datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
Um, isn't half the point of being Atheist is that it isn't organized like some religion? 
Anyway, I'm an Atheist. Not because I think that the existence of God can be determined, but because I believe being an Atheist is the default belief and untill I have been show otherwise that is what I am sticking with. In fact, it isn't so much a belief as a non belief.
Sort of like the Tooth Fairy. If you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, it doesn't mean you go out of your way to not believe in her. Simply, you have never been show any evidence that she exists, ergo you don't believe in her.
It isn't "I believe God doesn't exist", but rather "I have no reason to believe that God exists." See the distinction?
Now, for a story that describes what I feel rather well.
The following is an excerpt from The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In the Dark by Carl Sagan.
The Dragon In My Garage[
by
Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.
Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Anyway, I'm an Atheist. Not because I think that the existence of God can be determined, but because I believe being an Atheist is the default belief and untill I have been show otherwise that is what I am sticking with. In fact, it isn't so much a belief as a non belief.
Sort of like the Tooth Fairy. If you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, it doesn't mean you go out of your way to not believe in her. Simply, you have never been show any evidence that she exists, ergo you don't believe in her.
It isn't "I believe God doesn't exist", but rather "I have no reason to believe that God exists." See the distinction?
Now, for a story that describes what I feel rather well.
The following is an excerpt from The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In the Dark by Carl Sagan.
The Dragon In My Garage[
by
Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.
Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
This whole 'burden of proof' thing is irrelevant. Because there are some things that can't be proved, yet doesnt make them any less true. There's actually a proof for that.
Originally posted by: datalink7
So wait, there is proof or there isn't?
There's a proof that within any logical system, there are true statements that cannot be proven. Godel's Incompleteness theorem. 'God exists' can conceivably be one of those statements. Especially when you consider God falls outside our boundaries of understanding.
Change your avatar MercenaryForHire, everytime you post and I see the snake, I think of Rallispec
Originally posted by: synchronizer
Change your avatar MercenaryForHire, everytime you post and I see the snake, I think of Rallispec
Go vigorously fornicate yourself.
I haven't changed name or avatar since I registered, and I don't intend to. - M4H
datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
Originally posted by: puffff
Originally posted by: datalink7
So wait, there is proof or there isn't?
There's a proof that within any logical system, there are true statements that cannot be proven. Godel's Incompleteness theorem. 'God exists' can conceivably be one of those statements. Especially when you consider God falls outside our boundaries of understanding.
Ok... but then what is the point? It could conceivably be true that we can all turn invisible if we could just harness the magic energy flowing around us... however, what's the point in believing in something which there is no evidence for and you cannot prove?
Your right man. All that "proof" and "facts" stuff is really overrated. Thank you for bringing me to the realization that fairies DO exist. While we're at it, let's throw in dragons, mermaids, Zeus, and all the other magical characters we loved as kids. After all who needs that proof stuff anyway. As you said, some things can't be proven.Originally posted by: puffff
Originally posted by: datalink7
So wait, there is proof or there isn't?
There's a proof that within any logical system, there are true statements that cannot be proven. Godel's Incompleteness theorem. 'God exists' can conceivably be one of those statements. Especially when you consider God falls outside our boundaries of understanding.
Let just call it what it is. God is just Santa Clause for adults.
To be quite honest, whose to say what religion is the right one? This is what set me off. Each religion professes that it is the one and only true one, and yet, over 500 different religions exist, not counting the schisms in the christian religion. IF there was a god, then why would he allow such fighting in his name?
Why even argue it? Someone making a claim has the burden of proof. Saying atheists need to prove their claim is a ridiculous rationalization for the way you instinctually feel - yes, I said instinctually. Much like many, many other things (a great deal more than we like to admit, living in an existential society), tendency toward religion is hardwired in us. It's been theorized that this is because as our species was developing, those who believed were more likely to be a part of or higher up in a society, and thus live longer & healthier, thus procreate more. I'll admit that, living as a nomad, it would be hard to envision the sort of society we have today. Religion may have been the only way to achieve it; the promise of a better life may not have been enough alone. Fear and awe of something much greater than us may have been the only spur which would work. At any rate, like our instinct to eat too many fatty foods, it's now doing us more harm than good and is no longer needed. The two biggest manifestations of this are abortion and stem-cell research, both opposed by religion (mostly).
