Atheism

[scspkr99]

You're not as smart or well informed as you think

I have no belief in a god. Is that a belief system? No, unless as I have already said: you would then have a belief system to describe every possible concept for which there is no evidence, that is absurd.

You mean the scientific method right: prediction/verification? Cosmology/physics/chemistry/biology, it's all a crock huh?

lol, you say that like it's a problem, or even unwise.What is wrong about that exactly? And why is it not very much? who said anything about 'indubitably true?' I take a probablistic approach. quantum mechanics can pin nature down to 13 decimal places,

I have pointed out already that atheism can either be considered a belief when it manifests as an assertion to the proposition there is no god, it may not be a belief if it merely refuses to assent to the proposition there is a god. Secondly verificationism isn't the scientific method, I get you aren't into the meaning of words but that will make discussing stuff with people difficult. You also can't take a probablistic approach to knowledge and then suggest only believing in things that are verifiably true, if you don't see the conflict in these two statements there isn't much anyone can do to help.

As for indubitable you raised it when you went with verifiably true, you can't verify something that's false and it can't be true on that account while there is uneliminated doubt, again you actually caring about what words mean would help you.

the reason we hold beliefs that are false is because we are fallible as are all of our belief generating mechanisms, if you are holding your beliefs to a standard of verifably true, and I doubt it given you don't seem to understand what words mean, then you can't believe very much at all, nothing about your own history for a start.

[SignalRecon]

If God created everything (humans, animals, trees, planets etc.), why he made humans to be able to not to believe in him. Why he gave us ability to do things which are wrong according to the bible. Why he made the world that has so many fucked up things, when he could turn things around any time?

Conclusion A: There's no God.

Conclusion B: There's God, and he acts like a kid with mental disorder who plays with his hamsters and flushes them down a toilet when he gets tired of 'em.

may i suggest

Conclusion C: there's a god and you and i are probably not in a position to comprehend/appreciate the ways in which he operates

edit: bonus question for extra points: if there's a god does he have to abide to a morality or guidelines of some sorts and if so, who established said morality and why is that entity above "god"?

or maybe even if he's real he's not all omniscient/omnipotent and there is a limit to what he can and cant control? Can you imagine the workload having to perfectly time every dickhead psychopath's farts accurately to his machinations/specifications while he types out of his ass on bulletin boards about muslims/blacks/dubstep? I think we've been mostly left to our own devices in a set it/forget it way if he exists. If we are truly made to his image he would have the same morality as we do, but like us he would have the ability to step outside its bounds at his own discretion. If he is more actively working with us, i'd attribute that to him being immortal and bored as fuck. I'd challenge you to keep motivated forever while watching humanity.

[_Agu_]

Conclusion C: there's a god and you and i are probably not in a position to comprehend/appreciate the ways in which he operates

True, maybe he's just trolling us, and actually doesn't give a damn if humans follow the bible or have faith in him or not? Or maybe he's not. Maybe all praying people have done in hope to get their crops grow better has been for nothing. Could it be that you should actually do everything that the bible says you shouldn't and God is just trying to confuse us? Oh and ofc everything church has ever taught people should be ignored, because they are also humans and are in no better position than we are...

or maybe even if he's real he's not all omniscient/omnipotent and there is a limit to what he can and cant control?

Isn't God considered as omniscient in christianity and also most other religions?

Again as I tried to clarify in one of my earlier posts, I was talking about "God" in religious sense. It's completely different thing if we count in all different forms of higher power (even off-topic shit like aliens and so on) that there might be.

[ultraspatial]

i think it's p safe to assume that indisputable proof of creation could only be found if the god/creator w/e is of the material world - like say ancient astronauts theories

[Ricky_Spanish]

You're not as smart or well informed as you think

I have no belief in a god. Is that a belief system? No, unless as I have already said: you would then have a belief system to describe every possible concept for which there is no evidence, that is absurd.

You mean the scientific method right: prediction/verification? Cosmology/physics/chemistry/biology, it's all a crock huh?

lol, you say that like it's a problem, or even unwise.What is wrong about that exactly? And why is it not very much? who said anything about 'indubitably true?' I take a probablistic approach. quantum mechanics can pin nature down to 13 decimal places,

I have pointed out already that atheism can either be considered a belief when it manifests as an assertion to the proposition there is no god, it may not be a belief if it merely refuses to assent to the proposition there is a god. Secondly verificationism isn't the scientific method, I get you aren't into the meaning of words but that will make discussing stuff with people difficult. You also can't take a probablistic approach to knowledge and then suggest only believing in things that are verifiably true, if you don't see the conflict in these two statements there isn't much anyone can do to help.

