User:Sam Spade/Talk:Theoretical Biases/Atheism thread

You may also be interested in Robert Tilton, a particularly wicked, yet absurdly funny evangelist. Sam Spade 18:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and orgone and esp. orgoneblasters are hilarious ;) Sam Spade 18:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats not surprising, I see "wicked evangelist" as an example of tautology =D - UnlimitedAccess 18:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I think Atheism = Nihilism = satanism = blaspheme of the holy spirit = amalek, but I thought were were avoiding naughty debate? ;) Sam Spade 18:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I didnt think you would oppose it. Each to their own beliefs.... evangelists go out of their way to convert others. For me, Evangelist == Preacher == Arrogance == Wicked, I am equally apposed to Skeptical Evangelists as I am Religious Evangelists. Talking with others is good, talking at other is bad. As an aside, I know you cant really believe that all Atheists == Nihilism, Skeptics have several assumptions (ie beliefs) such as the laws of negation and the laws of causality just to name two. Atheists who dont believe in causality/negation etc are outside my realm of caring and you can equate them to anything you please. :) - UnlimitedAccess 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skeptics and atheists are completely different, You sound like an agnostic to me. Atheists deny God based on "faith" (or sheer wickedness) despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Sam Spade 20:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. Your assuming Strong Atheists and Weak Atheists are the same thing. It is a logical falisy to deny the existance of anything. For example, I dont believe in flying elephants because, I have never seen one, I have never heard of anyone seeing one, theirfore their is no reason for me to conclude they are real. However it is a logical falisy to deny they exist, because their is a possible world where a flying elephant is real but has never been seen (or reported) by humans. Its possible, but until evidence arises of their existance, I dont believe in them. So even though I dont believe in them, it is a logical falisy to deny them. Same goes for God. I dont believe in God, but I dont deny his existance because that would be anti Skeptical and be a logical falisy. When people generally refer to Atheists, they imply a weak Atheist. Their is another term for strong atheist, but the term escapes me. Skeptics are opposed to strong atheists, as should any rational being. Agnostics dont believe in or deny Gods existance, Atheists on the other hand dont believe in God, but dont deny his existance either (or anything else for that matter). - UnlimitedAccess 20:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "abundant evidence to the contrary" only reinforces already existing theological beliefs, the "evidence" found does not confirm or deny God's existance. As I said, faith is the belief in something despite traditional evidence contradicts it. Belief in God is a faith. When evidence arises of his existance, the existance of God is no longer about faith, but becomes a science. If evidence ever arose that confirmed Gods existance it would be the greatest scientific discover man has ever made! But until such a time, personally as a Skeptic, my belief in Gods existance is as much a wasted exercise as it is to support flying elephants. People who belief in God dont need evidence, because they have the already existant underlying assumption of faith that he is real, and that is admirable. - UnlimitedAccess 21:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The person who thinks he hasn't seen proof of God is you, or another agnostic. Most of us have achieved that "great scientific discovery". As far as all this "proof of existence" bit... I exist. You exist. Even if I was an Epiphenomenalist, you would still exist. Why? Because you are doing things, because I experience you, because someone can imagine you. You are something, even if we are all part of a whole. All of these imagined animals and other foolishness have nothing to do w God's existence. They exist because you imagine them. You exist because God wills it. I am proof of God, and so is everything else, including you. Sam Spade 21:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The person who thinks he hasn't seen proof of God is you, or another agnostic."

Skeptics follow the evidence, no eveidence has confirmed the existance of God, unless you already have the bias he exists to begin with. Its a moot point. You cant prove he exists, and it is a logical falisy to disprove anything. I dont care if their is a god or not, much like I dont care if their are flying elephants, I dont believe they exist until their is evidence. If evidence arises that confirms his existance or the flying elephant give me a call.

"Most of us have achieved that "great scientific discovery""

Incorrect, their is nothing scientific about your belief. What scientific peer reviewed jounal was this discovery published in, that of course survived scientific scrutiny so I can review it? Its not science if the evidence isnt falsifiable. As a Skeptic I am only interest in evidence, your intuition or faith is irrelevant to me.

"As far as all this "proof of existence" bit... I exist. You exist. Even if I was an Epiphenomenalist, you would still exist. Why? Because you are doing things, because I experience you, because someone can imagine you. You are something, even if we are all part of a whole. All of these imagined animals and other foolishness have nothing to do w God's existence. They exist because you imagine them. You exist because God wills it. I am proof of God, and so is everything else, including you. Sam Spade 21:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Double speak, the belief that I exist proves nothing except I believe I exist, it implies nothing else. Show me in clausal form logic or predicate calculus or a semantic net or Aristotelian logic that I exist therefore God exists, and you will find that the logical falsehoods will cancel out all the varibles.

