Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, July 16, 2009
Religion Signage From God
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:57 PM
I was riding along wondering why religious people get so annoyed when anyone suggests that God doesn't exist—they complain that we atheists are always going on about our beliefs, that we insist other people are fools if they don't adopt them, that we're always getting in people's faces—when what should appear by the side of the road?
Going on about your beliefs, insisting that other people are damned if they don't adopt them, getting in people's faces, etc. Religious people invented this schtick—I don't know any atheists who go door-to-door seeking converts—and don't like being subjected to it themselves. Noted.
2
I'm surprised all the words are spelled correctly on that sign.
Perhaps it was personally proofread by Jesus himself....
Perhaps it was personally proofread by Jesus himself....
4
Thanks for phrasing it so succinctly.
But it's the same way with gay sexuality: the straights are always saying we're throwing it in their faces when every time you glance around one of them is wearing a wedding ring, going on about their spouse and gushing over the niece's wedding.
But getting back to your point: I've always thought that religious people who are so touchy about someone saying that God doesn't exist are already insecure, which is why they cling to their religion (I think some presidential candidate put it that way) in the first place. For someone to have the boldness to say it's crap only increases their insecurity and they have to lash out.
And, similarly, I've always thought that the most anti-gay people are the ones who aren't at the end of the Kinsey scale and see where they could have gone the gay route which makes their insecurity rise and they lash out.
But it's the same way with gay sexuality: the straights are always saying we're throwing it in their faces when every time you glance around one of them is wearing a wedding ring, going on about their spouse and gushing over the niece's wedding.
But getting back to your point: I've always thought that religious people who are so touchy about someone saying that God doesn't exist are already insecure, which is why they cling to their religion (I think some presidential candidate put it that way) in the first place. For someone to have the boldness to say it's crap only increases their insecurity and they have to lash out.
And, similarly, I've always thought that the most anti-gay people are the ones who aren't at the end of the Kinsey scale and see where they could have gone the gay route which makes their insecurity rise and they lash out.
5
Yeah but when you tell a religious person there is no God, you sound like just as much of a douche as these douches. Take the high road, dude.
6
So, the people who complain about signs atheists put up, are those the same people who put up signs? The same people who go door to door? Those who frequently sharing their beliefs should be most eager for public dialogue.
7
I have no problem with that sign. They are expressing their opinion and sharing their views. nothing wrong with that even though their opinion and views are silly and stupid.
8
Jocelyn,
There is no high road. If an adult started talking about their belief in Santa Claus or The Tooth Fairy, would I be a douche to mock them? Most people would say no. So what makes one mythological super powered being different from another?
There is no high road. If an adult started talking about their belief in Santa Claus or The Tooth Fairy, would I be a douche to mock them? Most people would say no. So what makes one mythological super powered being different from another?
9
hey man, you can believe what you want.
But it boils down to common courtesy.
I don't argue atheism when my family opens gifts on Christmas.
I don't argue atheism at funerals.
I don't argue atheism at Thanksgiving dinner.
I politely bow my head when other people pray, knowing full well it's an empty gesture from a religious standpoint, but an important gesture from a social standpoint.
But hey, i also stand up for the National Anthem. Call me a Nazi.
My point is simply this: it's possible to guard your own beliefs (or lack thereof) without being a dickhead.
As for those who angrily retort "But THEY started it FIRST!!!"
Grow up. Please. For the rest of us.
You can't condemn others' actions and philosophies if you're playing the same obnoxious game from the same obnoxious rulebook.
But it boils down to common courtesy.
I don't argue atheism when my family opens gifts on Christmas.
I don't argue atheism at funerals.
I don't argue atheism at Thanksgiving dinner.
I politely bow my head when other people pray, knowing full well it's an empty gesture from a religious standpoint, but an important gesture from a social standpoint.
But hey, i also stand up for the National Anthem. Call me a Nazi.
My point is simply this: it's possible to guard your own beliefs (or lack thereof) without being a dickhead.
As for those who angrily retort "But THEY started it FIRST!!!"
Grow up. Please. For the rest of us.
You can't condemn others' actions and philosophies if you're playing the same obnoxious game from the same obnoxious rulebook.
10
@5 But an icon knocking the pope? Totally not douchy right?
I mean fuck that guy and a dumbass hat, but what you're doing is really no different from what Dan did.
I mean fuck that guy and a dumbass hat, but what you're doing is really no different from what Dan did.
11
loved your response to the letter of the day. i'd be delighted if i never had to hear about god or jesus again.
12
@9 How is what we are talking about here at all like interrupting a funeral or starting fights at a family dinner?
13
The only times I bring up my atheism is when someone else is going on and on about their religion. I feel if they've opened the door, then I might as well step through.
I know plenty of christians who probably assume I'm christian too because the subject's never come up. I think that's the way it should be. Keep thy religion (or lack of religion) to thyself.
I know plenty of christians who probably assume I'm christian too because the subject's never come up. I think that's the way it should be. Keep thy religion (or lack of religion) to thyself.
14
Every time I change the channel I find some con man for bullshit Jesus giving his bullshit version of his bullshit bible and bullshit religion. It's lies people. Think about what that sign says. First of all, everyone dies. Secondly, their man/god Jesus is made up. He never existed. Thirdly, there is no such thing as sin. It's a made up thing to get simple minded people to give them money. And lastly, their "heaven" is made up. It's imaginary. Just ask them to prove it. They can't. They say "I just know...blah, blah, fucking blah." They should get their heads out of the fourth century and their asses and join reality.
15
@10 Judging somebody by their icon? Also "douchy."
And not the same.
Ad hominem. Strawman.
Five yard penalty.
And not the same.
Ad hominem. Strawman.
Five yard penalty.
16
The burden of proof is with the people who make up fantasy stories about an all powerful space god.
I don't prove there isn't a god for the same reason I don't have to prove there isn't a bigfoot.
As a minority rational people AKA atheists need to stick up for their rights.
BTW I have nothing against people of faith - only the organizations that fleece these fools of their money. That is evil in its purist form
I don't prove there isn't a god for the same reason I don't have to prove there isn't a bigfoot.
As a minority rational people AKA atheists need to stick up for their rights.
BTW I have nothing against people of faith - only the organizations that fleece these fools of their money. That is evil in its purist form
17
People are welcome to their opinions,
we can acknowledge another persons point, delight in them as a fellow human, and disagree respectfully. Hearing individual perspectives enrichs our lives, they don't have the power to threaten or distract from it, unless we allow them to. So, often we want to hold or opinions with a closed fist, and on guard. Life is more pleasant when we unclench our fist and shake hands.
we can acknowledge another persons point, delight in them as a fellow human, and disagree respectfully. Hearing individual perspectives enrichs our lives, they don't have the power to threaten or distract from it, unless we allow them to. So, often we want to hold or opinions with a closed fist, and on guard. Life is more pleasant when we unclench our fist and shake hands.
18
8 - Thousands of years of tradition? The need that is inherent in most people to believe in a power higher than themselves? Common decency?
9 - Damn straight.
10 - Considering I'm Catholic, and the Catholics I know are pretty unimpressed with the pope as well, I'm going to say it's OK. Also, the pope is not God. And I'm not claiming he doesn't exist. I'm just saying I don't like him.
13 - Agreed.
14 - But you must know it's not as simple as all that. I mean, sure, you're probably right. But it's not a simple case of reality vs. make-believe. This is a hot emotional topic, and while it's easy for you to say there is no God, it's not at all easy for a lot of people to hear that. And, since we're being honest, the facts support a hypothesis that there probably is no God. It's not as though you can prove it. It could be that every single human theory about God is wrong. You don't know any better than the rest of us. It's not like evolution where it's very clear what's true and what's made up.
9 - Damn straight.
10 - Considering I'm Catholic, and the Catholics I know are pretty unimpressed with the pope as well, I'm going to say it's OK. Also, the pope is not God. And I'm not claiming he doesn't exist. I'm just saying I don't like him.
13 - Agreed.
14 - But you must know it's not as simple as all that. I mean, sure, you're probably right. But it's not a simple case of reality vs. make-believe. This is a hot emotional topic, and while it's easy for you to say there is no God, it's not at all easy for a lot of people to hear that. And, since we're being honest, the facts support a hypothesis that there probably is no God. It's not as though you can prove it. It could be that every single human theory about God is wrong. You don't know any better than the rest of us. It's not like evolution where it's very clear what's true and what's made up.
19
this is in saugatuck, no? i have a photo of this same sign (or at least one very similar). i've always wondered if it's there because saugatuck is a hotbed of homosexual activity, or if it's just directed at everyone in general. those dutch reformists in SW MI think everyone's on the fast track to hell, so you never know.
20
@9: I comport myself in the same manner -- my mother was a practicing Catholic, and we were on very good terms. About the only time I offer my POV on religion is when I'm asked, which I was in the column that kicked up this fuss -- it was a bankshot ask, but an ask nevertheless.
21
@15 How is it not the same? Her icon is basically anti-pope who is an important if not nearly divine figure for over a billion people.
I agree with her sentiment and with Dan's and think they both have every right to say them. There is nothing wrong with expressing ones opinion and no one is bound by other people's conceptions of sacredness.
I agree with her sentiment and with Dan's and think they both have every right to say them. There is nothing wrong with expressing ones opinion and no one is bound by other people's conceptions of sacredness.
22
Every time I drive past one of those signs that says "Christ died for our sins," my initial interpretation of "our" is "we, the people who own this land." And I always think "Wow, you must feel terrible about that."
Then I realize what they're really talking about, but by then it's too late.
Then I realize what they're really talking about, but by then it's too late.
23
Well, if it's any consolation, Dan, the Christers are just as clueless about all of this as you are.
24
I don't know any atheists who are filled with hate for religious people. Atheists don't condemn people and their families to "eternal damnnation" or whatever because of their beliefs.
But atheists are supposed to just sit quiet and take it from the God Squad?
But atheists are supposed to just sit quiet and take it from the God Squad?
26
@21 I can disagree with or even dislike the President, yet still be a proud American.
How's that different than a Catholic who regards the pope similarly?
How's that different than a Catholic who regards the pope similarly?
27
The part that is frustrating regardless of who it comes from is "anyone who disagrees with me about this is either stupid or evil".
Neither the religious or the nonreligious have a monopoly on that unfortunate tendency.
Neither the religious or the nonreligious have a monopoly on that unfortunate tendency.
28
@26 You miss the point. Of course it is OK. Just like saying "there is no god" is also OK.
@18 This is a hot emotional topic, and while it's easy for you to say the pope is bad, it's not at all easy for a lot of people to hear that.
I used to be a Christian till I realized god was most likely pretend and most certainly a bastard. Does that make it different for me and not say for someone who was never one?
Your wrong not for what you think about the pope or for expressing it, but for thinking that other people are not just as OK in expressing their opinions on god.
@18 This is a hot emotional topic, and while it's easy for you to say the pope is bad, it's not at all easy for a lot of people to hear that.
I used to be a Christian till I realized god was most likely pretend and most certainly a bastard. Does that make it different for me and not say for someone who was never one?
Your wrong not for what you think about the pope or for expressing it, but for thinking that other people are not just as OK in expressing their opinions on god.
29
@19
Drive I-70 through Kansas. One of these type signs every few miles it seemed. They take extra care to put them infront of the roadside porn stores.
Drive I-70 through Kansas. One of these type signs every few miles it seemed. They take extra care to put them infront of the roadside porn stores.
30
You obviously haven't lived in Fremont.
Rarely does a week go by that we don't have some band of Atheists or Agnostics ringing our doorbells, trying to get us to convert to their "way of life".
Rarely does a week go by that we don't have some band of Atheists or Agnostics ringing our doorbells, trying to get us to convert to their "way of life".