As for indubitable you raised it when you went with verifiably true, you can't verify something that's false and it can't be true on that account while there is uneliminated doubt, again you actually caring about what words mean would help you.

the reason we hold beliefs that are false is because we are fallible as are all of our belief generating mechanisms, if you are holding your beliefs to a standard of verifably true, and I doubt it given you don't seem to understand what words mean, then you can't believe very much at all, nothing about your own history for a start.

I notice you didn't answer any of the questions I asked.

The most accurate theory of nature thus far is probabilistic. I was merely being precise. Probabilistic can still mean demonstrably true in the macro world.

When I say verifiably true I simply mean verifiable via mathematics and experimentation.

So Is it true that the strong nuclear force exists? Does it bind protons and neutrons together to form atoms? Has it been verified? - [ie "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified." - "his conclusions have been verified by later experiments"] via mathematics and experiments?

I believe it to be true to a high degree of probability, as it has been experimentally verified to an extraordinarily high degree of accuracy which in real terms is a demonstrably true fact.

So tell me what I don't understand about my own history. Also do you have any belief in a god? If so why?

Also, in case you hadn't realised: everybody is an "Atheist", it's just that a Christian or a Muslim for example happen to believe in a particular god. They are dismissing the belief in the thousands of gods that have come before them in human history.

Stop hiding by making incorrect assumptions about the meaning of words. It is very tiresome. Answer my questions.

[scspkr99]

I'm not saying you don't understand your history it I'm saying you don't know it if your standard of verifiable is to mean anything.

I'm an agnostic deist, simply put it means that whether God exists or not is entirely uninteresting and we should consider science the best method of understanding how it is and how it works. Philosophy can give us ways of understanding but does not answer empirical questions. I answered that science is certainly not a crock only that your presentation of it is wrong. It's also not just about maths and experiments.

My argument with the type of atheism you seem to represent here is that it does atheists a disservice, it's critical of theism while committing the same kinds of lazy reasoning that theists are often accused of and guilty of.

Also atheism is the lack of beliefs in all theist gods and so again trying to suggest that the Christian is an atheist about the Jewish god is wrong, apart from the Abrahamic religions sharing a large part of the concept of God suggesting someone can be both theist and atheist simultaneously fails the law of non contradiction and again shows that you don't really understand what these words mean.

[Ricky_Spanish]

I'm not saying you don't understand your history it I'm saying you don't know it if your standard of verifiable is to mean anything.

I'm an agnostic deist, simply put it means that whether God exists or not is entirely uninteresting and we should consider science the best method of understanding how it is and how it works. Philosophy can give us ways of understanding but does not answer empirical questions. I answered that science is certainly not a crock only that your presentation of it is wrong. It's also not just about maths and experiments.

My argument with the type of atheism you seem to represent here is that it does atheists a disservice, it's critical of theism while committing the same kinds of lazy reasoning that theists are often accused of and guilty of.

Also atheism is the lack of beliefs in all theist gods and so again trying to suggest that the Christian is an atheist about the Jewish god is wrong, apart from the Abrahamic religions sharing a large part of the concept of God suggesting someone can be both theist and atheist simultaneously fails the law of non contradiction and again shows that you don't really understand what these words mean.

lol, its like talking to a badly programmed bot. Are you human? One advantage humans have over machines is that we can see what someone means regardless of syntax. Is there even a word for believing in only 1 god out of 1000? I could have coined the term 'atheistic' to indicate a degree of non-belief. The point is humans are psychologically pre-disposed to believe in God.

I don't represent atheism at all. I see no reason whatsoever to posit a God. So I am not an atheist. How is that lazy reasoning? I have asked you at least twice to give me at least one objective reason, free from the influence of human psychology to posit the existence of God. You talk of lazy, lol. you can't even give me a single reason!

The real question is: what is the infinite regress of why there is something rather than nothing? That is a question that seems logical to an objective, evolved ape in the macro world. But it may not even make sense at the most fundamental level. 'Sense' is a psychological entity, that is the result of cascading emergent properties through physics, cosmology, chemistry, biology and psychology.

The real laziness is to posit a unimaginably complex supernatural entity to explain gradually decreasing complexity. (ie from psychology down to fundamental particle physics is a decreasing scale of complexity)

lol at these ridiculous terms. So, an 'Agnostic Deist',

(some copy and paste)
Agnostic: someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God.
Deist: Deists believe in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority or holy text.

And you talk of me not understanding terms, heh.

