The God Debates
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2012, 07:30 AM
RE: The God Debates
Man, I just woke up from a shitty night of sleep and I'm still fucking cranky and when I looked at my bowl of Cheerios do you know what I found? Piss. People pissed in my fucking cheerios!

Dudes, relax. Chas asked me a question and I answered it. That's what I believe.

I'd like to thank you for simply assuming that I'm wrong without even taking the time to understand what it is I'm saying. Maybe that has something to do with why people don't want to be called Atheist. In fact, it's exactly what Huxley was reacting to. He said that Atheists can be just as dogmatic as Theists. I simply mentioned something that doesn't jive with your world view and you tore into it without even trying to understand.





Yeah, it has something to do with superposition but it has more to do with quantum entanglement which states that the system doesn't collapse into a definite state until it is measured and Clauser-Freedman who figured that a probability wave-function doesn't collapse into a reality until someone looks at it and the Nonobjectivist Interpretation of quantum mechanics that says that there is no reality outside of observation. Schrödinger proposed that superposition could be transposed to a large-scale system; like a cat. Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, not just a different position, but two separate realities, until the box is opened and the system measured. Some quantum physicists see this as a thought experiment, others see it as literal. My personal belief is that God, via the question of his existence, is in a box that we can never open and measure because empirical evidence of God is impossible to obtain. Therefore, God, like Schrödinger's cat, simultaneously exists and does not exist; that is to say, there are two different realities simultaneously.

So if you don't like it, fine. But don't sit there and pretend that you have some sort of slam dunk argument against it because you don't. I know you don't because you haven't even taken five seconds to try to understand my position yet. I know that because you just encountered it for the first time. You don't understand my understanding of Schrödinger's box, black holes, methodological naturalism, memetics, socially constructed reality, the nature of supernatural phenomenon, or even what I mean when I say God. You come at me with this bunk about definition which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue and that actually demonstrates a primitive and demonstrably false understanding of communication theory. So take your dismissal somewhere else. The last time I discussed this it turned into a 21 page thread so you'll excuse me if I'm less than enthused about getting into it again. It's right here if you really want to read, knock yourself out, but for this thread, Chas asked me what I thought and I told him.

Note: it's what I BELIEVE. It's consistent with observation so I'm comfortable believing it, but I do not pretend that it is certain. The possibility exists for two separate realities to exist in this universe simultaneously until observed, God's existence is a question of reality that cannot be observed; therefore, God simultaneously exists and does not exist and will remain that way until observed, which won't happen and as long as it doesn't, I don't have a fucking clue which it is. It's entirely consistent with the hard Agnostic position because the hard Agnostic position does not eliminate the possibility of belief. In fact, it simply demands the recognition of belief as belief. As an Agnostic I try to whittle away belief as much as possible and focus on that which has been demonstrated, but the idea that a human being can exist without any form of belief is demonstrably false. Not only that, but it is a denial of intuition which we know for fact exists. We also know that it is an integral part of how humans operate. At the end of the day, what we know for fact is that God either exists or doesn't exist. That's undeniable. And at the end of the day, we don't know which it is because we have no evidence for which it is. So at the end of the day, I don't know whether God exists or not. So I don't care how many times you've seen the Shawshank Redemption, don't even fucking suggest that I'm obtuse. That shit ain't funny.





And seeing as how no one is even discussing Theism in this thread, you better not be aiming that fucking Liam Neeson thing at me.

All right. I'm over it. I just hate being dismissed.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna have an orange for breakfast.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
22-06-2012, 07:39 AM
RE: The God Debates
Wow - I fired and missed completely with the intent of this thread!

The original question was: "why are nonbelievers reluctant to self identy as 'atheists.'"

It was not to rehash the difference or definitions of agnosticism v. atheism. Sorry to start a crap thread... Sad

I had hoped to generate decent discussion on the original question because it's something I'm interested in...

