Support NeoGAF

[iapetus]

No. The non-existence of god is as accepted a truth as the transparency of water, the blue hue of a clear sky, and so on and so on and so on.

This is patently untrue. Sorry.

I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic.

Yes you are - you're a strong atheist, going by the way you describe your faith in the rest of your post. And a strong atheist in denial, at that.

 

[XS+]

By the way, Loki, you really should pare down your posts. They're needlessly labyrinthine.

 

[MoxManiac]

I have no problem with religion itself, just the idiotic "bible belt" that got us stuck with four more years of Mr. Texan Warmonger.

 

[XS+]

This is patently untrue. Sorry.



Yes you are - you're a strong atheist, going by the way you describe your faith in the rest of your post. And a strong atheist in denial, at that.

Untrue to whom? That there are people who push the idea of god's existence in the face of reality does not make that truth any less established. There comes a point when one must accept that faith is not sufficient. Yes, I know you've cited those who claim to have seen god at some point. How reliable are these accounts? Why hasn't a single episode of that kind held up under scrutiny?

 

[iapetus]

Untrue to whom? That there are people who push the idea of god's existence in the face of reality does not make that truth any less established.

You say that the non-existence of God is (and I quote): "as accepted a truth as the transparency of water". I say again, this is patently untrue. I know there are millions of people out there who do not accept the non-existence of God. I do not believe there to be as many who do not accept the transparency of water (except, possibly, in those cases where water isn't transparent due to impurities, but I presume that's not what you were getting at).

I'm passing no judgement on which of these views is right, because I believe in the right of both sides to profess their faith.

 

[Azih]

No. The non-existence of god is as accepted a truth as the transparency of water, the blue hue of a clear sky, and so on and so on and so on.

Dude, your statement fails on a number of levels.

First off, you'll find about what.. 5 billion or so people who don't accept the non-existence of god but do accept that the sky is blue(numbers pulled out of ass, but still the point stands).

Secondly more importantly, you cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being.

 

[Mumbles]

And that's fine. I never made the claim that, if one manages to bypass the so-called "empirical bias", one will necessarily arrive at the same conclusions I did.

You say that, but then you write...

Then again, "disbelief" of God is just as much of an inference as belief is-- the only difference between myself and an atheist is that one of us chooses to place tremendous stock in the empirical world, and one of us chooses to view it as equal (but not above) all the other lines of evidence alluded to.

And again, I'm not saying that you attempted to prove the existance of gods. I'm saying that the latter quote is not necessarily true. For example, I'd consider philosophy and my own experiences to be far more damaging to the notion of gods existing than science is, and the whole to be catastrophic to the notion

Secondly more importantly, you cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being.

Yes, but that's mostly because the two attributes are worthlessly vague, due in part to the fact that they describe what something *isn't*, rather than what it *is*. This sort of fumbling leaves wiggle room for the idea of gods who don't want to be worshipped, but does nothing for the average religion. OTOH, since deism is essentially an attempt to reconcile the presumed creation of the universe with the apparent absence of the christian god, I think it's safe to chalk that type of god as a human mistake.

 

[maharg]

Dude, your statement fails on a number of levels.

First off, you'll find about what.. 5 billion or so people who don't accept the non-existence of god but do accept that the sky is blue(numbers pulled out of ass, but still the point stands).

Secondly more importantly, you cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being.

Er, 5 billion is maybe a little high.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

So you can still love a physical something thats no longer there?

Just like I can still have a picture of Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Mumbles]

:lol

I don't even want to think about that.

I think people are missing the point. Love is something that goes beyond science and instances of love go beyond physical condition and even death.

But what does this have to do with it being the result of a physical process? Obviously, the memory of a person can easily evoke an emotional response, which is why we can feel emotions for people who are not within our immediate area. The idea of emotions being grounded physically does nothing to change this. As for what "part" of a person you're supposed to love, well, that clearly depends on the individual.

 

[Loki]

Wherein my response did I dismiss anthropology, art, language, philosophy, psychology, and history? I fail to see the connection.

You said that my beliefs are "not grounded in reality". You are either presuming to know something that you cannot know (i.e., that God doesn't exist), or you do not count the evidentiary lines that have informed my beliefs as "reality". Hence, my comment.

