These are our choices?

[BoneDaddy]

It has been somewhat disconcerting reading some of the posts in here by people who consider themselves atheists. It seems that anyone who considers themselves a person of faith is pigeonholed into being a stupid irrational person who is superstitious.

While on one hand I think that this description is accurate for a percentage of some religious out there (fundamentalists), I do not think that it is indicative of all religious, especially the religious or spiritual people who consder themselves progressive or liberal.

So our choices are to be, in the atheist's eyes, a member of the ultra irrational religious or the ultra rational atheists.

I don't like either choice. I have already rejected the fundamentalist view of God as a Charlton Heston, Moses like figure that picks sports teams to win and hates Muslims. But I equally reject the spiritless extreme rationality of the atheist argument because in my eyes, it seems that both the atheist and the fundamentalist are too similar in process, although content might differ.

Let me explain. Both sides think they hold the truth, plain and simple and if you do not subscribe to their point of view, you are immediately discounted. The terms atheists have used to describe people who are religious and spiritual are often very demeaning and derrogatory and are similar to the language used by the fundamentalists to describe people who do not buy into their particular religious experience.

I don't think we have the ability to prove or disprove the existence of GOD. I don't know. Just as religion has had to re-evaluate the world/universal view of life due to scientific discoveries, science too, has been remolded and shaped by the same scientific discoveries. Hell, Einstein alone turned the Newtonian mechanistic view of reality upon it's head showing that science, like religion, is not set in stone. It seems the more we learn of this universe, the more both religion and science have to bend with it.

It also seems that mystics, of almost every major religion or spirituality, describe reality in a fashion that Einstein and other comtemporary physicists would agree with.

I would like to think that we need a balance between both sides of our brains, the abstract/artistic/spiritual and the rational/logical sides and that any foray to either extreme is ignoring the other part that makes us human.

I have simply had numerous personal spiritual experiences that cannot be whisked away with a rational explanation or dismissed as coincidence.

What if sometime in the future, science was able to show, demonstrate, prove that their is some divine order or purpose to the universe. Would those atheists become believers? I don't know.

[Strong Atheist]

1. "I don't think we have the ability to prove or

disprove the existence of GOD."

Depends on your definition of proof. There are LOTS of things that I KNOW don't exist.

Dragons, fairies, elves, trolls, wights, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, hobbits, demons, santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, gremlins, and yes; gods.

The terms atheists have used to describe people who are religious and spiritual are often very demeaning and derrogatory

I try to avoid this, but you must understand that most atheist think that these beliefs are ... not true, to put it mildly.

[BoneDaddy]

22. understood

Ok I understand what you are saying and I tend to agree with most of it. When I refer to GOD, I do not subscribe to an old white man with a staff or any other anthropomorphized version of God. I think these aspects of the divine over time are more projections of a specific culture on what they think God is. It is the definitions of God that I think people get caught up in.

I am more referring to the idea of God as being something that we, with our limited understanding, can unravel. Most if not all religions point to the mystery of God and our inability to truely comprehend something so vast to have brought the universe into being. Where they have made the mistake is that they have all violated that "mystery" clause and have all come down on the side of absolute surety and certainty.

I tend to take a Taoist approach that the eternal Tao cannot be told or named and that it is a mystery that will forever not be fully understood. But because I cannot explain it, does not mean it does not exist. This is not based upon some dogmatic view of some religion i am holding but rather the experiences that I have celebrated/endured that point to something much greater than I can ever understand.

[Strong Atheist]

25. Ah, well I am more close-mined till

PROVED wrong, as my handle suggests See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=40163&mesg_id=40261

I assert that THERE ARE NO GODS. None, just as I would assert that the list of other creatures that I gave you does not exist. Prove me wrong.

[manic expression]

32. But,

when are you proven wrong?

Anyway, there is evidence for divinity in the world. I'll put out a few that I think are interesting. Why does matter form itself into organized structure? Why is there a connection between all things? Throughout the universe, we see a continual pattern of birth, life, death, regeneration and so on and so forth. This suggests a higher form of existence in the individual parts of this cycle. Just as all matter is ultimately the same, so too is the truest form of any entity (the truest form being a part of "god").

Those are just some interesting things. I'm not saying your views are BS, so please don't get offended. I'd rather have a real conversation than the flame-fests I usually get into.

Ultimately, I think this is like trying to "prove" love to someone. If someone hasn't experienced it, they may very well deny it, but to anyone who has felt it, its existence is obvious.

Please, don't compare this subject to that of mythical creatures. That's like me saying that, since you do not believe in divinity, that you deny the existence of giraffes. It has little to do with the subject.

Oh, and since you assert something so conclusive, would you care to offer evidence of such a claim?

[Goblinmonger]

33. Isn't the inherent problem with what you are saying

the fact that you compare it to proving love to someone. Love is an emotion, not an entity. God is not an emotion (if that is what you believe, then there is a whole different line of discussion to be had, but I don't think that is the case). But, I think that the fact you turn to love as an example really means that the proof for god is emotional proof and not rational/logical proof.

I am not a scientist, but I think those things you argue are proof of a divinity are just proof that there is order in the universe (I am sure others can address things more specifically). Order does not equal a diety.

There is no birth, life, death for minerals. Why would they be excluded from the overarching cycle?

[manic expression]

38. No

because I was comparing it to something else. It does not have to be exactly the same. Furthermore, do you deny love? It is something that one can sense and observe, as well as being an entity in itself.

Well, a lot of the stuff I mentioned (the connection between all things...) surely points to divinity. Order in itself is an argument, for this organization forms itself around what, exactly?

Another thing is that it is not faith to think there is fire when one sees smoke.

"There is no birth, life, death for minerals."

This is where it gets interesting (at least for me). The cycle does not restrict itself to those things. Ask yourself, are diamonds just always there? Of course not, they are created by a certain process, which is their creation. Have rocks been around forever? No, they haven't, as they have been formed in some way, which constitutes a "birth". The cycle for minerals is simply longer than that of humans.

Again, just a few thoughts.

[Goblinmonger]

42. So because my wife and I created two children

that is logical proof of divinity? Why can't it just be proof or the fact that we are two beings that can create a new life. No overseeing power involved?

I still don't understand how the interconnection (not even sure I can point to a concrete example of what you are talking about) proves divinity. Maybe everything is interconnected because after a couple billion years, those are the things that survived. This is what the order would organize itself around--billions of years of selection.

Again, I apologize for my inadequate example and speaking in vague terms; I am not a scientist by training.

As to the diamonds example. If you are working in a mine in South Africa (and I feel sorry for you because by all accounts, that job sucks), and you come across a diamond, do you think that diamond is proof that there is a god or that carbon, at really high pressure and temperature, forms this cool looking rock. Sure there is creation here, but, at least in my mind, that doesn't logically prove there is divinity, just cool shit in nature.

[manic expression]

56. In a way

If you look at how this very same force is at work in everything, there is not only a connection between all of those entities, but also a pervasive force.

It is an "overseeing power" almost in the way nature is an "overseeing power" to natural life. It is the environment in which they exist in all forms.

The interconnection (IMO) simply points toward something more, something beyond superficiality, something true. This is what some would call "divinity".

I would think that the process of evolution is something that changes life into different things that are all really connected. It's the thing that gives certain groups different traits, even though they are ultimately the same as another life form. However, look at how entire star systems are destroyed, then providing for other creation. This is not really natural selection or even evolution, but simply the passage of something, only to take form again. Even then, we see a clear connection between that which seems so different, and ourselves.

Hey, I'm speaking pretty vaguely, too. No problem there.

I'm not really saying diamonds themselves prove divinity, but the fact that even those bodies experience the same cycle as anything else (including us). Again, this isn't 100% concrete evidence, but evidence that points to something (at least). Even if you disagree with it (which is perfectly fine), I'm just trying to demonstrate the logic involved.

[hunter]

40. Minerals go through various cycles.

An ordinary rock might not last long in a geological time frame. (Where does all that sand and dirt come from?)

The components of the rock will most likely be recycled. Some religions would attribute a spirit to a rock. If someone told me a rock had a spirit I don't think it would occur to me to ask them to "prove it."

[Goblinmonger]

43. That stretches the birth/death

analogy/theory pretty far, though, doesn't it.

In a normal conversation on the street, at a party, in a bar I wouldn't ask them to prove it. In this forum, I will ask for it. I kind of think that is why we are here.

