-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Lack of belief"
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Agondonter
Active Member
Agondonter said: Not everything is reducible to ideas.
JW said: Nonsensical statement.
Agondonter says: 'Nuff said. Even the ancients knew better. Anyone who is at all cognizant of life and thinks knows that not everything is reducible to an idea. Nevertheless, ideas, through the medium of language, is the means by which we communicate.
JW said: Nonsensical statement.
Agondonter says: 'Nuff said. Even the ancients knew better. Anyone who is at all cognizant of life and thinks knows that not everything is reducible to an idea. Nevertheless, ideas, through the medium of language, is the means by which we communicate.
Well, that's all well and good if you look at religion as a psychotherapeutic modality; as an opiate of the people, but the religious are very insistent that religion is ontological Truth, and that correct belief is vital.
I'm sure many people find great comfort in rosy fantasies. If this is the function of religion any convenient mythology will do, but when you start insisting the fantasy is true you take on a burden of proof you might find hard to manage.
Last edited:
serp777
Well-Known Member
Yeah this is going to fall on deaf ears. No one considers their outlandish beliefs to be a fantasy. They think you're the one living in a fantasy, and they're correct, even if they've changed their position like 10 times.
Kartari
Active Member
Hi Guy,
Breaking this up into 2 posts (I'm hitting the 12000 character post limit, lol).
Well, this is a little silly to say. Some disciplines are more subjective than others regarding interpretations of the evidence. History and psychology are more subjective endeavors, for instance. But within the hard sciences, peer-reviewed research is as objective as it gets for humanity.
That said, the facts are still the facts, regardless of opinions and interpretations. If the evidence tells us the Earth revolves around the Sun, wishing that the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky means the Sun revolves around the Earth has absolutely no effect on the factual reality that the Earth goes around the Sun.
The Big Bang vs Steady State debate of more than several decades ago remained up in the air for a time due to the lack of evidence for the Big Bang It had nothing to do with the subjective feelings of "atheist" scientists (whatever that's supposed to mean). When that evidence was discovered, Lemaitre himself disliked when the Pope declared his theory to be proof for Catholicism. He rightly discerned that not only had his theory not proven religious creationism, but he advised that the Pope refrain from making scientific predictions.
As for your "evidence for the supernatural," what the heck are you talking about? This does not at all constitute evidence for the supernatural. Since the supernatural is defined as being "beyond nature," to prove it is real you must (a) prove that there can exist something beyond nature and (b) demonstrate the existence of at least one aspect of this existence. I propose that the very notion of the supernatural as beyond nature is preposterously unintelligible. What exactly can a person even imagine to be beyond nature? What exactly does that mean, really? It's just a superfluous notion with no real substance.
Some think of the supernatural as covering natural events that have yet to be naturally explained. That's all well and good, but we're not talking about non-natural events anymore, but rather natural events... which brings us back to square one concerning what is intended by supernatural claims such as God (unless perhaps if you're a pantheist).
That's not exactly what I was saying. The supernatural is an imaginary (and, as shown, nonsensical) concept in itself. That's what I meant to say. We can imagine the word supernatural and its superficial implication of being beyond the natural. But we cannot clearly define what that means. Nor can we demonstrate one supernatural thing to have existence in reality, nor even clearly identify how we can demonstrate a supernatural event in reality. Indeed, the very definition of the term precludes our ability to discover the answers to these questions (i.e. using natural means of identifying the supernatural, such as electromagnetic detectors to find ghosts, or brains to think about the supernatural, is all futile since the supernatural, by definition, is *BEYOND* the natural).
As for the contents of our minds and imaginations being "supernatural" simply because they can conceive of things beyond what is known... that does not at all follow. The brain is a natural organ. Its contents are the products of the brain, a natural organ. All we conceive, regardless of how boundless it may be, is therefore natural in origin.
If this is an attempt to demonstrate the "argument from complexity" logical fallacy, well... it's logically fallacious. It is illogical to claim "Life is complex, therefore God did it." The very analogy to a cell phone is furthermore a very poor analogy. This is because there is no such apparent design when we examine the natural evolution of biological life as there is when we examine human technology like cell phones. An informed study of biology is in order to understand this... frankly, I do not have the time to give a biology lesson.
Honestly, if you think this is a valid analogy, then the real problem in this debate, imho, is that you really need a refresher on biology before we can proceed any further, sorry to say.
