Heartland

Hi all,

Shame that Quiffy has just deleted most of the Wasabear thread, as there was an interesting thing going on.

Mark was an atheist and proud.

I was agnostic and proud.

I put forward the notion that this was the more Fortean, and therefore the more sceptical aproach, Mark put forward the notion that fairies and unicorns are not real so we should hold no more truck with the idea of god (if I have got this wrong I apologise).

I would very much like to continue this discussion because Markfiend, I think you are wrong

Paul.

This is not a closed debate by the way, all opinions are more than welcome

For those that cannot find a God in their inner self, a hand made God might be a suitable substitute.

I respect any form of religion, as long as it is not of the extreme kind.

I believe in myself, but I'm not superior to people that believe there is a God. Whatever suits your needs.

Oh, and I like churches, never had much respect for the institution, but the buidlings... arhhh

IZ.

I think the evidence that there is no God, big or small g, who gives a damn about us is ample and irrefutable. A creator god who put a few things in motion and kicked back to see the results is more believable, but damned unlikely. I think people cling to the idea because it gives a sort of meaning to life. We're here for a reason, a purpose. If you accept we're here because of a series of random accidents over millenia, that our time here is in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant, and what we do has little to no impact..it's a hard thing to accept.
I'm with markfiend on this one, I think.

DeWinter wrote:I think the evidence that there is no God, big or small g, who gives a damn about us is ample and irrefutable. A creator god who put a few things in motion and kicked back to see the results is more believable, but damned unlikely. I think people cling to the idea because it gives a sort of meaning to life. We're here for a reason, a purpose. If you accept we're here because of a series of random accidents over millenia, that our time here is in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant, and what we do has little to no impact..it's a hard thing to accept.
I'm with markfiend on this one, I think.

Once again I agree with DeWinter. Apparently if this ever happens a third time then the world will end.

I too am refusing to believe the idea of a creator myth. Evidence points more to religion as a model of control, and a security blanket when you realise you're an insignificant dot on an insignificant dot drifting through an unimportant spiral-arm of an average galaxy in the arse-end of the universe.

zaltys7 wrote:I put forward the notion that this was the more Fortean, and therefore the more sceptical aproach, Mark put forward the notion that fairies and unicorns are not real so we should hold no more truck with the idea of god (if I have got this wrong I apologise).

Thanks, I think you got my argument pretty spot-on.

As I recall, I said that if evidence were to come forward for the existence of deities, then of course any honest atheist would have to change their mind; to that extent we're all "agnostic". Of course the correct Fortean (if you like) or indeed sceptical stance is to hold any opinion only pro tem aware of the possibility that confounding evidence might be brought to light.

However agnosticism (if I understand correctly) implies the claim that the existence (or otherwise) of deities is unknowable.

Over here we have claims like "the Earth orbits the Sun" and "a proton consists of two up quarks and a down quark" which (setting aside certain philosophical issues like the problem of induction*) can be decided via reason and empirical enquiry, and over there we have the claims "this god is real" and "this god is not real" which, according to agnosticism, cannot.

Why give this unwarranted privilege to questions of god-belief?

*Technically, therefore, any truth claim about the universe is ultimately "unknowable", so I suppose that so are god-existence claims.

Urgh, let me rephrase that footnote.

Technically it is possible that we're all in The Matrix, or that our senses might be giving us a completely unreliable picture of the universe. So in that sense any truth-claim (beyond, I suppose, cogito ergo sum) is ultimately "unknowable".

Yet for all intents and purposes we treat (for example) germ theory of disease as true and proven, or Phlogiston theory as false and disproven. Agnosticism privileges questions of god-belief beyond any other types of question with "extra doubt". I don't see why.

Thanks very much for your answers everyone, I think this is a most interesting topic. Second only to whether there are aliens out there somewhere...

A lot of what we are talking about seems to be semantics, for example,
Izzy HaveMercy:
From his post seems to be a Spiritual Agnostic rather than an Atheist, (please correct me if I am wrong).
Dewinter and Laz.Co seem to be arguing from a Pragmatic Atheist perspective and Markfiend from an Agnostic Atheist pespecitive.