31
There's those silly bus ads rolling through the most secular cities in the world. That is proselytizing. That being said, I don't particularly care if you believe in God or not, just so long as you're not as asshole about it either way. Christopher Hitchens and Pat Robertson are both zealous assholes and in ten years, Richard Dawkins' camp for atheist tots is probably going to look just as nutty on film as Jesus Camp.
32
@5:
Except that, because there is an overwhelming lack of evidence in support of the proposition that God exists, saying "there is no God" is no more "douchy" than saying "there is no Superman". The fact that any Theist (or Kryptonist for that matter) would feel truly threatened by such a statement is a pretty good indication they don't really have a very strong foundation for their belief system in the first place, in which case a little re-evaluation of their position might be truly beneficial to them regardless of the outcome.
@9:
These aren't so much expressions of "common courtesy" as they are examples of passive conflict avoidance, which is not to say they're not, in certain situations at least, better choices than actively engaging someone in a debate over the issue at-hand.
That being said, however, I do think that in many circumstances such passive acquiescence is unnecessary. For example, I NEVER bow my head in prayer nor do I utter the words "under God" when I say the Pledge of Allegiance, just to cite two instances. I don't have to "shout it from the rooftops" as it were, but by the same token I do not feel any necessity to adhere to actions or behaviors to which I do not ascribe. I presume others who notice this would recognize it as a rather mild expression of disapproval, but I can't think of a single instance where anyone has openly criticized me because of it.
While I agree you don't need to shove it in people's faces to make your point, I do believe there's also no reason why you shouldn't feel you have the right to make it in the first place.
Except that, because there is an overwhelming lack of evidence in support of the proposition that God exists, saying "there is no God" is no more "douchy" than saying "there is no Superman". The fact that any Theist (or Kryptonist for that matter) would feel truly threatened by such a statement is a pretty good indication they don't really have a very strong foundation for their belief system in the first place, in which case a little re-evaluation of their position might be truly beneficial to them regardless of the outcome.
@9:
These aren't so much expressions of "common courtesy" as they are examples of passive conflict avoidance, which is not to say they're not, in certain situations at least, better choices than actively engaging someone in a debate over the issue at-hand.
That being said, however, I do think that in many circumstances such passive acquiescence is unnecessary. For example, I NEVER bow my head in prayer nor do I utter the words "under God" when I say the Pledge of Allegiance, just to cite two instances. I don't have to "shout it from the rooftops" as it were, but by the same token I do not feel any necessity to adhere to actions or behaviors to which I do not ascribe. I presume others who notice this would recognize it as a rather mild expression of disapproval, but I can't think of a single instance where anyone has openly criticized me because of it.
While I agree you don't need to shove it in people's faces to make your point, I do believe there's also no reason why you shouldn't feel you have the right to make it in the first place.
35
The simple answer is because they believe God will punish everyone on Earth if people don't believe in him... er, sorry... Him. They seriously believe that you will die and spend eternity in a demonic firepit if you don't believe... and their culture of fear has ingrained in them by proxy that if non-believers are allowed to... um... non-believe, that they themselves will burn in hell for being witnesses, or something.
It is like a matter of life and death to their feebly ignorant minds, which is why they bristle so.
It is like a matter of life and death to their feebly ignorant minds, which is why they bristle so.
36
Atheists are complete dicks on a day-to-day, first-world-democracy basis.
But people living around atheists aren't likely to be beaten/stoned/burned to death by raving mobs of non-believers.
Meanwhile, Narendra Modi still runs Gujarat, Christians closer to home are still using "gay panic" as a legal defense, and shit is still indiscriminately blowing up all over the Middle East.
But people living around atheists aren't likely to be beaten/stoned/burned to death by raving mobs of non-believers.
Meanwhile, Narendra Modi still runs Gujarat, Christians closer to home are still using "gay panic" as a legal defense, and shit is still indiscriminately blowing up all over the Middle East.
37
I am not the one who believes in something. Therefore the burden of proof is on you. I find it more offensive that someone will just tell me "God exists" without offering tangible evidence. It offends my intelligence.
Sure I don't go around getting in people's faces or ringing people's doorbells, but if someone says to me "there is a god" my response is still "no there isn't" or "prove it" ...
Sure I don't go around getting in people's faces or ringing people's doorbells, but if someone says to me "there is a god" my response is still "no there isn't" or "prove it" ...
39
24
"I don't know any atheists who are filled with hate for religious people."
do you actually ever read slog?
"I don't know any atheists who are filled with hate for religious people."
do you actually ever read slog?
40
You still don't get it Dan, so allow me to explain:
CAEM came to you humbly seeking advice, and you decided to take the opportunity to go off on a tangent about how religion is bullshit. CAEM never said you were going to hell. He never said his was the one true god or that homosexuality was a sin. In fact, CAEM never said he was gay or a christian. You assumed these things, and then you ripped into him like he was the head of the LDS church. Your last sentence didn't bother me, everyone knows you're an atheist.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion and it's your column. But remember Dan, you style Savage Love as an advice column, not a "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" column.
CAEM came to you humbly seeking advice, and you decided to take the opportunity to go off on a tangent about how religion is bullshit. CAEM never said you were going to hell. He never said his was the one true god or that homosexuality was a sin. In fact, CAEM never said he was gay or a christian. You assumed these things, and then you ripped into him like he was the head of the LDS church. Your last sentence didn't bother me, everyone knows you're an atheist.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion and it's your column. But remember Dan, you style Savage Love as an advice column, not a "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" column.
41
@37 - From a purely logical standpoint, yes, you do believe in something: "there is no God". You define God in a particular way, probably "God" as modern American Christians describe him. I agree that "God" - like all concepts, really, but especially "God", since there are so many opinions and a notable lack of direct evidence - is a human construct, so it's interesting to find out what someone means by that before deciding to dissent.
The "null hypothesis" is not "there is a God" or "there is no God" but rather "we do not know anything".
The "null hypothesis" is not "there is a God" or "there is no God" but rather "we do not know anything".
42
@38. Not believing in vampires is not any more rational than believing in them.
@40 He wrote because he could not reconcile is religion with his sexual desires. Only one of those things can really be changed. Guess which one?
@40 He wrote because he could not reconcile is religion with his sexual desires. Only one of those things can really be changed. Guess which one?
43
OK. Time for this progressive Christian to weigh in. Though honestly, I don't know why I bother.
1. Church signs (including the sign board outside my own church) drive me crazy. It's not like anyone has ever looked at one of those signs and decided, "You know, they have a point. I'm going to start believing riiiight....now." At my church, they used to put quotes up from great thinkers, including quite a few non-Christians. They stopped doing that, however, and now they put up stupid sayings from The Big Book of Churchy Aphorisms - things like "Seven days without prayer makes one weak." Hate it.
2. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive things. Some of the smartest people I know are people of faith. I have a friend who is finishing up her Ph.D. in ecology and is specifically studying something about evolutionary patterns in plants. She believes in science and she believes in God. Likewise, there are three mathematics professors and two physics professors in my congregation. They made careers out of studying the most rational and factual of the sciences, but they also sing in the choir or lead Bible studies. If you ask me, or if you asked any of them, they would tell you that reason is a complement to faith, and vice versa, not a hindrance.
3. I believe that God exists. You (collectively) don't. Both are statements of faith - mine in the exisitence of a deity, yours in the lack of existence. Neither one can be proven. I accept that, and I won't thrust my beliefs on you, and ask that you don't thrust yours on me (which sounds kinda naughty). Neither one of us will convince the other otherwise unless they are already open to it.
Can we stop all this pointless arguing, fingerpointing, and whining and just go to our establishements of choice in our respective cities and have a beer in honor of each other? I think we would all be happier and more fulfilled that way.
More...
1. Church signs (including the sign board outside my own church) drive me crazy. It's not like anyone has ever looked at one of those signs and decided, "You know, they have a point. I'm going to start believing riiiight....now." At my church, they used to put quotes up from great thinkers, including quite a few non-Christians. They stopped doing that, however, and now they put up stupid sayings from The Big Book of Churchy Aphorisms - things like "Seven days without prayer makes one weak." Hate it.
2. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive things. Some of the smartest people I know are people of faith. I have a friend who is finishing up her Ph.D. in ecology and is specifically studying something about evolutionary patterns in plants. She believes in science and she believes in God. Likewise, there are three mathematics professors and two physics professors in my congregation. They made careers out of studying the most rational and factual of the sciences, but they also sing in the choir or lead Bible studies. If you ask me, or if you asked any of them, they would tell you that reason is a complement to faith, and vice versa, not a hindrance.
3. I believe that God exists. You (collectively) don't. Both are statements of faith - mine in the exisitence of a deity, yours in the lack of existence. Neither one can be proven. I accept that, and I won't thrust my beliefs on you, and ask that you don't thrust yours on me (which sounds kinda naughty). Neither one of us will convince the other otherwise unless they are already open to it.
Can we stop all this pointless arguing, fingerpointing, and whining and just go to our establishements of choice in our respective cities and have a beer in honor of each other? I think we would all be happier and more fulfilled that way.
44
@40 Uh, Brandon, just how long have you been reading Dan's Column?
He's not Ann-fucking-Landers. From the beginning when the writers salutation was "Hey Faggot" the style and nature of advice has always been frank, harsh, sometimes crude, and often rude. That's been the distinction compared to other advice columns, Dan doesn't stroke every writer and tell them how everything will be okay and to look on the brightside, but more than likely to call bullshit. I, for one, who has been reading from the beginning, think it has become a lot more mainstream and watered-down from what it used to be.
He's not Ann-fucking-Landers. From the beginning when the writers salutation was "Hey Faggot" the style and nature of advice has always been frank, harsh, sometimes crude, and often rude. That's been the distinction compared to other advice columns, Dan doesn't stroke every writer and tell them how everything will be okay and to look on the brightside, but more than likely to call bullshit. I, for one, who has been reading from the beginning, think it has become a lot more mainstream and watered-down from what it used to be.
45
At #39 - Slog anti-religion doesn't compare to the virulent bloodthirstiness displayed by the psycho elements of the Jesus crowd.
46
@41 Your argument is far more spiritual and conceptual than "logical"
"There is no God" is not a statement of religion or belief. It is like saying "The sky is blue" ... it is just the way that things are. I am not one bringing mythology, spirituality and vague concepts to the table.
I don't believe in God, I don't have to prove that God does not exist. That is like telling someone to prove that the sky is not neon green. It is just the way that things are. If you can bring me evidence to the contrary, then we can talk, but if something does not exist the burden is not on me to bring proof of non-existence. There is no proof one way or the other when something simply does not exist.
"There is no God" is not a statement of religion or belief. It is like saying "The sky is blue" ... it is just the way that things are. I am not one bringing mythology, spirituality and vague concepts to the table.
I don't believe in God, I don't have to prove that God does not exist. That is like telling someone to prove that the sky is not neon green. It is just the way that things are. If you can bring me evidence to the contrary, then we can talk, but if something does not exist the burden is not on me to bring proof of non-existence. There is no proof one way or the other when something simply does not exist.
48
#38, Depends on what you mean by atheism, Wingman.
If you're an atheist because you think you can prove there is no god, then yeah, you're probably right.
If you're an atheist because you think it's doubtful that a god will ever be proven, then it's certainly rational.
To me, real atheism revolves around the idea that you shouldn't believe something something simply because it can't be disproven.
If you're an atheist because you think you can prove there is no god, then yeah, you're probably right.
If you're an atheist because you think it's doubtful that a god will ever be proven, then it's certainly rational.
To me, real atheism revolves around the idea that you shouldn't believe something something simply because it can't be disproven.
49
45 - But why is that an excuse? I mean it's one thing to rant about there being no God on Slog. It's another thing entirely for Dan to tell this guy that the only way to reconcile faith and sexuality is to abandon faith. I know several progressive religious people who would beg to differ. Belief in God does not necessarily coincide with belief in being a bigoted asshole. The blanket treatment many atheists give to all religious people is, for lack of a better word, illogical.
