This game discriminates against Atheists!

[Diamond621]

And to clarify, the problem is that the argument you're presenting, that we should maintain an open mind about the existence of God since it cannot be disproved, is on some level an ad ignoratiam argument. Just because I cannot prove the non-existence of God does not mean I should inherently accept the possibility of existence. It means that I should accept the possibility of existence if some sort of evidence is offered that supports it. The bold is critical in that previous sentence, because otherwise you're free to believe in my tall man with bag of germs cancer theory, which I'm currently working out a book deal for . If someone offers me sound, logically rooted evidence FOR THE EXISTENCE of God, rather than simply AGAINST HIS NON-EXISTENCE, then I will readily acknowledge God as a possible force in the universe. It's a loose adaptation of ad ignoratiam, but I believe it to be true nonetheless - in this case with the affirmative being replaced with the possibility of the affirmative. The key is that doubt should be absolute and universal until real, tangible evidence is presented in support of an argument that differs from the null hypothesis. You should NOT think my tall man with bag of germs theory is possible, tangible or reasonable (Hint: I made it up) unless I can provide you with some evidence to support it, which I for some reason left in my other suit *looks around nervously*.

I obviously misinterpreted your earlier post. For that I apologize, and I meant no offense or disrespect by it to you or your beliefs (or lack of beliefs, if you'd prefer). Nietzsche was a cool fellow, and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding on your intentions.

**edit. I tend to have a lot of thoughts AFTER I make my original post. It's a nasty habit of mine. Fortunately this is not one of them **

 

[AfterShafter]

I never said you were citing him in support of it, I said he delved into it - critically, yes, but it was a point of study

Aye. Which makes me wonder why you think I'm making a case that somehow supports Pascal's Wager using Nietzschean streams of thought as support.

Seriously dude, I don't know if you've got some agenda here or my post was just very poorly written (I don't think it's THAT unclear on a reread) but no-where did I so much as hint that you should adopt religious faith as a result of my arguments. My argument, in its simplest form is athiesm, being the disproving of a divine being, is ultimately unprovable - so accepting it is a leap of faith to some degree. Since athiesm is unprovable, then a divine being is awlays a possibility, no matter how much evidence suggsts (SUGGESTS - not proves) that one does not exist. I don't suggest you go religious, go athiest, or go agnostic - I'm simply showing elements of faith on both assertive side.

Then I spend a fair bit of time showing how there are always sceptical points which leave us ultimately unsure about our knowledge, making knowledge itself an exercise of faith - in our senses, in reason, etc. If you want to argue this, go ahead - but the argument is fruitless. Sceptical arguments are dead ends - intelligentsia have realized this for milennia, and as such have continued on from a point where there is an admission that we can't ever be 100% absolutely completely positive, but in the interest of progress, we'll carry on with what's reasonable.

I do not see how you took this as a conversion attempt. Reread it, that's all I cans ay.

 

[Diamond621]

My point is essentially that I disagree with your 'simplest form' argument because it appeals to the inability of the opposing viewpoint to DISPROVE the existence of God, and supposes that we should accept the POSSIBILITY of his existence due to this and this alone. The reasoning behind it is simply that doubt and skepticism are NOT dead-end arguments because they follow a very basic rule - doubt is absolute until given reason to be otherwise. All the reasons for the existence of God are rooted in scripture and theology - there is absolutely ZERO known objective and scientific support of the idea of a deity - which invite us to (in the Christian example) discover the wonderful truth of the Bible by first making the assumption that the Bible is true. This is circular reasoning at its finest.

I realize you're not advocating the affirmative position in my argument (that God does indeed exist) but elaborating on it makes the argument itself a bit easier to discern. If someone approaches me and tells me the most ridiculous, half-assed explanation of the universe and its inhabitants, an explanation which contradicts every known viewpoint, position, faith and scientific theory known today, then that explanation should NOT be a valid possibility for me at that present time. Until that person shows me some evidence and logic behind their statement, then the possibility of his position should simply be null.

