Rank your religiousness II

[oskar]

In celebration of reaching 100 pages on my original thread here:
Rank your religiousness. - Page 100

I'm going to restart this here.
I still dunno why the original thread gets so much attention. 4 years! geez peeplz.
linuxquestions really needs a sexy thread.

[pantherhound]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank God

















For making me an atheist

[StarGrinder]

Atheist and it's not even close. I'm too open-minded to think otherwise. Thoughts on other religions? Jews and Buddhists are cool while I consider a large population of Muslims, 'Witnesses' and Christians mentally ill. No offense to those who aren't mentally ill but you may want to talk to your people.

[a500lbgorilla]

My thoughts on the matter are this: If God exists, no one has ever known anything about Her/Him/It/some other word; and of the many ways which lead to supposing a God, none seem to support any validity.

Also, agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist are not exclusive. I'm an agnostic atheist because of the many difficulties in knowing for certain something. You can be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic theist/deist. A/gnostic is just a way of saying whether you know with certainty or not. It's an aside, since the poll makes sense without considering this.

I'd assume most everyone would be agnostic about their beliefs however they may fall. Though some do brush their agnosticism away by using faith to build their confidence.

[CoccoBill]

I'd consider myself an agnostic atheist or a pragmatic agnostic. Celestial tea pot agnosticism will do also.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[a500lbgorilla]

I like pragmatic agnostic and I'm taking it. I still wouldn't back down from self-identifying as an atheist, though.

[kiwiMark]

I'm definitely an atheist, although I don't like that that the title often seems to put me in this group of people that go out of their way to feel superior and to make it clear that they find laughable everyone of any religious persuasion at all. In fairness I too enjoy a good laugh at people that believe silly things in silly ways, but you don't need to be a wanker about it I guess, and being religious certainly isn't synonymous with that anyway.

[BennyLaRue]

Can it be a sequel if the first was on another board? This is a remake, imo, or at least a reboot.

[swiggidy]

Who is that girl?

I can't support people making life decisions based on imaginary figures (sorry star wars fans). I also don't apply labels to myself.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm definitely an atheist, although I don't like that that the title often seems to put me in this group of people that go out of their way to feel superior and to make it clear that they find laughable everyone of any religious persuasion at all. In fairness I too enjoy a good laugh at people that believe silly things in silly ways, but you don't need to be a wanker about it I guess, and being religious certainly isn't synonymous with that anyway.

I hold it this way - I've never met a douchebag/bitch who I would later identify for being a douchebag/bitch because of his/her a/theism.

Atheists have shit for branding these days, especially in America, and every atheist knows that this has nothing to do with them. Some might be dicks, but they occur at the same frequency as in any large group of people.

Can it be a sequel if the first was on another board? This is a remake, imo, or at least a reboot.

lol, what?

Who is that girl?

I can't support people making life decisions based on imaginary figures (sorry star wars fans). I also don't apply labels to myself.

Yeah, I know the feeling. I always thought if I gave anyone a stack of dossiers containing no names, no identifying pieces of information, just a list of every label that accurately applied to that person, few would be able to perfectly place each list of labels to each person even if those people were their closest friends/family members. Beyond that, you may be given a dossier of someone's full list of applicable titles and still not know that person any better than a hole in the ground (or the hole in the ground equivalent of people).

Still, sometimes you come to a title that doesn't grant you any better lot in life and accept it because it's true. Do you believe in any Gods that you've heard of? Do you believe in any Gods that you haven't heard of? Do you know this with any certainty? No matter your answer to these questions, there (are more questions and) is a title for you.

[BennyLaRue]

lol, what?

DID I STUTTER? [/toughguy]

[a500lbgorilla]

But the option isn't then that there is a possible god. That assertion is itself an attempt to fathom what you claim to not fathom. Any meaningful concept of god imposes a plethora of different things into existence

QFT

Apparently math is wrong
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...-a-186662.html

If I had buttons, this would literally be my hottest button. I still haven't any appreciation for spoon/lukie's belief that the problem is well defined.

edit seriously hottest button. This problem has nothing to do with the math of the problem and everything to do with the grammar of the problem. It's more about communicating an answer than deriving an answer.

edit edit I look like, feel like, and am a douche for still bringing this up but I'm right gods dammit.

DID I STUTTER? [/toughguy]

Uh, yessa massa... you did.

[oskar]

Who is that girl?

I dunno. Just some pic I found in my pic folder.

[philly and the phanatics]

lol idk i feel like there has to be something..obviously i dont think there some big guy in the sky listening to my prayers or helping athletes win sports championships, but idk theres gotta be some sort of magic that makes the world go round and put it here in the first place. The fact that we are self aware or sentient or w/e just blows my mind. It all blows my mind. Thats why i am an agnostic. It is all too much for me to fathom.

[wufwugy]

The fact that we are self aware or sentient or w/e just blows my mind. It all blows my mind. Thats why i am an agnostic. It is all too much for me to fathom.

But the option isn't then that there is a possible god. That assertion is itself an attempt to fathom what you claim to not fathom. Any meaningful concept of god imposes a plethora of different things into existence

The truth of the whole thing is born out of quantum mechanics. We peer as deeply as we can, and we see the Universe is fundamentally irrational. Everything and nothing, simultaneously and never, created and uncreated...is the best description we have of existence. There is no room for a god-like being. God is a simple logistical impossibility

Not to mention that quantum mechanics has proven to us the oh so obvious truth of existence that so few philosophers have noticed. That is, the most fundamental "thing" can be nothing other than senselessness. A fundamental that makes sense is by definition not fundamental because it has a building block called "sense" or structure. If you break everything down into its most fundamental, you find it all exactly that, "broken down".

And that's the only true idea of god we have. That existence does not fundamentally make sense because it can't. Human brains are exactly like chimp brains except that it gestates longer and gives us a slightly improved ability to project feelings and develop abstractions. All our superstitious delusions are exactly that

[Keith]

The truth of the whole thing is born out of quantum mechanics. We peer as deeply as we can, and we see the Universe is fundamentally irrational. Everything and nothing, simultaneously and never, created and uncreated...is the best description we have of existence.

Haven't you just proven that god is female?

[wufwugy]

Haven't you just proven that god is female?

dammit i had the greatest mind asplode gif for this but forgot where it at

[a500lbgorilla]

lol idk i feel like there has to be something..obviously i dont think there some big guy in the sky listening to my prayers or helping athletes win sports championships, but idk theres gotta be some sort of magic that makes the world go round and put it here in the first place. The fact that we are self aware or sentient or w/e just blows my mind. It all blows my mind. Thats why i am an agnostic. It is all too much for me to fathom.

I'll give you the best bullet in my arsenal. and I don't think it's opposite of your views...

Why do you think that you should know what is or isn't? What gives you the power to say there apparently must be something more, over there must apparently be something less, or even there must be what there is as best we know, or even still there is exactly not what we know?

The need to want the correct answer is great. Having the answer is supremely difficult. That you might know that earthquakes are caused by crust islands afloat upon oceans of molten rocks or that mass falls towards greater mass dependent upon radius, or that the distance of one meter is true to only the observer, or that on certain scales you cannot (yet?) know fully the attributes of any particle, or that you can look into a person's or dolphin's or dog's eye and build a relationship, and all of the other things, does not still imbue in you a full understanding of things.

That you might suppose something else does not mean there is something else. Simply because your understanding knows it, likes it, or needs it, or feels like it should be, is not reason for it. It is all too easy to see that there should be something greater...

As easily as you could think that a God made it this way, is as easily as He made you question and search for a false god, on your vanity and foolishness and need to know.

