of a word, which in and of itself, is vague and multifaceted.... not to mention completely irrelevant.

Quotewhile you were typing 10 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Wait? What?
Aww, fuck it, lets just hit post.

Response to the summary of your post:

Exactly. If there is some sort of deity that created the universe, it would by necessity not be like us. We're only special in that we have civilization. Why should a god of that stature have the same morals we do? We don't have the same values as an ant does. We're glorified monkeys.

Black metal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-89JLgrBSs
Lyrics fairly relevant if you can make them out

Sagan=cooler than Dawkins, and much friendlier as an atheist. Plus he came up with the original FSMism, and left it in a paragraph rather than dragging it out. Again, see old school atheists vs. "New Atheists"

Last note- Black metal should never be mentioned in the same post as ICP. God forbids it.  :lulz: :argh!: :lulz: :argh!:

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 09:24:19 PM

Quote from: eighteen buddha strike on October 26, 2010, 09:13:08 PM

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 08:49:02 PM
Yeah, what LMNO said. Looked into Gnosticism out of historical curiosity. Basically, Old Testament God is still a god, and created the material universe, but is evil. Jesus is a manifestation of the "Good" god. Again oversimplification, but it gives you the gist.

I've already decided, though, that whatever ultimate reality/high god/whatever may or may not exist is just amoral, in that, it does not share the same values we do.

Why should it? By projecting morality onto it we're forcing our own anthropomorphism onto it. I always felt that if something akin to a deity exists, its essentially nothing more than the singularity that exists at the beginning of the universe, at the moment of big-bang, and at the end... the logical conclusion of entropic decay and expansion.

Assuming some kind of creation mythology, the very act of creating free will negates omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience; introducing any kind of random element means sacrificing all of those things. Such a deity could only exist alone, otherwise any kind of free-will doesnt exist.

Perhaps there is some kind over-arching pattern which defines the universe, patterns within patterns, things that could be expressed mathematically that can help us understand the universe as we see it. Such a pattern could be deified, but its not an anthropomorphic being.

We're so hung up on the minutiae of our definitions here that we miss out on the big picture. Religious belief has been, in the past, a kind of bridge for us to be able to attempt to understand some of these things on an intuitive level. Religious dogmaticism and religious institution, has traditionally been a means of societal control, and usually not one that promotes understanding on any level.

In modern times, the entire atheistic movement has less to do with understanding, and more to do with backlash against the religious control of the past, kind of like black metal. Understanding of religious thought itself is something that might benefit us, and various thinkers have pursued this (I'm looking at you Jung), but just brushing religion completely to the side dismisses the fact that it has (at least in a few stages of human history) been a beneficial force to our development. Its hindered us too, and we're beginning to develop to the point where our religious beliefs can be bridged with science. The two dont have to be mutually exclusive.

As much as I dislike religious institutions, the extremist elements of the Atheist movement do more to fomenting dissent than they do to advance human intellect. You know, people like Dawkins and Sagan express a great deal of wonderment at the sheer majesty of the universe, and its great... I imagine they share the same kind of emotional impact when they look at a giraffe, that is expressed by ICP, but the difference is simply that they are willing to try and understand how that giraffe came about. It doesn't hurt their brain to ask questions. The people who carry the torch for these people, dont always have the same approach, they're just accepting a different flavor of dogmatic stigmas.

Anyway, I think others in this thread have put more succinctly why the label of Skeptic is more beneficial and appropriate to scientific thought than the label of Atheist. Why Agnosticism is less biased than Atheism, because both Atheists and Theists essentially are at odds over the definition of a word, which in and of itself, is vague and multifaceted.... not to mention completely irrelevant.

Quotewhile you were typing 10 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Wait? What?
Aww, fuck it, lets just hit post.

Response to the summary of your post:

Exactly. If there is some sort of deity that created the universe, it would by necessity not be like us. We're only special in that we have civilization. Why should a god of that stature have the same morals we do? We don't have the same values as an ant does. We're glorified monkeys.

Black metal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-89JLgrBSs
Lyrics fairly relevant if you can make them out

Sagan=cooler than Dawkins, and much friendlier as an atheist. Plus he came up with the original FSMism, and left it in a paragraph rather than dragging it out. Again, see old school atheists vs. "New Atheists"

Last note- Black metal should never be mentioned in the same post as ICP. God forbids it.  :lulz: :argh!: :lulz: :argh!:

Ihsan is a Laveyan Satanist, which is a couple steps above labeling yourself as an Atheist, IMO. and IX Equilibrium is one of the best Emperor albums.

I really just wanted to compare ICP to Sagan. I think there is a common ground between Miracles and Cosmos, but it should be fairly obvious where the former falls short of the latter.

... and the black metal comparison is meant to illustrate atheism as a backlash against religious institutionalism, a better specific example might be Varg Vikernes with his church burnings. 

I figured, but in his heyday Ihsahn was more of the anti-Christian type of Satanist, musical genius though he is (last part is why I'm more of an Emperor fan than a Burzum fan).

