Atheism

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Crying_Crimson_Tears

Perhaps I am, I must research this Shintoism.

Don't get too excited. A long time ago it was spontaneous, eclectic, and rich, but in the 19th century it was perverted by the government into yet another tool for deluding people. A sun goddess named Amaterasu was elevated into a privileged position and disparate beliefs were forcibly united into a distinct monolithic religion (the Shinto we know today), making it pseudo-monotheistic (read: "authoritarian") and then direct blood descent from this goddess was claimed for the imperial family. It's the exact same trash that Akhenaten tried to pull off in Egypt, right down to the lucky god being one associated with the sun (and yet another example of the transition from polytheism to monotheism being occasioned by some ugly power struggle between humans).

Although modern Japanese are not terribly religious, there are still plenty of holdovers from this disgusting legacy. I don't work downtown anymore, but I still pass by the imperial palace from time to time, where a group of people live to this day in opulence based upon a claim of blood, awash with tax dollars (or yen, as it were). There is a shrine in Ise, often considered the most holy in the country, where everything is hidden from public view by walls because it is felt that the mere gaze of commoners could defile it. Only the priesthood and, again, the imperial family are allowed to tread there. For some curious religious reason, they have to move the whole thing every twenty years at spectacular cost - presumably also using tax revenue, although I have not verified this.

When I think about this or about the royal family in England is one of the few times I feel deeply proud of America.

Like good sheeple, the Japanese tolerate this nonsense and even somehow manage to find a source of pride in it. You will recall that when the Americans issued their first surrender ultimatum in WWII the Japanese government responded that they only wanted one condition - that the emperor keep his place. They didn't ask for any economic aid, or the release of prisoners, or anything like that. Just that their precious emperor keep his job. Then the Americans nuked the fuck out of them and they gave in, and in one of history's cruelest ironies the Americans let them keep their emperor anyway (even though he did end up renouncing his claim to godhood and all real temporal power and is now a figurehead, like the queen).

But I guess the lives of a few hundred thousand people are a small price to pay in order to make sure that the powerful stay powerful. Slaves do love their masters.

Cool shrines, though. You can still see the original spiritualism bleeding through.

Drake

[Vyusher]

Originally Posted by Circle V

That's not true. First of all, we do exist. It's not unanswerable, like the God question.

I'm just saying that not everything that happens is probable.

Originally Posted by Circle V

Keep in mind that life need only have come about once, and it obviously did.

A deity or pantheon only needed to come about once.

Originally Posted by Circle V

We wouldn't be here to wonder about it otherwise.

Well, yes. I'm not arguing that we aren't here, I'm arguing that the odds were against that, so just arguing based on the odds isn't really valid.

Originally Posted by Circle V

Secondly, God is much more improbable than, say, the Big Bang. The spontaneous creation of what would come to be an extremely complex universe, while wildly improbable, is much more probable than an infinitely complex creator creating an equally complex universe, especially since the creator had to come from somewhere.

As did the big bang. Either was, something is emerging from nothing, at some point. Maybe the scientific notation of probability has one more exponent on its "times ten to the" part, when referring to a deity, but at the number of them the big bang has, it's immaterial. The probability of anything coming from the nothing that existed before anything did is so close to zero, arguing probability doesn't really make much difference.

Originally Posted by Circle V

To paraphrase Dawkins, natural things generally start out simple and grow in complexity. This isn't easy for us to understand, since we are capable of creating things simpler than ourselves. A person sees a glass bead and understands that the simple bead is the creation of a much more complex thing, a person. It is understandable for the same person to ponder the universe and assume that something even more complex made it.

The theory has as much basis as any of the ones using human/mortal logic to argue the non-existance of a deity.

What I'm trying to say is not that God absolutely does exist, but that science and religion are incompatible by each one's defition to argue against one another. It's the old addage of apples and oranges. None of the scientific arguments that god doesn't exist have any religious merits. None of the religious arguments about why some law or theory of science isn't true have any scientific merit.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Circle V

Of course belief can be stupid. It is romantic, idealistic, and ignorant to think otherwise.

Are you sure? Father Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics", published one of the most famous papers in science, "Experiments on Plant Hybridization", which is taught in many biology classes today in colleges around the world. He was an abbot in the Catholic Church. But what you are saying is he was stupid because he had a belief.

On the contrary: I would have to say that he was smarter than anyone on this website, far from stupid.

"Ignorant to think otherwise" sounds closed-minded and prejudiced to me.