Eventually it all comes down to: if there is a God, why do you think you know anything about that God? And if you accept that there must be a God, and also accept that you can't know anything about him, why live in any fashion other than to ignore him? And if you think there must be something more, beyond what I can know and you can know, how is the problem a problem at all?

Which is all why I like my new title: pragmatic agnosticism.

[wufwugy]

Agnosticism used to mean what atheism today means, and many people today think atheism means what antitheism means

[wufwugy]

God is as good as dead. There exists nothing more disproven than all the religions of the world. It is more reasonable to say that math is wrong than that there exists a god. The concept of god is itself an inherent contradiction as well as a contradiction to the evidential universe

If it was possible to truly disprove anything, god would be the first on that list

[swiggidy]

God is as good as dead. There exists nothing more disproven than all the religions of the world. It is more reasonable to say that math is wrong than that there exists a god. The concept of god is itself an inherent contradiction as well as a contradiction to the evidential universe

Apparently math is wrong
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...-a-186662.html

[a500lbgorilla]

God is as good as dead. There exists nothing more disproven than all the religions of the world. It is more reasonable to say that math is wrong than that there exists a god. The concept of god is itself an inherent contradiction as well as a contradiction to the evidential universe

If it was possible to truly disprove anything, god would be the first on that list

Deserves a quote from someone who said that science had solved everything but the minor details (before the sun was known to be a nuclear furnace and that light was the pan-ultimate speed limit).

[rong]

Jesus Christ Wuf that sig is amazing. Proof of god imo, and that he's a bloke who likes both fapping and casual sex with hot sluts.

[OngBonga]

God exists alright, he's a big fucking ball of fire in the sky.

[d0zer]

why does existence exist?

[kiwiMark]

God must've tripped the fuck out when everyone started playing the sims.

[bigred]

God must've tripped the fuck out when everyone started playing the sims.

That SMBC comic from the pictures thread is along the same vein, haha.

[mbiz]

The amount of agnostics just goes to show how shit the religious status quo is or we might consider believing in or taking up on one of em

[kevster]

God is essentially fucked.

Either he doesn't exist or he's a complete bastard.

[OngBonga]

The amount of agnostics just goes to show how shit the religious status quo is or we might consider believing in or taking up on one of em

Not a chance. Spirituality is all fine and good, but religion is nonsense. God and religion do not need to go hand in hand. I can accept one and fuck the other.

[boost]

Not a chance. Spirituality is all fine and good, but religion is nonsense. God and religion do not need to go hand in hand. I can accept one and fuck the other.

I can see absolutely no difference between spirituality and the belief in a god or gods. Both require the observer to suspend the rational process in favor of faith. Either that, or it requires the observer to commit to poor logic. Both require the presence of an immaterial entity or entities to exist, and the belief that these entities can interact with and influence our material world. Spiritual people are just as detrimental to society as theist, which kind of leads into another point..

...Atheism and antitheism are used interchangeably, and incorrectly so, but I'm not sure I understand the position of an atheist who is not an antitheist. Is it really possible to reach the logical conclusion that the probability of the existence of an immaterial force, capable of influencing our reality, is so incredibly low that it is more practical to consider the probability zero, yet at the same time be blind to how detrimental it is to have the majority of society believe in such entities? How could you ignore the immensely negative impact of laws being passed or repealed, wars being waged, and elections being decided based on legislators' and/or voters' belief in these entities?

Now to be perfectly clear, I do not subscribe to any sort of action that would forcefully suppress religions. Not only because I think it would be inhumane, but more so because it would clearly not offer the desired results. In the same line of thinking, if your goal is to open peoples eyes to reason, and have them detach themselves from their irrational beliefs, aggression is inappropriate. But I think it is extremely important for an atheist to tactfully present and discuss the rational thought process that leads to atheism when appropriate. As logic and reason are promoted, the influence of irrational beliefs will shrink, creating a better world for us all to live in.

sidenote: It really irks me when atheism is defined as "the lack of belief in god." It may be nit picking, but when "belief" is used in the definition, I think it can be inferred that an atheist "believes there is not a god." And if that is to be my position, it is just as weak as a theist's, since belief is hopelessly tied to faith. Pardon the double negative, but I do not believe there is not a god; I know there is not a god, just as I know there are not ghosts, a magically generous man named Santa Claus, or the easter bunny. Of course my knowledge that these fictional characters are fictional could be wrong, but where I stand on the issue of whether they exist or not is based on knowledge, not faith.

[OngBonga]

I can see absolutely no difference between spirituality and the belief in a god or gods. Both require the observer to suspend the rational process in favor of faith. Either that, or it requires the observer to commit to poor logic. Both require the presence of an immaterial entity or entities to exist, and the belief that these entities can interact with and influence our material world.

I disagree with these comments here. Let me just be clear, I'm agnostic, which is another way of saying I haven't got a fucking clue, nor am I going to pretend to. If everyone was honest with themselves, then this is how everyone should feel. But, people like to think they know, don't they? Very rarely will you hear a Christian say "I might be wrong". And it's the same with the "I know there's no God" people. That is a statement of faith, not fact.

God doesn't have to be an immaterial entity, that's just the words of someone who has already decided that God doesn't exist. To some people, the Sun is God. Well, the Sun exists, I can tell you. Without it, there is no life. The Sun isn't a conscious entity, but it's certainly the reason we're here.

I do not abandon logic or rational thought when it comes to trying to understand God. That is why I reject religion so strongly. Religion is to embrace one idea and to reject everything else, which is completely contradictory to my science-based thinking.

But, at the same time, science has not yet explained to me what makes me different from a rock. Why am I alive, aware? What makes me think? What makes me conscious? Where does life come from? Why is a rock not alive?

My very existence, and indeed awareness of it, proves to me that there is much more than we understand. I can't even begin to put into words what that means to me, because I don't know. All I know is there is more. I do not believe for a second that when I die, that is the end of it all as far as I'm concerned. By body might not be able to play host to my soul any longer, but my body is just carbon and stuff, my body is no more than a rock when I die. It is the life, the soul, that is the unexplainable bit, that is what I don't understand. All I know is it's there, it exists. Life exists, and for me, that is God.

[wufwugy]

I disagree with these comments here. Let me just be clear, I'm agnostic, which is another way of saying I haven't got a fucking clue, nor am I going to pretend to.

That's more atheism that you think. Modern agnosticism is more a cop-out than anything. Atheism is what agnosticism used to be which is basically "evidence is insufficient homey"

If everyone was honest with themselves, then this is how everyone should feel. But, people like to think they know, don't they? Very rarely will you hear a Christian say "I might be wrong". And it's the same with the "I know there's no God" people. That is a statement of faith, not fact.

We must be careful not to equivocate definitions. From the most fundamental perspective, everything is a product of faith. We can't actually prove anything, and everything is based upon fundamental assumption (like math isn't fake). However, in our practical world, there is no statement truer than "we know god doesn't exist". We have as much evidence for the falseness of any meaningful assertion of god as we do for literally anything. If we're wrong when we say god doesn't exist, we're also wrong when we say the world goes round.

But, at the same time, science has not yet explained to me what makes me different from a rock. Why am I alive, aware? What makes me think? What makes me conscious? Where does life come from? Why is a rock not alive?

