Atheist or Agnostic?

beat root · 10-03-2010 2:06pm

"I'm not against scientific enquiry but if God is responsible for creation, science will inevitably hit a brick wall"

Religion has been retreating scientific discovery for centuries, it is religion that has hit the brick wall and its beliefs are crumbling all around us

ColmDawson · 10-03-2010 2:10pm

I mostly agree with you, but not because you emboldened your post and made the font bigger.

doctoremma · 10-03-2010 2:37pm

ColmDawson wrote: »

I mostly agree with you, but not because you emboldened your post and made the font bigger.

Now Colm, you are to be congratulated on your recent defection but are you sure you can't still be indoctrinated by those who shout louder and in brighter colours...

liamw · 10-03-2010 5:23pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Liam, this is silly. Don't you think the creator would have to exist "outside" the universe. Does a physical teapot fit that description? And why a teapot and not a tennis racket? It makes no sense.

This isn't an ordinary teapot though, it's beyond our comprehension. I know it's not a tennis racket becuase the teapot spoke to some guys in the middle east a few thousand years ago and they wrote down what he told them. I have also had a divine relevation from the teapot.

The universe had a beginning, surely that's evidence that the teapot exists?
Look at all the good in the world, surely that's evidence that the teapot exists?
Where did we get our morality from? The teapot.

Also a teapot and a tennis racket wouldn't make as much sense because one deity is more rational. You agreed with this Noel.

I hope you are starting to get the point here.
Back to you... why Yahweh and not Allah?

beat root · 10-03-2010 5:44pm

The chief problem about death, incidentally, is the fear that there may be no afterlife -- a depressing thought, particularly for those who have bothered to shave. Also, there is the fear that there is an afterlife but no one will know where it's being held.
-- Woody Allen, "The Early Essays," Without Feathers

p.s. the emboldening was unintentional, with the exception of the something

kelly1 · 10-03-2010 6:56pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It doesn't really solve the problem though.
[*]how do you know the universe had a cause?
[*]You have postulated an uncaused cause but that doesn't mean that such a thing actually exists or could even possibly exist. The fact that the idea fits nicely in your brain means pretty much nothing. The universe is not necessarily intuitive which is why we need evidence
[*]Even if there is a uncaused cause, why must it be a god?
[*]more importantly why must it be your god and not a being I have postulated called the uncaused spaghetti monster?
[/list]

- Are you aware of any event that occur spontaneously without any cause? I realize particles pairs pop into existence but doesn't this usually involve high energies? I could very well be wrong about this!
- Surely if we can establish that the universe had a beginning, then we have to find the cause. If there is no cause, then neither science nor theology can help us understand what's happening.
- Again if there was a beginning to the universe, meaning that nothing existed beforehand, then I think it's logical to argue that something immaterial brought the universe into existence.
- I'll ignore your last question. It's silly because spaghetti is a natural substance and cannot about for creation.

Folks, I'll be back later to reply to other posts, but I'll take me a while to catch up!

Sam Vimes · 10-03-2010 7:22pm

kelly1 wrote: »

- Are you aware of any event that occur spontaneously without any cause?

A god according to you. But even if I'm not aware of such an event, all that means is that I'm not aware of such an event. Considering we're talking about an event that human beings have almost no understanding of that happened almost 14 billion years ago the fact that I am not aware of what may or may not happened there is hardly surprising. What happened back then is not necessarily intuitive, the laws of physics as we know them didn't even apply (we think). Anything could happen. I know it's comforting to have an answer to that question and especially comforting to stick your god into that gap in our knowledge but we simply do not know what happened "before" the big bang. I put before in quotes because the word before is time dependent and so it's actually meaningless when applied to "before" the big bang, when there was no time (we think)

kelly1 wrote: »

I realize particles pairs pop into existence but doesn't this usually involve high energies? I could very well be wrong about this!
- Surely if we can establish that the universe had a beginning, then we have to find the cause. If there is no cause, then neither science nor theology can help us understand what's happening.
- Again if there was a beginning to the universe, meaning that nothing existed beforehand, then I think it's logical to argue that something immaterial brought the universe into existence.

Even if I grant you that the universe had a cause, all that means is that the universe had a cause, the nature of that cause would still remain a mystery and "I don't know so it must be god" would not be any more valid then than it is today. In theory it would have to have been "immaterial" as we understand the term because there was no such thing material as we understand the term (we think) but it must then be pointed out that what we understand of the term is not necessarily complete; what appears immaterial to us is not necessarily totally immaterial in the way you understand a god to be. Just because something does not follow the laws of our universe as they currently are does not mean it's a god and it certainly does not mean it's the catholic god

kelly1 wrote: »

- I'll ignore your last question. It's silly because spaghetti is a natural substance and cannot about for creation.