[manic expression]

55. A few things

This isn't in response to my post, so I'll just address the discussion part.

It doesn't stretch the analogy at all. Creation is not something that has to happen a certain way. Just like any other such thing, it can be manifested in an infinite number of ways. Just because a rock never came out of a womb or an egg doesn't make it something that was never created (or born, in the abstract sense). Because rocks were created in some way, this is perfectly agreeable to the argument.

[madeline_con]

90. "... attribute a spirit to a rock."

Besides hearing the phrase "spirit rock" in Native American religion, I've also read about "stone conciousness", purported to be the lowest any soul can experience in its evolution to increasingly higher planes.

It's written that Jesus' temptation in the wilderness was a rsult of being thrown back to stone conciousness as punishment for bringing Lazarus back to life. This is supposedly verboten as it messes up the natural order of the universe.

BTW, I don't make this stuff up. :)

[hunter]

93. I was being more Shinto...

In Shinto everything has a kami spirit associated with it. Rocks, animals, places, emotions, people... everything has a kami.

Native American spirituality is more similar to Shinto than to any sort of western style hierarchy.

Western ways of hierarchy have been quite damaging to the popular understanding of evolutionary biology, in which humans are most often regarded as the pinnacle of life's evolutionary tree. The idea that the first single celled organism is at the "bottom" of evolution, and that humans are at the "top" has been very destructive to the popular perception of evolutionary biology.

If instead we think of the first single cell organism as the center of a sphere of life, and we define the surface of that sphere as all present day life, then we will have a clearer understanding of not only evolution but of the overall ecology of life.

In a similar way if we see a stone as some basepoint of spirituality and some god as the pinnacle of spirituality, then we will be unable to understand, or even comprehend, the spiritualities of other people. It is much more helpful if we put the ultimate source of Creation at the center of our spiritual ecology. It works even if you are an atheist and you believe the ultimate source of Creation was some random event; some "big bang."

By assuming our neighbors share the same center of spirituality as we do, and that we all simply occupy different places on the surface of a single spiritual sphere, we are much better able to comprehend our neighbor's spirituality than if we assume that we ourselves are closer to some pinnacle of understanding, or closer to some god, than other people.

[madeline_con]

89. Au contraire...

Isn't the volcanic cycle of lava formation, tectonic movement, etc a sort of rebirth of minerals? :shrug:

[Orrex]

47. I'm replying to this post because you cite it down-thread

Anyway, there is evidence for divinity in the world. I'll put out a few that I think are interesting. Why does matter form itself into organized structure? Why is there a connection between all things? Throughout the universe, we see a continual pattern of birth, life, death, regeneration and so on and so forth. This suggests a higher form of existence in the individual parts of this cycle. Just as all matter is ultimately the same, so too is the truest form of any entity (the truest form being a part of "god").

Sorry, but that New Age creationist gobbledygook is rhetorically worthless, even if you find it interesting. You are expressing the "fine tuning" argument as well as the "god of the gaps" argument for the existence of God, and there are approximately a zillion solid refutations of both of these online and elsewhere.

Ultimately, I think this is like trying to "prove" love to someone. If someone hasn't experienced it, they may very well deny it, but to anyone who has felt it, its existence is obvious.

That's a straw man if ever there was one. When someone asks you to prove that you love someone, the appropriate response is to demand to know the criteria for that proof. Tell me what it would take to prove to you that I love Person X, and we'll go from there. Unless you provide that information, then you're setting up an unreachable target.

I have elsewhere listed the kind of evidence that I would accept as proof of God's existence, and to date no one has provided it.

Please, don't compare this subject to that of mythical creatures. That's like me saying that, since you do not believe in divinity, that you deny the existence of giraffes. It has little to do with the subject.

The comparison is made because there is equal evidence for God as for magical purple unicorns that live in my garage. Please don't compare your superstitions to well-demonstrated physical laws, because that comparison is inherently flawed.

[manic expression]

53. OK

And why is it "gobbledygook"? Because you think it is. Provide one of these "a zillion solid refutations", and then we can talk. Right now, you have provided nothing to give your position any support.

That's actually not a straw-man. My point was that there is no 100% concrete evidence, just as there is no 100% concrete evidence for love. However, would you like to argue against love?

If you would, please post that list of evidence you would find acceptable.

Those comparisons actually have nothing to do with what we are discussing. The concept of divinity has a great amount of logic behind it, whereas magical creatures do not. It really is like me saying: "well, since you do not believe in divinity, that is like you denying the existence of white-tailed deer". Quite a meaningless statement, would you not agree?

The fact that well-demonstrated physical laws agree with my "superstitions" should tell you something.

[Orrex]

62. It's gobbledygook because its assertions are meaningless

All that touchy-feelie stuff about "harmonious interconnectedness" or whatever you care to call it has never been demonstrated outside of the perceptions of the believers.

I hope that you comprehend my use of the term "zillions" to describe a non-specific but quite large number, okay? For starters, you might check out Infidels.org. After that, you could stop by TalkOrigins.org. After that, stop by The Skeptic's Dictionary. And once you've done all that, read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker." All of these refute your "fine tuning" argument. And there are a zillion others.

My point was that there is no 100% concrete evidence, just as there is no 100% concrete evidence for love. However, would you like to argue against love?

To restate what you just wrote: lack of concrete evidence about Thing-One (which is accepted to exist) is proof that Thing-Two exists despite a complete lack of evidence, concrete or otherwise.

Sorry but that's a non sequitur. If you disagree, please restate your claim (and I remind you that I haven't claimed that love doesn't exist--what gave you that idea?) However, you may have noticed a post in some other thread in which I asserted that there is no evidence that "love" exists separate from the neurochemistry of the organism judged to display it.

The concept of divinity has a great amount of logic behind it, whereas magical creatures do not.

There is no logic whatsoever behind "divinity," whatever that might mean. The difference between the nonexistence of divinity and the nonexistence of magical creatures is that you assume (with no evidence) that divinity exists, yet you conclude that magical creatures do not exist (because of a lack of evidence).

For clarity's sake, why don't you articulate exactly what you mean by "divinity?" Then we can all be enlightened together and discuss it reasonably.

The fact that well-demonstrated physical laws agree with my "superstitions" should tell you something.

It tells me that your superstitions are nonfalsifiable and so utterly vague as to be wholly devoid of meaning of value. Why? What does the perceived agreement tell you?

[manic expression]

65. Why do you conclude that?

Again, because that is what you think.

Those assertions are logical and readily observable. Not only that, but they are backed up by truths that are known in many fields. YOU are the one who THINKS it is touchy-feely stuff, which makes for a pathetic argument. I, on the other hand, have given many arguments that use examples and reason which support that view.

I want a specific argument, because it is a cop-out to give me a website. I want evidence, not a URL.

Again, you miss the point. I was comparing this argument to that of proving love. Because one can give a lot of arguments with evidence for love, and even though love exists, it is not 100% concrete. It is the same for divinity (IMO, anyway. That wasn't even a significant point)

If you disagree with my arguments, that is fine, but do not ignore the fact that many theist beliefs are backed up by logic and reason. That much is obvious, even if you choose to disagree.

Why is it devoid of meaning or value? You show nothing to counter my arguments yet again. Physics do support the concepts I have said. That much is plain. For example, the law "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is in complete agreement with karma.

[Orrex]

74. I'm stunned by your willingness to believe in absurdities

Let me see if I understand you: I told you (correctly) that zillions of refutations of your "fine tuning" argument exist online and elsewhere, and you demanded citation. When I provided citation, you insisted that citation was insufficient. Make up your mind.

You've given no arguments outside of tepid metaphors explaining how you think your touchy-feelie New Age gobbledygook proves and is proven by scientific observation, and that's nonsense.

You've asserted again and again that divinity (which you refuse to define, I note) is backed up by logic and reason, but you've provided no evidence that this is so.

You're simply a true believer who has no idea of how to support an argument.

Believe in your nonsensical Newtonian Karma if it helps you balance your chi or uncoil your Kundalini serpent or whatever.

[manic expression]

79. Then be stunned

I want an actual citation. As in a specific case.

What you did is like when someone links this to show a political view:
http://bbc.co.uk/

Again: an actual citation to a specific example.

My arguments are backed up by examples and logic.