Not sure where you're getting this. Science does so very well, but not absolutely, as nothing can be absolutely anyways

My very existence, and indeed awareness of it, proves to me that there is much more than we understand. I can't even begin to put into words what that means to me, because I don't know. All I know is there is more. I do not believe for a second that when I die, that is the end of it all as far as I'm concerned. By body might not be able to play host to my soul any longer, but my body is just carbon and stuff, my body is no more than a rock when I die. It is the life, the soul, that is the unexplainable bit, that is what I don't understand. All I know is it's there, it exists. Life exists, and for me, that is God.

Your "soul" is your body. Consciousness and feeling is biological

You're doing the ever so popular God of the Gaps fallacy i.e. whatever we haven't explained, that's god

[givememyleg]

if there is a god may he strike all of you dead.

[wufwugy]

Modern agnosticism is dumb. Are you unsure if there's a pink elephant orbiting Jupiter? Are you unsure whether or not Tom Cruise is Jesus? Are you unsure if South America really exists?

A lot of people claim to not be atheists because they're confused about what atheism means. Atheism isn't about god or religion, it's about reason. Atheism is not holding a position on something without sufficient reason to hold that position. Atheism asserts nothing, it believes nothing, it is merely the position of not asserting and not believing. It's about acknowledging that which is true to be true, and that which is false to be false

youtube atheists like thunderfoot, donexodus, andromedaswake, aronra, and several others have explained it very well. They've had to since they're always debating with creationists who accuse them of believing in atheism. There's nothing to believe in. In a way, everybody's an atheist. There's a million gods xtians don't believe in, and a million and one I don't believe in. Claiming atheism is an assertion is as dumb as claiming xtians assert akrishnaism, athorism, or aflyingpinkelephantism

[CoccoBill]

A lot of people claim to not be atheists because they're confused about what atheism means. Atheism isn't about god or religion, it's about reason. Atheism is not holding a position on something without sufficient reason to hold that position. Atheism asserts nothing, it believes nothing, it is merely the position of not asserting and not believing. It's about acknowledging that which is true to be true, and that which is false to be false

Well, the modern (although no idea how modern) view is that atheism can also mean exactly that, a conviction that there is no god:

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has of course become the strawman that all theists keep beating up, claiming that atheism is a religion itself, that also atheists believe in something without proof etc. yadda yadda. That's why it may be more productive to describe your position in more precise terms.

For example, I'm 99.9% convinced there is no God in any literal earthbound religion sense, but how the hell would I know? I don't think we have any concrete proof for or against. If a burning bush starts talking to me or an angel comes down to speak to me, after checking my blood for any psychoactive compounds, I might be willing to consider the idea of believing. This in contrast with a theist who believes without evidence (or I suppose also when faced with contradicting evidence), or an atheist who presumably would not believe when faced with contradicting evidence.

[wufwugy]

Well, the modern (although no idea how modern) view is that atheism can also mean exactly that, a conviction that there is no god:

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has of course become the strawman that all theists keep beating up, claiming that atheism is a religion itself, that also atheists believe in something without proof etc. yadda yadda. That's why it may be more productive to describe your position in more precise terms.

For example, I'm 99.9% convinced there is no God in any literal earthbound religion sense, but how the hell would I know? I don't think we have any concrete proof for or against. If a burning bush starts talking to me or an angel comes down to speak to me, after checking my blood for any psychoactive compounds, I might be willing to consider the idea of believing. This in contrast with a theist who believes without evidence (or I suppose also when faced with contradicting evidence), or an atheist who presumably would not believe when faced with contradicting evidence.

Well, the conviction that there is no god is supposed to be the conviction that no evidence has borne out god

Also, there's a ton of false equivocation on this subject and what might be called anti-equivocation (it's not, but I don't recall its formal wording). What I mean is that we're using different standards arbitrarily and irrationally. If we're consistent with our logic that we use for virtually every other aspect of reality, then the statement that "god is proven false" is super duper mega true. Does it not strike you as stupid that even when we use very stringent standards for other aspects of life (like the scientific peer review) we confirm things to be true or false, yet when it comes to magic we suddenly have standards so incredibly high that the very reality that there are truly no absolutes is enough to confirm in our minds that god could exist?

Name the most ridiculous thing/idea you possibly can. That idea/thing is just as reasonable to believe as god/spirituality/superstitions. Everywhere we look for anything magical, not only do we not find it, but we find overwhelming evidence that it's not even possible in the first place. God of the Gaps fallacy is so important to understand. It's the ultimate goalpost shift, and it's incessant. Back when we knew very little, god was in the gap we didn't know. Now when we know most things, god is still in the gap between those things. When we know everything that is humanly possible, god will be labeled in the gap between a quark and a gluon

[CoccoBill]

Re: consciousness, recommended reading:

User illusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CoccoBill]

If we're consistent with our logic that we use for virtually every other aspect of reality, then the statement that "god is proven false" is super duper mega true. Does it not strike you as stupid that even when we use very stringent standards for other aspects of life (like the scientific peer review) we confirm things to be true or false, yet when it comes to magic we suddenly have standards so incredibly high that the very reality that there are truly no absolutes is enough to confirm in our minds that god could exist?

Well I disagree. I do not think we can even prove that there is no god that fits into our observable universe, our measuring tools or our comprehension, let alone to prove that there is nothing beyond them. To say that god or whatever being cannot exist outside of what we know or understand is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Maybe it is turtles all the way down.

Name the most ridiculous thing/idea you possibly can. That idea/thing is just as reasonable to believe as god/spirituality/superstitions. Everywhere we look for anything magical, not only do we not find it, but we find overwhelming evidence that it's not even possible in the first place. God of the Gaps fallacy is so important to understand. It's the ultimate goalpost shift, and it's incessant. Back when we knew very little, god was in the gap we didn't know. Now when we know most things, god is still in the gap between those things. When we know everything that is humanly possible, god will be labeled in the gap between a quark and a gluon

I personally think its arrogant to say we know most things, I think we're only starting to understanding many of the basic things. We don't know what 96% of the universe is made of, we really only have a very primitive idea of how our brain operates, what intelligence is, where life comes from and how much of it is there etc. Just as dangerous as believing something blindly is disbelieving blindly, and I think we're very much in the dark still. I may think it's incredibly improbable there is a god, but I simply cannot know for sure.

[wufwugy]

Well I disagree. I do not think we can even prove that there is no god that fits into our observable universe, our measuring tools or our comprehension, let alone to prove that there is nothing beyond them. To say that god or whatever being cannot exist outside of what we know or understand is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Maybe it is turtles all the way down.

I was trying to make a distinction between what we consider real world "proof" and the most fundamental epistemological reality that proof is impossible. We use different and dumb standards for the consideration of magic than we do for anything else in our lives

The notion of "god existing outside" is tricky. It's a go-to argument that seems reasonable, but it's not reasonable at all because god loses its meaning. Flesh out the idea that god does exist in our gaps, then try to figure out how that god fits into our practical earthly existence. You'll find it's senseless. The Universe performs without god, and if there is a god in the gaps, this god is inconsequential to our reality

I personally think its arrogant to say we know most things, I think we're only starting to understanding many of the basic things. We don't know what 96% of the universe is made of, we really only have a very primitive idea of how our brain operates, what intelligence is, where life comes from and how much of it is there etc. Just as dangerous as believing something blindly is disbelieving blindly, and I think we're very much in the dark still. I may think it's incredibly improbable there is a god, but I simply cannot know for sure.

