Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

Honestly, I should only be unsure. I would suspend my disbelief/belief until further investigation.

Disbelief through a debatable 'lack of proof'. The 'proof' you search for or simply have this inherent inability to see or just choose to ignore would be manifest as a part of your 'ultimate reality'. Most atheists, as far as I have seen, present similar arguments with regards to their disbelief. Point? They disbelieve through their idea of what an 'ultimate reality' is, which is obviously one where they don't see God, or are just 'blind' and don't want 'surgery' which can help.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's funny that you say that MarcAC. Most athiest arguments I see are either from people who haven't explored the topic fully, people who are religiously athiest, or based on the premise you established regarding Cris's hypothetical gnome.

I think CA nailed this entire issue perfectly with this line:

Because what option do you have to rather than to argue that you HAVE evidence? Then we have to argue on what basis your evidence is valid. I'll say you're full of shit, you'll say I'm full of shit because how would I know because I'm not you and blah blah freakin blah. Round and round we go. If we alter the discussion to actual relevant issue: epistemology, how far would we get? Either you'd be forced to concede or claim that your knowledge is of higher authority than mine right? How else can you defend your position?

The theist argument for god is shaped in a circle. Same for the applicability of the bible. If you fail to see this, it's because you're blind.

Arguing over the validity of the circle won't help. The proper issue is "is a circle okay to argue from" which brings me back to my point about faith. To take a leap of faith toward reason doesn't require a step. Choosing a historicalish type book from a newly evolved ape-species on the third rock from the sun of a random solar system of a random galaxy to promote as the word of the creator himself, well that's quite a leap if you ask me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

um, i'm an atheist but you could take 'ultimate reality' to mean a number of things. for me it is what we sense ourselves. in this way i would call it 'perceived reality'. i don't think any atheist could claim to know an 'ultimalte reality'- that is practically a conundrum if they are humans (which i'm sure they are). as a species we know shit all about how things work and go on about us. to claim something ultimately is stupid- for instance their is a god. you can't possibly take anyone seriously if they claim to know this for a fact.

no thanks, i find those surgeons who feel they can help tend to be butchers who wield a sharp scalpel with inadequate skill, doing more harm than good.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd disbelieve your claim as idiotic, of course. Unless many people made the same claim, with widespread anecdotal reports of miraculous events produced by the gnome, in which case I'd be unsure. Further investigation may or may not resolve the issue.

 

Pete.

Sounds very much like not so long ago when pretty much everyone on the planet believed the world was flat and stories of people falling over the edge were considered quite credible.

 

Nice try, but no cigar. Let's take another look at Merriam-Webster's definition of religious, "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity".

First of all, atheism does not make any claim about ultimate reality. It is merely a position of disbelief in the existence of God or gods. Ultimate reality is irrelevant to the definition of atheism, and therefore atheism is not religious. Second of all, even if you consider gravity, for example, to be part of an atheist's "ultimate reality", belief in gravity does not require "faithful devotion".

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, 'Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!' If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it."
--Dan Barker

 

Well, the situation you describe never happened. But even if it did, it doesn't change the argument. If you were living in such a situation with the applicable knowledge limitations, would you dismiss claims of a flat Earth as idiotic without some kind of investigation?

 

If you view it from the realm of epistemology, yes - but so is every single other argument that you can ever propose. Even the universe... something from nothing.

Is that necessarily a bad thing Wes?

I agree here, perceived reality is a better term to use. But some do seem to think their percieved reality is the ultimate reality. That leads to a claim that there is no God, because you can't 'see' the evidence, of course from your text you don't seem to be one of them - you're just unsure - smart guy/girl.

To have some fun, you seem to be claiming to know that noone can have ultimate knowledge of their surroundings, why? You know that noone knows? Or you know that noone can know if they know or not? Or maybe you just don't know huh?

Would that be a rational thing to do? Anyway scientists do it all the time so... but sometimes they end up eating their words.