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2012, 07:40 AM
RE: The God Debates
Yeah, but you're wrong. Big Grin

It's decoherence and not observation. It's a threshold energy state. And of course peeps gonna give you shit. You say you're aggie, yet have knowledge of the supernatural. That's that cognitive dissonance thingy.

In other news, pissed in your Os? That's just fucked up. Angry

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2012, 07:45 AM
RE: The God Debates
(22-06-2012 07:39 AM)Seasbury Wrote:  Wow - I fired and missed completely with the intent of this thread!

The original question was: "why are nonbelievers reluctant to self identy as 'atheists.'"

Didn't we answer that one? It's a marketing thing, as I see it. Peeps don't wanna associate with being "atheist," where such indicates being, you know, "Dawkins like."

Then there's the problem that "atheism" is a denial of identity to the theist.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2012, 07:48 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2012 08:06 AM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: The God Debates
Why do we keep having this discussion, and where are people getting this definition.

Theist - A belief in a personal god(s)
Anti-Theist(Atheist) - No belief in a personal god(s)

There is no belief in atheist; there is a lack of belief. You are by default atheist. You do not go out of your way to become one. People who self identify as atheist can make the claim that "there is no god (Gnostic)" and can make the claim "that they do not/cannot know(Agnostic)".

Atheism has no ties to either unless their are used as adjectives.

So having that said, if I had to choose, I would be an Agnostic Atheist. I do not have a belief in a personal god(s), and I don't know whether it/they exist or not--and neither does anyone else.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2012, 07:55 AM
RE: The God Debates
(22-06-2012 07:39 AM)Seasbury Wrote:  Wow - I fired and missed completely with the intent of this thread!

The original question was: "why are nonbelievers reluctant to self identy as 'atheists.'"

It was not to rehash the difference or definitions of agnosticism v. atheism. Sorry to start a crap thread... Sad

I had hoped to generate decent discussion on the original question because it's something I'm interested in...
I don't see that we can avoid defining atheist and agnostic to answer your question. I think Ghost and I were trying to reach some clarity on that point. He does not self-identify as atheist even though (in my opinion) he is without belief in god. But he holds to a strict agnostic position, and that is a valid answer to your question.

I will say once again that while I am in principle agnostic, I am in practice atheist. Others have pointed out that they do not self-identify as atheist for social reasons or that they have a definition of atheist that is stronger than 'without god' - they define atheist as 'against god'.

Ghost: I apologize if I misrepresent your view.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2012, 07:57 AM
RE: The God Debates
(22-06-2012 07:30 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Man, I just woke up from a shitty night of sleep and I'm still fucking cranky and when I looked at my bowl of Cheerios do you know what I found? Piss. People pissed in my fucking cheerios!

Dudes, relax. Chas asked me a question and I answered it. That's what I believe.

I'd like to thank you for simply assuming that I'm wrong without even taking the time to understand what it is I'm saying. Maybe that has something to do with why people don't want to be called Atheist. In fact, it's exactly what Huxley was reacting to. He said that Atheists can be just as dogmatic as Theists. I simply mentioned something that doesn't jive with your world view and you tore into it without even trying to understand.





Yeah, it has something to do with superposition but it has more to do with quantum entanglement which states that the system doesn't collapse into a definite state until it is measured and Clauser-Freedman who figured that a probability wave-function doesn't collapse into a reality until someone looks at it and the Nonobjectivist Interpretation of quantum mechanics that says that there is no reality outside of observation. Schrödinger proposed that superposition could be transposed to a large-scale system; like a cat. Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, not just a different position, but two separate realities, until the box is opened and the system measured. Some quantum physicists see this as a thought experiment, others see it as literal. My personal belief is that God, via the question of his existence, is in a box that we can never open and measure because empirical evidence of God is impossible to obtain. Therefore, God, like Schrödinger's cat, simultaneously exists and does not exist; that is to say, there are two different realities simultaneously.