You're not getting the point. The point I'm making by talking about spaghetti monsters and talking about the possible nature of a "cause" of the universe is that we have absolutely no idea how the universe came into being. Showing that certain theorems don't apply at certain points proves nothing about theology. Showing that the universe had a beginning would prove nothing about theology. Showing that the universe had a cause would prove nothing about theology. When I talk about spaghetti monsters I am trying to show how ludicrous it is to try to apply human understanding to something that humans have absolutely no understanding of without a shred of physical evidence. Every single characteristic that you ascribe to the beginning of the universe must be independently justified evidentially or saying that it must be immaterial makes no more sense than saying it must be made of spaghetti. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us and that's why every claim we make about it must be supported by evidence, not just what we think must be the case because it makes sense to some of us. As Dades says, without evidence these philosophical arguments are as useful as a ham sandwich as a Bar Mitzvah

And even if all of these arguments were totally accepted, even if I fully believed that there was some kind of a god that created the universe, I would be no closer to believing that a Jewish guy walked on water 2000 years ago than I am today and that's really all that matters. These philosophical arguments argue for a generic creator type of being but such a being is completely irrelevant to our existence (assuming it's what we would call a being). The being's existence only becomes relevant if we are actually able to know something about it in a reliable way supported by evidence and the 33,000 denominations of christianity along with the millions of other religions, cults, sects and fairy tales show that that is quite clearly not the case. It's no coincidence that there are millions of religions but only one atomic theory. It's because atomic theory is supported by evidence and religion is made up as the followers go along

MilanPan!c · 10-03-2010 7:25pm

I gotta say, after being booted from the Christianity forum for mocking the beliefs of Christians, I am tempted to call for a banning of Christians from the AG/AT forum if they mock Athiests or Agnostics.

More double standards I suppose. Not enough to control almost every facet of life...

Mark Hamill · 10-03-2010 8:07pm

kelly1 wrote: »

- Are you aware of any event that occur spontaneously without any cause?

The big bang.

kelly1 wrote: »

I realize particles pairs pop into existence but doesn't this usually involve high energies? I could very well be wrong about this!

The initial condition of the universe is believed to be a state of huge (infinite maybe) temperature and pressure. There's all the energy you need.

kelly1 wrote: »

- Surely if we can establish that the universe had a beginning, then we have to find the cause.

You are assuming, despite that other thread and all the explanations here, that there must be a cause. But this is not necessarily the case. Things outside the universe do not necessarily need a cause (as we understand cause) as they exist outside of linear space-time which is were cause and effect (as we experience them-linearly).

kelly1 wrote: »

If there is no cause, then neither science nor theology can help us understand what's happening.

While I would agree that science at the moment isn't really near the state it would need to be in to start talking about the causeless beginning of the universe with a lot of confidence, theology can never help us understand what is happening as theology doesn't deal in understanding. Theists say that "science deals with the how, not the why" but in reality, theology only deals with the who, and even they get the who right, this tells us nothing of why and questions of why are met with counters asking who we are to be asking these questions of god.

kelly1 wrote: »

- Again if there was a beginning to the universe, meaning that nothing existed beforehand, then I think it's logical to argue that something immaterial brought the universe into existence.

But that something is only immaterial in terms of the universe as we know it. For all we know that something exists in a simultaneously existing parallel universe.

kelly1 wrote: »

- I'll ignore your last question. It's silly because spaghetti is a natural substance and cannot about for creation.

Do not think only of the spaghetti on your plate, for that was made only in the image of His Noodly Appendage. It has none of the universe making powers that obviously exist in the Spaghetti of His Noodly Appendage

ChocolateSauce · 10-03-2010 8:40pm

To get pedantic, agnostic, because I can't know, but atheist is the term I prefer because it more accurately describes my explicit rejection of gods and religion and also inspires terror in the hearts of the moral majority.

Daftendirekt · 10-03-2010 10:11pm

kelly1 wrote: »

- Are you aware of any event that occur spontaneously without any cause?

In our universe, things need to have a cause. Outside of our universe, no one knows.

- Surely if we can establish that the universe had a beginning, then we have to find the cause. If there is no cause, then neither science nor theology can help us understand what's happening.

That may well be the case.