What "lines of evidence"? Evidence of god's existence? Where?

Again, I mentioned some of them by name, but in terms of providing specific examples from each, that would require me rehashing 5+ years of my thought process, which would be much more "labyrinthine" than what I've already posted.


If you think that it's possible for me to lay out 5+ years of my thoughts in attempting to "make the case for God", you're more insane than you suppose I am. I can't do it unless I put my life on hold for at least a couple of months so I could write. Since that's not about to happen, you'll just have to make due with what I've stated in this thread (none of which was "a case for God"), and realize that it is entirely possible for rational and sane people to come to different conclusions on these matters.

The point being, there is no conflicting evidence to lead a rational and sane individual to believe that there is a god.

Wrong. Last I checked, I was rational, and I was sane. I believe in God. All believers are insane? Quite the assertion.

So no rational and sane person can disagree with you on the notion of the existence of God? Interesting...


Beyond that, you've again clearly missed the aim of my posts up until this point, which were not concerned with providing said "conflicting evidence".

Don't condescend to me. I read your entire post, and I'm fairly confident I received your intended premise.

I honestly have no idea how you get that I was "condescending to you" from my post. It wasn't my intention, and I'm reasonably certain that most people wouldn't have interpreted it that way (referring to the portion of my post that you quoted to substantiate this claim). All I was saying is that I understand what you're saying, and I honestly feel that the answers to such question were contained in my previous posts; since if I tried to explain myself again, it would only come out looking roughly like what I've already posted, I stated that perhaps you should go read it again. That's not an insult-- when I said that I understand that my posts can be convoluted (perhaps unnecessarily-- though not purposely-- so), I was being honest. It was in no way a sarcastic remark along the lines of "har har, you're too stoopid to undertand what I said, d00d!!!1"-- I'm not like that. That said, however, if I honestly feel like I've stated the crux of the matter several times already, and since I do have other obligations besides this board, I figured it would be better for you to just look over the post again rather than spending another hour of my time typing out a differently phrased explanation.


Is that acceptable to you? I really don't get where you were coming from with that comment. If I wanted to condescend to you, it would be clear, not ambiguous (and that's being generous), as the quote you offered as proof of my supposed condescension was. I meant no harm. In other words, I feel that the way I originally explained it was the best that I could do, so what's the point in wasting hours of my time only to do a worse job of it the second time around? That's not condescension...

No. The non-existence of god is as accepted a truth as the transparency of water, the blue hue of a clear sky, and so on and so on and so on

Again, define "accepted". Accepted by whom? Accepted since when? You did say that atheism was a "time-tested" belief, you know; I attempted to speak to that assertion. Even if you limit "acceptance" to the academic/scientific community (which would be quite presumptuous, but I'll grant it), it is still the case that it was only from the late 19th century onward where a majority (i.e. > 50%) of academics and scientists held to atheistic doctrine. So, we have a span of ~130 years where your statement would hold (only for the scientific community, mind you). Considering the length of recorded history, 130 years is quite a short time indeed. Ergo, your statement-- that atheism is "an accepted truth that has stood the test of time"-- is fallacious.


And besides, if you only admit of the "acceptance" of scientists, who, as a group, are necessarily beholden to a scientific mentality (or at least place a great deal of emphasis on evidence that arises from science-- never mind that that evidence is merely inferential of God's non-existence, not "scientific" as classically understood; reread my posts if you're unclear on this), we then go back to square one, where I attempted to show why I personally feel that the "evidence" from science for God's non-existence carries no more weight than the non-scientific "evidence" for his existence/non-existence (all of which is then open to personal interpretation , as I said to Mumbles).

I live in the real world, brother -- and there ain't no god here.

I live in the real world, too, "brother". Nice to meet you.


Why the vehemence, btw? Did I come in here attempting to "prove" that what I personally believe is "right" or "true"? Did I attempt to convert you? Did I denigrate your beliefs? No, I did none of this. All I did was attempt to elaborate upon my own general thought process on these matters, and to give a perspective on things that perhaps others have not considered. We are allowed to offer our opinions and perspectives here, are we not? Since that's all I was doing, I find your continued insistence and antagonism, how shall we say...curmudgeonly? You're obviously under no obligation to agree with my thought process as expressed in my original post. That's why we're human beings-- we all have different thought processes and, hence, opinions. No harm, no foul.