I would like to reiterate that I have no belief in god, but at the same time would say that I can not know that god does not exist, therefore I am a weak agnostic.

I look forward to discussing this further, when I've had me dinner!

Paul[/b]

Seriously...Dylan is twisting my head here....bastard is sooooooo good...i'll get back to you all but in case your wondering its the 81 tour that really gets it. The 79 tour is really something but not a patch on oh I remember...forget it... we were talking about Jesus huh? NOt while I'm trashed...let me get back to you later...

zaltys7 wrote:Dewinter and Laz.Co seem to be arguing from a Pragmatic Atheist perspective and Markfiend from an Agnostic Atheist pespective.

If that means that I don't believe in gods/goddesses/demons/call-them-what-you-may any more than I believe there are invisible, undetectable, lizardmen continuously engaged in rectally probing the entire population of the world simultaneously, then you're correct.

To be honestthe pseudo-categorisation of the "No, I don't believe in your invisible sky fairy" contingent of humanity into different flavours seem like a desperate attempt by the religious to say "hey look, all you unbelievers don't agree with each other, perhaps there's something in it".

It's a pseudo-categorisation that only makes sense to theists, because it's theist-centric. I don't need to "argue" why I don't believe in gods, goddesses, spirits, demons, fairies (inc. but not limited to tooth-fairies), Elvis-alive-and-living-on-the-moon, world-trees-that-support-the-earth, angels, goblins, Santa Claus, virgin births, reptile overlords, Tir-na-nog etc. It is the existence of such things that would have to be argued/proved, not their non-existence.

zaltys7 wrote: Izzy HaveMercy:
From his post seems to be a Spiritual Agnostic rather than an Atheist, (please correct me if I am wrong).

I had to look that up, and to a point you are right

Me, I don't believe in a god or a deity, but I can understand why people want to believe in a god, and I don't have a problem with that. I attend funerals, but I don't pray with all gathered. I go to the front and give the cross-sign to the deceased, tho... Mostly because the ritual might bring solace to the family, not because I think I find it necessary.

I don't do the communion, and I don't want no Body of Christ on my tongue...

IZ.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:

zaltys7 wrote: Izzy HaveMercy:
From his post seems to be a Spiritual Agnostic rather than an Atheist, (please correct me if I am wrong).

I had to look that up, and to a point you are right

Me, I don't believe in a god or a deity, but I can understand why people want to believe in a god, and I don't have a problem with that. I attend funerals, but I don't pray with all gathered. I go to the front and give the cross-sign to the deceased, tho... Mostly because the ritual might bring solace to the family, not because I think I find it necessary.

I don't do the communion, and I don't want no Body of Christ on my tongue...

IZ.

Interseting Izzy, I never pray at funerals and I never make the sign of the cross, my partners side of the family are all buried in churchyards, they visit graves frequently, my family are all cremated and not one of them has a head stone, I prefer this, it takes away the problem of having to visit a rotting corpse!

Paul.

lazarus corporation wrote:

zaltys7 wrote:Dewinter and Laz.Co seem to be arguing from a Pragmatic Atheist perspective and Markfiend from an Agnostic Atheist pespective.

If that means that I don't believe in gods/goddesses/demons/call-them-what-you-may any more than I believe there are invisible, undetectable, lizardmen continuously engaged in rectally probing the entire population of the world simultaneously, then you're correct.

To be honestthe pseudo-categorisation of the "No, I don't believe in your invisible sky fairy" contingent of humanity into different flavours seem like a desperate attempt by the religious to say "hey look, all you unbelievers don't agree with each other, perhaps there's something in it".

It's a pseudo-categorisation that only makes sense to theists, because it's theist-centric. I don't need to "argue" why I don't believe in gods, goddesses, spirits, demons, fairies (inc. but not limited to tooth-fairies), Elvis-alive-and-living-on-the-moon, world-trees-that-support-the-earth, angels, goblins, Santa Claus, virgin births, reptile overlords, Tir-na-nog etc. It is the existence of such things that would have to be argued/proved, not their non-existence.