Why judge people by what they believe? If you have to judge them, judge them on how they behave.
Why judge people by what they believe? If you have to judge them, judge them on how they behave.
50
Those signs - do they display genuine concern or schadenfreude?
Dan, I love your work. Your original post to CAEM was spot on, and just what the doctor ordered for the original poster and for us ardent readers of your column; the last line no less than the rest. Please don't let all this feigned outrage take the acerbic lead out of your pencil.
Dan, I love your work. Your original post to CAEM was spot on, and just what the doctor ordered for the original poster and for us ardent readers of your column; the last line no less than the rest. Please don't let all this feigned outrage take the acerbic lead out of your pencil.
51
#48, the belief that "it's doubtful that a god will ever be proven" is more an agnostic belief than an atheist belief.
It seems to me that it would be easier to prove the existence of god than the non-existence of god. Thus, if you believe that "it's doubtful that a god will ever be proven" then logically you should also hold the belief that "it's doubtful that a lack of god will ever be proven". These beliefs are essentially agnosticism.
Personally, I think life's too short for such inconsequential musings.
It seems to me that it would be easier to prove the existence of god than the non-existence of god. Thus, if you believe that "it's doubtful that a god will ever be proven" then logically you should also hold the belief that "it's doubtful that a lack of god will ever be proven". These beliefs are essentially agnosticism.
Personally, I think life's too short for such inconsequential musings.
53
@43:
You allow yourself to fall into the same logical "trap" that most others tend to, namely, by asserting that because both positions are opinions they both are equal in weight, which is simply not the case at all.
Making the affirmative claim that "God exists" presupposes something that supports this claim, but what is it? You cannot point to a single piece of evidence to back up the assertion, none. It is only your belief in the truth of the assertion that gives it any weight at all. On the other hand, making the negative claim that "God does not exist" is much easier to back up, precisely because of the lack of evidence FOR God's existence. That's how it works: any positive assertion that cannot be supported with even a modicum of proof is always going to be weaker than a diametrical negative assertion which is in fact supported BY that same lack of proof.
These are not absolutes, and if one is intellectually honest, one must always acknowledge at least a minute possibility that the opposite assertion is in fact the correct one. But, that is all it is - an infinitesimally small possibility, less even than the laws of probability would allow. And in order for that to be anything more than simply an immeasurably small likelihood all that is required is one single bit of evidence, however small, that might potentially disprove the negative assertion. But, until such proof is forthcoming it does not follow that both assertions are equivalent for the very reason that the preponderant lack of evidence in support of the positive assertion lends proportionally greater weight to the negative one.
You allow yourself to fall into the same logical "trap" that most others tend to, namely, by asserting that because both positions are opinions they both are equal in weight, which is simply not the case at all.
Making the affirmative claim that "God exists" presupposes something that supports this claim, but what is it? You cannot point to a single piece of evidence to back up the assertion, none. It is only your belief in the truth of the assertion that gives it any weight at all. On the other hand, making the negative claim that "God does not exist" is much easier to back up, precisely because of the lack of evidence FOR God's existence. That's how it works: any positive assertion that cannot be supported with even a modicum of proof is always going to be weaker than a diametrical negative assertion which is in fact supported BY that same lack of proof.
These are not absolutes, and if one is intellectually honest, one must always acknowledge at least a minute possibility that the opposite assertion is in fact the correct one. But, that is all it is - an infinitesimally small possibility, less even than the laws of probability would allow. And in order for that to be anything more than simply an immeasurably small likelihood all that is required is one single bit of evidence, however small, that might potentially disprove the negative assertion. But, until such proof is forthcoming it does not follow that both assertions are equivalent for the very reason that the preponderant lack of evidence in support of the positive assertion lends proportionally greater weight to the negative one.
55
#53, I don't think "lack of proof" supports anything. At the very least it is circumstantial evidence.
56
Hey Jocelyn,
I think in the original letter Dan gave CAEM various different options. At the same time Dan shared his opinion, and his path for reconciling his own experience of growing up in the Catholic church. I think it is okay, that walking away was presented as an option. CAEM needs to hear that that path exisits, along with finding a religious path that reconciles his sexual desires. CAEM's going to have to wrestle with God, himself, and his religious traditions on this, and he's going to have to find his own path for peace. I don't think I know a single person of faith, and of whom I inspire to be like (Christ being the most important) that didn't have to face a crisis of faith. I know I had to walk away, before I could really understand what I believed and find peace.
I think in the original letter Dan gave CAEM various different options. At the same time Dan shared his opinion, and his path for reconciling his own experience of growing up in the Catholic church. I think it is okay, that walking away was presented as an option. CAEM needs to hear that that path exisits, along with finding a religious path that reconciles his sexual desires. CAEM's going to have to wrestle with God, himself, and his religious traditions on this, and he's going to have to find his own path for peace. I don't think I know a single person of faith, and of whom I inspire to be like (Christ being the most important) that didn't have to face a crisis of faith. I know I had to walk away, before I could really understand what I believed and find peace.
57
56 - I understand, but I hate it when these things are presented as fact. Atheism may be more likely to be true than your average conjecture, but it's not science. It's an assumption - conjecture. And I think everyone could benefit if we presented our opinions, however likely they are to be true, as opinions. I'm not trying to pick on atheism. It's just that they, unlike religion, do not have X thousand years worth of what they believe to be justified bigotry behind them, and therefore I expect more from them.
59
Dan, I assume you'll ignore today's Washington State Supreme Court opinion on tent city in Woodinville. A case of progressive religion having to fight city hall to care for homeless people. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
Maybe the endless rant again religion would be more tolerable if you would at least admit that "some" of us are trying hard to do right.
Maybe the endless rant again religion would be more tolerable if you would at least admit that "some" of us are trying hard to do right.
60
@55:
At the very least circumstantial evidence is still MORE evidence than no evidence whatsoever.
At the very least circumstantial evidence is still MORE evidence than no evidence whatsoever.
61
"I don't know any atheists who go door-to-door seeking converts—and don't like being subjected to it themselves."
Make friends with the atheist missionary to the mormons featured in this video:
http://www.break.com/index/door_to_door_…
Make friends with the atheist missionary to the mormons featured in this video:
http://www.break.com/index/door_to_door_…
62
"I don't know any atheists who go door-to-door seeking converts—and don't like being subjected to it themselves."
Make friends with the atheist missionary to the mormons featured in this video:
http://www.break.com/index/door_to_door_…
Make friends with the atheist missionary to the mormons featured in this video:
http://www.break.com/index/door_to_door_…
63
#51
Many Atheists actually hold the last view you put forth. I'm one of them and call myself an Atheist because I don't actively believe things I don't have a reason to believe, whether I can disprove them or not. Why would god be different?
I can't prove or disprove that I'm just a figment of someones dream but I don't consider myselves an agnostic on my own existence.
Many Atheists actually hold the last view you put forth. I'm one of them and call myself an Atheist because I don't actively believe things I don't have a reason to believe, whether I can disprove them or not. Why would god be different?
I can't prove or disprove that I'm just a figment of someones dream but I don't consider myselves an agnostic on my own existence.
64
I've never bothered anyone with my atheism at a funeral. But it's always the Christians who tell you, "at least she's in a better place now", at a secular wake. Had it not been for the drama it would have created, I would have told that old cunt, between you and her, how about YOU eat shit and die in a better place?
65
Um...no. It's not always between pushy atheists and pushy Christians, here. Some of us in this argument aren't Christian OR Atheists, and stop pretending you haven't noticed that.
It's between those of us who have the tact and maturity to be able to keep our beliefs to ourselves (whether we're Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Pagan or whatever) vs. people who can't leave us be and have to proselytize at every opportunity (whether YOU'RE Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Pagan or whatever).
It's not about who's got the "right" interpretation of what's going on in the universe because let's face it, we can be pretty damn sure that all of us - and I do mean ALL - are wrong. Having the best logical arguments doesn't give you the right to be a douchebag. And no, you don't get to say, "Well, THEY started it so that makes it okay for me to do it, but I still get to whine about them doing it!" That's called, "acting like a fucking five year old."
It's between those of us who have the tact and maturity to be able to keep our beliefs to ourselves (whether we're Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Pagan or whatever) vs. people who can't leave us be and have to proselytize at every opportunity (whether YOU'RE Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Pagan or whatever).
It's not about who's got the "right" interpretation of what's going on in the universe because let's face it, we can be pretty damn sure that all of us - and I do mean ALL - are wrong. Having the best logical arguments doesn't give you the right to be a douchebag. And no, you don't get to say, "Well, THEY started it so that makes it okay for me to do it, but I still get to whine about them doing it!" That's called, "acting like a fucking five year old."
66
"About the only time I offer my POV on religion is when I'm asked, which I was in the column that kicked up this fuss -- it was a bankshot ask, but an ask nevertheless."
How do you figure?
How do you figure?
67
Dan -- you lump Christians together as if we're all the same. Why? Is it because of the historical stance against gays?
I'm a Seattle Christian who goes to a church that welcomes gays. Liberal churches are everywhere. Methodists. Episcopalians. Presbyterians. At a church service in D.C. I attended a few years ago, our pastor implored us all to go home and watch 'Angels in America' and recognize how wrong the collective church has been to not care for our gay brothers and sisters.
There are some Christians who do want to wage a PR war on atheists. And then there are the ones like me who co-exist peacefully, recognizing that God is bigger than any amount of money spent on bus signs, road signs and bumper stickers declaring his existence or lack thereof.
You criticize main stream media for not saying that there are two sides to the drug story. But you never present the other side of the God story.
-Closeted Christian
I'm a Seattle Christian who goes to a church that welcomes gays. Liberal churches are everywhere. Methodists. Episcopalians. Presbyterians. At a church service in D.C. I attended a few years ago, our pastor implored us all to go home and watch 'Angels in America' and recognize how wrong the collective church has been to not care for our gay brothers and sisters.
There are some Christians who do want to wage a PR war on atheists. And then there are the ones like me who co-exist peacefully, recognizing that God is bigger than any amount of money spent on bus signs, road signs and bumper stickers declaring his existence or lack thereof.
You criticize main stream media for not saying that there are two sides to the drug story. But you never present the other side of the God story.
-Closeted Christian
68
@4:
"But getting back to your point: I've always thought that religious people who are so touchy about someone saying that God doesn't exist are already insecure, which is why they cling to their religion (I think some presidential candidate put it that way) in the first place."
Not always. For me, it's just that when someone I respect says, "There is no God," instead of saying, "I don't believe there's a God," or even, "I see no reason to believe in a God," it's insulting. Like being looked straight in the eye and told, "I think you're fundamentally stupid and I don't care enough about you to avoid telling you that as bluntly as I can."
I myself have plenty of respect for the atheist POV - it's logical, it's scientific, all that jazz. And I think that ultimately, what separates smart atheists from smart spiritual folks is that on some level, spiritual people go ahead and DECIDE to believe. We take evidence from circumstantial stuff, personal experiences, hunches, feelings and we build a belief system from it because we want it to be true and that's good enough for us. So at some level, it's not about what is and isn't rational, it's about how we feel inclined to live. It's about the things we need to make us happy. Not because we're scared or insecure or any of that shit, just because it's something we want in our lives. It's a question and a pursuit we enjoy. I don't think it's too much to ask to have that respected.
"But getting back to your point: I've always thought that religious people who are so touchy about someone saying that God doesn't exist are already insecure, which is why they cling to their religion (I think some presidential candidate put it that way) in the first place."
Not always. For me, it's just that when someone I respect says, "There is no God," instead of saying, "I don't believe there's a God," or even, "I see no reason to believe in a God," it's insulting. Like being looked straight in the eye and told, "I think you're fundamentally stupid and I don't care enough about you to avoid telling you that as bluntly as I can."
