The Anti-theist Thread

[Wayfarer]

I used to be a theist. But the behavior I saw people engaging in, trashing other people for their beliefs, hating other people for their ideas, and generally feeling smug and superior turned me off. I thought to myself, this can’t be rational, and it’s certainly not honest.

So I became an atheist. And then I was doubly shocked. Because I saw the exact same behavior, and if anything, (I noticed it) to a greater degree. Trashing other people for their beliefs, hating other people for their beliefs, and generally feeling smug and superior. And I thought to myself, well this certainly isn’t rational either. And it’s no more honest than I can see.

Don't you just hate that, Xandre? I mean honestly, it drives me absolutely insane. Or did it drive me sane? I can't remember. One of the two. I'm actually not sure whether i'm sane or insane right now. Perhaps I'm actually completely mad, but giving the appearance of sanity. Or something.

besides eating hobbits etc whadda do as a livin'?

I seem to recall something about a dwarf catapault and a plump dunlending maidens.

But hey. that's just subjective. ]: )

Anywho...

Now that you've established the fact that everything is subjective and it's impossible to be sure that we really know anything-fine. I'll buy that. Humans are subjective, etc, etc.

However, you (we) obviously accept some ideas as better than others.

{It does not} follow that because nothing is certain any belief is as good as any other belief.

Right? And after all, you yourself have stated that you find agnosticism is more rational than either theism or athiesm. Because it's impossible to say that we know anything.

Now, this comes down to what I've been getting at all along. I'm not interested in proving that God exists. After all, how does one prove anything? What I have (and still am) trying to point out is that the concept of God is more rational than the concept of a naturalistic, self existant universe. Incidentally, once either one of these concepts has been proven or discredited, agnosticism becomes illogical. It is foolish to waver between two choices when one is obviously better or worse than the other.

I'm done enough reiteration on the causal arguement. Arguments can also be made from order, life, thought, energy, and a number of other simple things. I'll grant that there are a number of conflicts regarding the nature of the ultimate diety, but can anyone rationally believe that there isn't one?

I'll use a metaphor. Feel free to skip this next two paragraphs if you don't like them.

Blackheart brought up the ideas that we might not exist, and you are actually imagining all of this. And yes, it could be true. But can anyone reasonably go around thinking that you're the only person in existance, and that you are simply imagining the universe? Hardly.

Likewise, there might not be a God, and the universe might be a product of some ripple in omnispace. But there are a number of factors that disagree. And so it's not that reasonable to believe it.

We can qualify this. Most humans practice day-to-day naturalism. We assume that, for the most part, what happens around us is not the result of divine intervention. That's logical, right? And it works for everybody, regardless of beliefs. But that's really not grounds for saying that divine intevention doesn't occur, or that there is no diety who could intervene.

(metaphor)
We also assume on a daily basis that, for example, al quaeda is not behind a recent car crash, or house fire, or the fact that your refrigeration isn't working. But we don't go from there to thinking that al quaeda could never do anything like that, or that al quaeda doesn't exist. Indeed, if someone did that we would most likely laugh at them. It's possible, of course. One could say equally so-but it's not as reasonable.
(/metaphor)

So let me repeat myself: we accept that we'll never know everything for certain. But we also accept that some ideas are more reasonable than others. And I, formerly an athiestic nihilist, could not and cannot get over the fact that any way you slice it, the metaphysic of a creator God makes far more sense than that of a self existant universe. And so, as much as I sometimes wish otherwise, I'm stuck with that.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan



The primary function of a power structure is to aquire more power.

Close. The primary function is to perpetuate itself.

Everything else is close enough for government work....

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Close. The primary function is to perpetuate itself.

Everything else is close enough for government work....

It must continue to aggregate power or it loses momentum and the ability to perpetuate itself. See Ottoman Empire.

[Cirdan]

Now that you've established the fact that everything is subjective and it's impossible to be sure that we really know anything-fine. I'll buy that. Humans are subjective, etc, etc.

However, you (we) obviously accept some ideas as better than others.

Is this a fact or a subjective belief?

[Wayfarer]

I subjectively believe it to be the objective truth. You'll have to draw your own conclusions from the objective fact that the information reaching your brain makes it appear that you are reading this, although subjectively none of us might exist.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Is this a fact or a subjective belief?

AHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHHAHAHAHA.... *GASP* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA....

*Falls on the floor convulsing and twitching.*

No, but really, .... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH....

