Religion

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by elfailo

That's what belief is! Not being 100% certain yet still leaning towards one particular answer to the question.

The subtle difference in my argument is that it doesn't require belief. It's a self standing tautology. A statement, not a conviction. That and the more obvious fact I'm not leaning toward an "answer" to the question. Simply a statement of the facts.

Originally Posted by elfailo

Like I said, that's because they're confusing knowledge and belief. Fact of the matter is that they can't be certain. You know this, I know this.

You're confusing "faith" with "belief". Both of which have multiple definitions depending on the context. It's the same way a religious person can be both knowledgeable about something and cast reason aside for a faith based argument.

Originally Posted by elfailo

You're obviously very engaged.

More of a morbid curiosity into how the extremes reason. I've always enjoyed debates with such varied stances on the topic.

Originally Posted by elfailo

You can still become real atheists, like me.

Originally Posted by elfailo

Welcome to the club.

You seem overly eager in wanting to belong to a group and pull others into it. It's a group which seems as unfounded as theism in its tenants.

Originally Posted by elfailo

By the way, there's no such thing as "truly believing".

Ever talk to Fred Phelps? Dude truly believes without a doubt in his mind what he says. (It's been cross referenced multiple times when questioned if his cult is a joke by people that have known him).

That and you only have to go so far as people that kill themselves for religion. That level of belief isn't uncommon.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by elfailo

By the way, after 65 pages of discussion involving everyone who's been replying to my recent posts, do you really expect me to believe that it is "largely irrelevant to the course of your life"?

Religion/Spirituality is a fun subject for me, I'm not soul searching on an MMOFPS fansite forum. I like discussing politics too, but that doesn't mean I'm not firm in those positions.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

I like discussing politics too, but that doesn't mean I'm not firm in those positions.

On that note, that's also a big reason for me. Religious conservatives trying to use their religious stances in politics bothers me. Helping to secularize people by creating an environment online where religious people can lose their faith or at the very least become tolerant of other faiths and ideas and view things objectively is important and is something everyone help with.

[Zolan]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Atheism is to belief as baldness is to hair color.

Atheism is to belief in a God. Not atheism is to belief.

The common misinterpretation of some definitions of atheism (the "lack of belief" one in particular) is that atheism is a "lack of belief" itself and therefore a lack of belief in religion and all of that assorted nonsense.

This is wrong, it is simply a non-belief in a God or Gods. Not a lack of belief itself.

If the "lack of belief" definition is taken as it is often misinterpreted, as being a lack of belief itself, then it would only apply to things like newborn babies, inanimate objects, and oblivious wildlife, etc.... and I highly doubt that anyone here is blade of grass.

If atheism were a lack of belief itself, then responding to a question with "no" wouldn't be an answer.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by elfailo

That will not happen until Hansime shows up though. Be prepared.

Your obsession with me will be the end of you yet Capt. Elcyco!

Besides, you spam more than me since you do it in little chunks, I in large chunks!

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Zolan

Atheism is to belief in a God. Not atheism is to belief.

The common misinterpretation of some definitions of atheism (the "lack of belief" one in particular) is that atheism is a "lack of belief" itself and therefore a lack of belief in religion and all of that assorted nonsense.

This is wrong, it is simply a non-belief in a God or Gods. Not a lack of belief itself.

If the "lack of belief" definition is taken as it is often misinterpreted, as being a lack of belief itself, then it would only apply to things like newborn babies, inanimate objects, and oblivious wildlife, etc.... and I highly doubt that anyone here is blade of grass.

If atheism were a lack of belief itself, then responding to a question with "no" wouldn't be an answer.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You might be falling into the trap of defining a word to death; focusing on a single word so much it has started to lose its meaning.

Atheism is specific is, yes, a lack of belief... in god or gods. I'm not sure why we need to make that distinction. I wasn't suggesting something else.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by elfailo

The reason I'm telling you, and Sobekeus, is because you haven't completely lost yourself in abstractions yet. I could tell Guru or Hansime, but they'd just rebuke with a 50-paragraph post full of intellectual escape-artistry. They're lost already, idling away in stagnant indecision (they're letting god win). You can still become real atheists, like me.

:P

Uhm. For the record, I'm not agnostic to anything. If one is unable to make a convincing argument in favour of something, I cannot be convinced by that and will default to the atheist stance on that particular argument. I'm willing to listen, but there's little chance I can be convinced without a really thorough, evidence agreeing, verifiable argumentation.

Besides, I've already put up my argumentation why I'm a very convinced atheist: more than one religion has ever existed. That removes any credibility to any religion anywhere. Hell, they didn't just exist, they florished. That means that any faith has the capacity to thrive regardless of how wrong they are.

If one was right and gods (like they always want to) want to expand their following to include all, none of the others could have been made up for there'd not been the opportunity.

As religions are also non-universal, but local, that also indicates they cannot be correct as a god by its definition is universal. Aside from local pagan minor gods. The minor gods can only exist and the religion in question only 'right' if the major gods exist though. And they can't.

I therefore find the chance of some religion (at any moment in history) being correct to be infinitely small. And in order to be correct it would mean it would have to be a form of deism. Hence no good reason to believe, hence atheist. Agnosticism on any of these is therefore neither needed nor an option.


Either way, it means any religion claiming omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and more things along these lines must be wrong and cannot be right.




Not being convinced is not a choice, it's the state of mind before making up your mind and choosing. On that note, please realise that the actual answer (not the choice what to believe) is not a binary equation with a binary answer, nor is it trinary. Something can only exist or not exist, not sort of exist. Thing is this question has to be answered for many things. Hence it's a vectorial question, where only one vectorial answer can be right and it must be null for everything else. Each vectorial answer is binary within the vector (vector true or vector false).

Only one being right does not agree with alternative religions being capable of co-existing though (as in, ever coming into reality). Hence all answers must be null. Thus the answer is there are no gods, period.


How the hell is that letting god win? Besides, isn't it you Elcyco, who is falling into the trap of Abrahamic religions of having the theist argument be only about Abrahamic god vs atheism and help polarise the debate (which is only in their favour)? You help them gain an authority position within the debate by making it binary: either they're right or you're right, but it already excludes you both being wrong and another religion being right as an alternative to them by leaving the alternatives out of the debate.

I on the other hand, make an atheistic argument versus any form of theism.



Only deism is exempting itself of this logic as they argue gods did not interact with mankind and mankind made up everything else. But deists cannot back up their case: they can't show there's any creator or intelligence or intelligent being involved in the creation of the universe. In fact, deism can use my argument for their own case: no earthly religion is right according to them, since all others include interaction between gods and humanity. The argument I made shows this cannot be done. Hence deism is not within the scope of the argument.

Deism doesn't agree with Occam's Razor though and makes assumptions they can't make. The burden of proof is therefore on them. The problem is they can't, know they can't prove it nor can they even attempt to, hence I cannot believe them either.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I just wanna jump in here and say that I'm still not entirely convinced Elcyco isn't just screwing with you guys for a laugh. I mean that comment about me being 'lost' and 'letting god win' was a pretty clear provocation. I just didn't rise to it because I'm not really interested with feeding the troll.

Not that trolling is bad! By all means, have fun. I've just got better things to devote energy towards than someone having a laugh at me.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I just wanna jump in here and say that I'm still not entirely convinced Elcyco isn't just screwing with you guys for a laugh. I mean that comment about me being 'lost' and 'letting god win' was a pretty clear provocation. I just didn't rise to it because I'm not really interested with feeding the troll.

Not that trolling is bad! By all means, have fun. I've just got better things to devote energy towards than someone having a laugh at me.

'Course he trolls. It's his hobby. I'm bored enough to bite though!

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by elfailo

See what a little provocation can bring to the surface?

I'm completely serious about the "absence of belief" part though. I think it's a chicken stance that people use to feign rationality and avoid the "but you can't know either"-retort. Stand tall chumps, the conflict is already there regardless of how you pose.

Alright screw it, I'll bite. Open wide, troll, some food coming through.

Just so I understand it before I blow it completely to pieces, are you suggesting that the 'true' atheist position is firm knowledge in the fact that god does not, and cannot, exist? If not, what exactly is your position?

[Blues]

My position on religion is a rather neutral one.
I consider myself an atheist, although to be honest i dislike the name because it makes it sound like an organized belief system.
The truth of the matter is, faith or lack of faith is in fact a matter of belief. I choose to believe there is no god, but there is no evidence to support my claim. Atheism is also a form of faith. Hence, I can't possibly criticize someone for believing something else.
My biggest issue with religion is incoherence, often a symptom of structured religious organizations. Some of their concepts clearly conflict with each other, and that creates conflicts between people : sunnite/chiite, protestant/catholics etc. As long as there is room for interpretation in a religious text, there is room for conflict.
Consequently, there should be no religious texts to follow, only guidelines. Your faith should be yours to determine as it a choice based not on evidence, but belief.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I'm not exactly sure why you think there needs to be a ground. I'm not leaning one way or the other on unicorns. Or faeries. Or gremlins. I go entire days without wondering about jabberwockeys. Similarly, I go entire days without wondering if it's been a long time since I've sacrificed to Odin. Nor do I spend any mental energy on forcefully not believing in him, as if I can wield that like a weapon that can only stab imaginary things.

If you need me to have a position, then I will tell you that I am skeptical. It doesn't need to be more solid than that because even that position is the Rock of Gibraltar compared to the vaporous position that there are gods simply because someone really really wants there to be. In fact, the entire argument, represented IN FULL, can be summarized in two sentences:

"I think there are gods."
"I don't believe you."

I'm sentence #2 there. I don't buy it. Substitute 'gods' for... well, anything that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

"Reiki healing works."
"I don't believe you."

"Jesus died for our sins."
"I don't believe you."

"Tarot cards can tell the future."
"I don't believe you."

I don't need to be more forthright than that. There's no purpose. I don't need to pick a team; I'm happy to sit the game out because I don't buy it. I don't buy any of it. I don't need for form a personal stance on it. I don't need to believe that there aren't any unicorns, because there's no need to do anything about unicorns. They haven't been demonstrated to exist, so I can ignore them. And ignoring them is a stance, even if it's not the one you're looking for. In my opinion, there really isn't any call for any other feeling on the subject.

That being said, I'm more than happy to spend a great DEAL of energy on arguing with theists, because the harm religion does in our world can be measured, quantified, and demonstrated. Well, maybe not quantified, since there is so much of it, but it's certainly there and tangible and with great heaps of evidence to support it. I needn't spend a single thought on the Archangel Gabriel, however, because he's right there with the Celestial Teapot in my frame of thinking; not worth considering until there's a solid reason to do so.

[Quovatis]

Originally Posted by Blues

Atheism is also a form of faith.

No, it's not. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. Note the difference. Faith means believing something without evidence. Atheism is the lack of belief, therefore it is not faith. Strong atheists (those that do claim there is no god), however, do have faith.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Here is where your position falls apart:

Originally Posted by elfailo

"I don't believe you." -> "the entirety of existence does not include gods" = "I believe gods do not exist" = "I consider the existence of gods very improbable".

The part I have bolded above represent what I said. The rest of that bit above is stuff you added. I mean I could do this...

Originally Posted by elfailo

I want you to say it out loud and then cheer at how awesome I am for liberating you. Actually, never mind. You're right, Guru. You've always been right. I guess I just carry on like this because I crave your attention.

...and it wouldn't mean that the above is true. You can't just add stuff to the stuff I said and then say that it's me saying it.

All kidding aside: the reason I didn't say that stuff (that you added) is because it's not true. The statement "I don't believe your claim about gods" is dissimilar from "I believe there are no gods." The former is a negative statement; the latter is positive. In the latter statement I am claiming to have knowledge; in this case, knowledge of the absolute absence of something. I can't make that statement, because I don't know. We're back to the Celestial Teapot.

You don't know that there ISN'T a teapot orbiting the sun right now. You probably don't think there is, because such a thing would be unlikely, but you don't know. You didn't look. You haven't gone and searched. And even if you did, you could have missed it. You don't have Perfect Knowledge. You're not omniscient. It could be there. It's just unlikely... so unlikely you don't believe it's there, and will continue not believing it's there up to the point where someone demonstrates for you that it is.

"That... is why you fail." ~Yoda

You don't understand the difference between a positive claim and a negative one. Positive claims demand evidence; negative ones do not. The statement "I believe there are no gods/unicorns/faeries/etc" is a positive claim. It needs evidence.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

No, it's not. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. Note the difference. Faith means believing something without evidence. Atheism is the lack of belief, therefore it is not faith. Strong atheists (those that do claim there is no god), however, do have faith.

It's true that atheism is a lack in belief of god, but that's just getting into semantics. A lack of belief just means believing that a claim is not true.

Believing that a claim is not true is the default position of a skeptical mind. If noteworthy evidence were supplied that there was a god, yet an atheist kept believing there was none, that would be faith. Until then, their belief that god doesn't exist it's just a strong belief founded on skepticism and the burden of proof.

It's like Russell's teapot. If I made a claim about an undetectable teapot orbiting the sun, you would be right and justified to believe I was wrong, even if there was no proof that I was wrong. I made the claim, and until I present some evidence to back it up, a lack of belief (semantics for believing the claim is false) is the default and reasonable position.

The only way you can truly be honestly 100% agnostic with no leanings towards theism or atheism is if you have some direct evidence for why there is a god and some equally compelling direct evidence for why there isn't. As far as I've seen, there is no such strong evidence either for a god or against a god. At best, there is strong evidence to doubt there needs to be a god for the universe to exist, but that's not direct evidence in and of itself.

Therefor, a person must either be an atheist because it's the default position of skepticism, or they must be a theist because they have some amount of faith to believe an unsubstantiated claim.

Nobody needs to commit to being an atheist or a theist 100%. You can still have that caveat that you don't know for certain and that your belief may change if more evidence is presented one way or the other. But everyone has a leaning one way or the other.

All agnostics either have a little faith that there may be a god despite the lack of evidence, or are technically atheists by default due to their skepticism.

Theism = making an unsubstantiated claim
Atheism = asking for some proof for that claim

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

You don't know that there ISN'T a teapot orbiting the sun right now. You probably don't think there is, because such a thing would be unlikely, but you don't know. You didn't look. You haven't gone and searched. And even if you did, you could have missed it. You don't have Perfect Knowledge. You're not omniscient. It could be there. It's just unlikely... so unlikely you don't believe it's there, and will continue not believing it's there up to the point where someone demonstrates for you that it is.

For a belief to not merely be faith, it doesn't have to have 100% knowledge. It just has to have the stronger reasoned position behind it.

One can't function without holding certain beliefs. We don't know that gravity won't suddenly fail us tomorrow, or that we aren't merely delusions in some Matrix like dream. But reason tells us that these possibilities are less likely based on what we have observed, so we believe that gravity will continue to work, and we believe that physical reality is as we have observed it to be.

Obviously there is always a chance that we are wrong, and future evidence may prove it to be so, but until then we hold reasoned beliefs about the universe.

I don't have faith that gravity will work tomorrow. I have seen evidence that it will probably work tomorrow. So I believe gravity will work tomorrow.

Just the same, I believe that there is no god. I don't have faith that there is no god. I believe it.

When you don't believe something, you believe it isn't true. You may not be sure, and it may be an extremely weak belief, but it is still a belief.

Language is just a way to help us define and understand the universe. It doesn't change who you are or what you believe if you are technically an atheistic agnostic. It's just a matter of what our culture has agreed that these words mean, and the philosophy behind the ideas.