This is a wasteful discussion. No scientific evidence exists to prove Gods existance.... nor the existance of flying elephants nor monkeys made of glass...nor an infinite amount of things and it is a logical falsehood to attempt to disprove them. I require scientific evidence, you dont, because you have the undelying assumption that he already exists, whereas I need evidence. - UnlimitedAccess 22:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pray. Study. Try hard to be a nice person, and please.. don't make science a dirty word. The farther religion and science grow apart, the more wrong they become. The closer they combine, the more healthy and accurate. In reality science and religion are the same thing: the study and understanding of what is. Tat tvam asi. Sam Spade 23:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However 'science' studies what we can see, hear, smell, taste and touch with the only assumption being that; what we see and hear is real. It has the assumption of the laws of negation and the laws of consequences etc. Religion on the other hand starts off with one giant underlying assumption, of the existance of God. There is a world of difference between believing in an almight deity and believing that im eating a bowl of cornflakes (I would offend many religious people if I said they were the same kind of belief). For it to be called "science" the process needs to be challenging and re-challenging all assumptions it makes, however for religon, God's existance could never be challenged... it is a faith not a science. For it to be science, everything has to be questionable and verifyiable...... religion contains neither of those two things, and those two attributes are the only reason science is useful. - UnlimitedAccess 23:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everything is questionable, and most things are verifiable (at least in theory). You can verify God alot of ways, if praying is to difficult, a bullet to the head might work ;) As far as questioning him, thats agnosticism, which doesn't offend me much. Outright denying or rejecting him on the other hand is a mortal sin in my book. Anyhow, science and religion mix nicely, just see Monism. Sam Spade 00:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Everything is questionable (in religion)"

No its not, religion doesnt even question whether their is such a thing as sin, nor does it question if their is a God, most dont question their theological dogmatic texts, which often have huge lists of things to believe. Religion doesnt question any of it, therefore it isnt a science. Science is only useful Iff it's questionable and verifiable, religion isnt. - UnlimitedAccess 02:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"As far as questioning him, thats agnosticism, which doesn't offend me much."

Your argueing a different point here. Religion doesnt question him, agnostics see no reason to belief in god (non belief), Atheists require emphirical studies and evidence to believe in anything and conclude it is a non-debate, their is no evidence therefore it is wasteful to believe in God (disbelieve), hard atheists against logic, sit their and try to prove God doesnt exist (its a waist of time, how can you prove nothing?, its a logical fallacy). - UnlimitedAccess 02:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Outright denying or rejecting him on the other hand is a mortal sin in my book. Anyhow, science and religion mix nicely, just see Monism."

Monism is fine, but the religous/spiritual version of it has as much to do with science as scientology and christian science, ie none. Science to be science has to be questionable and verifyiable and when being interwined with faith of any kind it loses all usefulness of science, because faith is not questionable and/or verifyiable - UnlimitedAccess 02:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't chop up my text. Instead of rewriting it to suit your laughable arguments (religion doesn't question itself, and metaphysics / theology / philosophy has nothing to do with science), please, just read what i said over again, calmly. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Instead of calling them laughable, how about you counter any point I have made.

So you believe religion questions itself? Faith is not questionable by its very definition. You have faith even though their is no evidence to support it, it simply wouldnt be faith if their was evidence, it would be called common sense. The reason its faith is because you believe it for no reason except a personal one. Do you have faith? If you answer "yes", then by its very definition you dont question it, other wise it would just be called reason or common sense.

And no, philosiphy or any of those have nothing to do with Science. For example, take String Theory, it is a theory studied by some physicists, it involves suggesting the inside of Atoms components, Eletrons, Neutrons and Eletrons are not spheres like the classical model, but instead are tiny kinetic strings. However since we have never seen, Eletrons, Neutrons or Eletrons we can not verify or deny String Theory.... thus its not verifiable, therefore String thoery is considered a philosiphy, NOT A SCIENCE. Philosiphy studies the world in a abstract/metaphysical manner that isnt verifiable.... You cant prove philosiphy wrong, thus it isnt a science... Just as Theology in all its forms have nothing to do with science. Science by its very definition is a methodology to study the world that is verifiable and questionable. - UnlimitedAccess 10:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy is verifiable, religion questions itself, and I have precious little "faith" in anything. Faith may describe my level of confidence in getting across the street alive in my village, but that would likely be an exaggeration. "Faith" to me implies baseless confidence, and frankly I have nearly none of that. Rather I have absolute knowledge of something’s (my existence and God's existence), and inductive guesswork regarding most other things. You can verify a philosophy by comprehending it. Think about epiphenomenalism for a minute, and if you succeed in putting on that paradigm, you have succeeded in proving that it is an existent philosophy. What religion doesn't question itself? Islam maybe? In Christianity we have figures such as Thomas Aquinas, Georg Cantor, Blaise Pascal and William Dembski, to name a few, and in the east we have untold legions, but Adi Shankara will suffice ;) All of these men responded to doubts, criticisms, and questions great and small. Your inability or desire not to detect God in no way interferes w the ability of the vast majority to know him readily and personally. Again, I suggest prayer, study, and struggle towards altruism and righteousness. That is where God is to be found. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:59, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry was studying for exams. When I say verify, I mean verify using the scientific method (anything else is useless), philosiphy cannot be verified using the scientific method. Philosiphy contains oppinions that cant be cross refferenced with reality, their is no experiment or control that can be done to verify philosiphy. You can personally believe its true, but personal oppinion and all forms of anacdotal evidence are irrelevant..... it cant ve verified. Thats the distinction between science and philosiphy. Science nevers asks the why question... because that is abstract and interpretational and is subject to bias. Science asks the How... Philosiphy asks the Why...