Originally posted by: datalink7
Originally posted by: puffff
Originally posted by: datalink7
So wait, there is proof or there isn't?
There's a proof that within any logical system, there are true statements that cannot be proven. Godel's Incompleteness theorem. 'God exists' can conceivably be one of those statements. Especially when you consider God falls outside our boundaries of understanding.
Ok... but then what is the point? It could conceivably be true that we can all turn invisible if we could just harness the magic energy flowing around us... however, what's the point in believing in something which there is no evidence for and you cannot prove?
I'm not a biologist or physicist or anything, but there very well might be scientific proof that our cells are incapable of absorbing all light, necessary to make us 'invisible'. Something like that certainly seems provable. But you're right in a sense, what if there IS this magical energy around us that we can tap into? With any logical system, you have to start with certain undeniable truths. The theory of math, for example, comes with I believe 7 very basic axioms, like x+1 = x', from which we further prove x+y = y+x, etc. Geometry, one of the starting axioms is that given any line and point, there is only one line through that point parallel to the original line. These things we've held to be true, because they serve our practical world, and we don't find any inconsistencies between what we do in theory and what we do in practice.
But we can always go back to the very beginning, and if we question any one of the axioms we started with, our whole logical structure crumbles. That's how concepts like non-Euclidean geometry came about. They have their own set of theories and proofs, all stemming from someone questioning the parallel postulate I mentioned before.
Now, back to your magical energy. That just doesn't go with our current science. Just like how scientists years ago considered ether as the medium for light, and then dismissed it, because it just didnt fall in place with all the other theorems already proved.
Why believe in a God we can't prove? I really can't answer that, because my opinion is that I don't believe in God, but I can't totally rule out God's existence. People who believe in God are using God exists as one of the original axioms that they build their logical system upon. From atheists perspectives, this system might appear like total crap because it differs from what they've built up assuming God doesn't exist, but from religious people's perspectives, it probably makes perfect sense.
. . . You have nothing to lose but your souls. Er, wait a minute, that sounds bad.
JK, give a vote for the anti-God bus.
JK, give a vote for the anti-God bus.
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Let just call it what it is. God is just Santa Clause for adults.
:beer:
- M4H
JackBurton
Agreed
The boss
Great post. Good way to start the thread.
That makes sense and to be honest, I never thought of it that way. It is an interesting way of putting it.
Though based on boss's post, I fall somewhat between agnostic borderlining on atheism and find the whole system to be "total crap". You would imagine that if you're creating undeniable truths that you would atleast have some evidence of their existance.
Agreed
The boss
Great post. Good way to start the thread.
That makes sense and to be honest, I never thought of it that way. It is an interesting way of putting it.
Though based on boss's post, I fall somewhat between agnostic borderlining on atheism and find the whole system to be "total crap". You would imagine that if you're creating undeniable truths that you would atleast have some evidence of their existance.
I'll put in my 2 cents. To believe that our proven scientific knowledge is the boundary of existence is completely insane. With the vastness of the universe, I believe that we only comprehend a small percent of everything to be known. So, if we cannot prove whether there is a God or not - I think it makes no sense to take the uncompromising line that there IS NO God. Who knows if one day we will reach a point where it will be proveable- one way or another. Until then, I would hope that everyone would leave the possibility of God's existence atleast open in their minds. No reason to take a hard stand on a fact at the finish line when we are only just out of the gate.
Siegfried and Roy! Two, that's right, TWO magic fairies!Originally posted by: JackBurton
Notice I specified magic fairies.Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Heh,heh, you have obviously never been to West Hollywood, it has a plethora of fairies.
I win.
I belong to the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great and mystical powers. We know this because they are capable of being both invisible and pink at the same time. The religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based on both faith and logic. Faith tells us that they are pink; through logic, we know that they are invisible.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter