How Can Anyone NOT Believe in God?

[Deleted member]

This thread's intention is to further explore the reasoning behind atheistic beliefs. As we all know, atheism and theism are fallacies of ignorance. If you don't know what that is, google it.

The question, simply, is:

How can anyone not believe in a God?

I am phrasing this question like so to fit the previous thread's antonym.

As we learned from the previous thread, if you weren't paying attention, people believe in God for a multitude of reasons, which include but are not limited to:

1. Pascal's Wager

2. Intelligent Design

3. Simply open to the possibility


So, atheists, please. I would like to hear your reasoning for not being simply open to the possibility, (at the very least) knowing fully well that both theism and atheism are unfounded beliefs. If you don't think atheism is a belief, fine. I still want to hear why you are an atheist.

Plenty of people believe there could be a God after looking at some seriously beautiful images. Here's the image that made me agnostic:

The Eagle Nebula

Rules:

No religious bashing. In fact, I don't want to hear your religion at all. This is more of a spiritual thread.

No science textbooks. Remember, they don't and can't prove atheism correct.

No Bibles. Atheists laugh at them.

No burden of proof cop-outs. Remember, agnostics don't claim anything.

This thread is not advocating any religion. We are not discussing religion or specific Gods, just the possibilities of a creator. I want to hear what made you become an atheist, when you really should be agnostic.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

None of those things are actually arguments. They are just appeals to emotion.

I also like that you still refuse to accept that atheism can't be a fallacy because it doesn't make a claim.

Simply put, people are atheists because they see no evidence for the existence of a deity. Pascal's Wager isn't evidence. Intelligent design is not science. As for "being open to the possibility," if evidence manifests that supports the existence of a deity, then great, show me it.

 

[AltF4]

Sure! This may be a good refreshment from the other thread(s). I don't mind being put on the hot seat, as it were.

First, I'd like to dispel some things mentioned in the first post.

1) Pascal's Wager. I am interested in the truth. I place my beliefs on the basis that there is a truth to the universe and that I want to find it. I put my belief in the idea that appears to be the best approximation of truth at the moment.

Pascal's Wager does not speak of truth, but of personal gain. I do not place belief on the basis of personal gain, but rather on the basis of what appears to be the truth.

2) Intelligent Design. The answer can be found in the Anthropic Principle. The existence of something does not necessitate an intelligent creator.

3) Simply Open to the Possibility. Of course I'm open to the possibility! I just don't believe it to be the case.



All of that stuff is enough to be Agnostic, probably. But doesn't really describe why I am an Atheist. Why, then, do I hold the belief that god does not exist. (As opposed to not having the belief that god does exist)

In some contexts this is called the difference between "strong" and "weak" Atheism. In which case you can call me a "strong" Atheist.


First, we have to define what "god" is in order to talk about whether or not it exists. One of the problems herein is that there are so many versions of god depending on who you talk to. We can first start out with the Christian god.

Christians maintain that god is omnipotent and omniscient. Right off the bat, this definition is contradictory. Omniscience is strictly forbidden by Quantum Mechanics, and omnipotence is just plain impossible. It would violate causality on just about every level.

In fact, any kind of god that meddles in the affairs of the universe (via "miracles") violates causality.



On a more personal note, I can explain to you exactly why I'm an Atheist. Until about middle school, I went to a private Catholic school. The whole deal, uniforms, nuns as teachers, "religion" as a class, etc...

Long story short, the nuns were abusive. Very. Both mentally and physically. They friggin hit you with yard sticks (they hadn't yet switched to the metric system. We all know Catholics don't like change) for punishment. I never really did forgive the church for that.

Also, I've never been a superstitious person. For instance, I've never been afraid of the dark. Not even when I was very little. I think it has to do with the fact that my parents never tried to make me believe in Santa, but now I'm getting to psychological!

 

[Rici]

Rules:

No religious bashing. In fact, I don't want to hear your religion at all. This is more of a spiritual thread.

No science textbooks. Remember, they don't and can't prove atheism correct.

No Bibles. Atheists laugh at them.

No burden of proof cop-outs. Remember, agnostics don't claim anything.

Well this is dumb. You're actually saying:"You may debate with me, only using arguments which I can counter, if I can't counter it, you can't use it! There... I win!".

Talking about a cop-out.

