TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The Belief Spectrum
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 »

I'd just like to first mention that any topic discussing "God" is inherently flawed unless first defining what "God" is in the presented context. God means anything from a bearded father-figure in the sky to the collective energetic mass of existence, depending on who you talk to.

Regarding Dawkins: What atheists don't seem to realize is that they adhere to the same fundamental belief system as the most devout christian. Atheism is fundamentalist dogma, and should be recognized as such. Anything Richard Dawkins has to say should be disregarded as the ramblings of an insane mind. Only the madman is absolutely sure.

quote:

Originally posted by meriter What atheists don't seem to realize is that they adhere to the same fundamental belief system as the most devout christian. Atheism is fundamentalist dogma, and should be recognized as such. Anything Richard Dawkins has to say should be disregarded as the ramblings of an insane mind. Only the madman is absolutely sure.

brimming over with wrongability (which you would know had you bothered to read this thread).

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Atheism simply constitutes a "disbelief" in the notion of God. Nothing about atheism states with any certainty that "there is definately no God", rather, to be in atheist is merely to say: "given everything I have experienced, I have experienced nothing that would positively indicate the existence of any deity". Thus there is no faith in this position anymore than there is faith in most other negative, ontological/metaphysical statements. Scepticism (or lack of faith) is the opposite of faith. For me to say "that chair does not exist" is to make a negative ontological claim, and marks a position of scepticism rather than a position of faith. You may argue that it requires faith to deny the existence of that chair, but then I'd argue how? Such a negative ontological claim requires the denial of faith in our senses, not faith in anything specific. To deny the existence of that chair - or of that God - requires the exact opposite of faith, namely scepticism. The point of all this is merely to show that it requires no faith (or no faith in any particular piece of knowledge) to become an atheist, and thus the position of agnosticism - insofar as agnosticism is the rejection of possibility of knowledge with such regards to such things - is not really all that different from atheism. As I say, no atheist claims to "know", or have "faith in" the fact that God doesn't exist, because it takes no knowledge or faith to make a negative ontological claim. In fact, we're all born atheists: it's the default position. From this perspective then, we can see how atheism and agnosticism are really the same thing: both make negative-ontological claims, both deny the existence of a God.

so there.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN brimming over with wrongability (which you would know had you bothered to read this thread). so there.

That is the definition of Agnosticism, not Atheism.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, i don't buy this kind of reasoning. we might be always limited by our experience and understanding but that doesn't mean we'll always be groping in the dark for true and proper theoretical explanation. indeed, his "theory" is incompletely true by its own definition, so rather pointless imo.

that's exactly what he's saying - we're limited by our experience and understanding.


and that there is no true and proper explanation.


and this guy is as serious a physicist as they come

here's a thought, if you are a material realist, and you believe in oscillating universe theory, what caused the first oscillation, and when did it occur, why did it occur? This sort of thing will never be understood by any theory, because the explanation automatically requires it to be outside of the theory itself. In other words, you can always ask 'why' for every new discovery.

Within the paradox of his statement, which amounts to 'the only truth is that there is no truth' or 'I am a liar', is the essence of this unknowable thing IMO.

The theory can't explain the existence itself, but can only describe the perceived mechanics of exisence. And perception is unforunately not objective as relativity and quantum physics show us.


Think of this graph:




Imagine x is time and y is human knowledge/understanding. Where is the limit? It is an unbounded function. The more time goes on, the more massive the leaps of understanding, but there is still no limit, no final understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by meriter That is the definition of Agnosticism, not Atheism.

i think the writer went to great lengths to illustrate that this is not the case. you stating something does not make it true. you just dont understand atheism.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec that's exactly what he's saying - we're limited by our experience and understanding. and that there is no true and proper explanation.

But such limitations are often transitory in many contexts. We are surrounded by and utilise various scientific proofs every day, that rely upon fairly solid theories. We might not be able to speculate that such rules apply everywhere and at all times, but they apply now, on earth, and are repeatably tested/testable. Requiring anything more than that to speak authoritatively or dogmatically on a subject is redundant imo, making the discussion of such equally redundant.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec for instance, if you are a material realist, and you believe in oscillating universe theory, what caused the first oscillation, and when did it occur, why did it occur? This sort of thing will never be understood by any theory, because the explanation automatically requires it to be outside of the theory itself.

yeah, let's keep this discussion a little simpler if you want us science noobs to follow

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i think the writer went to great lengths to illustrate that this is not the case. you stating something does not make it true. you just dont understand atheism.

What the writer did was outline a false definition of Atheism and instead outlined the basic definition of Agnosticism. You can turn most atheists into agnostics if you talk to them for a little while. There is a difference. Atheism is disbelief, which is still a belief.

quote:

Originally posted by meriter Atheism is disbelief, which is still a belief.

wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnosticism

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN But such limitations are often transitory in many contexts. We are surrounded by and utilise various scientific proofs every day, that rely upon fairly solid theories. We might not be able to speculate that such rules apply everywhere and at all times, but they apply now, on earth, and are repeatably tested/testable. Requiring anything more than that to speak authoritatively or dogmatically on a subject is redundant imo, making the discussion of such equally redundant.

Yes, that's the point - they are transitory - but is are an infinite sequence of limitations and transitions, each with greater and greater knowledge, but the problem is there is no continuous 'end result'. So in reality there's not a real need to describe anything with such theories.

An easy way to explain this is to ask what the difference between living 4000 years ago is and living now, if we die anyways. Or another way is to ask, despite all of the advancements in medicine and government and technology, etc are we really any happier than people without these things?

The basis of everything is outside of everything, if you understand what I'm saying. It's quantum non-locality in a universal sense. Like I said, you can argue about chicken and egg forever, but in the end you have to ask what made the chicken OR the egg and why?

quote:

Originally posted by meriter http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnosticism

Ugh, dictionary definitions are meaningless within such a conversation, because they rarely encapsulate the dynamic depth of thought contained inside any 'ism'. Something basic like wiki is far more accurate, oooh, here it is

quote:

Philosophers such as Antony Flew[35], Michael Martin[24], and William L. Rowe[36] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[37] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent; however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[35] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[38] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists. While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails weak atheism,[24] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[39] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[40] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[41] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.

quote:

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[30] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[31] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

If people want to be considered an agnostic, let it be known they are agnostic. I don't need someone who cannot spell 'definitely' telling me Atheism and Agnosticism are really the same thing. It's far from convincing.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Yes, that's the point - they are transitory - but is are an infinite sequence of limitations and transitions, each with greater and greater knowledge, but the problem is there is no continuous 'end result'. So in reality there's not a real need to describe anything with such theories.

Surely stuff like mathematics contradicts this? It provided examples of self-contained absolute knowledge?

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec The basis of everything is outside of everything, if you understand what I'm saying. It's quantum non-locality in a universal sense.

This sounds kinda like plato's forms to me. Are you saying that absolute knowledge does not exist, or that human beings cannot experience it?

quote:

Originally posted by Renzo If people want to be considered an agnostic, let it be known they are agnostic. I don't need someone who cannot spell 'definitely' telling me Atheism and Agnosticism are really the same thing. It's far from convincing.

Nice try. Attempt to argue with his position rather than picking apart some meaningless spelling mistake. Anyone that has bothered to follow renegade's posts would know he shows a keen understanding of anything he is interested in. you wont find a sharper mind on the whole of TA (Which is why you've resorted to spelling critiques rather than getting at the meat of his argument).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Ugh, dictionary definitions are meaningless within such a conversation, because they rarely encapsulate the dynamic depth of thought contained inside any 'ism'. Something basic like wiki is far more accurate, oooh, here it is

Antony Flew, Michael Martin, and William L. Rowe are not the supreme authorities on the english language. What you presented are interpretations. I will stick with the legitimate definitions to keep from confusing ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by meriter Antony Flew, Michael Martin, and William L. Rowe are not the supreme authorities on the english language. What you presented are interpretations. I will stick with the legitimate definitions to keep from confusing ideas.

Yeah, well im not gonna bother anymore with some shitty alt that thinks dictionary.com is the be-all and end-all of intellectual enquiry.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, well im not gonna bother anymore with some shitty alt that thinks dictionary.com is the be-all and end-all of intellectual enquiry.

I've had this discussion many times and it's notions that atheism and agnosticism are the same that make them so frustrating and pointless. If you don't use words correctly communication becomes flawed. I can't just go and change the definition of a word because it's convenient to my argument and expect to get away with it. Most of these conversations about "God" contain no real communication anyway because no one takes the time to even define what they suspect "God" is before presenting an idea.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Surely stuff like mathematics contradicts this? It provided examples of self-contained absolute knowledge? This sounds kinda like plato's forms to me. Are you saying that absolute knowledge does not exist, or that human beings cannot experience it?

no i am saying that absolute knowledge does exist and humans are proof of its existence

my idea of 'human' is probably different than yours. a human to me is just a temporary form, like a vortex in a sea of possible forms. Dust in the wind, if you will. A human looks like a thing because we perceive it always on a macro level. If you go to the atomic level and look at where your ass meets the chair, at a certain point you wont be able to tell the difference between ass and chair really - it just becomes atom and space. And then you can go into the atom and continue this ad infinitum.

Similarly, I believe that a mind, whether or not it is an epiphenomenon of a body, is also simply like this vortex, it is an apparent object in a field, but really it is simply a temporary disturbance of an undifferentiated whole.

As such, I think that ultimate knowledge isn't 'human' in the traditional sense of 'self' or 'ego' as in you or i can experience it individually, but rather is something that we are all experiencing in part and participating in. So I feel that the only way to experience the whole of knowledge is to completely lose individuality, or 'humanity' (indeed even worldliness or materiality) as we know it.