*Waves atheist flag in surrender.*

Now wayfarer, I think the idea is that perception is subjective, however, the the sets of data being perceived can be measured objectively (even if the perception of those measurements is subjective). It's only when you try to pervert the data, if you will, into a model, which brains like, that it gets converted to subjective reasoning. Now, the difference between science and theology, is that at least science starts out with good intentions... theologists aren't even trying to be objective....

There that's my subjective b/s for the day. Now, where was I? Oh that's right....

.... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... *GASP* .... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

Now, this comes down to what I've been getting at all along. I'm not interested in proving that God exists. After all, how does one prove anything? What I have (and still am) trying to point out is that the concept of God is more rational than the concept of a naturalistic, self existant universe. Incidentally, once either one of these concepts has been proven or discredited, agnosticism becomes illogical. It is foolish to waver between two choices when one is obviously better or worse than the other.

I beg to differ. Neither can be "proven". Discrediting a metaphysical concept is also notoriusly difficult, until you begin to apply it to the real world. At which point it becomes ludicrously easy, because of what I like to term the "sensory gap". You have (subjective) perceptions of what we (supposedly) commonly term "reality". However metaphysical or abstract concepts cannot be directly apprehended by perception. They can be arrived at by rational thinking perhaps, but then you run into the flip side of the problem.

If your perceptions are subjective, then the information you use to make the decision is also subject to bias, and therefore you must relegate any "rational" decision you arrive at regarding metaphysical cocepts to the "best guess" bin also.

I'm done enough reiteration on the causal arguement. Arguments can also be made from order, life, thought, energy, and a number of other simple things. I'll grant that there are a number of conflicts regarding the nature of the ultimate diety, but can anyone rationally believe that there isn't one?

There's nothing inherantly more rational about process from desgin than process from rule. Or vice versa. Process from rule doesn't necessarily imply design either. At the root of the problem lies an inability to get to the root cause, the source of the "laws" or mathematical algorythms governing the interations of energy, and it's "crystalized forms" space, matter, and time. There isn't even enough information to even begin to make an educated guess at this point.

Some people like to say yes because it suits thier personal philosopy, some choose no. Some say I don't know.

I'll use a metaphor. Feel free to skip this next two paragraphs if you don't like them.

Blackheart brought up the ideas that we might not exist, and you are actually imagining all of this. And yes, it could be true. But can anyone reasonably go around thinking that you're the only person in existance, and that you are simply imagining the universe? Hardly.

Reasonably? Yes. Pratically? No. However the point, as I must again re-iterate, is not to propose a solophist view, but the idea that reality isn't always what we think it is.

Likewise, there might not be a God, and the universe might be a product of some ripple in omnispace. But there are a number of factors that disagree. And so it's not that reasonable to believe it.

Disagree with what? That it's impossible for a finite causal pattern to have no intelligent originator? We don't have nearly enough information to even take a stab at that. Either way. In my opinion it's unreasonable to guess, instead of saying I don't know.

We can qualify this. Most humans practice day-to-day naturalism. We assume that, for the most part, what happens around us is not the result of divine intervention. That's logical, right? And it works for everybody, regardless of beliefs. But that's really not grounds for saying that divine intevention doesn't occur, or that there is no diety who could intervene.

Possibly so. The converse is true also. It's even possible that we ourselves influence reality merely by preceiving it. But without any mechanism, or information, all you can do is speculate. And while speculation is fruitful in discovering which questions you want to ask, it still in the end is merely a guess, and not even a best guess.

(metaphor)
We also assume on a daily basis that, for example, al quaeda is not behind a recent car crash, or house fire, or the fact that your refrigeration isn't working. But we don't go from there to thinking that al quaeda could never do anything like that, or that al quaeda doesn't exist. Indeed, if someone did that we would most likely laugh at them. It's possible, of course. One could say equally so-but it's not as reasonable.
(/metaphor)

Well... again there's a the problem with the fact that "al-quaeda" does (supposedly) exist.

Change the metaphor however to something like the Illuminati and suddenly it becomes closer to the situation. Perhaps the Illuminati do exist. perhaps they do casue things to happen. But that's two suppositions stacked on top of each other, instead of a single supposition, as in your metaphor.

So let me repeat myself: we accept that we'll never know everything for certain. But we also accept that some ideas are more reasonable than others. And I, formerly an athiestic nihilist, could not and cannot get over the fact that any way you slice it, the metaphysic of a creator God makes far more sense than that of a self existant universe. And so, as much as I sometimes wish otherwise, I'm stuck with that.