 

[snex]

since delorted1 dishonestly pulled a bait and switch by first asking "How can anyone not believe in a God?" and then changing to "I would like to hear your reasoning for not being simply open to the possibility" i see no reason to contribute to this thread.

quit being a liar and then there can be a conversation.

 

[Zero Beat]

Sorry but I think ALL OF YOU misunderstood Delorted..Re-read.

I'm neutral here, but just wanted to make sure you recognized the mistake.

 

[Ikural]

Well, I personally do believe in God. On that note, I can perfectly understand how someone may not. Specifically speaking, I find it hard to believe in (a) God. The reason I do? Well, that is simply within the question. I do, that's it, there's no explanation. There's no hard evidence to support it, so even believing in (a) God for my character is surprising.

The reason Athiests do not believe in (a) God is simple, they just don't. Nothing has given them this belief, so they find no reason to believe. Your mindset is very different from others; some may be asking how you CAN believe in (a) God.

 

[cF=)]

This magical dinosaur roaming the universe and enforcing gravity is asking you, delorted, why you decided to skip the whole part of the burden of proof? If you want a philosophical debate, you better play by your own rules and remember that fallacious arguments still apply.

The thread's question is a mistake by itself.

 

[Deleted member]

I also like that you still refuse to accept that atheism can't be a fallacy because it doesn't make a claim.

I completely refuted your point in the previous thread with a well thought out post, yet you did nothing. I assume that you admit defeat. Edit: So apparently Smashboards decided not to show me that you had posted. Apologies, I'll tend to responding in the other thread.

Simply put, people are atheists because they see no evidence for the existence of a deity. Pascal's Wager isn't evidence. Intelligent design is not science. As for "being open to the possibility," if evidence manifests that supports the existence of a deity, then great, show me it.

Pascal's Wager is the basis on several major topics in real life today, most clearly about global warming.

Intelligent design isn't science, it's a theory. I told you to leave the textbooks at the door.

And for your third point, how come theists can't say "until evidence manifests that supports atheism, then great, show me it?" Their evidence is personal and like many will tell you, epiphanies are usually unable to be documented. You also fail to realize that neither side, atheism or theism, has concrete evidence that will prove to the world over if there really is a God. So you shouldn't be asking for evidence when your initial stance is fallaciously based.



Alt, if you are simply open to the possibility, isn't that the definition of agnostic? If I were to say that you were an agnostic leaning towards atheism, would you deny that label?

The anthropic principle also states that science and religion can become over-lapping magisterium. Your point is a good one, but it doesn't dispel the intelligent design theory whatsoever.

Now, you continue to refer to the Christian god being contradictory - that may surely be the case. However, I ask you to throw away traditional notions of God (like Christianity) and simply look upon this topic as about a God, not the God.

A lot of you guys seemed to miss some of my initial guidelines when responding to my first post. We aren't talking about any specific religion. So Alt, I ask that you respond again to my initial question instead of saying that Christianity is contradictory and just plain whacky (which I believe is a huge cause for many atheists out there)

Well this is dumb. You're actually saying:"You may debate with me, only using arguments which I can counter, if I can't counter it, you can't use it! There... I win!".

Talking about a cop-out.

Well, duh. Consider agnosticism the biggest cop-out in philosophy. But I did NOT cop-out in my guidelines. You simply didn't read them. Agnostics don't make a claim. Therefore, asking me for proof is ridiculous. Every one of my rules for responding to this thread are justified. If you can't adhere to them, then don't post. It's my thread, afterall.

since delorted1 dishonestly pulled a bait and switch by first asking "How can anyone not believe in a God?" and then changing to "I would like to hear your reasoning for not being simply open to the possibility" i see no reason to contribute to this thread.

quit being a liar and then there can be a conversation.

If you had read my post, you would realize that I gave justification for naming the thread as I did. I did it to be the antithesis of the previous thread, and to garner attention. Look! It garnered attention! Then I put in big letters what I wanted of you. If you think I'm being dishonest, you're nuts. Your post is extremely telling, as are every single one of your responses towards me. You just call me a liar and slam the door. You're projecting, snex. Take your head out of the sand and respond. But, you'll probably disregard this, because you're simply too afraid to give me the answer I'm looking for, because you know that you're wrong. Is this enough of a call-out? I'm calling you out, snex. What I don't get, though, is why after so many years of debating with and against you in this forum respectfully, you continue to act as if I'm some insolent newcomer.