An empty claim, in light of the superficiality of your "evidence" thus far presented.
I've seen a number of similar arguments. One person argued with me that fruit could not have been evolved naturally because it was obviously designed for humans to eat. Lol! This person also argued that trees were designed to be made from wood because God knew we would need wood to build homes from. Do you see how ridiculous these arguments are? Another naive argument I've seen a few times is the "complexity of eyes" argument. By understanding the many small steps it took over hundreds of millions of years to get from the simplest light sensitive organ to the modern complex eyes, and how survival helped ensure the continuation and continual adaption and improvement of eyes WITHOUT any intelligent guidance required, coupled by all the oddball aspects of living "designs" that do NOT make sense to include from a purely design standpoint (e.g. consider all the myriad of ways human bodies fail us or wear down, as well as the various useless or less useful aspects of our bodies, such as the appendix, wisdom teeth which often cause more problems than they're worth, etc., etc.), you become acutely aware of just how superficial a scientific education is required to make an intelligent designer seem like a plausible requirement to make all of this happen.
Indeed, you speak of "naturalist theories" as if non-natural or supernatural "theories" existed. There are none, not in a scientifically valid sense of theory at least. Remember that a scientific theory is a proven hypothesis, not a made-up and imagined idea someone dreamt of (e.g. like Creationism). Religion offers us nothing but imagined scenarios when it comes to understanding biology and universal origins.
True. But Lemaitre's theory does not support the claims you think it does, as explained above.
You have not provided valid evidence though, as explained. The only evidence of creative intelligence we have pertains to human creative intelligence. And probably certain other animals as well, as I understand gorillas can paint and speak with sign language for instance.
The fact that we have not discovered a complete theory for universal origins means absolutely nothing as far as demonstrating the existence of the supernatural in general, or a Creator God more specifically. Indeed, we may not be very far from figuring out how life could evolve from inorganic matter, from what I understand.
This is another poor analogy for the same reason as your cell phone analogy. Life is not at all clearly designed like software is, and in fact, life makes far more sense from the vantage point of evolution theory. As I wrote, a basic understanding of biology will rid you of seeing such comparisons as these as valid.
(To Be Continued...)
Breaking this up into 2 posts (I'm hitting the 12000 character post limit, lol).
Well, this is a little silly to say. Some disciplines are more subjective than others regarding interpretations of the evidence. History and psychology are more subjective endeavors, for instance. But within the hard sciences, peer-reviewed research is as objective as it gets for humanity.
That said, the facts are still the facts, regardless of opinions and interpretations. If the evidence tells us the Earth revolves around the Sun, wishing that the apparent movement of the Sun across the sky means the Sun revolves around the Earth has absolutely no effect on the factual reality that the Earth goes around the Sun.
The Big Bang vs Steady State debate of more than several decades ago remained up in the air for a time due to the lack of evidence for the Big Bang It had nothing to do with the subjective feelings of "atheist" scientists (whatever that's supposed to mean). When that evidence was discovered, Lemaitre himself disliked when the Pope declared his theory to be proof for Catholicism. He rightly discerned that not only had his theory not proven religious creationism, but he advised that the Pope refrain from making scientific predictions.
As for your "evidence for the supernatural," what the heck are you talking about? This does not at all constitute evidence for the supernatural. Since the supernatural is defined as being "beyond nature," to prove it is real you must (a) prove that there can exist something beyond nature and (b) demonstrate the existence of at least one aspect of this existence. I propose that the very notion of the supernatural as beyond nature is preposterously unintelligible. What exactly can a person even imagine to be beyond nature? What exactly does that mean, really? It's just a superfluous notion with no real substance.
Some think of the supernatural as covering natural events that have yet to be naturally explained. That's all well and good, but we're not talking about non-natural events anymore, but rather natural events... which brings us back to square one concerning what is intended by supernatural claims such as God (unless perhaps if you're a pantheist).
That's not exactly what I was saying. The supernatural is an imaginary (and, as shown, nonsensical) concept in itself. That's what I meant to say. We can imagine the word supernatural and its superficial implication of being beyond the natural. But we cannot clearly define what that means. Nor can we demonstrate one supernatural thing to have existence in reality, nor even clearly identify how we can demonstrate a supernatural event in reality. Indeed, the very definition of the term precludes our ability to discover the answers to these questions (i.e. using natural means of identifying the supernatural, such as electromagnetic detectors to find ghosts, or brains to think about the supernatural, is all futile since the supernatural, by definition, is *BEYOND* the natural).