I think in this case you are going to have to define sense. If you mean, "in the case of my own personal world view and needs regarding my perceptions of the universe" then good for you. I have little difficulty with theists who adopt such a stand. It also bespeaks a rational point of view in that the individual is taking into account his own subjective bias.

If however you mean that other interpretations of the problem are nonsensical, and therefore invalid, then I'm afraid you're going to have to go round and round about that one.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


Is this a fact or a subjective belief?

Ohh a quick study. How rewarding for me.

It must continue to aggregate power or it loses momentum and the ability to perpetuate itself. See Ottoman Empire.

Umm I disagree totally...

The primary concern of a governing body is to ensure that it stays in power. If it does aggregate power it is to fulfil this function.

The longevity of a power structure only applies to the success of the particular methods, not it's goals.

[afro-elf]

I don't think that was the point

I wasn't making a point per se just posting something that I liked

[Blackheart]

What? BAh! you mean I wasted my time rebutting a quote?!?!

[afro-elf]

For that matter, what's wrong with taking feelings and emotions into account when making a decision? Especially when it's a decision about a human condition.

Be may because were i work women are killed because of feelings and emotions. Usually by the father or brother at a perceived family dishonor.

as a matter of fact a woman was killed in Jordon in because she did'nt bleed on here wedding night. Never thought about her having a flexible hymen.


or another was killed because a jealous step daughter told her father that his future bride was talking to another man

[afro-elf]

you can rebutte this one

[Blackheart]

Those aren't decisions about human conditions are they?

Those are actions, and they stem from a perception of fear.

If anything, they are actions based on decisions made WITHOUT taking feelings and emotions into consideration.

Done already, and fixed my stupid spelling

[afro-elf]

i'll answer later i'm tired

[afro-elf]

One last sleepy thought


WAYFARER


THINK CHRISTIAN GOD YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING ABOUT A CHRISTIAN GOD

[afro-elf]

Those aren't decisions about human conditions are they

they're human and those are feelings about their condition and the condition of their women

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf



they're human and those are feelings about their condition and the condition of their women

*Dr. Smith voice*

oh the pain.. the pain...!

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by Blackheart
I beg to differ. Neither can be "proven". Discrediting a metaphysical concept is also notoriusly difficult, until you begin to apply it to the real world. At which point it becomes ludicrously easy, because of what I like to term the "sensory gap". You have (subjective) perceptions of what we (supposedly) commonly term "reality". However metaphysical or abstract concepts cannot be directly apprehended by perception. They can be arrived at by rational thinking perhaps, but then you run into the flip side of the problem.

If your perceptions are subjective, then the information you use to make the decision is also subject to bias, and therefore you must relegate any "rational" decision you arrive at regarding metaphysical cocepts to the "best guess" bin also.

Indeed. It is, to a great degree, the best guess. However, in using the term 'best' we're assuming that there's some objective fact, which we don't know, and we have reason to believe that this guess is the closes to it. This is the stand I take.

However, when it comes to the sensory gap, I see things differently. I agree that there's a lack of evidence for any metaphysical concepts whatsoever. But I think that there will be some day. For example, when I die, I'll know for certain (or not know at all, but there will be none of this thinking it through and picking the best option). And so I place my faith in the one metaphysic which seems the most reasonable and likely to by true.

Reasonably? Yes. Pratically? No. However the point, as I must again re-iterate, is not to propose a solophist view, but the idea that reality isn't always what we think it is.

Looking at what is usually meant by reasonable (Governed by sound thinking;Being within the bounds of common sense). Soloism is neither practical (governed by practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals) nor within the bounds of common sense. And those two can be pretty close at times.

In any case, it would be unreasonable of me to tell you that you don't exist. I can't be sure of it, and you can't be sure that I exist. But regardless of that, we can both be fairly certain that we exist, and since we are both sure that we are real, it's not difficult to assume that others might be real as well.

That said, I knew that you, personally, were not espousing that particular metaphysic. It was simply a convenient example.

There's nothing inherantly more rational about process from desin than process from rule. Or vice versa. Process from rule doesn't necessarily imply design either. At the root of the problem lies an inability to get to the root cause, the source of the "laws" or mathematical algorythms governing the interations of energy, and it's "crystalized forms" space, matter, and time. There isn't even enough information to even begin to make an educated guess at this point.

The only information I'e used is the basic things which we know about how energy behaves. While it is a given that we could be wrong, it's sort of self-defeating to presume that we are when events consistantly agree with what these laws.

