Atheism as simply another belief system

[homology]

I would say that the difference between unsubstantiated belief and justified belief is a bit egocentric. I don't believe a christian would say their beliefs are unjustified. They just happen to have means to justify other than "empiricism, induction and deduction".

Anytime you spend time talking about words and language in a philosophy forum things always get messy like this.

Sure, by unjustified I didn't mean to diminish the serious nature of faith. I meant to draw a distinction. I believe that if I step off from my roof I will fall, I would say that this is a justified belief, given experience and physics. In fact everything points towards this conclusion. However, God/religion is more subtle. One could say that its "all around us" but not so explicitely as gravity. To believe in God you have to put yourself on the line. You can't test any hypotheses, you can't create a coherent theory which will yield predictions that can be tested experimentally. You have to belief without confirmation, or at least without independent confirmation (I say this to circumnavigate personal religious revelation which is inaccessible to the outside observer).

Hmmm, I hope I was clear enough, let me know if I'm not. But you're right, playing games with words like this does get very sticky.

Kevin

 

[notal33t]

ex atheist

Hah yea. Christians get crazy when I tell them I'm an atheist, something I avoid if possible. The difference between believing there is no god and not believing in a god (such as it is) is lost on them. The difference between faith in a religious sense and faith in a secular one is lost on them (which is odd considering they of all people should be able to define it). The concept of accepting only what you have measurable reason to believe is true is lost on them.

They set out to prove I am, in fact, not an atheist. In the end, since I have no religious beliefs, they cannot place me anywhere else. One would think this would convince them to stop trying, but quite the contrary, their failure induces yet greater resolve.

This is my first peak into the Philosophy forum. The first few threads haven't seemed very philosophical, really.

---
Dont be so sure all Christians get crazy!
It's like this.. How can one argue that a "dark empty" room is full of light and life, unless one has the eyes to see the ultraviolet or infrared, and the willingness to explore it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

---
Dont be so sure all Christians get crazy!
It's like this.. How can one argue that a "dark empty" room is full of light and life, unless one has the eyes to see the ultraviolet or infrared, and the willingness to explore it?

If somebody claims the dark room is full of UV and IR I would expect them to be able to prove it with some technique that would not only convince me, but in theory would convince anybody. Can your god-assertion do that?

 

[Locrian]

---
Dont be so sure all Christians get crazy!
It's like this.. How can one argue that a "dark empty" room is full of light and life, unless one has the eyes to see the ultraviolet or infrared, and the willingness to explore it?

Well the heat on my skin from the infrared and the cataracts on my eyes from the UV might be a good clue. Your suggestion that I don't have the willingness (or haven't in the past) to explore this topic is uninformed and presumptive.

 

[Janitor]

Maybe because God's perimeter or stomping grounds or different that your perimerter and stomping grounds.

Stomp enough in a lion cage and you'll meet a lion. It seems that you haven't stomped enough in God's perimeter to meet God.You expect him to make your perimeter his and talk to you there. - yesicanread

I am not sure I am properly understanding your point. Would you mind fleshing it out a bit more?

Another thing that might help me to understand your viewpoint is for you to answer a question. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a nice even 500 million native Americans lived and died in the New World continents of North and South America prior to the arrival of Columbus and his fellow Catholics in 1492. How many of those native Americans do you think were told by God about Jewish ritual law, or the crucifixion of Christ, or rules on bowing down toward Mecca and praying a certain number of times per day? (Pick whichever of these beliefs are essential to your particular faith.) If you don't have any sort of gut feel for the correct number, would you at least kindly pick one of the following answers as being plausible to you:

(a) zero
(b) more than zero, but less than 500 million
(c) all five hundred million

 

[yesicanread]

I am not sure I am properly understanding your point. Would you mind fleshing it out a bit more?

How many of those native Americans do you think were told by God about Jewish ritual law, or the crucifixion of Christ, or rules on bowing down toward Mecca and praying a certain number of times per day?

(a) zero
(b) more than zero, but less than 500 million
(c) all five hundred million

I will answer your question with a simplification of Quantum Mechanics. The uncertainty principle. And then rationalize the west Indian religious mindset.

I will explain QM. And a Omnesient person/character.

1.) A plane is composed of a triangle. Or three planar(on a plane) point, that aren't formin a line(colinear), form a "Plane".

2.) In this triangle is the triangle inequality theorem. So it follows.

3.) This theorem is composed as Q = Action < Q + A = 2Reaction

4.) Triangle inequality theorem = Triangle inequality theorem. So, since we act without knowing the answer, we will always be less than the Q & A.

5.) 1.) through 5.) explain the indetermination in Quantum Mechanics.

6.) Q & A existed before we asked a Q.

7.) Q = Q. So who thought before us ? And also knew the Answer to thoughts questions ?

