Atheism

@Frank Apisa,

ok now I understand.
I would agree with 99% of what you are saying. The only reason I would concede that god(s) exist e would be if someone was able,I don't know how they would do it, but if the were to prove god(s) existence I guess I would have to believe.
I admit I don't know what the standard of evidence would be needed.

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

ok now I understand.
I would agree with 99% of what you are saying. The only reason I would concede that god(s) exist e would be if someone was able,I don't know how they would do it, but if the were to prove god(s) existence I guess I would have to believe.
I admit I don't know what the standard of evidence would be needed.

I understand what you are saying, Argome...but I would ask you to take another look at what you said, because if someone, somehow PROVED that a GOD existed...you would not have to "believe" that a GOD existed...you would KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that a GOD exists.

The word "believe" ought to be struck from the English language, because it tortures the language.

Just a pet topic of mine...disregard it for now if you want.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

The word "believe" ought to be struck from the English language, because it tortures the language.

Do you really believe that?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I understand what you are saying, Argome...but I would ask you to take another look at what you said, because if someone, somehow PROVED that a GOD existed...you would not have to "believe" that a GOD existed...you would KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that a GOD exists.

The word "believe" ought to be struck from the English language, because it tortures the language.

Just a pet topic of mine...disregard it for now if you want.

You're correct. I think why I or we say believe is because we live in a world without absolute certainty. It becomes more a matter of habit to make allowance for not really knowing for sure I think.

If we strike believe from the English Language what will us non-believers do? Laughing

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The word "believe" ought to be struck from the English language, because it tortures the language.

Do you really believe that?

No.

It is an opinion of mine.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The word "believe" ought to be struck from the English language...

Quote:

"Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies." (Nietzsche)

I don't agree with your conclusion, Frank, but, still....

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

If we strike believe from the English Language what will us non-believers do?

We would use other words that are even more effective.

For instance, "I believe there are no gods" would be stated, "It is my blind guess that there are no gods involved in REALITY."

A few more words, granted. But much, much more honest.

And the other side of that coin would be that, "I believe a GOD exists...and that the GOD demands that we love and worship IT...and that we not do any of the things it has revealed offends IT...and respect for that 'belief' should be guaranteed by law and a sense of decency" " would be stated, "It is my blind guess that there is a GOD...so what is your blind guess?"

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
The word "believe" ought to be struck from the English language...

Quote:
"Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies." (Nietzsche)

I don't agree with your conclusion, Frank...

Very few people do. It is something I've got to live with.

Quote:

but, still....

Exactly!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

For instance, "I believe there are no gods" would be stated, "It is my blind guess that there are no gods involved in REALITY."

****, Frank, now you too are starting to sound like you think your personal views (radical skepticism) can somehow be imposed on others via fiat enforced by definitions and word choices, eh? You're startin to sound like, Fresco, dammit.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
For instance, "I believe there are no gods" would be stated, "It is my blind guess that there are no gods involved in REALITY."

****, Frank, now you too are starting to sound like you think your personal views (radical skepticism) can somehow be imposed on others via fiat enforced by definitions and word choices, eh? You're startin to sound like, Fresco, dammit.

Now you are being unnecessarily insulting. Wink

Anyway...no imposition intended...no fiat...no forcing.

Just a friendly suggestion...along with the reasoning I am suggesting it.

Apparently it is going nowhere. I acknowledge that. Almost nobody agrees with me about it.

But...I just don't like to give up. I think I should continue to proclaim the benefits of the change...and accept that I'm going to lose this one.

I've lost others.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I think I should continue to proclaim the benefits of the change

Aww, fess up, Frank. Even YOU don't really recommend what you just suggested, if taken literally. As I read you, your suggestion is to ban the use of the word belief, and replace it, wherever it might otherwise be used, with the term "BLIND GUESS."

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I think I should continue to proclaim the benefits of the change

Aww, fess up, Frank. Even YOU don't really recommend what you just suggested, if taken literally. As I read you, your suggestion is to ban the use of the word belief, and replace it, wherever it might otherwise be used, with the term "BLIND GUESS."

When used in the context of the existence or non-existence of a GOD...the word "belief" IS ALWAYS used to disguise the fact that a blind guess is being made.

"I believe a GOD exists"...IS..."I blindly guess that a GOD exists"...wearing a disguise. The reason for the disguise seems to be to give the comment a gravitas that it does NOT deserve.

I cannot imagine many people would spend much time arguing that we all should show respect for each other's blind guesses.

The assertion "I believe there are no gods"...IS..."I blindly guess there are no gods...wearing a disguise.

You have a problem with that?

Edit: To include the word "not."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The assertion "I believe there are no gods"...IS..."I blindly guess there are no gods...wearing a disguise.

You have a problem with that?

Yeah, I don't quite agree with that formulation, as I've said before, Frank. I agree that nobody really"knows," or can prove, that there is (or is not) a god, even if they happen to think otherwise. So we're on the same page there.

However, I don't agree that every conclusion that there is (or is not) a god is "merely" a "blind guess." Tons of highly intelligent and highly sophisticated contemplation has resulted in brilliant people forming conclusions on each side of that issue (based on what we can empirically "prove"). Without agreeing that either one of those conclusions is either right or wrong, I'm not going to insult them by calling them "blind guesses," which they are NOT.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
The assertion "I believe there are no gods"...IS..."I blindly guess there are no gods...wearing a disguise.

You have a problem with that?

Yeah, I don't quite agree with that formulation, as I've said before, Frank. I agree that nobody really"knows," or can prove, that there is (or is not) a god, even if they happen to think otherwise. So we're on the same page there.

However, I don't agree that every conclusion that there is (or is not) a god is "merely" a "blind guess." Tons of highly intelligent and highly sophisticated contemplation has resulted in brilliant people forming conclusions on each side of that issue (based on what we can empirically "prove"). Without agreeing that either one of those conclusions is either right or wrong, I'm not going to insult them by calling them "blind guesses," which they are NOT.

Well...I disagree with you completely on this, Layman...because ANY assertion that there are no gods ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER...is nothing more than a blind guess.

And unless someone is saying that a GOD has privately communicated ITS existence in a way that can be shown not to be a delusion...any assertion that there is a GOD is also nothing more than a blind guess.

The suggestion that brilliant people, on the basis of something that has been empirically established, can "conclude" there are no gods...is nothing but nonsense. It cannot be done.

Same thing, with the given proviso, holds FOR assertions about the existence of GODS.

But also, as I said earlier, if your sensibilities are such that you prefer not to call these particular blind guesses, blind guesses...chooses some other word like it. That won't make it any less a blind guess...but you are free to do so.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

OK, Frank, fair enough. But let me ask you: Do you really believe this?:

Quote:

The suggestion that brilliant people, on the basis of something that has been empirically established, can "conclude" there are no gods...is nothing but nonsense. It cannot be done.

Do you believe "it cannot be done?' Is that just a BLIND GUESS on your part, or is that a stone-cold fact?

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

But long before christian faith etc many of those same values were echoed in In Eastern World.

I was not talking of Christianity. Roman virtues (or the Norse "Nine Noble Virtues" which are similar) are as old as anything coming from the East. More generally I don't subscribe to the idea that the East trumps the West in philosophy, religion or anything like that... That's just a cliché.

Quote:

But more to the point - my question is why would anyone want to adhere to any religious doctrines? And in answering that question you will see that not everyone needs religion to develop a moral code of ethics. Experience has a lot to do with it I think.

Maybe because it gives answers, it grounds you, it consoles you, and it helps you justify and hold on to your values.

Values are not taught to us by experience but by our parents and teachers. They do not express any real, bankable lesson from life. A phrase like "a good deed is never lost" is just a form of wishful thinking. It expresses a collective desire for justice, not a lesson from experience. If anything, experience will teach you that the least scrupulous always wins. It will teach you to "break bad", not be "behave".

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

It expresses a collective desire for justice, not a lesson from experience. If anything, experience will teach you that the least scrupulous always wins. It will teach you to "break bad", not be "behave".

True that.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

OK, Frank, fair enough. But let me ask you: Do you really believe this?:

I do not do any "believing" at all, Layman. If you are asking me what my opinion is on this...I will give you my opinion...and call it my opinion. If you are asking me what my best guess is...I will give you my best guess.

But I do not disguise my guesses or suppositions or opinions.

Quote:

Quote:
The suggestion that brilliant people, on the basis of something that has been empirically established, can "conclude" there are no gods...is nothing but nonsense. It cannot be done.

Do you believe "it cannot be done?' Is that just a BLIND GUESS on your part, or is that a stone-cold fact?

Since I do not do any "believing"...obviously I do not "believe" it.

I am saying that it cannot be done. I am asserting that unequivocally.

But I'll tell ya what...out of respect for you, I will backtrack a bit...and leave it at "I do not think it can be done."

Here is what I propose: You have asserted that “Tons of highly intelligent and highly sophisticated contemplation has resulted in brilliant people forming conclusions on each side of that issue (based on what we can empirically "prove").”

I’m not even going to ask you to furnish the name and study of anyone…even though you have to know of at least one person…and of their conclusion.

I will ask you this though: Invent such a scenario in which, through evidence we can empirically prove, a highly sophisticated, intelligent person can logically conclude that there are no gods involved in REALITY.

You can completely wing it.

But keep in mind that a scenario like, “One guy was able to look at every space everywhere in the entire universe all at the same exact moment…and found no gods” would not be sufficient. The gods may be undetectable to any human, no matter how intelligent and sophisticate.

So, the scenario you invent would have to be better than that.

Ball in your court. This could be fun. You are a clever guy…and I never underestimate anyone with whom I am in debate. You may come up with something that works...and if you do, I am the kind of person who will acknowledge that you did.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Well, Frank, let me use Richard Dawkins as an example. He is FAR from a good example, but I'll just accept that self-imposed handicap. I don't think there's any question that Dawkins is intelligent. There are serious questions about whether he is actually "sophisticated" in his analysis of, and pronouncements about, his personal theology, but let's leave those aside.

For Dawkins, I think it comes down to something like this:

1. We don't need to posit the existence of a god for anything. We can find reliable answers to all relevant questions in nature, for example, in neo-darwinistic evolutionary theory, as concerns the issue of "how we came to be." (Extreme arrogance on his part, to be sure, but.....).
2. Using Occam's razor as a guiding principle, it is then senseless to posit an unnecessary god.
3. Furthermore, the very existence of extreme evil in the world empirically disproves the existence of the type of god that most people on this planet believe in. This suggests that the "desire" to believe in god, not the facts themselves, is what leads people to believe in that unnecessary hypothesis.

Do I buy this argument? No, not personally. But nor do I believe that it is nothing more than a "blind guess." Dawkins has thought (however imperfectly) about this topic long and hard, for many years. He is not stupid. One should at least listen to what he says, whether they end up accepting it as "true," or not.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Values are not taught to us by experience but by our parents and teachers. They do not express any real, bankable lesson from life. A phrase like "a good deed is never lost" is just a form of wishful thinking. It expresses a collective desire for justice, not a lesson from experience. If anything, experience will teach you that the least scrupulous always wins. It will teach you to "break bad", not be "behave".

I think our experiences does teach us things including our values and lack there of. I do not exclude our parents. I think or theorize that one of the reasons people do not listen when others give advise because they have to make it their own some way . Maybe because for a person to accept that advice some how in his or her mind he or she must make it their own.

What about t.v., books and movies , don't they have some influence on our lives...good and or bad? Not all latchkey kids grow up to be criminals.

Quote:

Maybe because it gives answers, it grounds you, it consoles you, and it helps you justify and hold on to your values.

But it isn't the only means by which morals and ethic are formed. That was what I was trying to point out to Ionus. I wasn't raised with any religious background.

My earliest contact with religion was when I was about eight and I attended a Catholic mass with a friend. All I remember was that the priest was talking about sin. Nuff said.

Quote:

Values are not taught to us by experience but by our parents and teachers. They do not express any real, bankable lesson from life. A phrase like "a good deed is never lost" is just a form of wishful thinking. It expresses a collective desire for justice, not a lesson from experience. If anything, experience will teach you that the least scrupulous always wins. It will teach you to "break bad", not be "behave".

Well, here I would disagree. Sometimes good guys do win.

Sometimes the good are buried with more then their bones.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know