Your meaningless labels of "gobbledygook" give your views no support whatsoever. Sadly, however, that is the closest you come to giving a real argument. That insipid name-calling doesn't change anything, which means you are still without any validity. Because you mistakenly THINK something is "New Age" or "touchie feelie", you think it is wrong? That is absolutely laughable, and it is the intellectual equivalent of calling someone a "tree-hugging, anti-american librul"...:eyes:

I've asserted that the points I've made point to the existence of divinity (the true form of all things would be a basic definition). That is not an incorrect statement.

You're simply someone who cannot make an argument, and what's more, cannot comprehend one.

There you go with your prejudiced labels again. I wonder, do you give something a label whenever you can't make a real point?

[Strong Atheist]

48. In answer:

Why does matter form itself into organized structure?

This is like asking "Why is water wet?" It is because of the properties of matter and energy and the way various forms of these interact with the laws of chemistry and physics. Nothing more.

Throughout the universe, we see a continual pattern of birth, life, death, regeneration and so on and so forth.

Yeah, so what? Things live, procreate, and die. No gods involved.

Please, don't compare this subject to that of mythical creatures

The whole point is that to atheists, gods ARE mythical, like Athena and Jupiter and the FSM.

Oh, and since you assert something so conclusive, would you care to offer evidence of such a claim?

I assert this in the same way that I would assert that there is no tooth fairy. It is inherently, simplistically obvious to me that it is true. There are an infinite number of such things that do not exist; I have no intention of wasting my time trying to prove infinite numbers of negatives. It is up to theists to prove me wrong.

[manic expression]

54. In further answer...

But what do organized structures form themselves around? It would be illogical to the highest degree to simply say "properties of...chemistry and physics" and nothing more. There is most definitely a deeper being to those individual entities.

There is a constant to all existence throughout this cycle. What is this? Since it is constant through life and death, then it must transcend these boundaries as well. Furthermore, because we see many forces at work throughout existence, these influences form the basis of the universe. They manifest themselves in the physical sense in many ways. This certainly points to something beyond the mere superficial aspects of what we can sense.

Also, why is there a connection between all things?

The whole point is that comparing the subject to mythical creatures derides the idea completely for no reason. While there is logic behind the beliefs we are discussing, there is none (or little) behind mythical creatures.

If you cannot prove something, then you have no reason to make the conclusions you have made. If it is simply a matter of "wasting (your) time", then why not take a few moments and amount an actual argument?

[Strong Atheist]

57. .

There is most definitely a deeper being to those individual entities.

Oh, really? Care to get more specific?

There is a constant to all existence throughout this cycle.

Again, this says nothing whatsoever. Words without meaning. Give specifics.

Also, why is there a connection between all things?

Again, no examples. What connections are you talking about?

While there is logic behind the beliefs we are discussing

Most Atheists see none. I certainly don't.

then you have no reason to make the conclusions you have made.

On the contrary, if there is no evidence that "X" exists, and all the accumulated evidence and experience points to the fact that it doesn't, then the sensible thing to conclude is that it does not exist till proved otherwise.

then why not take a few moments and amount an actual argument?

I never try to convince anyone to change their mind anymore. I especially do not waste time trying to prove negatives. It is up to other to waste their time convincing me that I am wrong.

[manic expression]

64. Yes

Although it doesn't need to much specification. This evidence simply points to the existence of what I have said. Since there is an undeniable connection between all things, since there is a constant which pervades all things and other facts, this shows what I am saying. Address that.

It does say something. The fact that everything, no matter what, follows the same exact path is quite telling (do you deny this?). Look beyond this cycle and see what is important.

The "connection" that I am talking about:

http://physics.webplasma.com/physics08.html
"Simply put, gravity is the attraction between any two objects that have mass."

It is simply wrong for you to ignore the logic in many theist beliefs. You can disagree with them (no problem with that), but do not write-off the thought and reason that is behind it.

No, since you have provided no evidence to back up your claim, you can only assume that nothing has proven the existence of gods, as of yet. To claim that there are no gods is jumping to an unreasonable conclusion.

This is a discussion, both people are supposed to provide arguments. If you refuse to do so, then you might as well just leave. This is a two-way street, but it feels very much like one-way traffic.

[Strong Atheist]

66. I will cut to the chase.

This is a discussion, both people are supposed to provide arguments.

I see zero evidence of any gods in this universe. Nada. Nil. None. Zilch.

If a god/goddess/whatever ever makes itself know to me, I will give that evidence all the consideration that it deserves. Till then, I see a universe devoid of gods (a positive thing, IMO.).

[manic expression]

68. No

you cut off every point I made except for one. Why?

Furthermore, I have provided evidence that points to the existence of divinity. You have been unable to counter any of it.

[Strong Atheist]

72. "you cut off every point I made except for one. Why?"

Furthermore, I have provided evidence that points to the existence of divinity. You have been unable to counter any of it.

That is because you have put forth no evidence, and no arguments.

For instance:

This evidence simply points to the existence of what I have said. Since there is an undeniable connection between all things, since there is a constant which pervades all things and other facts, this shows what I am saying. Address that.

What "evidence"? None. What connections? None.

The fact that everything, no matter what, follows the same exact path is quite telling (do you deny this?).

It is too incoherent to deny. What does this mean? No specifics provided. Words without meaning.

"Simply put, gravity is the attraction between any two objects that have mass."

Great. What does gravity have to do with the price of tea in China?

EDITED TO ADD: My theist friend thinks that you are saying that gravity proves the existence of god. Is this what you are saying?

It is simply wrong for you to ignore the logic in many theist beliefs

Again, many atheist see no logic. Again, I don't. Your posts are certainly devoid of both logic and coherence. I honestly can not see any of your points, since you keep insisting on talking in vague generalities that make no sense.

[manic expression]

73. Yes I have

I have provided arguments, you have ignored them.

What connections? The fact that everything is attracted to one another. That is a fact. What other connections? The fact that everything experiences the same as everything else (birth, life, death...). The fact that all things are ultimately built of the same materials. Care to deny some more?

They are not without meaning, you simply refuse to see it. The path of all things are EXACTLY the same. Everything begins, everything lives, everything ends. This cycle is observable in anything. Is that "coherent" enough for you?

The FACT that everything is connected (through gravity) shows just this: Everything is connected. This, along with the deeper truth that all things are more intimately connected, is the point.

No, that's not what I'm saying. If s/he wants to talk to me about it, s/he can join the discussion.

There is logic in those views, and your denial of that changes nothing. Disagree with them if you want, but to say that it is devoid of logic is patently wrong.

[Strong Atheist]

76. strong atheist's theist friend

Hi,
This is S.A.'s theist friend. He and I don't discuss religion much because we know we will never agree and we want to remain friends. I twisted his arm to get him to let me write this. In case I'm breaking any DU rules, this is my first time doing this and I don't intend to make it a habit.

I also misunderstood your message apparently. I have to agree with him that you don't explain yourself well. I'm sorry, but if neither of us get it, that says something.

They are not without meaning, you simply refuse to see it. The path of all things are EXACTLY the same. Everything begins, everything lives, everything ends. This cycle is observable in anything. Is that "coherent" enough for you?

The FACT that everything is connected (through gravity) shows just this: Everything is connected. This, along with the deeper truth that all things are more intimately connected, is the point.

No, that's not what I'm saying. If s/he wants to talk to me about it, s/he can join the discussion.

These statements sound deep and meaningful, but they don't explain anything. When he asks for examples, you need to give concrete ones; not more global generalizations. You said all things have an attraction, but you didn't mean that the presence gravity proves that God exists. What DO you mean?

By the way, you will never convince an atheist that the world's existence, and its physical properties, are sufficient proof of God's existence. This includes the idea that everything follows a path. That's a point upon which you and he will have to agree to disagree. You also will never convince my friend with grand sounding declarations that are left to the reader's imagination to interpret. How are things connected more intimately? I believe in the Lord God Almighty and I have no idea what you are saying.

I'll leave you two to debate the deep mysteries of the universe. He'll let me know what you said in reply. (I don't argue with him, but I do pray for him whether he likes it or not and he knows it! O8)

[manic expression]

78. Hi

I don't think you're breaking any rules, so it's no problem. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Yeah, I may not be the most clear, but I think I get the gist across, at least.

Anyway, here are some examples:

If you take anything, it follows the same exact path. Empires, people, ecosystems, rocks, cars, anything. All things are made, all things live, all things end in a continual cycle. This alone shows that there is a constant, something that pervades all the boundaries that divide. I feel that because we can see such a commonality to all things, there must be a deeper commonality as well. This deeper entity is the true form of the individual self, and that is what makes up "divinity" (this is all in my opinion, by the way).