[Circle V]

I said that it is ignorant to think that belief cannot be stupid. I did not say that belief is stupid.

[HumanePain]

Oh, well I would agree with that.

[Circle V]

Vyusher, you make good points. I agree that our existence is extremely improbable, regardless of the origin of life, energy, and matter. There is still no reason to suppose that a god was involved, since a creator does little to change the improbability of our existence.

[Ishan]

Is everyone having fun in this thread? I particularly enjoy the debate that started between Jillian and Mr. Spright. It sounds as though someone (spright) must have just learned of Occam's razor, the core precept of which is a simple explanation is usually the correct one.

Either way ... I find Jillian's quote, "evidence points at how improbable it would be that a higher power existed," curious indeed. It suggests someone believes a higher power existed at one time, but such a condition no longer persists.

The philisophical debate of higher power versus intelligent design versus evolution versus a cipher of random elements is extraordinary in that it CAN be debated ... but I believe we are all drawing an inference of disparity where none exists.

The Universe is alive, created itself and will eventually repeat the process. Life is the purpose of the creation ... and the exploration of life in ALL its forms - perceived or not, conceived or not - it the entire point.

The question is whether Jesus or Budda or Mohammed or anyone is some fairy godmother or fairy godfather who came down to Earth to save us, or guide us in some ridiculous Jihad against our fellow men. To me, that is bullshit. But then, as a Pagan, I could supply some rather interesting scientific coincidence to support the notion there is not a thing called salvation. It is only a process of learning and growing, and then doing it once more.

Enjoy the debate ... I will.

[Vyusher]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

WRONG. Let me explain. God is a large leap in logic. The universe just being created outside of our comprehension is ONE thing, but fabricating something that we have no evidence for is insane.

How delightfully closed-minded of you. Essentially, believing any philosophy, or in the concepts of Love, Justice, or any other abstraction being the physical, tangible world is insane. There is no evidence for Justice as a concept, little or none for love. Or hate. You probably believe plenty of things without "evidence" and don't even realize it. That aside, plenty of people see so-called miracles as evidence of a deity existing. Those coincidences that favour people, the way voodooists supposedly possessed may cut themselves and not bleed (for which there is no chemical explanation).

Originally Posted by Super Spright

We know the universe exists, we do not know how it got here, but we can see that it's here. God is a larger leap in logic than anything else. Occam's Razor.

You forgot the "is one guy's opinion and not necessarily valid in the eyes of others" part of the Occam's Razor sentence. Just because somebody gets a theory named after him does not mean he is correct. You can believe Occam's Razor, but it's not factual. It's his opinion.

Originally Posted by Super Spright

The Christian God is proven wrong in this aspect. If he created mankind immediately then there is no evolution.

God created beast, then man, if you actually bother to read the bible and inform yourself of these debates. It is possible to interpret as man being created from beast. Which seems like evolution to me. Especially involving the passage of time from beast to man.

Originally Posted by Super Spright

If there is evolution there is no Adam and Eve, if there is no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin, if there is no original sin...you guessed it.

This does not follow. The first two beings to gain sentience through evolution are granted paradise by god, then cock it up and get expelled, from whence they sew the seed of the human race. If one takes the story more proverbially, and less literally (seeing the apple et ceteras as one of those metaphor-thingies some writers are occasionally want to use), one may even take it as an explanation of the evolution to sentience. When "beast" first became "man" it gained knowledge (in this instance, self-awareness), as per the apple tree thing.
If you take the bible literally, it contradicts all sorts of science; the whole 7-day earth bit. If you realize that a large portion of writing in that time was proverb and symbolism, it's more sensical.
Not that you'd be willing to put enough time or open your mind enough to see that, from what I can tell.

Originally Posted by Super Spright

NO JESUS CHRIST.

Actually, a guy with that name could have existed and been the son of God and died in a way that had something to do with the many sins which are not original sin. There's really more than one thread going in this whole deity thing. So, it really doesn't prove that at all. It would, were the logic above correct (which, again, it is not), slightly change things.

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Stupid, negative truth.

Huh? Negative truth has nothing to do with this. What I am saying is that due to God being defined as omnipotent, the laws of science may not be used against God as God is defined, because omnipotence means he could control or alter them to his will. I'm saying he's invalid for scientific analysis by defintion.
I've explained this as many times as I will explain it. I've explained this in a phrase that puts it as simple as it can be put to my knowledge. I'm not going to get into a futile argument any further over it. Apples and Oranges. If you do not understand this, you do not understand the basis of argument building enough for there to be a purpose in continuing the discussion with you.

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Dumb all over...

I have a limited amount of time to live. Please, if you must regress to countering arguments with "You are dumb," don't bother typing it. I wasted time reading it. I'm only taking the time to respond in the hope it doesn't occur again.

Circle V: Yeah, there's absolutely no logical reason to assume he was. I'm just saying it's not really fair to say he's not based on probability. I'm not trying to prove he exists, that's stupid. I'm just trying to explain why science and math and all of that doesn't really apply to the argument.

Super Spright: Not necessarily does not equal absolutely not or even problably not. It certainly does not equate with "Insane." God complicates things, but that really has nothing to do with the subject. If I refused to believe in anything that made living more complicated, I wouldn't believe in mortality, or right and wrong, or probably even gravity. People have a reason, be it what they see as evidence or what the spiritually feel as an opinion, to choose to believe despite possible complications.

[Circle V]

If there is no logical reason to assume that a creator was involved, why do so? It bothers me that I must "prove" atheism.

[Godslayer Jillian]

If we were looking for probability alone, then it's true that the most reasonable claim to make is that humanity doesn't exist either.
But probability doesn't precede blunt observation.
We can observe humanity. You can even doubt the existence of everyone else, but you can observe that you exist. If one would still claim that humanity doesn't exist, that would just be a question of semantics and humanity would be whatever he decides to name what we call humanity.
But god cannot be bluntly observed. Supposing he exists, he could talk to us, but it could be simple delusion. We could look at the world and say 'It's obvious that God exists' but that's not observation; that's inferring.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Circle V

It bothers me that I must "prove" atheism.

It's almost hilarious to me. I remember my Apologetics teacher saying that the only reason atheists attack Christianity is because we have nothing to 'prove' Atheism.
That's only as logical as (using the negative truth's example of the hippopotamus) telling someone that there's no hippopotamus in the room, but he demands you proofs of the existence of 'un-hippopotamy' in the room that would make the hippo really not exist.

[655322]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Definately isn't a word. How old are you? If you're over 20, then you're sad.

Cungrachulashuns! You fownd a spelling eror.
Feel free to use any future spelling errors I make in your ad hominem arguements.

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe we aren't special in this universe? That perhaps everything we do, think, feel, be, etc., is for nothing?

It crossed my mind.

But as far as I know human beings are the only sentient beings in this Universe that can think about stuff like this. I'd say that's pretty special.

If you study and contribute to Quantum Mechanics (which you seem to love), maybe you will do something beneficial for the human race. Who knows, maybe you will become a great influence on future generations of thinkers. I encourage you to get off your ass and do it. But if you think that we do, think and feel things for nothing, you will go nowhere.

[MollyMac]

Originally Posted by Circle V
It bothers me that I must "prove" atheism.

I get that. In my field, we more often as not have to prove that things AREN'T as much as prove that things ARE.

The one thing that I don't think that I made clear is that although proven "facts" in religion, science, tabloids are set, that does not mean that they are proven, can be unproven, or are necessary for the belief.

Ununseptium 117 most likely exists. We know its properties based on what is around it, we know what it will most likely do based on its proton count. We just haven't found/created this element that will undoubetedly exist. We have a lot of unproven facts for something we inherently *know* is there.

Only it isn't there just yet.

In many ways, that is how some Christians see their God, and those of other faiths see their deity/deities. Some believe that any proof- searched for or accidental- denies any faith and will ignore proof that the god does exist on the principle that they do not need it. Much in the same way, a colleague of mine will accidentaly stuble upon something that renders her faith in the Periodic Table almost moot- she will ignore that finding and strive for one that fits.

Science and faith in many ways go hand in hand and are not mutually exclusive. Some have both, some have neither, and some have hobbies.

The only thing that doesn't gel is using science to try to disprove god to those of faith; or using faith to denounce science. That's just pissiness. No one will ever change anyone else's mind. Most people haven't the intestinal fortitude to change their own.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

The only thing that doesn't gel is using science to try to disprove god to those of faith; or using faith to denounce science. That's just pissiness. No one will ever change anyone else's mind. Most people haven't the intestinal fortitude to change their own.

My belief exactly. Well put MollyMac.