I myself have plenty of respect for the atheist POV - it's logical, it's scientific, all that jazz. And I think that ultimately, what separates smart atheists from smart spiritual folks is that on some level, spiritual people go ahead and DECIDE to believe. We take evidence from circumstantial stuff, personal experiences, hunches, feelings and we build a belief system from it because we want it to be true and that's good enough for us. So at some level, it's not about what is and isn't rational, it's about how we feel inclined to live. It's about the things we need to make us happy. Not because we're scared or insecure or any of that shit, just because it's something we want in our lives. It's a question and a pursuit we enjoy. I don't think it's too much to ask to have that respected.
69
@49 That is your opinion. Dan's may differ. I know mine does. Why can you have and express yours but he cannot.
@51, So lets say you, and the rest of humanity, has looked for the evidence of something for a long long time. In that case does it not make sense to say that it is very probable that this thing does not exist and to live your life accordingly. Yeah if you press me I will acknowledge that there is a remote possibility of god existing. But I will say the same thing about Big Foot.
I am not agnostic on Big Foot and I am not agnostic on God. I will assume both are myths until someone shows me some evidence that refutes that.
@51, So lets say you, and the rest of humanity, has looked for the evidence of something for a long long time. In that case does it not make sense to say that it is very probable that this thing does not exist and to live your life accordingly. Yeah if you press me I will acknowledge that there is a remote possibility of god existing. But I will say the same thing about Big Foot.
I am not agnostic on Big Foot and I am not agnostic on God. I will assume both are myths until someone shows me some evidence that refutes that.
70
COMTE @60, giffy @69: what you say does make sense, intuitively, but from a purely epistemological standpoint, I don't think there is much knowledge let alone wisdom to be gained from the exercise (god OR bigfoot). That's just where I'm coming from, though, so I don't really bother to form much of a belief on the topic. I guess my belief would be that it should not and/or does not matter one way or the other.
I am curious how one might live their life accordingly once they have accepted that there "probably" is no god. (I'm not considering sinning or any kind of specific dogma, I'm just thinking of god strictly as a generic transcendental concept.)
I am curious how one might live their life accordingly once they have accepted that there "probably" is no god. (I'm not considering sinning or any kind of specific dogma, I'm just thinking of god strictly as a generic transcendental concept.)
71
Those that think there "probably is no god": aren't they the same that profess being born again once they are securely on their deathbeds? ;)
And the ones that say there "probably is" are the ones who swear most creatively when they need that god the most? ;)
In either case; the 'probablies' probably haven't made up their mind. They have the right to take their damn time.
I'd posit that god isn't the bottom line here... faith is. And there is evidence that faith exists. Faith is a quality we possess. Humans are designed to believe... In gods, dreams, science, themselves, greed, their dog, whatever: we're designed with faith like we're designed with hunger.
Where you target that faith is private for some, and fuel for bigotry for others. In either case, many consider it important, and I've never fully understood the 'need' to be competitive about it. Others emphasize that what's most imortant is which filter you push your faith through, i.e. which book, which house of worship, which philosophy. But I like to think that's the same as demanding someone describe their hunger, and then judging you if it doesn't line up exactly the same using the same adjectives, or if you don't crave the same food. What's the point? Do we need to disagree so much? Or starved for affirmation to the point we yell and demand it? Are we addicts for arguments to the point we'll argue qualities of humanity? Next we'll say the way you breathe isn't as valid as the way I breathe, or that the shapeor cut of one's body parts is important, or even more absurdly, that your love isn't as valid as mine*. What a sad state.
on the subject of evangelicals (of atheism, christianity, NAMBLA, et al) vs. privately/quietly faithful: Perhaps we could all stand to let more of those humble people know that we appreciate them- the ones who don't shove agendas about faith in our face- that we admire their quiet faithfulness and value their mutual respect. Could bring civility back to the table.
*What, a subtle agenda? Never.
More...
And the ones that say there "probably is" are the ones who swear most creatively when they need that god the most? ;)
In either case; the 'probablies' probably haven't made up their mind. They have the right to take their damn time.
I'd posit that god isn't the bottom line here... faith is. And there is evidence that faith exists. Faith is a quality we possess. Humans are designed to believe... In gods, dreams, science, themselves, greed, their dog, whatever: we're designed with faith like we're designed with hunger.
Where you target that faith is private for some, and fuel for bigotry for others. In either case, many consider it important, and I've never fully understood the 'need' to be competitive about it. Others emphasize that what's most imortant is which filter you push your faith through, i.e. which book, which house of worship, which philosophy. But I like to think that's the same as demanding someone describe their hunger, and then judging you if it doesn't line up exactly the same using the same adjectives, or if you don't crave the same food. What's the point? Do we need to disagree so much? Or starved for affirmation to the point we yell and demand it? Are we addicts for arguments to the point we'll argue qualities of humanity? Next we'll say the way you breathe isn't as valid as the way I breathe, or that the shapeor cut of one's body parts is important, or even more absurdly, that your love isn't as valid as mine*. What a sad state.
on the subject of evangelicals (of atheism, christianity, NAMBLA, et al) vs. privately/quietly faithful: Perhaps we could all stand to let more of those humble people know that we appreciate them- the ones who don't shove agendas about faith in our face- that we admire their quiet faithfulness and value their mutual respect. Could bring civility back to the table.
*What, a subtle agenda? Never.
72
@70 You touch on the essential aspect of the debate: epistemology. Does one have an explicit method for knowing things? For those influenced by Objectivism the answer to that question is yes. One can only know something by objective observation of the world and by integrating all concepts together in a hierarchy of knowledge. This is what science does.
Arbitrary assertions like the existence of the tooth fairy do not qualify as knowledge. There is no way to integrate them with all the rest of what we know to be true. Introspection is not a means to discover truth about the world.
Faith and reason are opposite processes. That is why someone who believes in the absoluteness of reason will try to reason with you. Ultimately all faiths get around to using force to subdue non-believers.
I am an atheist because from everything else I know there simply cannot be a god. It is an impossibility. Not "doubtful," impossible.
Arbitrary assertions like the existence of the tooth fairy do not qualify as knowledge. There is no way to integrate them with all the rest of what we know to be true. Introspection is not a means to discover truth about the world.
Faith and reason are opposite processes. That is why someone who believes in the absoluteness of reason will try to reason with you. Ultimately all faiths get around to using force to subdue non-believers.
I am an atheist because from everything else I know there simply cannot be a god. It is an impossibility. Not "doubtful," impossible.
73
That sign points out on of the fatal flaws, and huge plot holes of the Bible. Why would God need to sacrifice his only son to just to change his own rules of forgiveness? Isn't he supposed to be omnipotent?
74
@70 If this thing existed then the exercises would not be futile. I can interact with say my dog and come to verifiable knowledge about him. For example that the can be made to sit using hand signals.
With god the reason we cannot do this is because there is no god there, or if there is that being is so detached from this world as to be irrelevant. Its the teacup orbiting Jupiter. We cannot prove its not there, but we can with a great deal of confidence say its not an that even if it was it would have such a little effect on anything that its existence would be irrelevant. If a god liked most religions existed(the active personal kind) then that should be accessible by science. It should leave behind evidence of its exist simply by acting. If its actions are indistinguishable form natural process, then why even give a shit about the existence of this being.
AS for your last question. I mean if you strip away anything that makes god interesting such that god is simply a being somewhere that does nothing, then yeah atheism and theism are pretty indistinguishable. However a belief in god generally comes with say a belief in intervention, prayer, an afterlife, a set of rules, mythology, accountability, purpose, etc. By living my life as though there was not god I reject all of those at least as far as they are supernatural.
@71Faith is a nebulous concept. I would describe a lot of what you are talking about more as trust. I trust my family and dog because I have reasons to. I do not see any reason to engage in what is traditionally called faith. That is believing in things lacking evidence and proof.
With god the reason we cannot do this is because there is no god there, or if there is that being is so detached from this world as to be irrelevant. Its the teacup orbiting Jupiter. We cannot prove its not there, but we can with a great deal of confidence say its not an that even if it was it would have such a little effect on anything that its existence would be irrelevant. If a god liked most religions existed(the active personal kind) then that should be accessible by science. It should leave behind evidence of its exist simply by acting. If its actions are indistinguishable form natural process, then why even give a shit about the existence of this being.
AS for your last question. I mean if you strip away anything that makes god interesting such that god is simply a being somewhere that does nothing, then yeah atheism and theism are pretty indistinguishable. However a belief in god generally comes with say a belief in intervention, prayer, an afterlife, a set of rules, mythology, accountability, purpose, etc. By living my life as though there was not god I reject all of those at least as far as they are supernatural.
@71Faith is a nebulous concept. I would describe a lot of what you are talking about more as trust. I trust my family and dog because I have reasons to. I do not see any reason to engage in what is traditionally called faith. That is believing in things lacking evidence and proof.
75
Comte, as long as science can't even begin to describe what life IS (as opposed to how it works), I'd say there's possible evidence of god. It's far from conclusive, but it can't be dismissed.
76
There was a time when earthquakes, and lightning couldn't be explained with the technology available. Such natural phenomena were attributed to a god or gods. Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean it's the work of god. Thoughout history, it has been shown that people will just make crap up, and pass it along as fact.
To claim there is a magical, all powerful, all knowing being, who for some reason hides it's existence from us (a god who likes to play petty mind games?) is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If I claimed to have a talking snake, people would demand proof. I doubt they'd take my word, believe witness testimony, or even a video. They'd have to see it for themselves. Examine the snake for devices etc. Most would think a person to be extremely gullible to just believe I had a talking snake without such evidence. Yet we're just supposed to take the word of other people, that there is a super-powerful, mystical, magical god?
To claim there is a magical, all powerful, all knowing being, who for some reason hides it's existence from us (a god who likes to play petty mind games?) is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If I claimed to have a talking snake, people would demand proof. I doubt they'd take my word, believe witness testimony, or even a video. They'd have to see it for themselves. Examine the snake for devices etc. Most would think a person to be extremely gullible to just believe I had a talking snake without such evidence. Yet we're just supposed to take the word of other people, that there is a super-powerful, mystical, magical god?
77
My favorite billboard is on I-65 in Kentucky. One one side it says "HELL is REAL!!!!" and the other side has 5 of the 10 commandments. Across the interstate from it is an Adult "superstore."
78
@ 76, who are you addressing? If it's me... I'm not asserting that there is a god either. I'm saying that the evidence is insufficient to reach a logical conclusion either way. Hence, agnosticism.
79
76
We live in a time when earthquakes, temperature change and lightning can be readily explained with the technology available. However, such natural phenomena are attributed to "Global Warming". Thoughout history, it has been shown that people will just make crap up, and pass it along as fact.
We live in a time when earthquakes, temperature change and lightning can be readily explained with the technology available. However, such natural phenomena are attributed to "Global Warming". Thoughout history, it has been shown that people will just make crap up, and pass it along as fact.
80
@75: But biologists HAVE been able to describe what life is, and have determined a specific set of properties by which to define it.
"Life" is an organic process in which organisms of at least one cell in composition exhibit the following properties:
1. It must take in energy, and eliminate waste by-products, that is, engage in metabolic processes;
2. It must grow and develop;
3. It must respond to its environment;
4. It must reproduce and pass its traits onto its offspring;
5. Over time, it must evolve in response to its environment
Any organic structure that possesses all of these properties is defined as being alive; any that possess only some, or none, are not.
"Life" is an organic process in which organisms of at least one cell in composition exhibit the following properties:
1. It must take in energy, and eliminate waste by-products, that is, engage in metabolic processes;
2. It must grow and develop;
3. It must respond to its environment;
4. It must reproduce and pass its traits onto its offspring;
5. Over time, it must evolve in response to its environment
Any organic structure that possesses all of these properties is defined as being alive; any that possess only some, or none, are not.
