Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism...

[Michael Hardner]

Your beliefs aren't being ridiculed they are being debated.

Not when they are compared to a cartoon character (the FSM) they're not.

Also, we're not discussing my beliefs here.

At the same time Christianity also commands violence and displays a very violent, vengeful god. Modern Christianity likes to cherry pick the good parts and ignore the unsavory. That very act shows us that morality comes from people and society, not religion. Not that you made that claim, but many do.

That's the god of the old testament. I think it's more correct to call it Christo-Judeic or somesuch.

I don't think outlawing belief is a good idea. Rather I think it is time that we stop protecting religion from debate and public scrutiny and time to stop indoctrinating children. Impossible to stop the latter I know, but still removing the public taboo from religious criticism could go a long way to rooting out belief, amongst educated, moderates anyway.

Religion hasn't been protected from debate since the reformation. There is no taboo against religious criticism, nor from ridicule but why mix them ? I do wonder though why some people appear to engage in debate, when really all they want to do is yell at religious people and brandish their intolerance.

It's nice of you to clearly state your objective to 'root out belief', which of course is a form of evangelizing.

You are likely a religious type, even if you're not religious. Something like me.

[Michael Hardner]

There in the same category in that you would need evidence to have a rational belief in either. Its one thing to have an open mind to the existance of things that "beyond the known universe", but to believe in any specific construct without evidence is no less silly than believing in a leprechaun.

I guess so, depending on what you mean by specific construct. There are still some that make more sense than others. Certainly it's not a big jump from believing in another plane of existence, to thinking about spirits, and then spirits are personifications of people who have lived.

It gets silly somewhere around there for me, though I don't particularly believe any of it.

[GostHacked]

So seeing them is a definitive criteria for belief?

It is but one handy criteria. One that has been used for eons.

Seeing is believing. Also leaving some kind of evidence behind like a fossil would go a long way to prove that a unicorn exists. Dinosaurs are long gone but they left a lot of stuff around to prove that they once existed.

In terms of a god, I can't use any of my 5 senses to verify that he actually exists. I don't count any religious text as definitive proof because the stories have changed through time. Tales written by man and rewritten by man through the ages.

For the god question, I am agnostic. There is no way to prove/disprove the existence of a god. Endless debate coming right back to the agnostic angle. It cannot be known... until you die. And to this day, as far as I can tell, no one has crossed over from the dead to give us any evidence that there is an afterlife.

[TimG]

Seeing is believing.

Can you see electricity? How about radiowaves? Do you believe in them? You can see the effects but if you were taught that radiowaves travel through the astral plane would you dispute it? After all the observable effects would be the same no matter what abstractions are used to describe the mechanism.

[dre]

I guess so, depending on what you mean by specific construct. There are still some that make more sense than others. Certainly it's not a big jump from believing in another plane of existence, to thinking about spirits, and then spirits are personifications of people who have lived.

It gets silly somewhere around there for me, though I don't particularly believe any of it.

I alluded in another post to the difference between having a belief that some idea is possible, and believing specific stories made up by humans about specific constructs.

I would submit that because of human nature itself these constructs are almost certainly not accurate. Thats why Im extremely skeptical of all human religions. The very best evidence AGAINST religions is that HUMANS BELIEVE IN THEM because we know that the human race has an extremely strong disposition towards religious belief... throughout history we have deified literally thousands of entities, and objects. Gods have been everything from trees, to fish, to stars, to planets and cows and airplanes, etc etc.

So a rational thinker has to ask himself... Do humans have any credibility what so ever in this area, and he has to answer NO. As such you can believe all human religions are false with almost complete certainty, not based on any "faith", but based on EVIDENCE. The evidence is that humans make up crazy stories, and the more crazy stories they make up the more improbable it becomes that any of them are factual.

We know what religion is... we have watched religions form, and we can study literally hundreds if not thousands of religious belief sets.

So the most interesting question to me becomes, why are almost all humans in history religious, given that we know with almost complete certainty that religions are not based on fact. If worship is a useless and extraneous activity then why did it survive natural selection, which weeds out useless activities? Why did the evolutionary process decide religion was good? Theres various theories on this... some scientists believe that its because it creates a sense of community and encourages close proximity. An atheist tribe might lose a war against a religious tribe simply because the warriors from the religious tribe know each other better, and have more sense of common purpose.

Sorry Im wandering off your topic....

[dre]

It is but one handy criteria. One that has been used for eons.

Seeing is believing. Also leaving some kind of evidence behind like a fossil would go a long way to prove that a unicorn exists. Dinosaurs are long gone but they left a lot of stuff around to prove that they once existed.