This magical dinosaur roaming the universe and enforcing gravity is asking you, delorted, why you decided to skip the whole part of the burden of proof? If you want a philosophical debate, you better play by your own rules and remember that fallacious arguments still apply.

The thread's question is a mistake by itself.

The thread's question is clearly stated at the bottom and I am not claiming anything.

If this thread stops here, then I'll be satisfied. Only one out five atheists gave an intelligent post, and that was Alt. Let's try a little harder, boys. Don't be afraid to realize that you're all stubborn.

 

[snex]

here is why you are a liar:

NOT ONE SINGLE ATHEIST CLAIMS THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT ANY GOD EXISTS.
N
O
N
E

so stop ****ing saying we do *******.

 

[Caturdayz]

I am open to the possibilty of a deity if you show me a shred of proof, I know you can't, and I really can't point that out to you because everything is banned in this question. There is no room for debate here. Atheists can disprove the bible in several ways.

1. Evolution
2. The World is round :O shocking...
3. That flood that purged the sinners? Yep... didn't happen
4. My favorite... Common Sense

 

[AltF4]

Del:

yea, I see a big semantic problem arising. I'm going to lay down some definitions. These are how I've always learned them and have used them. If you use the terms differently, that's okay. But for the sake of clarity, this is how I've been using them.

Theist: Someone who holds the belief that at least one god exists.

Agnostic: Someone who does not hold a belief one way or another. They tend to ignore the issue altogether. This is sometimes also referred to as "non-religious".

Atheist: Someone who holds the belief that no gods exist. There can be subcategories within Atheism, "weak" and "strong" being two of them. It depends on the strength of their claim, not to the strength of their convictions.


I hold the belief that no gods exist. So that would make me an Atheist. As for the matter of "accepting the possibility of a god", well that's just a given. You have to "accept the possibility" of just about everything. there are very fews things that are outrightly and certainly impossible. I do not assert that I am incapable of being wrong, but rather that I do not believe that I am in this case.

Intelligent design: The thing about intelligent design is that it is not a scientific theory. This means that it is incapable of being refuted and is thus incapable of being useful in any way. It's just like the Inverted Spectrum theory. Cool to think about, but not of any consequence.

If you could come up with some sort of test in which Intelligent Design could conceivably be disproven, then I (and everyone else) would take it seriously. Take Gravity for example. If suddenly I dropped a rock and it didn't fall (given no other forces) that would disprove Gravity. What experiment can you possibly devise to disprove Intelligent Design?

Anthropic Principle: The Anthropic Principle answers the question of "why does the world appear to be so perfectly suited for life" without the need for an intelligent creator. It doesn't of course necessitate that a god cannot exist, but it is just one more example of a difficult question answered rationally without appealing to a god figure.

It is famous, because arguments such as "the world is so perfectly suited for life, that it just must have been made by god" are very common, and the Anthropic Principle is used to refute that.


About The Christian God: Yea, I meant to go back later and edit in more stuff about other major religions but I got too lazy! The thing is, that there are so many very different "gods". There is not a way (we know of yet) to disprove them all in one go. Instead the best I can do is to enumerate them. Given and religious belief, I can tell you why it is

a) Contradictory

or

b) Non scientific (incapable of being refuted and thus incapable of producing any observable results)

Again, I'm running out of time, and this post is getting long. But it's not hard to do for all the major religions (hinduism, buddism, etc..)

Anecdotal Remark from XKCD:

 

[Zero Beat]

I am open to the possibilty of a deity if you show me a shred of proof, I know you can't, and I really can't point that out to you because everything is banned in this question. There is no room for debate here. Atheists can disprove the bible in several ways.

1. Evolution
2. The World is round :O shocking...
3. That flood that purged the sinners? Yep... didn't happen
4. My favorite... Common Sense

Let me tell you Delorted's dirty little secret....He said to throw that lousy christian madman story out of the window.

With that in mind, try to address the initial post again.

 

[Rici]

Snex is right, being an Atheist means you are without a belief for a deity. That doesn't mean you are AGAINST a deity, that would mean you're a Anti-theist.

Then, the 3 points you want answers for:

Pascals Wager: See Alt's post. It's actually fear that something bad will happen to you if you do something, so let's not do it. This would be correct thinking IF you had some actual evidence that bad things WILL happen when you do it. It's not correct to think:"Well, I wanna walk across this street now, but this piece of paper told me that if I do, a meteorite will slam into me, so let's not do it".