81
Hey Rob @ 76,
Wow! Do we see things differently. Heads up. I'm cool with your being an atheist, and I like you for who you are. Your welcome to your opinion, and I have no wish to change it. Still, you amazed me. Although, rationally it makes perfect sense, but I'm prone to let my heart speak. You see God, if there is one in your perspective, as hiding. I see him everywhere I look. I see him in the sunrise behind Mt. Hood, the hummingbird outside my window, the graceful shadow of my legs when I run, in my children, in my beloved's eyes. To me God isn't hiding, he's there in everything that is beautiful, is everywhere there is love. That desire to be part of a bigger, greater love, and to build a life together, to me that's him. When I look at your avatar, or smile because Matt from Denver has written something delightful, I think, "Wow! What lovely people you make God."
So, feel free to commence giggling at me, because there is nothing rational about what I wrote above. But, Rob in Baltimore, who often wears his heart on his sleeve, you alone are enough to convince me that there is a God. A God that loves his creations.
Wow! Do we see things differently. Heads up. I'm cool with your being an atheist, and I like you for who you are. Your welcome to your opinion, and I have no wish to change it. Still, you amazed me. Although, rationally it makes perfect sense, but I'm prone to let my heart speak. You see God, if there is one in your perspective, as hiding. I see him everywhere I look. I see him in the sunrise behind Mt. Hood, the hummingbird outside my window, the graceful shadow of my legs when I run, in my children, in my beloved's eyes. To me God isn't hiding, he's there in everything that is beautiful, is everywhere there is love. That desire to be part of a bigger, greater love, and to build a life together, to me that's him. When I look at your avatar, or smile because Matt from Denver has written something delightful, I think, "Wow! What lovely people you make God."
So, feel free to commence giggling at me, because there is nothing rational about what I wrote above. But, Rob in Baltimore, who often wears his heart on his sleeve, you alone are enough to convince me that there is a God. A God that loves his creations.
82
@ 80, I'm repeating myself from the other thread, but what you give here is a description of how life works (specifically, what to look for if you want to say whether or not something is alive); but not what life is, that is, why anything is alive in the first place.
If I may quote myself,
This is an important question, one that is not being addressed here. If you or others choose not to consider it, that's fine; but if the topic is, Is it logical to conclude that there is no god based on the available evidence, then the answer is no because life is part of that available evidence. As it stands, the notion that some higher power we can't detect through any of the known senses being the source is a better hypothesis.
Since we're talking about the conclusions we can reach with what we know NOW, the conclusion that there's insufficient data is the most logical one.
If I may quote myself,
All life comes from somewhere; that's observable in both sexual and asexual reproduction. But what is it? Science hasn't even begun to describe the force that makes us alive; it can't even say whether it is or is not a force.
This is an important question, one that is not being addressed here. If you or others choose not to consider it, that's fine; but if the topic is, Is it logical to conclude that there is no god based on the available evidence, then the answer is no because life is part of that available evidence. As it stands, the notion that some higher power we can't detect through any of the known senses being the source is a better hypothesis.
Since we're talking about the conclusions we can reach with what we know NOW, the conclusion that there's insufficient data is the most logical one.
83
Oops, I need to rewrite the second sentence in the third paragraph:
If you or others choose not to consider it when deciding what you believe, that's fine.
If you or others choose not to consider it when deciding what you believe, that's fine.
84
81, The trouble with such a low threshold of required evidence is one could attribute the all those things to anything that can be imagined. One could say invisible magic fairies put the humming bird outside your window. Would you believe that is was invisible magic fairies just on my word? You can't prove that it wasn't.
85
84:
I never claimed it was rational or provable, just that we see things differently. You don't see God when you look in the mirror, I see him when I look at your avatar (sorry, for presuming that lovely smile is yours). Who you are, (height, eye color, gifts, innate talents, your sexuality) are how you reflect him to the world. That's how I see every person. It's what makes each human precious, and why freedom from oppression and equality are so important. My heart doesn't make sense, it is not explainable, it loves what it loves. To me beauty originates in God, so your magic fairies that brought the humming bird would be from God. When we see the humming bird, your seeing with your mind and intellect, and I'm seeing it with my heart. My heart marries science to faith, and rational to mystery. I can't give you proof, all I have is my own heart and its story.
Rob, I'm not asking you to believe that there is a God because I say I believe there is one. You have to listen to your own heart. I'm just saying that we see things differently. I have peace in how I see things, and a presume you have peace in how you see things, too.
I wish you joy and justice. I hope my seeing you as being wonderful made and existing for a purpose, wasn't offensive to you. Your comments, thoughts, and opinions bless me, and I'm grateful for it.
I never claimed it was rational or provable, just that we see things differently. You don't see God when you look in the mirror, I see him when I look at your avatar (sorry, for presuming that lovely smile is yours). Who you are, (height, eye color, gifts, innate talents, your sexuality) are how you reflect him to the world. That's how I see every person. It's what makes each human precious, and why freedom from oppression and equality are so important. My heart doesn't make sense, it is not explainable, it loves what it loves. To me beauty originates in God, so your magic fairies that brought the humming bird would be from God. When we see the humming bird, your seeing with your mind and intellect, and I'm seeing it with my heart. My heart marries science to faith, and rational to mystery. I can't give you proof, all I have is my own heart and its story.
Rob, I'm not asking you to believe that there is a God because I say I believe there is one. You have to listen to your own heart. I'm just saying that we see things differently. I have peace in how I see things, and a presume you have peace in how you see things, too.
I wish you joy and justice. I hope my seeing you as being wonderful made and existing for a purpose, wasn't offensive to you. Your comments, thoughts, and opinions bless me, and I'm grateful for it.
86
@82
"but if the topic is, Is it logical to conclude that there is no god based on the available evidence, then the answer is no because life is part of that available evidence."
Whaaa? Okay, life exists. Okay, we don't know where it comes from. Why do you make the leap from that point to a God being behind it all? Couldn't it be a speck of glorp matter, which cannot be detected by any means but creates simple life forms whenever it collides with Zorp particles?
The problem with saying "we don't understand this thing, so God must have created it" is that it answers nothing. It tells us nothing about life, or about the process through which it is created. Therefore, it really has no place in the discussion about causes and science.
Perhaps the best answer is simply "I don't know," without speculating that a supernatural entity that cannot be detected is involved.
"but if the topic is, Is it logical to conclude that there is no god based on the available evidence, then the answer is no because life is part of that available evidence."
Whaaa? Okay, life exists. Okay, we don't know where it comes from. Why do you make the leap from that point to a God being behind it all? Couldn't it be a speck of glorp matter, which cannot be detected by any means but creates simple life forms whenever it collides with Zorp particles?
The problem with saying "we don't understand this thing, so God must have created it" is that it answers nothing. It tells us nothing about life, or about the process through which it is created. Therefore, it really has no place in the discussion about causes and science.
Perhaps the best answer is simply "I don't know," without speculating that a supernatural entity that cannot be detected is involved.
88
@80:
I understand the semantical difference, but all life is is a process, one that distinguishes between a vital, functioning being and a dead body or inanimate matter. It is the sum total of all the characteristics I noted above. That's the definition. We know perfectly well where it comes from: it comes from the summation of those processes working in a coordinated fashion. Things that are dead, but were once alive are quite easy to distinguish from those that are alive currently, because they lack those properties. Likewise, things that were never alive to begin with are equally easy to distinguish, because they never exhibited any of those properties in the first place.
Trying to define life without at least some mention of the processes involved makes no more sense than trying to describe Pasteurization without mentioning what it does.
But, if you want a succinct definition of "life", I go with: "the mechanistic process whereby organic matter develops, engages in, and maintains biological functioning."
I understand the semantical difference, but all life is is a process, one that distinguishes between a vital, functioning being and a dead body or inanimate matter. It is the sum total of all the characteristics I noted above. That's the definition. We know perfectly well where it comes from: it comes from the summation of those processes working in a coordinated fashion. Things that are dead, but were once alive are quite easy to distinguish from those that are alive currently, because they lack those properties. Likewise, things that were never alive to begin with are equally easy to distinguish, because they never exhibited any of those properties in the first place.
Trying to define life without at least some mention of the processes involved makes no more sense than trying to describe Pasteurization without mentioning what it does.
But, if you want a succinct definition of "life", I go with: "the mechanistic process whereby organic matter develops, engages in, and maintains biological functioning."
89
@ 88, that just isn't good enough. Where does consciousness fit in? Where did it all begin? Is it really just a chemical process?
As I told someone on the other thread, you're not going to find any scientific studies defining life as that and nothing more; and that's because there's more to it than that, not because it's too controversial.
As I told someone on the other thread, you're not going to find any scientific studies defining life as that and nothing more; and that's because there's more to it than that, not because it's too controversial.
90
Consciousness is a completely different issue; the question was, "what is the definition of life?"
The short definition of consciousness, however, is simply: "the quality of self-awareness".
And from a rational/scientific perspective, I would have to say that yes, in fact life, and by extension consciousness IS just a chemical process, or more precisely: a complex interaction of biological chemical processes with sensory input processes, and cognitive observational, organizational, interpretive and communicative processes, as developed over a long period of evolutionary selection.
The short definition of consciousness, however, is simply: "the quality of self-awareness".
And from a rational/scientific perspective, I would have to say that yes, in fact life, and by extension consciousness IS just a chemical process, or more precisely: a complex interaction of biological chemical processes with sensory input processes, and cognitive observational, organizational, interpretive and communicative processes, as developed over a long period of evolutionary selection.
91
Actually, I want to amend that just slightly.
It would be more accurate to say that life, and by extension consciousness is an electro-chemical process, since it seems pretty clear that both interact to enable biological functions, and life could not exist without either.
It would be more accurate to say that life, and by extension consciousness is an electro-chemical process, since it seems pretty clear that both interact to enable biological functions, and life could not exist without either.
93
@ 90, again, if science doesn't say that that's all that life is, what's your basis for reaching that conclusion? It seems to me that you actually depart from a scientific perspective to do so, because a big part of science is consensus after numerous studies.
All I see here in your examples are the mechanics of life, but not the driving force. If you can point out how they're one and the same, without it appearing that you've simply decided that that's all there is to it, I'm listening. But until then, I see you making more of a faith-based sort of a decision rather than a truly rational one.
All I see here in your examples are the mechanics of life, but not the driving force. If you can point out how they're one and the same, without it appearing that you've simply decided that that's all there is to it, I'm listening. But until then, I see you making more of a faith-based sort of a decision rather than a truly rational one.
94
Matt,
But, science DOES say "that's all that life is". If an object possesses the characteristics I've noted above it is alive; if it lacks some or all of these characteristics, it's not. That's it.
You seem to miss the point: the mechanics ARE the "driving force". You have pre-concluded that physical processes alone cannot possibly account for the phenomena of life and consciousness, and so you keep insisting that "something else" must be involved. But, there is no evidence to support this; there's no "spirit", no "soul" in the sense of some external, supernatural, ethereal "force" at work here, just the processes themselves.
Your error is in trying to further complicate something by introducing an element that the laws of physics and biology posits is not necessary for the emergence of life and consciousness, then you argue that, because science has not discovered this mysterious, irrelevant quality, the definition is somehow incomplete. All I'm saying is that, if you let go of the notion that some supernatural force is involved, then the definition IS complete, and makes perfect sense.
But, science DOES say "that's all that life is". If an object possesses the characteristics I've noted above it is alive; if it lacks some or all of these characteristics, it's not. That's it.
You seem to miss the point: the mechanics ARE the "driving force". You have pre-concluded that physical processes alone cannot possibly account for the phenomena of life and consciousness, and so you keep insisting that "something else" must be involved. But, there is no evidence to support this; there's no "spirit", no "soul" in the sense of some external, supernatural, ethereal "force" at work here, just the processes themselves.