This is debatable as from one perspective, we don't know much, but a different perspective, we know a ton. If we're talking about fundamental theory and laws, we know a shitload, but if we're talking about all the details, we know little. I'm having trouble explaining this to myself even, but the reason we have laws and theories in the first place is from a strong understanding of the physical reality. Scientific process doesn't really ever get overturned because our outline is developing extremely well. We're at the edge of our understanding of physics. We're nowhere near the edge in our ability to engineer, but that's different. But there isn't a whole lot more to learn in physics. There is more and there is tweaking, but let me put it this way: they're looking for the theory of everything because we got the components stamped down well. Most problems in theoretical physics boil down to basically not knowing what happened at the big bang WRT the four fundamental forces. If we ever figure that out (I don't think it's possible) we won't have much deeper to go. We can't discover anything outside of or before the big bang, it's not possible. Theoretical physics is overwhelming about mathematics because it's the last vestige. Testable observation is nearing its human conclusion on this subject. We will forever develop the details, but we're not going to find things out like the four fundamental forces are somehow a delusion and not fundamental

[OngBonga]

I do agree with you wuf when it comes to faith though. I "know" water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. That too is a statement of faith, since I can't demonstrate this assertion as fact, I can only point you in the direction of respected scientists who agree, and there's a lot of them! I can't even prove a ripe banana is yellow, you have to accept my definition of yellow before you can accept this is the colour of a ripe banana. All of our beliefs are based on faith, it's just some beliefs require a greater leap of faith than others.

[wufwugy]

I do agree with you wuf when it comes to faith though. I "know" water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. That too is a statement of faith, since I can't demonstrate this assertion as fact, I can only point you in the direction of respected scientists who agree, and there's a lot of them! I can't even prove a ripe banana is yellow, you have to accept my definition of yellow before you can accept this is the colour of a ripe banana. All of our beliefs are based on faith, it's just some beliefs require a greater leap of faith than others.

You're referring to a sort of microcosm of what I'm talking about.

Everything is an assumption. EVERYTHING. Break epistemology down into it's most basic form and you get us going "well we assume mathematics are accurate, we assume the physical universe is physical, etc). All knowledge is based in assumption at its deepest level. We can't actually prove math. We can only assume that two plus two equals four. In order to prove it, we would require absolute knowledge, but absolute knowledge is not even possible in the first place. So every bit of knowledge we have, even though it is flawless, it's based on assumptions at its deepest level

So when you're assuming scientists are right about water, they're assuming the universe isn't lying to them

This should not be equivocated with normal everyday things. Everything about our lives depends on those assumptions being true, and so far they have been. And I don't think it's possible for humans to understand the deepest reality I'm trying to explain. That also fits into my idea that the most fundamental is itself senseless and unidentifiable

[boost]

I'll reread later, or hop in later, but wuf pretty much covered it I think.

A general statement: This debate is well treaded, and one side is packed full of all sorts of fallacies.. I'll let you guess which one it is...

And please, to those disagreeing with me and wuf, carefully read what he has said about arbitrary changes in the standards of proof. Saying that it is arrogant to say god does not exist is the same as saying its arrogant to claim that you know the moon is not made of cheese. If we are to discuss any issue, and I mean any, we have to first make basic assumptions and build from there. If you insist on introducing abject skepticism into the debate, I have to start to assume you are just clinging to your last hope, or you're trolling.

WRT belief in the soul/afterlife: If you look into the issue at all, you'll see that there is really no good reason to think there is a soul and/or afterlife... yet there is a perfectly understandable reason for someone to want the soul to be real, because without it, there is no afterlife. So we can see there is a clear conflict of interest when trying to conclude whether living things have souls. Is your conclusion/belief being influenced by this conflict of interest?

[OngBonga]

Is your conclusion/belief being influenced by this conflict of interest?

Maybe. I've been pretty clear about this... I don't know the answers. It seems a few people do though, which I must admit I'm rather impressed about.

Look, my point is this... no-one is right or wrong about this subject. We can all passionately make our opinions known, but the bottom line remains that not a single person here can settle this debate with fact. I do not believe that our consciousness is purely down to the chemical interactions or whatever between the molecules, that is as ludicrous as my claims sound to you guys. It's also a pretty boring way to look at life.

And see, now you are changing the definition of a soul to now make it represent the multitude of chemical reactions that create consciousness.

I'm changing definittions? Not at all. I'm looking at things from more than one angle, primarily because I don't know which angle is correct. The cup is yellow. But let's turn a green light on. Now the cup isn't yellow.

Magic seems like a perfectly appropriate way to label that which defies the laws of physics and is unobservable.

And this is a gem. Who said anything about defying the laws of physics? Nothing defies the laws of physics, but we certainly make discoveries that require us to adjust our understanding of physics. I wonder what people in Jesus times would think if you showed them an electro-magnet. I think they would think you were defying the laws of physics, but then that's because they're stupid and have a very poor grasp of physics, wouldn't you agree?

[boost]

Maybe. I've been pretty clear about this... I don't know the answers. It seems a few people do though, which I must admit I'm rather impressed about.

Look, my point is this... no-one is right or wrong about this subject. We can all passionately make our opinions known, but the bottom line remains that not a single person here can settle this debate with fact. I do not believe that our consciousness is purely down to the chemical interactions or whatever between the molecules, that is as ludicrous as my claims sound to you guys. It's also a pretty boring way to look at life.

First of all, we can come to the conclusion that many people, possibly everyone, is wrong since there are many views regarding the factuality of a defined issue. It is possible that no one is right, but it is not possible that no one is wrong... many many people are wrong.

I'm changing definittions? Not at all. I'm looking at things from more than one angle, primarily because I don't know which angle is correct. The cup is yellow. But let's turn a green light on. Now the cup isn't yellow.

Yes, just as creationist back peddle and redefine god to fill the gaps, you are redefining the soul to fill the gaps. The presence of an immeasurable, undefined, and unobservable force may be comforting, but it is not needed in any way. Why must you continue to insist on its existence?

And this is a gem. Who said anything about defying the laws of physics? Nothing defies the laws of physics, but we certainly make discoveries that require us to adjust our understanding of physics. I wonder what people in Jesus times would think if you showed them an electro-magnet. I think they would think you were defying the laws of physics, but then that's because they're stupid and have a very poor grasp of physics, wouldn't you agree?

If you cannot see how the idea of a soul defies the laws of physics... I'm just not sure what to say...

[CoccoBill]

And please, to those disagreeing with me and wuf, carefully read what he has said about arbitrary changes in the standards of proof. Saying that it is arrogant to say god does not exist is the same as saying its arrogant to claim that you know the moon is not made of cheese. If we are to discuss any issue, and I mean any, we have to first make basic assumptions and build from there. If you insist on introducing abject skepticism into the debate, I have to start to assume you are just clinging to your last hope, or you're trolling.

As this sounds like it's aimed at me I'll respond.

I don't disagree with wuf in practice, I disagree in principle. My faith in any deity is as close to being non-existent as to warrant no deeper analysis, saying that I'm clinging to my last hope is a IMO absurd. All I'm saying is that we as humans have very limited capabilities, our modern science is brand new and just starting to find out stuff, yet still constantly evolving and making new breakthroughs. To assume that we know close to everything there is to know is silly, or to even assume that we ever can. We are not that much smarter than apes as we like to think, genetically we share 96+% with chimps. If that ~4% akes us this much smarter than them, what would a lifeform that much smarter than us think? If you think I'm trying to find some god in the gaps or forcefully prove that a god can exist, you're barking up the wrong tree. All I'm saying is that we know shit and to assume that we do, let alone can prove shit, is naive. Let me just say this again for emphasis, we don't know what 96% of the universe is made of. We have no clue. Or it could be that the 96% of dark energy and dark matter just do not exist and our models are out of whack. We don't know where life comes from, we don't know how, why and from where the big bang came, or if it did at all. We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite (btw I don't know which one of these prospects is more mindboggling), whether there's one of them or many, and what, if anything lies outside them. We know shit. To claim with any certainty that "there is no god" is just as absurd as the opposite. No, I do not think there's a god, and I'm mesmerized about anyone who is even in any way uncertain of the fact.