Inability to disprove God is seen by many fundamentalists as proof of his existence. While there's no sense in addressing this laughable argument (between the two of us it would be dead a thousand times before it hit the ground), I contend that it should not be seen as sufficient evidence to even acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of existence. Only with one additional ingredient, sound evidence and reasonable proof FOR HIS EXISTENCE, in support of the affirmative position, can logic make this middle leap and acknowledge a possibility of existence.

 

[AfterShafter]

And to clarify, the problem is that the argument you're presenting, that we should maintain an open mind about the existence of God since it cannot be disproved, is the very definition of an ad ignoratiam argument. Just because I cannot prove the non-existence of God does not mean I should inherently accept the possibility of existence. It means that I should accept the possibility of existence if some sort of evidence is offered that supports it. The bold is critical in that previous sentence, because otherwise you're free to believe in my tall man with bag of germs cancer theory, which I'm currently working out a book deal for . If someone offers me sound, logically rooted evidence FOR THE EXISTENCE of God, rather than simply AGAINST HIS NON-EXISTENCE, then I will readily acknowledge God as a possible force in the universe . The key is that doubt should be absolute and universal until real, tangible evidence is presented in support of an argument that differs from the null hypothesis. You should NOT think my tall man with bag of germs theory is possible, tangible or reasonable unless I can provide you with some evidence to support it, which I for some reason left in my other suit *looks around nervously*.

Well, here's the thing. "Open mind" is a pretty loose term and I'm not suggesting anyone even hold any reasonable (in a loose, not absolute, sense) belief that a divine being exist. But the case stands - if no conclusive case can be given for a divine being's non-existence, to say *absolutely* that there is no divine being is a leap of faith. This does not mean you have to seriously consider it - the lottery is a great example because I don't believe I will ever win, but the possibility is there, just ridiculously obscure. A divine being is a similar scenario except we aren't even sure if there is a "winner" - all we're sure about is that we can't prove that there isn't one. You don't have to accept it any more than I accept my mother telling me someone in my family is going to win the lottery one day, but I have to admit that I won't ever really know that I won't until I'm about to keel over. With the divine being case, even that won't be absolutely conclusive.

I don't see there being no case for a divine being being a "problem for my argument" because I'm not suggesting the barest possibility that we can't ever eradicate is anything even vaguely resembling a reason to believe in a divine being. I'm merely suggesting that any belief that a divine being does not exist is at its core article of faith precisely because his non-existence can't be proven. If I'm telling you to have an open mind about a divine being it is only in what reason, to me, seems to demand - that since it can't be disproven, it can't ever be *completely* discounted. It can be functionally discounted - much like we do with the idea that a Cartesian evil genius is staging all of existence for us, but that isn't complete.

I obviously misinterpreted your earlier post. For that I apologize, and I meant no offense or disrespect by it to you or your beliefs (or lack of beliefs, if you'd prefer). Nietzsche was a cool fellow, and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding on your intentions.

Yeah, thanks. It was a bit disconcerting to be wadded in with the religious crowd here for a fundamentally non-religious argument.

 

[AfterShafter]

My point is essentially that I disagree with your 'simplest form' argument because it appeals to the inability of the opposing viewpoint to DISPROVE the existence of God, and supposes that we should accept the POSSIBILITY of his existence due to this. The reasoning behind it is simply that doubt and skepticism are NOT dead-end arguments because they follow a very basic rule - doubt is absolute until given reason to be otherwise. All the reasons for the existence of God are rooted in scripture and theology, which invite us to (in the Christian example) discover the wonderful truth of the Bible by first making the assumption that the Bible is true. This is circular reasoning at its finest. I realize you're not advocating the affirmative position in my argument (that God does indeed exist) but elaborating on it makes the argument itself a bit easier to discern. If someone approaches me and tells me the most ridiculous, half-assed explanation of the universe and its inhabitants, then that should NOT be a valid possibility for me at that present time. Until that person shows me some evidence and logic behind their statement, then the possibility of his position should simply be null.

