patrick.net

marcus says

lolwut

what's that?

Simultaneous "laugh out loud" with "what?"

elliemae says

"lol" should be redefined as "Lack of laughter."

I have a new one. TYSFME (to you straight from my ego).

I tend to not say, IMHO, but please assume that I am always saying that, even when I might be better off saying IMAO or even TYSFME.

Some posters on here are very bright and with strong opinions, and yet I don't hear ego as much from them as I do from some others. MY guess is that it's often a function of age. I would not be surprised to learn that certain individuals on here are under 30. (and I probably sound that way occasionally - although not even close).

I do say IMHO to distinguish between my opinion and my humble opinion.

hahaha

CL says

One can't "not believe" in something, really, can they?

Sure they can . Many choose not to believe in God, or to live their life based on the existence of and worship of God. But this is a far cry from asserting with certainty that God does not exist. That sounds like religious dogma to me. It's very much like some Christians who arrogantly feel that what they have found to be true for themselves is true for everyone, and that they need to spread the word so that others can have the same enlightened experience.

(although in that case it might not be as much pure ego as the atheists assertions, because they believe they are helping the other person to be saved. I guess the atheist feels that they are making the world a better place too so....yeah, it's very similar. )

Atheism, it's the anti-religion religion.

Let's get technical - since believing is a belief system, choosing not to believe is also a belief system. Therefore, one can't choose not to believe without believing...

I paid attention in philosophy class. However, it holds very little relevence to reality. It's just a way for someone to believe that they've won an argument on patnet.

oops - forgot to add:
-ellie, the voice of irrational reason. ;)

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

I firmly believe, no, make that know that no god, as defined by any of the monotheistic or polytheistic religions in human history exists.

prove it

I already did in another thread that went way off topic. Here's a copy of the relevant part of that thread.

Any proof must of course start with a definition of god. I'll use the standard monotheistic definition, the meaning that people typically mean when they try to use god to justify or demand something.

In order for something to be true, it must, at least in principle, be provable. Something that cannot be proven even in principle is by definition false. So when you agnostics say the existence of god is not provable or disprovable, you are in fact saying that god does not exist. Of course, you are welcome to present an experiment which would, depending on its results, either prove or disprove the existence of god. However, I doubt you will.

If you can't define god, then it is meaningless bullshit. If you do define god, then I'll most certainly either find a logical proof that your god doesn't exist, or I'll show that no one means what you mean by god when they pray or preach.

Atheists have been silent for too long, and as a result the world had to endure the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic/Protest wars of England, the genocide of the Native Americans, the Holocaust, and so many other needless tragedies. Now we live under the threat of nuclear annihilation and ecological collapse. It's time that atheists stop tolerating the forces of irrationality that will lead to the destruction of our species.

Of course, I don't expect to convert anyone who believes in a benevolent sky daddy to reason. However, I'd consider it a victory to prevent that thought virus from infecting people in the next generation. That's the way to kill racism, and that's the way to kill all other bad ideas. Prevent them from infecting new generations.

I make no apologies for trying to convince the next generation of leaders that reason, not faith, is the key to humanity salvation. The last thing I want to see is some Christine O'Donnell pushing the big red button in order to hasten the rapture.

leoj707 says

Because I am God, I could easily prove this to you Bap, but first you must prove something for me.

Bap, prove that I am not God.

leoj707, I will only accept your proof of god if you accept polytheism. After all, I am clearly also god as proven by the fact that many women have shouted "Oh god" at me during love making bouts.

Now before some fool tries to argue that it is a contradiction for me to claim to be both god and an atheist, let me explain why it's not. Although ironic, it is not a contradiction for god to be an atheist. I simply do not believe in myself.

elliemae says

Let's get technical - since believing is a belief system, choosing not to believe is also a belief system. Therefore, one can't choose not to believe without believing...

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

As you wish, Dan.

p.s. You're gonna get it now, I'm "friending" your ass.

No particular reason, just thought it was funny.

Slinkies are good for demonstrating wave theory.

Dan8267 says

If god knows what he is going to do, he cannot change what he's going to do.

absurd statement, even for you.

marcus says

CL says

One can't "not believe" in something, really, can they?

