Of God and Leprecauns

[Mohaamad]

Believing in a God and believing in medusa are totally different matters.

God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality. Just like hypothesizing that the there were other lands to be discovered; thus the discovery of America and other continents. The question is whether we humans, as a function of time, have more to discover. Of course, God is an ultimate hypothesis of reality rather than a discreet hypothesis. It is kind of like hypothesizing the existence of aliens; from the existence of other planets. Except that the existence of God can only be "proved" through an afterlife; all others can be "proved" in this life. Nothing can be proved in this life, only established by our free will.

Being logical can have several connotations. You can be absolutely logical; if you consider yourself a mathmatician and only a mathmatician you can base matters on whether they can be absolutely proved through mathmatical reasoning; of course this would be only an "inherent" proof (it is intrinsically reasonable; intrinsically it seems to provide an absolute proof). Of course the mathmatician would be wrong because he is ultimately human being and not a mathmatician. However, even a "mathmatically minded human being" will have to consider the fact that we are beings of facultative logic. It is more "irrational" to persist in trying to prove that God exist. Irrational meaning a non-rational, endless, stubborn and personal pursuit. We can only make a rational hypothesis on this matter of whether God exist or not. Of course it would be better to consider several facets of reality before one decides. Atheism is purely a personal.......belief. A methodological, facultative philosophy. And thus it is an emotionally based philosophy. All beliefs are personal; thus the reason for us discussing it here, we believe as a means to an end. I apologize if my english was difficult to understand.

[Mentat]

Welcome to the PFs, Mohamaad! [:)]

I understand that, being new, you may not have a complete understanding of where certain threads belong, so I feel it only right to inform you that threads about God and the like are to be posted in the "Religion" Forum.

[Mohaamad]

I apologize, I will post topics concerning God in the religion forum from now on.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Welcome to the PFs, Mohamaad! [:)]

I understand that, being new, you may not have a complete understanding of where certain threads belong, so I feel it only right to inform you that threads about God and the like are to be posted in the "Religion" Forum.

I would like to respectfully disagree Mentat. His post, to me, seems oriented toward the issue of God proof, which we have agreed is appropriate for the philosophy section. He has not mentioned any religion or its dogma, but rather has discussed the trials of argument and proof for such a elusive and personal subject as belief and non-belief in God.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mohaamad
Believing in a God and believing in medusa are totally different matters.

God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality. Just like hypothesizing that the there were other lands to be discovered; thus the discovery of America and other continents. The question is whether we humans, as a function of time, have more to discover. Of course, God is an ultimate hypothesis of reality rather than a discreet hypothesis. It is kind of like hypothesizing the existence of aliens; from the existence of other planets. Except that the existence of God can only be "proved" through an afterlife; all others can be "proved" in this life. Nothing can be proved in this life, only established by our free will.

Being logical can have several connotations. You can be absolutely logical; if you consider yourself a mathmatician and only a mathmatician you can base matters on whether they can be absolutely proved through mathmatical reasoning; of course this would be only an "inherent" proof (it is intrinsically reasonable; intrinsically it seems to provide an absolute proof). Of course the mathmatician would be wrong because he is ultimately human being and not a mathmatician. However, even a "mathmatically minded human being" will have to consider the fact that we are beings of facultative logic. It is more "irrational" to persist in trying to prove that God exist. Irrational meaning a non-rational, endless, stubborn and personal pursuit. We can only make a rational hypothesis on this matter of whether God exist or not. Of course it would be better to consider several facets of reality before one decides. Atheism is purely a personal.......belief. A methodological, facultative philosophy. And thus it is an emotionally based philosophy. All beliefs are personal; thus the reason for us discussing it here, we believe as a means to an end. I apologize if my english was difficult to understand.

I would add to your point that for some God is a logical inference taken from the nature of creation, that some also feel there is "something more."

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I would like to respectfully disagree Mentat. His post, to me, seems oriented toward the issue of God proof, which we have agreed is appropriate for the philosophy section.


We have agreed to nothing of the kind. No offence, but it was made rather clear, in the rules for the Philosophy Forum in the old PFs, that any topic regarding belief in God is better posted in the Religion Forum.


He has not mentioned any religion or its dogma, but rather has discussed the trials of argument and proof for such a elusive and personal subject as belief and non-belief in God.

This is true, but it still falls under the idea of Religion. It would be like me posting about the difficutly of finding a Theory of Everything on the Philosophy Forum. While it is broad, and doesn't include any specific theory, it is better posted in the Theoretical Physics section.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mohaamad

God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality.

