Atheism

[Godslayer Jillian]

Tha Duckman did make a good point. It seems almost 'religist' to speak of Christianity in specific instead of religion.
But in any case, I don't make threads to be politically correct. I make them to be interesting.
And a thread in Atheism would most definitely be interesting.
Atheism wouldn't seem like a victim in our 'clique' as we have a higher ratio of secular ideologies.
But in reality, atheists are more victimized than Christians, particularly in America.
Secular ideas and religious pluralism are widely accepted, but openly admitting the non-belief of any higher power above humanity is considered closed-minded and chauvinistic.
What is 'in' is to declare oneself agnostic, saying that the knowledge of a God is beyond our understanding.
Hearing someone declaring himself an atheist will undoubtedly place that person in the same level as a fundamentalist, with the excuse that he speaks of absolutes in which he has no knowledge.
But isn't it logical to base the possibility of a God in the realm of reason?
An atheist is not an atheist because he fervently believes there is no God despite all evidence.
On the contrary, he becomes an atheist because evidence points at how improbable it would be that a higher power existed.
In Isaac Asimov's words "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

I like that Asimov quote.

My dad's a fundamental atheist. He blatantly says that the whole concept of religion is daft, and I think he loses some respect for people once he finds out they're religious. I'm pretty sure this goes for all religions. One time I mentionned that I considered myself agnostic*, and he was appalled. Wonder what he'd do if I adopted a religion...

*When I say agnostic, I mean that I don't really care whether there is a higher power or not, and thus can't be bothered to decide whether I believe he/she/it/they is/are there. I just want to be a semi-decent person.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

I'll explain briefly. No atheist can deny that there is a minute, almost impossibly small chance that God exists. It's still always possible.

Allow me to repeat myself:
"evidence points at how improbable it would be that a higher power existed."

Negative truth is bullshit.

Arguing negative truth is nothing but a play of words that have no practical meaning. "There's no hippopotamus in this room". That is logical, despite the irrationality of a non-hippopotamus.

It's safer to assume that this was here, and that is all it is.

Safer doesn't make it right. The non-existence of a god is just as safe as assuming the existence of it. In any case said god will do nothing for you unless you follow its specific dogmas. So, if you don't win anything from believing in a deity, why not root for the side you believe is correct?

No matter how small it is, it still exists. But, they do not entertain it.

Yes; Asimov made that clear earlier in this thread.

[PersephoneX]

Atheists believe in absolutely NOTHING...


i bet you all that the Jews were right...see ye all in hell...

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

But in reality, atheists are more victimized than Christians, particularly in America.
Secular ideas and religious pluralism are widely accepted, but openly admitting the non-belief of any higher power above humanity is considered closed-minded and chauvinistic.

In my humble opinion, atheists in "current" America were not victimized until they began organized and legal actions to remove Christian symbols from public places.

Even some of the founding fathers were atheists, atheism was tolerated (in recent history), but once the Christian infrastructure came under attack by organized atheism, the Christians began to attack the atheists.

Ironic how non-religious people started a religious conflict here in the United States.

[655322]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Ironic how non-religious people started a religious conflict here in the United States.

Beautifully ironic.

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Now, if you can swallow that, swallow this. Atheists have less evidence to denounce a completely intangible God. It's safe to say that Occam's Razor is needed.

Ockham was a Franciscan friar who believed in God.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

But isn't it logical to base the possibility of a God in the realm of reason?

Belief in God requres a leap in faith which does not belong in the realm of reason. Who can say if that leap is right or wrong?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Duh.

You were the one that made me repeat myself.

Wrong.

Arbitrary.

Thus, everyone is going to hell.

That means nothing if hell doesn't exist, and you have said nothing in favor of its existence; or of the existence of any god for that matter.

Whatev.

Nice comback, but thanks for playing.

[655322]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

You should read a little about Occam's Razor before you start acting like he attempted to confirm God.

Here's some more material my good man. It comes from the very same article you quoted.

"Considering that the razor is often wielded against theism, it is somewhat ironic that Ockham himself believed in God. He apparently considered Christianity to be outside the scope of his rule, once writing, "No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority." The last clause "refers to the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the Church" (Hoffmann 1997)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_Razor

[Circle V]

It is not up to atheists to disprove religion, as seems to be the general sentiment. The faithful must prove that their religion is correct.

Invoking Occam's Razor often muddies the argument. While Spright is correct when he says that it can be used to eradicate God, many faithful use it for their own benefit:

"Which seems simpler:

God made everything.

Or...

Life came about by chance. Organic compounds and eventually protobionts developed in the harsh environment of early Earth, aided by banks of sedimentary clay, UV radiation, and lightning strikes. These protobionts eventually became organisms capable of passing on genetic material, originally in the form of ribonucleic acid. Over billions of years, life evolved by tiny increments... (and so on.)"

Of course, "God" is only simple on paper. Just because it's one word doesn't make it simple-- one could always claim that "science made everyone" in exactly the same manner.

[Circle V]

Originally Posted by 655322

Here's some more material my good man. It comes from the very same article you quoted.

"Considering that the razor is often wielded against theism, it is somewhat ironic that Ockham himself believed in God. He apparently considered Christianity to be outside the scope of his rule, once writing, "No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority." The last clause "refers to the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the Church" (Hoffmann 1997)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_Razor

It's entirely possible that he said that simply to keep out of trouble.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Circle V

It is not up to atheists to disprove religion, as seems to be the general sentiment. The faithful must prove that their religion is correct.

