Syed's Mega-Thread

[bilby]

I am brave enough (and sufficiently well educated) to admit that I DO know. Despite the solipsistic bullshit of some philosophers, and despite the insistence of many theists and atheists alike that because THEY don't know, I cannot know either, I do, nevertheless, know.

There is no God, and I know this for the same reason that I know that there isn't a bus parked in my garden shed. I don't need to check inside the grassbox of the lawnmower, or look under the old flowerpots; There isn't a bus in my shed because I KNOW that my shed is too small to contain a bus.

There isn't a God, because reality doesn't contain any spaces large enough for one, that haven't been checked. There is no mechanism for any interactions with matter on human scales that is not fully understood. Quantum Field Theory may be wrong - but not to a sufficient extent that a God (or a soul, or any mechanism for life after the destruction of the physical brain) would become possible. Almost all Gods share the attribute of an ability to interact with humans. No such God is possible. The remainder (barely worthy of the name IMO) started the universe and then vanished. They are not possible either - creating everything is only possible after the creator is created, which it can't be until it is created.

That's why I am a gnostic atheist.

As far as any of the gods worshipped by humans down the centuries is concerned, I know they don't exist and never did. But I leave space in my mind for the (very small) possibility that some kind of what we would call a deity might exist in the vastness of the universe, not necessarily a creator. But it is a very small possibility. On the Dawkins scale of 1-7, I'm somewhere in the region of 6.9999999999999999999999999999. I just won't claim absolute certainty.

So you buy into the idea that you might not actually know what the word 'god' means? That something that isn't any of the gods ever described by anyone might (miraculously) qualify as a god?

Sorry, but that's as ridiculous as - perhaps even more ridiculous than - solipsism. We can't ever know anything because we can't be sure that words mean what we use them to mean. Gods cannot be real, but maybe we don't know what the word 'god' means, and then they might be, because 'god' might really mean 'laughter'.

Excuse my belly god, but that is such a cop-out.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

As far as any of the gods worshipped by humans down the centuries is concerned, I know they don't exist and never did. But I leave space in my mind for the (very small) possibility that some kind of what we would call a deity might exist in the vastness of the universe, not necessarily a creator. But it is a very small possibility. On the Dawkins scale of 1-7, I'm somewhere in the region of 6.9999999999999999999999999999. I just won't claim absolute certainty.

As far as I'm concerned atheism/agnosticism/theism isn't about what you can prove. It's about what you believe.

I try to look at it as a roulette table. If you had to put all your chips on just one square. Where would you put them? Agnostics is for people who really think it's a 50-50 toss.

Humanity so far has invented about 6000 Gods. All supported by the same evidence, or lack of evidence. Any evidence for the Muslim God is the same evidence for any of the other one. Or any God that I make up now. I don't like those odds.

No, not 50-50, or anywhere near it. And no, agnosticism is not about belief. It's about knowledge, hence the name.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

As far as any of the gods worshipped by humans down the centuries is concerned, I know they don't exist and never did. But I leave space in my mind for the (very small) possibility that some kind of what we would call a deity might exist in the vastness of the universe, not necessarily a creator. But it is a very small possibility. On the Dawkins scale of 1-7, I'm somewhere in the region of 6.9999999999999999999999999999. I just won't claim absolute certainty.

So you buy into the idea that you might not actually know what the word 'god' means? That something that isn't any of the gods ever described by anyone might (miraculously) qualify as a god?

Sorry, but that's as ridiculous as - perhaps even more ridiculous than - solipsism. We can't ever know anything because we can't be sure that words mean what we use them to mean. Gods cannot be real, but maybe we don't know what the word 'god' means, and then they might be, because 'god' might really mean 'laughter'.

Excuse my belly god, but that is such a cop-out.