Sure they can . Many choose not to believe in God, or to live their life based on the existence of and worship of God. But this is a far cry from asserting with certainty that God does not exist. That sounds like religious dogma to me. It's very much like some Christians who arrogantly feel that what they have found to be true for themselves is true for everyone, and that they need to spread the word so that others can have the same enlightened experience.

(although in that case it might not be as much pure ego as the atheists assertions, because they believe they are helping the other person to be saved. I guess the atheist feels that they are making the world a better place too so....yeah, it's very similar. )

Atheism, it's the anti-religion religion.

great post marcus

Bap33 says

great post marcus

Yes, it was a great post. But remember, just as there's no proof that God exists, there's no proof that he doesn't. It's all beliefs.

elliemae says

just as there's no proof that God exists, there's no proof that he doesn't. It's all beliefs.

If you define God as "a being who can do anything" then I think Dan did just prove that that particular God can't exist.

Think of it this way: Can God create a rock so big that he can't move it?

If he can, then there's something God can't do. He can't move the rock.
If he can't, then there's something God can't do. He can't create such a rock.

Either way, there's something God can't do. So the God who can do anything must not exist.

This proof depends on how you define God though. Maybe your definition of God does not include such absolute omnipotence.

You are so right - and I do believe that was a George Carlin routine to some extent.

I never thought of it that way, tho. Cool.

elliemae says

But remember, just as there's no proof that God exists, there's no proof that he doesn't. It's all beliefs.

For the agnostic who says "I don't know" it's only believing in the truth.

If you define God as "a being who can do anything"

As far as I know, only children and some fundamentalists believe in God as a "being." Even most who practice in some organized religion have a more sophisticated and ambiguous view of what God is or might be, that is, if they stick with religion as intelligent adults (newsflash - there are many who do - see the linked video.) That is, it is not incongruous to be religious and to simultaneously see God as beyond our comprehension, or even to be religious and simultaneously somewhat agnostic about Gods existence.

Have you seen the website "BigThink ?"

They have a great series on beliefs. Much of their content is in brief video form such as this. See the others in the series on the right side.

http://bigthink.com/series/38/series_item/4821

(Note: various views explored - including atheism.)

Totally off-topic -

I just went out back to ask a farm animal why she was standing at a closed gate into her pen when there was an open one about 15 feet away - please note this is a rhetorical question as

1) She doesn't speak english
2) She's not exactly intelligent, as evidenced by her standing at a closed gate...

A squirrel was stealing one of my squash's and froze in an attempt to blend into the background, waited a few minutes and then picked it up and ran down its hole. It was so damn cool to watch.

Meanwhile, a not-so-smart farm animal stood patiently at the closed gate...

elliemae says

Bap33 says

great post marcus

Yes, it was a great post. But remember, just as there's no proof that God exists, there's no proof that he doesn't. It's all beliefs.

Eschew Obfuscation

That was the point we all made to Dan and Leo just a few million lines above, and they said, "No, Bap, You big dumb ape, we do not believe in your sky daddy because we use nothing but "logic" to explain all things!! You only believe in sky daddys because you are a buffoon!!" (paraphrased a little)

love the dog story, by the way.

If you define God as "a being who can do anything" then I think Dan did just prove that that particular God can't exist.
Think of it this way: Can God create a rock so big that he can't move it?
If he can, then there's something God can't do. He can't move the rock.
If he can't, then there's something God can't do. He can't create such a rock.
Either way, there's something God can't do. So the God who can do anything must not exist.
This proof depends on how you define God though. Maybe your definition of God does not include such absolute omnipotence.

That's what I meant when I said elliemae says

You are so right - and I do believe that was a George Carlin routine to some extent.
I never thought of it that way, tho. Cool.

Most people that I know believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient - which by logic, Patrick proves incorrect.

But the thing is, people believe in God much of the time - and it's irrational from a scientific point of view. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Remember that I live in a land where there are uber religious people living alongside heathens such as myself.

Religion is like politics - everyone has their own beliefs and that doesn't make them wrong or right. It's only when they attempt to cram it down someone else's throat that it becomes wrong. I respect that your opinions about many things will be different than mine - it makes the world more interesting.

Bap33 says

love the dog story, by the way.

Goats. The dog is even more apathetic to squirrel intruders, but she is effective in stealing whatever the cats have killed.