Yes, gods pushing Sun across sky (=Ra) and trowing lightning bolts (=Zeus) were a hypothesis of primitive men who did not know how Sun moves or thunderstorm develops.

With the advent of science and education we found that processes in Nature go without gods (say, Sun crosses sky by itself without help of Ra) and thus the hypothesis of God(s) was discarded by facts.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
We have agreed to nothing of the kind. No offence, but it was made rather clear, in the rules for the Philosophy Forum in the old PFs, that any topic regarding belief in God is better posted in the Religion Forum.

What was decided in the old forum is not relevant any longer. We discussed this issue anew in Kerrie's sticky "God Topics." I suggest you go into the "Religion" section and look under Kerrie's post "Change in forum name." There you will find the following:

"Due to the label of 'God,' we are just calling this forum Religion only therefore it addresses all belief systems. All philosophical disucssions regarding the concept of God can be made in Philosophy so long as they stay philosophical...any that turn religious will be moved here."

It is obviously Kerrie's decision where things go, so unless she has made you her assistant you might consider letting her handle the classification thing.

Originally posted by Mentat
This is true, but it still falls under the idea of Religion. It would be like me posting about the difficutly of finding a Theory of Everything on the Philosophy Forum. While it is broad, and doesn't include any specific theory, it is better posted in the Theoretical Physics section.

Nonsense. Debates about the provability of God is as old as philosophy. It has ALWAYS been part of the discipline. Do you want to to take charge of reinventing philosophy too?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mohaamad
Believing in a God and believing in medusa are totally different matters.

God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality.

This contradicts what you said in your other post about God being paradoxical. God is no less irrational a concept then infinity or a prime motivator for example. To assert otherwise is absurd and simply makes the use of words such as paradox and irrational meaningless.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Yes, gods pushing Sun across sky (=Ra) and trowing lightning bolts (=Zeus) were a hypothesis of primitive men who did not know how Sun moves or thunderstorm develops.

With the advent of science and education we found that processes in Nature go without gods (say, Sun crosses sky by itself without help of Ra) and thus the hypothesis of God(s) was discarded by facts. Actually there's nothing wrong with this, in the sense that man was and still is, a "mythological being."

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
[B]What was decided in the old forum is not relevant any longer. We discussed this issue anew in Kerrie's sticky "God Topics." I suggest you go into the "Religion" section and look under Kerrie's post "Change in forum name." There you will find the following:

"Due to the label of 'God,' we are just calling this forum Religion only therefore it addresses all belief systems. All philosophical disucssions regarding the concept of God can be made in Philosophy so long as they stay philosophical...any that turn religious will be moved here."


First off, I don't read anything in the Religion Forum. You should already know that.

Also, I don't see why Kerrie has changed the distinction (between Philosophy and one of it's branches (Religion)), but I will respect her choice. I just hope that this kind of reasoning is not used to get String Theory and American Politics discussed in the Philosophy Forum. After all, these are all very legitimate forms of Philosophy.


It is obviously Kerrie's decision where things go, so unless she has made you her assistant you might consider letting her handle the classification thing.


I do submit to her choice, and gladly so. I was merely unaware of it.


Nonsense. Debates about the provability of God is as old as philosophy. It has ALWAYS been part of the discipline. Do you want to to take charge of reinventing philosophy too?

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, and all fields devoted to such a pursuit are parts of it. Every Forum here (except for "General Discussion", "PhysicsForums Feedback" and "PhysicsForums Chat") is devoted to some branch of Philosophy. The seperation is necessary, however, so that we don't flood the Philosophy section with posts from every field.

[BoulderHead]

Atheism is purely a personal.......belief
Here the beast raises its head again.

"*Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief.* One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-- and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. *Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief.* An atheist is not primarily a person who *believes* that a god does *not* exist, rather he does *not believe* in the existence of a god."
-George Smith

[Mentat]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Here the beast raises its head again.

"*Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief.* One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-- and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. *Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief.* An atheist is not primarily a person who *believes* that a god does *not* exist, rather he does *not believe* in the existence of a god."
-George Smith

I like this quote! I've been trying to get that point across, rather painstakingly, to quite a few people, and yet George Smith had already put it so eloquently.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet they will attest to the fact that God "does not" exist. At least this is the typical encounter that I've had with Atheists.

But non-existence is not a state. All they are saying is that they don't take for granted the core belief of theists.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Here the beast raises its head again.