Maybe computer technology will move mankind to this state eventually. Already it's amazing what social networking and wikipedia and what not have allowed us to do in terms of sharing knowledge.


I'm not sure what you're saying with mathematics? Numbers are just symbols, and I am talking about what the symbols mean, whether they are in math or seen with the naked eye, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by meriter I've had this discussion many times and it's notions that atheism and agnosticism are the same that make them so frustrating and pointless. If you don't use words correctly communication becomes flawed. I can't just go and change the definition of a word because it's convenient to my argument and expect to get away with it. Most of these conversations about "God" contain no real communication anyway because no one takes the time to even define what they suspect "God" is before presenting an idea.

Your problem is your definition is lacking and doesn�t really understand the various differences inside atheism. Im not changing anything to suit my arguments, there is plenty of literature discussing agnoticism and weak versus strong atheism. Don�t take my word for it, go pick up a book for youself. start here if you want

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec

Sorry, but you lost me when you pulled out your wang and started beating it in front of me.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Sorry, but you lost me when you pulled out your wang and started beating it in front of me.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec here's a thought, if you are a material realist, and you believe in oscillating universe theory, what caused the first oscillation, and when did it occur, why did it occur? This sort of thing will never be understood by any theory, because the explanation automatically requires it to be outside of the theory itself. In other words, you can always ask 'why' for every new discovery. Within the paradox of his statement, which amounts to 'the only truth is that there is no truth' or 'I am a liar', is the essence of this unknowable thing IMO. The theory can't explain the existence itself, but can only describe the perceived mechanics of exisence. And perception is unforunately not objective as relativity and quantum physics show us.

I have quite enjoyed your thoughts in this thread (even where I disagree with them), but I have to question you here.

Imagine how an early human being might have thought about the concept of up and down. From their perspective, most things would have been earthbound: absent support from something underneath, they would fall. But this simplistic perception of things cannot exhaustively explain how objects on the ground are physically supported, since the ground itself surely cannot fly, and thus it too requires support. One might have concluded that the very stability of the ground under one's feet cannot be explained in purely physical terms.

Of course, that's not correct. And, in fact, the premises "underlying" the whole conundrum would have been false, an illusion created by a narrow perspective. And likewise, I think it is premature to conclude that we cannot explain the universe in purely physical terms. Within the confines of a cause-effect paradigm, where we perceive that every effect requires a cause, then we certainly have a paradox on our hands. But the conclusion we should draw from this is not that we cannot fully explain the existence of the universe; rather, it is that we will need to broaden our perspective and then shed our faulty assumptions which the apparent paradox before we will be able to see the "answer."

That is, it seems eminently possible to me that we are only unable to answer that question because we are trying to answer the wrong question. Of course, I have little doubt that actually understanding the existence of our universe would only lead to further questions and further illusions as well--but I for one would not have it any other way!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I have quite enjoyed your thoughts in this thread (even where I disagree with them), but I have to question you here.

I know you are correct in questioning me in the sense that I made a bad argument.

I think it ultimately comes down personal preference/intuition. I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with postulating theory after theory in the hope that total, absolute knowledge can be experienced.

I just personally think it is illusory, a diversion of sorts, from what really matters to me (personally) about life.

quote:

That is, it seems eminently possible to me that we are only unable to answer that question because we are trying to answer the wrong question. Of course, I have little doubt that actually understanding the existence of our universe would only lead to further questions and further illusions as well--but I for one would not have it any other way!

That's pretty much what I am saying. Materialists ask 'what happens', I ask 'For what end'.

I'm not against science though. I just believe in a plurality of ways of understanding. (questions to ask, so to speak)

Sometimes I wonder if Europe and America will experience a massive revival of traditional religion. The Pope has proposed "re-evangelizing" European countries that have forgotten their Christian roots.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Sometimes I wonder if Europe and America will experience a massive revival of traditional religion. The Pope has proposed "re-evangelizing" European countries that have forgotten their Christian roots.

I really hope that doesn't happen. We have enough puritanical nonsense going on in the US, we don't need anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by gehzumteufel I really hope that doesn't happen. We have enough puritanical nonsense going on in the US, we don't need anymore.

I would imagine that a return to a more traditional Christianity would be an enormous improvement over the evangelical non-sense in the US presently.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Sometimes I wonder if Europe and America will experience a massive revival of traditional religion. The Pope has proposed "re-evangelizing" European countries that have forgotten their Christian roots.

I believe a lot of recent trends indicate towards the Catholic church "moving" to regions outside of Europe. In many African and island nations, for example, Catholicism is a staple industry of many, many people's lives - South America, too.

And doesn't it make sense? Really, the religion is founded on meekness and the relinquishment of wealth; the downtrodden inheriting the Kingdom Of God. But I suppose lots of religions are about that...

I would liken it to how Rome, once the seat of a Christian empire, basically closed up shop for a while and moved to Constantinople. It's really why the Roman empire didn't fall, merely moved for a while.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.