Think of it this way: Can God create a rock so big that he can't move it?

I think I first heard that one on Saturday Night Live, could possibly be from a Carlin routine. I had to LOL at some of these:

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/22782.George_Carlin

I loved the Hippy Dippy Weatherman - Al Sleet.

"Tonight's forcast: Dark. Continued mostly dark, with scattered light in the morning hours.

It's 70 degrees at the airport - which is stupid, 'cause I don't know anyone who lives at the airport."

But the best will always be the seven words you can't say on television. I memorized it when I was twelve - got my mount rinsed out with soap, too.

marcus says

CL says

One can't "not believe" in something, really, can they?

Sure they can . Many choose not to believe in God, or to live their life based on the existence of and worship of God. But this is a far cry from asserting with certainty that God does not exist. That sounds like religious dogma to me. It's very much like some Christians who arrogantly feel that what they have found to be true for themselves is true for everyone, and that they need to spread the word so that others can have the same enlightened experience.

(although in that case it might not be as much pure ego as the atheists assertions, because they believe they are helping the other person to be saved. I guess the atheist feels that they are making the world a better place too so....yeah, it's very similar. )

Atheism, it's the anti-religion religion.

Philosophically, as Ellie pointed out, making positive statements about that which is unknowable is belief. If an Atheist believes there is no God, it's still a belief, unless it can be proven that there cannot be a God anywhere, even a little tribal god on Earth, Space Jesus, or a detached transcendent God. Since it is all unknowable, anyone who asserts that it is anything but unknowable is making a positive assertion.

That's why the Tao says, "Those who know don't say, those who say don't know".

No need to reply! :)

Bap33 says

elliemae says

Bap33 says

great post marcus

Yes, it was a great post. But remember, just as there's no proof that God exists, there's no proof that he doesn't. It's all beliefs.

Eschew Obfuscation

That was the point we all made to Dan and Leo just a few million lines above, and they said, "No, Bap, You big dumb ape, we do not believe in your sky daddy because we use nothing but "logic" to explain all things!! You only believe in sky daddys because you are a buffoon!!" (paraphrased a little)

love the dog story, by the way.

Bap your paraphrasing is grossly inaccurate, while you indeed may be a "big dumb ape" --as you put it-- no where in the above posts did I say that I do not believe in "your sky daddy". For one I don't know which of the sky daddies/mommies you have chosen to believe in.

Also, I have been very clear that religion/atheism is all beliefs. I don't see why this seems to be some shocking revelation to you. The big difference that you seem unable to grasp is that religion is a belief contrary to the evidence, while atheism is a belief because there is no evidence to believe otherwise.

Now when I say religion, I am not referring to a "clock maker god(s)" theory, for whom there is no evidence for or against, but that is another discussion.

Just in-case you did not get it the first time around:
Your sky daddy = A belief contrary to the body of evidence
Atheism = A belief, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise

So, just like you choose to be an atheist about Thor --still not sure what god(s) you believe in so I could be wrong here-- because the possibility that Thor exists lacks credible evidence; atheists choose to not believe in any gods.

I hope this clears things up for you a little bit.

BTW, I am still waiting for your proof that I am not god.

marcus says

Sure they can . Many choose not to believe in God, or to live their life based on the existence of and worship of God. But this is a far cry from asserting with certainty that God does not exist. That sounds like religious dogma to me. It's very much like some Christians who arrogantly feel that what they have found to be true for themselves is true for everyone, and that they need to spread the word so that others can have the same enlightened experience.

What about when a kid asks you if Santa Clause is real? Do you say, "maybe"? So as to be impartial and reasonable concerning the existence of Santa?

So, if I assert, with certainty, that the next time you step on a sidewalk you will not fly up into the air. Does that sound like religious dogma? What if there was a group of people that thought you very possibly would fly into the air, and I was making my assertion contrary to their beliefs [ http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/ ]? Would my comment be religious dogma then?

No one can prove that you will not go flying into the air, it just might happen. Would you remain purely agnostic on the idea that you may or may not go flying into the air the next time your foot touches a sidewalk?

