Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
It's not something people hear about.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
DU obviously shouldn't have said:
Lamer.
lamest
That makes me the starter of 10000 and 40000.
Well I be go to hell. 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Well I be go to hell.
Didn't you get the 500,000th post too?
Or something. I forget what it was. [ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: DU ]
It's not something people hear about.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
...It's not because I'm a Catholic school girl. 
I do think however, that atheism is as much blind faith as any religion.
quote:
Zaza's fortune cookie read:
I do think however, that atheism is as much blind faith as any religion.
Atheism is a result of logic and Occam's Razor. There's no faith involved, because there's nothing the believe in.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Also a quote that fits in well that I remember: "If there was no God, man would be forced to create one."
quote:
Check out the big brain on Karnaj!
Atheism is a result of logic and Occam's Razor. There's no faith involved, because there's nothing the believe in.
There's the belief that God won't suddenly appear tomorrow to say hi, and then wipe out the universe.
I'm kind of a mix between Christianity and Zen Buddhism. Not sure how it works, but it does for me. 
"How can you ever hope to know the Beloved
Without becoming in every cell the Lover?
And when you are the Lover at last, you don't care.
Whatever you know or don't - only Love is real."
Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb. - Dark Helmet
quote:
Talonus said this about your mom:
There's the belief that God won't suddenly appear tomorrow to say hi, and then wipe out the universe.
No, there isn't. Atheism is an abscence of a a god-belief, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. There several different flavors of atheism, but above all, they all share that one commmon trait: a lack of a god-belief.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Pirotess:
No, there isn't. Atheism is an abscence of a a god-belief, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. There several different flavors of atheism, but above all, they all share that one commmon trait: a lack of a god-belief.
The definition of atheism is varied. Your definition points out the lack of belief in god-like being. The other definition, which is probably more popular, is the belief that God doesn't exist. The definitions are quite similar, but do mean different things.
Taking the second definition, by believing God doesn't exist you believe that God isn't going to join you for a tea party. If God were to join you for a tea party, it would kill your belief structure. It all just comes down to how you twist the words.
Anyhoo, I believe but not in anything too concrete.
quote:
Talonus had this to say about John Romero:
The definition of atheism is varied. Your definition points out the lack of belief in god-like being. The other definition, which is probably more popular, is the belief that God doesn't exist. The definitions are quite similar, but do mean different things.Taking the second definition, by believing God doesn't exist you believe that God isn't going to join you for a tea party. If God were to join you for a tea party, it would kill your belief structure. It all just comes down to how you twist the words.
You're referring to weak and strong definitions of atheism, the former being any number of types of atheism, the only requirement common to each being a lack of a god-belief.
Strong atheism, on the other hand, goes beyond a mere lack of belief to qualitatively say "God does not exist." Their position most often is one reached via logic and Occam's Razor, also citing the fact that the burden is proof is always on the affirmative (in this case, the theists, because they assert God does exists) rather than the negative.
You assert that strong atheism is dogmatic and belief oriented. Observe:
quote:
From Victor Gijsbers:An atheist who holds the strong position claims that since there has not yet been found any evidence for God, it is reasonable to say that no gods exists. But should evidence for God be found, the 'strong' atheist could become a theist just as quickly as a 'weak' atheist could.
As far as I can see, the strong atheist is someone who has thought about theism and has rejected it for whatever reason, whereas the weak atheist is someone who has not thought about this question at all. This, at least, seems to be the way in which people like Drange use the terms atheist and nontheist. Thus, both you and I would be strong atheists.
This would not result in us having to prove the nonexistence of God, since we do not claim to know for certain that She does not exist; but we have thought about it, and concluded that there is no good evidence. I do not think 'strong' atheism is incompatible with [the philosophy of] Positive Atheism. Strong atheism is not the same as dogmatic atheism. I would choose the weak definition and the strong position, while rejecting dogmatism.
Since most strong atheists reach their decision via logic, it is closely tied to the liberal scientific method, which states(among other things) all past truths are subject to be overthrown by new evidence. Because of this, all but the dogmatic atheists(Communist atheists, rebels without a god, whatever) could quickly and easily become theists, should evidence supporting His/Her/Its existence be found. However, since there is no evidence, they will continue to lack a god-belief.
The important thing to remember is that all atheists, for whatever reason, have a lack of a god belief. They do not believe God doesn't exist, they simply choose not to have a belief concerning that particular subject. And no, the two statements are not the same. Even strong atheists could easily become theists, if there ever was evidence to support the existence of a God. In such a case, dogmatic atheists(again, state-enforced atheists or whatever) are the vast minority, and would cling to the assertion that God does not exist in spite of evidence to the contrary. But up until that point, they would continue to lack a belief structure on the subject, because the burden of proof is NOT on the atheists' side.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Karnaj wrote:
Atheism is a result of logic and Occam's Razor. There's no faith involved, because there's nothing the believe in.
Atheism to the extent of denying something as vast as a divine existance just because it's unproven to you is faith. To believe in nothing is not faith. To believe there is nothing is to believe in something. It's not refusing to have a belief, that's Agnosticism. It's honestly impossible to with logic disdain the existance of anything divine, since such a divine thing could be essentially anything.