In terms of a god, I can't use any of my 5 senses to verify that he actually exists. I don't count any religious text as definitive proof because the stories have changed through time. Tales written by man and rewritten by man through the ages.

For the god question, I am agnostic. There is no way to prove/disprove the existence of a god. Endless debate coming right back to the agnostic angle. It cannot be known... until you die. And to this day, as far as I can tell, no one has crossed over from the dead to give us any evidence that there is an afterlife.

For the god question, I am agnostic. There is no way to prove/disprove the existence of a god. Endless debate coming right back to the agnostic angle.

But absolute positive or negative proof isnt required, and you quite rationally base a belief that no god exists on evidence and probability.

I bet you that only a tiny percentage of the things you believe about any subject can be backed up with absolute proof.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry Im wandering off your topic....

I didn't even realize this was my topic until you posted that ! The thread was resurrected.

So, don't believe in religion because humans believe in it ? Uh... I guess I see what you're saying but maybe it's more accurate to say that humans believed in religion from a long time before they had an appreciation for the true nature of the universe.

[eyeball]

I get my spiritual kick from the idea that consciousness is how the universe appreciates itself and that the center of the universe is the relative perspective of the individual.

I take that with me everywhere I go.

[ToadBrother]

Right - but the discussions "Is there anything beyond the known universe ?" and "Do leprechauns exist ?" are not equally serious.

Bigger category ? I guess they're both in the category of questions.

It strikes me that the weighting we give to any two supernatural claims is largely due to prejudices. I don't see "Is there a god" and "Are there leprechauns" to be, epistemologically, much different at all.

[Michael Hardner]

It strikes me that the weighting we give to any two supernatural claims is largely due to prejudices. I don't see "Is there a god" and "Are there leprechauns" to be, epistemologically, much different at all.

Do you see one question as being easier to answer than the other ? I sure do.

[August1991]

I get my spiritual kick from the idea that consciousness is how the universe appreciates itself and that the center of the universe is the relative perspective of the individual.

I take that with me everywhere I go.

I get my kick from looking at a clear moonless winter night in northern Canada, and marvelling at all those points of light. And then I consider that I am only looking at about 4000 stars. (If you don't believe me, try counting stars in a small section blocked by tree branches or your hands, and then extrapolate roughly to the sky as a whole. You'll come to a number for the sky around 4000 - give or take.)

In fact, our own galaxy contains about 200 billion stars and the "observable" universe contains about 170 billion galaxies. For good measure, and to complement space with time, I'll add that the universe is considered to be about 15 billion years old. (I remember as a young boy, the first time I turned a telescope to the Milky Way and saw the myriad points of light in the lens.)

These numbers defy understanding but they do introduce another way of considering existence and the universe: probability. Given the numbers, and given how chance plays a role, anything can happen. (Sometimes, people compare the US federal government debt with such large numbers. They are mistaken. The US federal government debt, like US GDP, is just adding a bunch of small numbers together and arriving at a huge number. In the case of stars in the universe, over billions of years, we are considering rolls of the die.)

Edited July 8, 2010 by August1991

[MightyAC]

I bet you that only a tiny percentage of the things you believe about any subject can be backed up with absolute proof.

We all believe many ideas without absolute proof or complete understanding. However, evidence and probability plays a role.

For example I cannot say for sure that unicorns do not exist, however, evidence supports their lack of existence. It has never been found alive or dead, there are no fossils and there is evidence that animals like the Oryx or an old extinct rhino type thing may have lead to the unicorn myth, etc. So despite knowing that we have not searched every inch of the earth or uncovered every fossil, reason, evidence and probability let me believe with a great amount of certainty that unicorns are a myth.

Belief in a religion or superstition works in the opposite direction. The preponderance of evidence suggests that religion is a man made fairytale. The religious even take pride in their strong faith, which is just belief without evidence. In this case reason, evidence and probability must be thrown out the window in order to believe.

[dre]

I didn't even realize this was my topic until you posted that ! The thread was resurrected.

So, don't believe in religion because humans believe in it ? Uh... I guess I see what you're saying but maybe it's more accurate to say that humans believed in religion from a long time before they had an appreciation for the true nature of the universe.

We will never have a full appreciation though.

Religions will just evolve to answer different questions. At one point the planets were gods, but now that we figured out what they REALLY are they arent gods anymore. Tribes in the Malanaysian Islands believe that airplanes are gods. Religion is almost obsolete as an explanation of the origion of our species and will evolve away from that over the next few centuries.