So if you don't like it, fine. But don't sit there and pretend that you have some sort of slam dunk argument against it because you don't. I know you don't because you haven't even taken five seconds to try to understand my position yet. I know that because you just encountered it for the first time. You don't understand my understanding of Schrödinger's box, black holes, methodological naturalism, memetics, socially constructed reality, the nature of supernatural phenomenon, or even what I mean when I say God. You come at me with this bunk about definition which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue and that actually demonstrates a primitive and demonstrably false understanding of communication theory. So take your dismissal somewhere else. The last time I discussed this it turned into a 21 page thread so you'll excuse me if I'm less than enthused about getting into it again. It's right here if you really want to read, knock yourself out, but for this thread, Chas asked me what I thought and I told him.

Note: it's what I BELIEVE. It's consistent with observation so I'm comfortable believing it, but I do not pretend that it is certain. The possibility exists for two separate realities to exist in this universe simultaneously until observed, God's existence is a question of reality that cannot be observed; therefore, God simultaneously exists and does not exist and will remain that way until observed, which won't happen and as long as it doesn't, I don't have a fucking clue which it is. It's entirely consistent with the hard Agnostic position because the hard Agnostic position does not eliminate the possibility of belief. In fact, it simply demands the recognition of belief as belief. As an Agnostic I try to whittle away belief as much as possible and focus on that which has been demonstrated, but the idea that a human being can exist without any form of belief is demonstrably false. Not only that, but it is a denial of intuition which we know for fact exists. We also know that it is an integral part of how humans operate. At the end of the day, what we know for fact is that God either exists or doesn't exist. That's undeniable. And at the end of the day, we don't know which it is because we have no evidence for which it is. So at the end of the day, I don't know whether God exists or not. So I don't care how many times you've seen the Shawshank Redemption, don't even fucking suggest that I'm obtuse. That shit ain't funny.





And seeing as how no one is even discussing Theism in this thread, you better not be aiming that fucking Liam Neeson thing at me.

All right. I'm over it. I just hate being dismissed.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna have an orange for breakfast.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Definitely one of your better posts. You should get riled up more often. Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2012, 08:25 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2012 08:35 AM by Ghost.)
RE: The God Debates
Hey, Seasbury.

Well, I gotta say, it's not uncommon to encounter Atheists who just gotta shit all over everything. Their way is the only way and anyone who doesn't agree is a fucking idiot.

Naturally this isn't all Atheists, but there are enough of them that many people just say, "look, I ain't like all that. I might not believe in God but I still have an open mind. I don't think anyone's an idiot and I don't want to affiliate myself with anyone who thinks that way."

And while this may seem unfair, it was Atheist poster boy and the cause of the sudden evacuation of my stomach contents, Sam Harris, who said the moderates are responsible for the extremists. I personally think that's utter bullshit, but some Atheists love the guy and more importantly, some people agree with him.... oh.... oh God.... people agreeing with Sam Harris... oh.... oh no....




I mean, when I was a vegan, when I announced it, the first thing people did was roll their eyes and I had to explain that I wasn't going to denounce them for eating meat. Same with Atheists. There's so many assholes out there, like the Atheist equivalent of PETA, that people just assume that you're gonna call them a terrible person for doing what they do or thinking what they think (or Muslims who have to convince you they aren't going to blow you up, or Christians who aren't gonna denounce evolution, or Mormons who aren't gonna hand you a copy of the Watchtower). A lot of people just want to forgo all of that and just not self-identify as an Atheist.

(And just keeping myself out of this, I'm an Agnostic because I'm an Agnostic)

I'm all for science, but I think Rahn's little cartoon encapsulates what I'm talking about. It speaks to a supremacist attitude that revels in how "right" Atheists are and how much fun it is to mock others and prove what idiots they are. At the end of the day, that's just repulsive. Yuck. Time to cleanse my palate.