Last thing I want is an argument, would you then regard me as a theist?
I would be shocked if that where the case.

Paul.

zaltys7 wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:

zaltys7 wrote:Dewinter and Laz.Co seem to be arguing from a Pragmatic Atheist perspective and Markfiend from an Agnostic Atheist pespective.

If that means that I don't believe in gods/goddesses/demons/call-them-what-you-may any more than I believe there are invisible, undetectable, lizardmen continuously engaged in rectally probing the entire population of the world simultaneously, then you're correct.

To be honestthe pseudo-categorisation of the "No, I don't believe in your invisible sky fairy" contingent of humanity into different flavours seem like a desperate attempt by the religious to say "hey look, all you unbelievers don't agree with each other, perhaps there's something in it".

It's a pseudo-categorisation that only makes sense to theists, because it's theist-centric. I don't need to "argue" why I don't believe in gods, goddesses, spirits, demons, fairies (inc. but not limited to tooth-fairies), Elvis-alive-and-living-on-the-moon, world-trees-that-support-the-earth, angels, goblins, Santa Claus, virgin births, reptile overlords, Tir-na-nog etc. It is the existence of such things that would have to be argued/proved, not their non-existence.

Last thing I want is an argument, would you then regard me as a theist?
I would be shocked if that where the case.

Paul.

Oh no, I don't think you're a theist (you've said you're not in an earlier post). But I do think that all the "Pragmatic Atheist"/"Agnostic Atheist"/"Spiritual Agnostic" labels only make sense from a theist point of view, and as such you've got sucked into some theist-centric thought process.

To put it another way, no sane person takes any effort to categorise the many reasons they disbelieve that Elvis Presley is alive and living on the moon.

The only people who'd be crazy enough to try to categorise the arguments for/against Elvis living on the moon are people who believe that Elvis is alive and living on the moon ("are you a Pragmatic anti-Lunar Elvis, an Agnostic Maybe-Lunar Elvis, or a Spiritual Anti-Lunar Elvis?" - I've spent as much time wondering about where I fit in these categories as to where I fit in the "Why I don't believe that Yahweh alive and living in some intangible, undetectable 'heaven'" spectrum).

Those of us who disbelieve in Lunar Elvis can't be bothered to spend a second of thought as to why we don't believe in Lunar Elvis, let alone label ourselves based upon why we don't believe in Lunar Elvis. Any such labelling system is only of interest to devout Lunar Elvis believers.

lazarus corporation wrote:

zaltys7 wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: If that means that I don't believe in gods/goddesses/demons/call-them-what-you-may any more than I believe there are invisible, undetectable, lizardmen continuously engaged in rectally probing the entire population of the world simultaneously, then you're correct.

To be honestthe pseudo-categorisation of the "No, I don't believe in your invisible sky fairy" contingent of humanity into different flavours seem like a desperate attempt by the religious to say "hey look, all you unbelievers don't agree with each other, perhaps there's something in it".

It's a pseudo-categorisation that only makes sense to theists, because it's theist-centric. I don't need to "argue" why I don't believe in gods, goddesses, spirits, demons, fairies (inc. but not limited to tooth-fairies), Elvis-alive-and-living-on-the-moon, world-trees-that-support-the-earth, angels, goblins, Santa Claus, virgin births, reptile overlords, Tir-na-nog etc. It is the existence of such things that would have to be argued/proved, not their non-existence.

Last thing I want is an argument, would you then regard me as a theist?
I would be shocked if that where the case.

Paul.

Oh no, I don't think you're a theist (you've said you're not in an earlier post). But I do think that all the "Pragmatic Atheist"/"Agnostic Atheist"/"Spiritual Agnostic" labels only make sense from a theist point of view, and as such you've got sucked into some theist-centric thought process.

To put it another way, no sane person takes any effort to categorise the many reasons they disbelieve that Elvis Presley is alive and living on the moon.