Again, no. It's not about the meaning of words. It's about the very tiny possibility that there just might be something out there that qualifies as what we call a god. Obviously none of the ones humans have ever worshipped, but some unknown non-creator god (some "gods" are born, not pre-existing, if it helps with the definition) that hasn't made itself known. It's the tiniest of possibilities, and I live my life as if it isn't true, because to all intents and purposes it wouldn't affect anybody's life anyway, but I acknowledge the existence of the possibility, if nothing else. Not so much a cop-out as a concession to reason.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The concept of God has many ideas about what is a God. I call this the God Zoo. Not in the sense of Thor, Allah, Zeus et al, but in the basic types of Gods. Omni-everything creator Gods, pantheism, dualistic Gods, polytheistic nature Gods and more. Deist Gods, Process Theology panentheism, idealistic Gods and others. down to the point of things like fairies and goblins. The omni-everything Gods self contradict so badly we can rule them out. And the other concepts have serious problems that rule them out. For example, it turns out the process theology God doesn't work with modern day physics. We can thus rule that out. I don't see a single God in the zoo that does not have serious problems conceptually with it. So I remain not agnostic, but a strong atheist who sees no way to save the God concept. In the end, its all special pleading and using the God(s) are incomprehensible dodge. Or other problems like a God concept that claims God is morally good but cannot deal with the old problem of evil and other similar issues.

The dodge theists sometimes use, "Depends on what God you are arguing about, can you disprove all types of Gods?" when their beloved God concept gets critiqued doesn't save the God concept.

My God zoo is filled with imaginary beasts that don't pass the sniff test. Of course some of it is odd. Fairies and other magical beings. Do they count as Gods by being magical beings or not? Where do the theists want to draw the line? When does a magical being drop below the worth being taken seriously or gods for theists? And why?

 

[AJ113]

...Again, no. It's not about the meaning of words. It's about the very tiny possibility that there just might be something out there that qualifies as what we call a god. Obviously none of the ones humans have ever worshipped, but some unknown non-creator god (some "gods" are born, not pre-existing, if it helps with the definition) that hasn't made itself known. It's the tiniest of possibilities, and I live my life as if it isn't true, because to all intents and purposes it wouldn't affect anybody's life anyway, but I acknowledge the existence of the possibility, if nothing else. Not so much a cop-out as a concession to reason.

In order to be consistent do you also acknowledge the existence of the possibility of leprechauns, unicorns, fairies and the Great Bugblatter Beast of Traal? Or is the phrase "acknowledge the existence of the possibility" just a weasel word phrase to placate theists?

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

The dodge theists sometimes use, "Depends on what God you are arguing about, can you disprove all types of Gods?"

To which I reply, "no, but I can disprove yours". Which is all I need to do in each case. The fact that I say I can't disprove the very concept of gods to my, or anybody's, satisfaction, in no way implies that I accept the existence of any defined/definable gods. It just means I can't disprove it absolutely. It makes no difference to me living my life as if there are no such things because any god which might possibly exist is not one that has anything to do with my, or anybody's, life.

 

[abaddon]

It confuses the matter to treat it as being either agnostic atheist or gnostic atheist. Most atheists are both. Some get gnostic about all theism, which is getting ideological about it. Agnostic atheists prefer to wait for the case for a variety of theism by the theist and then examine its merits and then will be a strong atheist about THAT god if there isn’t any. That's much more in line with science, if that's the model you're basing your stance on.

If you want to be strong atheist irt ALL gods you inevitably have to draw the line in the sand about what counts as a god, and you're deep into opinion territory here and creating a lot of "what ifs" like "do fairies count?" and other, and then having to pronounce an answer.

Be careful to not say “atheism is just the lack of belief in God” if you choose to be a strong atheist irt ALL god-concepts. You've gone from "this theist cannot give me good evidence of his god" to "no theist on earth could ever offer evidence worth giving some consideration about his god(s)". That's ideological which is fine so long as you know it and aren't pretending it's an issue of science.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The concept of the God Zoo is to examine the various kinds of Gods theists may believe in at a higher level of abstraction to see if they are impossible, improbable, faintly possible etc. I find it kind of clarifies my thinking about what is wrong with a wide variety of theological beliefs. It kind of allows me to have a mind set about how to go about this atheism business.

 

[iolo]

I think it's a bit like the old, correct judgement that oaths extracted under duress are not binding - anything done out of fear is worthless, and, in fairness, I don't think serious Christians are supposed to do things out of fear, but out of love - the confused decision to keep the archaic Old Testament causes the confusion, as it causes so many others. Those no afflicted with sixth-century-BC 'gods' should be even freer of such tripe. I suppose, when I come to think about it, that something like this lies behind my loathing of the prison system - if that is all we've got to imrove behaviour, it is way past time we scrapped this society and started again.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As far as I'm concerned atheism/agnosticism/theism isn't about what you can prove. It's about what you believe.