Intelligent Design: When is something intelligent and when not? Where do you cross the line? Also, see Alt's post.

Simply open to the possibility: Like I said before, atheists are those without belief for a deity, there is not one denying the possibility, just claiming that it's VERY unlikely. Just like it's VERY unlikely that cF=)'s magical dinosaur roaming the universe actually exists.

There, I think I brought an answer without breaking any of your stupid rules.

And cF=), I ROFL'D HARD! xD

 

[cF=)]

Pascal's Wager is the basis on several major topics in real life today, most clearly about global warming.

Guilt by association, fallacious argument. The scenarios portrayed by global warming are in fact possibilities, there is no proof that if I die tomorrow my only choices are heaven and hell, which refute the point you tried to make.

The thread's question is clearly stated at the bottom and I am not claiming anything.

Are you being hypocritical? The thread's title is a major cop-out and you still deny that

Riciardos: The magical dinosaurs are the intellectual properties of DW ;D

 

[Deleted member]

here is why you are a liar:

NOT ONE SINGLE ATHEIST CLAIMS THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT ANY GOD EXISTS.
N
O
N
E

so stop ****ing saying we do *******.

STOP THE PRESSES! Mr. Havlicek has issued a statement!

All atheists are just varyingly biased agnostics! You still don't get it, do you? If you're open to the possibility, then why haven't you expressed this earlier?! This thread was meant to be non-confrontational. I wanted to hear your reasoning and that's it. You're just on your period.



Zero Beat: Thank you.

Then, the 3 points you want answers for:

Perhaps you don't really read much at home, but the original post simply shows an arbitrary numbers of various justifications for believing in a God. I don't need answers for them. I'm NOT trying to ask atheists why they don't accept intelligent design or Pascal's Wager, I was simply asking them why they aren't open to the possibility.

It's not correct to think:"Well, I wanna walk across this street now, but this [Bible] told me that if I do, a meteorite will slam into me, so let's not do it".

Well well well. Change one thing and that suspiciously looks like a reference to religion. We aren't discussing religion.

Simply open to the possibility: Like I said before, atheists are those without belief for a deity, there is not one denying the possibility, just claiming that it's VERY unlikely. Just like it's VERY unlikely that cF=)'s magical dinosaur roaming the universe actually exists.

Well snex, your little fanboy here says that atheists make claims. And since he's claiming that it's "VERY unlikely" that God exists, that constitutes a logical fallacy, as he has no proof to claim such a claim.

There, I think I brought an answer without breaking any of your stupid rules.

I think you think that you're clever. Well, you're not. I posted those guidelines justifiably (which you haven't refuted) and you still call them dumb. In fact, you haven't really posted anything here constructively. One could call you the stupid one.

Guilt by association, fallacious argument. The scenarios portrayed by global warming are in fact possibilities, there is no proof that if I die tomorrow my only choices are heaven and hell, which refute the point you tried to make.

I suggest you learn more about your fallacies. If you want to see how Pascal's Wager makes an excellent global warming example, watch this video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

Also, for the last time, we are NOT discussing Christianity. That institute was mocked far beyond the point of a dead horse in the previous thread.

Are you being hypocritical? The thread's title is a major cop-out and you still deny that

Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[cF=)]

If you want to see how Pascal's Wager makes an excellent global warming example, watch this video

No, this is not an example of why pascal's wager's an argument for the existence of god. I clearly said in my last post that the issues concerning global warming were factual scenarios as opposed to the false choice you have to make between choosing to believe in god or going to hell.

This is why I called you out on using this example as a proof of the christian pascal's wager. What have you not understood?

 

[DRaGZ]

I personally am a deist, but a very weak deist in the sense that I don't think that the God in question is necessarily intelligent. This is something I remember from back when I got interested in Descartes (with whom I highly disagree in several different ways, but anywho...), and he explained the concepts that make up "God" with two different baseline requirements:

1. God is intelligent.
2. God is perfect.

From what I can understand with my various encounters in Korean Presbyterian churches and religious Christian friends, this seems to be the core of what Christians think makes up the characteristics of God (personality traits such as vengefulness and sorrow aside). Point 1 would seem to be constituted by Point 2, but I'm going to make an argument that it doesn't at all.