Philosophically one can never be certain about anything, but the probability of some events being "true" is so close to zero they might as well be untrue. In fact it is logical and wise for us to operate as if they are untrue (this is not just restricted to religion). Is knowledge so loose weave that people are stepping out of second story windows, expecting to gently float to the ground? They might, who knows! No one can prove that the next person to step out will not float.

I don't see the big deal of some people saying that something is untrue when the chance of it being true is that low.

I really don't care what people believe. What consenting adults do in privacy is their own business, and I understand that the religious mystical experience can be very real to people. What annoys me is when people legislate their religious system, or thrust their beliefs into the lives of others.

CL says

That's why the Tao says, "Those who know don't say, those who say don't know".

Doesn't this pearl of wisdom invalidate every-other thing written in the Tao Te Ching? Or is it implied that while those who know "don't say", they write a book of wisdom! Then they never talk about their book.

elliemae says

Organized religion is often about who is more reverent and believes the most.

BINGO!

You never see people gathered together in a building chanting

"All Hail the several organic elements of the Periodic Table!"
"Friction causes heat, oh yes it does, I believe!"
"The Sun appears to rise in the East, and Set in the West!"
"Go out and tell the world, that at room temperature, H2O is a liquid!"

In other words, the faithful doth praise too much.

So if I get cancer, should I sit around all day and pray it gets better? There are a lot of people that think so. AFAICR, the effectiveness of that method is equal to a placebo. Me, I'll take science any day. As shoddy and iffy and human as it is still, it's got a better record of success.

CL says

No need to reply! :)

I see what you did there.

leoj707 says

Or is it implied that while those who know "don't say", they write a book of wisdom! Then they never talk about their book.

Not sure that the knowledge referred to in the quote was the same as the knowledge shared in the rest of the TaoTe Ching, but if it were, you might have a point.

I was more partial to Chuang Tzu. It's interesting that Thomas Merton, a famous Catholic trappist monk, was very interested in Eastern Spirituality and did a lot of Chuang Tzu translations, put together in this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Way-Chuang-First-Directions-Paperbook/dp/0811201031

(editted Chuang Tzu not Lao Tsu; what can I tell you, it's been a long time. Great book though, highly recommended. Probably time for me to get back to it again)

leoj707 says

What about when a kid asks you if Santa Clause is real? Do you say, "maybe"? So as to be impartial and reasonable concerning the existence of Santa?

So, if I assert, with certainty, that the next time you step on a sidewalk you will not fly up into the air. Does that sound like religious dogma? What if there was a group of people that thought you very possibly would fly into the air, and I was making my assertion contrary to their beliefs

Well, I guess that's check and mate. MY hat is off to you sir, for finding such a perfect analogies to make your point that I am speechless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0

I would encourage you to listen to the short videos in the seriesI posted yesterday. In my view all of the "experts" in the series had interesting ideas to share. Well, one guy didn't actually say much, and another sounds like an arrogant twit, but I was impressed with all of the other 6.

http://bigthink.com/series/38/series_item/4821

Vicente says

So if I get cancer, should I sit around all day and pray it gets better? There are a lot of people that think so. AFAICR, the effectiveness of that method is equal to a placebo.

Actually, it's even worse than getting a placebo. As The Chicago Tribune reports (and Seattle Times republishes)

Praying for a sick heart patient may feel right to people of faith, but it doesn't appear to improve the patient's health, according to a new study that is the largest ever done on the healing powers of prayer.

The new study, which appears in the April issue of the American Heart Journal, was designed to be large enough to see if patients who knew they were being prayed for had better recoveries.

Of course, the people funding the study wanted to see a positive correlation between prayer and recovery so they could get more people to pray. Funny, when the correlation turned out to be negative, no one has the balls to state that people should refrain from praying.

Correction above. Chuang Tzu. Doh !!

leoj707 says

Just in-case you did not get it the first time around:
Your sky daddy = A belief contrary to the body of evidence
Atheism = A belief, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise

So, just like you choose to be an atheist about Thor --still not sure what god(s) you believe in so I could be wrong here-- because the possibility that Thor exists lacks credible evidence; atheists choose to not believe in any gods.

Actually atheists go beyond "not believing" they go all the way to asserting that THEY KNOW with as much certainty as they know that Santa Clause doesn't exist (although, he does in a way - sometimes), that God does not exist.