The definition of atheism arises from the fact that that atheists argue there is no God from what they believe is an 'ultimate reality' - the scientific 'reality'. Therefore atheists are religious in their belief. There is no atheism without the religious atheist arguing from his idea of what an ulitmate reality is, no?

I disagree. How else will you be sure if what happens when the piano hits you coming down at 5 m/s is caused by gravity as currently defined?

 

Out of curiosity, would you accept that noone can verify ultimate knowledge of their surroundings?

 

Yes, it would be rational.
I risk the consequences of being wrong to gain certain benefits (saving time), because the probability of being wrong appears low.

 

Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory of gravity. One need not have "faith" that a piano will fall if dropped because there has been no evidence to indicate that it would do anything else.

Devotion is a state of being ardently dedicated and loyal. Sorry, but I don't have any "ardent" feelings of dedication toward gravity. It is what it is. And I am not "loyal" to it. If something comes along to prove gravity wrong, then it's good-bye to gravity.

 

My definition of faith is slightly different than the definition that you gave which would be more like blind faith. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."(Hebrews 11:1)

 

lol, i would say that i know noone knows. if you new everything that surrounded you, you may as well be god-like. i don't think it is in anyones capacity to know that much knowldege actively. even before that could be attempted you'd have to learn that knowledge from somewhere. last time i looked, our collective knowledge as humans of how things work around us is pretty tiny. i think it is a pretty safe assumption to say that noone can have an ultimate knowledge of their surroundings.

yup. while i'll never claim definitively that there is no god, from my personal experience, if there is one, he is not interested in me or just doesn't exist. i was born with innate skepticism, i've had no personal encounters or feelings that many have claimed to have had (i've had similar feelings, just never linked to a being) by god and i'm skeptical of those who claim such experiences, i've had bad incidences with christianity which just didn't help, and from the knowledge that i have, i would conclude that god is highly improbable.
smart guy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

yeah, i guess the thing which we most strive for in our lives, acceptance, is for me not found within a religious group. in truth i never made it into my one of my friends "groups" because i didn't share their beliefs. i'm different from them and they never accepted me, purely on belief. it kinda sucked, but it was no great loss. it just helped me define myself by concluding that i wouldn't want to be a part of something that in some way influenced my actions towards others.

mmm, i dunno. i don't like your use of 'an ultimate reality'. i believe what i believe because it makes the most sense to me. i defend what i believe because who likes being told they're wrong? i argue against theism in part because of past incidences with religion and in part because what i believe theism does to a person's thought.

in the end i would say that atheism is really not a religion. besides, in the end it is all terms humans have made up that have no meaning, they only help us define ourselves in a world/universe/reality that we know little about.

 

Fair enough, but you can't really expect atheists to use the biblical definition of faith. The definition I provided is from Merriam-Webster and is useful by both the secular and the religious folks.

 

No, why? It all depends on what you mean by 'verify'. You have subjective verification [in the sense of the individual] and subjective verification on a wider front [objective verification]. So... the same old argument... I can see the bright white light while you possibly see nothing [an invisible, bright, white light

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- atheists love language like this]. I can verify that I see it to myself, but you can't verify if I see it or not. I can't verify that something's not wrong with your eyes why you're not seeing it... or maybe it's something wrong with my eyes why I'm seeing it... etc. That's why I say no. So I can know God exists, if I choose to 'acknowledge' his presence.

Well we might disagree on what is rational. It can be seen with James R's sticky. I should be unsure but I would be tempted to think as you do, I'm only human.

Well I'd say your actions are influenced either way. If not by that group then by some other 'group' - but that's another story. If those guys don't accept you for who you are well, they need to revise themsleves I guess. However, you are influenced either way, you have to decide which is a bad influence and which is a good one - my view.

But what is your ultimate reality other than what makes sense to you? It's either that or it can't exist to you... within your perceptual limits.

