5 of 13
5
The Delusional Atheist
Posted: 29 December 2010 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07

100% certainty is still a belief. Perhaps a well justified belief but a belief none the less.

I am certain the Christian God does not exist. Absolutely certain? No, because I don’t know everything.
I have a number of beliefs that I feel have been justified enough to accept as true. However at any point, circumstances, information, knowledge may change and I will have to re-examine those things I’ve accepted as true.

I don’t need absolute certainty to be certain the Christian God does not exist. I’ve arbitrarily determined the criteria necessary to justify that belief and feel they have been met. Further information may become available where I no longer accept this as true. However all reasonable arguments, evidence and information currently available to me justify the acceptance of this truth.

If you feel justified in your acceptance of 100% certainty in the non-existence of God that is fine. You arbitrarily set the criteria necessary to accept this belief as true. That belief does not meet my criteria to accept as true.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2010 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

One other thing…Are you 100% certain you will die? Are you 100% certain what will become of “you” after death?

Keke-

That’s two other things the answers to which, in order, are no and I have no idea (my current assumption is simply that I will simply stop & cease to be in any awareness sense).

Why would you have no idea? Science already tells the complete answer.
There’s no need for you to assume.
And to the first point: You are not 100% certain you will die?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2010 03:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Gnostikosis - 29 December 2010 10:46 AM

100% certainty is still a belief. Perhaps a well justified belief but a belief none the less.

I am certain the Christian God does not exist. Absolutely certain? No, because I don’t know everything.
I have a number of beliefs that I feel have been justified enough to accept as true. However at any point, circumstances, information, knowledge may change and I will have to re-examine those things I’ve accepted as true.

I don’t need absolute certainty to be certain the Christian God does not exist. I’ve arbitrarily determined the criteria necessary to justify that belief and feel they have been met. Further information may become available where I no longer accept this as true. However all reasonable arguments, evidence and information currently available to me justify the acceptance of this truth.

If you feel justified in your acceptance of 100% certainty in the non-existence of God that is fine. You arbitrarily set the criteria necessary to accept this belief as true. That belief does not meet my criteria to accept as true.

Right on! Well said. Just remember were hopefully talking about any god(s) not just the christian one.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2010 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2008-02-24
VYAZMA - 29 December 2010 03:46 PM

Why would you have no idea? Science already tells the complete answer.
There’s no need for you to assume.
And to the first point: You are not 100% certain you will die?

No it doesn’t ... it suggest an answer it does not “tell”

Already answered.

Keke

 Signature 

Kekerusey

“Keye’ung lu nì‘aw tì‘eyng mìkìfkey lekye’ung”
(Insanity, the only answer in a world insane!)

Atheists’s Heaven *** “Science, Just Science” Campaign *** Geekanology UK

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2010 09:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Kyuuketsuki UK - 29 December 2010 06:49 PM
VYAZMA - 29 December 2010 03:46 PM

Why would you have no idea? Science already tells the complete answer.
There’s no need for you to assume.
And to the first point: You are not 100% certain you will die?

No it doesn’t ... it suggest an answer it does not “tell”

Already answered.

Keke

I just decided to briefly peruse some of the links that are at the bottom of your signature. I mean why not, I thought they might give me insight into who I’m having this discussion with.
Obviously you are into the whole sci-fi thing and the possibilities of the future.
Looking back at my comment above about taking off your lab-coat and coming back down to Earth… LOL jeez! I think I was closer to the mark than I knew.
Nevertheless in this thread-which was directed at me(for being a delusional atheist), I attempted to objectively get to the bottom of some of the reasons why people leave open the possibility of a god. Anyone who cared to offer up some reasons or explanations could freely share them if they wished.
Not many people like to touch this one I guess-actually nobody really cares. I can understand that. Everyone just wants to be there own self-described atheist. Outside of people being their own self-described atheist, there’s people like me. I unfortunately judge people. I judge them on the soundness of their concepts. The logic and reasoning behind their conceptualizations. Am I qualified to judge-hell no! Nobody is. But we all do it anyways.
In this little discussion we all agree there probably is not a god-at the very least.
So for those of you who won’t go the 100% I ask myself why not? Given the basics of deism and what it entails, my reasoning for why some might not go the full 100% should be obvious. In otherwords deism is an alternative to science, an answer to the unknowns. A fake answer. But a convenient one.
So when I hear from you that you are not 100% positive about anything-including hard facts that are proven, proven here on Earth, in reality, I say to myself this person is leaving alot of unknowns in the mix.
Proving that an egg can resist being broken by a hammer is something that could only exist on a chalkboard. It’s woo-science! It isn’t grounded in any reality. It’s an exercise in mathematics. It’s a hobby-like exposition.(your bit above about me not specifying the type egg or the hammer, or the environmental conditions, or whatever else..come-on, let’s keep up with game here.)
So if we were arguing about the egg I would win the argument. I could show that an egg will break 100% of the time when struck with a hammer.
You would be required to show on your chalkboard that an egg could in fact resist the hammer, and you would…but then you would not be able to show your evidence in the only place that it matters-reality!
So for me, how do you think this god argument looks? No matter how you define this god on your chalkboard, you will not be able to show it.
And apparently you will be screaming for me to prove god doesn’t exist. I can’t prove that because I don’t even know what to disprove.
And that’s the crux right there…that’s what your .001% is! That god is there but we can’t define him yet.
So you’ve taken a man-made concept of myth, and re-wrapped it in science! How about that!
The fact that you allow the possibility of a god to exist-because you don’t know the future, or we don’t know everything about science is anti-science.
We are only having this discussion about the possibility of a god because the concept of god has been fostered from a time when there was very little science. And you still buy the god concept. You might not believe in god, but you understand the concept, and in so understanding you allow god to be a possibility.