"*Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief.* One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-- and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. *Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief.* An atheist is not primarily a person who *believes* that a god does *not* exist, rather he does *not believe* in the existence of a god."
-George Smith And yet they will attest to the fact that God "does not" exist. At least this is the typical encounter that I've had with Atheists.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
But non-existence is not a state. All they are saying is that they don't take for granted the core belief of theists. Oops! It looks like we got out of sequence here! Sorry.

No, I think you've mistaken this for agnosticism. And even that is still based upon belief.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet they will attest to the fact that God "does not" exist. At least this is the typical encounter that I've had with Atheists. ...While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism--

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Oops! It looks like we got out of sequence here! Sorry.

No, I think you've mistaken this for agnosticism. And even that is still based upon belief.

No, it is based on the lack thereof. It is paradoxical to try to refer to the "belief of disbelief". Conclusion: it's not a belief, just the absence of one.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
...While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-- And yet what is the core issue upon what Atheism is based? Hey, I've always understood it to be the belief in the non-existence of God. If this is so, then please don't try to disguise the issue.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet what is the core issue upon what Atheism is based? Hey, I've always understood it to be the belief in the non-existence of God. If this is so, then please don't try to disguise the issue. I'm not trying to disguise the issue. You, on the other hand, seem to be insisting that a lack of a belief is a belief...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, it is based on the lack thereof. It is paradoxical to try to refer to the "belief of disbelief". Conclusion: it's not a belief, just the absence of one. How can you base something merely upon the lack of evidence? Wouldn't that be the same as making an assumption? And isn't this what you "so-called" Atheists ascribe to faith? Sorry, I'm not going to buy it!

[Mentat]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I'm not trying to disguise the issue. You, on the other hand, seem to be insisting that a lack of a belief is a belief...

...which is a paradoxical assumption, btw.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet what is the core issue upon what Atheism is based? Hey, I've always understood it to be the belief in the non-existence of God. If this is so, then please don't try to disguise the issue.

Note that you could just as easily define religious or spiritual as personal knowledge of the existence of God(s) or the Divine. Ya'll are welcome to fight over how to split semantic hairs, but bottom line all you are doing is fighting over words.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I'm not trying to disguise the issue. You, on the other hand, seem to be insisting that a lack of a belief is a belief... Then there's no need to discuss it further then is there? ... But then again, that would be playing right into your hand now wouldn't it?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
...which is a paradoxical assumption, btw. Oh, weren't you the one who just said you preferred to think of it as a mystery?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then there's no need to discuss it further then is there? ... But then again, that would be playing right into your hand now wouldn't it?

Well, you could just admit you were wrong, and leave it alone (without worrying about whether you are "playing into his hand"), but that's just my personaly opinion.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Note that you could just as easily define religious or spiritual as personal knowledge of the existence of God(s) or the Divine. Ya'll are welcome to fight over how to split semantic hairs, but bottom line all you are doing is fighting over words. Thank you! ....

And yes, what is reality but just a word?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Oh, weren't you the one who just said you preferred to think of it as a mystery?

I said nothing of the kind!

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Thank you! ....

And yes, what is reality but just a word?

Reality is also an observation and experience. :0)

[BoulderHead]

So, it comes down to a squab…

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then there's no need to discuss it further then is there? ...Not as long as you stop trying to misrepresent my position…
But then again, that would be playing right into your hand now wouldn't it? Beside the point.

It is terrible to see a man who has the incomprehensible in his grasp, does not know what to do with it, and sits playing with a toy called God.
-Tolstoy

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
I said nothing of the kind! From the thread, The ultimate reality (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2357) ...

Originally posted by Mentat
You and Wuliheron are going to get along good.

I, on the other hand, don't much care for this use of the word "paradox". Did you actually mean "mystery"?Oh I see, you made "the inference" to mystery, but may not necessarily choose mystery over paradox either. Sorry ... Of course I don't know what else that leaves you with?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, you could just admit you were wrong, and leave it alone (without worrying about whether you are "playing into his hand"), but that's just my personaly opinion. By playing into his hand I mean allowing him to believe what he wants in his own smug self-satisfied way, meaning it would probably suit him just fine. But that doesn't make me wrong about what I'm saying ... Otherwise I could just drop the whole issue. But then again why should I, if I have a point to make? Although it would seem that's what "everyone" would prefer? ...

Man I didn't realize you guys were so touchy!