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

hmm...
Super Spright seems to be offline. He must be at the Korova Milkbar. I'll wait for his return, then.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Don't get too excited. A long time ago it was spontaneous, eclectic, and rich, but in the 19th century it was perverted by the government into yet another tool for deluding people. A sun goddess named Amaterasu was elevated into a privileged position and disparate beliefs were forcibly united into a distinct monolithic religion (the Shinto we know today), making it pseudo-monotheistic (read: "authoritarian") and then direct blood descent from this goddess was claimed for the imperial family. It's the exact same trash that Akhenaten tried to pull off in Egypt, right down to the lucky god being one associated with the sun (and yet another example of the transition from polytheism to monotheism being occasioned by some ugly power struggle between humans).

Although modern Japanese are not terribly religious, there are still plenty of holdovers from this disgusting legacy. I don't work downtown anymore, but I still pass by the imperial palace from time to time, where a group of people live to this day in opulence based upon a claim of blood, awash with tax dollars (or yen, as it were). There is a shrine in Ise, often considered the most holy in the country, where everything is hidden from public view by walls because it is felt that the mere gaze of commoners could defile it. Only the priesthood and, again, the imperial family are allowed to tread there. For some curious religious reason, they have to move the whole thing every twenty years at spectacular cost - presumably also using tax revenue, although I have not verified this.

When I think about this or about the royal family in England is one of the few times I feel deeply proud of America.

Like good sheeple, the Japanese tolerate this nonsense and even somehow manage to find a source of pride in it. You will recall that when the Americans issued their first surrender ultimatum in WWII the Japanese government responded that they only wanted one condition - that the emperor keep his place. They didn't ask for any economic aid, or the release of prisoners, or anything like that. Just that their precious emperor keep his job. Then the Americans nuked the fuck out of them and they gave in, and in one of history's cruelest ironies the Americans let them keep their emperor anyway (even though he did end up renouncing his claim to godhood and all real temporal power and is now a figurehead, like the queen).

But I guess the lives of a few hundred thousand people are a small price to pay in order to make sure that the powerful stay powerful. Slaves do love their masters.

Cool shrines, though. You can still see the original spiritualism bleeding through.

Drake

Hmmmm, it sounds interesting. But of course the government gets involved and screws things up. Is there anything they do not touch and mess with???

And to me belief is still not stupid.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Crying_Crimson_Tears

Is there anything they do not touch and mess with???

Religion.
Shintoism is an exception, as was the Egyptian polytheistic religion thousands of years ago.
Aside of those, how many more religions can you think are controlled by the government instead of the government being controlled by religion?
The only other one I can think about is the banning of religion in many communist countries.

[MollyMac]

Minoan arguably, Catholicism and Protestantism under the Tudors, any Religion under Rome (ie. Diocletian), Asatru in Iceland a century ago, Native traditions of Apache, Navajo and Blackfoot where peyote is involved...

[655322]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

The only thing that doesn't gel is using science to try to disprove god to those of faith; or using faith to denounce science. That's just pissiness. No one will ever change anyone else's mind. Most people haven't the intestinal fortitude to change their own.

So true, couldn't agree more. But don't tell anyone... if you did that we couldn't have any fun.

Originally Posted by Super Spright

You are too obtuse to understand what you are talking about. You make it very evident to anyone with a brain.

Enjoy your imaginary victory while it lasts.

That is classic!

[655322]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

I hope "arguements[sic]" was intentional as well, idiot.

It crossed your what?

As far as you know there is also no proof for God, and there is no proof for anything else you're saying. So with all of that knowledge you have (none really), you should be able to assume that you are also unimportant.

You are appealing to your own interests. You are a living ad hominem.

I told you to read about it because it might open your eyes about what you're talking about. It's not terribly hard to understand the concepts. The math behind it is hard as hell, but the concepts are alarmingly...intelligent.

.............
Yes sir.

[ArtificialOne]

What would you call machine worship?

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

What would you call machine worship?

...Idolatry.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Religion.
Shintoism is an exception, as was the Egyptian polytheistic religion thousands of years ago.
Aside of those, how many more religions can you think are controlled by the government instead of the government being controlled by religion?
The only other one I can think about is the banning of religion in many communist countries.

Technically they're not supposed to mess with religion here in the U.S. because of separation of church and state, but if you look at it George Bush has used God to say gays should not marry. The government may not "mess" with it per se but they sure do use it.

[MollyMac]

W. wasn't using government to mess with religion on the topic of gay marriage, he was using religion to mess with government.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

He did use that as an excuse to ban it, because supposedly gay marriages are "unclean" and God does not approve. He still uses religion either way.