Scepticism not a dead end argument? Oh my. Doubt is absolute until given reason to be otherwise? Here's the problem with this... Show me one piece of evidence that the evil genius case (I'm sure you know it, but it's that we're essentially all in the matrix) isn't true. Even a piece of evidence suggesting it isn't true. Considering the nature of the case, I don't think anyone has ever found a single even remotely conclusive piece of evidence that can't be easily explained away by such a scenario that proves to us that we couldn't have the plug pulled on "reality" at any given time. That's why I say it's a dead-end case - if you were to start science like Bacon trying to get to a controlled, consistent environment while believing in the evil genius case, you'd be operating with a forfeit universe. All consistency would in fact be staged and counterfeit. It's a doubt which can't be eliminated, and as long as it can't be eliminated, any statement about the truth of the world or the consistency of the world has to make a caveat of "Well, as long as the evil genius case isn't true, these results are sound."

Same with the Nietzschean critique of reason. What are you going to do to show that reason isn't in fact misleading? Examine it with reason. Circularity which leaves us with a problem - do we proceed examining the world with this unsure tool? Can we trust its consistency? Isn't there the possibility that it's misleading us and we just can't tell?

This is why I say sceptical arguments are dead ends. They're cases which can't be refuted, and they are like a potential contamination of any sort of experiment ever conducted which can't be eliminated. What's more, evidence can't be given that they aren't true because the cases are circular and there is always an "Ah, but did you consider..." that makes the plausible again. We proceed on the path to knowledge by ignoring these claims, and operating as if they weren't true, not by refuting them - trying to do so would be a fruitless endeavour because they're dead end arguments.

In a way, the evil genius case is like a reverse divine being, from a rational standpoint. It can't be disproven, but it also makes sense to move forward without believing in it.

As for having positive faith, well, I side with Kierkegaard. "Faith begins precisely where rational thinking leaves off." Unfortunately, as I've been trying to point out, there are articles of faith at the basis of many systems other than religion, even if it rationally seems more consistent to move forward from these other articles of faith.

 

[Diamond621]

You pose some interesting points - but remember that arguments against a negative position do not neccessarily constitute an affirmation of a positive position on the same issue - if I can't prove the 'Evil Genius Theory' (EGT), then that shouldn't be used as support for the anti-EGT - it should require independent evidence. It seems we disagree, however, on what evidence constitutes the necessity to acknowledge the possibility of something being true...oh well

So, do you think the game discriminates against atheists? That was the original topic of the thread as I recall (Really, it was! If you don't believe me, then check! ).

 

[AfterShafter]

Inability to disprove God is seen by many fundamentalists as proof of his existence. While there's no sense in addressing this laughable argument (between the two of us it would be dead a thousand times before it hit the ground), I contend that it should not be seen as sufficient evidence to even acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of existence. Only with one additional ingredient, sound evidence and reasonable proof FOR HIS EXISTENCE, in support of the affirmative position, can logic make this middle leap and acknowledge a possibility of existence.

Well, fair enough. One thing though, in strict formal logic, when you're doing a formula and you can show a contradiction, the rule is anything follows - that's logic... So if it can be shown in logical formula that the statement of "no proof of god therefore no god" comes out contradictory - which I think it would - in a strict system of formal logic, you could postulate god all you want in the formula and have it remain sound/valid/whatever (I haven't done formal logic forever, and I'd much rather have someone who had speaking on the matter).

I'm of the stance that "If you can't disprove it, you can't discount it without taking a little leap of faith yourself - but if no case can be given to the positive, you really aren't rationally obligated to take it seriously." I will concede it's *possible* that there are pink elephants on Venus - I just won't let this alter my decisionmaking process in any way shape or form until I've been somehow convinced that there are. To me, this is the distinction between - logically, there *could* be a divine being, but realistically, there isn't, in the negative case I've been pushing.