I think it's very clear with evidence we can see throughout our lives that this entity "God" had no intelligent design. This is clear in which the random events occur throughout our lives. Scientifically, this could be validated through "Brownian motion", which, if taken to be true, provides strong evidence for randomized occurrences of events and thus a lack of intelligent design: why would intelligent design which is supposed to follow a specific plan incorporate randomized events (you can equate this to tripping in Brawl.)

However, I think it is quite clear that the physical laws established by such an entity are infallible and indisputable. Sure, you could technically postulate that the next time you drop a ball an event horizon will appear right below it and transport the ball into a pocket dimension, but most of the time the ball will just hit the floor. In other words, the laws of physics are consistent and predictable, which suggests a perfect system.

One could try to dispute this by citing the Brownian motion again, saying that its randomization is proof that not all physics are predictable. This is true. At the same time, however, it is also true that Brownian motion is infallibly random, i.e. it will never follow a fixed pattern and it is invariably random at all times. This could explain a lot of things about the variability in the world, in particular why, if the theory is true, did the Big Bang not create a completely and perfectly symmetrical universe, etc.

The point is, there is lots of proof that the design itself is perfect and infallible, but there is no reason to expect that it is intelligent in any way. It's like when you're playing with spirographs or watching positive feedback systems like termites building nests: it looks as though the designs themselves were intelligent, but the underlying truths reveal that it was a series of built-in constraints in the system that led to these designs. In other words, there was nothing ever intelligent about them.

I think the problem with the "intelligent design" theory is that it is inherently anthrocentric in its point of view and doesn't leave open the option that, perhaps, just perhaps, we're not the smartest things in the universe. Or in this spatial quadrant. Or in this galaxy. Or in this Solar System. Or on this planet.

The lack of being able to prove "intelligent design" compounded with evidence that previously held notions of "intelligent design" we're actually kinds of feedback systems seems to suggest that whatever made this universe, if anything made this universe at all, wasn't intelligent, merely some sort of perfect force. And since God, according to Descartes, needs to be intelligent and perfect, God, at least as Christianity perceives him, can't be all that he's cracked up to be.

EDIT: Also, I realize you don't want me to talk about "Christianity", and I was merely referencing for the sake of stamping down this definition of "God". I think it's also easy to apply this concept to Islam and Judaism, primarily because all three of these religions believe in the same God. Buddhism leaves such things open to interpretation and Hinduism believes in several competing gods, so I don't think those really apply. Are there any other major religions I'm missing here?

 

[Rici]

Perhaps you don't really read much at home, but the original post simply shows an arbitrary numbers of various justifications for believing in a God. I don't need answers for them. I'm NOT trying to ask atheists why they don't accept intelligent design or Pascal's Wager, I was simply asking them why they aren't open to the possibility.

Well, I may have misunderstood you there then, but I thought you were asking why we don't believe in God, here are some reasons why some people do, so I refuted those reasons so you understand why I don't believe in a God.

Well well well. Change one thing and that suspiciously looks like a reference to religion. We aren't discussing religion.

I wasn't talking about religion, I was refuting Pascal's wager using a piece of paper.

Well snex, your little fanboy here says that atheists make claims. And since he's claiming that it's "VERY unlikely" that God exists, that constitutes a logical fallacy, as he has no proof to claim such a claim.

According to your rules, I don't need proof for my claim, because you don't have proof that my claim is wrong. Do you understand now why there is something like a burden of proof and why you can't remove that from a debate? That is why I called your rules dumb. Maybe I should've worded it better and not be so radical, but I guess I was in a bad mood or something.

 

[Deleted member]

No, this is not an example of why pascal's wager's an argument for the existence of god. I clearly said in my last post that the issues concerning global warming were factual scenarios as opposed to the false choice you have to make between choosing to believe in god or going to hell.

This is why I called you out on using this example as a proof of the christian pascal's wager. What have you not understood?

I know it's not, I didn't say it was. I simply linked you to a video that proves that Pascal's Wager is a legitimate point. It's not proof at all.

Also, you KEEP bringing up Christianity - This thread is not about it! You're talking about the Christian Pascal's Wager (is there a difference from the normal Pascal's Wager?!) and talking about failure to believe in God results in Hell..you're in the wrong thread.

According to your rules, I don't need proof for my claim, because you don't have proof that my claim is wrong. Do you understand now why there is something like a burden of proof and why you can't remove that from a debate? That is why I called your rules dumb. Maybe I should've worded it better and not be so radical, but I guess I was in a bad mood or something.

Wrong again. According to my one rule, you can't bring up the burden of proof cop-out because someone can do the exact same thing to yourself. An agnostic can and will do this. Because you even admitted yourself that you make a claim. An agnostic can neutrally call you out and say that you have no proof to claim that God is "VERY unlikely." Don't you see why it's a cop-out now?

 

[Caturdayz]

This debate is so hard to follow. You want to use Pascal's wager in your arguments. However we cannot talk about Christianity?

 

[yossarian22]

Premises
1. There is an objective reality.
2. Objective reality is that which is inter-subjectively verifiable.
3. Objective reality is consistent regardless of what time frame it is viewed in.
4. Occam's Razor is taken as an absolute truth.

The removal of time establishes the scientific method as the most effective way to discover what objective reality is. I can therefore reject the supernatural as we cannot have natural evidence for the supernatural. God is a useless and superfluous assumption, and therefore can be thrown out.

The first three premises can be justified with extreme ease. The fourth, I will readily submit, is a matter of pure blind belief. That does not invalidate this system at all. This system contains fewer assumptions than every other system I have encountered. (save for a few which have other inadequacies)

 

[GreatClayMonkey]

Where did you come up with atheist are fascist. I am atheist but i whole heartily accept there may be a god I just choose not to follow an organized religion and therefore at the moment believe in no god yet find it alright if others do. God is meant to be your own beliefs and claiming someone is ignorant because they have no beliefs or disagree with yours is ignorant in its own way.

 

[Deleted member]

This debate is so hard to follow. You want to use Pascal's wager in your arguments. However we cannot talk about Christianity?

Are you ********? I'm not using Pascal's Wager as an argument. I'm simply saying it is one of many justifications people fabricate for believing in God.

Where did you come up with atheist are fascist. I am atheist but i whole heartily accept there may be a god I just choose not to follow an organized religion and therefore at the moment believe in no god yet find it alright if others do. God is meant to be your own beliefs and claiming someone is ignorant because they have no beliefs or disagree with yours is ignorant in its own way.

When did I call atheists fascists? If you're an atheist and you "whole heartily accept there may be a god", then you're agnostic.

To believe in a God, you do not need to follow an organized religion - God and notions of one can purely be personal and self-spiritual.

As per your last statement, you've already admitted you're agnostic - so has Mr. Havlicek - so why you're posting that, I have no idea.

Yossarian - Your premises can be justified, but we have no way of knowing for sure if they are factual. There is no logical way to go about the topic of God. This is a metaphysical subject.

 

[AltF4]

Yossarian: I could have sworn you've posted this before... and I've replied to this before... but I can't find out where or when. But since you're bringing it up again, I'll respond again. Maybe the boards decided not to accept my post... it does that sometimes.


Reality is not objective. It is relative. Please see General Relativity.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Reality is not objective. It is relative. Please see General Relativity.

Wait, what? "Objective" and "Absolute" are two completely different properties. If I can predict exactly how someone will observe an object based on their relative positions, I can be objective even if I am not being absolute.

 

[AltF4]

Then in your words: There is no Absolute Reality. Reality itself is relative, dependent on factors such as where you are and at what speed you're traveling. There is no single "Reality" that is the same for everyone.

Quick Example: Spaceship races in the future will be very problematic. Depending on how you view the race, different people will win it! This is not an illusion either, they are real differences.

Cool, huh? Look into it. It's neat stuff. Try googling "Time Dilation"

 

[ComradeSAL]

Yes, there is no absolute reality, but Yossarian doesn't need an absolute reality in his set of beliefs. He just needs an objective reality.

And yes, the theory of relativity is awesome. It's basically what got me to be a physics major. I don't think there's a single person in this world who understands the twin paradox and doesn't think it's cool.

 

[yossarian22]

Yossarian: I could have sworn you've posted this before... and I've replied to this before... but I can't find out where or when. But since you're bringing it up again, I'll respond again. Maybe the boards decided not to accept my post... it does that sometimes.

I think I posted something similar to this in the Why I believe in Christianity thread. This is a much more condensed version

Reality is not objective. It is relative. Please see General Relativity.