IX Equilibrium is an awesome album, minus Warriors of Modern Death (which strikes me as more of a hardcore song) and Source of Icon E (which I never was able to get into). It took me awhile to like Nonus Aequilibrium but dissecting it, it's a really awesome song once you get past the intro. That album was a great exclamation point to my senior year in high school, that and Maiden's Brave New World

And naturally, I'm listening to IX Equilibrium due to this tangent, with a Brave New World follow up, maybe with some Downward Spiral thrown in

Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 26, 2010, 08:39:11 PM
How exactly does that have anything to do with Gnosticism?

I haven't read much about it, but from what I understand, Gnosticism portrays the God of the Old Testament as a petty, childish, power mad dictator in our universe, while the other, more powerful gods laugh at him behind his back and sneak in sources of enlightenment for humans to escape by. That's the similarity that I saw.

But as everyone's been saying, all you can do when it comes to the issue of god is speculate. Sometimes, I think that if there is a god, it's likely some kind of Lovecraftian eldritch abomination, and it's likely not the only one of its kind. I doubt that I'm right, but it adds a little extra flavour to the universe, doesn't it?

Quote from: eighteen buddha strike on October 26, 2010, 07:43:25 PM
What is god?

Not sure, they seem to be talking about it as if they know roughly what it is, but nobody dares to be specific about it.

Except for one quality they all seem to agree upon: it is something about which you are (almost as if by definition) unable to tell whether it exists or not.

Apart from that, it seems to be a completely opaque concept.

The game seems to be to deny its existence in the absolutely most subtle sense possible, without accidentally tipping over to endorsing its existence. Others may then counter by arguing about how they formulated it the wrong way and that they indeed did cross the line one way or another.

If I were to hazard a guess, it seems that god is a kind of intellectual equivalent of one of those wooden block brainteaser puzzle games.

Quote from: Triple Zero on October 26, 2010, 10:52:19 PM

Quote from: eighteen buddha strike on October 26, 2010, 07:43:25 PM
What is god?

Not sure, they seem to be talking about it as if they know roughly what it is, but nobody dares to be specific about it.

Except for one quality they all seem to agree upon: it is something about which you are (almost as if by definition) unable to tell whether it exists or not.

Apart from that, it seems to be a completely opaque concept.

The game seems to be to deny its existence in the absolutely most subtle sense possible, without accidentally tipping over to endorsing its existence. Others may then counter by arguing about how they formulated it the wrong way and that they indeed did cross the line one way or another.

If I were to hazard a guess, it seems that god is a kind of intellectual equivalent of one of those wooden block brainteaser puzzle games.

:lol:  That's the best answer to that question I've ever read.

Well, as previously stated, no one knows what they mean when they say god. I certainly don't. That's pretty important. What makes a god universally acceptable as a god?

For example, I'm going to put it out there and call me a filthy Pagan if you want (it would be accurate anyway), but I believe in the Tuatha De Danann, and they are my gods, with a few notable Greco-Roman exceptions (obviously, Eris is included in this), and I actively worship them. My Irish gods can be killed, just like in Norse mythology. A few of them have been killed in established mythology. They are not all powerful, they are not all knowing, and they have a sense of honor (vs morality) that is frankly alien to me. And they are certainly not immortal, though they seem to have a spiritual existence beyond their deaths. But they are my gods.

Why do I define, say, Lugh Lamhfada, or Brid, An Dagda Mor or Nuadha Argetlamh as a god when the defintion of a god eludes us? I don't know, but I don't know what else to call them. I don't know what is definitely a god and what is definitely less than a god. At the end of the day it doesn't matter anyway because my ideas about the afterlife, if any exists, is independent of gods and the worship of said gods. And if I'm wrong, then one of three things will happen:

1. Real God doesn't care, and we all experience the same afterlife, if any
2. Real God does care, and we're all going to have the best endless party in Hell
3. There is no Real God and we're all dust, at which point I'm not bothered about it.

1 or 2 seems pretty good since I have an eternity to meet all you spags and enjoy your company, but if 3 is true I'm not going to care anyway. Therefore elaboration is irrelevant. And thus we get back to the defintion of skeptic when it does not involve gods.

Twid,
-Not skeptical on theism, but will gladly see you all in Hell.

4.  God is real, and he eats your soul when you die.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 11:24:04 PM
4.  God is real, and he eats your soul when you die.

At which point, we can temporarily enjoy each others' company pre-digestion.

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 11:26:58 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 11:24:04 PM
4.  God is real, and he eats your soul when you die.

At which point, we can temporarily enjoy each others' company pre-digestion.

Optimist.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 11:27:27 PM

Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 26, 2010, 11:26:58 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 11:24:04 PM
4.  God is real, and he eats your soul when you die.

At which point, we can temporarily enjoy each others' company pre-digestion.

Optimist.

Like you said months ago in reference to me being a nice guy, you can't make a cynic overnight.

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:18:46 PM

Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 04:01:16 AM
"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

So if I say "I don't believe in one-winged purple monkeys", then by this logic I have a belief about one-winged purple monkeys.... ooooook.

Or you could just say "There are no one winged purple monkeys".