We can with as much certainty as we have about anything say the moon is not cheese, using precise measurements, observations and even samples, but can we prove there are no moons made of cheese?

[boost]

We don't know where life comes from

Pretty sure we have a good idea... its not all fleshed out, but its not some complete mystery.

We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite (btw I don't know which one of these prospects is more mindboggling), whether there's one of them or many, and what, if anything lies outside them.

Ya, this stuff blows my mind too... I love thinking about it though, thinking about the idea of the universal horizon and whatnot... the scale of things just starts to dawn on you. Pretty awesome stuff.

We know shit.

Say the universe is infinite... can you see how no matter how much we know, relatively we always will know very little?

To claim with any certainty that "there is no god" is just as absurd as the opposite. No, I do not think there's a god, and I'm mesmerized about anyone who is even in any way uncertain of the fact.

I'd like to be clear that I am not at all saying "without a shred of doubt", but I am saying "for all practical reasons, with out a shred of doubt." I do not think this is unreasonable, and I think it is quite necessary when letting skepticism cloud the issue causes the continued propagation of this nonsense which has been boondoggling society for eons.

We can with as much certainty as we have about anything say the moon is not cheese, using precise measurements, observations and even samples, but can we prove there are no moons made of cheese?

Right, so our moon is observable, all moons are not. But we have come to conclusions about many things that are not observable. In this instance we can conclude that there are in fact no moons made of cheese, as cheese in such great mass would simply collapse upon itself. That isn't even touching on the absurdity of the logistics of space cows and their space creamery. Maybe the amount of certainty that we can make this claim with is a teeny tiny tidbit below the certainty that we can say, "our moon is not made of cheese," but I guess this is where we disagree. You think its a significant margin, while I don't.


edit: I deleted a bunch of your post simply because I either agreed, or did not think there was anything to say about it... not trying to strawman you.

[wufwugy]

I don't disagree with wuf in practice, I disagree in principle. My faith in any deity is as close to being non-existent as to warrant no deeper analysis, saying that I'm clinging to my last hope is a IMO absurd. All I'm saying is that we as humans have very limited capabilities, our modern science is brand new and just starting to find out stuff, yet still constantly evolving and making new breakthroughs. To assume that we know close to everything there is to know is silly, or to even assume that we ever can. We are not that much smarter than apes as we like to think, genetically we share 96+% with chimps. If that ~4% akes us this much smarter than them, what would a lifeform that much smarter than us think? If you think I'm trying to find some god in the gaps or forcefully prove that a god can exist, you're barking up the wrong tree. All I'm saying is that we know shit and to assume that we do, let alone can prove shit, is naive. Let me just say this again for emphasis, we don't know what 96% of the universe is made of. We have no clue. Or it could be that the 96% of dark energy and dark matter just do not exist and our models are out of whack. We don't know where life comes from, we don't know how, why and from where the big bang came, or if it did at all. We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite (btw I don't know which one of these prospects is more mindboggling), whether there's one of them or many, and what, if anything lies outside them. We know shit. To claim with any certainty that "there is no god" is just as absurd as the opposite. No, I do not think there's a god, and I'm mesmerized about anyone who is even in any way uncertain of the fact.

We're not dealing with human intelligence, but scientific development. A race 1000x smarter than us would understand the Universe infinitely less if they didn't build discovery upon discovery like we do. Like I said before, theoretical physics has a big ass problem in having to rely soooo much on untestable maths and theories because our understanding runs so deeply we're running out of stuff we can test. We will probably never fully run out of testable physics, but still the majority of theoretical physics is criticized for being untestable

We can with as much certainty as we have about anything say the moon is not cheese, using precise measurements, observations and even samples, but can we prove there are no moons made of cheese?

We sure can. To the same degree of certainty we can prove that two apples put in a bucket aren't three apples. A moon made out of cheese defies physics as does me putting two apples in my bucket becoming three apples

[givememyleg]

oggy boggy, re-read everything wuggy wuf has said thus far.

[OngBonga]

Ok I've read the rest properly, I couldn't stop myself. Wuf's posts are a little more directed at debate, and less at just arguing for a rise, so I'll respond in kind.

So Wuf, if you were alive 2000 years ago, you would sneer at the idea of magnetism, yes? There would be no evidence to prove it exists, beyond the crazy ramblings of some guy who was likely to get nailed to a cross for saying what he thinks. If everyone shared your attitude, then I can't help thinking we'd still be banging rocks together to make fire.

Of course, magnetism exists. I don't know this 100%, again we come back to faith vs fact, nothing is fact if we want to be pedantic, but I have much more faith in magnetism than souls, ghosts or spaghetti monsters.

You guys seem to have your minds made up. That's cool, just don't confuse this feeling with fact. You know exactly the same amount about this subject as I do, which is bugger all, only I am willing to accept this.

[wufwugy]

So Wuf, if you were alive 2000 years ago, you would sneer at the idea of magnetism, yes? There would be no evidence to prove it exists, beyond the crazy ramblings of some guy who was likely to get nailed to a cross for saying what he thinks. If everyone shared your attitude, then I can't help thinking we'd still be banging rocks together to make fire.

The analogy doesn't fit. I would scoff at a guy rambling how my son is really a girl. Because the evidence is to the contrary.

We're not dealing with unknowns on this subject. We're dealing with assertions being contradicted by known physical observation.

[OngBonga]

The analogy doesn't fit. I would scoff at a guy rambling how my son is really a girl. Because the evidence is to the contrary.

We're not dealing with unknowns on this subject. We're dealing with assertions being contradicted by known physical observation.

So let me get this right, you're saying that me suggesting that we have a soul is on a par with someone suggesting your son is a girl?

I can't believe someone of your intelligence would really think such a thing. I think you're trolling now.

[wufwugy]

So let me get this right, you're saying that me suggesting that we have a soul is on a par with someone suggesting your son is a girl?

I can't believe someone of your intelligence would really think such a thing. I think you're trolling now.

I've been saying that the entire time. What empirical evidence is there for the existence of souls? Zilch. What empirical evidence is there that contradicts the existence of souls? A tonnnnnn.

It is more likely that my fake son is the first girl born with a dick than souls exist. There is evidence that kind of genetic mutation is actually possible. There is zero evidence that a non-physical thing is possible

[boost]

Again, as an atheist, I try to approach things with skepticism, then build from there. I very well could be wrong; while probability is my friend, possibility is not. But what I am saying is that while there is the possibility for there to be a god and an afterlife, there is no proof that this is the case. On the other hand, there is evidence which does not prove, but hints at the fact that these things are neither real nor necessary to explain our reality.

And if you wish to toss around insults, you should probably avoid being hypocritical. You have claimed several times to know as much as me, wuf, or I'm assuming anyone else knows on this topic. I mean, this is either arrogance, or willful ignorance. Clearly there is plenty to learn about the subject, and your rudimentary arguments that propose to setup the need for the existence of a soul or a god or an afterlife show that you do not know very much about the topic by any measure.

[boost]

Ong, let me ask you, what all possess a soul? From your earlier posts, I'd assume humans would be included and rocks would be excluded, but how about monkeys, dogs, dolphins, etc?

[OngBonga]

Ong, let me ask you, what all possess a soul? From your earlier posts, I'd assume humans would be included and rocks would be excluded, but how about monkeys, dogs, dolphins, etc?