General relativity agrees with my position to the letter.
For starters. we must accept the inherent limitations we have in consciousness. It is subjective. Entirely so. So we suggest something objective is inter-subjectively verifiable. In other words, a statement that is true regardless from where it is viewed from.
Now time poses and interesting problem, but it was solved some 200 years ago by Immanuel Kant.

edit: as SAL pointed out above, my reality is not 'absolute' in the slightest. It is simply objective. It holds true regardless of view point

 

[AltF4]

No, it doesn't. Things cannot be "inter subjectively verified". On large scales and in everyday occasions they appear to be, but they are not.

Reality itself is dependent on the observer.

Two people can watch a race and for each of them, two different drivers can win the race. Neither is mistaken. The observers will disagree on who won the race. It is not inter-subjectively verified.


Furthermore, I don't like your use of terminology. Subjective is used to describe things like how I liked a movie or a dinner. Your observations of the world are in fact objective, but with the limitation of being just yours.

For YOU, there is an objective reality. For YOU, spaceship pilot A won the race. But for other observers, different pilots won the race. Reality is Relative.

 

[Zero Beat]

Quick Example: Spaceship races in the future will be very problematic. Depending on how you view the race, different people will win it! This is not an illusion either, they are real differences.

Meh, it's scientifically impossible to travel to the future, ALT4. Only to the past. Unless I need some updating to do.<_<

I don't know if you wrote that 'for the sake' of the point, because if so, then sorry.

 

[yossarian22]

No, it doesn't. Things cannot be "inter subjectively verified". On large scales and in everyday occasions they appear to be, but they are not.

Addressed in premise 1.
Although I may have cut down the explanation a bit too much. I probably should have split that one into two

Reality itself is dependent on the observer.

Hence the term 'subjective'

Furthermore, I don't like your use of terminology. Subjective is used to describe things like how I liked a movie or a dinner. Your observations of the world are in fact objective, but with the limitation of being just yours.
For YOU, there is an objective reality. For YOU, spaceship pilot A won the race. But for other observers, different pilots won the race. Reality is Relative.

Subjective: . Especially, pertaining to, or derived from, one's own consciousness, in distinction from external observation;

Objective is something every observer agrees upon. Hence the term inter-subjectively verifiable. If there are other observers with a different view, you lack objectivity.

I probably should have fleshed out premise 1 more.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Have the observers show each other their video recordings and the paradox has been intersubjectively verified.

Since we are discussing Yossarian's epistemology, we should be using his definitions of "objective" and "relative." If you can show that, under his definitions, God might exist, then we'll have a discussion. Otherwise we're just splitting hairs.

 

[AltF4]

You never addressed the main point of my post. You completely ignored it.

Reality cannot be inter-subjectively verified. There is no single "reality" that different people can agree upon. Every observer has their own version of reality that they observe.

 

[yossarian22]

You never addressed the main point of my post. You completely ignored it.

Reality cannot be inter-subjectively verified. There is no single "reality" that different people can agree upon. Every observer has their own version of reality that they observe.

And that which holds similar is the reality.
And people do agree upon a single reality. That is the basis of scientific thought.

 

[snex]

now it seems that delorted1 is lying about what "atheism" and "agnosticism" are. how many times do we have to explain it to him before he decides to stop lying?

atheism is the lack of theism. nothing more.

agnosticism is the ASSERTION that knowledge about the supernatural is impossible.

agnostics make a claim, atheists do not.

 

[RBinator]

Hmm... first this topic gets a bit heated, then a discussion on reality starts...

So, atheists, please. I would like to hear your reasoning for not being simply open to the possibility, (at the very least) knowing fully well that both theism and atheism are unfounded beliefs.

I think this was one of your biggest mistakes here, claiming that atheists are not opened to the possibility of a creator. Not believing in a deity doesn't mean not being opened to never believing in one.

I have a feeling many atheists don't just wake up one day and say "I believe there is no God", but rather, came to that conclusion after looking for solid proof. I know, you can't exactly disprove God's existence, but that can go for other things too. How can you say there isn't a tea cup floating somewhere in outer space? You would have to know it wasn't there by checking out all of outer space, however large that might be.