I try to look at it as a roulette table. If you had to put all your chips on just one square. Where would you put them? Agnostics is for people who really think it's a 50-50 toss.

Humanity so far has invented about 6000 Gods. All supported by the same evidence, or lack of evidence. Any evidence for the Muslim God is the same evidence for any of the other one. Or any God that I make up now. I don't like those odds.

No, not 50-50, or anywhere near it. And no, agnosticism is not about belief. It's about knowledge, hence the name.

The etymology of the words isn't how they're commonly used. If we're to get philosophical about it, we don't actually know anything. Descartes was wrong. The fact that we can think doesn't prove shit. Computers can think. So if knowledge is your criteria then why bother even discussing it? If knowledge is the criteria we know that anybody who isn't agnostic is a lunatic and can be ignored. That isn't really informative.

Nah, knowledge isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about what feels right, ie belief. This is a soft subject.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The concept of the God Zoo is to examine the various kinds of Gods theists may believe in at a higher level of abstraction to see if they are impossible, improbable, faintly possible etc. I find it kind of clarifies my thinking about what is wrong with a wide variety of theological beliefs. It kind of allows me to have a mind set about how to go about this atheism business.

You've just described paganism. Whether or not pagan gods really exist or not is moot. What matters is how telling of their stories effects the devotee. Or the rituals. A pagan or a Hindu can answer "maybe" on the question whether they're theist or not. And they wouldn't be wrong.

One of the major problems with the atheist/agnostic/theist terminology is that it's written with monotheism/Christianity in mind. But the Abrahamic God is the odd one out. Other forms of religion are usually a hell of a lot more sophisticated. Pagan gods (according to their mythology) don't give a fuck about whether or not you believe in them. It makes atheism/theism an irrelevant discussion to pagans.

 

[Juma]

Pagan gods (according to their mythology) don't give a fuck about whether or not you believe in them. It makes atheism/theism an irrelevant discussion to pagans.

Atheism is just "lacking belief in gods". It has nada to do with whether the god care about your (non)-belief in it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Pagan gods (according to their mythology) don't give a fuck about whether or not you believe in them. It makes atheism/theism an irrelevant discussion to pagans.

Atheism is just "lacking belief in gods". It has nada to do with whether the god care about your (non)-belief in it.

But that's the point. For a Pagan it doesn't matter whether they believe in the God or not. Being part of a cult isn't about the god. It's about the devotee. So it's meaningless question. If a Hindu tells you they're atheist that tells you nothing about what they really believe. Same goes if they say they're theist. It's a non-issue within that type of belief.

Pagan sacrifices were operational. They sacrificed to the gods for favors. If favors didn't materialize they'd switched god. They needed proof it was working or they'd stop sacrificing.

Buddhism is similar. They typically don't give a shit whether or not all the supernatural stuff is true or not. There's nothing they can do about it either way. And it won't have any impact on their lives anyhoo. So it's a non-issue.

The more we look around the more we realize that whether or not we're atheist or not only really makes a difference to Abrahamites. Actually, Judaism also belongs to the Pagan category. The Jewish God also doesn't give a fuck if you believe in him. Just do the rituals and God is happy. You can be an atheistic Jew, you're still a Jew. You don't stop being a Jew because you stop believing in the Jewish God. God doesn't care.

 

[Juma]

Atheism is just "lacking belief in gods". It has nada to do with whether the god care about your (non)-belief in it.

But that's the point. For a Pagan it doesn't matter whether they believe in the God or not. Being part of a cult isn't about the god. It's about the devotee. So it's meaningless question. If a Hindu tells you they're atheist that tells you nothing about what they really believe. Same goes if they say they're theist. It's a non-issue within that type of belief.

Pagan sacrifices were operational. They sacrificed to the gods for favors. If favors didn't materialize they'd switched god. They needed proof it was working or they'd stop sacrificing.

Buddhism is similar. They typically don't give a shit whether or not all the supernatural stuff is true or not. There's nothing they can do about it either way. And it won't have any impact on their lives anyhoo. So it's a non-issue.

The more we look around the more we realize that whether or not we're atheist or not only really makes a difference to Abrahamites. Actually, Judaism also belongs to the Pagan category. The Jewish God also doesn't give a fuck if you believe in him. Just do the rituals and God is happy. You can be an atheistic Jew, you're still a Jew. You don't stop being a Jew because you stop believing in the Jewish God. God doesn't care.

