What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Agreed!

If you don't believe in gods, that is not a belief. If you believe that there are no gods, however, that is a belief.

Most likely, if a cup has no water in it, if it has no liquid in it, it is still full of air, unless it is in a vacuum. "Empty" is a relative term that cannot be applied absolutely.

There are things you can do to make naturally grown food last longer. Things like storing certain vegetables in the same container as others, extending the duration of both.

And naturally grown food tastes better, has more nutrition and less poison.

As for the cost of producing it on a mass scale... well, I'd rather spend it on clean, healthy food than medicine that people need because they eat poisonous food, cosmetic products that we don't even need anyway, and all the countless other useless means we have of wasting resources and time.

But I am sure a metropolitan, modern spacemonkey like yourself will see too many problems with such an approach and just sit back and settle for what we got.

That's right. It is what most people do. You only ever hear from those who are jumping up and down with indignation who lend themselves to Media's insatiable need for dramatic stories.

BTW cyr--I have a greenhouse and a vegetable patch which gets increasingly difficult to manage as the years take their toll.

A few weeks ago I mucked it with about two tons of cowshit. But what the cowshit contains these days is a matter I prefer not to look into too closely.

Good point.
I've no greenhouse or vegetable patches, but recently Norway decided that ecologically grown food shouldn't be more expensive than the other kind, so now "going green" is no longer reserved for those who can afford it.

Boltzmann Brains are a leftover legacy of Ludwig Boltzmann's work in thermodynamics, not the offspring of supernaturalists, that some cosmologists find themselves wrestling with even today (more precisely trying to eliminate an overabundance of BBs arising consequentially in their calculations). If physical processes could even account for something as crazy slash ludicrous as BB is to commonsense, then that's a good thing for naturalism. Albeit humans need have little worry about ever having to deal with the discovery of a Boltzmann Brain, as they'd be scarcer if Andreas Albrecht's slightly-less-than-confident conclusions were right: "In the end, inflation [theory] saves us from Boltzmann’s brain,” Dr. Albrecht said, while admitting that the calculations were contentious. --New York Times article

I'm not advocating the possibility of Boltzmann Brains as the being the case, but pointing-out that the natural world's arse would be covered even when it comes to some pretty nutty scenarios.


Thank you. I am indeed not posting from one of the "rabid, militant theist robot-like idealogues versus rabid, militant atheist robot-like idealogues" circus forums that might be part of the OP's cross-posted groups.

But I said all that somewhere in my post about the tough guys in evolution being nannied all to **** to keep them going while pond-life, such as what I myself have been compared to more than once, goes serenely on never even thinking anything is worth giving a monkey's toss off for or what a zeitgeist is.

What it is like never thinking of seeing BBC 4's Tom Petty film on the i-player with the subtitles on and the capacity to stop, start, rewind and, for those easily bored, fast forward, or the last half hour of the two football matches which decided the Title on Sunday, with 4 bottles of 7% Guiness in the retort and £500 riding on it, I don't know.

But even Plato couldn't have got his head round those, certainly not the second.

Are you suggesting there is a BB on here? farmerman is my suspect if you are.

I have been in the ring with Boltzmann's work in thermodynamics and I must admit it is a bit trickier than I thought when the bell went.

As Spengler says in a note in the Nature--Knowledge essay--



I suppose it means that the faster we grow the sooner we fly apart. Was Boltzmann being poetic using mumbo-jumbo incantations as I suspected Einstein of being. Mystics in an esoteric language. Warning of the Pandora's Box science is. Or applied science.

Yes! Saying I Believe no Gods exist, is the same exact thing as saying I do not believe any God exist...Whether you believe or do not believe something, it is a belief...To say you reject something is real because it is not....Says nothing...And that is why people do not understand some of your fellow atheists....

From your viewpoint....Saying I do not believe (good thing) God's exist (negative thing) equals out...= belief

Saying I Believe (negative) Gods do not exist (positive) equals out....= belief

To say, I have a rejection (negative) Of belief (positive) Gods exist (negative) out, belief, or clear answer...

Or, I have a rejection (positive) Of belief (negative) Gods exist (negative)

Is not the same thing....And it is not the same as claiming the other 2....

To show you this, From my perspective...I believe (positive) God's do not exist (negative) equal out...= belief

I do not believe (negative) Gods exist (positive) equal out...= belief

I have a rejection (negative) of belief (negative) Gods exist (positive, or neutral) not the same thing... negative + negative + positive = negative

No, But the cup, in your analogy, symbolizes a belief, or God...I would have to reread it again...Which means you still have the belief there, or the fact of a God being there....

The cup still symbolizes something! Not nothing!

If you were to give me another example where something is totally 100% gone or different, missing, apposed to something else, I could understand the rejection of belief....

That is why people do not understand when some say I do not believe God exist, and when some say I have a rejection of Belief any Gods exist is different....and confusing....If you do believe, or do not believe it is still a belief....It is not a rejection....