I hope that made sense.

Now, on to gravity. The way there is an attraction between all things is a fact and no one can seriously deny this. Now, this means that all things are connected in a physical way. If everything is connected in a physical way, that indicates a connection in a deeper way. That was the point.

I really hope that made sense.

These kinds of parallels can be found in many other things as well, and I think they strongly show the existence of divinity. Remember, when one sees smoke, one knows there is fire, so 100% concrete evidence is not needed IMO.

I know I'll never convince an atheist of anything, but then again, I've never convinced many people when it comes to politics, either. If you look at some of my discussions with other atheists/agnostics, we've come to an "agree to disagree" point, and I am very satisfied with that.

The thing is that I leave a lot of room for interpretation and I make general statements. Why? Well, because it is reflective of the idea, not the specific example. (Just as there is an infinite number of lines that you can make from a circle's edge to its center...) There is no one answer for anything. Furthermore, it is general because it touches upon something so broad. That may be why it seems "grand sounding".

Thanks again for the response. I hope I addressed everything.

Edited to add: "in a continual cycle"

[Strong Atheist]

80. thank you

The friend speaking again--

Thank you for your response. I believe I understood almost everything you said. I don't quite get the part about the true individual self.

it is reflective of the idea, not the specific example

This sounds like the concept of gestalt, i.e., the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That's clear, too.

I enjoyed our brief discussion. :-)

I'm returning control of the keyboard to S.A.

[manic expression]

84. Sure thing

Thanks for the discussion.

:hi:

[Strong Atheist]

81. Meanwhile, back as S.A.,

I feel that because we can see such a commonality to all things, there must be a deeper commonality as well.

I see no commonality, and I certainly do not see a deeper commonality.

Now, this means that all things are connected in a physical way. If everything is connected in a physical way, that indicates a connection in a deeper way.

Gravity does not "connect" things in any meaningful way that I see, no more than light does (there is light "connecting" me to objects I see, in your meaning of the word "connect", so what?), and again I see no "deeper" connection.

You presuppose these "deeper" connections, and those not inclined to see what is not there do not see them.

I really see nothing more to discuss. Have a good day.

:hi:

[manic expression]

83. Hello again

You see no commonality? That is clearly an incorrect assessment. If you actually looked, you would see how all things experience these same things: creation, life, destruction.... These things are commonalities, and even if one disagrees with my other points (which is fine), one should recognize that.

Furthermore, do you see no commonality in the fact that all physical things are ultimately neutrons, protons and electrons?

Gravity does connect things. This is also obvious. The FACT that every object has an attraction to every other object should tell you something.

Light is different, as there is no real attraction, so it indicates other truths to us. For example, the fact that color is determined by the frequency of the atoms' oscillation. Therefore, objects that appear different to us are really the same, aside from that one (quite superficial) distinction. That is just one example, but the point is that light shows us different deeper qualities of the world than that of gravity.

One does not need to presuppose anything, for all of these points surely suggest something more. Again, when one sees smoke, one knows there is fire.

You do have more to discuss if you would like. However, in that case, goodbye again.

[Strong Atheist]

58. "when are you proven wrong?"

When god comes up, introduces him/her/itself, performs a few miracles; maybe then.

[manic expression]

70. Maybe then?

Wow. So I guess if love itself does not introduce itself to you, it does not exist?

If one sees smoke, one knows there is fire.

[Zebedeo]

75. That has happened!

You can read about it. Four books provide the details. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So your own criteria for being proven wrong have already occurred and are documented.

[Strong Atheist]

77. "When god comes up, introduces him/her/itself,"

Obviously, this referred to happening to me ...

[Zebedeo]

94. Sound a little egotistical

So unless God appears personally before you and performs miracles, you will deny He exists? God has to appear before each of the 6.5 billion people currently living in the world (and each person that is born into this world from this point on), and perform miracles for them, in order to prove that He exists?

I could see how God might not agree with you that it is necessary for Him to do all that. Perhaps He has better things to do to fill His days than to make billions of personal appearances and "try-outs" to satisfy skeptics. It sounds reasonable to me that God proved his existence by becoming incarnate as a man once, showing us how to love Him and how to get along with each other, performing many well-documented miracles, suffering and dying to pay for our sins, then being resurrected to show his power over death. He has also ensured that there are tens of millions of books readily available that tell all about these events.

Think about it. If you were in God's position, and you had already done all of the above, would you feel the need to personally appear to Strong Atheist and each and every other human on the planet and perform personal miracles for them?

Sounds like you are setting a pretty ridiculous standard.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. It seems a reasonable standard to me

After all, a god should know how duplicitous humans can be, and that a collection of books, several of which are anonymous, is hardly the basis for a secure knowledge that violates all of your own experiences, and those that most people tell you about.

[beam me up scottie]

96. You think requiring proof of existence is a "pretty ridiculous standard"?

And you think we should accept hearsay as proof of the supernatural?

This was Sigmund's (my invisible pet dragon) reaction when I read your post to him:



I know you can't see him, but trust me, he's laughing hysterically right now.

[Strong Atheist]

105. To atheists (or at least to me)

the bible is no more legitimate a source than the Illiad(sp?) or Odyssey, which I may point out are also full of gods and sirens and real places like Troy...

Sounds like you are setting a pretty ridiculous standard.

The standard fits the premise ...

[Zhade]

97. "The bible is true, because the bible said so!"

Can't you be just a little more logical when discerning veracity of 'revealed' books?

Somewhere out there is the purported history of the alleged Bigfoot. If people a couple thousand years from now believe Bigfoot existed, does that mean it really did?

[Zebedeo]

98. Atheism is true because atheism says so

If you require me to use materialist/atheist means to prove the existence of God, I require that you use Christian means to prove He does not exist. See how ridiculous that is?

We have two different and incompatible beliefs. I believe God exists. You believe He doesn't. For you to require me to prove that He exists, using your assumptions, is equivalent to me asking you to prove that He doesn't exist, using my assumptions.

If you start with the assumption that God does not exist, do not be surprised if you end up with the conclusion that God does not exist.

[beam me up scottie]

99. Okay, Mr. Herman.

Nice use of the "I know you are but what am I?" argument.



Egad.


Do you really expect us to take your word for it that your god exists?

Or the word of anyone else?

You cannot prove the existence of gods by using hearsay, so quit trying while you still have a shred of dignity left.

[Zhade]

100. Except that you're wrong in what I believe.

In point of fact, I DON'T believe this alleged god doesn't exist.

I just don't happen to believe it does, since there is no objective evidence that shows it does. But if evidence WERE to turn up, lo these thousands of years later, I'd have to say "well, now I can go ahead and believe, since it's known". At this point, I can't prove or disprove said existence, as I am not privvy to all information in the universe (no one here is, or THEY'D be 'god').

Since your reply applies a false belief to me - that I believe god doesn't exist - I don't think there's any way I can respond to you.

But my point remains: self-referencing books do not evidence make.

[Zebedeo]

101. Sorry

I guess you are what some people call a "weak atheist" or an "agnostic." Please don't jump all over me if I got the terms wrong or if these terms are somehow interpreted as pejorative. I don't mean them that way.

To be fair (to me), my original post in this thread was in response to "Strong Atheist," who DOES believe that God doesn't exist. So my post about "atheism is true because atheism says so" applies with full force to him.

As for you, as I now understand your viewpoint, I agree that you are not explicitly assuming that God does not exist. But you really are not taking a stand at all. It sounds like what you are saying is simply "I don't know."

Correct me if I am wrong: Your view about the existence of God is similar to your view of whether there is an oak tree in my front lawn. There might be one, and there might not. You don't know one way or the other. Also, you have seen no evidence that there is an oak tree in my front lawn, so you do not have a belief that there is one. You also do not have a belief that there is not one there. You have no belief one way or the other. Is that correct?

But my point remains: self-referencing books do not evidence make.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by "self-referencing books." The Gospels tell a story about Jesus and what He did. They do not reference themselves anymore than any other history book, AFAIK. Do you refuse to believe all ancient writings? What is it about the Gospels that you think puts them in a special category of "self-referencing books" that do not constitute evidence for the events described in them?

[Zhade]

102. Correct, I am an agnostic atheist.

I don't know that there is or is not a god, and thus do not believe in one, much like I don't believe in unicorns (oak tress, on the other hand, are known to exist, regardless of the reality of your lawn).

