Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And beyond that, you can't say for certain whether or not particles are moving on their own, or being guided by a divine hand, until you have a *perfect* understanding of particle physics, free of random chance. Even then, you could say God was responsible for setting them in motion in the first place.

There is no evidence to back up either of those ideas, and thus no reason to say it at all.

[Robocorn]

What may be stumping you here is that Atheism doesn't describe what someone believes. It describes what they don't. A materialist (by definition) has to believe that all that exists is observable, a naturalist (by deifinition) has to believe that the universe is governed by natural forces. An atheist needs only say he or she is unconvinced that a god exists to be labeled as so.

The problem with these gaps is that even if you get to a point where you think the gaps can no longer be filed with yellow toothpicks, materialists and naturalists will keep probing those gaps until everything is filled.

As alway's point went. Your mind is an internal construct contained within your brain. Your brain exists in the physical world. If something is interacting with your brain it can be measured, and thus we can fill that gap with our yellow toothpick. The soul has yet to have any proof of existence and neuroscience is closing the gap where that piece of belief dwells also.

[Agamemnon]

Btw. don't get me wrong. You can have all the blue toothpicks you want. I am just saying that it is impractical for one (or even a whole society) to use them.

the atheist must believe some things that the theist does not

I object that. Of course theists don't believe a lot of things that atheists generally do - like evolution. But it is not necessarily the case. The ideal atheist does not believe anything, because with evidence belief becomes knowledge. And on the other hand, what there is no evidence of is not believed to exist. But not-belief is not a belief. (That sure sounds confusing)

[FreakyCheeseMan]

What Zerrer Said

Well siad. I would say something, though... if you choose to believe that coin is heads, you can use that as a basis from which to think and function, and from where to draw value- likewise if you believe tails. I'm curious to know, what do you gain from accepting neither?

There is no evidence to back up either of those ideas, and thus no reason to say it at all.

Either of which ideas?

[Leafsnail]

Nope.  The whole point of atheism (to me) is that you don't believe anything additionally (I obviously don't speak for all atheists here though).

So, did you read the one about the tribesman and the tachyons? Cause I'm pretty certain you believe in the law of gravity, which would be additional to him.

So... either you're saying:

1. You don't believe in gravity
2. There's no evidence for gravity

I'll ignore 1 since it's silly, but there's plenty of evidence for gravity.  Apart from the physical evidence we see every day, scientific experiments and such have predicted and confirmed the nature of how gravity works.  Sure, I COULD doubt them, but I think there is sufficient evidence to say that the law of gravity exists in the currently accepted form (remember: I want sufficient evidence, not absolute proof).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is no evidence to back up either of those ideas, and thus no reason to say it at all.

Either of which ideas?

...the ones I quoted you posting?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

What may be stumping you here is that Atheism doesn't describe what someone believes. It describes what they don't. A materialist (by definition) has to believe that all that exists is observable, a naturalist (by deifinition) has to believe that the universe is governed by natural forces. An atheist needs only say he or she is unconvinced that a god exists to be labeled as so.

The problem with these gaps is that even if you get to a point where you think the gaps can no longer be filed with yellow toothpicks, materialists and naturalists will keep probing those gaps until everything is filled.

I object that. Of course theists don't believe a lot of things that atheists generally do - like evolution. But it is not necessarily the case. The ideal atheist does not believe anything, because with evidence belief becomes knowledge. And on the other hand, what there is no evidence of is not believed to exist. But not-belief is not a belief. (That sure sounds confusing)

This conversation seems to be suffering from a crippling degree of abstraction- sadly, my ideas for what the blue and red picks are are difficult to describe. I'll try, but take this more as an example than a belief.

One red pick I saw as an atheist was "The value of utter individuality"- to trust and examine every idea yourself, allowing no black-box thinking or taking anything on faith. The blue pick that's being replaced with (maybe... it's a hard one to let go, I might keep it after all) is the value of trust and community- surrendering yourself to being part of a greater network.

As for the thing about "Something interacting with my brain"... neuroscience is not going to be able to disprove god. I'm sure that at some point they'll be able to find which parts of my brain are active during prayer, determine the neural pathways, map and maybe even predict. None of that denies the involvement of God; even as an atheist I believed that, however far human understanding got, there'd still another beneath it (turtles all the way down).