But as long as theres a single thing we dont understand, people will collectively invent mythology to explain it.

Thats just what people do. Even right now during a time when science is constantly explaining more and more things and filling in more blanks our species is still more than 90% religious.

So why? What is the evolutionary reason for religion, and why was it "naturally selected"?

[bloodyminded]

We will never have a full appreciation though.

Religions will just evolve to answer different questions. At one point the planets were gods, but now that we figured out what they REALLY are they arent gods anymore. Tribes in the Malanaysian Islands believe that airplanes are gods. Religion is almost obsolete as an explanation of the origion of our species and will evolve away from that over the next few centuries.

But as long as theres a single thing we dont understand, people will collectively invent mythology to explain it.

Thats just what people do. Even right now during a time when science is constantly explaining more and more things and filling in more blanks our species is still more than 90% religious.

So why? What is the evolutionary reason for religion, and why was it "naturally selected"?

It's a good question. I believe the reason is that it is not a discrete comnponent of consciousness, but is related in a larger sense to the imaginative, the artistic, etc.

[GostHacked]

Can you see electricity? How about radiowaves? Do you believe in them?

Yes I believe in them, because science has taught us they exist and through experiments, they can be observed with testable, repeatable results. Now I did say that seeing is but ONE criteria, one we've been using throughout humanity's existence. As the saying goes 'seeing is believing'.

One way you can see electricity is :

You can see the effects but if you were taught that radiowaves travel through the astral plane would you dispute it? After all the observable effects would be the same no matter what abstractions are used to describe the mechanism.

Since this hypothetical astral plane is considered to be between the heavens and the earth, then yes radio waves do travel through it. Simply because we can communicate with objects we send into space. We are still getting information back from Voyager which is now beyond our solar system.

And this gets into another debate of using science to explain the world around us, opposed to making conclusions bases on ancient stories/allegories that have no empirical or physical evidence to back it up.

[dre]

It's a good question. I believe the reason is that it is not a discrete comnponent of consciousness, but is related in a larger sense to the imaginative, the artistic, etc.

That seems to be a sound theory as well. One thing though... theres a lot more religious people than their is artistic ones. Worshipping is a dominant human trait exhibited by all humans except for a very small percentage.

[GostHacked]

I get my kick from looking at a clear moonless winter night in northern Canada, and marvelling at all those points of light. And then I consider that I am only looking at about 4000 stars. (If you don't believe me, try counting stars in a small section blocked by tree branches or your hands, and then extrapolate roughly to the sky as a whole. You'll come to a number for the sky around 4000 - give or take.)

One of the most astonishing pictures ever taken is through the Hubble telescope, focusing on a patch of dark sky for a few days, when the image was developed they found points of light in the thousands. At first they looked to be stars, and on closer inspection, they all turned out to be galaxies.

http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/uploaded_images/HUDF-777866.jpg

Even if you say there is one form of intelligent life only a small portion of the galaxies in our universe, then we are definitely not alone.

The probability of finding ET is much higher than the possibility/probability of proving god's existence.

I'll remain in the agnostic camp for now.

[bloodyminded]

That seems to be a sound theory as well. One thing though... theres a lot more religious people than their is artistic ones. Worshipping is a dominant human trait exhibited by all humans except for a very small percentage.

I agree it's an interesting phenomenon.

[Bonam]

Thats just what people do. Even right now during a time when science is constantly explaining more and more things and filling in more blanks our species is still more than 90% religious.

So why? What is the evolutionary reason for religion, and why was it "naturally selected"?

The question you are asking has a false premise - that religious tendency was naturally selected for. I disagree with this. Humans are really the first species capable of developing language, writing, and thus the basis of religion. These higher cognitive processes allowed humans to be evolutionarily successful since it enabled the use of tools, preservation of knowledge, building of communities, etc. Far from an evolutionary advantage, religious tendency may just be a side effect of these additional cognitive functions first evolved by humans.

Unfortunately, since humans reached that threshold, they have not really evolved significantly further, both because the timespan since then has been very short, and because the existence of technology, which can allow weaker members of the species to survive when they otherwise would not, has (in my estimation) substantially reduced selection pressures. Thus, there simply may have not been the opportunity for evolution to remove destructive aspects of human cognitive functionality, such as the tendency towards religion.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Bonam

[August1991]

For example I cannot say for sure that unicorns do not exist, however, evidence supports their lack of existence.

Maybe you misunderstood my phrase "anything can happen". The universe has some basic laws, and a basic language. On Jupiter, Mars and around Alpha Centauri or in the Andromeda Galaxy, today, and 10 billion years ago:

3+2=5

IOW, 3+2=5 is true everywhere in the universe, and has been true for all time. 3+2 cannot suddenly change into 6 even if, as I put it and you pretended, "anything can happen".

For heaven's sakes, there are absolutes. (And one other absolute, aside from the basic rules of mathematics, is that unicorns never existed.)

Edited July 8, 2010 by August1991

[MightyAC]

We will never have a full appreciation though.

Religions will just evolve to answer different questions. At one point the planets were gods, but now that we figured out what they REALLY are they arent gods anymore. Tribes in the Malanaysian Islands believe that airplanes are gods. Religion is almost obsolete as an explanation of the origion of our species and will evolve away from that over the next few centuries.

But as long as theres a single thing we dont understand, people will collectively invent mythology to explain it.

Thats just what people do. Even right now during a time when science is constantly explaining more and more things and filling in more blanks our species is still more than 90% religious.

So why? What is the evolutionary reason for religion, and why was it "naturally selected"?

Great question. Like you, I think that once humans evolved to be intelligent enough to contemplate life, death, the universe and everything religion was invented to explain unknown phenomenon.

So now that most of what religions attempted to explain, has been properly explained by science why is religion still here? In my opinion, belief systems proved to be a very good way to control the masses and have evolved to do just that. They are powerful political forces designed to give those on top power in this life, not followers paradise in the next. Those in power work hard to stay there and thus religion works hard to discredit science amongst its members. It also indoctrinates children before they are rational thinking beings and threatens dire consequences for those who should ever lose faith.

Religion is part of the culture and is passed on as such. It is in decline amongst the educated and in time it will vanish. Nothing need take its place but I suspect that new age faiths with appear. Others will adopted Deepak Chopra, the universe will provide, type belief systems. I sincerely hope religion is replaced with simple secular humanism.

I watched an interesting lecture by Daniel Dennet titled "Good reasons for believing in God" that partially deals with this topic.

Dan's view is that most that claim belief do not fully believe or really analyze their beliefs, they are too busy living their lives. Those that do analyze their belief systems do realize, like the rest of us, that they are full of numerous fallacies, contradictions and logic problems. He then discuss several ways in which they deal with it.

Richard Dawkins discusses this topic in his book "The selfish gene". He coined the term meme to represent a unit of culture that is passed along and evolves over time. Very interesting stuff.

[ToadBrother]

Do you see one question as being easier to answer than the other ? I sure do.

I don't. Can you formulate a scientific test to disprove the existence of leprechauns?

[MightyAC]

For heaven's sakes, there are absolutes. (And one other absolute, aside from the basic rules of mathematics, is that unicorns never existed.)

I didn't actually respond to one of your posts, I did use unicorns in an example though. I'm not arguing that unicorns exist. I was saying that we cannot absolutely disprove their existence but that like religion, evidence and probability make its existence damn near impossible.

Unicorn believers may claim the entire earth has not been explored or that new species are discovered every day. Hell an uncontacted tribe of humans was discovered in a rain forest last year.

[August1991]

I didn't actually respond to one of your posts, I did use unicorns in an example though. I'm not arguing that unicorns exist. I was saying that we cannot absolutely disprove their existence but that like religion, evidence and probability make its existence damn near impossible.

Unicorn believers may claim the entire earth has not been explored or that new species are discovered every day. Hell an uncontacted tribe of humans was discovered in a rain forest last year.

MightyAC, the unicorn idea is often used to suggest (like Black Swans) that anything is possible.

My point is that the universe has an absolute language (thank God), and it is true everywhere, always. It is reassuring to know that 3+2 is, has always been, and will always be, equal to 5. It is true here, and elsewhere in the universe, and it was true 15 billion years ago, at the supposed origins of the universe.

In some distant solar system, in another galaxy, the first two planets added to the next three are considered to be five planets. Imagine!

Thank God the universe has such clarity.

Edited July 8, 2010 by August1991

[MightyAC]

MightyAC, the unicorn idea is often used to suggest (like Black Swans) that anything is possible.

My point is that the universe has an absolute language (thank God), and it is true everywhere, always. It is reassuring to know that 3+2 is, has always been, and will always be, equal to 5. It is true here, and elsewhere in the universe, and it was true 15 billion years ago, at the supposed origins of the universe.

In some distant solar system, in another galaxy, the first two planets added to the next three are considered to be five planets. Imagine!

Thank God the universe has such clarity.

Agreed...though I did not dispute that or suggest anything is possible.