I do not refuse to believe all ancient writings - I merely do not accept as true those writings for which there is only one source. For example, I do not believe in Atlantis, and likewise would not have believed in Troy.

As we know, Troy eventually was discovered. Who knows? Gods might one day, too.

So far, there is no such evidence, not even in the so-called gospels.

[Zebedeo]

103. Surprise! There is an oak tree in my front lawn!

Har, har.

Thanks for the reply, but I still don't get what you mean about the Gospels being self-referencing. By "self-referencing," do you mean writings for which there is only one source? What is the "one source" for the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

[Zhade]

104. Uh, the bible.

I understand it reads a little funny, since the bible is a collection of books, so I should have clarified that.

[madeline_con]

88. "This suggests a higher form of existence ..."

I can't see how it necessarily suggests that.

According to evolutionary theory, everyhing is inherently connected, having come from the same cells in the proverbial primordial soup.

[Dervill Crow]

23. I have a friend who believes she has a dragon familiar.

I have not met said dragon (his name is Uriel), but I don't know for a fact that he does not exist. She may be deluded or she may be more spiritually enlightened than I.

[Strong Atheist]

26. Funny, Carl Sagan said the same thing ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=19024

[Dervill Crow]

27. Interesting! n/t

[CarbonDate]

82. Some people have very active imaginations.

Others, as you say, are simply deluded.

I wasted a lot of time as a Wiccan trying to see these things that other people claim to see. Some people will say outrageous things (like having a dragon familiar) to make themselves seem/feel special. I can only conclude that they were either deluded or lying to me, since therer are no such thing as dragons or fairies.

[madeline_con]

87. "... things that I KNOW don't exist ..."

How do you know none of those things exist?

Seriously, how? I honestly want to know.

[Strong Atheist]

106. Because I am not

functionally insane. If ALL evidence points to something not existing, I do not have to have all of the information in the universe to be CERTAIN; that destroys the meaning of CERTAINTY. All evidence pointing one way is enough for certainty.

For a fuller argument, read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=40163&mesg_id=40261

Prove me wrong.

[grumpy old fart]

2. "I don't know"....you are an Agnostic, no?

Agnostic; "without knowledge" from the Greek, "a" without; "gnostic" knowledge.

[BoneDaddy]

4. Probably

I would have to say that I am agnostic or maybe more of a taoist/buddhist in that I do not subscribe to a personal Jesus so to speak. I just cannot, due to my personal experiences, discount the possibility of a higher order or being or dimension and that in time, the scientist and the mystic will find common ground.

[Goblinmonger]

3. My first thought after reading your post

is that NOWHERE in there do you talk about the disrespect and demeaning language used by theists toward atheists on here. I would submit that over 90% of the time (I am just pulling that number out of my ass but it sounds right) the "wrath" of atheists is in response to the language/attitude from theists. Sometimes the theists attitudes may have taken place in a different forum/thread and it looks like the atheist is attacking.

But, in short, why do you not place ANY of the blame on the theists?

:popcorn:

[BoneDaddy]

5. I didn't clarify

I have spent probably most of my time on message boards refuting and challenging fundamentalism and the their view of God and reality. Sorry I didn't mention it before.

As for the attacks on atheists by theists, I totally admit that theists are often brutal, especially outside of these boards. I can only speak to what I have seen in here and it seems that frequently people who are liberal and are religious get immediately dismissed as being stupid and superstitious. My point is that I reject both extreme views: The fundamentalist narrow view of God and the utter rejection, by atheists, that God (in any form) does not exist.

[Goblinmonger]

7. No you missed my point

I am talking about the theists HERE. On DU. They are abrasive. They tell us that we are lying about what we think. They tell us our fights aren't important. The fundies are just assholes; I can dismiss them.

[BoneDaddy]

10. That is a shame

I am relatively new to this message board and I guess I haven't seen much of what you are talking about. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I kinda feel that the topic is mental masturbation, cause we are not going to get a definitive answer anyway. But if I saw a theist bashing an atheist, I certainly wouldn't sit still. I mean, isn't being a liberal about having a diversity of thought?

[beam me up scottie]

44. "the utter rejection, by atheists, that God (in any form) does not exist."

Say what ?

Show me where I've "rejected" a god.

That ridiculous and more often than not, intentional misrepresentation of atheism is posted frequently on DU.


I suppose it makes people feel better to believe that we've "rejected" their deity.


Much more comfy than admitting the truth about atheism and the fact that most atheists aren't the dictionary kind.


Did I mention that it's also extremely arrogant and insulting?


And you're wondering why atheists are angry?



If you find that clue, hang onto it, you're going to need it.

[Warpy]

6. First, a choice between extremes is a false choice, always

and second, since militant atheists are so vastly outnumbered by militant Calvinist fundies, who is the problem here?

Believe what you want, but don't expect to be able to prove any of it.

Believers always retreat into emotion to "prove" their beliefs and may become quite poetic about them. However, poetry is not proof.

Unbelievers don't have to prove anything, since proving a negative is a logical impossibility.

In the meantime, unless you are an atheist, please stop trying to put words into our mouths or trying to look through our eyes. Ask us how we feel about things. We'll tell you.

[BoneDaddy]

8. But...

Actually I think both spheres of thought are the problem and simply because one group is larger than the other doesn't mean that the minority group's ideas are more or less insulated from criticism.

Atheists don't necessarily subscribe to a specific belief system. You are not an institutionalized group, so it would be kinda hard to get the party line so to speak. I was more interested in pointing out that both sides of the argument make the same mistake that is they both think they have the answers to the GOD argument.

REgarding the last line about putting words in your mouth, this was in response to actual words from atheists mouths that I am addressing. Maybe they are not your words, but they are the summation of what I see often on these boards.

I also find it interesting that you point out that "believers retreat into emotion", yet your last line sounds like you retreated into annoyance and defensiveness and talked about how you "feel" about a subject. I was asking what you think.

[Warpy]

11. You ascribed those words to all atheists

and that is your mistake. Don't put words into our mouths that don't fit.

I would strongly suggest you reply to the specific individuals whose words you found so alarming. Those words don't belong to me or to most atheists I know.

[BoneDaddy]

13. Good to hear

that you don't engage in ridiculing someone else's theism, so my post does not apply to you specifically. But wouldn't you agree that most theists are pigeonholed in the same way you are saying that I am doing to you. I mean theism is a huge tent with many many different views on God, I guess they shouldn't be painted with a broad brush as well.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Don't you think that for an atheist

all theists do belong in a tent that has the sign "Believes in a god"? I don't think you will find any atheist on this board, and give me the specific link if you have, that will equate a progressive xian with a crazy, batshit, insane fundie. But for an atheist that thinks believing in god is akin to believing in fairy tales (sorry, but that's how I feel), all thesists do have to move into that tent.

[Orrex]

21. Too broad a brush

Atheists don't necessarily subscribe to a specific belief system. You are not an institutionalized group, so it would be kinda hard to get the party line so to speak. I was more interested in pointing out that both sides of the argument make the same mistake that is they both think they have the answers to the GOD argument.

At least several atheists here explicitly do not profess to "have the answers to the GOD argument," if the argument is whether or not God exists.

Instead, several atheists here assert the following: I do not accept the conclusion that God exists because that conclusion is not supported by all available evidence.

Theists assert that God exists, but that assertion is made on little or no evidence outside of "gut feelings" or "His writing on my heart" or whatever.

So these atheists assert that they lack sufficient data to answer the God argument, and so they do not presume to answer it. Theists, in marked contrast, assert that they (and, often, their belief system alone) has all the answers.

Upthread you posted the following:
It seems that anyone who considers themselves a person of faith is pigeonholed into being a stupid irrational person who is superstitious.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but a person who maintains faith in an unseen entity is superstitious, just like someone who maintains faith in an unseen force like "bad luck" or "karma" or the "evil eye."

[manic expression]

29. Likewise

First of all, saying "I do not accept the conclusion..." instead of "I think that I do not accept..." is splitting hairs. Ultimately, the meaning is the same in that those people believe certain things about divinity. Therefore, that view is just as valid, and not more valid, as any other view on the subject.

Secondly, many theists have quite a bit more reason beyond "gut feelings" and the like. There is a great amount of logic behind belief in divinity. One should not ignore this fact.