Until then, though, I will regard the religious as nothing more than people who allow whimsical interpretations of physical phenomena to trump logic.

This, more than anything else you've said, clearly illustrates that you have not at all grasped what I've been saying. The distinctions (and the responses to such statements as this) are in my previous posts, if you care to find them.

By the way, Loki, you really should pare down your posts. They're needlessly labyrinthine.

We all have our faults. Some more than others.

You say that, but then you write...


Originally Posted by Loki:

Then again, "disbelief" of God is just as much of an inference as belief is-- the only difference between myself and an atheist is that one of us chooses to place tremendous stock in the empirical world, and one of us chooses to view it as equal (but not above) all the other lines of evidence alluded to.

And again, I'm not saying that you attempted to prove the existance of gods. I'm saying that the latter quote is not necessarily true. For example, I'd consider philosophy and my own experiences to be far more damaging to the notion of gods existing than science is, and the whole to be catastrophic to the notion

Ah, ok. I see how that particular quote of mine could be construed that way; I apologize. I was referring to atheists who mostly point to science as "proof" of the non-existence of God (and are adamant about it), not those who examine the sum total of the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that there is no God (as you have). I'm perfectly fine with that, and my stance as expressed in this thread is amenable to such interpretations. The rest of what I would say is in my previous reply to you.


My "stance" is amenable to agnosticism as well as what would, I guess, be called "weak" atheism (i.e., one stating that they believe that there is no God). "Strong" atheism, where one dogmatically asserts that God's non-existence is a fact (as XS+ has), like the existence of gravity is, is not only irreconcilable with my stance, but is also not reconcilable with the facts. Again, science is not an epistemology, and God cannot be studied empirically. Nor can science offer 100% positive "proof" of anything, whether that something is within its purview (such as attempting to describe physical phenomena) or is not (as in attempting to speak of metaphysical notions/supernatural phenomena, such as God).


I'm still waiting for XS+ to show me, precisely, how "the idea that 'god' exists is not immune to fundamental scientific scrutiny."



Dunno what else to say, really. All that I wanted to say was said in my first couple of posts in the thread, yet some people (I'm not naming names ) are still misinterpreting my statements and my aim in elaborating upon my beliefs. We're all free to disagree with one another, and my intention was never to either "prove" the existence of God (or to advance ANY arguments towards that end, which I have NOT done), or to "prove" that my personal thought process, as expressed in this thread, is "true/right/correct". It's just my personal belief.



<exeunt>.

 

[Gek54]

Secondly more importantly, you cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being.

An omnipotent and omniscient being would not make a mistake and would not need a heaven and hell. Any mistakes and the need for a heaven and hell would mean this being is fallable.

 

[Dilbert]

Secondly more importantly, you cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being.

What exactly does that mean? It sounds like you're dragging out the old scholastic "existence is a necessary property of a perfect being" argument, but perhaps you have something else in mind.

 

[karasu]

An omnipotent and omniscient being would not make a mistake and would not need a heaven and hell. Any mistakes and the need for a heaven and hell would mean this being is fallable.

Uh, No. Just because he is suppossed to be perfect, it doesn't mean that he would make his creations that way. if I were all powerful, I surely wouldn't create a bunch of all powerful people.

 

[Gek54]

Uh, No. Just because he is suppossed to be perfect, it doesn't mean that he would make his creations that way. if I were all powerful, I surely wouldn't create a bunch of all powerful people.

By definition an omniscient being knows everything. If such a being is responsible for creating you then this being would know before you exsist that you would commit sin and if you would go to heaven or hell.

 

[etiolate]

I think some are confusing love and infatuation. Now we get into what love is. That's a huge discussion and as a rule(which I've broken lately) I don't get into long forum debates. I know it's the forum habit, but think about things instead of just debating them.

And to be divergent again, why do the people here feel the need to disprove God and to do so to others?