I always try so hard with my students to emphasize the importance of understanding the question. When you or Richard Dawkins looks at the question of Gods existence, as far as I can tell, you don't even understand the question. You certainly don't understand what the answer is that many believers would give.

To make your argument, you need to frame God as "Sky daddy" or as a human like interventionist God.

Check this out (not from that series I posted before, but from one of the "experts" in it.) I like this lady and think I need to read her book.

"What is God?" (Karen Armstrong)
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17656

@Victor,
Everyone is going to die.
Everyone faces that fact differently.
Cancer, bullets, violent, peaceful, young and old ... each faces the exact same ending. Some folks just want one more breath.

But, as for your question about praying for health, I read the Bible and it does not say to do it that way. It says, have faith that you can heal in the name of Jesus ... but, it also promises that everyone will die .... so, at some point, we all get old and die. A complex situation, no doubt. What we die from don't matter to anyone but the living.

I oft ponder if those raised from death by Jesus are still roaming around, since they have already went through death once, as is the agreement.

marcus says

I would encourage you to listen to the short videos in the seriesI posted yesterday.

I agree with your assessment, interesting overall, but a couple were meh...

Yes, religion and science answer different questions, and over the millennia questions originally posed religion have been slowly answered by science. The problem is that religion does not want to let go of their "answers", and let science do it's job. This holds humanity back. I do realize that there are many people who don't let their faith get in the way of accepting science.

If religious questions --those that science can't and/or may never answer-- remained benign philosophical musings on the nature of god I don't think atheists would concern them selves at all with religion.

marcus says

Actually atheists go beyond "not believing" they go all the way to asserting that THEY KNOW with as much certainty as they know that Santa Clause doesn't exist (although, he does in a way - sometimes), that God does not exist.

Dan8267 seems to be a good example of what you are talking about here, but as with religion there are many flavors of atheists. By definition to be an atheist all that is required is to not believe in gods. Being that both Santa and gods have the same level of proof that they are real I can understand why someone would say they know with certainty both are not real.

The videos you posted have some good examples of religious-agnostics, and they are not mutually exclusive. While religion and atheism are mutually exclusive atheism and agnosticism are not.

marcus says

To make your argument, you need to frame God as "Sky daddy" or as a human like interventionist God.

Yes, that is why I put this disclaimer in a previous post:
leoj707 says

Now when I say religion, I am not referring to a "clock maker god(s)" theory, for whom there is no evidence for or against, but that is another discussion.

I have had very little discussion with true believers where their god was not a sky daddy/mommy. Karen Armstrong had a few examples, but I think that these believers are a small minority. People like to anthropomorphism their cars, pets and gods. Yes, it is a totally different discussion when someone is asserting a belief in a clock-maker god or some other totally foreign being.

That said the level of evidence for a clock-maker is the same as for Thor.

Bap33 says

But, as for your question about praying for health, I read the Bible and it does not say to do it that way. It says, have faith that you can heal in the name of Jesus ... but, it also promises that everyone will die .... so, at some point, we all get old and die. A complex situation, no doubt. What we die from don't matter to anyone but the living.

I oft ponder if those raised from death by Jesus are still roaming around, since they have already went through death once, as is the agreement.

Hmmm... not sure why you would say that everyone has to die. I don't know what version of the bible you are reading, but in my King James version Jesus is very clear on the powers of prayer.

Matthew 17

17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Matthew 21

21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

John 14

14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

It looks to me like nothing is impossible, and that should include preventing death. Not only that, but you get whatever you ask for in prayer. All you need is a tiny bit of faith (the size of a mustard seed) in Jesus and if you ask him he will do anything for you. So, anyone who has a little faith in Jesus should be able to pray for eternal life.

leoj707 says

but I think that these believers are a small minority.

Every atheist would think that more sophisticated spiritual views were a minority. In fact, if they truly comprehended even a single of these, then by my reckoning they would be agnostic if not religious, but certainly not limited to their atheism.

leoj707 says

I do realize that there are many people who don't let their faith get in the way of accepting science.

Bravo. That at least is some progress. Very big of you.

leoj707 says

Being that both Santa and gods have the same level of proof that they are real I can understand why someone would say they know with certainty both are not real.

You surprise me with this one.