And when I say "questions itself"... I mean questions EVERYTHING.... you cant have religious people that do or dont believe in God... its a contradiction, the existance of God isnt questioned, those that do question it are no longer described as being religious. You mentioned Sin.... you even described an example of what you believe is Sin... but how do you know their is sin? You dont question it... thats what im talking about... Religion doesnt question itself... this lack of questioning is called faith, deal with it :P. Believing in God, Sin, the Bible (or even one page of it) are all examples of faith. - UnlimitedAccess 1 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Certainly not. For starters, there is nothing magic about the scientific method. It is a process which helps to evaluate certain phenomena. Sadly, it gets all to little use, but thats a completely different topic. As far as "questions everything", yes, lots of religious people question everything, and religious atheism is extremely common. Even if we ignore buddhism, and focus sheerly on christianity, there are plenty of christian, church going atheists, or questioners of God, existence, and who knows what-all. Sometimes I suspect they are the majority.

As far as all this sin business, of course it doesn't require faith. Some things are bad, and I know it. I don't believe it despite evidence to the contrary, rather it is an obvious perceptual fact. Maybe you don't think anything is bad. I have a friend who feels that way. He believes that everything is great, perfect even, and that some people just don't realize it. Apparently this awareness of perfection would be enlightenment. Maybe he's right, but in my paradigm there is bad stuff (like denying God, existence, and other obvious truths) and I oppose it. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 2 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)

You cant have Sin without faith. Bad does not equal Sin... My morality for me determins whats good and bad, whereas other people use Religious texts and the concepts of sin to define their morality. Sin only exists in this realm of faith, outside of those that are religious we dont call it sin... we call it common sense mixed with a good upbringing.

Also you didnt address my point on the distinction between Science and Philosiphy/Theologigy... The two groups are the complete opposite, Science requires empirical evidence via the scientific method and the other does not. Philosiphy / Theology that survives the scientific method would no longer be Philosiphy or Theology, they would be a science, so the two groups could never be the same.

Religious Atheists dont use the scientific method nor do they question everything, their outside my realm of caring. Someone who questions EVERYTHING, questions all assumptions and has only the bare minimum such as what we see/smell/touch/hear is real, anyone who is religious has a lot more assumptions then those bare minimum, therefore they dont question everything. These extra assumptions are faith. You have it, belief in God is one of assumptions/faith; not one of reason. - UnlimitedAccess 4 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)

I have a ligitmate question. How do you know God isnt a super intelligent monkey or an Alien? - UnlimitedAccess 4 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

This is getting silly ;) That is your personal definition of sin. I don't use religious texts to tell me what is right and wrong, I just know. My inner light / super conscious tells me. Similarly, I see no useful division betwixt science, philosophy, religion and logic. They all run together for me. Look in to Ayurveda, or Traditional Chinese medicine. As for the demiurge, pink unicorn or supermonkey, that’s not my God. My God is the foundation of existence, not some anthropomorphized caricature. Phantasms and cartoonish amusements are indeed real, there is a material basis even in imaginings (I am a monist, so even thought is real to me), but have little relevance in a discussion of this sort. Sure, maybe there is Zeus on mount Olympus, and maybe he hides behind a cloud when modern men go to look for him. But Zeus is not my God, nor any other singular aspect, but rather existence itself. My God is the foundation of being. He is here, now and always, proving himself to you, by your very existence and experience. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

The word sin is only used by those with faith. Agnostics, skeptics and others dont use the term, sin has a specific meaning in relation to religion and has to do with devine morality, not regular morality.

"My inner light / super conscious tells me." How do you know it really is an inner light, what tool have you measured it with, and what independant enquiry and double blind test was performed? As I said, skeptics dont believe in anything but the bare assumptions (what we see is real), all this stuff is waffle because it cant be verified. If you havnt used an external independant enquiry how do you know its not an inner monkey?

"science, philosophy, religion and logic", I have told you the definition, science uses the scientific method, the others do not..... deal with it, that is THE definition of science, anything else is a perversion of it. Btw, Logic is a tool to be used... it is not comparitive to the other three.

"They all run together for me. Look in to Ayurveda, or Traditional Chinese medicine" if Traditional Chinese medicine is ever verified scientifically, it will become part of science and have no links to spirtualism or anything else, until then it is just hocus pocus.

"My God is the foundation of existence, not some anthropomorphized caricature", no I didnt ask you what you believed, I asked you how do you know he isnt a super intelligent monkey? - UnlimitedAccess 6 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the egoism and arrogance of your ignorance has reached such a fevered pitch that I am no longer interested in continuing this dialogue. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Well I did warn you this would happen if we started to begin with, but please their is no need for insults. As I said we are polar opposites with no chance of meeting a middle ground :), friends? - UnlimitedAccess 8 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)

p.s. I later apologised for my terseness here, which UnlimitedAccess graciously accepted. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)