Religion

[Effulgent]

Originally Posted by MadPenguin

The problem is you can play that game with literally anything. For example, we have no logical reason to believe in fairies, but that might change. So would you argue against someone saying that fairies don't exist?

I don't disagree with you, but someone should acknowledge his argument and demonstrate understanding of it. Basically he's just making a case for agnosticism. The non-existence of god is a directional statement which science does not have the ability to prove. While one can believe that there is no god, one does not know.

Someone posted a really good graph of gnosticism vs agnosticism and theism vs atheism that is illustrative for this. After making that statement we cant then get into the real differences we have. Not in what we believe, but in how we come to believe. Science teaches us that we should at least see an effect of something if it exists, and we haven't really observed any effects of god.

On the other side of things most religious individuals take their holy books as fact and form beliefs surrounding that. Then you can discuss that.

TL;DR he's just saying we have different ways of knowing and science isn't perfect either. Just acknowledge it and point out that science works towards a closer approximation of truth while religious texts remain static and flawed.

Edit: In retrospect I feel that I should acknowledge the sides of both atheism and theism that believe we can know things. And in that case Duke was just pointing out that both groups have their respective beliefs that are not firmly supported by facts or science.

[MadPenguin]

Originally Posted by Effulgent

TL;DR he's just saying we have different ways of knowing and science isn't perfect either.

While I agree with some of what you say, I'd like to pick up on this since it is a commonly made point and I don't get it. Other than science and reason/logic, I'm not sure what other methods of "knowing" exist, perhaps you can enlighten me (and don't hit me with any of that "I know it in my heart" crap )

Science might not be perfect, but its all we got to tell the truth from fantasy.

[MadPenguin]

Originally Posted by elfailo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I am only partially familiar epistemology, and i would read more but I'm in the middle of second year exams (finishing on 21st). But I would say God is a "knowing that" knowledge. Which, without having read further than that, I would say is solely the domain of science and logic.

The "knowing how" appears to be more of, "we invent a convention", so this by definition isn't something you can discover, but must be taught. But meh, back to more late night revision

[Quovatis]

Duke, you should really invest some time into studying science. A lot of what you said is complete nonsense and against every scientific observation and theory that we have. I am a professional astronomer, so I took issue with a few of your fallacies.

The universe is not infinite. Through careful observation, we have determined that the universe started from a point and is expanding (and actually accelerating). The universe has a radius of about 13.5 billion light years. That is not infinite. The universe does not have infinite mass. It does not have infinite volume. So what do you think is infinite about the universe?

And yes, something CAN come from nothing. I invite you to read Lawrence M. Krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing". I think it's quite readable for non-scientists. We have scientific evidence that matter CAN spontaneously pop into existence from nothing. The spectrum of the hydrogen atom is the clearest example, and astronomers observe this daily.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Is that really "nothing" as it's viewed in theology though? I thought it was just virtual stuff behaving erratically between sub-atomic particles. In that case it's not the same, Krauss just seems to have used the term nothing for it because we've always thought that there was just empty space there. So, apparently empty space isn't nothing.

The trick is not to fall into the trap of "something can't come from nothing"-thinking. Nothing is just a concept we need to give everything else meaning by contrast. Even more absurdly, you can't say that "nothing has existed", since nothing can't have any attributes (or it wouldn't be nothing anymore). It's a word that nobody knows how to define, yet everyone seems to know what it means. It's kind of similar to God, lol.

Basically in five words: dark matter is not nothing.

[Red Beard]

You sure dedicate a lot of wasted energy to a mental construct.

[Effulgent]

Originally Posted by MadPenguin

I am only partially familiar epistemology, and i would read more but I'm in the middle of second year exams (finishing on 21st). But I would say God is a "knowing that" knowledge. Which, without having read further than that, I would say is solely the domain of science and logic.

The "knowing how" appears to be more of, "we invent a convention", so this by definition isn't something you can discover, but must be taught. But meh, back to more late night revision

You should talk to your professors about the philosophy of science, though not all phd's get formal training in it. Elfailio is right though, essentially it comes down to epistemology, I just didn't want to pull that word out in here. In truth though science is our alternative to solipsism, and our best available tool to approximate knowing anything outside of ourselves.

Even that takes us to a couple of assumptions though.

[Red Beard]

No logic in that...since you're so big on it and all.

[NivexQ]

No one is saying its not possible. Its just not probable.

[Zolan]

I was going to contribute to the poll, but then I realized that you lumped the agnostic option in with the atheist option.

[maskedskull]

I consider myself to be an atheist. Unless something has been scientifically proven I have a hard time in believing it and I also find it personally difficult to believe in something that, for all intents and purposes, causes misery on the planet. I also have this view that religion, at times, is used as an excuse for people to treat others as complete smeg.

However, I also hate the way that atheists are sometimes portrayed (and how some people act) which basically makes atheism its own religion. I myself am very tolerant of other peoples faith and if that is what they chose to believe then I have no right to say otherwise. Just don't try and preach at me that your way of thinking is right and that mine is wrong.

[NivexQ]

Originally Posted by Zolan

I was going to contribute to the poll, but then I realized that you lumped the agnostic option in with the atheist option.

I'm not explaining this again. Read.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Zolan

I was going to contribute to the poll, but then I realized that you lumped the agnostic option in with the atheist option.

Welcome to the thread. Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. It gets explained every couple of pages. Enjoy your stay.

[Zolan]

I glanced at the thread, and people made assumptions that they were not mutually exclusive based upon diagrams created by people who also made assumptions.

It's a simple distinction.

Atheist = A God does not exist (100% certainty in belief)

Agnostic = There is no way of knowing. I cannot be certain.

Theist = A God exists (100% certainty in belief)


Agnostic Atheist is simply a term used by those too unwilling to stop calling themselves an Atheist, when they are in fact Agnostic, in that certainty is not present. Therefore, they attach the term and try to place themselves somewhere in-between due to the realization that even they cannot prove themselves correct.

The same is true of those who call themselves Agnostic Theists.

The terms themselves are combinations of positives and negatives. If you do not believe with 100% certainty that a God does or does not exist, you are by definition Agnostic. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, attaching the two positions together creates a void identifier.

Gnostic Atheist and Gnostic Theist, on the other hand, ARE possible combinations, therefore that much is correct.

Just because someone made a fancy diagram doesn't mean it's correct.

[NivexQ]

I made the thread/poll to gauge the religious beliefs of the psu community. The poll is for me, and anyone else who wants the info. If you don't want to vote, then don't. I don't give a fuck either way. I'm sick of arguing semantics.