What I was saying was quite simply, when people actually believe something, meaning they anticipate it about reality, they don't talk about it as a belief, they speak it /as it is/. A sure sign of belief in belief as defined by Yudowsky is starting a statement with "I believe" or "I don't believe" and repeating it all the time. This is also known as cheering.

A person who just anticipated the absence of gods would say "there are no gods" or "i don't anticipate any gods" and be done with it. Most atheists don't do this.

People get invested in beliefs, and use them to signal tribal affiliation.  The beliefs then become weapons in the hands of tribalists, and we all know where that leads...

Quote from: Cain on October 27, 2010, 03:46:19 AM
People get invested in beliefs, and use them to signal tribal affiliation.  The beliefs then become weapons in the hands of tribalists, and we all know where that leads...

Ice Cream Socials?

Well, they might give out ice creams for people to eat, while burning the unbeliever.  I try to avoid such gatherings.

Cain,
in 99% of situations is the unbeliever.

Quote from: Cain on October 27, 2010, 06:16:36 PM
Well, they might give out ice creams for people to eat, while burning the unbeliever.  I try to avoid such gatherings.

Cain,
in 99% of situations is the unbeliever.

Everyone likes a good burning... but they never want to take their turn  :cry:

Quote from: Kai on October 27, 2010, 01:17:29 AM

Quote from: The Android on October 26, 2010, 04:18:46 PM

Quote from: Kai on October 26, 2010, 04:01:16 AM
"I don't anticipate any gods" is not the same as "I don't believe in gods".

The former is a valid believe, ie an anticipation of reality.

The latter is a belief in belief, ie an anticipation it is RIGHTEOUS to not anticipate gods.

The former is stated once and is over with.

The latter is a form of cheering and is therefore stated over and over, ad nauseum.

The latter will profess to be an atheist.

The former won't waste the time.

So if I say "I don't believe in one-winged purple monkeys", then by this logic I have a belief about one-winged purple monkeys.... ooooook.

Or you could just say "There are no one winged purple monkeys".

What I was saying was quite simply, when people actually believe something, meaning they anticipate it about reality, they don't talk about it as a belief, they speak it /as it is/. A sure sign of belief in belief as defined by Yudowsky is starting a statement with "I believe" or "I don't believe" and repeating it all the time. This is also known as cheering.

A person who just anticipated the absence of gods would say "there are no gods" or "i don't anticipate any gods" and be done with it. Most atheists don't do this.

I think it also helps that a statement like "There are no one winged purple monkeys" is falsifiable by producing a one winged purple monkey.

I think the truer test for a belief is how the person reacts if evidence is brought that perhaps that belief is unfounded.

I don't believe in JHVH in the same way that I don't believe in Soviet style Communism.  It doesn't mean I don't think it exists, it just means I don't support it and think it is sold falsely by it's supporters.

(roughly the same way may Christians don't believe in the homosexual lifestyle)

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 27, 2010, 11:17:15 PM
I don't believe in JHVH in the same way that I don't believe in Soviet style Communism.  It doesn't mean I don't think it exists, it just means I don't support it and think it is sold falsely by it's supporters.

(roughly the same way may Christians don't believe in the homosexual lifestyle)

Do you specifically believe or disbelieve the existence of YHWH, or just hold a neutral position aside from your disapproval, should he/it exist?

It bother me when people use "believe in" in place of "approve" or "support". Are those words really too hard?

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 28, 2010, 02:31:19 AM
It bother me when people use "believe in" in place of "approve" or "support". Are those words really too hard?

It is because the term "religious beliefs" is considered common terminology on this topic.

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 28, 2010, 02:31:19 AM
It bother me when people use "believe in" in place of "approve" or "support". Are those words really too hard?

Me too.  Using "believe in" in that sense is not correct.  The speaker usually means "believe on".  To "believe in" something means to believe that it exists.  To "believe on" something means to trust and have faith in it.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 11:24:04 PM
4.  God is real, and he eats your soul when you die.

Quote from: Mens Recovery Project
All music is shit to god
He thinks we're a bunch of babies
He has no patience for all our noise
He makes great big plans to destroy us.

Also relevant...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPsdjlPVaJU


God reached his hand down from the sky
He flooded the land, the he set it on fire

He said, "Fear me again, know I'm your father,
Remember that no one can breathe underwater."

So bend your knees and bow your heads
Save your babies, here's your future...

YEAH HERE'S YOUR FUTURE!!!

God reached his hand down from the sky
God asked Noah if he wanted to die
He said, "No Sir, oh, no Sir!"
God said, "Here's your future.
It's gonna rain..."

So we packing our things
We're building a boat
We're gonna create the new master race
'Cause we're so pure, oh Lord we're so pure!!!

So here's your future...

God told his son, "It's time to come home.
I promise you won't have to die all alone.
I need you to pay for the sins I create."
Son said, "I will, but Dad, I'm afraid!!!"

So here's your future...
So here's your future...
So here's your future.

Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 28, 2010, 02:31:19 AM
It bother me when people use "believe in" in place of "approve" or "support". Are those words really too hard?

Yeah that does make more sense... I will try to adjust how I word it in the future.