8.) Therefore QM will never provide a whole Q&A, & the closer we get to one the closer someone else is to seeing the Q.

Check it out. 1 through 8. I'm not being religious in my points. Just deductive.

Read points 1 through 8, and tell me if you understand.

Now. To my understanding. Jesus is the Christ ? Yes, No, Maybe ? Ke.

Then in my QM simplification, he would be less than the remaining parts of the trinity, when he was made sin. And equal with the triangle inequalty theorem equaling itself. So he's not just less that the trinity. It's the books story. Ke ? I don't think this is new news.

Now. The west Indian conceived of the Great Spirit. Spirit is breath, in some translations.

Now a person who is questioning a stronger person, maybe they can't relate to that strong person. So calling him a great breath/cardio, would fit.

So the relation to the QM simplification of the uncertainty principle, seen in the new testament's books about Jesus. Is seen in west Indian belief of the great spirit. A person who's strength and etc, etc, is his alone.

The west Indian raises smoke from pipes, and dances with images of powerful creatures. A depiction of spirit/breath, and honor of the great spirit.

Now. If you have a spirit of some strengt you hang out in those places. Columbus spirit or ship wind that was his breath, had a perimeter that landed him on America, so did the vikings.

Now if the Janitor, or whoever didn't speak to God. sdoes he expect God to make his perimeter with that perimeter spirit, the Janitors perimeter with his spirit/breath ?

In the old testament of the bible, he said the preisthood isn't earthly, but a image of heavenly things, or a heavenly church/perimeter. His stompin grounds.

Now tell me where I'm wrong in this post, specific line specific part of that line, and in simple terms that I can understand your sentences.

Edit. Here's the funny face. Wait.

 

[Janitor]

Now tell me where I'm wrong in this post, specific line specific part of that line- yesicanread

Ummmm, all I can say is your post reminds me of the Donc Dieu existe repondez! account of Euler-vs-Diderot.

 

[yesicanread]

Ummmm, all I can say is your post reminds me of the Donc Dieu existe repondez! account of Euler-vs-Diderot.

Please tell this story here. Or how this post remines you of that thread. :shy:

 

[Janitor]

Please tell this story here.- yesicanread

When I was a pup, Pa was in a book-of-the-month club. It may have been something offered through Popular Science magazine, which he subscribed to. Anyway, one of the books sent to him was called something like Of Men and Mathematics. It had a chapter on the prolific mathematician Euler. A brief story in that chapter was about a debate on the existence of God. Euler wasn't able to convince Diderot that God does exist, so to bring the debate to a close, Euler took advantage of Diderot's lack of knowledge about mathematics by writing some scary-looking formula down, and then saying (in French) to Diderot: "Therefore God exists. Respond!" (I was taking Latin at the time, and I remember being fascinated by the thought that 'Dieu' must have evolved from the Latin word for God, 'Deus,' from which English also gets words like Deism and Deity.)

 

[notal33t]

Can I ever feel the heat..

Well the heat on my skin from the infrared and the cataracts on my eyes from the UV might be a good clue. Your suggestion that I don't have the willingness (or haven't in the past) to explore this topic is uninformed and presumptive.

---
As I see it, there was no ad hominem accusation of being uninformed or neither was there presumption on my part. I merely stated the possibility of a source of 'spiritual', UV and IR. The exploration of that spectrum is subject to free will. As to 'clues' one might consider several millions of incidents describing this illumination as being worth debate!

 

[balkan]

i like the way this thread makes me feel...

 

[Entropy]

Is there a God or isn't there? How can you exist without a creator? For me it is simple: some being outside of the constrants of physics had to create the universe. How can something emerge from nothing, how can in one minute there be no physical laws, then there be physical laws without some being who in his self is beyond any constrants?

This is how I know God exists. But I guess other people just don't see 'creation' in the same light that I do.

 

[balkan]

well how can this "being" exist? who made him? if he was there all along, when did he decide to build a universe?

a good theory amongst big bang people is, that there are more universes like this, and like reactions in a gas, they appear and die out all over the place... in order for this theory to work, the universe will have to collapse at some point and go back to being pre-big bang matter...
thus, this matter could have existed infinitely...

 

[Dissident Dan]

How can something emerge from nothing, how can in one minute there be no physical laws, then there be physical laws without some being who in his self is beyond any constrants?

Did you ever think about the fact that free will would require something from nothing?

 

[olde drunk]

Did you ever think about the fact that free will would require something from nothing?

Dan: have you ever considered the fact that you always were and always will be? hence, no beginning.

time is a man made measure. without it, we just are. imho, we are in the process of seeking value fulfillment. can you concieve of anytime that you didn't exist?