I'm equally sorry to tell you this, but anyone who generalizes (paints with "too broad a brush", perhaps?) all religious people into such a pot is so very mistaken. It is not superstition when there is rationale that goes along with such a belief.

Also, you just demonstrated that you think you know all the answers.

Oh, and "karma" is quite observable. See Newton's 2nd Law of Motion, for starters.

[Goblinmonger]

30. I will be very clear about this so there is no semantic squibble later

1. Please give me some of the logical reasons for belief in divinity. Later on you use the term "rationale." I'd like to see some of those, too.
2. What is wrong with putting all theists into a tent that is called "believes in gods"? That seems fair to me.

[manic expression]

35. Sure

2.) The poster said that it was mere "superstition", which is inaccurate.

1.) See post #32 (as you have done, so I'll reply there) for some reasons.

Here's one example:

Karma, as the poster specifically cited this. Look at physics, where "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is the basis for so much knowledge. This is most decidedly a parallel which reflects that same truth to the larger picture of existence.

[Goblinmonger]

37. I am fine having the logic discussion above

I think it is quite a leap to apply newton's law to actions and retribution. It is an interesting philosophical point, but probably an ultimate misapplication of the concept.

[manic expression]

39. Same here

I would say that it isn't so much of a stretch when it is so observable. Also, I think the truths that we can see in the world around us are applied to deeper aspects of existence.

If it works for physical bodies, then why not for empires? If it works for those things, why not individual actions?

I think the discussion we have above is good, so it's fine if you want to concentrate it there (I think we have three discussions going on right now).

[immoderate]

50. "Please don't confuse my second and third laws!" --Isaac Newton

And I will add:

Using the principles of one discipline to explain results in another system is making the error of reductionism. Physics and karma have nothing to do with other. Similarities in description of things is what we could rightfully call coincidence. It could also be that the perceptions of relationships between disconnected things might be influenced by the way minds work.Our minds recognize certain patterns, whether they exist or not. The things that stimulate pattern recognition seek to form relationships even when they are not there.

Analogies are odious. Analogies are useful for explanation and illustration, but they cannot prove anything. Pointing out similarities between Tao and QM is a great intellectual exercise, but no matter how many analogies are found, it doesn't signify anything.

Superstition and mythology: talk about denial. Every culture has a mythology. We're familiar with Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Aztec, etc. mythologies. Are we the first culture to lack a mythology? Are we insulting these other cultures when we refer to their devoutly held beliefs as myths? As for superstition, I'll use an analogy, just kidding, actually I'll use something just as bad, an anecdote. One of my father's closest friends would not visit our house while my brother had a black cat. Granted he didn't like my brother, but he came over when we didn't have the cat. His belief was that the adjacency of the cat would affect his fortunes in business and gambling negatively. That is, he thought that actions he performed would change the outcome of events in the universe by invisible and unquantifiable means. Nobody challenged him on this, perhaps out of respect, because he was a powerful businessman, but mainly because he was an asshole. Well, my brother might have said something.

--IMM

[manic expression]

51. "Please don't concentrate on a technical mistake...

especially when I was typing tired!" --manic expression

Seriously, is that really significant?

Anyway, it is not wrong at all to use the knowns from one study and use it in another. If we find something that really is true, it is true for all things.

The truths that we find in science are the same truths that are present in every facet of the world. Do not be so myopic as to restrict such obviously correct things to one field, when one can make accurate and acceptable parallels to others.

I would like you to point out exactly how it is incorrect to apply this principle to other fields, as it is readily observable in many.

When something is true in all parts of the world as well as deeper aspects of existence, it is only right to show this fact. In this case, this law really does clearly support the notion of karma.

It is inaccurate and misled to label something "superstition" when there is reason and logic behind it. Mythology and philosophy are not exactly the same things, so you should clarify what you are talking about. Myths are stories that are a (n important) part of religions, as their meanings exude morals and lessons that can be very helpful and wise. These myths reflect the teachings of a mindset or philosophy. They should not be taken literally at all, just as in "secular" fiction. It is the meaning that matters, not whether the story happened exactly as it is told (remember, even the Iliad, which was thought to have no historical basis, was proven to be grounded in actual events).

On superstition, beliefs that have logic and reasoning behind them should never be called such. Since the beliefs have rationale, it is unreasonable and mistaken to call them superstition. Your example of the black cat is something far different from what I have put forth.

[immoderate]

61. I didn't exactly concentrate on it. I gave it one sentence.

Yeah, I put it in the subject line to be cute, but didn't mention it after that. The rest of my post, one might say, was about intellectual rigor.

Reductionism is using the principles of one discipline to explain another. Since you gave no examples of the universal truths you allude to, I'll generalize. The laws of physics do not predict the laws of biology. Yes, biological entities may not violate laws of physics in their functioning, but you mostly ignore that. Finding an occasional congruence is not proof of anything objective.

There is a difference between reason and logic. Logic requires some strict rules, but if followed, the quality of the result is guaranteed. Reason is something else. It's whatever you can come up with to persuade someone. There are no rules. And I can see that's where you're coming from. It might serve you well to explore some of the rules of logic because there are places where it counts. You also don't have a very rigorous definition of truth, which could come in handy.

The only similarity between Newton's third law and karma is the possibility of using the word "reaction" in both definitions. Newton's Third Law of Motion is just that. It describes mass, velocity and acceleration. It made possible the steam engine, internal combustion engine, rockets, the entire industrial revolution. It is reproducible and right 100% of the time in its domain. Contrary to other statements in the OP, Einstein did not overturn Newton's laws, he extended them. They still apply, but only to physics. Certainly there is no connection to karma, which is based on no theory, cannot be measured, or predicted. Karma is a dear notion that has no correlation with reality. Did Reagan and Bush, Sr. have good karma? Did John Kennedy have bad karma? Oh, it doesn't work that way? Well physics does. Physics makes no pretenses to controlling the fortunes of men.

Wherever did you get the notion that if something is true in one situation, it will be true in any other situation? Would you stop and think about how dangerous that is?

Why are you so ready to see the connections between all the notions in the universe and yet you can't see the connection between religion and the black cat? What if he worshiped that cat? Biblical Jews and early Christians sacrificed lots of animals. People pray to animals today. How can I tell which is faith and which is superstition? By the way, they will tell you their reason and logic for it.

--IMM

[salvorhardin]

63. Excellent post!

I just want to point out that there are many types of reductionism but what you describe was best described by Daniel Dennet as Greedy Reductionism.

Greedy reductionism is a term coined by Daniel Dennett, in the book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, to distinguish between acceptable and erroneous forms of reductionism. Whereas reductionism means explaining a thing in terms of what it reduces to, greedy reductionism comes when the thing we are trying to understand is explained away instead of explained, so that we fail to gain any additional understanding of the original target.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_reductionism

Many people use concepts from physics and quantum mechanics in a very peculiar form of reductionism that could appropriately be called a 'golden hammer'.

A golden hammer is any tool, technology, paradigm, snake oil, buzzword or similar whose proponents enthusiastically sing its praises, predicting that it will solve multiple problems, including some obviously not amenable to the proposed solution. Likewise, a literal golden hammer looks highly impressive but is practically useless.

The phrase is supposed to evoke the mental image of a child who has obtained its first hammer and a few nails. Hammering nails provides lots of fun, and when the nails run out, everything starts to look like a nail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hammer

[manic expression]

69. A few things

It is not reductionism when it can be correctly applied to those fields. The principle of actions and reactions are readily observable in many areas, not just physics. Therefore, it is not wrong to connect them.

Secondly, I'm not sure what the "golden hammer" has to do with what we're talking about.

[manic expression]

67. Good

just as I will be sure not to mix up the 2nd and 3rd laws, you will not concentrate on the technical mistake.

The truths known by the laws of physics do show themselves in biology. The basis of evolution is something that is driven by actions and reactions, such as an increase in adaptive pressure (as the action), for example. These truths are applicable to anything, and I am simply showing this in another way. You can call it any "ism" you want, but that does not take away from my argument at all. By the way, it is not an occasional congruence, becuase it works.

While there may be a difference, the real meaning behind it remains the same. Logic and reason are things that show a real thought process. In reality, it is both that are used in many theist beliefs, not just one of them.

There is a great more similarity between karma and Newton's 3rd law. Whereas Newton's law is applied physically, the same exact idea can be applied in many other ways. History, for example, demonstrates this principle to a high degree. The parallel to karma is quite obvious, as it is the exact same idea put to another aspect of existence.