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
By playing into his hand I mean allowing him to believe what he wants in his own smug self-satisfied way, meaning it would probably suit him just fine. But that doesn't make me wrong about what I'm saying ... Otherwise I could just drop the whole issue. But then again why should I, if I have a point to make? Although it would seem that's what "everyone" would prefer?

Man I didn't realize you guys were so touchy! But you are wrong, Iacchus32!

What we need to do is look at what you said about the quote I used;
And yet they will attest to the fact that God "does not" exist. At least this is the typical encounter that I've had with Atheists.I attest to the fact that I cannot prove whether god exists or not, you follow?
Your ‘typical encounters with atheists’ can be used, at most, to formulate a generalization, but if you attempt to apply this to me personally you are mistaken.

Should I lump you into the ‘religionist’ category and consider nothing more needs to be said?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Reality is also an observation and experience. :0) Oh really? And on whose word? Yours? ... Mine? ... BoulderHead's? ...

Yet I'm afraid I can't take your word for it!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
But you are wrong, Iacchus32!

What we need to do is look at what you said about the quote I used; I attest to the fact that I cannot prove whether god exists or not, you follow?You attest? But what does that mean? ... It still sounds like a matter of faith to me.


Your ‘typical encounters with atheists’ can be used, at most, to formulate a generalization, but if you attempt to apply this to me personally you are mistaken.Well what other criteria am I supposed to use if not my own experience?


Should I lump you into the ‘religionist’ category and consider nothing more needs to be said? That's entirely up to you, people do it anyway.

[BoulderHead]

You attest? But what does that mean? ... It still sounds like a matter of faith to me.There is no faith involved with a lack of proof.

"I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief." -Dan Barker
Well what other criteria am I supposed to use if not my own experience?Then henceforth let your experience recall that not all atheists claim god does not exist.

Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables us to recognize a mistake, when we make it again.


That’s entirely up to you, people do it anyway.Ridiculous and illogical.

[BoulderHead]

I intend to hold your feet to the fire until you see the error in your statement that;
And yet they will attest to the fact that God "does not" exist...Are you willing yet to change your thinking and recognize that there is more (or is it Less?) to atheism then what you have claimed in your statement above?

Please try to refrain from straying from the source of our disagreement, agreed?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
There is no faith involved with a lack of proof.And yet you base your whole system of "beliefs" upon this lack of proof. Sorry, I won't buy it! Man, by his very nature is religious.


"I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief." -Dan BarkerIf you believe in nothing then there would be "nothing" to do. Are you saying there's nothing which adds meaning to your life?


Then henceforth let your experience recall that not all atheists claim god does not exist.Still sounds like agnosticism to me. Perhaps what you're saying is you're not a "died in the wool" Atheist, which still smacks of Agnosticism ... What the hell I don't know, the only difference between an Atheist and Agnostic is just a matter of degree. Although I think an agnostic would be more "honest" about his uncertainty.


Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables us to recognize a mistake, when we make it again.Well at least we agree upon something here ...


Ridiculous and illogical.Like water off a ducks back ...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I intend to hold your feet to the fire until you see the error in your statement that;
Are you willing yet to change your thinking and recognize that there is more (or is it Less?) to atheism then what you have claimed in your statement above?

Please try to refrain from straying from the source of our disagreement, agreed? I think Atheism as a "system of beliefs" sucks. And that Atheists are just as much in denial as the people who claim they know all about God, i.e., when they don't.

[BoulderHead]

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

or here;

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_atheism101.htm

and try to broaden your understanding.

Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God, but he says "I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God. The word God to me is a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me."
-- Charles Bradlaugh

It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism......Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
-- Dan Barker,

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think Atheism as a "system of beliefs" sucks. And that Atheists are just as much in denial as the people who claim they know all about God, i.e., when they don't. The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny "God," which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God.
-- Annie Besant

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

and try to broaden your understanding.

Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is no God, but he says "I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God. The word God to me is a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me."
-- Charles Bradlaugh Perhaps I will? ... And yet I'm afraid to say that everything we do is predicated upon belief, and that smacks of religion. For example let's say I believed (whether probable or not) my next door neighbor had a gun and he was going to shoot me, I can assure you I would not remain his next door neighbor. Or, let's say I believed my car was about to break down (due to some funny noise I heard), then that would be about the time to go have it checked. Or, if I believed that if I didn't go to work I would get fired, then perhaps I had better go to work.

Isn't this basically how we make all our decisions, predicated upon "the belief" that one thing over another might occur?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny "God," which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God.
-- Annie Besant And yet this would seem to infer that they know who God is, based upon the testimony of someone else which they won't accept? ... It doesn't make sense? And yet it still boils down to a matter of what "they believe."