Now I could get into a big spiel about how the thought behind Kierkegaard's "faith begins precisely where rational thinking leaves off" is the basis for my being rather tolerant of religious faith, despite my thinking it's simply unrealistic, but I think I've done enough writing for now.

 

[AfterShafter]

So, do you think the game discriminates against atheists? That was the original topic of the thread as I recall (Really, it was! If you don't believe me, then check! ).

Of course not. You get your 10% science bonus whether there is religion in your cities or not, suggesting that the non-religious element pushes the intellectual element more than the religious. I'd say that's pretty fair treatment

 

[gdgrimm]

...The key is that doubt should be absolute and universal until real, tangible evidence is presented in support of an argument that differs from the null hypothesis.

Why?

And why do I need to include this other stuff to make 10 characters?

 

[viz]

Oh, yes thats right only a athiest can be innocent and tolerant...

Nice way to make a complete arse of yourself, by showing everyone just how intolerent, uncaring and ignorant you are of other people's beliefs, ideas and ideals. I have a website for you www.youfail.org , enjoy.

Side Note: Whoa, this threads still going strong.

Lol,

I am not the 'intolerent', 'uncaring' and 'ignorant' one, read the post again. YOU are !!!

Side note: This thread is going strong because religion has a bearing on everyones life on the planet, unfortunatley. Either directly or indirectly.

 

[viz]

Why?

And why do I need to include this other stuff to make 10 characters?

Why?

Because there is no 'flying spaghetti monster' roaming the solar system, or is there?

 

[kcbrett5]

Ugh. I wish before these types of discussions would get started, the participants would agree that the following 2 statement are NOT the same:

1) "I believe there is no god."
2) "I have no belief in a god."

Then agree on what label they will use for people who would state #1, and what label will be used for people who would state #2.

I, personally, would be a #2 person. I tend to call myself ambivalent about religion/god. I do NOT call myself an atheist, because I use that word to describe the #1 type person.

Often, people will use the word atheist to describe both types of people, and then go on to make statements/arguments that really only apply to the type #1 people. Which tends to get really confusing to us type #2 people. Because we end up having to disagree with what some of the self proclaimed 'atheists' are saying, and agreeing with what the 'believers in some God' are saying in reply.

This post should be read over and over and over again until you understand it. I am also a #2 type and it is absolutely true that as soon as I tell that to someone they make the leap to assign me as a #1 type. Then I have religious fanatics arguing with me about my proof for god not existing.

Really I could care less either way, but let's pick Christianity for the sake of argument since that's the way I was raised. They want me to live my life to their standards, according to their rules, or I will go to hell when the messiah returns just in time to save me from the 4 horseman of the apocalypse. First, the bible that is preached was written down by men after being passed along orally for centuries. Does anyone want to play a game called "Telephone" with me?
Second, the early roman catholic church selected the 4 main gospels of the new testament from a list of about 20. And wouldn't you know it, the ones they included all preach that you should love and adore your church while several that they left out preach that you can love god without a church. Hmmm..self serving interests anyone?
Third, religious people often claim that my notion of nothingness after I die is depressing. I would suggest that the notion of the end of time being upon us (which I have been told recently due to the middle eastern crisis) is far more depressing a thought then me happily living out the rest of my days on earth and then dying.

 

[Diamond621]

This post should be read over and over and over again until you understand it. I am also a #2 type and it is absolutely true that as soon as I tell that to someone they make the leap to assign me as a #1 type. Then I have religious fanatics arguing with me about my proof for god not existing.