[ Edited: 29 December 2010 09:21 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2010 10:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
VYAZMA - 29 December 2010 03:57 PM
Gnostikosis - 29 December 2010 10:46 AM

100% certainty is still a belief. Perhaps a well justified belief but a belief none the less.

I am certain the Christian God does not exist. Absolutely certain? No, because I don’t know everything.
I have a number of beliefs that I feel have been justified enough to accept as true. However at any point, circumstances, information, knowledge may change and I will have to re-examine those things I’ve accepted as true.

I don’t need absolute certainty to be certain the Christian God does not exist. I’ve arbitrarily determined the criteria necessary to justify that belief and feel they have been met. Further information may become available where I no longer accept this as true. However all reasonable arguments, evidence and information currently available to me justify the acceptance of this truth.

If you feel justified in your acceptance of 100% certainty in the non-existence of God that is fine. You arbitrarily set the criteria necessary to accept this belief as true. That belief does not meet my criteria to accept as true.

Right on! Well said. Just remember were hopefully talking about any god(s) not just the christian one.

I am a delusional Theist…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2010 11:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  636
Joined  2010-07-01
Gnostikosis - 29 December 2010 10:39 PM
VYAZMA - 29 December 2010 03:57 PM
Gnostikosis - 29 December 2010 10:46 AM

100% certainty is still a belief. Perhaps a well justified belief but a belief none the less.

I am certain the Christian God does not exist. Absolutely certain? No, because I don’t know everything.
I have a number of beliefs that I feel have been justified enough to accept as true. However at any point, circumstances, information, knowledge may change and I will have to re-examine those things I’ve accepted as true.

I don’t need absolute certainty to be certain the Christian God does not exist. I’ve arbitrarily determined the criteria necessary to justify that belief and feel they have been met. Further information may become available where I no longer accept this as true. However all reasonable arguments, evidence and information currently available to me justify the acceptance of this truth.

If you feel justified in your acceptance of 100% certainty in the non-existence of God that is fine. You arbitrarily set the criteria necessary to accept this belief as true. That belief does not meet my criteria to accept as true.

Right on! Well said. Just remember were hopefully talking about any god(s) not just the christian one.

I am a delusional Theist…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2010 07:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Gnostikosis-

I am a delusional Theist…

So you are a theist? What’s the meaning of this? Are you purposely trying to disrupt this debate?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2010 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
VYAZMA - 30 December 2010 07:24 AM

Gnostikosis-

I am a delusional Theist…

So you are a theist? What’s the meaning of this? Are you purposely trying to disrupt this debate?

It means I have my reasons for believing in God. I’m here expressing my opinions and ideas like everyone else I assume. I didn’t want to leave you with a false impression of my position.

When engaging in discussions/debate I think it helps to know the position everyone is starting from.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2010 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Gnostikosis - 30 December 2010 09:21 AM
VYAZMA - 30 December 2010 07:24 AM

Gnostikosis-

I am a delusional Theist…

So you are a theist? What’s the meaning of this? Are you purposely trying to disrupt this debate?

It means I have my reasons for believing in God. I’m here expressing my opinions and ideas like everyone else I assume. I didn’t want to leave you with a false impression of my position.

When engaging in discussions/debate I think it helps to know the position everyone is starting from.