What possesses a soul? I don't know, anything alive perhaps? Let's be clear again, I'm speculating here. I'm not even suggesting I believe what I type, I'm just entertaining the idea, I am not closed on the issue. If you're asking my opinion, I think everything that lives has a soul, that's us, cats, ants, trees, grass etc. If you're asking me the truth, then I don't know, because the truth isn't known by anyone, not even Wuf.

Wuf has this idea that there is more evidence to suggest souls don't exist than there is to prove his son is male. I'd like to see this evidence, because he's onto something here that no man has ever been onto before.

What empirical evidence is there that contradicts the existence of souls? A tonnnnnn.

Show me. Link me. Prove this to me. I'm open. I'm not religious, and I don't believe in an all-powerful omnipotent God who designed everything, so you're not going to break me as a person if you can swing me on this. I have more faith that you cannot prove to me your position than I have in my position.

I'm not saying "THEY EXISTS FFS JEEZ" etc, I'm saying "How can you know they don't"?

Seriously, your mind is made up, I don't get that, I can't understand how you know that souls don't exist, yet humans as a race can't decide if this is the case or not. Are you more evolved than I am?

Your position is very similar to that of a religious person. I am right, fuck everyone else, that sort of thing. It surprises me a lot.

There are no more gaps for god to sneak into. If he's inside a quark, he's meaningless. If he's outside in the Brane World, he's meaningless. If he's back before the Big Bang, he's meaningless. There is nothing, literally nothing, to even suggest that non-physicalness is possible or relevant

I think I see your logic fail. You seem to think that God must be physical, in the same way that matter is physical. Does light not exist? What is it? They think it's a particle, yet it has no mass. Hmm. And then there's gravity. They think that might be caused by force-carrying particles called gravitons. But they can only speculate about that, since they can't find them. And then there's the real headbender... entanglement, where two particles in different locations (potentially light years apart) are entangled, that is, one responds at exactly the same time when the other is excited, there is no time dealy which one would expect as information is transmitted. I can't get my head around that, it seems information is travelling instantly, instead of at light speed. That's non-physicality right there for you. Why do you have such a problem with accepting things you don't understand? That's just being a human being, bro.

[boost]

What possesses a soul? I don't know, anything alive perhaps? Let's be clear again, I'm speculating here. I'm not even suggesting I believe what I type, I'm just entertaining the idea, I am not closed on the issue. If you're asking my opinion, I think everything that lives has a soul, that's us, cats, ants, trees, grass etc. If you're asking me the truth, then I don't know, because the truth isn't known by anyone, not even Wuf.

Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to "Viruses." So here we have an example of something that shares some of the attributes of what we define as living organisms, yet not all. Its a sort of grey area. Clearly there is going to be a line drawn for practical purposes, but does it also just so happen that this is where the line for souls is drawn? It seems both arbitrary and coincidental that bacteria should have souls, but viruses should not. And if super basic life forms like bacteria (which is very much alive and clear of the grey area by the scientific definition) then what implications does this have? Do their souls get judged based on morality? Is there a bacteria heaven?

And this just kinda swings back to a question I've been asking throughout this thread... why do you insist on (at the very least) leaving open the possibility that there are souls, when everything a soul could explain is better explained through science? You've said more or less in earlier posts that the lack of an afterlife/soul makes you uncomfortable or that you just flat out don't like the idea. Well.. I mean.. too bad man... Your affinity for some bit of nonsense gives it no greater credence.

[OngBonga]

Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to "Viruses." So here we have an example of something that shares some of the attributes of what we define as living organisms, yet not all. Its a sort of grey area. Clearly there is going to be a line drawn for practical purposes, but does it also just so happen that this is where the line for souls is drawn? It seems both arbitrary and coincidental that bacteria should have souls, but viruses should not. And if super basic life forms like bacteria (which is very much alive and clear of the grey area by the scientific definition) then what implications does this have? Do their souls get judged based on morality? Is there a bacteria heaven?

And this just kinda swings back to a question I've been asking throughout this thread... why do you insist on (at the very least) leaving open the possibility that there are souls, when everything a soul could explain is better explained through science? You've said more or less in earlier posts that the lack of an afterlife/soul makes you uncomfortable or that you just flat out don't like the idea. Well.. I mean.. too bad man... Your affinity for some bit of nonsense gives it no greater credence.

I missed this post first time around, I guess I've been too preoccupied with wuf's input.

Viruses, huh? Yeah they're weird. In fact, I'm not sure humans really understand what they are at all. I don't.

From the Wiki page you link... "In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies."

What this means is that is no general concensus on what exactly life is. Science can try to define life, but there will always be grey areas while we have an incomplete understanding of science. Different people from different backgrounds will have different interpretations. I would call a virus a lifeform, just a very basic one. Therefore, I would say a virus has a soul. I might be wrong.

You seem to be of the opinion that a soul goes against science. I'm of the opinion science can potentially explain souls. Current science can't, but I would argue that is because we don't have anywhere near a complete understanding of science. Just because science can't explain it now, that doesn't mean it's therefore bollocks. It means the question is unanswerable at this time.

A lack of afterlife (and beforelife) doesn't make me uncomfortable, it just doesn't make sense to me. I find it incredible that I would be alive now, but not before 1979 and not after I die. Maybe my memories and individual personality are exclusive to the form I currently take, but the life in me, I believe, existed before I was born and will continue to exist forever. Of course, I do not understand what I'm saying here. I don't have a problem with that, and I also don't have a problem with being wrong.

I really fail to see how anyone can be certain of their position on this matter. It's arrogant of a person to think he knows.

[boost]

I missed this post first time around, I guess I've been too preoccupied with wuf's input.

Viruses, huh? Yeah they're weird. In fact, I'm not sure humans really understand what they are at all. I don't.

From the Wiki page you link... "In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies."

What this means is that is no general concensus on what exactly life is. Science can try to define life, but there will always be grey areas while we have an incomplete understanding of science. Different people from different backgrounds will have different interpretations. I would call a virus a lifeform, just a very basic one. Therefore, I would say a virus has a soul. I might be wrong.

You seem to be of the opinion that a soul goes against science. I'm of the opinion science can potentially explain souls. Current science can't, but I would argue that is because we don't have anywhere near a complete understanding of science. Just because science can't explain it now, that doesn't mean it's therefore bollocks. It means the question is unanswerable at this time.

A lack of afterlife (and beforelife) doesn't make me uncomfortable, it just doesn't make sense to me. I find it incredible that I would be alive now, but not before 1979 and not after I die. Maybe my memories and individual personality are exclusive to the form I currently take, but the life in me, I believe, existed before I was born and will continue to exist forever. Of course, I do not understand what I'm saying here. I don't have a problem with that, and I also don't have a problem with being wrong.

I really fail to see how anyone can be certain of their position on this matter. It's arrogant of a person to think he knows.

1 What? Religion and Philosophy are all over the place on an issue, therefore an issue is unsettled. What about science? Are you suggesting that science needs the consensus of religion and philosophy? Is this some new empirical checks and balances system modeled after our democratic republic? Link?

Science defines life with the acknowledgement of grey areas built in... that is the whole point to my bringing this up. There are grey areas, and these grey areas are a pretty awkward place for the idea of a soul, esp when it has been asserted that not only do humans have souls, but all lifeforms have souls.

2 And so we can see we are on a slippery slope, why a virus and not a rock? Or how about a chunk of metal... does the chunk of metal not interact with its surroundings? Does it not oxidize in the presence of oxygen? Neither a chunk of metal nor a virus has a brain, intelligence, etc. Like I said before, science defines life with the acknowledgement of grey areas, however the idea of a soul demands a definitive and arbitrary line to be drawn. This is a pretty serious problem with your idea that every living thing has a soul, and I'd like to see you tackle it without redefining what a constitutes a soul (again.)

3 It does. It can, it does. It explains them the same way it explains Santa Claus, Bigfoot, etc.

4 Yes, the life in you did exist, as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, magnesium, etc. These things were not "alive", but your mother collected them, as well as some semen from your old man, and here you are. After you die, other living things will take advantage of your no longer in use mass of highly prized elements. These other things will then produce more life thanks to the generous donation you have made to the circle of life. If you want to call this list of elements a soul, fine, but please note that you are at best stretching the definition to the extreme, and imo you are just completely redefining it.

5 I covered this in my previous post.

[wufwugy]

Show me. Link me. Prove this to me. I'm open. I'm not religious, and I don't believe in an all-powerful omnipotent God who designed everything, so you're not going to break me as a person if you can swing me on this. I have more faith that you cannot prove to me your position than I have in my position.

"Show me a tree"

Points at tree "there you go"

Looks at tree "no, show me a tree"


You're not understanding the topic. Every single piece of discovery we've ever had is evidence for this subject. Some is better than others. The proposal of the supernatural is within the gaps of what we don't know, and the gaps have been closed enough that it's a meaningless proposal. The soul was an interesting proposal when it first came around because phenomena was not explainable, but now it is, and the idea of a soul has changed meaning except people are simply not acknowledging that change.

Seriously, your mind is made up, I don't get that, I can't understand how you know that souls don't exist, yet humans as a race can't decide if this is the case or not. Are you more evolved than I am?

Your position is very similar to that of a religious person. I am right, fuck everyone else, that sort of thing. It surprises me a lot.

You're using a load of appeals fallacies right here. My position on this subject is the one of reason, do you suggest I not be reasonable instead? If somebody is adamant that the Moon exists, are they being unreasonable? You're not understanding my posts. The evidence for a human soul is the same for a flying grizzly bear. End of story

I think I see your logic fail. You seem to think that God must be physical, in the same way that matter is physical. Does light not exist? What is it? They think it's a particle, yet it has no mass. Hmm. And then there's gravity. They think that might be caused by force-carrying particles called gravitons. But they can only speculate about that, since they can't find them. And then there's the real headbender... entanglement, where two particles in different locations (potentially light years apart) are entangled, that is, one responds at exactly the same time when the other is excited, there is no time dealy which one would expect as information is transmitted. I can't get my head around that, it seems information is travelling instantly, instead of at light speed. That's non-physicality right there for you. Why do you have such a problem with accepting things you don't understand? That's just being a human being, bro.

You're out of your depth. This IS physical. The definition of the scientifically physical is basically anything that is shown to exist, anything that affects reality. Particles, forces, entanglement, uncertainty principle....all physics

So far, nothing we have EVER seen could be a soul. Likewise, nothing we have ever seen could be two apples in my bucket magically being three. If you posit the soul you would be reasonable to also posit anything and everything with zero evidence because it's the same

[d0zer]

wuf-wuggy, while I agree with a lot of what you say, your tone just projects too much confidence in your beliefs surrounding unanswerable questions, and I stopped listening to people who were too confident that they've answered the unanswerable a long time ago.

[wufwugy]

wuf-wuggy, while I agree with a lot of what you say, your tone just projects too much confidence in your beliefs surrounding unanswerable questions, and I stopped listening to people who were too confident that they've answered the unanswerable a long time ago.

On the contrary, my position is as reasonable as they come. At what point do we say god doesn't exist? When we peer through the vast beyond and find nothing? When we peer so deeply into matter that matter itself breaks down? When we peer back in time so far that all laws and observations break down? When we peer into human history so deeply that we find the statistically insignificant make-believe is par for the course? When we peer into biology so deeply that we find every single thing about biology is explainable via biology?

There are no more gaps for god to sneak into. If he's inside a quark, he's meaningless. If he's outside in the Brane World, he's meaningless. If he's back before the Big Bang, he's meaningless. There is nothing, literally nothing, to even suggest that non-physicalness is possible or relevant

God help us if we applied the same standards in real life that we do to our favorite superstitions. That would mean that because it's possible that Obama doesn't exist and our President is a giant politcal/media conspiracy that it is reasonable to argue for that assertion with exactly ZERO evidence for its truth. The fact alone that it is possible would be enough to argue it's not an unreasonable position. There is infinitely more evidence that back up truthers than religionists, yet how many of us laugh truthers out of the room for being kooks? Superstitions are the ultimate of kookery, but the thing is that they're not kookery inasmuch as humans are designed to believe them. It is normal for us to believe some of the most irrational things imaginable. This is why many make-believe supernatural ideas don't seem too weird to us. They're actually the height of empirical irrationality, but we generally just don't see it.

We are hardwired VERY strongly to believe in things like souls. But that doesn't mean that arguing for their existence without one single shred of evidence is any less irrational than arguing that Rush Limbaugh is five hundred years old without one single shred of evidence. When somebody argues for the former we nod our heads and go "hey maybe", but if somebody proposed the latter you would think they're fucking insane

Goes to show that human sanity is its own insanity

[CoccoBill]

On the contrary, my position is as reasonable as they come. At what point do we say god doesn't exist? When we peer through the vast beyond and find nothing? When we peer so deeply into matter that matter itself breaks down? When we peer back in time so far that all laws and observations break down? When we peer into human history so deeply that we find the statistically insignificant make-believe is par for the course? When we peer into biology so deeply that we find every single thing about biology is explainable via biology?

Most likely never. Why do we have to specifically say this? Do we have to say it separately for all deities and other mythical creatures? Can't we just accept the fact that we will probably never find out for certain, assume that everything without proof doesn't exist and carry on with our lives.

The difference in our opinions is slight, mostly semantic yet an important one. I do not believe in things where there is no proof, but I do not disprove something there is no solid proof against. The position you're asserting is close to being willful ignorance, claiming something as truth when you have no data to back up your claims. An abrahamic creator god is by definition outside the grasp of our knowledge and understanding, you're positing that there is nothing outside our understanding, that we know what we don't know. That is the definition of argumentum ad ignorantiam: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are no more gaps for god to sneak into. If he's inside a quark, he's meaningless. If he's outside in the Brane World, he's meaningless. If he's back before the Big Bang, he's meaningless. There is nothing, literally nothing, to even suggest that non-physicalness is possible or relevant

Something being improbable or inconsequential is very different from being proven nonexistent.

[boost]

CoccoBill: Do unicorns exist? I'd assume you'd say something along the lines of "probably not, but I can't say for certain that they don't." And this is fine, but we can see that if they do exist, their existence is inconsequential to our existence. It simply doesn't matter. And so it is easy to just say "unicorns do not exist." No one would baulk at this statement. However we are applying the exact same logic to god and the supernatural, except unlike unicorns, the idea of god and the supernatural influence our society in dramatic and detrimental ways. And so it is very important that people open their eyes and see that their sky daddy(daddies) are just a bunch of unicorns.

I mean, I do admire your live and let live attitude, and you are probably right that we can never know for certain... but proving god does not exist beyond a reasonable doubt is in my eyes crucial to the progress and betterment of society.

[wufwugy]

Most likely never. Why do we have to specifically say this? Do we have to say it separately for all deities and other mythical creatures? Can't we just accept the fact that we will probably never find out for certain, assume that everything without proof doesn't exist and carry on with our lives.