Your error is in trying to further complicate something by introducing an element that the laws of physics and biology posits is not necessary for the emergence of life and consciousness, then you argue that, because science has not discovered this mysterious, irrelevant quality, the definition is somehow incomplete. All I'm saying is that, if you let go of the notion that some supernatural force is involved, then the definition IS complete, and makes perfect sense.
95
Maybe so, Comte, but I can just as logically say your error is in presupposing that all there is about life can be described and observed physically. The jury has not come back in on that one.
I have a feeling that we're not going to get any further with this, so I want to thank you for your time. You're one of the best sloggers here and I always enjoy what you have to say.
I have a feeling that we're not going to get any further with this, so I want to thank you for your time. You're one of the best sloggers here and I always enjoy what you have to say.
96
I'm with Matt from Denver in that there are yet unanswered questions, or enough conflicting answers to warrant further study.
97
1. It must take in energy, and eliminate waste by-products, that is, engage in metabolic processes;
2. It must grow and develop;
3. It must respond to its environment;
4. It must reproduce and pass its traits onto its offspring;
5. Over time, it must evolve in response to its environment
Cities can also be wedged into this list of definers. Consciousness and sentience may be the real divider. I see Matt's question as this: the mechanics of life are in motion and they continue to be the only perpetual motion machine in existence, but what was the force/energy/impetus that first pushed... i.e. how did the first offspring happen? what nudged light to get it moving so fast? and what was the source of the big bang?
I don't agree with those that see god as the only answer; I'm not so arrogant as to think I've got all the asnwers figured out yet. I suppose when I do, I'll find a deity staring back at me in a mirror - until then, I'm content in my role as a learner.
98
"...your error is in presupposing that all there is about life can be described and observed physically. The jury has not come back in on that one."
Actually, the jury IS back on that one, and there's plenty of stuff around that can't be observed physically. I can't see viruses or radiation with my eyes, but it would be quite foolish of me to live as though they don't exist.
Okay, I know: we have found ways to physically observe these phenomenon using tools, but they existed before we could do that and before it even *occurred* to us to try to look. Furthermore, it's certainly not unheard of for western science to "discover" things people have already been aware of through instinct, intuition, sixth senses or just conjecture. (see: Chines medicine, chakras, maternal instincts about how baby cry pitch=specific baby problems.)
The reason I moved away from my Christian upbringing and into Paganism is that I've experienced way too much freaky shit to be able to say, "that's just my imagination/wishful thinking/whatever." So when the atheists say, "You have no evidence!" I have to laugh. I have plenty of evidence in the form of my own experiences, and it's been more than evidence enough to convince *me* that a significant spiritual world exists.
Now, I certainly don't expect anyone else to take my experiences and testimony as proof of anything or change their belief system as a result. But I *do* expect people to not utterly discount my experiences or assume immediately that they understand them better than I do. Agnosticism is really the only truly scientific worldview: if you want to lean one way or the other in terms of what you think is *probably* going on, that's fine, but being certain about *anything* in the universe is utterly closed-minded and will ultimately see you on the wrong side of things.
More...
Actually, the jury IS back on that one, and there's plenty of stuff around that can't be observed physically. I can't see viruses or radiation with my eyes, but it would be quite foolish of me to live as though they don't exist.
Okay, I know: we have found ways to physically observe these phenomenon using tools, but they existed before we could do that and before it even *occurred* to us to try to look. Furthermore, it's certainly not unheard of for western science to "discover" things people have already been aware of through instinct, intuition, sixth senses or just conjecture. (see: Chines medicine, chakras, maternal instincts about how baby cry pitch=specific baby problems.)
The reason I moved away from my Christian upbringing and into Paganism is that I've experienced way too much freaky shit to be able to say, "that's just my imagination/wishful thinking/whatever." So when the atheists say, "You have no evidence!" I have to laugh. I have plenty of evidence in the form of my own experiences, and it's been more than evidence enough to convince *me* that a significant spiritual world exists.
Now, I certainly don't expect anyone else to take my experiences and testimony as proof of anything or change their belief system as a result. But I *do* expect people to not utterly discount my experiences or assume immediately that they understand them better than I do. Agnosticism is really the only truly scientific worldview: if you want to lean one way or the other in terms of what you think is *probably* going on, that's fine, but being certain about *anything* in the universe is utterly closed-minded and will ultimately see you on the wrong side of things.
99
@95:
The logical error is yours: presupposing something exists despite a lack of evidence is illogical; presupposing something doesn't exist based on that same lack of evidence is, according to Occam's Razor, the more logical stance. You keep trying to introduce a factor that physics and biology says is not necessary to create the set of conditions which we call "life". If this factor is not necessary, that is, if it can be demonstrated that life can arise without the particular special condition you are trying to insert - and it has - then it is irrelevant to the proof.
@98:
Not to discount your personal experiences, but one of the basic precepts of the scientific method requires that those experiences be reproduceable; that is, others must be able to recreate the situation and conditions under which you claimed to have these experiences in order to validate them. If the experiences can't be revisited, if they can't be reconstructed so that an objective observer can determine whether the same results would occur under the same circumstances or conditions, then it's not verifiable, and they're going to be discounted for that very reason.
And again, just because something has a 99.99999999999999999 ad infinitum probability of certainty, does NOT mean that, should someone provide reproduceable proof of a circumstance that validates that minute fraction of a percentage, then rational people wouldn't HAVE to take that into consideration.
But you have to provide that reproduceable circumstance first, otherwise it's really nothing but hearsay.
I can probably posit all sorts of things outside your experience that might cause you to say, "naw, that's complete BS; I don't believe that for a moment"; bigfoot, UFO's, fairies, C'thulu, unicorns, what-have-you. If you want others to validate your experiences, you have to conversely be willing to validate their experiences, no matter how fantastical or unrealistic or illogical they may be. Are you willing to make that leap? Because that's what your asking us to do on your behalf.
More...
The logical error is yours: presupposing something exists despite a lack of evidence is illogical; presupposing something doesn't exist based on that same lack of evidence is, according to Occam's Razor, the more logical stance. You keep trying to introduce a factor that physics and biology says is not necessary to create the set of conditions which we call "life". If this factor is not necessary, that is, if it can be demonstrated that life can arise without the particular special condition you are trying to insert - and it has - then it is irrelevant to the proof.
@98:
Not to discount your personal experiences, but one of the basic precepts of the scientific method requires that those experiences be reproduceable; that is, others must be able to recreate the situation and conditions under which you claimed to have these experiences in order to validate them. If the experiences can't be revisited, if they can't be reconstructed so that an objective observer can determine whether the same results would occur under the same circumstances or conditions, then it's not verifiable, and they're going to be discounted for that very reason.
And again, just because something has a 99.99999999999999999 ad infinitum probability of certainty, does NOT mean that, should someone provide reproduceable proof of a circumstance that validates that minute fraction of a percentage, then rational people wouldn't HAVE to take that into consideration.
But you have to provide that reproduceable circumstance first, otherwise it's really nothing but hearsay.
I can probably posit all sorts of things outside your experience that might cause you to say, "naw, that's complete BS; I don't believe that for a moment"; bigfoot, UFO's, fairies, C'thulu, unicorns, what-have-you. If you want others to validate your experiences, you have to conversely be willing to validate their experiences, no matter how fantastical or unrealistic or illogical they may be. Are you willing to make that leap? Because that's what your asking us to do on your behalf.
100
"Not to discount your personal experiences, but one of the basic precepts of the scientific method requires that those experiences be reproduceable; that is, others must be able to recreate the situation and conditions under which you claimed to have these experiences in order to validate them."
Yes...for the level of PROOF, not hypothesis - please pay attention to what I'm saying. I don't consider any of my experiences to be sufficient to prove anything conclusive to the world at large, especially since plenty of them are of a rather internal nature and can't be shown to anyone, anyway. Hell, I don't think anything I've experienced is sufficient enough to be considered conclusive proof to *myself*, BUT...that doesn't mean I have "no evidence" or any reason whatsoever for believing what I do other than some fantasy or some shit that people told me. I have evidence that leads me to my beliefs. You see, I can't *discount* my experiences, either - they may not be at the level of "proven," but they are well above the level of "negligable" or "dismissable" - any hypotheses that might be posed to explain these phenomenon as mere fantasies/illusions/coincidence/hallucinations, etc., are going to be just as unreliable.
So I have determined that I believe certain things based on what I've experienced. And they are only beliefs and they are mine alone. But I object to being told that it's somehow more logical for others to say that what I've experienced is DEFINITELY an illusion than it would be more me to say that it is DEFINITELY real.
It's unreasonable for me to expect others to believe what I do based solely on my accounts of my experience, yes. But it is equally unreasonable for atheists to demand that it's only logical that I drop my spiritual beliefs simply because I can't conclusively prove them to the atheists.
"If you want others to validate your experiences, you have to conversely be willing to validate their experiences, no matter how fantastical or unrealistic or illogical they may be. Are you willing to make that leap? Because that's what your asking us to do on your behalf."
I'm not asking anyone to validate my experience. I'm asking people not to totally and completely dismiss it. There's a BIG difference.
You, like many atheists, seem unable to accept that there may be a gray area, here, and a need to be comfortable with it - you seem to be saying that all things must either be fully proven or utterly dismissed. This is incredibly unscientific - do you think that all scientific findings present themselves instantly in easy-to-quantify packages? In many cases, when it comes to the search for the unknown, it is REQUIRED that a scientist pursue something that initially seems false to skeptics. Sometimes, this requires the discovery of new methods and techniques for observation as we discover that this is necessary in order to create reproduceable results. We don't have a geiger counter for spiritual phenomenon, yet, and we won't ever have one unless we remain open to the possibility that there may be something there to be counted. If everyone took the approach that it's somehow illogical to entertain the possibility of something that isn't already conclusively proven, humanity would still be in the dark ages.
More...
Yes...for the level of PROOF, not hypothesis - please pay attention to what I'm saying. I don't consider any of my experiences to be sufficient to prove anything conclusive to the world at large, especially since plenty of them are of a rather internal nature and can't be shown to anyone, anyway. Hell, I don't think anything I've experienced is sufficient enough to be considered conclusive proof to *myself*, BUT...that doesn't mean I have "no evidence" or any reason whatsoever for believing what I do other than some fantasy or some shit that people told me. I have evidence that leads me to my beliefs. You see, I can't *discount* my experiences, either - they may not be at the level of "proven," but they are well above the level of "negligable" or "dismissable" - any hypotheses that might be posed to explain these phenomenon as mere fantasies/illusions/coincidence/hallucinations, etc., are going to be just as unreliable.
So I have determined that I believe certain things based on what I've experienced. And they are only beliefs and they are mine alone. But I object to being told that it's somehow more logical for others to say that what I've experienced is DEFINITELY an illusion than it would be more me to say that it is DEFINITELY real.
It's unreasonable for me to expect others to believe what I do based solely on my accounts of my experience, yes. But it is equally unreasonable for atheists to demand that it's only logical that I drop my spiritual beliefs simply because I can't conclusively prove them to the atheists.
"If you want others to validate your experiences, you have to conversely be willing to validate their experiences, no matter how fantastical or unrealistic or illogical they may be. Are you willing to make that leap? Because that's what your asking us to do on your behalf."
I'm not asking anyone to validate my experience. I'm asking people not to totally and completely dismiss it. There's a BIG difference.
You, like many atheists, seem unable to accept that there may be a gray area, here, and a need to be comfortable with it - you seem to be saying that all things must either be fully proven or utterly dismissed. This is incredibly unscientific - do you think that all scientific findings present themselves instantly in easy-to-quantify packages? In many cases, when it comes to the search for the unknown, it is REQUIRED that a scientist pursue something that initially seems false to skeptics. Sometimes, this requires the discovery of new methods and techniques for observation as we discover that this is necessary in order to create reproduceable results. We don't have a geiger counter for spiritual phenomenon, yet, and we won't ever have one unless we remain open to the possibility that there may be something there to be counted. If everyone took the approach that it's somehow illogical to entertain the possibility of something that isn't already conclusively proven, humanity would still be in the dark ages.