The only people who'd be crazy enough to try to categorise the arguments for/against Elvis living on the moon are people who believe that Elvis is alive and living on the moon ("are you a Pragmatic anti-Lunar Elvis, an Agnostic Maybe-Lunar Elvis, or a Spiritual Anti-Lunar Elvis?" - I've spent as much time wondering about where I fit in these categories as to where I fit in the "Why I don't believe that Yahweh alive and living in some intangible, undetectable 'heaven'" spectrum).

Those of us who disbelieve in Lunar Elvis can't be bothered to spend a second of thought as to why we don't believe in Lunar Elvis, let alone label ourselves based upon why we don't believe in Lunar Elvis. Any such labelling system is only of interest to devout Lunar Elvis believers.

Cant say that I agree with you here, I havn't been sucked into any argument theist-centric or otherwise. I think it's any interesting philosophical debate. I'm glad that you don't give a second thought to Lunar Elvis, I however find the whole nature of belief/disbelief very interesting. If someone believes in Lunar Elvis I think it is interesting to know why, and to call them insane or to say that you can't be bothered to understand them sounds suspiciously like fundamentalism.

I didn't want an argument, but I got one, methinks you need to chill out a bit mate.

And lets lay off Lunar Elvis shall we, It's at best a straw man argument.

Paul.

zaltys7 wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:

zaltys7 wrote: Last thing I want is an argument, would you then regard me as a theist?
I would be shocked if that where the case.

Paul.

Oh no, I don't think you're a theist (you've said you're not in an earlier post). But I do think that all the "Pragmatic Atheist"/"Agnostic Atheist"/"Spiritual Agnostic" labels only make sense from a theist point of view, and as such you've got sucked into some theist-centric thought process.

To put it another way, no sane person takes any effort to categorise the many reasons they disbelieve that Elvis Presley is alive and living on the moon.

The only people who'd be crazy enough to try to categorise the arguments for/against Elvis living on the moon are people who believe that Elvis is alive and living on the moon ("are you a Pragmatic anti-Lunar Elvis, an Agnostic Maybe-Lunar Elvis, or a Spiritual Anti-Lunar Elvis?" - I've spent as much time wondering about where I fit in these categories as to where I fit in the "Why I don't believe that Yahweh alive and living in some intangible, undetectable 'heaven'" spectrum).

Those of us who disbelieve in Lunar Elvis can't be bothered to spend a second of thought as to why we don't believe in Lunar Elvis, let alone label ourselves based upon why we don't believe in Lunar Elvis. Any such labelling system is only of interest to devout Lunar Elvis believers.

Cant say that I agree with you here, I havn't been sucked into any argument theist-centric or otherwise. I think it's any interesting philosophical debate. I'm glad that you don't give a second thought to Lunar Elvis, I however find the whole nature of belief/disbelief very interesting. If someone believes in Lunar Elvis I think it is interesting to know why, and to call them insane or to say that you can't be bothered to understand them sounds suspiciously like fundamentalism.

I didn't want an argument, but I got one, methinks you need to chill out a bit mate.

And lets lay off Lunar Elvis shall we, It's at best a straw man argument.

Paul.

I don't see this as an argument at all - apologies if my post sounded less than chilled-out - it was written very calmly.

I guess there are so many things that I can possibly disbelieve in that there isn't enough time in the world to philosophise as to why I don't believe in each and every unbelievable thing - I'd rather get on with living my life.

As for Lunar Elvis being a straw man argument - no, that's not correct. It was meant as an analogy (i.e. I'm not accusing anyone here of believing in Lunar Elvis, and I thought that was clear - sorry if it wasn't). The fact that Lunar Elvis is something that no one can be bothered to spend time disproving is exactly my point - and that point applies equally to the christian god or {insert other unprovable belief here}.

To someone who doesn't believe in {insert unprovable belief} the demand to categorise your exact reasons for not believing in {insert unprovable belief} is simply a waste of time (unless you've got nothing better to do). It's a categorisation that is only of interest to believers in {insert unprovable belief}.

The only reason why people in western society spend so much time being forced to defend their lack of belief in the christian god (as opposed to their lack of belief in unicorns or Lunar Elvis) is that belief in the christian god is common in western society.

zaltys7 wrote:Mark put forward the notion that fairies and unicorns are not real so we should hold no more truck with the idea of god

I'm not arguing the case either way here but I don't see the logic of the above statement. Because one thing doesn't exist then that means that something else doesn't either? The logical extension of that would be that if you accept, say Christianity (a monotheistic faith that, by definition, rejects belief in any other faith) then you have to reject Christianity because none of those other faiths are real. It's not an argument at all.

markfiend wrote:However agnosticism (if I understand correctly) implies the claim that the existence (or otherwise) of deities is unknowable.

Over here we have claims like "the Earth orbits the Sun" and "a proton consists of two up quarks and a down quark" which (setting aside certain philosophical issues like the problem of induction*) can be decided via reason and empirical enquiry, and over there we have the claims "this god is real" and "this god is not real" which, according to agnosticism, cannot.

Why give this unwarranted privilege to questions of god-belief?

Most people use the term to mean that they don't know either way but yes, literally, it means that the existence or not of gods is unknowable. However, that doesn't give religion any special privilege or immunity to questions. It's just a (fairly reasonable) philosophiacal view that the question can't be empirically answered or proven. The term was coined by Thomas Huxley who defined it as a method of skeptical, evidence-based enquiry and who was using it to describe his own point of view.

lazarus corporation wrote:Once again I agree with DeWinter. Apparently if this ever happens a third time then the world will end.

But wouldn't there have to be some sort of god to make that cosmic law in the first place?

stufarq wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:Once again I agree with DeWinter. Apparently if this ever happens a third time then the world will end.

But wouldn't there have to be some sort of god to make that cosmic law in the first place?

So glad that someone spotted the intentional irony in that statement!

stufarq wrote:

zaltys7 wrote:Mark put forward the notion that fairies and unicorns are not real so we should hold no more truck with the idea of god

I'm not arguing the case either way here but I don't see the logic of the above statement. Because one thing doesn't exist then that means that something else doesn't either? The logical extension of that would be that if you accept, say Christianity (a monotheistic faith that, by definition, rejects belief in any other faith) then you have to reject Christianity because none of those other faiths are real. It's not an argument at all.

Well, OK, I can see I have to clarify what I was trying to say because that's not it at all.

What I was trying to say is that (in my opinion) gods are in the same category as fairies and unicorns; they're imaginary supernatural entities. I reject all supernatural and mythical entities because I see no difference between them. Obviously a believer does see a difference between the object of their belief and the other deities which they reject... although I've never come across a description of what this difference is that I find at all convincing.

stufarq wrote:

markfiend wrote:However agnosticism (if I understand correctly) implies the claim that the existence (or otherwise) of deities is unknowable.
(blah blah blah)

Most people use the term to mean that they don't know either way but yes, literally, it means that the existence or not of gods is unknowable. However, that doesn't give religion any special privilege or immunity to questions. It's just a (fairly reasonable) philosophiacal view that the question can't be empirically answered or proven. The term was coined by Thomas Huxley who defined it as a method of skeptical, evidence-based enquiry and who was using it to describe his own point of view.

I would contend that claiming that a question cannot be answered empirically then renders that question essentially meaningless.

But I think that agnosticism does give unwarranted privilege to religious questions. Why are there certain areas of enquiry that are closed off to empirical enquiry? Simply because theists have marked them off with "Holy, do not touch" signs?

markfiend wrote:

I would contend that claiming that a question cannot be answered empirically then renders that question essentially meaningless.

But I think that agnosticism does give unwarranted privilege to religious questions. Why are there certain areas of enquiry that are closed off to empirical enquiry? Simply because theists have marked them off with "Holy, do not touch" signs?

Is "what is justice?" a meaningless question?