I.E. We 'know' that things with beginnings must have causes, that energy moves from usable to unusable states, that life comes from life, and that order comes from order. We have feelings and inclinations regarding good and evil, justice, love and the like. Now, how do we relate that to philosophical naturalism, which in effect says that life came from non-life, order came from chaos, we hold to morality even though we are not moral creatures, and so on. And so, based on the little we do know, we can say that philosophic naturalism is fatally flawed.

Well... again there's a the problem with the fact that "al-quaeda" does (supposedly) exist.

Change the metaphor however to something like the Illuminati and suddenly it becomes closer to the situation. Perhaps the Illuminati do exist. perhaps they do casue things to happen. But that's two suppositions stacked on top of each other, instead of a single supposition, as in your metaphor

And I have enough evidence to say that 'yes, it's reasonable to think that al qaeda does exist. I've already made that supposition. I have not yet been given a reason to think that the illumaniti exist. If I look at the world, what I see may or may not fit with what I would expect if the illumanati were really there and controlling everything. I don't think it would.

When I make that same sort of comparison with the universe at large, I find that it's far closer to what I should expect if there was an intelligent designer than if there was not.

I think in this case you are going to have to define sense. If you mean, "in the case of my own personal world view and needs regarding my perceptions of the universe" then good for you. I have little difficulty with theists who adopt such a stand. It also bespeaks a rational point of view in that the individual is taking into account his own subjective bias.

What I mean by sense is 'coinciding with what I observe'. I observe that order is not spontaneously produced from disorder, and so take it that there is an ultimate order. i observe that Humans have morals which they fail to uphold, and so I take it that they were at one time able to do so, and have degenerated. I observe that humans are hard wired to believe in and experience a higher power and reality, and so I take it that there is a higher reality to be experienced. While understanding that I am finite, and cannot know the full extent of reality, I am still going to look for an explaination which satisfies that which I do know. And having found one explaination to be the best of those I've examined, I plan on sticking to it until I find a better explaination, and expanding my knowledge and understanding within this framework.

Of those other metaphysical systems which I have examined, very few were completely nonsensical, but none has even approached the coherence of christianity.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

However, when it comes to the sensory gap, I see things differently. I agree that there's a lack of evidence for any metaphysical concepts whatsoever. But I think that there will be some day. For example, when I die, I'll know for certain (or not know at all, but there will be none of this thinking it through and picking the best option). And so I place my faith in the one metaphysic which seems the most reasonable and likely to by true.

When you die, you won't be in a "sensory" realm. If there is any existence after mortis, then there won't be any "evidence" either. Such concepts are inapplicable to an unspecified state of being. If the state of being is however similar enough that such concepts ARE applicable, then the same metaphysical rstrictions will still apply.

What I mean by sense is 'coinciding with what I observe'. I observe that order is not spontaneously produced from disorder, and so take it that there is an ultimate order. i observe that Humans have morals which they fail to uphold, and so I take it that they were at one time able to do so, and have degenerated.

Actually that goes quite contrary to my experience AND observation. Ethical behavior is not innate to the human species.
Altruism might be a heritable trait, but ethical and moral behavior are developed from childhood. If it were not so, then children would need no discipline, they could turn themselves into "model citizens".

I observe that humans are hard wired to believe in and experience a higher power and reality, and so I take it that there is a higher reality to be experienced.

That's a teleological explination. You are saying that because X happens it must be meant for X to happen by grand design. It neither proves nor disproves any purpose.

However, there is still difficulty with interpreting the current observations to mean that humans are "hardwired" to do so. The alternate explination is that it is a distortion in the normal perception of self identity. Which is quite a different matter.

While understanding that I am finite, and cannot know the full extent of reality, I am still going to look for an explaination which satisfies that which I do know. And having found one explaination to be the best of those I've examined, I plan on sticking to it until I find a better explaination, and expanding my knowledge and understanding within this framework.

Of anything you've said so far, this is the only thing that is internally consistant. But to make it rational, you are going to have to confess to the subjective bias about what you "know".

Of those other metaphysical systems which I have examined, very few were completely nonsensical, but none has even approached the coherence of christianity.

Err. I'm going to have to ask what exactly do you mean by cohererence, when you are talking about a theological system that encompasses hundreds of disagreeing sects, cults, and organizations? You may mean "your personal brand" of christindom, but you haven't specified that. At which point you become yet another dissenting and competing voice.

[Wayfarer]

What I mean by coherence is I was having trouble coming up with the correct adjective, and didn't want to retreat to 'best' or 'surperior' or something else vague like that. ]: )