[FreakyCheeseMan]

So... either you're saying:

1. You don't believe in gravity
2. There's no evidence for gravity

I'll ignore 1 since it's silly, but there's plenty of evidence for gravity.  Apart from the physical evidence we see every day, scientific experiments and such have predicted and confirmed the nature of how gravity works.  Sure, I COULD doubt them, but I think there is sufficient evidence to say that the law of gravity exists in the currently accepted form (remember: I want sufficient evidence, not absolute proof).

Neither. I'm saying that this caveman doesn't believe something you do; in this case, it's because he believes something really silly. But, still, your beliefs are not a subset of his.

There is no evidence to back up either of those ideas, and thus no reason to say it at all.

Either of which ideas?

...the ones I quoted you posting?

Help me out here, there's a lot of ideas going around, and I'm responding to a lot of things. The idea that god's hand guides the particles? The idea that we'd need complete understanding of particle physics? What?

[Leafsnail]

So... either you're saying:

1. You don't believe in gravity
2. There's no evidence for gravity

I'll ignore 1 since it's silly, but there's plenty of evidence for gravity.  Apart from the physical evidence we see every day, scientific experiments and such have predicted and confirmed the nature of how gravity works.  Sure, I COULD doubt them, but I think there is sufficient evidence to say that the law of gravity exists in the currently accepted form (remember: I want sufficient evidence, not absolute proof).

Neither. I'm saying that this caveman doesn't believe something you do; in this case, it's because he believes something really silly. But, still, your beliefs are not a subset of his.

I... guess?  But this doesn't really apply unless you reached your new beliefs via evidence.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I... guess?  But this doesn't really apply unless you reached your new beliefs via evidence.

Well, the whole argument we were having some time ago was that, since there's no support for or against the god I believe in, it's logical to default to disbelief; if it's not that, but that we both believe things the other does not, that argument doesn't apply (though, I don't really think it does anyway).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Go back and look at my queston as posted. I quoted you there, and was typing of it.

[Leafsnail]

I'm sure I do believe things you don't, but I try to make sure anything I do believe is backed up by evidence.  I don't believe "There is no god" - I just don't believe in any god, since no evidence has been presented for any of them.

I'd just like to point out that "I don't believe there's no god, but I don't believe in a god" is about the most confusing sentence possible.

[Zerrer]

What Zerrer Said

Well siad. I would say something, though... if you choose to believe that coin is heads, you can use that as a basis from which to think and function, and from where to draw value- likewise if you believe tails. I'm curious to know, what do you gain from accepting neither?

It's not that I gain anything from accepting neither, it's that my mind is incapable of accepting one of them. I can't take something on blind faith, and I can't accept the fact that we're all alone here.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Go back and look at my queston as posted. I quoted you there, and was typing of it.

First of all, please don't be difficult for the sake of being difficult. I was confused about your point and asked you for clarification. No reason not to answer.

Secondly.

And beyond that, you can't say for certain whether or not particles are moving on their own, or being guided by a divine hand, until you have a *perfect* understanding of particle physics, free of random chance. Even then, you could say God was responsible for setting them in motion in the first place.

Ideas I see in this quote:
1: Particles are moving on their own
2: They're being guided by a divine hand
3: We'll someday have perfect understanding of particle physics
4: Particle physics is inherently free of random chance.
5: God set them in motion.
6: The possibility that 2 or 5 is true means neuroscience can't disprove that prayer responses come from god.

Pick two.

I'm sure I do believe things you don't, but I try to make sure anything I do believe is backed up by evidence.  I don't believe "There is no god" - I just don't believe in any god, since no evidence has been presented for any of them.

I'd just like to point out that "I don't believe there's no god, but I don't believe in a god" is about the most confusing sentence possible.

Well, then we're back to where we were before- you have beliefs about the godless universe than I don't have about god-having one, and thus, unless one of us lacks internal consistency or has evidence against us, we're on equal footing. It's just a matter of what your default is.

[Leafsnail]

Well... you could say that...

But surely the default lies at "nothing" not "there is an invisible being who can answer my prayers".