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[JD]

Dan: have you ever considered the fact that you always were and always will be? hence, no beginning.

time is a man made measure. without it, we just are. imho, we are in the process of seeking value fulfillment. can you concieve of anytime that you didn't exist?

love&peace,
olde drunk

That's a thought to take with you on your journeys.

 

[JD]

Is there a God or isn't there? How can you exist without a creator? For me it is simple: some being outside of the constrants of physics had to create the universe. How can something emerge from nothing, how can in one minute there be no physical laws, then there be physical laws without some being who in his self is beyond any constrants?

This is how I know God exists. But I guess other people just don't see 'creation' in the same light that I do.

Perhaps the point at which we understand the laws of physics is the point beyond which only contemplation functions, if anything at all can function in a sense we understand (at present).

 

[kcballer21]

time is a man made measure. without it, we just are. imho, we are in the process of seeking value fulfillment. can you concieve of anytime that you didn't exist?

Is that a trick question? I cannot conceive of a time when the material which I am made of didn't exist (given the incomplete theories of the origin of the universe) but I can conceive of a time when my conciousness didn't exist... How do you see yourself as existing before you were conceived ? In other words, please describe your existence as it was 1000 years ago, at which point I would contend 'you' did not exist. (I know, I know, time is manmade, but work with me).

 

[olde drunk]

Is that a trick question? I cannot conceive of a time when the material which I am made of didn't exist (given the incomplete theories of the origin of the universe) but I can conceive of a time when my conciousness didn't exist... How do you see yourself as existing before you were conceived ? In other words, please describe your existence as it was 1000 years ago, at which point I would contend 'you' did not exist. (I know, I know, time is manmade, but work with me).

no problem. i'll work with you, if you work with me!

my 'body' did not exist 100 years ago. I am NOT my body. for this visit into the physical i don a body in order to best experience a physical reality.

most of us ignore or are affraid of our unconscious self. if we take time and explore, we find that we ain't so bad and that we operate on many levels. i beleve we use our body to most finely focus our consciousness for self discovery. the brain narrows the focus of our mind. perhaps, the senses (touch, smell, etc)are expanded or enhanced via a physical body.

i do not want to diminish or disrespect our bodies, but we tend to see ourselves as only humans. i believe that we are much more. once we see or feel this limiless self, we are able to sense the energy that is the universe or god or whatever. when i feel this connectedness i know that there is more to our existence than just a brief human lifetime.

when i think of eternity beyond time and space i better understand that we (as humans) have only begun to understand the full depth of our reality. old cultures have a better handle on this than we do because we got entwined in the judeo-christian view of the world. to me, salvation, etc is a limiting concept; so is atheism.

i do not like to think in any terms that limit my future. to me, we are free to gallivant throught out the universe, exploring whatever strikes our fancy.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[kcballer21]

my 'body' did not exist 100 years ago. I am NOT my body. for this visit into the physical i don a body in order to best experience a physical reality.

I understand, I was assuming you were talking about your conciousness. I will re-ask the question while trying to clarify:

Please describe your existence during a time when your current physical body did not exist.

most of us ignore or are affraid of our unconscious self.

Have you accessed this unconcious? Do you have memories of an experience before you were human? (Haven't I asked you this one before in another thread?)
To pose the question differently:
Do you believe that after your current physical body expires that you (your conciousness) will retain all the memories you have acquired as a human? Or do you start over, blank slate?
Forgive all the questions.

 

[Entropy]

well how can this "being" exist? who made him? if he was there all along, when did he decide to build a universe?

You cannot use the word "made" because it refers to a point before time, let's not forget that it was God who created time. God has no constrants and therefore is not defined by a temporal or any other dimension.

a good theory amongst big bang people is, that there are more universes like this, and like reactions in a gas, they appear and die out all over the place... in order for this theory to work, the universe will have to collapse at some point and go back to being pre-big bang matter...
thus, this matter could have existed infinitely...

In other words time goes in a loop or has no beginning or end? Then how did we get to this point in time? What is the reason for time? Who else could give time and space reason [to be] but God? Can you think of anything that didn't happen for some reason (or because of some mechanism)?

Did you ever think about the fact that free will would require something from nothing?

I don't understand your reason for saying that. I just stated that something can't come from nothing unless God exists.


I think maybe some of you thought I was trying to be hostile in my comment. Sorry if I sounded that way, I didn't mean to sound forceful. I was only trying to explain why I think there is a God.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I don't understand your reason for saying that. I just stated that something can't come from nothing unless God exists.

I think maybe some of you thought I was trying to be hostile in my comment. Sorry if I sounded that way, I didn't mean to sound forceful. I was only trying to explain why I think there is a God.

I was hoping that someone else would try to figure it out, but here goes. If everything is caused by physical laws, then there is no free will. If everything is not caused by physical laws, then you do not have equal-and-opposite interactions by causality. If interactions are not equal-and-opposite, then you have something from nothing (momentum from nothing). If the interations do not follow rules, then you have an occurence from nothing.