 

[karasu]

By definition an omniscient being knows everything. If such a being is responsible for creating you then this being would know before you exsist that you would commit sin and if you would go to heaven or hell.

Assuming that's set in stone, and that this is the only version of me, and whatever the hell "hell" is.

 

[Gek54]

why do the people here feel the need to disprove God and to do so to others?

Becuase some people continue to argue that it cant be done.

Assuming that's set in stone, and that this is the only version of me, and whatever the hell "hell" is.

I would assume that knowing EVERYTHING means knowing the future. What other versions of you would there be?

 

[karasu]

if this being existed though, what's to say that there is a future to even be known. This world may not even be designed that way, if there is a god that is. If there was an all knowing guy out there, why in the world would I assume to understand his judgements and reasons for making decisions? We don't even understand other humans half of the time.

 

[Gek54]

Becuase our universe is governed but laws of physics, everything has a pattern. Only things that seem chaotic are becuase the pattern is not been discovered. Since the way we act and our decisions can be mapped down to the chemical reactions in our brain then accounting for all affecting variables would make it possible to predict how exactly a person would react. We are not yet able to fully account for all the variables in a manner that would allow us to make such predictions but we are indeed able to find patterns in simple human behavior that can be predicted with a degree of accuracy. Like the weather, the more we know about the variables our weather forcast can span further into the future and with better accuracy. If there is a omnipotent being he would be able to predict everything in the universe from the first second of its creation as to what would be, based purely on the knowledge of the laws of physics that govern our universe.

 

[Loki]

On a side note:

Cutest. Picture. Ever.

 

[Azih]

The only reason I said this

Secondly more importantly, you cannot disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being.

is to generally disparage XS+'s completely stupid statement that went

No. The non-existence of god is as accepted a truth as the transparency of water, the blue hue of a clear sky, and so on and so on and so on.

Where he's elevating the non existence of 'god' to clear and obvious fact when that is a predicate that can never be elvated to that status.

Yes, but that's mostly because the two attributes are worthlessly vague, due in part to the fact that they describe what something *isn't*, rather than what it *is*

They describe what it is just fine, all-powerful, all-knowing. These are the primary attributes of the monotheistic god and you cannot disprove the existence of such a being as XS+ did.

 

[XS+]

You said that my beliefs are "not grounded in reality". You are either presuming to know something that you cannot know (i.e., that God doesn't exist), or you do not count the evidentiary lines that have informed my beliefs as "reality". Hence, my comment.

I'm not privy to these "evidentiary lines," making it difficult for me to consider and respond to your beliefs. I will say that god does not exist in my reality. The idea that I cannot know that is absurd. God is a manufactured icon, hence the undue significance assigned this manufactured icon is not something I am obligated to acknowledge. One need not be omniscient to be of of the opinion that god is nothing more than an iconic devising of man.

Again, I mentioned some of them by name, but in terms of providing specific examples from each, that would require me rehashing 5+ years of my thought process, which would be much more "labyrinthine" than what I've already posted.

I don't think a brief elucidation of these examples would hurt. Did god speak to you through a dog? While the flushing the toilet, did a turd materialize into god? Just one example would help me understand where you're coming from.

entirely possible for rational and sane people to come to different conclusions on these matters.

It's extremely difficult for me to accept that rational and sane people can believe in god. And I mean no disrespect to anyone in this community that disagrees with me. I can assure you I do not. However, my reality is governed by the rules of logical practicality, a set of standards to which god does not comport. A belief in god seems to be driven more by emotion rather than reason.

Again, define "accepted". Accepted by whom? Accepted since when? You did say that atheism was a "time-tested" belief, you know; I attempted to speak to that assertion. Even if you limit "acceptance" to the academic/scientific community (which would be quite presumptuous, but I'll grant it), it is still the case that it was only from the late 19th century onward where a majority (i.e. > 50%) of academics and scientists held to atheistic doctrine. So, we have a span of ~130 years where your statement would hold (only for the scientific community, mind you). Considering the length of recorded history, 130 years is quite a short time indeed. Ergo, your statement-- that atheism is "an accepted truth that has stood the test of time"-- is fallacious.

You know what? I shouldn't have called it an accepted truth. That was wrong. Instead, I prefer a fact of life. Just as a clear sky is blue, god does not exist. And for those who'll immediately argue that I cannot make that assertion, the onus is not on me to prove god's existence. Right now, by the rules civilized society abides by, god doesn't exist.

And besides, if you only admit of the "acceptance" of scientists, who, as a group, are necessarily beholden to a scientific mentality (or at least place a great deal of emphasis on evidence that arises from science-- never mind that that evidence is merely inferential of God's non-existence, not "scientific" as classically understood; reread my posts if you're unclear on this), we then go back to square one, where I attempted to show why I personally feel that the "evidence" from science for God's non-existence carries no more weight than the non-scientific "evidence" for his existence/non-existence (all of which is then open to personal interpretation , as I said to Mumbles).

Science isn't personal interpretation. It's hard fact, a tangible source of enlightment that allows us to understand this world that we reside upon.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

And to be divergent again, why do the people here feel the need to disprove God and to do so to others?

Eh, the subject comes up, and it gets discussed. And by the title of the thread, I'm thinking it wasn't an atheist who started this one.

 

[iapetus]

You know what? I shouldn't have called it an accepted truth. That was wrong. Instead, I prefer a fact of life. Just as a clear sky is blue, god does not exist.

Which is nice, but you yourself said: "I know of no evidence excluding the possibility of there being a god".

I'm not asking for much, here. Either weaken your stance to "I accept that it is possible that a god exists, but I believe this is not the case" or retract your claim that you aren't a strong atheist, making a statement of fact - 'god does not exist' on the basis of faith rather than evidence (which you readily accept already is what you are doing).

Can't have it both ways.

What exactly does that mean? It sounds like you're dragging out the old scholastic "existence is a necessary property of a perfect being" argument, but perhaps you have something else in mind.

No, sounds more like a classical form of agnosticism. The idea that existence is a necessary property of a perfect being is a cheap and flawed approach to 'proving' the existence of God. The acceptance that an omnipotent being could always trick us into missing the evidence of its existence is an argument for it not being possible to prove things one way or the other.

 

[Loki]

I'm not privy to these "evidentiary lines," making it difficult for me to consider and respond to your beliefs.

But you are privy to them, as I stated what they were several times (anthropology, art, psychology, philosophy etc.). You made a statement that my beliefs were "not grounded in reality". I replied that they are grounded in reality, since the lines of evidence that I drew upon to shape my beliefs are all part of our reality. If you're instead defining "reality" as "the absolute truth of the matter", or as "that which we can prove empirically", then we're back to square one, because we, as humans, cannot state that anything is the "absolute truth of the matter" (science, when studying physical phenomena, comes closest to being able to do this, but even it cannot offer definitive "proof", only incredibly strong evidence); moreover, "that which we can prove empirically" by definition excludes God (you've yet to qualify your "the idea that 'god' exists is not immune to fundamental scientific scrutiny" remark, btw). This is all I've been trying to explain.

One need not be omniscient to be of of the opinion that god is nothing more than an iconic devising of man.

No, one need not be omniscient; all one must do is consider the weight of the evidence and arrive at such a conclusion (i.e., opinion). One cannot, however, go beyond that and assert that it is an absolute fact that God does not exist, which is all I am saying.

I don't think a brief elucidation of these examples would hurt. Did god speak to you through a dog? While the flushing the toilet, did a turd materialize into god? Just one example would help me understand where you're coming from.

It was the turd.


Seriously though, I'd rather not, because then it will just devolve into nitpicking/questioning etc., with people totally missing the very point I've made, which is that the conclusions I've reached, and the inferences I've drawn from the evidentiary lines I mentioned, are not necessary conclusions and inferences-- they are interpretive. So it wouldn't matter, ultimately, since I am not stating that what constituted "evidence towards God's existence" for me will be interpreted as the same for you. The fact remains, however (as iapetus has pointed out), that both of our conclusions are more or less well-supported inferences (which is all we can have as limited human beings).

It's extremely difficult for me to accept that rational and sane people can believe in god. And I mean no disrespect to anyone in this community that disagrees with me. I can assure you I do not. However, my reality is governed by the rules of logical practicality, a set of standards to which god does not comport

The very "logical practicality" you here espouse indicts the strong atheism you've exhibited in this thread, however. And I can respect the opinion that it is "difficult for you to accept that rational and sane people can believe in God"-- what I cannot accept is the statement that "no sane and rational people can believe in God". Again, I'm sane, and I'm rational. Forget, for a moment, about the notion of the limits of certainty of our knowledge that I've been elaborating upon in this thread, and at least realize that you won't make very many friends with that sort of mentality-- at least not with anyone but atheists.

You know what? I shouldn't have called it an accepted truth. That was wrong. Instead, I prefer a fact of life. Just as a clear sky is blue, god does not exist. And for those who'll immediately argue that I cannot make that assertion, the onus is not on me to prove god's existence. Right now, by the rules civilized society abides by, god doesn't exist.

The point is that there's no "onus" anywhere. If I were claiming that what I believe (i.e., that God exists) is a fact, yes, the onus would be on me to prove such a claim. However, if you'll note, I've made no claims to absolute truth or factuality. You must understand my posts in their proper context, which I believe you heretofore have not.


Also, what is this "civilized society" you speak of? If we're speaking of western nations, then according to the 2001 World Almanac, 3.5% of Europeans identify themselves as atheists, and .5% of North Americans identify themselves as such. Even if we quadruple all these figures, you're still talking about a decided minority of the populace in western nations. So what are these "rules that civilized society abides by", and which are the "civilized societies" you are referencing? I'm just curious...


If by "civilized society" you mean "those who agree with my conclusions", well, that's just...odd.

Science isn't personal interpretation. It's hard fact...

Science is hard fact when it is speaking on that which is within its ambit; "God", by its very definition, does not lie within this scope. Science then becomes inferential (not factually authoritative) of the existence/non-existence of God. So science is, in fact, interpretive when speaking on such matters. When speaking of things such as physics or geology, however, science is not interpretive, but factual. Physics and geology, however, are not germane to the examination of God (or at least are no more pertinent than dozens of other things-- the other "evidentiary lines" I spoke of-- are).


In other words, though it is quite fine to examine the scientific (and other) evidence and say "hey, this scientific view of the world is coherent and logical to me, and it doesn't include room for God", it is not logical to assert that science "disproves God", for the reasons stated above. With the former, you're stating your opinion, and an inference you drew from the evidence; with the latter, you're dogmatically asserting something as fact, despite the fact that we cannot know anything with certainty, particularly when the thing we're trying to "know" is not amenable to traditional (scientific) inquiry.



In the end, all we have are inferences, opinions, and beliefs...not facts. This holds for atheists and believers alike; this is why I didn't waltz in here trying to "prove" anything or convert anyone, or stating that my beliefs are "correct" and others' aren't. My belief-- which is an informed (read: not illogical) belief-- is fine for me, and your belief is fine for you. I have no problem with that. Do you?

 

[Dilbert]

No, sounds more like a classical form of agnosticism. The idea that existence is a necessary property of a perfect being is a cheap and flawed approach to 'proving' the existence of God. The acceptance that an omnipotent being could always trick us into missing the evidence of its existence is an argument for it not being possible to prove things one way or the other.

Ah...got it. It also works from the point of view that human perception and reason may be limited to the point that we cannot understand. Sehr gut.

 

[Docwiz]

So you have TOLERANCE for anything Homosexual, abortion and all the like and even Muslims but not Christianity?

It's like Rednecks trying to be educated.

 

[Loki]

So you have TOLERANCE for anything Homosexual, abortion and all the like and even Muslims but not Christianity?

It's like Rednecks trying to be educated.

Who are you addressing?

 

[Boogie]

So you have TOLERANCE for anything Homosexual, abortion and all the like and even Muslims but not Christianity?

It's like Rednecks trying to be educated.

the hell? I think the discussion in this thread is a little beyond your shtick, why don't you go running back to your thread decrying how liberals have been ruining America since the 60s?

 

[Hitokage]

Science is not concerned with things that are not testable. The idea that some being using some means created the universe is not a testable claim. Of course, once you start assigning attributes to this being, it becomes less untestable at least from a logical perspective.

 

[FightyF]

My belief-- which is an informed (read: not illogical) belief-- is fine for me, and your belief is fine for you. I have no problem with that. Do you?

Well, we know that some of your ideas and beliefs are based on misinformation.

I don't think anyone can say that they have an informed belief, unless they know everything there is to know. With new information, beliefs can change.

 

[Loki]

Science is not concerned with things that are not testable. The idea that some being using some means created the universe is not a testable claim. Of course, once you start assigning attributes to this being, it becomes less untestable at least from a logical perspective.

Yes, if you're speaking of "attributes" that can be tested. I don't think that "attributes" can be tested so much as "means" or "specific actions/events" can. So if a creationist says that the earth (and all its life) was created in 7 literal days (i.e., the means/process God employed to achieve some end), science can test that claim, and if they say that there was a worldwide deluge circa 4000 years ago, science can test that claim as well. But if a religious person states that God is "absolutely good" (i.e., an attribute), that is not a claim that can be tested scientifically on some observable dimension; all you'd be able to do is draw inferences from various phenomena (say, the prevalence of suffering, perhaps). Still, this would be an inference (however strong), not science, and there are numerous philosophical assumptions tied up in such discussions on all sides imo.

 

[Drinky Crow]

So you have TOLERANCE for anything Homosexual, abortion and all the like and even Muslims but not Christianity?

Of course we have tolerance for Christianity. It should be allowed to exist and its adherents should be allowed to practice it, but it shouldn't be granted any favored status over any other religion, nor should it be punished. Like abortion, homosexuality, and Islam, it's SOMETHING PEOPLE DO that doesn't do any immediate demonstrable harm to others assuming ALL OF ITS PARTICIPANTS ARE WILLING AND KEEP IT AMONGST THEMSELVES. (Well, alright, abortion is debatable if you consider the fetus a participant, but the very fact that it's debatable indicates that we should fall safely on the side of tolerance until we get a definitive agreement from society as large.)

Making kids who aren't Christian praise your deity of choice is coercion, not tolerance. On the other hand, kids who ARE Christian shouldn't be prevented from praising their God in school and speaking whatever religious addendums their parents/pastors teach them to tack onto the secular creeds of state.

 

[Loki]

Well, we know that some of your ideas and beliefs are based on misinformation.

I don't think anyone can say that they have an informed belief, unless they know everything there is to know. With new information, beliefs can change.

Huh? Stating that a belief is "more or less informed" (this phraseology simply means that it is informed to some degree, not that it is perfectly informed, which none of our beliefs are) is very different from stating that it is not based at all on any misinformation. Misinformation is not exclusive to any group, religious or atheist. Sure, if an atheist only looks at the scientific evidence and then draws the inference that there is no God, then they are not "misinformed", per se, but rather have simply possibly drawn a mistaken inference.


I really don't know what you're getting at with your post. Yes, beliefs can change as we encounter new information; no, nobody can say that they have a "perfectly informed" or "perfectly correct" belief. If that's all you were stating, then I agree.

 

[Hitokage]

Loki: "at least from a logical perspective".

 

[Synbios459]

This may sound like a stupid question to be posting here, but does ANYONE believe in sex after marriage?

 

[Gek54]

This may sound like a stupid question to be posting here, but does ANYONE believe in sex after marriage?

It exists just not with each other.



Oh and EVERYTHING is relative.

 

[Loki]

Loki: "at least from a logical perspective".

<harumph>

Evasive sophistry...


(yes, I'm well-aware of the irony of me making that remark)

 

[iapetus]

Of course we have tolerance for Christianity. It should be allowed to exist and its adherents should be allowed to practice it, but it shouldn't be granted any favored status over any other religion, nor should it be punished. Like abortion, homosexuality, and Islam, it's SOMETHING PEOPLE DO that doesn't do any immediate demonstrable harm to others assuming ALL OF ITS PARTICIPANTS ARE WILLING AND KEEP IT AMONGST THEMSELVES.

Amen.

So to speak.