But how do you conclude that what you see is proof of the theory of gravity? The theory was actually developed from that same evidence. It's something similar to what atheroy stated - gravity is just a defnition. But what else do you have except faith in your definitions and your notions? It's like you're on a plain and you draw a circle and return to the same spot. But then you could draw an elipse, and any one - or combination - of the surfeit of forms you have out there... the path defined by these different shapes on that plane can represent any of a combination of 'gravity' theories.

Maybe not, but you need to have some degree of faith as to whether it was caused by gravity as currently defined.

By the way this was pretty hilarious... very... in fact... had to share it with a friend. However, faithful devotion is manifest in many forms. Just as a Muslim drops to his knees to offer one of his daily prayers, so a scientist slumps to his chair to pour over his data and formulate theories.

 

We see a piano fall to the ground. We develop a theory as to why that piano fell to the ground, the theory of gravity. This theory makes other predictions that we observe to be true. The theory is therefore valid until we find new empirical evidence that does not support the theory, in which case we have to abandon it or modify it. The latter was done when a new theory of gravity (relativity) was required to explain the observation that light travels at the same speed regardless of one's frame of reference. It was found that relativity was able to more accurately explain all the concepts previously explained by Newtonian gravity.

Gravity is the term we use to define the process that we see before us when an object falls to the ground. One need not have faith that we are observing the process of gravity when we see an object fall to the ground because "gravity" is the name we have given to this process.

Again, no faith is required because all the available evidence demonstrates that the piano fell due to a process we have called "gravity". Improved theories (or definitions) of gravity based on observational evidence only serve to strengthen the theory and make it even more clear that no faith is required. If, on the other hand, we attributed falling objects to an invisible creature pushing them downward, this would require faith because there is no evidence that such a creature exists.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Although certain scientists may actually feel devotion to their work, faith is not required if there is evidence to support their theories. As for me, I can assure you that I feel no such "devotion" to any theories. They are all subject to change if new evidence comes along that demands such a modification. Therefore, the term religious could never apply to me.

 

The name is one thing. The whole process behind the name is another. My point is that your idea of the processes which drive this piano to the earth's surface require some amount of faith in your rationale.

Sure, but what are the details behind it? Elaborated Expansionary Theory Of Gravity

Force/Creature... big diff.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well I guess it applies to me as I believe in a diety, but not an ultimate reality. I also will accept the current gravity theories - but not the one that link points to - and watch them as they evolve. But that's what they are when it comes down to it, just theories.

 

Marc,

No. You are confusing “faith” with inductive reasoning again.

Faith in this and religious contexts means belief without evidence.

Why not? They are both describing processes that explain observed facts.

What do you mean by ‘just theories’. A scientific theory is not some type of inferior fact.

Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in the last century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

i would like to know the other group you think i have been influenced by, and in a way that the group didn't accept me did influence me. it was perhaps the string of incidences that detered me from religion, then these people's bahviour towards me that makes me skeptical of religion's positive influence on people. i pretty much made my decision then and there (with hindsight on the matter) that religion is not a good influence- ONLY FOR ME. i'm not saying it's bad, but in my experience it's not good.

i would definately agree with this as fact. lightning occurs and we can't explain that, if you can't explain that then you can't have ultimate knowledge of your surroundings.

please don't call it that. i don't agree with the term. what makes sense to me doesn't even have physical or definable properties- i don't even know properly where they stem from (my thoughts? my brain? well obviously my brain- but why does that make sense to my brain and not others brains?). i'm trying to say that their is no ultimate reality for me because i don't properly live in reality. none of us do. we live in our own realities but that shouldn't equate to ultimate reality.

PS i wouldn't compare belief with gravity as one has obvious existence while the other has a collection of inconseqential people on a tiny planet, in a massive universe believing in something that has no obvious existence.

 

You may find this to be informative. But I also do not believe that "ultimate" knowledge, or omniscience, is possible as this is an infinite quality.