A rejection would not be on one side or the other about the belief or disbelief....But atheists do not believe Gods exist...That is not a rejection of a belief...It is a belief of rejecting Gods....

If I say that I believe in a No-God and worship Him that's an extreme form of atheistic belief. If I just turn away from the phenomenon of theistic belief because of my total lack of interest in something so absurd, that's neither atheistic belief nor theistic disbelief. It's just an absence of belief. Do you see the difference?

Saying that one "does not believe gods exist" is, as you noted, simply stating an absence of belief. "I do not believe gods exist" is a statement about an absence of belief.

If however, someone says, "I believe there are no gods"...that is an assertion of a belief. "I believe there are no gods" most certainly is the assertion of a belief about the non-existence of gods.

"I do not believe gods exist" and "I believe there are no gods" may sound the same...but they ARE different.

SpadeMaster got it wrong in his response to Art.

The quote from Art simply stated what he (Art) does not "believe"...and SpadeMaster turned it to to an assertion of a belief that there are no gods.

That difference is what I have been trying (apparently rather unsuccessfully) to explain in my thread on this issue.

I never said you had to do this, nor would it make any sense...All I am saying is that atheists have a belief, and it is that No god is real....That is a belief...I am not saying anyone has to go around and believe in a no God, and worship him....But by people saying they have a disbelief in God...Or I do not believe God is real, that is a belief....And makes it more clear to understand an atheist....While saying I have a rejection of belief in Gods really says nothing at all and confuses people....

I see the difference....But if that was the case, and truly only the case....There is absolutely no reason what soever that any atheist would have to claim they are something, based on something they are not...

It would not make much sense if I told you I was Christian, because I rejected Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, Taoism, Hinduism, atheism... etc...

It makes sense that when I tell someone who I am and who I am not, I tell them who I am, and be direct to the point....If you guys reject a God, but embrace science and math....It would help a lot more if you guys...called yourselves something like...Questioners, Doubtfulists, Skeptics, Mathamaticalists, Scientistismists etc....Something you believe, and embrace, and do....Not something that makes you something based upon something you reject is even real....

It makes it look like this thing that you reject is even real, still has a part in your life....and your main central core still centers around them/it/he/she etc....

If I called myself a Christian because I have a rejection of atheism what would you say? Would you not ask me why I have the atheism part in there? And why is it even necessary for me to claim I am Christian based upon a rejection of atheism?? Would you not wonder why I would still derive and center my beliefs around the rejection of something else? Does that really show to you, that this thing I reject is really irrelevant, or non-existent? Rather than just saying who and what I am?, what I do and believe? Not what I doubt?

If I was to tell you right now, I am Christian because I have doubts about Unicorns, what does that really explain to you? Is it not easier to say I am this because I believe this??

Can you not understand why others are confused? Some make it look like a belief, some call it a rejection of a belief....

It is not a question of making it look like a belief or calling it something...it really is what it is.

Some atheists express a belief that there are no gods.

Some atheists simply express an absence of a belief in gods.

Both do the job.

Atheists share the latter disposition (an absence of belief in gods) with agnostics...and because of that, some atheists want to consider agnostics to be atheists. I disagree with that.

I am sorry Frank, But I disagree with you on this....

Saying I believe Gods do not exist, Is basically the same exact thing as saying I do not believe Gods exist....All you are doing is flipping the do and do not around to the beginning and ends of the different sentences...But if you think about it, they are saying pretty much the same exact thing....

And math would equate them the same....If you broke it down, mathematically equation in a way....I said how above....

That is why, I think some people who are new to atheism understand it well, based upon who they talk to, because they associate it to a belief of rejection of Gods....And others are confused, when people talk about the rejection of Belief, of Gods....And why some are confused...

And the proof of this (to me) Is that when you do not believe something it is still a belief....think about it....I know it may be difficult, (and that is not an insult) but because you are an agnostic it may be tough in your spot....But if there is something you truly believe is not real...Such as a unicorn etc....If you do not believe they are in fact real, that definitely is still a belief....just because you deny or doubt them does not make it a non belief....You do not have to accept something to make it a belief....I reject Most if not all of Hinduism beliefs....But that does not mean that I do not have a belief about it....Or a rejection, if I did, I would not think here nor there about it, I know what it is and means, I believe it is not right, that is my belief, it is a belief of doubt about it...

If I had a rejection of Belief about it, that implies, I do not know it, nor understand what it even is....Nor know if it is right or wrong....

If I believe it is right, it is a belief, If I believe it is wrong, it is a belief, If I said I do not believe the Christian God, that does not destroy my belief about Hinduism, and If I said I do not believe Hinduism is right, that is still a belief about it...

It doesn't for me, and that is exactly why it is confusing to people who do not understand....

And if they both do the job, that implies to me, like I said above, they mean the same exact thing....If they did not, they would mean 2 totally different things, like you said above, about how they are different...But they do the same thing, Because THEY ARE THE SAME THING! If they were not the same thing, just worded different, than one would understand one, but not the other...Or one would be completely different altogether than the other one is....But like you said they both do the job...That tells me, if they are not exact, they are very similar....

That is just another thing, that is very puzzling to me....And I agree with you, because you are an agnostic...I do not believe an atheist has the right to tell an agnostic how they should feel....

Oh, and I totally do not believe it when an atheist claims there is no such thi9ng as an agnostic....Maybe in the end, they are right, you will have to be on one side or the other....There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, someone could not have a rejection of both sides....

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, someone could not have a rejection of both sides.... HERE ON EARTH! During this life!

Especially, if both sides believe they are right, and the other is wrong, but neither can really destroy the other side....It is easy to see there are people who would say they do not know either way...And reject both sides....

And there is no reason why someone could not think like that, and have to be on one side or the other....

I understand that you disagree…and all I can tell you is that you are incorrect in that. I'll try to explain.

I think we can agree that saying you “believe” something is not the same as saying “you do not believe something.”

Now it is possible to make the mistake (which people often do) of supposing that when someone says “I do not believe ‘x’”, they are actually saying, “I believe ‘not x’”…but that is not necessarily so. It MAY BE so…but not necessarily.

If someone says, “I believe there are no gods”…that is expressing a belief. It is a pro-active assertion of a belief. The person is actually saying they believe there are no gods.

If, however, someone says, “I do not believe there are gods”…that is not expressing a belief. It is simply expressing a lack of belief…nothing more.

I am an agnostic. I can truthfully say: I do not believe gods exist. That is the truth…I do not have a belief that gods exist.

But I can also truthfully say: I do not believe gods do not exist. That also is the truth…because I do not have a belief that gods do not exist.

So it is completely logical and truthful for me to say: I do not believe gods exist…and I do not believe gods do not exist. If you have to, think of it as: I do not express a belief that gods exist…and I do not express a belief that gods do not exist. I simply do not express a belief in either direction.

There is no contradiction, because “I do not believe gods exist” IS NOT the same as “I believe gods do not exist.”

Think about this for a bit, SpadeMaster…and you will see it is both logical and without contradiction.

I understand it, and totally understand your view point as truthfully believing that you believe you do not know either of the two, nor do I think you are contradicting yourself at all....

But would you say that saying...You saying: I believe no gods may/may not exist....I believe Gods may/may not exist....Is the same thing as the way you worded it before?

If not, how is it different?

How is that different than saying, I do not know if Gods truly exist....I do not know if Gods truly do not exist....

Even your opinion of not knowing, if they do or do not exist, is a belief to me, because that is what you truly believe, and that is what you truly say...That is a belief...not a rejection....

If it was a rejection, you would not believe either side of the two...And not be uncertain, but deny both sides...without saying, I do not know...You would say, I do not believe Gods exist, I do not not believe Gods exist....that is a rejection....But you can see how it does not make sense, and you need a belief about it....But you do not, you truly do not know, that is a belief, that you have no evidence to accept either side....

A rejection from an Atheist, would be something like, I reject the existence of Gods....

And from a theist, it would be something like, I reject the non-existence of Gods....

Still a belief not a rejection....

A true rejection, would be I do not believe ANY theism is right....because entails a belief

I do not believe Atheism, or any rejection of God is right...because entails a belief

And it still = a belief about it....

To claim you have a rejection of Belief of something is not correct...

Or to claim, You are something, because of something you're not...is not correct either....

If theism's claimed, I do not believe atheism is correct, so I am theist....

And atheists claimed, I do not believe theism is correct, so I am an atheist....that is the same exact thing as saying....

I am an atheist, because I believe Gods do not exist, and saying I am a theist because I believe Gods exist....

And the same exact thing as saying....I am an atheist, because I do not believe Gods exist....

Or I am a theist, because I do not not believe Gods exist....

We'll break it down into math...

There is no contradiction, because “I do not believe gods exist” = “I believe gods do not exist.”


Atheism

I do not believe (+) Gods exist (-) =


I believe (-) Gods do not exist (+)

Theism

I do not believe (-) Gods exist (+) =

I believe (+) Gods do not exist (-)

Atheism

I do not believe (+) Gods exist (+) =

I believe (-) Gods do not exist (-)

Theism

I believe (+) Gods exist (+) =

I do not believe (-) Gods do not exist (-)

Atheism

I have a rejection (-) of belief (-) that gods exist (+)

I have a rejection (+) of belief (-) that gods exist (-)

Theism

I have a rejection (-) of belief (-) that gods exist (+)

I have a rejection (-) of belief (+) that gods do not exist (-)

The bottom two examples out to the same as the first two listed....

You are left with a positive or negative, whatever way you break it down...the first 2 equal out anyway you spin it....

I don't have a problem, with belief, non-belief or absence of belief. We don't do religion over here, and I keep my own beliefs to myself.

However, if someone is genuinely interested, I'm quite happy to deprive them of food and sleep for a week and let them listen to my tapes. Other than that I'm not at all religious.

Are you glad that a sufficient number of people are religious to sustain general Christian morality and the provision of sacral ceremonies and rituals?