The thing is, burden of proof. I'm not gonna believe something if it sounds logically impossible and there is no solid proof supporting it. Couldn't I safely say there is no tea cup floating around space till it was proven? Similar concept could also be applied to deities. If there is no solid proof, why should I believe it, regardless if millions of other people do? A large number of believers certainly isn't proof.

Going by that, why couldn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn exist as well, despite being joke religions? You couldn't disprove them the same way you couldn't disprove the Greek deities.

I want to hear what made you become an atheist, when you really should be agnostic.

This to me sounds like you think that "strong" atheism is foolish and that all atheists should be "weak" atheists. What I say strong atheism, I mean "I know there is no God", and when I say weak, I mean agnostic. One reason for strong atheism is the belief that all deities were made up by humans and thus, they don't really exist. Another reason is that with our current science knowledge, such a being would be impossible to exist. I know, it could be argued that such a being could very well be beyond our limited knowledge. Technically, I guess you could say "there is no God" is a claim and "I don't believe in God" isn't. I think "there is no God" is justify because of the burden of proof. After all, you wouldn't really get challenged if you claimed "there is no tea cup floating around space".

Arguments brought up by believers like Pascal's Wager also doesn't help. Such arguments suggest that a God would punish you for simply not believing, regardless of your actions. With the many deities that are believed to exist, what if you picked the "wrong" one(s), or what if there never was a "correct" one to begin with? Similar arguments also suggest that people act "good" only to avoid punishment, not act "good" for the sake of humanity. Intelligent design suggests that a higher being had to have created the earth and it couldn't have randomly happened. It's also brought up how everything is so suitable for living and seems "perfect". Of course it seems "perfect", because that's all we know. It also still doesn't automatic mean someone had to have created it.

Reasons like this and more are reasons why there are "strong" atheists. As for atheists being opened to the possibility, it's like "I believe there is no God until proven otherwise", not "I'm not sure if there is a God or not". If I'm not gonna believe there is a tea cup floating around space till proven, why should it be the same for any higher beings? I know, a tea cup floating around space hardly means anything compared to believing in any deities and basing your life around it, but the point has gotten across, right?

I might have broken some of the "rules", but when having to explain this stuff, it's kinda hard not too. Also, I feel like my thoughts are not very clear, but that can be fixed through future replies when I get challenged.

 

[Knight-errant]

now it seems that delorted1 is lying about what "atheism" and "agnosticism" are. how many times do we have to explain it to him before he decides to stop lying?

atheism is the lack of theism. nothing more.

agnosticism is the ASSERTION that knowledge about the supernatural is impossible.

agnostics make a claim, atheists do not.

Atheism:

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Agnosticism:

1.the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge
2.a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"

However, most people take agnosticism to mean: "I don't know what to believe. I'm sitting on the fence and could go either way." Is this incorrect? Yes. But it's what most people define agnosticism as.

And snex, please stop misusing the word "lying." To lie is to state something false with the intent to deceive. When someone says something that's incorrect it's not lying, it just means that they're wrong.

So if I say 2 +2 is 5, I am wrong, not lying. However, if my intent was to deliberately trick you into believing that 2 + 2 =5, THEN I would be lying.

 

[blazedaces]

And snex, please stop misusing the word "lying." To lie is to state something false with the intent to deceive. When someone says something that's incorrect it's not lying, it just means that they're wrong.

So if I say 2 +2 is 5, I am wrong, not lying. However, if my intent was to deliberately trick you into believing that 2 + 2 =5, THEN I would be lying.

Here are the first two definitions of lying from dictionary.com:

–noun
1. the telling of lies; untruthfulness.
–adjective
2. telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful; mendacious; false: a lying report.

Listen, please don't argue semantics here. There are at least two common definitions, one in which lying is snex's definition (untruthfulness) and one which it is yours (deliberate untruthfulness).

To be honest I think you're ignoring snex's point. It's probably a product of miscommunication. While you think snex is saying you are deliberately trying to deceive us you're not realizing he's only saying that what you say is not the truth. While snex may sound very harsh at times I really don't think any of this is a personal attack and you certainly shouldn't take a statement on a forum very personally.

Simply put, I agree that what you say is untruthful (there, does that help?), but to be honest I don't care whether you are deliberately being untruthful or not.

-blazed

 

[snex]

the reason i accuse delorted1 of lying is because he has been corrected about his assertion multiple times and he still continues to make it. once you are corrected and you continue to make untruthful claims, you ARE intending to deceive.