Reagan and Bush now have terrible karma. You can see this at work even in this life (although, in reality, it takes much more than one life to play out), as Reagan's mind descended from reality, and Bush was voted out by a wide margin (these are just some examples). Reagan's son himself is now fighting on the Democratic side, a fight that is in contrary to what his father did. Making an assertion based on the passage of mere years is just not realistic. Karma takes time to play itself out, but the evidence for it is surely there. JFK might have been killed for a variety of reasons. It could have been because of his affair with a woman, which would be the action. Whatever the case, the assassination was done because of something, which is a reaction to an action. It works perfectly.

Einstein applied Newton's laws to something more. Sure, it had to do with physics, but it was applied to something more than what Newton did. Why are you so unwilling to apply the same truths to something different, something more?

Why has every tyrant fallen? Why were the Romans invaded by Germanic tribes after centuries of invading Germania? How is it that both Napolean and Hitler met a terrible blow in invading Russia? Why has every part of human history revolved around actions and reactions? Try to answer that.

Something that is true in all situations should be treated as such, and it is not dangerous to do so. Why do you think the saying "what goes around comes around" has been said so many times in so many different situations?

That person's beliefs on a black cat was not backed up with real reason or logic. There is quite a difference between praying to something and attributing bad luck to it. There is nothing wrong with praying to animals at all, as they are just as "divine" as anything else. That has meaning behind it, whereas being afraid of an animal has none (or little). That is much of the difference.

[catbert836]

85. Reason and logic

I agree with most of what you're saying. I think that the laws of physics, as well as the beginning and ending of cycles within our universe certainly suggest some sort of higher order. But I do not think that my conclusions are logical. Instead, I believe they tend to be more ROMANTIC.
Let me explain. There were two different schools of thought that evolved in the 18th and 18th century concerning our existence. The first, that of reason, depends on logic and science to explain our existence. The second, romanticism, asserts that reason and logic cannot explain everything, and stresses imagination and intuition to be used on equal or almost equal footing. You can read Immanuel Kant for a lot better explanation.
I assert that the scientific order of our universe suggests a higher order, as you say, divinity, but I think that my beliefs lie outside of logic, which I'm totally comfortable with, since logic cannot explain everything, at least to me. Instead, I take these postulates on faith.
I hope that I made sense, and sorry for butting in on your conversation.

[immoderate]

91. Excellent!

Logic can only operate in the domain of information that can be deemed true or false. Reason is a less rigorous standard. We may make hundreds of decisions a day. Many or most are decided for aesthetic reasons, even by those who are the most hardened realist, materialist, or skeptic. Romantic is a good description of this aspect of humanity.

The conflict is when romantic notions challenge principles that are well established by logic. Note that logic is a purely mathematical process, and to deny the result of logical process properly applied is like denying the sum of two and two. There's no shortage of people who will argue with any of that.

I am surely supportive of romantic approaches to life, for herein lies the playfulness and imagination that stimulates us. But care should be taken not to ascribe to reality the plastic properties of words and ideas. Illusions should not take precedence over reality, as required by human interdependence.

--IMM

[immoderate]

92. Finding similarities.

What does it mean that every kitchen has a sink? Is it the decree of some master designer of all kitchens? Is everybody plugged into some cosmic consciousness? After all, the sinks are all connected by pipes and pipes that can pipe water can pipe cosmic consciousness, based on the well known scientific principles of piping. "It works perfectly."

Oh, there's no evidence of cosmic consciousness? So how do we explain all those kitchen sinks? Randomness does not es plain it. If it were a random process, kitchens would have night tables, armoires, and commodes in equal numbers. Master designer or cosmic consciousness? No other choices considered.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now to your statements.

The truths known by the laws of physics do show themselves in biology. The basis of evolution is something that is driven by actions and reactions, such as an increase in adaptive pressure (as the action), for example. These truths are applicable to anything, and I am simply showing this in another way. You can call it any "ism" you want, but that does not take away from my argument at all. By the way, it is not an occasional congruence, because it works.

Right, biology can't break the laws of physics. What's not based on action and reaction? Listing truisms doesn't build a case for anything. Newton's laws are real. They predict events near flawlessly. Karma is a mae up imaginary thing. It cannot be measured and is not predictive of events. No matter how many abstract similarities you can draw between karma and Newton, one is real, one is imaginary. There is no connection. You cannot use similarities between something real and something imaginary to prove the existence of the imaginary thing. It doesn't work for me.

Einstein applied Newton's laws to something more. Sure, it had to do with physics, but it was applied to something more than what Newton did. Why are you so unwilling to apply the same truths to something different, something more?

It is not withing my power to "apply truths," only to see if truths apply.

Something that is true in all situations should be treated as such, and it is not dangerous to do so. Why do you think the saying "what goes around comes around" has been said so many times in so many different situations?

How do you know when something is true is all situation when it hasn't been tested in all situations? As for "what goes around..." that is said when people get treatment they deserve for their actions. When these things happen people take note and make utterances about karma and the three-fold-law. When people don't get their just rewards for their behavior, there are a who lot of other familiar phrases to cover the situation like, "There oughta be a law!" and "It's not what you know..." and "It's not a fair world" and "God works in mysterious ways," but they don't take the trouble to note that what went around didn't come around.

That person's beliefs on a black cat was not backed up with real reason or logic. There is quite a difference between praying to something and attributing bad luck to it. There is nothing wrong with praying to animals at all, as they are just as "divine" as anything else. That has meaning behind it, whereas being afraid of an animal has none (or little). That is much of the difference.

If I pray to a cat, that's good logic and reason, if I think the black cat portends bad luck, that's bad logic and reason? What rules of logic are you applying here?

--IMM

[Orrex]

46. Not splitting hairs, and you're misstating my argument

First of all, saying "I do not accept the conclusion..." instead of "I think that I do not accept..." is splitting hairs.

Is that really your interpretation? That's a simplistic assessment of two quite distinct assertions.

To claim "I do not do a thing" is very different from claiming "I think that I do not do a thing." For you to argue otherwise is to create a straw man that I have no reason to defend.

Ultimately, the meaning is the same in that those people believe certain things about divinity.

This part may seem like splitting hairs, but it's central: I believe nothing about divinity. To the extent that I am able, I believe nothing about anything. Instead, I accept the likelihood that certain conclusions and predictions are true based on experience and analysis of evidence. Intellectual honesty demands no less, and a logically drawn conclusion is not the same as believing, no matter who asserts otherwise.

Therefore, that view is just as valid, and not more valid, as any other view on the subject.

That's preposterous. All assertions are created equal. Is that your view? Really? On what possible basis do you form that opinion?

Secondly, many theists have quite a bit more reason beyond "gut feelings" and the like. There is a great amount of logic behind belief in divinity. One should not ignore this fact.

I don't ignore it; I reject it. At least, I reject it on the grounds that, although the reasoning may be sound, the assumption on which one bases that reasoning is nebulous and non-rational. Give me an example of a rationally-grounded belief in the divine, which is to say that the belief is justified by the available evidence.

I'm equally sorry to tell you this, but anyone who generalizes (paints with "too broad a brush", perhaps?) all religious people into such a pot is so very mistaken. It is not superstition when there is rationale that goes along with such a belief.

Are you serious? My coworker wears the same socks every time he goes golfing. His rationale is that he once got an ace while wearing them. His crazy superstition is no less crazy or superstitious than the belief that a magical alpha primate in the sky created the world in six days, even if both crazy, superstitions have a rationale.

All religions that entail supernatural beliefs (which is to say, all of them) are superstitions.

Also, you just demonstrated that you think you know all the answers.

That's another misstatement. Ask Strong Atheist whether he thinks that I think that I know all the answers.

And spare me any claims about "karma" and Newton's laws, because they're nonsense.

[manic expression]

52. The difference

To come to an assessment that you have cited, one must think to get there. In action, no other action is needed. However, in thought, the very act of looking at an argument, and then rejecting it, is active in itself. Therein lies the difference. Another thing is that although you may not do "x", you do have an opinion on "x", and why you do not do it. It is very much the same.

OK, this is where all my conversations have broken down into shouting matches, so I'll try my part to be reasonable.

I do think that anyone who has an opinion on something has a belief on that subject. Is this not true? For divinity, someone who's opinion is that it does not exist has a belief on that topic. This belief, if you will, does not constitute believING, but only a belief that one holds.