Really I could care less either way, but let's pick Christianity for the sake of argument since that's the way I was raised. They want me to live my life to their standards, according to their rules, or I will go to hell when the messiah returns just in time to save me from the 4 horseman of the apocalypse. First, the bible that is preached was written down by men after being passed along orally for centuries. Does anyone want to play a game called "Telephone" with me?
Second, the early roman catholic church selected the 4 main gospels of the new testament from a list of about 20. And wouldn't you know it, the ones they included all preach that you should love and adore your church while several that they left out preach that you can love god without a church. Hmmm..self serving interests anyone?
Third, religious people often claim that my notion of nothingness after I die is depressing. I would suggest that the notion of the end of time being upon us (which I have been told recently due to the middle eastern crisis) is far more depressing a thought then me happily living out the rest of my days on earth and then dying.

The inconsistences, utter lies, misquotes, errors of omission and complete and total garbage in the Bible adds up to too much for most people to fathom in one sitting, so don't even try or you'll likely get a headache. Take a break and grab something to drink. It is staggering that people actually believe the literal truth of this wonderful fairy tale. Homo sapiens is a gullible sort, ain't we?

 

[MrCynical]

I also wish that people would grasp the distinction that gdgrimm highlights. I also fall into the category of #2 type, and generally use the term "non-theist" to refer to myself. It's a little crude to say that I neither know nor care whether God exists, but it's the most effective way I've found to get the point across. The number of times I've been accused of being an atheist is ridiculous, given that I'm exactly as far away from atheism as I am from religion.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think that being open to the existence of anything, even in the absence of any evidence for it, makes sense as long as there is no contrary evidence. For example, I am quite sure that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist because the sort of creature it is not only hasn't actually been seen in the lake (which is very finite in size) but couldn't. However, although I consider it extremely unlikely that leprechauns exist (outside of Notre Dame - Go Irish!), I will not say it is certain. Maybe all those stories really were based on something.

But as for me, I would be an agnostic, except that I do feel that I have evidence of God's existence - and what's more, of specific attributes of God, which is why I belong to a specific religion. But this evidence is completely personal and subjective, and thus of no value in trying to convince anyone of God's existence. Which is why I don't try.

 

[Datian]

Seen from afar, this "I don't need proof to believe in ___" (insert whatever you want) doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry but this is just irrational, and although I know religion does not need reason (that's the whole point of faith), you have to be logical sometimes.

I mean, imagine meeting someone who assumes that his pink paper dolls repel white, long tailed elephants, terrible animals who threatens the sanctity of the world.
First you'll wonder which elephants he's talking about, you've never heard of those ones, but he will answer that the lack of proof of their existence (like seeing one) doesn't mean they do not exist. Yeah right.
Then you'll ask about the pink paper dolls, and of course he'll answer that the absence of white, long tailed elephants is the evidence that the doll thing works. Hmm of course you can't argue.
And in the end he'll explain to you calmly that since you refuse to acknowledge the existence of his elephants, you're an idiot and an atheist bigot, that you lack tolerance, that your mind is as closed and cold as an oyster, and that you will be trampled for ever in the hell of the bad elephants. And you'll be glad for not being born five centuries ago, or else he would have tied you to a stick and put you on a pyre.

 

[AfterShafter]

Whoops, wrong thread.

 

[AfterShafter]

The inconsistences, utter lies, misquotes, errors of omission and complete and total garbage in the Bible adds up to too much for most people to fathom in one sitting, so don't even try or you'll likely get a headache. Take a break and grab something to drink. It is staggering that people actually believe the literal truth of this wonderful fairy tale. Homo sapiens is a gullible sort, ain't we?

Heh, well, I've found the most interesting interpretations of religious scripture these days to be those which accept it as a metaphor and recognize it for the organizational/moral value that a work like it has. Unfortunately, such interpretations are rare, and a majority are a lot more dogmatic...

Either way, the work (The Bible) does have a great deal of historical and even contemporary value, considering the degree to which it influences western society. Totally ignoring its role in the here and now, which is significant to say the least... Well hey, that's our human race for you. Try to ignore it and you'll be surprised when it's one of the most influential documents of the century - got to roll with the punches

 

[knigh+]

Atheism is not lack of religion, it is a religion that believes in the absence of God.

 

[blaugh]

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Atheism does not sound like a religion to me.