OK..sounds good. Obviously I don’t want to debate your reason for believing in god. Of course in the context of this discussion this brings up the point of the imaginary dividing line between belief and leaving scientific possibilities open.
From my position, although I used the term imaginary, there is a distinct line. The imaginary part comes in when a given person expresses or quantifies their place on or near that line.
That is when this debate becomes useless(meaning if ones position is nearer belief and faith. I don’t wish to debate someones reasons for faith or belief). However, I think if people are open about their positions we can still determine the reasons for people leaving the scientific possibility of god open.

[ Edited: 30 December 2010 10:07 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2010 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2008-02-24
VYAZMA - 29 December 2010 09:13 PM

Blah blah blah ...

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... so you think that it is possible top absolutely prove something? Well I don’t and whether you like it or not I am correct about the nature of scientific philosophy even though we commonly say that this is so, absolutely so, proved or whatever. Whether you like it or not NOTHING in science is beyond challenge (it can’t be for the simple reason that WE DO NOT YET KNOW EVERYTHING) therefore NOTHING is science can be held to be absolute therefore I MUST concede there is a possibility of a creator god even though I think the likelihood is so vanishingly small as to be effectively impossible; more than that I believe that there is significant evidence implicitly weighing against its existence plus the fact that introducing a deity as actual would effectively destroy science as we know it because it would become a valid answer to simply say , “God Dun It”!

I am not, however about to answer every specific point of your little tirade against me ... I’m actually getting rather bored with this discussion so I offer instead an older reply that pretty much discusses the subject:

The essential nature of science is that it derives its confidence from accumulated observations and a rational interpretation of the same. Science has little to do with truth (certainty) because nothing in science is above challenge (though it may seem so at times) and therefore cannot be considered absolute. Something can be considered to be correct for decades and can be confirmed by thousands (perhaps millions) of observations but it only takes one verified challenge to bring that theory to its knees and force its removal or change. I am not denying that science can be damned stubborn at times ... as a philosophy it (was) created and (is) administered by scientists, scientists are human and humans can be hard to shift from a given point of view, we can see examples of that even now, but in principle the above is correct.

Evolution (for example) is now considered so safe that nothing could shake it as a theory but all it would take (to use a theistic example) would be one piece of verified evidence that the hand of deity were involved in the process and evolution as a theory would die ... granted it would stumble on for a while not realising it had been beheaded but it would ultimately die. However no such evidence has been uncovered and more and more confirmatory evidence continues to be uncovered in support of it and since its birth the Theory Of Evolution, though it has changed in fine, has remained unfazed by all comers for 140 years.

Science doesn’t deal with truths or absolutes, it deals with facts, theories and hypotheses, is wholly open to challenge and, in this light, science can be considered an ongoing & self-correcting attempt to understand nature and the observable universe.

Science is the recognised method of discovering things about the universe and it does it not by deductive reasoning but inductive. The inductive method, instead of building conclusions on a set of assumptions deductively, builds on a set of observations and derives generalisations from them and the modern scientist looks on induction as the essential process of gaining knowledge, the only way of justifying a generalisation. Moreover the modern scientist recognises that that no generalisation can be allowed to stand unless it is continually challenged (by newer methods & techniques). The upshot is that no amount of inductive testing can make a generalisation absolute hence the scientific necessity that all of science is tentative hence the fact that I argue that truth (the absolute) & fact bear no relationship to each other. As a result modern natural philosophy makes no attempt to attain ultimate truth because there can never be sufficient observations to achieve such a status.

This is also the reason why modern science CANNOT investigate claims such as god, spirit & soul as it is not possible to build a generalisation without observation and observations of these things have not yet been gained and the more we progress the less likely they appear ... non-testable phenomena lie outside of the sphere of inductive science.

And finally, the piece-de-résistance (spelling) of science, there is the peer-review process which does not, as some would have us believe hobble the search for knowledge but in fact opens up the whole of modern natural philosophy to all of the scientists all of the time, for by the very fact of publishing one’s work others are made aware of it and a given generalisation is brought into an arena where it can be tested by them. Peer-review is a formalised version of scientific challenge and the difference that process makes is immense ... everything every scientist does (or group of scientists do) is checked (peer-reviewed) by others. That doesn’t mean mistakes can’t happen, frauds can’t be perpetrated but it does mean that such mistakes (purposeful or otherwise) will one day, almost certainly, be uncovered and reversed. As a consequence, whilst I cannot say with absolute confidence that any or all of science is correct, I can say that science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us.

Then of coursed to the usual question ... how do we know that science works? As one engineer famously put it, “because the bridges stay up!”

And that is why science is not absolute!

And that is it in a nutshell, a key characteristic of ALL (without exception) scientific theories is that they are TENTATIVE therefore, by the very same token, they CANNOT be absolute ... simples huh?

Keke

[ Edited: 30 December 2010 01:47 PM by Kyuuketsuki UK ]
 Signature 

Kekerusey

“Keye’ung lu nì‘aw tì‘eyng mìkìfkey lekye’ung”
(Insanity, the only answer in a world insane!)

Atheists’s Heaven *** “Science, Just Science” Campaign *** Geekanology UK

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2010 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
VYAZMA - 30 December 2010 10:00 AM

OK..sounds good. Obviously I don’t want to debate your reason for believing in god. Of course in the context of this discussion this brings up the point of the imaginary dividing line between belief and leaving scientific possibilities open.
From my position, although I used the term imaginary, there is a distinct line. The imaginary part comes in when a given person expresses or quantifies their place on or near that line.
That is when this debate becomes useless(meaning if ones position is nearer belief and faith. I don’t wish to debate someones reasons for faith or belief). However, I think if people are open about their positions we can still determine the reasons for people leaving the scientific possibility of god open.

There is no scientific justification for belief in God. It there was, I’d be all over it. If there was it would have made big news. If there was, we’d all know about it.

If someone were to say they were 100% certain there is no scientific justification for a belief in any God, I’d probably agree with them.

However before I’d say I was 100% certain there is no God, I’d have to know everything about the universe that it is possible to know.

The shortcomings is in my certainty of things.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2010 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  92
Joined  2010-12-23

Apples and Oranges. I’ve been following this discussion and it makes no ‘real life’ sense at…all. Science is a process, a tool for investigative procedures. Religion is an abstract subjective belief system. Contrasting one to the other is like discussing the merits of Expressionist painting in reference to a wrench .

Most people survive in this world by making clear and usually non-conscious binary yes/no decisions. It’s just a semantic conceit to pretend one is above such considerations. If a person were not 100 percent sure there was a floor to stand up on they wouldn’t get out of bed. If one is not 100% sure they could breathe, be held to the earth by gravity or need to hydrate their system , they would be in a state of paralysis . And etc., etc., etc.  Humans cannot function with ‘grey area’ levels of certainty for the most important aspects of existence.  Choosing to believe in some abstract concept is neither here nor there in terms of how life proceeds and arguing about things like ‘absolute certainty’ is a fun ‘what if’ game for some but that is where it ends. In the real and practical world it means nowt.

If a person thinks that it is only their belief in an invisable being that is keeping them alive, fine. Hope your imaginary friend stands by you. There is no emergency necessity to prove said imaginary friend exists to get others to pretend they see him/her/it as well in order to ‘make it real’. Conversely, there is no need to assure someone that if they did not live with certain absolutes they would be fools. The mere fact of the other person being alive is proof enough that ‘absolutes’ do exist for them.

So what am I missing here?

Pelagic

 Signature 

Mihi, quanto plura recentium seu veterum revolvo, tanto magis ludibria rerum mortalium cunctis in negotiis observantur - Tacitus

” I knew that!” - me

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2010 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

And that is it in a nutshell, a key characteristic of ALL (without exception) scientific theories is that they are TENTATIVE therefore, by the very same token, they CANNOT be absolute ... simples huh?

Keke

Yeah..we are not talking about theories.
What theory are you referring to?
We are discussing proven realities. Facts.
Do you entertain the possibility of a god because it’s a theory that carbon has 6 electrons?

[ Edited: 30 December 2010 05:23 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 05:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2008-02-24
VYAZMA - 30 December 2010 05:15 PM

And that is it in a nutshell, a key characteristic of ALL (without exception) scientific theories is that they are TENTATIVE therefore, by the very same token, they CANNOT be absolute ... simples huh?

Keke

Yeah..we are not talking about theories.
What theory are you referring to?
We are discussing proven realities. Facts.
Do you entertain the possibility of a god because it’s a theory that carbon has 6 electrons?

Don’t you get it? NOTHING is proven to the point of being absolute ... ALL science is tentative!!! That includes the well-tested theory that a hammer will break an egg.

It is therefore wrong to claim as fact that there is no god and, whilst there may well be scales of atheism , nothing about “atheist” that says one has to actively disbelieve, they simply have to not believe, all it says is you are not “with god” (effectively reject all current and past claims to deity) ... IMO there is nothing significantly different between agnostic and atheist.

Keke

 Signature 

Kekerusey

“Keye’ung lu nì‘aw tì‘eyng mìkìfkey lekye’ung”
(Insanity, the only answer in a world insane!)

Atheists’s Heaven *** “Science, Just Science” Campaign *** Geekanology UK

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 13
5