Ok, folk, don't know if this should go in the joke section or in this section. I've decided to put it here because it's not nearly as funny as the Polish joke... but then, it's not about God either...unless He is, and there's a scary thought...

So it's two thousand years ago give or take a decade or two. God's a bit of a topic and so instead of Rock Stars there's preachers and teachers, rabbi's and ever unchanging political lunatics in the air. The Eminem of the day was a pretty big shot hard drinking whore f**king sword wielding mystic name of Jesus the Nazerene.

We know very little about this particular teacher, or indeed if he ever existed. Certainly he didn't exist in the biographical form written down in the gospels but let's go with the story here.

Scooby makes the biggest sarnie, popeye packs the mightiest punch and Jesus is the walking word.

Whether he existed or not.

So, the story I want to share with you folk today is of those nasty Pharisee's on the day they saw Jesus gourged out his box doodling in the sand by the temple. Jesus was a man who could take his liquor, and he was just enjoying the haze of another heat like Vegas, dry but breathable you know? The Pharisees didn't like Jesus much the same way that Eminem's not too popular with the town mayor but every time they try and cut him down they fail. He's too smart. Too slow, as in considered. He speaks very precisely. Like he's some tai chi practising motorhead. And this was a sabbath day and they didn't realise he was just enjoying his haze, they thought 'He's bolloxed, let's get him now'.

And so they brought to him a beautiful young woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. Now it was the law of their tribe that any woman caught in the act of adultery must be murdered immediately. It was also the law that no killing must be done on the Sabbath. 'Got the bastard' they pathetically thought to themselves as they explained the situation to Jesus and asked 'So now what?'

He didn't even look at them. Just carried on doodling and said 'hmmmmm......'

Doodling away.

and

'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' when straight over his head comes flying a great rock hitting the woman, fortunately only on the shoulder.

Jesus, shocked as shock stands and turns and seeing the Rock Thrower moans 'Oh f**king Hell Mother would you just Grow Up!'

Ok....hope you Greeks didn't find that toooooo blasphemous - Kalo Pascha! Christos Anisti - Truly x

I had no idea what "pragmatic atheism" was until I went and looked it up. I never knew there could really be "flavours" of atheism.
It's not a bad description though, if it helps a debate.
The Greeks exploded the notion of the "personal" God many years ago, and the "problem of evil" still tends to stump most believers of the Abrahamic religions. The only answer they tend to give is the "mysterious ways" cop-out, or re-assure us that we'll all get our just desserts in some poorly defined afterlife.
Like markfiend I'm bemused why we are frequently exhorted to "respect" the religious viewpoints of others simply because they are strongly held. I'm not expected to respect anyone's political opinions merely because they are precious to them, and much airspace and column inch is given to ripping apart, often pretty mercilessly anyones political beliefs. I don't see why we can't do the same to religious ones, especially when they start becoming harmful to society at large. We have the current situation where both the Anglican and Catholic church in the UK are claiming their religion should give the the right to ignore the law of the land.

but that's confusing the issue of talking about deity with the perils of talking about the church. Ok ok ok of course I see that some church spillage is going to seep in but let's not dismiss the big stuff just because the small stuff is ridiculous and even worse evil. And no, I agree with you, in any high conversation 'respect' should be left outside. 'Respect' belongs with your grandmothers instructions on how to behave. And, well, I didn't join a Sisters Of Mercy forum to talk about Jesus nor God but the truth here is that I can't talk to any church about this stuff because of that nurtured respect. And so this thread is pretty interesting to me, thanks folk.

sultan2075 wrote:Is "what is justice?" a meaningless question?

Why would you say that? I don't think that "what is justice" is a question that can't be answered empirically. Justice, like morality, love, and all sorts of concepts invented by humans, are surely amenable to empirical investigation.

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:Is "what is justice?" a meaningless question?

Why would you say that? I don't think that "what is justice" is a question that can't be answered empirically. Justice, like morality, love, and all sorts of concepts invented by humans, are surely amenable to empirical investigation.

How?