It might be logically possibly to discount existing, clearly defined beliefs, such as the bible being the absolute truth, but how can you logically disdain every one of a limitless amount possibilities? [ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: Zaza ]
quote:
Zaza attempted to be funny by writing:
Atheism to the extent of denying something as vast as a divine existance just because it's unproven to you is faith. To believe in nothing is not faith. To believe there is nothing is to believe in something. It's not refusing to have a belief, that's Agnosticism. It's honestly impossible to with logic disdain the existance of anything divine, since such a divine thing could be essentially anything.It might be logically possibly to discount existing, clearly defined beliefs, such as the bible being the absolute truth, but how can you logically disdain every one of a limitless amount possibilities?
First, I will reiterate: a lack of belief != a belief in the negative. Also, agnosticism can be easily divided into theist and atheist stratifications. Observe:
If you are an agnostic, and you say, "there are gods, but I can't say any more on the subject," you are a theist--you have a god belief. If you're an agnostic and say, "I don't know if any god exists," then you lack a god belief and you are an atheist. There is no true 'middle ground'--you either have a god belief or you don't.
Strong atheists go beyond this to assert that there are no gods. Since I am a strong atheist, and I can assure you that my desicion is not a belief, I'll share with you my logical reasoning for how I reached this conclusion.
In the past, man could not explain much of the universe around him. Because of this, man used religion to explain stuff, i.e. "God did it."
As time progressed, man figured out more and more about life, the universe, and everything. Among those discoveries have been working theories to what I consider central to the "big" question: "How did we get here?" We've got the Big Bang to explain how the universe came to be, the theory of abiogenesis to explain how life came to earth, and evolution to explain how that first organic molecule became the diverse batch of life you see before you. So, I can call Occam's Razor on this one: as far as "how" is concerned, any explanation with a god or gods has redundant variables, so it falls by the wayside.
Well, that's all well and good, but what about the "why?" Why was the universe/life created? Well, for a long time, I thought about this. I finally reached the only logical conclusion: the reasons "why" had to have occured "before" the universe was created. OK, so what's before the universe? It's an impossibility; there is nothing outside of the universe. The universe is everything, infinite. So "why" is irrelevent, so that rules out God's existence as necessary answer that question.
So if you can explain how life, the universe and everything came to be, and why is irrelevent, then what's left? Is there any evidence for the existence of a god or gods? In a word, no. So, there is no god(s).
Deciding whether or not you want to believe in a god(s) is subjective experience, but that does not mean you can't apply logic to the situation to answer the question. It also doesn't mean you have to try and define the undefinable, it just means since the undefinable is redundant/irrelevant, and there's no evidence for its existence, and the burden of proof is NOT on my position, it follows that there isn't one. Or many, as the case may not be.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj painfully thought these words up:
Lots of stuff.
Dammit, I'm too lazy to respond to that with anything halfway logical. That, and I hate getting involved in anything related to a a relgious debate in any way. Ah well.
*Gives Karnaj a cookie for spending his time writing stuff.*
On an interesting side note: the Greek philosophers defined "divine" as anything eternal.
At any rate, why does everyone always say the burden of proof is on those who believe? There is no conclusive evidence either for or against. We certainly have theories about how we came into existence, but they are only theories, as we have no reliable record of what exactly happened in the process of creation. IMO, how the universe came to be is an interesting subject, but not particularly relevant.
As for science, it is a tool that allows us to explore and understand the boundaries and laws of our reality and thus, understand in a way, the creator of that reality. Science and religion are by no means diametrically opposed, and the information from one often supports the other.
I find the continued supposition that God is limited in some fashion to be delightfully pretentious. When you're omnipotent, the only thing holding you back is yourself.
Alaan, why do you find it hard to believe that God loves each and every precious soul? He takes pleasure in our accomplishments, shares our sorrows and is with us from the time we come into being. (Well, unless you go to hell, where it is conjectured by some that the Divine Presence is absent, and thats why its hell.)
Lalamile, what about all the good things the Catholic Church has done? I can't speak in defense of the Protestants, as I'm not nearly as familiar with their history, but the Church has had a pivotal influence. Without it our world would have been radically different, and probably not for the better.
The Burger, your view is entirely correct. God IS a parent figure, not a distant figurehead. He loves each of us dearly, and if the bible is to believed, more than we love other people even in the most intimate fashions. The bible tells us that God loves us, more deeply and desperately than our mortal hearts are even capable of.
What do you think those songs and prayers of praise are all about? Don't you ever praise a parent? Perhaps you might not extoll their virtues the way we extoll God's, but then your parents are themselves, human. The deepest form of love that mankind is capable is worship. Not out of fear, though according to a number of catechism's that is enough, but what God truly wants is our love
Okay, I've bared my soul enough for tonight, be gentle with the flames please.
That said, this in no way "limits" or "marginalizes" anyone's beliefs, because your beliefs are just that: your beliefs (or lack thereof, as in the case of atheists). And that's what's cool about 'em. [ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: Karnaj ]
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Roman Catholic and go to a Catholic school.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Knight Rider:
The burden of proof is on those who believe because they are taking the affirmative of the issue. With any issue, the burden of proof is always on the affirmative. If there is no evidence for or against, you could say that the 'default' position is the negative.
Thank you for explaining that to me. 