Sacrifice to a god requires that you actually believe that that god exists.
That is theism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But that's the point. For a Pagan it doesn't matter whether they believe in the God or not. Being part of a cult isn't about the god. It's about the devotee. So it's meaningless question. If a Hindu tells you they're atheist that tells you nothing about what they really believe. Same goes if they say they're theist. It's a non-issue within that type of belief.

Pagan sacrifices were operational. They sacrificed to the gods for favors. If favors didn't materialize they'd switched god. They needed proof it was working or they'd stop sacrificing.

Buddhism is similar. They typically don't give a shit whether or not all the supernatural stuff is true or not. There's nothing they can do about it either way. And it won't have any impact on their lives anyhoo. So it's a non-issue.

The more we look around the more we realize that whether or not we're atheist or not only really makes a difference to Abrahamites. Actually, Judaism also belongs to the Pagan category. The Jewish God also doesn't give a fuck if you believe in him. Just do the rituals and God is happy. You can be an atheistic Jew, you're still a Jew. You don't stop being a Jew because you stop believing in the Jewish God. God doesn't care.

Sacrifice to a god requires that you actually believe that that god exists.
That is theism.

No. It just requires that it works. If you kill a chicken and then it rains, that proves that the killing of the chicken works. This is how science works. You have a hypothesis. You try it. And then change your theory. Paganism works the same way. They don't kill unbelievers. They update the theory. There's countless examples from history. Paganism is a way more civilized form of religion than monotheism.

 

[Juma]

Sacrifice to a god requires that you actually believe that that god exists.
That is theism.

No. It just requires that it works. If you kill a chicken and then it rains, that proves that the killing of the chicken works. This is how science works. You have a hypothesis. You try it. And then change your theory. Paganism works the same way. They don't kill unbelievers. They update the theory. There's countless examples from history. Paganism is a way more civilized form of religion than monotheism.

Paganists believe in something more than they have to. If you just belive that killing the chicken helps then you are not a paganist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No. It just requires that it works. If you kill a chicken and then it rains, that proves that the killing of the chicken works. This is how science works. You have a hypothesis. You try it. And then change your theory. Paganism works the same way. They don't kill unbelievers. They update the theory. There's countless examples from history. Paganism is a way more civilized form of religion than monotheism.

Paganists believe in something more than they have to. If you just belive that killing the chicken helps then you are not a paganist.

Ok, I give up. Just read up on pagan religion. You're acting like a child with your fingers in your ears.

We all believe in more than we have to. We all have theories and beliefs that don't quite match reality. That's just life. You are no different. And if you think you are you are deluded.

 

[James Brown]

I don't know if God exists.

I don't believe that God exists.

I do believe that no Gods exist.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I don't know about modern "pagans", but certainly in the ancient, pre-Xian, Mediterranean, religion was not about belief or teachings, it was about practice. The Romans, for example, didn't give a shit if you "believed" in Jupiter or not, as long as you participated in the communal rituals, festivals and sacrifices. You could also go on sacrificing to and celebrating your local gods, or whatever foreign gods you took a fancy to. Orthopraxy, not orthodoxy, was the order of the day, even in Judaism, although they didn't accept honouring other gods along with theirs.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't know about modern "pagans", but certainly in the ancient, pre-Xian, Mediterranean, religion was not about belief or teachings, it was about practice. The Romans, for example, didn't give a shit if you "believed" in Jupiter or not, as long as you participated in the communal rituals, festivals and sacrifices. You could also go on sacrificing to and celebrating your local gods, or whatever foreign gods you took a fancy to. Orthopraxy, not orthodoxy, was the order of the day, even in Judaism, although they didn't accept honouring other gods along with theirs.

Roman paganism is of course an excellent example of how paganism worked. Yes, they certainly didn't have freedom of religion. They just didn't care what you believed. Being religious just meant carrying out rituals for one or more deities. Religions had followers or adepts. Not faithful.

Modern pagans (Wicca and such) are basically slightly modified Christians. It's such an insult to our ancestors. It's like going to a Renaissance fair and think you now understand how it was to live in the 15'th century. Modern pagans certainly do give a shit about what you believe and as such they're not really pagans. I have more respect for Thelemites. At least they're not pretending it's an ancient faith.