Invoking Occam's Razor often muddies the argument. While Spright is correct when he says that it can be used to eradicate God, many faithful use it for their own benefit:

"Which seems simpler:

God made everything.

Or...

Life came about by chance. Organic compounds and eventually protobionts developed in the harsh environment of early Earth, aided by banks of sedimentary clay, UV radiation, and lightning strikes. These protobionts eventually became organisms capable of passing on genetic material, originally in the form of ribonucleic acid. Over billions of years, life evolved by tiny increments... (and so on.)"

Of course, "God" is only simple on paper. Just because it's one word doesn't make it simple-- one could always claim that "science made everyone" in exactly the same manner.

But truth is not a matter of "what is simpler" (although there *are* fundamental truths that are simple), truth is "what is real?", and observations of the world around us show complex things going on all the time, so "The Beginning" could be just as complex, i.e. I agree with the latter example (but in my case, with God still in the picture). Complexity is a part of reality. But so is simplicity.

[Circle V]

Please define "negative truth", Spright. I think I know what you are speaking of, but I want to be certain.

[Circle V]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

But truth is not a matter of "what is simpler" (although there *are* fundamental truths that are simple), truth is "what is real?", and observations of the world around us show complex things going on all the time[...]

I agree. I was applying Occam's Razor-- it concerns the number of assumptions (or leaps of faith), not simplicity, though the two often overlap. I should have worded it better.

By the way, I don't believe in fundamental truths.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Circle V

I agree. I was applying Occam's Razor-- it concerns the number of assumptions (or leaps of faith), not simplicity, though the two often overlap. I should have worded it better.

By the way, I don't believe in fundamental truths.

Does that mean you consider (for example) Newton's law "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" to not be fundamental? Perhaps I a mistake that it is fundamental, because it can be worded in a simple manner. Or perhaps I confuse simplicity with what is fundamental?

[655322]

Originally Posted by Circle V

It's entirely possible that he said that simply to keep out of trouble.

I agree. It's also entirely possible he wrote it because he believed it.

I think Occam's Razor has a tendency to encourage oversimplification. Using Occam's Razor to try and explain the Universe and existence of God is like trying to empty the oceans with a foot pump. Way too simple and ultimately useless.

Originally Posted by Super Spright

Negative truth is a phony argument. You guys know that there is a magical poop that you can't see, that eats your memories, and that's why you can't retain as much.

How do you know that it is just one poop and not multiple poops? I dare you to prove this so called "magical poop" that you believe in.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

I do not believe in it. I was showing that negative truths are stupid as hell.

What you proved was that believing in a 'magical poop' just because one cannot prove it doesn't exist is stupid; basically the essence of agnosticism.

[655322]

Originally Posted by Super Spright

It's better to just be terse, to get the point across. Unless something is absolutely one hundred percent proven, then you should ignore all the assumptions.

Ha! If you ignore assumptions how can you prove something to be true? The critical second step in the Scientific Method is creating hypotheses. Hypotheses are made from assumptions. Without assumption and speculation nothing would be proven. You would just be lost in your own little world of ignorance.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

In my humble opinion, atheists in "current" America were not victimized until they began organized and legal actions to remove Christian symbols from public places.

Would being disqualified from offering testimony in court count as discrimination? How about being excluded from public office?

I thought so.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by 655322

Ha! If you ignore assumptions how can you prove something to be true? The critical second step in the Scientific Method is creating hypotheses. Hypotheses are made from assumptions.

Hypotheses and assumptions are animals of different color. One is a proposed explanation. The other is an unquestioning belief.

Drake

[655322]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Hypotheses and assumptions are animals of different color. One is a proposed explanation. The other is an unquestioning belief.

Drake

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Let's look at the dictionary...

http://www.tfd.com/hypothesis

hy·poth·e·sis Pronunciation (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

I don't see anything about unquestioning belief. Sorry.

[Godslayer Jillian]

He means:
Assumption- the act of laying claim to or taking possession of something; an assuming that something is true.
Assuming- to pretend to have or be; to take as granted or true.

But the essence of your point is still valid, regardless of a mistake in the use of a word.

[655322]

That's right. My point is that hypotheses = assumptions. In this case, the assumption is made to be tested and shot to pieces. It is not an unquestioning belief. Quite the opposite. He's looking at it from an English grammatical point of view, I'm looking at it from the scientific use of the word. Sorry for the confusion.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Atheists in my school are not victimized at all. I guess in my school it's not "cool" or something to believe in God. You gert victimized for being a Christian and acting according to the rules of the Bible.

But to me, I can't seem to wrap my mind around the thought of a higher power. I don't think one exists. I just simply don't believe in one.

But can I still be considered an Atheist if I believe in ghosts and spirits and almost believe in angels??? Where does this put me???

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Would being disqualified from offering testimony in court count as discrimination? How about being excluded from public office?

I thought so.

Drake

You thought wrong Drake. Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States, the highest Public Office one can hold, and yet he wrote this in 1823:

“One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

You thought wrong Drake. Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States, the highest Public Office one can hold

Indeed, but in his time, they considered him a deist. Not half as bad as an atheist.

Originally Posted by Crying_Crimson_Tears

But can I still be considered an Atheist if I believe in ghosts and spirits and almost believe in angels??? Where does this put me???

I don't see how that's possible. To believe in ghosts is to believe that a soul lingers on this life (let alone the life after death issue). If one really believes in a being beyond the material world (ghosts and souls) then it would be stupid to not believe in a God.
Even more so, I cannot understand believing in angels, subordinates of God, when there's no one to whom they respond.