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet this would seem to infer that they know who God is, based upon the testimony of someone else which they won't accept? ... It doesn't make sense? And yet it still boils down to a matter of what "they believe." Incorrect, there is a difference between not knowing God, and knowing someone's attempt at defining such a thing to be ridiculous and impossible.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Perhaps I will? ... And yet I'm afraid to say that everything we do is predicated upon belief, and that smacks of religion. For example let's say I believed (whether probable or not) my next door neighbor had a gun and he was going to shoot me, I can assure you I would not remain his next door neighbor. Or, let's say I believed my car was about to break down (due to some funny noise I heard), then that would be about the time to go have it checked. Or, if I believed that if I didn't go to work I would get fired, then perhaps I had better go to work.The hope that my car will start when I turn the key does not, IMO, mean that I am religious, sorry.

There is a mental trap that people fall into, believing that everyone must either believe in God, or believe that God does not exist. The reality is more complex than this.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Incorrect, there is a difference between not knowing God, and knowing someone's attempt at defining such a thing to be ridiculous and impossible. These are still words which concern a religious standpoint. Not unlike the Greeks perhaps, in that their beliefs were based upon reason and an open mind, which is why I believe the Christian Church migrated to Greece, as this was the only place it could have been properly understood and taken root.

Bet you didn't expect that now didn't ya!

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
These are still words which concern a religious standpoint. Only when viewed through the distorted lens of a religionist.

"I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief." -Dan Barker

Bet you didn't expect that now didn't ya!

"It's not easy to change world views. Faith has its own momentum and belief is comfortable. To restructure reality is traumatic and scary. That is why many intelligent people continue to believe: unbelief is an unknown."
-Dan Barker

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
The hope that my car will start when I turn the key does not, IMO, mean that I am religious, sorry.

There is a mental trap that people fall into, believing that everyone must either believe in God, or believe that God does not exist. The reality is more complex than this. Is there a sales pitch in what I'm trying to say here? No, I don't think so. And yet if it wasn't for the fact that I was more neutral about it than anything else, I wouldn't be allowed to see what I see and say what I have to say about it.

[BoulderHead]

Then why not alter your woefully lacking definition of atheism so we can end this spamming session!

Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
-- Ambrose Bierce

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Then why not alter your woefully lacking definition of atheism so we can end this spamming session!

Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
-- Ambrose Bierce Because I'm Jesus Christ man! ... Or, that would be tantamount to saying it, if I came right out and said I knew for a fact that God exists!

And yet it was the Son, who came in the name of the Father ... Hmm ...

[BoulderHead]

Are you telling me that;

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?" -Dan Barker

[Tom Mattson]

Boulderhead has clearly set out his position, and you keep twisting it around into a "belief system". That is called a straw man fallacy, and it does not belong in the Philosophy forum.

Either stop being difficult, or drop it. This is really dumb.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Are you telling me that;

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?" -Dan Barker Then maybe we are speaking about the same God? And yet all you're really conveying to me is that people are out of touch with life.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
Boulderhead has clearly set out his position, and you keep twisting it around into a "belief system". That is called a straw man fallacy, and it does not belong in the Philosophy forum.

Either stop being difficult, or drop it. This is really dumb. Fair enough. I just didn't care to have three or four people ganging up on me for what seemed like an insignificant statement, otherwise I would have dropped it a long time ago.

But could you please tell me what the nature of belief is, and why it should not be included in a philosophical discussion? I'm beginning to get the distinct impression here, that Atheists do not in any way shape or form like to be called "religious."

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But could you please tell me what the nature of belief is,


A belief is anything to which a person may give mental assent. Beliefs may be justified and factual (and thus be promoted to knowledge), or they may lack either justification or truth (and thus remain beliefs).


and why it should not be included in a philosophical discussion?


!!!

Because philosophy (speicifically, epistemology) is all about giving an account of justification of beliefs, and of determining their truth.

I really must get my "Whaddya know?" thread up and running again!


I'm beginning to get the distinct impression here, that Atheists do not in any way shape or form like to be called "religious."

Beginning to...? Everyone here has been shouting it at you, dude!

Atheists try to strip off all unneccesary beliefs, and they have total disdain for religion.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Tom

Atheists try to strip off all unneccesary beliefs, and they have total disdain for religion.