I'd love to move on with our lives. As long as it means we don't get to cherry pick reason. We will never find anything out for certain because it's not possible. By the same standards we apply to every single other thing in human life than our favorite superstitions, we use realistic and reasonable standards of proof, not the deepest ultimate standard that there can be no proof and anything is possible

Refusing to claim that god doesn't exist based on what we know currently is like refusing to claim the Sun is real. With normal things, when every shred of evidence backs us up we go "duh dummy of course", but when it's about our favorite superstition we go "well maybe, I'm not ruling it out"

An abrahamic creator god is by definition outside the grasp of our knowledge and understanding, you're positing that there is nothing outside our understanding, that we know what we don't know. That is the definition of argumentum ad ignorantiam: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, Abrahamic god is both understandable and not understandable. He is an inherent contradiction. He is proven as false as the notion that Chicago sits on top of Phuket

I am not positing there are not things outside our understanding. On the contrary, I think the most reasonable position is that a possibly infinity is outside our perception

Something being improbable or inconsequential is very different from being proven nonexistent.

Actually it's not. Inconsequential = non-existent as far as we're concerned. Bearded Sky Daddy doesn't mean anything unless he actually causes effects. We have yet to find one single supernatural effect, and if we did, it would crazily be not supernatural, but rather natural because by definition anything that affects us is natural

[CoccoBill]

Actually it's not. Inconsequential = non-existent as far as we're concerned. Bearded Sky Daddy doesn't mean anything unless he actually causes effects. We have yet to find one single supernatural effect, and if we did, it would crazily be not supernatural, but rather natural because by definition anything that affects us is natural

I'll just grab this one point for now since I'm drunk as shit. You're redefining nonexistent. Existence is not measured by our ability to perceive it, nor are direct effects on us required for something to have meaning. Natural as a term is just manufactured by us to describe things we understand, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Everything we do not understand is supernatural, until it becomes natural when we get it.

I'm in no way arguing anything about what would be practical for humankind or what would be the most coherent strategy in a debate with a jesus-loon, I'm merely stating what I believe to be irrefutable facts. I've found many of the people on this forum to be some of the brightest people I've met. This mainly stems from the ability to question ones beliefs, to be skeptical, to be open about ideas other than your own. I find a large part of knowledge and understanding stems from humility, the ability to realize our limitations. We shouldn't take things for granted. We shouldn't accept any information given to us without criticism. We shouldn't get cocky and assume we know. We should be always willing to learn more. We should not rule out possibilities we don't want to see. When I say I would believe in god if I had proof I mean it. This is not about conviction or stance or merit, it's about testable proven facts.

[bigred]

Good thread guys. Arguing on the internet is definitely a worthy cause. Arguing about religion on the internet, doubly so.

[bigred]

[bigred]

[d0zer]

in comes bigred to win his billionth thread

[CoccoBill]

Also re the changes of standards for proof, no one is claiming that many of the things we "know" about the universe or laws of physics are cold hard facts or proven in any way. We don't expect them all to be 100% correct, we have to accept the fact that some or a lot of it will prove to be slightly off or completely incorrect. They are just our best current understanding of them. To state they are "solved" is ignorant, effectively saying there's no more need to pursue any deeper truths. This is as far off the mark as can be. The standards for proof are exactly the same.

[bigred]

[philly and the phanatics]

trick question....DITKA IS GOD

[wufwugy]

A point I'd like to make. It was a point that blew the lid on this topic for myself a while back

The main problem people make on this subject is extrapolating "anything" into "something specific" i.e. they don't define then examine the logistics of their assertion. I'll use the soul idea as an example

What is a soul? Well the general meaning people use involves memory. Okay, what is memory? Memory is determined brain activity. Is there any reason to believe that memory can survive outside the brain? No. Why? Because memory is the makeup of particular necessary interactions that are found only inside the brain and is known to not be possible in something like grass or steel or thin air. It's the same reason a walrus can't also be a battleship, different things are different things

Flesh out how memory actually survives brain destruction. This is the problem people have. They make brushing and uneducated attempts to explain it like "it becomes one with the Universe". Oh really? So it becomes the quarks? It already is quarks and it's because of the nearly infinite interactions between quarks that it became memory. Maybe it becomes dark matter? Facepalm. Maybe it becomes the ether? You mean the undetected ether? Maybe it becomes, uh, well, it just becooomes, man....

The bottom line is that just like chlorophyll is no longer chlorophyll when you burn its grass, memory is no longer memory when you destroy its brain. You can do this for any and every meaningful superstition

It's all a clear cut case of people believing that one thing becomes another thing without changing. That's what it is. This is why I'm not wrong and why it's really just so obvious. Nobody ever acknowledges that when they argue for these kinds of things, they are asserting that something can be something else without being something else. Memory can't be soul because they are logistically two different things. Then when you flesh out all the little assertions about souls that people have, you find that none of them could be soully simply because they are different things

Superstition is the ultimate "have your cake and eat it too"

[OngBonga]

Ok, I'm going to simplify how I see the development of this thread.

OP - "So, who believes in God?"

Various replies

Ong - "Not religious, don't believe God is a concious entity, but I can accept some interpretations. I think we have a soul."

Wuf/Boost "Lol no we don't"

Ong - "Huh? How can you be sure?"

Wuf - "We definitely don't have a soul because there's no evidence for it."

Ong - "But... what about my existence and awareness? That's evidence isn't it?"

Wuf - "No."

Ong - "Huh?"

Wuf - "Science has no room for magic."

Ong - "Maybe science can explain the soul?"

Wuf - "Ok, if I'm not confusing you enough as it is, I will bombard you with bizarre analogies about trees instead of answering the question."

Ong - "but..."

Wuf - "Show me a tree."

Ong - "Erm..."

Wuf - "You're out of your depth. I am all knowing."

Ong - "Right. Now I understand."

/summary.


Wuf, I have no problem with your position in regards to this discussion, my issue comes with the fact you are so adamant you are correct. It's as if you are saying something is definitely untrue until the opposite is proven. Your arrogance is astonishing. Are there dinosaurs on other planets? One could argue that it is very likely to be the case since the universe is so massive, also one could argue that due to the lack of any evidence to support this claim, it should be considered very unlikely, we haven't found any sort of life beyond our planet thus far. Of course, no-one knows the answer for sure.

I don't understand how anyone of intelligence can be so sure about the question -"Do we have a soul?"
I'm not sure. I'm not saying we definitely do. I'm saying I think we do. That is all. I'm not saying a soul is magic, other people are saying that. Life itself is magic. Look at me, I'm a collection of quarks and gluons, working together to discuss with another collection of quarks and gluons the meaning of existence. That, my friend, is fucking magic right there. If there was no magic in the world, then there would be no life. The soul is life. That's what I'm saying. You tell me that a soul definitely doesn't exist, I interpret that as life doesn't exist. I can prove to you that life does indeed exist, but you could probably find a counter-argument and still look smart.

Your last post I actually consider your best in this whole thread so far.

What is a soul?

Right. Of course, this is the crux of the problem. No-one can define this accurately, and so therefore we are arguing about our different interpretations of what a soul is.

Well the general meaning people use involves memory.

Really? I disagree. My memory is chemical. My soul is the "energy", for lack of a better word, that gives me life. It's what makes me different from a rock.

I'm not trying to say I'm right, all I'm saying is that is how I see it. No problem with others who see it differently, but for fuck's sake, don't pretend you know, because it makes you look very arrogant to me. No-one knows the answer. If you knew the answer, you'd be very famous indeed.