I'm a Darwinist and a memeticist and a social scientist and I've always had a love affair with physics but the moment I try to explain that religion isn't the problem and that there is a deeper problem we should be concerned with, or the moment I don't confirm that there is no God or worse, when I suggest that there is a possibility that God might exist, I'm dragged across the coals and have even been called a Theist more times than I can count. The band of tolerated positions is so narrow that it's just suffocating.





I'm an intelligent man with thoughtful positions but the moment I stray from the party line, I suddenly become a fucking idiot and people feel, and have felt, perfectly justified in denouncing me with some of the worst language I've ever heard. People on this site joke all the time about what short fuse I have, and I do, but it's because I'm constantly reacting to vicious personal attacks simply because I'm not Atheisty enough; and I don't even call myself an Atheist! I can go toe to toe with anyone you put in front of me who would deny Darwin, but, gasp, if the supernatural exists it must have certain properties and poof, suddenly I'm a fucking idiot who's never been to school.

The danger of Atheism is that it is a protest movement. People can talk all they want about it being the default position, but the rest of us know that it's a protest movement. And protest movements cease to exist the moment they have nothing to protest against. So they are constantly looking for enemies. Sooner or later, they turn on their own. So maybe some people are just smart enough to stay out of the snake pit entirely so that they don't turn around one day and wonder why they're being devoured.

ON EDIT:





Hey, Chas.

Thanks brother.

Hey, Cantor.

Why I aughta!!!

BTW - I don't have knowledge of the supernatural. So nanny nanny boo boo Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
22-06-2012, 08:43 AM
RE: The God Debates
(22-06-2012 07:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  I don't see that we can avoid defining atheist and agnostic to answer your question. I think Ghost and I were trying to reach some clarity on that point. He does not self-identify as atheist even though (in my opinion) he is without belief in god. But he holds to a strict agnostic position, and that is a valid answer to your question.
Chas - good point. Ghost/Matt has written voluminously in his defense of agnosticism - just wasn't trying to rehash.

Was looking for responses from some of the "newer" forum members who've introduced themselves as nonbeliever, but necessarily atheists (again, I use my wife as an example). I suspect that it is the "stigma" of the label. Matt (and NDT for that matter) says atheism is a "protest" position - which I disagree with - in my opinion, that confuses, or lumps atheism in with antitheism.

In fairness, Matt acknowledges in the strictest definition, he's an atheist. You (and I) would consider yourself an agnostic atheist - just seems like pole vaulting over ant hills and splitting hairs.

I'm thinking of the former Christian who no longer believes, but would consider themselves "spiritual" before "atheist" (a generic example...).

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2012, 09:15 AM
RE: The God Debates
Hey Ghost,

Everybody gets high off of being right, the way I see it. I wuz on my Luciferian rant the other day, reflecting on how nobody gets high off being wrong. Where I see "sin being committed" is in not challenging the self out of those darkened corners where it goes, "I'm right 'cause I'm right." I'm absolutely relative in the sense that there is but one cornerstone of my identity - that dang Gwynnies - and everything else is a probability state. Where I see such an approach as "being right" is in being able to see righteousness in all kinds of viewpoints. Where I then disassociate with a certain individual is that certain views are not mine. This state I refer to in shorthand as "those who don't like Gwyneth, ain't gonna like me."

The duality of being is not in mind/body but organism/superorganism, from what I have experienced. It is in the sense of the superorganism that no man is an island, but some of us are certainly peninsular. Wink

What gets me getting lippy about the supernatural, is that god wasn't. He was just "creator of the universe" who may or may not speak to his prophet in subspace between the particles of Planck time and in the void that is my love of Gwyneth Paltrow - which kinda indicates why I don't talk about it much, other than the Gwynnie part - but which also is a certain kind of concrete absolute. A definition of sorts. I'm like, if I did some astral-projection whack-a-doo, and it was all-natural, what's this "supernatural?" What's this "supernatural" coming out of this aggie?

What I'm saying. Am I saying anything? Who knows. This guy, on this other thread, goes, "you like Katy more than Gwynnies?" And now I got a head fulla Gwynnies... I prolly should go lay down. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: