|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2007 : 13:05:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
That doesn't totally exclude religious belief. It only excludes beliefs which are valued above facts supported by evidence.
Holding a religious belief not supported by facts or evidence is holding it above facts and evidence. It's the same as saying facts and evidence play no essential role when determining beliefs, aren't a concern, and needn't be bothered with.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/30/2007 13:12:13 |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 13:34:11 [Permalink]
|
| Please note the scope of belief/skepticism for the purposes of this thread is not limited to 'revealed' religions but also to very basic questions such as "does the universe have a purpose or function?" A hard atheist will say "no." An agnostic, of my stripe anyway, would say "maybe some day science will answer that." And which is the skeptic? Both? Neither? |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 03/30/2007 13:35:42 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 13:52:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Please note the scope of belief/skepticism for the purposes of this thread is not limited to 'revealed' religions but also to very basic questions such as "does the universe have a purpose or function?" A hard atheist will say "no." An agnostic, of my stripe anyway, would say "maybe some day science will answer that." And which is the skeptic? Both? Neither?
This purpose driven Universe made me think about something. 14 billion years into current Universe/Time and 4 billion years after the Earth was formed an insignificant life form (considering the enormity of the Universe) on a itty bitty planet in an itty bitty galaxy among billions of galaxies and we are supposed to think the fact we evolved to believe things have purpose would have relevancy at all to the big picture?
|
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:07:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Please note the scope of belief/skepticism for the purposes of this thread is not limited to 'revealed' religions but also to very basic questions such as "does the universe have a purpose or function?" A hard atheist will say "no." An agnostic, of my stripe anyway, would say "maybe some day science will answer that." And which is the skeptic? Both? Neither?
"Does the universe have a purpose or function?"
I'm not so sure that a "hard skeptic" would actually say "no" to that. Not to rub existentialists the wrong way but do we know if existence could have a function without the gods? I see no evidence either way. There are systems in nature that have a direction, but an overall 'meaning' gets into some pretty heavy old historical philosophy.
The universe has a multitude of constants of which many are consistent yet relative to surroundings. (Boiling water on Earth at a certain altitude will occur at the same temperature. Speed of light in a vacuum, to name two.) One aid might be if someone developed a valid theory of the value of constants. An underlying value principle for the constants in Nature might define a purposeful intent (still without an old fashioned God or Gods.)
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:53:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
One thing I learned early on here is that, despite additional nuances that can be attached to the word "agnostic," all agnostics are atheists, though not all atheists are agnostics. All flavors of not actively believing in a god are "not theisms," thus they are "a-theisms."
Excellant. I've never thought of it like that.
Good, because the assertion is absolutely inaccurate. See, for example, fideism.
Please explain, ConsequentAtheist. Especially please explain how your invoking mention of fideism shows that the idea that agnosticism is form of atheism is "absolutely inaccurate."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:11:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo:
Sure. Religious people are often wonderful people, and very skeptical about many things. But, can we honestly say that they're skeptical about the existence of gods in the same way they're skeptical about consumer fraud or health fraud?
Just pointing out that agnosticism or atheism are not the default positions for every skeptic.
quote:
BigPapaSmurf:
Yeah, no theist has ever passed 7.2 on the Skeptometer!
LOL
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Baza
New Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:29:05 [Permalink]
|
| If we accept that a god is a supernatural entity. If we then find evidence to explain it then surely the entity ceases to be supernatural and therefore not a god. So is there any point in being agnostic because you can never come to accept the existence of a god given the above. As an atheist, confronted with evidence then all you need to do is to say I told you so..... |
Baza |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 16:22:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
One thing I learned early on here is that, despite additional nuances that can be attached to the word "agnostic," all agnostics are atheists, though not all atheists are agnostics. All flavors of not actively believing in a god are "not theisms," thus they are "a-theisms."
Excellant. I've never thought of it like that.
Good, because the assertion is absolutely inaccurate. See, for example, fideism.
Please explain, ConsequentAtheist. Especially please explain how your invoking mention of fideism shows that the idea that agnosticism is form of atheism is "absolutely inaccurate."
Why not instead take the time to actually read the link you've so thoughtfully supplied - paying particular attention to ...
quote:
Kierkegaard and fideism
A fideist position of this general sort — that God's existence cannot be certainly known, and that the decision to accept faith is neither founded on, nor needs, rational justification — may be found in the writings of Søren Kierkegaard and his followers in Christian existentialism.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 16:58:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Please note the scope of belief/skepticism for the purposes of this thread is not limited to 'revealed' religions but also to very basic questions such as "does the universe have a purpose or function?" A hard atheist will say "no." An agnostic, of my stripe anyway, would say "maybe some day science will answer that." And which is the skeptic? Both? Neither?
This purpose driven Universe made me think about something. 14 billion years into current Universe/Time and 4 billion years after the Earth was formed an insignificant life form (considering the enormity of the Universe) on a itty bitty planet in an itty bitty galaxy among billions of galaxies and we are supposed to think the fact we evolved to believe things have purpose would have relevancy at all to the big picture?
I totally agree with you. See this from comments on this same concept from page one:
quote:
#4. What I'm really wrestling with here is the idea that the universe is completely without function or purpose. I don't think it requires a deity necessarily to have either of those. And whatever that 'function/purpose' might be, it likely:
A. does not have anything at all to do with human existance beyond the extremely periferal or incidental and
B. is not something we could ever possibly understand or even recognize as a purpose in the sense that we commonly define. It's like quantum mechanics - we can sort of understand it abstractly and devise tools and methods to study it, but we can't directly percieve and understand it, per se. It is not native to anything our minds evolved to do. Yet we've managed to come across it, puzzle out at least some of it's rules and functions and so on...
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 17:02:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Why not instead take the time to actually read the link you've so thoughtfully supplied - paying particular attention to ...
quote:
Kierkegaard and fideism
A fideist position of this general sort — that God's existence cannot be certainly known, and that the decision to accept faith is neither founded on, nor needs, rational justification — may be found in the writings of Søren Kierkegaard and his followers in Christian existentialism.
Why not point out how, exactly, that is applicable to the statement made? A fideist who has decided to believe in God is neither an agnostic nor an atheist. A fideist who has decided to not believe in any gods is an atheist. The existence of fideism does nothing to change the statement that you objected to. The philosophical underpinning of one's decision to be a theist or an atheist doesn't change the fact that agnostics are not theists. Someone who says "I can't know if God exists, but I choose to believe that he does" isn't an agnostic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 17:08:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"Does the universe have a purpose or function?"
I'm not so sure that a "hard skeptic" would actually say "no" to that.
I'm thinking a skeptic should say: "We don't know yet." But a hard atheist should probably say no, right?
quote:
Not to rub existentialists the wrong way but do we know if existence could have a function without the gods?
I've completly discarded the idea that there could be a god that's in any way analgous to a human entity. Forget all these nonsensical human myths - they are clearly anthropomorphic myths generated by people who couldn't even begin to imagine the true scope, scale and strangeness of the universe. They imagined their gods based on what they knew, hoped and dreamed. And why should it be any other way? So, even if this universe had a creator we might recognize as an entity, it would be incomprehensible to us and we - embedded so insignificantly within this creation - would likely be of very little interest to it. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 19:16:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
One thing I learned early on here is that, despite additional nuances that can be attached to the word "agnostic," all agnostics are atheists, though not all atheists are agnostics. All flavors of not actively believing in a god are "not theisms," thus they are "a-theisms."
Excellant. I've never thought of it like that.
Good, because the assertion is absolutely inaccurate. See, for example, fideism.
Please explain, ConsequentAtheist. Especially please explain how your invoking mention of fideism shows that the idea that agnosticism is form of atheism is "absolutely inaccurate."
Why not instead take the time to actually read the link you've so thoughtfully supplied - paying particular attention to ...
quote:
Kierkegaard and fideism
A fideist position of this general sort — that God's existence cannot be certainly known, and that the decision to accept faith is neither founded on, nor needs, rational justification — may be found in the writings of Søren Kierkegaard and his followers in Christian existentialism.
Uh, C_A, I actually did "bother to" read that link that I "so thoughtfully" supplied.
I do not equate Kierkegaard's "There probably is a god, but we can't prove it" with an agnostics' "There probably is not a god, but we can't prove it." Do you equate those two positions? Really?
Edited to acknowledge that Dave W.'s point was more on the mark than mine just above. Also, C_A, you mentioned my statement was "absolutely inaccurate." So far, you have not even shown it to be relatively so.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/30/2007 19:26:32 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:17:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Just pointing out that agnosticism or atheism are not the default positions for every skeptic.
Well none of us are perfectly skeptical. But for the ideal skeptic, disbelief or doubt has to be the default position on every subject. For a skeptic, moving away from the default position always requires evidence. Exercising faith is antithietical to skeptisism. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 22:37:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Please note the scope of belief/skepticism for the purposes of this thread is not limited to 'revealed' religions but also to very basic questions such as "does the universe have a purpose or function?" A hard atheist will say "no." An agnostic, of my stripe anyway, would say "maybe some day science will answer that." And which is the skeptic? Both? Neither?
This purpose driven Universe made me think about something. 14 billion years into current Universe/Time and 4 billion years after the Earth was formed an insignificant life form (considering the enormity of the Universe) on a itty bitty planet in an itty bitty galaxy among billions of galaxies and we are supposed to think the fact we evolved to believe things have purpose would have relevancy at all to the big picture?
Perhaps the emergence of intelligent life here, there or anywhere is the purpose of the Universe? |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 22:59:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
What Vegeta said.
Also, what Dawkins said on an interview with Terry Gross yesterday. Listen here:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9180871
In terms of god, belief, and skepticism, I pretty much agree with everything Dawkins says in this interview. To highlight some of what he says, evolution shows us that human complexity and sentience evolved over a great deal of time, slowly and bit by bit. Given that simpler explanations are most often right, the idea that there is another entity which is also intelligent and sentient, but which did not evolve, but rather, just is, is rather silly to postulate. In addition to that, if a god made the universe and life, and did it though evolution and the laws of physics, given what we know so far, this deity sure decided to use a method of creation that looks as if it never needed a creator in the first place.
According to Oolon Colophid (via Douglas Adams) that is how a deity would have to create the universe.
God says: "I refuse to prove my existence because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing"
I read a science fiction story where creating universes was a form of Art. One artist didn't put enough mass into his universe and it kept on expanding indefinately instead of contracting back to a singularity the way it was supposed to. At first it was considered a failure until all sorts of intersting things developed like stars, planets and inteligent life. Of course gods like that would be outside the universe. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Does Skepticism Default to Atheism?