 

[yesicanread]

I was hoping that someone else would try to figure it out, but here goes. If everything is caused by physical laws, then there is no free will. If everything is not caused by physical laws, then you do not have equal-and-opposite interactions by causality. If interactions are not equal-and-opposite, then you have something from nothing (momentum from nothing). If the interations do not follow rules, then you have an occurence from nothing.

" Planck's constant, h, has units of energy multiplied by time, which are the units of action.

Since energy is conserved, Action = Reaction, so your inequality becomes:

Action < 2*Action

A true statement. "

I got a theory. Would you like me to paste it here for you to ?

Edit. Here: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/cjsKtU/Hey.jpg

 

[Locrian]

Action = Reaction is not meaningful in QM. It was a very false statement.

 

[yesicanread]

If you even bothered to read the link I gave. You would have seen the Geometry. How there are 2 reactions from the 1 action.

Action = Action true. But it has to pass equal and opposite reaction first.

If you knew how smart you would be in your entire life. You would know the halfway point. You would pass that point to learn what else you should know.

How are you certain of the halfway point ?

My geometry proves such a point exists.

Read it.

 

[motai]

Personally I believe in God. Of course this is only my opinion and any arguments will not convince me otherwise. I am not quite sure of the nature of God, but I am still trying to find that out. My personal beliefs are, however, different from most church-going people. The notion of a God in white-clad robes swirling about in the clouds seems rather far-fetched to me. I think of him in a more scientific manner.

Everytime I see a theory that I can relate to another theory, or see some sort of pattern (order from chaos, etc) that emerges from observations that fits with something else, I can't help but think of there being some sort of deeper significance to it. I guess one could say that I am on a quest for meaning. Its probably one of the reasons that I am so interested in the scientific field.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Everytime I see a theory that I can relate to another theory, or see some sort of pattern (order from chaos, etc) that emerges from observations that fits with something else, I can't help but think of there being some sort of deeper significance to it. I guess one could say that I am on a quest for meaning. Its probably one of the reasons that I am so interested in the scientific field.

I can see where you could get a strong sense of the numinous out of science, but not a personal god - one with human attributes.

 

[olde drunk]

I understand, I was assuming you were talking about your conciousness. I will re-ask the question while trying to clarify:

Please describe your existence during a time when your current physical body did not exist.

Have you accessed this unconcious? Do you have memories of an experience before you were human? (Haven't I asked you this one before in another thread?)
To pose the question differently:
Do you believe that after your current physical body expires that you (your conciousness) will retain all the memories you have acquired as a human? Or do you start over, blank slate?
Forgive all the questions.

KC: everything we encounter in this life will be bent or filtered by your beliefs. at present, science can not quantify what we sense. so, when i talk about what i feel or sense it is not like getting a poke in the eye by a sharp stick.

when i heard about off-the-wall ideas back in the 60's, i did some exploration. i accepted what felt right to me and it seems to have improved the quality of my experiences. i accept god as an energy essence, perhaps a universal consciousness that we are all a part of (terrible grammar).

i also have taken time to feel my full being (mind, body, soul and whatever other aspects we may have). for me, dreams are more informative than meditation. although, i have learned to accept myself with all my failings, through meditation. these areas of self are valid while scientifically elusive.

i have said in the past, it really doesn't matter what one believes because all our beliefs are necessary to experience whatever lessons we have chosen.

that said, i have seen where changing beliefs has improved my experience. an example: if i had not strongly believed in catholicism, i would not have been disappointed at it's short comings. That disappointment led me to explore and accept alternate phlosophies. I changed my beliefs and (WOW) i changed my experiences. I was able to see and feel a different world.

bottom line - can i prove to you that you are multi-dimensional? no. i make my comments to show that you don't risk damnation by questioning god or any other authority. i have had fun, and can only recommend that others explore. hey, our next great scientist may be an atheist. so what, as long as his/her contribution improves the quality of life. that's her/his trip!

sorry i can't give you concrete proof of a broader reality. my comment are my truth, you can only find your truth. have fun, life is a game!

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[motai]

I can see where you could get a strong sense of the numinous out of science, but not a personal god - one with human attributes.

A god with human attributes that many Americans believe in doesn't quite fit into my own personal beliefs anyway. I try to keep an open mind about it, not jumping to conclusions like many of my friends. I just have a feeling that there might be 'something' out there that might loosely conform to the notion of a god. That is what I am searching for.

 

[Locrian]

If you even bothered to read the link I gave. You would have seen the Geometry. How there are 2 reactions from the 1 action.

My geometry proves such a point exists.

Read it.

I did read it. It is awfully incorrect, at every turn. For instance, three planars does not make a plane; three points makes a plane. Therefore your triangle is wrong.