That's just my take on it.

One person's assertion should not be mocked for its very persuasion only, but for the content it holds. If there is reason and logic behind a belief in divinity, that is a very valid assertion, just as valid as any other.

If you do not ignore the fact that there IS logic and reason behind theist beliefs, then that is what I am saying. This makes the arguments reasonable and plausible, and they should not be derided as mere superstition. I have given arguments that use evidence in other posts, you can reply to them if you like (I'll edit and get the post numbers later).

You pretty much proved my point. You just put someone's lucky habit into a pot with so many reasoned and logical views. They are completely different, because whereas your coworker put no real thought into his practice besides occasional occurrences, (many) theist beliefs are backed by far more. That much is obvious, you even said so:
"...the reasoning may be sound..."

Have you not just argued for certain things? You certainly have answers to my points, which is "all" of what we are talking about, no?

Furthermore, the relation between karma and the laws of physics is NOT nonsense. You have not provided a shred of logic to support your view. The fact that the same truth is observable in many areas, including deeper aspects of existence, shows this (what I said).

[trotsky]

9. What does "irrational" mean?

In the context of these discussions, it means:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irrational
not governed by or according to reason

Religious beliefs are not based on reason, they're based on faith. Many believers even tell us, you cannot reason God's ways, you must just accept things on faith.

I know that there are negative connotations with the word "irrational," but ultimately, it is an accurate term to use.

[BoneDaddy]

12. agreed.

I agree with you there. I think that the "faith" excuse to justify a specific belief system is lame and disingenuous. I am not defending theism as I have said, I criticize the modern institutionalized versions out there all the time. I have done that work. I am more addressing the atheists' level of certainty that God, a conscious universe, etc.. does not exist. I am saying that to be truely rational, the answer is I don't know. You CANNOT be sure of either.

Science is not about being rational all the time. In fact, most scientific investigations begin with an irrational belief (faith?) that they will prove something that has been unproven up until this point. Quantum physics is an example of how things that previously made total sense from a mechanistic, Newtonian standpoint were turned on their heads with the advent of relativity, string theory etc... Look at the history of science and how each progressive movement within science often relied upon faith in order to eventually prove a higher level of scientic understanding.

[Goblinmonger]

15. So how sure are you about those things

that Strong Atheist mentioned?

Can you be sure about the existance of unicorns, dragons, elves, centaurs, zeus? Once you open up the can of "you CANNOT be sure of either" you have to take those things with you. What about animate washing machines? Toothbrushes are really aliens that control our minds?

I am as sure of those things not existing as I am of god not existing. 100%

[trotsky]

18. I had an animate washing machine once.

Seriously, I would leave it in a room doing the laundry and when I came back, it had moved over a foot - all by itself!

So don't you go telling me animate washing machines don't exist, for I have seen proof with my own eyes!

[Goblinmonger]

19. Mine does that too

when I just try to wash a comforter or sleeping bag and it gets all on one side of the machine. It is hilarious.

[trotsky]

20. Reminds me of that Simpsons episode

Where Bart & Lisa have races between the washing machine and dryer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. I just have to add this

"25th April: Anniversary, from 1937, of when German scientists decide to give up trying to cure the wandering problems of the 'People's Washing Machine', and decide to rename it the 'Volkswagen'".

[beam me up scottie]

45. ~

:evilgrin:

[trotsky]

17. The "atheists' level of certainty"

Unless one is a Strong Atheist (tip o' the hat), an atheist makes no such assertion. Only that the amount of evidence offered for gods is on par with that offered for other mythical creatures such as elves, fairies, or unicorns. I.e., insufficient to warrant belief. That is a perfectly rational position to take. Set a bar for acceptance, and apply that to EVERYTHING - gods included.

Science is not about being rational, no of course not. An incredible number of advances have come when someone had an intuition, or a "hunch," about something. But the scientific process is rational. Observing, testing, hypothesizing, re-testing. Looking for evidence, discarding those ideas which do not explain the evidence.

[Strong Atheist]

59. "Unless one is a Strong Atheist (tip o' the hat), "

Hello!

Someone taking my handle in vain?:evilgrin:

[Strong Atheist]

60. "You CANNOT be sure of either."

I can.:evilgrin:


Edited to say: See post #1 of this thread...:evilgrin:

[Goblinmonger]

14. and what does "superstition" mean?

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=superstition it means:

"An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. "

There are a lot of people who don't want their religion to be classified as a superstition or collection thereof, but that really is what it is. God is not LOGICALLY related to the events.

[manic expression]

28. That's not true

any rational person would know this.

Religion is not based solely on faith. There is much logic and reason behind those beliefs. One cannot deny this.

While some beliefs are based totally on faith, others are certainly not, and to ignore this is terribly inaccurate.

"Many believers even tell us..."

Exactly. Many, not all.

[Goblinmonger]

31. Here's what I see as the problem with that line of thinking

I didn't go into this above, but here it goes.

Religion is defined as:
"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

Supernatural is defined as:
"Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. "

Both definitions from Dictionary.com

So how exactly does a "belief in and reverence for a power or powers existing outside the natural world regarded as creator(s) and governor(s) of the universe" even POSSIBLY lend itself to logic and rational thought? It assumes, inherently, a leap away fom logic and the observable.

[manic expression]

34. Well,

If you want to use dictionary.com, I guess all atheists are "immoral", aren't they?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

(I completely disagree with that, by the way. I'm just pointing out a relevant mistake)

Using the dictionary to confine our definitions may not be healthy. Divinity can be defined in many ways, all of which are valid. I see it as the truest form of the self, and the collective body of all individuals. This is certainly "beyond" the world we can see and touch, so it satisfies the definition IMO.

I don't completely agree with your last definition, but I'll use it anyway (for the sake of argument and because I'm lazy). First, all things are created in some way. Because of this, there is a force, a facet of existence, which is part of this process. That is the embodiment of creation itself. If someone uses a picture, for example, to incarnate this influence, that is valid. However, remember that it is the truest form of an individual that is important, as superficial qualities are ultimately meaningless.

Through every birth and creation, that same force manifests itself in some way. In a way, this force flows through us as well, and we take our role in creation as much as anything else.

Just some thoughts. I'm not sure if that's coherent, so sorry if it isn't.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Well I think it is coherent.

It is also interesting and in no way scares me like fundies do.

I am still at a loss as to how any of that lends itself to logic or rational thought. You seem very sincere. You also seem like you have put a lot of thought into the process, but, ultimately, isn't the proof emotional?

Yeah, I hate those definitions of atheism. In my defense, I went with the first definition of each word, which is a little closer to the truth for atheist.

[manic expression]

41. Thanks

I wasn't sure if I was making sense.

Believe me, I can't stand fundies as much as anyone else. I think a lot of religious people find themselves in complete agreement with atheists and agnostics in that fundamentalists are, well, insane.

Well, even if you feel my arguments are misled, that does not negate the logic that may have went into them.

Well, I would agree that some of my arguments are not completely concrete, and some require a bit of thinking that stretches beyond the five senses. However, I think they are still grounded and valid, but it is ultimately a matter of personal preference and worldview. One thing is that, as I've said before, I think someone can know there is fire when they see smoke, so I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have 100% concrete evidence to support my position.

I'm not sure, but maybe the first entry for supernatural was the most "orthodox" (read: monotheistic) view.

At any rate, that definition (on atheism) really is ridiculous. Maybe it was written down in the 19th century and no one bothered to change it.

[Zhade]

49. Bullshit.

Read this thread and say that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x43917

[Exiled in America]

71. The bottom line is simple - if we could get there we could stop fighting:

You can make a reasonable justifiable case for atheism, though not all cases for atheism are reasonable or justifiable.

You can make a reasonable justifiable case for beleif, though not all cases for belief are reasonable or justifiable.


You can never prove that one reasonable, justifiable case is superior to the other.

Now, go choose which reasonable, justifiable case works best for you. And leave those who choose what works best for them differently alone.

[CarbonDate]

86. Science cannot prove the supernatural.

If science can observe it, then it exists within nature. If it exists within nature, then it is not, by definition, supernatural (i.e., existing outside of nature).

This may seem like a semantic distinction. It's not. If it can be observed and defined, then it no longer exists in the supernatural or "divine" realm; it exists in the natural realm and thus our position remains the same. Religion depends upon its deities being nebulous and undefinable. It is not interested in the pursuit of truth; it presumes to already possess it.