- Again if there was a beginning to the universe, meaning that nothing existed beforehand, then I think it's logical to argue that something immaterial brought the universe into existence.

And what brought this immaterial something into existence? And what brought that into existence? And so on, ad infinitum.

- I'll ignore your last question. It's silly because spaghetti is a natural substance and cannot about for creation.

This is spiritual spaghetti though. In the same way as God isn't literally a bearded man in the clouds, His Noodliness isn't literally made of the same physical material as the delicious stringy form of pasta that goes so well with some minced beef and tomato sauce. Rather, this is the form in which He has chosen to reveal Himself to us, since it is most comprehensible to our mortal brains.

Blackhorse Slim · 10-03-2010 11:07pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't follow. God cannot do what is logically impossible. Are you suggesting that God should have given us free will but prevent us from commiting evil, thereby putting a limit on our freedom which would make our "free-will" illusory?

I'm not saying god should have done anything - but are you saying that the rules of logic are more powerful than the 'uncaused cause' that caused the universe and everything in it -including logic itself - to exist? Did god himself not get to decide what is or is not logically impossible?

Zombrex · 10-03-2010 11:27pm

sink wrote: »

It proves nothing beyond that men are capable of creating religion. In absence of further evidence it is reasonable to assume that all religions are man made.

+1

That should really be on bumper stickers

Dades · 10-03-2010 11:32pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Agnosticism is, like any other belief, an absolute belief.

It's faith based, like athiesm or and other religion.

Absolute rubbish.

The only time faith is required for a belief is when you have a belief that something actually exists without evidence.

Zombrex · 11-03-2010 12:43am

JimiTime wrote: »

You think if a Christian says that they know God exists and they end up being right that it will end up being nothing more than luck

In that context it is God as in a creator, rather than specifically your deity communicating with them the exactly the way it is described.

If a Christian or Hindu or Viking or what ever says "God created the universe!" and in a million years we some how discover that a super powerful supernatural being actually did create the universe, that doesn't mean all the religions proclaiming such a creator were right. It means they got luck in their guessing

I have no idea if a creator deity exists or not, but I'm pretty certain Christianity is made up, and thus any similarities between the Christian concept of God and this possible creator deity if he exists are mere flukes.

MilanPan!c · 11-03-2010 12:56am

Dades wrote: »

Absolute rubbish.

The only time faith is required for a belief is when you have a belief that something actually exists without evidence.

Your completely wrong.

You have no way of knowing...

I have faith that the absence of evidence combined with the delusional nature of religious types means that religions is purely a man-made construct, based in fantasy, not fact.

But it's just faith.

I'm not so arrogant to think that if some supernaternal being existed at some point I would DEFINITELY know.

I Possibly wouldn't.

It's a theory with a hell of a lot of proof; I choose to believe it because it matches what I've seen in this world, but that's it.

If you can definitively prove that there's no other supernatural entity anywhere in the universe, never was and never will be, then share it so that we can end religion, or at least moderately slow it down.

But you don't have proof, you have evidence and belief... In essence you have faith.

It's the same faith you have when you get on an airplane, but it's still faith.

----

To directly respond to one of your points.

There's all kinds of evidence... A little evidence doesn't mean anything... Scientists still class gravity, for example, as a theory.

They don't feel they understand it well enough to label it a fact (I'm using simple language here to make a point...).

If scientists can't definitively prove gravity then your claim that having evidence means something is no longer taken on faith is wrong on it's face. Let me tell you, every plane you've ever been on was based on faith, not a definitive knowledge of the true nature of gravity.

Zombrex · 11-03-2010 12:59am

kelly1 wrote: »

- Are you aware of any event that occur spontaneously without any cause? I realize particles pairs pop into existence but doesn't this usually involve high energies? I could very well be wrong about this!

Actually it happens at zero energy, which is the really weird thing.

If you take all the matter out of an area of space, and reduce all the energy fields to zero (so there is no energy in the space either) you will find that thousands of particle pop into existence and pop out of existence at random.

This is a property of quantum uncertainty.

This is just the way our universe works, and it is highly counter intuitive.

Ironically though it should be relatively easy for a Christian to "get" since you guys believe God made everything out of nothing, so everything popped into existence from nothing. There was nothing and then God did "something" (see Goddidit really doesn't explain much without that bit) and then there was everything.

kelly1 wrote: »

- Surely if we can establish that the universe had a beginning, then we have to find the cause. If there is no cause, then neither science nor theology can help us understand what's happening.

I'm really not following how you think theology helps us in any way.

Do you except that having an explanation, any explanation, is rather useless?

That me simply making up an explanation now, on the spot, is pointless with out any way of determining if that explanation is accurate or not?

So what is the difference between that and Goddidit? With no way of determining if God actually did it this is simply an explanation rather than the explanation. It is one of an infinite number of explanations, none of which are of any use because we have no idea if they are correct or not.

Also given that we don't actually know what God did (see above) this is barely an explanation at all.

What exactly did God do and how exactly did he do it?

Everything we know about the universe around us from science is based on the concept of modelling.

I could model every single piece of my computer and work out based on the know understanding of electromagnatism, what each piece is doing.

We apply such models to the universe as a whole and can use this model to work out how the universe unfolded right back to the big bang. I could put this all into a super computer and have a model of the universe.

How do you model Goddidit? God did what exactly?

See, it really doesn't increase our understanding at all.

kelly1 wrote: »

- I'll ignore your last question. It's silly because spaghetti is a natural substance and cannot about for creation.

God can account for creation only because you have defined him that way. I could define magically super spaghetti that "some how" can make universes.

You would find that silly I imagine but you can't prove my super spaghetti doesn't exist and you can't prove it didn't create the universe.

You can ask me how my super spaghetti created the universe and I can say I don't know the details, just like you do with God.

Super spaghetti explains exactly as much as God does when it comes to understanding how the universe was created.

lynski · 11-03-2010 1:53am

Wicknight wrote: »

I have no idea if a creator deity exists or not, but I'm pretty certain Christianity is made up, and thus any similarities between the Christian concept of God and this possible creator deity if he exists are mere flukes.

Goes for all the other deities and religions for me too.

I am atheist because to my knowledge there are no gods. it is not merely a rational position, but an emotional one also.

Because of the set-up in this country it is fast becoming a political position also.

MilanPan!c · 11-03-2010 9:20am

I'm going to re-state in here what I said on the other thread:

Al beliefs of this nature are personal.

Athiests (like me) and Agnostics are all going on faith that their belief is correct.

I pretty much hate the idea of faith, but I'm not stupid.

Faith is the underpinning of almost everything we do; faith our beliefs are well-founded is the only thing that gets us out of bed.

strobe · 11-03-2010 9:46am

MilanPan!c wrote: »

faith our beliefs are well-founded is the only thing that gets us out of bed.

For you maybe......for me it's usually the fact that I drank too much water through out the night and I really need to p1ss...

MilanPan!c · 11-03-2010 10:08am

Sorry mate, your faith that peeing will relive the pressure coupled with your belief that it's better to piss in the toilet than your bed is what gets you up.

liamw · 11-03-2010 10:32am

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Sorry mate, your faith that peeing will relive the pressure coupled with your belief that it's better to piss in the toilet than your bed is what gets you up.

No, you're mixing up faith with confidence and trust. That confidence is typically built on hard data. Every time he has pee'd before it has relieved that pressure, so he has confidence that it will work again.

Faith is blind belief without evidence. An athiestic position does not require faith.

Ickle Magoo · 11-03-2010 10:37am

I guess it depends on your definition of faith but as faith is synonymous with religion it's a term I avoid using with regards to atheists or agnostics. I don't consider myself to have a faith, I have a lack of faith, I am unconvinced - it's nothing to do with faith and everything to do with knowledge imo.

MilanPan!c · 11-03-2010 10:56am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I guess it depends on your definition of faith but as faith is synonymous with religion it's a term I avoid using with regards to atheists or agnostics. I don't consider myself to have a faith, I have a lack of faith, I am unconvinced - it's nothing to do with faith and everything to do with knowledge imo.

sorry to quibble, and just to be clear, what you are talking about is a lack of religious faith.

you still have faith.

trusting in something you cannot know, but because of a belief IS faith

Do you know how to fly a plane? Probably not. But you still believe that the technology is sound (based on not 100% conclusive evidence) and so you take a leap of faith and get on the plane.

No one has the kind of absolute knowledge neccessary to forgo faith, not religious faith (which is a faith is the teachings of a religion), but faith in technology, or another person's honesty or a system of protection... or medicine.

It's important to be honest with yourself if you want to grow.

Saying I have no faith, because you've renounced religion is intellectually dishonest.

Dades · 11-03-2010 10:56am

MOD NOTE: MilanPan!c - I've moved our seperate discussion on faith in the "defected" thread to here where it can join this one. More suited here anyway.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Your completely wrong.

You have no way of knowing...

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I've said?

If you claim to know something without evidence you are indeed taking something on faith. However atheism/agnosticism are beliefs - not an expression of knowledge. Can you not see there is a huge distinction between the two.

My point was why would you require "faith" to have lack a belief in something for which there is no evidence?

Why would you suggest an agnostic - who simply states the question of god is inherently unknowable - requires "faith"? Faith in what?

You speak of gravity and airplanes. Both of those are positive assertions. We know gravity exists - even if we can't explain why. We've all flown on airplanes and indeed put our faith in the pilot/engineers/designers. The point is there is something there to put faith in. You can't put faith in a non-belief unless there is some reason (evidence) that you choose to ignore.

Ickle Magoo · 11-03-2010 11:13am

MilanPan!c wrote: »

sorry to quibble, and just to be clear, what you are talking about is a lack of religious faith.

you still have faith.

Not religious faith, which is what you stated when you said;

Athiests (like me) and Agnostics are all going on faith that their belief is correct.

I lack belief, I never developed a faith or belief. I didn't develop something in opposition to a faith or belief.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

trusting in something you cannot know, but because of a belief IS faith

Do you know how to fly a plane? Probably not. But you still believe that the technology is sound (based on not 100% conclusive evidence) and so you take a leap of faith and get on the plane.

But we do know that planes fly and how, I am convinced from flight statistics and common aerodynamics in relation to the forces that govern our planet that I'll most likely reach my destination in one piece. It's not faith, it's rational probability.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No one has the kind of absolute knowledge neccessary to forgo faith, not religious faith (which is a faith is the teachings of a religion), but faith in technology, or another person's honesty or a system of protection... or medicine.

Again, I wouldn't use faith to describe any of those things. If you are determined to crow-bar in "faith" using it's loosest definition then I guess you can but because of the inferences that "faith" has there are much better and more accurate terms. Trust, knowledge, confidence, for instance.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's important to be honest with yourself if you want to grow.

Eh, thanks. Condecending, much.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Saying I have no faith, because you've renounced religion is intellectually dishonest.

It would also be a lie, since I have never had a religion to renounce - nice assumption tho - I have never developed faith, my feelings on god and religion have not changed in my life time.

MilanPan!c · 11-03-2010 11:14am

belief is a synonym of faith

Agnostics have faith, a belief if you will, that their position is the correct one. That's reality.

All beliefs ARE faiths.

without definitive proof that a belief is actually a fact, it's a belief, by definition.

For example, if Christians are right (and I don't believe they are) then agnositics ARE wrong. The question of is there a god, in that scenario, is knowable.

This isn't a game.

Everything is a personal belief.

MilanPan!c · 11-03-2010 11:16am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not religious faith, which is what you stated when you said;

I lack belief, I never developed a faith or belief. I didn't develop something in opposition to a faith or belief.

But we do know that planes fly and how, I am convinced from flight statistics and common aerodynamics in relation to the forces that govern our planet that I'll most likely reach my destination in one piece. It's not faith, it's rational probability.

Again, I wouldn't use faith to describe any of those things. If you are determined to crow-bar in "faith" using it's loosest definition then I guess you can but because of the inferences that "faith" has there are much better and more accurate terms. Trust, knowledge, confidence, for instance.

Eh, thanks. Condecending, much.

It would also be a lie, since I have never had a religion to renounce - nice assumption tho - I have never developed faith, my feelings on god and religion have not changed in my life time.

You're missing the point.

Not believing in god is, by definition a faith.

Just because you wouldnt use the term to describe things like flying on a plane doesn't mean you're right.

Here's the definition of faith:

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

You're saying you have none of that?

seamus · 11-03-2010 11:27am

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Not believing in god is, by definition a faith.

By that definition then, "not a doctor" is an occupation.

beat root · 11-03-2010 11:28am

kelly1 wrote: »

- Are you aware of any event that occur spontaneously without any cause? I realize particles pairs pop into existence but doesn't this usually involve high energies? I could very well be wrong about this!
- Surely if we can establish that the universe had a beginning, then we have to find the cause. If there is no cause, then neither science nor theology can help us understand what's happening.
- Again if there was a beginning to the universe, meaning that nothing existed beforehand, then I think it's logical to argue that something immaterial brought the universe into existence.

Man has learned to cope with all questions of importance without recourse to God or myth as a working hypothesis. And as to the big unanswered questions such as 'why are we here', there can only be two conclsusions
1. there is no why and no god
2. if there is a god, he created the us and the 'why' to entertain himself

Atheist or Agnostic?

Comments