So when you say: "I'm an agnostic deist, simply put it means that whether God exists or not is entirely uninteresting and we should consider science the best method of understanding how it is and how it works. "

What do you mean by it? Surely for the 'deist' part of your self pigeon-holing, you believe God exists. I can understand people believing it after having it brainwashed into them by parents and society, and as a way to combat the fear of death and the apparent meaninglessness of existence, but you don't even have that excuse, you're actually daft enough to believe there are purely rational grounds?

Question 1: define "God"
Question 2: tell me a single rational reason to posit the existence of your definition of "God".

If you don't believe there is a god then you are not a deist of any kind.
If you are unsure about whether god exists then you are 50% atheistic and 50% deistic.

Either way you need to have at least one reason to posit the existence of God. In which case I refer you to Question 2: tell me a single rational reason to posit the existence your definition of "God".

[scspkr99]

man you're thick.

Just to demonstrate that agnostic theism / deism is non contradictory from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is. [1] The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God or the gods he or she believes in.

I didn't self pigeon hole I answered one of your questions. I tried to do so honestly and instead have some halfwit provide some definitions of words he doesn't understand then suggest they aren't compatible when they clearly are. So when you ask me to answer further questions it is out of charity that I choose not to waste any more of your time with explanations you clearly won't understand.

Yes there's a difference between deism and theism but not one that means while agnostic theism isn't self contradictory agnostic deism is.

[Ricky_Spanish]

It's almost becoming endearing how you only want to discuss ridiculous terms like agnostic, theism and such. And you apparent measure of a person's intelligence is based solely on their understanding of these pointless terms. For an objective human these terms are meaningless, so i don't care to know.

Your need to try to denigrate my intelligence at every turn, without at all answering my many and obvious questions combined with your apparent lack of scientific understanding does not show you in the best light.

So then if that is how it is, are you really so completely dumb, that you believe in something for absolutely no reason whatsoever, even though it makes absolutely no logical sense.

Really?

[scspkr99]

I responded to the tone of your posts, be the aggressive atheist if you wish but if you enter a thread about atheism and start using terms, in a way that only you see fit, in order to denigrate the beliefs of others then you can expect to get called on it. You were arrogant enough to tell me what I believe doesn't make sense when you don't actually understand the terms you're referring to.

For the record deism/theism/atheism are views about beliefs, (a)gnosticism is a view about knowledge, it is entirely consistent to hold a belief while acknowledging what you believe is less than knowledge. However as an agnostic about god I don't believe knowledge is possible, as I am more interested in discussing things we can know than things that by their nature are unknowable the question of whether there is a god is almost entirely uninteresting, and when discussing it with someone who approaches it in the manner you do the almost is redundant.

Personally I don't really give a fuck what you believe about god, as an agnostic I'm not particularly interested in what I believe about god and so I'm unlikely to take offence at your view of my beliefs. However I dislike dogma from either side and dogmatic atheism of the sort you seem to favour is as much bullshit as the dogmatic theism you are calling out.

[mIrReN]

jo ricky, do you frequent r/atheism?

[Ricky_Spanish]

right so maybe this...maybe that..., it's unknowable. I don't know why you even give that a name.

So somebody can call themselves an agnostic deist and the question of god is irrelevant. k

If you don't make any assertions, there is nothing to talk about.

jo ricky, do you frequent r/atheism?

wat?

[ultraspatial]

is this another one of jesslem's alter egos

[OGLemon]

If God can not be understood by humans because he is an infinite being, then how did the idea of God as an infinite being come about? To know that something is finite would require the knowledge of existence of bounds for that object. But if God can not be known, then how can there being a realization of His lack of bounds? Would it lead to the conclusion that God is finite?

Do you guys know any theologians that tackle this question, and their thoughts?

[hubb]

Yeah unfortunately it's just that the 'divine' is the principle that transverses that

the divine is the connect to the 'spirit' world. Or the unquantifiable, uncountable, unmeasurable 'realm' or whatevs. It's a trick, cheating basicly.

[Jizz]

Could be something that came from how the Gods have always been attributed to those things that are beyond our reach and therefore seemingly infinite. Thunder, rain, sun, stars are all from up in the sky, an infinite expanse

[butter_man]

i believe. in righteousness on both sides of the board. though in neither arguee

[_ronzlo_]

Muppet Theology, or: how to invent a god by use of a sock puppet

Stranger than fiction.

[NinjaEdit]

I think of Bill Hicks's prankster God burying dinosaurs.

[bonk]

is this another one of jesslem's alter egos

Are you fucking dumb? I was arguing the same thing spckrr was telling him before I got banned ffs.