101
You admit you can't prove your experiences, you can't validate them, share them, hand them over to someone else, and yet you demand we treat them as real, despite your inability to provide any tangible evidence for their existence. And you wonder why a rational, logically thinking person might not immediately embrace this notion?
A hypothesis without proof is nothing, because a hypothesis is formed based on observation; it can be proven wrong or right by experimentation and reproduction, but your singular, internal experiences do not fit this definition, simply because they cannot be observed by others. If they could, another observer might be able to posit a different hypotheses, or prove or disprove your hypotheses based on their own reckoning and testing. Calling this a "hypothesis" is simply a misapplication of the term.
I have acknowledged on several occasions in this thread that, IF even the smallest iota of evidence were forthcoming, I and others who think like me would HAVE to re-evaluate our position based on that evidence no matter how small. We're not even asking for "conclusive" or "full" proof, but merely any scintilla of evidence at all to lend even the slightest credence to this so-called "theory" that God exists. But even that appears to be beyond the capability of Theists.
You keep saying we're not open to the possibility of God; all I'm saying is that, to-date Theists have abjectly failed to provide anything resembling even a minimal level of evidence to support this "theory". A theory with no evidence whatsoever, even of the most minute, inconclusive sort, isn't a theory; it's a wish, a desire for something to be true. But wanting something to be true, believing it to be true, without even the smallest gossamer whisper of a hint that it MAY be true, doesn't make it true. And without that tiny mote of something - anything - tangible I have to regard the possibility of it being true as so remote as to be quantifiably irrelevant.
A thing - any thing, even God - either exists or it does not. If it does exist there must some evidence somewhere of its existence. For several thousand years, many individuals have claimed to have spoken with God, to have heard his voice, to have been infused with his Holy Spirit. Yet, apart from a handful of so-called miracles (none of which have ever been presented from verifiable, first-hand sources), no such evidence of this beings existence has been forthcoming.
Back in the Old Testament days, if one is to take the stories at face-value, "evidence" of God was supposedly all over the place, burning bushes here, voices in thunder there, angels with flaming swords, bifurcating seas, food falling from the sky, annihillation of entire towns, rubberneckers turning into pillars of salt, the sun stopping dead in the sky, inexhaustible supplies of wedding catering, the raising of the dead, healing of the blind and pestilent - you name it. Had there been one or two impartial observers at any of these miraculous events, we might today not even be having this discussion. But strangely, there never seems to be a dispassionate, neutral set of eyes around when you really need them. And for the past two thousand years or so, just at the point when human beings began to develop the means of accurately and impartially recording such observations, all of a sudden this God, who previously could be hit merely by swinging a dead cat around your head anywhere in the Middle East goes to cover! Now supposedly he only communicates on-the-sly, to a mere handful of individuals, and never in the presence of anyone else. Even what should have been considerable evidence of the chronicled pre-Christian era cataclysms seem to have been eradicated from the physical record: geologists can find no trace of a world-spanning flood (although plenty of evidence of many localized floods, most of which did not occur at the same time); likewise archeologists have yet to discover the scorched ruins of the five cities supposedly destroyed in the story of Sodom & Gomorrah anywhere in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, despite literally centuries of concerted investigation. God, apparently having had some massive change-of-heart, evidently decided to redact all sign of his existence, right at the moment when such signs could have been observed, analyzed and verified.
Strange that. Almost as if - maybe they never happened in the first place, or, happened in a manner that might be more easily explainable by say, natural phenomenon, without requiring the intervention of a supernatural deity. So, unless one wishes to posit that God, among his other super-extraordinary qualities, is also the universe's supreme asshole, one is forced to conclude, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that if there is no trace of these major Acts of God present in the physical record, then they and likewise any similar acts of a smaller scale are at the very least suspect, and at most unlikely to have occurred at all. Which puts the question of the very existence of God back in the realm of wishful fantasization.
So again, if you want me to buy into the truth of your beliefs, all I ask is that you bring me even the tiniest shred, a morsel, the shadow of a crumb of something real, and I'll be more than happy to re-evaluate my position on this matter. Until then, however, you must forgive me if I remain considerably more than merely skeptical.
More...
A hypothesis without proof is nothing, because a hypothesis is formed based on observation; it can be proven wrong or right by experimentation and reproduction, but your singular, internal experiences do not fit this definition, simply because they cannot be observed by others. If they could, another observer might be able to posit a different hypotheses, or prove or disprove your hypotheses based on their own reckoning and testing. Calling this a "hypothesis" is simply a misapplication of the term.
I have acknowledged on several occasions in this thread that, IF even the smallest iota of evidence were forthcoming, I and others who think like me would HAVE to re-evaluate our position based on that evidence no matter how small. We're not even asking for "conclusive" or "full" proof, but merely any scintilla of evidence at all to lend even the slightest credence to this so-called "theory" that God exists. But even that appears to be beyond the capability of Theists.
You keep saying we're not open to the possibility of God; all I'm saying is that, to-date Theists have abjectly failed to provide anything resembling even a minimal level of evidence to support this "theory". A theory with no evidence whatsoever, even of the most minute, inconclusive sort, isn't a theory; it's a wish, a desire for something to be true. But wanting something to be true, believing it to be true, without even the smallest gossamer whisper of a hint that it MAY be true, doesn't make it true. And without that tiny mote of something - anything - tangible I have to regard the possibility of it being true as so remote as to be quantifiably irrelevant.
A thing - any thing, even God - either exists or it does not. If it does exist there must some evidence somewhere of its existence. For several thousand years, many individuals have claimed to have spoken with God, to have heard his voice, to have been infused with his Holy Spirit. Yet, apart from a handful of so-called miracles (none of which have ever been presented from verifiable, first-hand sources), no such evidence of this beings existence has been forthcoming.
Back in the Old Testament days, if one is to take the stories at face-value, "evidence" of God was supposedly all over the place, burning bushes here, voices in thunder there, angels with flaming swords, bifurcating seas, food falling from the sky, annihillation of entire towns, rubberneckers turning into pillars of salt, the sun stopping dead in the sky, inexhaustible supplies of wedding catering, the raising of the dead, healing of the blind and pestilent - you name it. Had there been one or two impartial observers at any of these miraculous events, we might today not even be having this discussion. But strangely, there never seems to be a dispassionate, neutral set of eyes around when you really need them. And for the past two thousand years or so, just at the point when human beings began to develop the means of accurately and impartially recording such observations, all of a sudden this God, who previously could be hit merely by swinging a dead cat around your head anywhere in the Middle East goes to cover! Now supposedly he only communicates on-the-sly, to a mere handful of individuals, and never in the presence of anyone else. Even what should have been considerable evidence of the chronicled pre-Christian era cataclysms seem to have been eradicated from the physical record: geologists can find no trace of a world-spanning flood (although plenty of evidence of many localized floods, most of which did not occur at the same time); likewise archeologists have yet to discover the scorched ruins of the five cities supposedly destroyed in the story of Sodom & Gomorrah anywhere in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, despite literally centuries of concerted investigation. God, apparently having had some massive change-of-heart, evidently decided to redact all sign of his existence, right at the moment when such signs could have been observed, analyzed and verified.
Strange that. Almost as if - maybe they never happened in the first place, or, happened in a manner that might be more easily explainable by say, natural phenomenon, without requiring the intervention of a supernatural deity. So, unless one wishes to posit that God, among his other super-extraordinary qualities, is also the universe's supreme asshole, one is forced to conclude, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that if there is no trace of these major Acts of God present in the physical record, then they and likewise any similar acts of a smaller scale are at the very least suspect, and at most unlikely to have occurred at all. Which puts the question of the very existence of God back in the realm of wishful fantasization.
So again, if you want me to buy into the truth of your beliefs, all I ask is that you bring me even the tiniest shred, a morsel, the shadow of a crumb of something real, and I'll be more than happy to re-evaluate my position on this matter. Until then, however, you must forgive me if I remain considerably more than merely skeptical.
102
I know that what rubs me the wrong way about the statement "There is no god," is that it sets the speaker up as a god...the speaker "knows" all things sufficiently enough to rule out any possibility of a god existing outside of his/her realm of knowledge/experience/evidence. Omniscience is one aspect of divinity, and anyone who can make that definite statement sets themselves up as omniscient.
It seems as though the speaker of that statement (whomever he or she may be) has decided that they know enough to rule out any other possibility. There never has been, is not, and never will be enough or satisfactory proof for him/her to include a possibility that a god exists.
For me, that seems presumptive and arrogant. It feels like a person making that kind of definitive statement is going to be much more difficult to have a reasonable conversation with, since they already have it all nailed down.
Agnostics are much more pleasant to deal with..."maybe there is, maybe there isn't"...at least that doesn't come across as "I have this all sewn up, I know the definitive answer and you're a fool if you don't agree."
(And I admit, the opposite camp is just as obnoxious when they assume THEY have it all sewn up....that level of arrogance on either side is frustrating.)
It seems as though the speaker of that statement (whomever he or she may be) has decided that they know enough to rule out any other possibility. There never has been, is not, and never will be enough or satisfactory proof for him/her to include a possibility that a god exists.
For me, that seems presumptive and arrogant. It feels like a person making that kind of definitive statement is going to be much more difficult to have a reasonable conversation with, since they already have it all nailed down.
Agnostics are much more pleasant to deal with..."maybe there is, maybe there isn't"...at least that doesn't come across as "I have this all sewn up, I know the definitive answer and you're a fool if you don't agree."
(And I admit, the opposite camp is just as obnoxious when they assume THEY have it all sewn up....that level of arrogance on either side is frustrating.)
103
@102 To be certain about a single thing is not arrogant. Where are you getting the idea that anyone here is saying that they know all things? I see that you put the word know in quotes. Do you mean to imply that nothing is knowable? Your post seems to be more about your having a problem with certainty rather than with atheism.
If anything is arrogant it's the belief that there is a creator of the universe who made humans in his image and who takes an active interest in even the most trivial goings on in a person's life.
If anything is arrogant it's the belief that there is a creator of the universe who made humans in his image and who takes an active interest in even the most trivial goings on in a person's life.
104
COMTE: I think it's a mistake to ask for proof of the existence of god. The test of faith is believing without proof. If you demand proof, you don't have faith. It's a different process than reason. Faith looks inward to revelation, reason looks outward to objective observation.
I'm always amazed by scientists who incorporate the contradictory processes of faith and reason. They are separate things. The periodic table of the elements doesn't appear in the bible and the psalms have no place in a scientific journal.
I'm always amazed by scientists who incorporate the contradictory processes of faith and reason. They are separate things. The periodic table of the elements doesn't appear in the bible and the psalms have no place in a scientific journal.
105
@102:
If saying "there is no God" is arrogant, then so too is saying, "there is no Odin" or "there is no Indra" or "there is no Zeus" or - well, you see what I mean. Yet Christians of every stripe and denomination feel perfectly comfortable making these same kinds of sweeping statements about the gods of other religions, believing they "have it all sown up" as you put it. They don't even have to be a radical fundamentalists; your run-of-the-mill Lutheran or Episcopalian or Methodist will make such a statement and not bat an eyelash, yet bristle with righteous indignation when an Atheist makes the exact same statement about Yahweh/Jehovah.
Sauce for the goose, as the saying goes...
@104:
I understand the part faith plays in religious belief, but we live in a physical world, ruled by physical laws which are self-evident to anyone with the ability to see them. Religious faith requires one to believe in the existence of a being that supposedly not only created these same laws, but has the ability to break them with impunity whenever they so choose. If such a being were truly to exist, it would be so outside the realm of our own physicality that we shouldn't even be able to recognize it. Yet, we are told this deity is human in form (for we were created in its image according to Genesis), and it supposedly has the ability to communicate directly with humans (in those instances when it desires to do so) in a manner that, while perhaps bizarre, is nevertheless understandable, and more importantly heard by more than one person at a time (Moses' burning bush being a notable exception). According to all three texts of the Abrahamic faith: the Tanakh, the Bible and the Qur'an, this supposedly has happened on numerous occasions, all conveniently several millennia in the past, and yet not once in the Modern Era after the birth of Yeshua has there been any similar return audience with The Almighty. Now we're expected to believe it's all done via single, personal, private, "introspective revelation". Apparently, God has changed the rules of the game mid-stream as it were, and the faithful insist that it is us the rational who must accept their "truth" by faith alone, when their own scriptures say this wasn't the case previously.
Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. If God was capable of direct, public communication back in the day, he surely is capable of it now. Refusing to reveal himself to modern humans, when he had no problem doing so to our far more primitive - and credulous - ancestors makes no sense whatsoever. But of course, the inevitable response from believers is that "his ways are mysterious, and not for us to know," upon which I call "bullshit". If public appearances were good enough 4,000 years ago, they should bloody well be good enough today. The fact that no such appearances seem to be forthcoming simply casts more than a shadow of doubt on the veracity of accounts of previous "appearances".
More...
If saying "there is no God" is arrogant, then so too is saying, "there is no Odin" or "there is no Indra" or "there is no Zeus" or - well, you see what I mean. Yet Christians of every stripe and denomination feel perfectly comfortable making these same kinds of sweeping statements about the gods of other religions, believing they "have it all sown up" as you put it. They don't even have to be a radical fundamentalists; your run-of-the-mill Lutheran or Episcopalian or Methodist will make such a statement and not bat an eyelash, yet bristle with righteous indignation when an Atheist makes the exact same statement about Yahweh/Jehovah.
Sauce for the goose, as the saying goes...
@104:
I understand the part faith plays in religious belief, but we live in a physical world, ruled by physical laws which are self-evident to anyone with the ability to see them. Religious faith requires one to believe in the existence of a being that supposedly not only created these same laws, but has the ability to break them with impunity whenever they so choose. If such a being were truly to exist, it would be so outside the realm of our own physicality that we shouldn't even be able to recognize it. Yet, we are told this deity is human in form (for we were created in its image according to Genesis), and it supposedly has the ability to communicate directly with humans (in those instances when it desires to do so) in a manner that, while perhaps bizarre, is nevertheless understandable, and more importantly heard by more than one person at a time (Moses' burning bush being a notable exception). According to all three texts of the Abrahamic faith: the Tanakh, the Bible and the Qur'an, this supposedly has happened on numerous occasions, all conveniently several millennia in the past, and yet not once in the Modern Era after the birth of Yeshua has there been any similar return audience with The Almighty. Now we're expected to believe it's all done via single, personal, private, "introspective revelation". Apparently, God has changed the rules of the game mid-stream as it were, and the faithful insist that it is us the rational who must accept their "truth" by faith alone, when their own scriptures say this wasn't the case previously.
Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. If God was capable of direct, public communication back in the day, he surely is capable of it now. Refusing to reveal himself to modern humans, when he had no problem doing so to our far more primitive - and credulous - ancestors makes no sense whatsoever. But of course, the inevitable response from believers is that "his ways are mysterious, and not for us to know," upon which I call "bullshit". If public appearances were good enough 4,000 years ago, they should bloody well be good enough today. The fact that no such appearances seem to be forthcoming simply casts more than a shadow of doubt on the veracity of accounts of previous "appearances".
106
COMTE: I'm not sure if it's clear that I agree with everything you're saying. My point in @104 is that all of your well-reasoned arguments are completely irrelevant to a person of faith. Faith is a completely separate phenomenon from reason. It doesn't merely "play a role." It is the essential underlying principle to the whole thing. After accepting the validity of faith the rest of any religion is just a choice of decoration.
There are many rational arguments against the existence of god. If a person incorporates irrationality (faith) into their thinking then the battle is lost from the beginning. Unless you get agreement that rationality is absolute, that contradictions are not possible, then there is no convincing a person that god is nonexistent. You are either rational or not. A little bit irrational is irrational. We all make errors but we don't all make them deliberately.
There are many rational arguments against the existence of god. If a person incorporates irrationality (faith) into their thinking then the battle is lost from the beginning. Unless you get agreement that rationality is absolute, that contradictions are not possible, then there is no convincing a person that god is nonexistent. You are either rational or not. A little bit irrational is irrational. We all make errors but we don't all make them deliberately.
107
No, no, I get that. I'm just pointing out to them that there's absolutely no reason I should take THEIR arguments seriously, if that's all they've got to offer, particularly when they summarily reject exactly the exact same arguments when put forth by other non-Jehovah/Yahweh believing Theists.
108
Comte, I've been offline a few days. I hope you see this.... Can you give links supporting your assertion that life has been proven to be all that you say it is, and nothing more? Peer-reviewed scientific studies, please, that say as much. If not, then your case is not supported.
109
@108:
What, you've never heard of this thing called "the internet"? I'm not your Goddamned mother - get off your lazy ass and look it up yourself. I'd suggest starting with Wikipedia and work your way up from there. Or maybe trying Googling "definition of life". That ought to be more than sufficient to get you on the right track.
Or, if that's still too difficult for you to handle, start here.
Jebuz H. Christ on a Ritz Cracker, do I have to do EVERYTHING for you whiny nincompoops?
What, you've never heard of this thing called "the internet"? I'm not your Goddamned mother - get off your lazy ass and look it up yourself. I'd suggest starting with Wikipedia and work your way up from there. Or maybe trying Googling "definition of life". That ought to be more than sufficient to get you on the right track.
Or, if that's still too difficult for you to handle, start here.
Jebuz H. Christ on a Ritz Cracker, do I have to do EVERYTHING for you whiny nincompoops?
110
Hey, Comte, those are the rules. You make an allegation about what science says, you prove it. Sorry if that's too strenuous for you.
Now, you ARE keeping in mind that I'm arguing for agnosticism, not religion, right?
Thanks for the link; I'll check it out. But keep in mind that I was looking for a scientific study that says this, not what a bunch of scientists say about it outside the confines of peer review. I'll be forced to give global warming skeptics more consideration if I don't use scientific standards to judge science, know what I mean?
Now, you ARE keeping in mind that I'm arguing for agnosticism, not religion, right?
Thanks for the link; I'll check it out. But keep in mind that I was looking for a scientific study that says this, not what a bunch of scientists say about it outside the confines of peer review. I'll be forced to give global warming skeptics more consideration if I don't use scientific standards to judge science, know what I mean?
111
You know...it's great to admit that you don't know something.
But lack of knowledge and lack of belief are two different things, or so I came to realize when I decided to call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic. It was a conscious decision.
We make a lot of less important decisions, every day, based on personal preferences and opinion, not necessarily ones built on logic. For more important life decisions there is generally some extra thought given.
Now, in my case I came to realize early on that there really wasn't much logic to religious belief at all. In reality, the choice of which religion I might want to practice was about as disciplined as my choice of hairstyle or shirt color. This caused me to actively consider myself an agnostic. There was no way to decide which belief system was factual, I decided, and so I claimed myself self aware of my ignorance.
But, years later, after some reading, I realized that I DO prefer things a certain way, I do have opinions that I shouldn't balk at declaring, and I do live in a world in which I do not believe there is any real sign of a god, so why not declare as much until something comes around to convince me otherwise.
But lack of knowledge and lack of belief are two different things, or so I came to realize when I decided to call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic. It was a conscious decision.
We make a lot of less important decisions, every day, based on personal preferences and opinion, not necessarily ones built on logic. For more important life decisions there is generally some extra thought given.
Now, in my case I came to realize early on that there really wasn't much logic to religious belief at all. In reality, the choice of which religion I might want to practice was about as disciplined as my choice of hairstyle or shirt color. This caused me to actively consider myself an agnostic. There was no way to decide which belief system was factual, I decided, and so I claimed myself self aware of my ignorance.
But, years later, after some reading, I realized that I DO prefer things a certain way, I do have opinions that I shouldn't balk at declaring, and I do live in a world in which I do not believe there is any real sign of a god, so why not declare as much until something comes around to convince me otherwise.
112
COMTE - please carefully read what I'm actually writing before you prepare a 10,000 word response to it. What I have said REPEATEDLY is that I DON'T expect anyone to believe what I believe, BUT I have personal experiences that validate my hypothesis (also, PLEASE stop slapping me with your complaints about Christians and demanding I answer for them, for the last time I'm a motherfucking PAGAN), and therefore, I expect atheists to not demand that I believe what they do EITHER.
Also, you're dead wrong in your definition of "hypothesis." I seem to remember learning in THIRD FUCKING GRADE that a hypothesis is, by its very nature, unproven. The whole debate about whether or not a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable is still a hot one within the scientific community (that is to say, between scientists and other scientists - NOT between scientists and religious folks).
Let's take another approach to this, okay?
Take the example of life on other planets. We can't visit ANY other planets in the universe, let alone all of them, making any hypothesis about life on other worlds a (guess what!) UNFALSIFIABLE claim! By your logic, we MUST therefore conclude that there is definitely NOT life on other planets and the matter is closed, that anyone who says, "No, wait, there might be, we don't know..." is a moron. Brilliant.
Any good scientist knows that you pretty much can't be 100% certain of anything. You always have to leave some room for possibilities you haven't considered. I mean, fuck...before Einstein, we considered matter and energy to be two very separate things, and nowadays, quantum physics is blowing the fucking lid off almost all our perceptions of the physical world.
Ultimately, the atheist belief is not based in any kind of conclusive evidence of the nonexistence of God, but in the supposition that it is LESS likely that God exists and MORE likely that it is a human superstition. And this is fine, it is (like I said) quite logical. While I do believe in a spiritual world, I've followed this same line of logic to the point of renouncing Christian dogma, and I have enough confidence in it to not worry one lick about whether or not I'm going to hell for it.
But at the end of the day, that's all you've got. A very sound, very logical "probably not." You have no more proof about what the universe is and isn't than any of the rest of us.
More...
Also, you're dead wrong in your definition of "hypothesis." I seem to remember learning in THIRD FUCKING GRADE that a hypothesis is, by its very nature, unproven. The whole debate about whether or not a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable is still a hot one within the scientific community (that is to say, between scientists and other scientists - NOT between scientists and religious folks).
Let's take another approach to this, okay?
Take the example of life on other planets. We can't visit ANY other planets in the universe, let alone all of them, making any hypothesis about life on other worlds a (guess what!) UNFALSIFIABLE claim! By your logic, we MUST therefore conclude that there is definitely NOT life on other planets and the matter is closed, that anyone who says, "No, wait, there might be, we don't know..." is a moron. Brilliant.
Any good scientist knows that you pretty much can't be 100% certain of anything. You always have to leave some room for possibilities you haven't considered. I mean, fuck...before Einstein, we considered matter and energy to be two very separate things, and nowadays, quantum physics is blowing the fucking lid off almost all our perceptions of the physical world.
Ultimately, the atheist belief is not based in any kind of conclusive evidence of the nonexistence of God, but in the supposition that it is LESS likely that God exists and MORE likely that it is a human superstition. And this is fine, it is (like I said) quite logical. While I do believe in a spiritual world, I've followed this same line of logic to the point of renouncing Christian dogma, and I have enough confidence in it to not worry one lick about whether or not I'm going to hell for it.
But at the end of the day, that's all you've got. A very sound, very logical "probably not." You have no more proof about what the universe is and isn't than any of the rest of us.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (112) RSS