As an Atheist myself I feel must say I perceive having total disdain for religion Is an unnecessary belief. [g)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
Atheists try to strip off all unneccesary beliefs, and they have total disdain for religion. But does this not become like the "holy cow" of religion, which is not to be touched? And, by making such a comment, are you not facing off "squarely" and asking for a confrontation? Or, would that be too much for a philosophical forum to handle? Is it out of audacity that Atheists say such things, merely to mock religion? Sounds to me like somebody needs to be taken down a notch or two.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
From the thread, The ultimate reality (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2357) ...

Oh I see, you made "the inference" to mystery, but may not necessarily choose mystery over paradox either. Sorry ... Of course I don't know what else that leaves you with?

No, no, no, I was saying that - in that context - the word "mystery" suits Mohammed's need better than "paradox" (which, logistically, refers to self-contradiction).

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But does this not become like the "holy cow" of religion, which is not to be touched?


I don't see your point.

You are mixing your metaphors here. The "holy cow" of the Bible was not something that represented "the untouchable", it represented "the disobedient". Check the book of Exodus.


And, by making such a comment, are you not facing off "squarely" and asking for a confrontation? Or, would that be too much for a philosophical forum to handle?


What the bloody blazes are you talking about?

First, I am not looking for a confrontation. In my mind, there is no confrontation to be had, unless you want to insist that God, Goddess, Zeus, The Easter Bunny, and the like are real (and even then, I would be loathe to get into a "confrontation", because I think those ideas are silly). And second, it is the religious person, not the atheist, who fails to meet the requirements of a "philosophical forum". As I said, here we are interested in justification of belief and discovery of necessary truths, not religious mumbo jumbo.


Is it out of audacity that Atheists say such things, merely to mock religion? Sounds to me like somebody needs to be taken down a notch or two.

There is no mocking going on here. I have disdain for religion because it is destructive on so many fronts. It leads to--among other things--bloodshed, ignorance, and dependence on clergy or the state (in a theorcracy).

[Iacchus32]

From the URLAT, Skeptical Philosophy (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2448) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Zero
I know there are plenty of people here who consider themselves to be skeptical, but is there a common outlook for all of us? I personally see it broken up into at least two camps. One is the type who says 'that's nonsense' to most everything not accepted by science, and leaves it at that. The second group attempts to show reasons behind why an idea is wrong, and suggests alternate explanations and avenues of inquiry.

I don't know if I have a point, except to say that the first group is useless, and the second group may be useful in certain situations. Are you asking anyone to argue in favor "of" religion? Because it sounds like you've already concluded there's no need for it. Except of course that it would be nice if we could somehow find a way to convince those poor deluded souls who haven't realized it yet, that it wasn't necessary.

I'm not even a religious person (spiritual perhaps?), and yet the problem is not religion, it's what people do with religion. And this is the key, because religion is so close to the core of what we are -- as "creatures of belief" -- that it's subject to so much exploitation. And indeed, this is what gives it bad name ... while also explaining the nature of addiction.

And, while there's no doubt a good percentage of people who go to church who are under such delusions, I don't think the solution would be to outlaw religion, because people still need their "fixations." Ironically, just like Prohibition! And yet if properly understood, religion can ultimately provide the means by which to overcome our "earthly fixations," and possibly "escape the Matrix" so to speak.

This I'm afraid is what science fails to understand, that people can't help but be this way, for they need time to mature and open their eyes to reality. And yet the problem with Mother Church, is that She becomes so possessive about the whole thing (again, the nature of addiction), that She won't allow Her little children to do grow beyond the need for Mother Church, and become independent "spiritual beings." But doesn't this sound like a problem with most parents?

So the problem is not religion (which isn't to say there aren't things which couldn't be addressed about "formalized religion"). The problem is to understand why we have the need for religion ... And hey, it might even be possible for Science and Religion to get together and bridge some of their differences. Now wouldn't that be something!

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mohaamad
God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality.

I don't think that is true. 'God' is according to me an extention to a flawed concept of reality. It is stated over and over that the material world could not be infinite (without begin or end), and therefore God needed to exist in order to create a finite world. That is a logical conclusion, but based on a false premise. This can be shown, because the invention of God, does not reduce our initial problem of the world, being finite. Cause in the same way as the world had a begin, now God needs a begin, for the same reason. As this is not the case, in the minds of religious people, they therefore need to state that God itself was not created, but is infinite. But that shows therefore that our initial assumption (the world is finite) was a wrong concept, and we need to take the negation of the premise. The world is therefore infinite (has no begin or end).