As for the contents of our minds and imaginations being "supernatural" simply because they can conceive of things beyond what is known... that does not at all follow. The brain is a natural organ. Its contents are the products of the brain, a natural organ. All we conceive, regardless of how boundless it may be, is therefore natural in origin.
If this is an attempt to demonstrate the "argument from complexity" logical fallacy, well... it's logically fallacious. It is illogical to claim "Life is complex, therefore God did it." The very analogy to a cell phone is furthermore a very poor analogy. This is because there is no such apparent design when we examine the natural evolution of biological life as there is when we examine human technology like cell phones. An informed study of biology is in order to understand this... frankly, I do not have the time to give a biology lesson.
Honestly, if you think this is a valid analogy, then the real problem in this debate, imho, is that you really need a refresher on biology before we can proceed any further, sorry to say.
An empty claim, in light of the superficiality of your "evidence" thus far presented.
I've seen a number of similar arguments. One person argued with me that fruit could not have been evolved naturally because it was obviously designed for humans to eat. Lol! This person also argued that trees were designed to be made from wood because God knew we would need wood to build homes from. Do you see how ridiculous these arguments are? Another naive argument I've seen a few times is the "complexity of eyes" argument. By understanding the many small steps it took over hundreds of millions of years to get from the simplest light sensitive organ to the modern complex eyes, and how survival helped ensure the continuation and continual adaption and improvement of eyes WITHOUT any intelligent guidance required, coupled by all the oddball aspects of living "designs" that do NOT make sense to include from a purely design standpoint (e.g. consider all the myriad of ways human bodies fail us or wear down, as well as the various useless or less useful aspects of our bodies, such as the appendix, wisdom teeth which often cause more problems than they're worth, etc., etc.), you become acutely aware of just how superficial a scientific education is required to make an intelligent designer seem like a plausible requirement to make all of this happen.
Indeed, you speak of "naturalist theories" as if non-natural or supernatural "theories" existed. There are none, not in a scientifically valid sense of theory at least. Remember that a scientific theory is a proven hypothesis, not a made-up and imagined idea someone dreamt of (e.g. like Creationism). Religion offers us nothing but imagined scenarios when it comes to understanding biology and universal origins.
True. But Lemaitre's theory does not support the claims you think it does, as explained above.
You have not provided valid evidence though, as explained. The only evidence of creative intelligence we have pertains to human creative intelligence. And probably certain other animals as well, as I understand gorillas can paint and speak with sign language for instance.
The fact that we have not discovered a complete theory for universal origins means absolutely nothing as far as demonstrating the existence of the supernatural in general, or a Creator God more specifically. Indeed, we may not be very far from figuring out how life could evolve from inorganic matter, from what I understand.
This is another poor analogy for the same reason as your cell phone analogy. Life is not at all clearly designed like software is, and in fact, life makes far more sense from the vantage point of evolution theory. As I wrote, a basic understanding of biology will rid you of seeing such comparisons as these as valid.
(To Be Continued...)
Last edited:
Kartari
Active Member
Hi Guy,
Here is Part 2...
Bad logic here. Just because human beings and whales are both natural creatures does not mean that humans and whales are the same being. So why would the naturalness of natural laws imply an incapacity for natural laws to govern both universal expansion and the universal state prior to the Big Bang?
Also illogical is the false dichotomy you present (yet again). The options are not limited to "universe was created supernaturally" and "universe always existed." The unvierse could have been created naturally, such as by extradimensional proccesses, such as those described as being involved in the formation of branes in M-theory. Ignoring these plausible possibilities does not lend credibility to your arguments. Yet acknowledging them does indeed impede your ability to point to Creationism as the most plausible explanation for existence. So your standing is not very solid, it seems.
We do NOT know that the Big Bang was the creation point of the universe, as previously explained in my previous post. We only know that the known universe was in an extremely super hot and dense state 13.8 billion years ago. Making up information to fluff it up and call it a creation event only detracts from the accuracy of our knowledge.
As I explained, there are no theistic implications to complain about other than the imagined notions of less educated religious people who like to make stuff up that feels good to them. Lemaitre gets lots of points for understanding the difference between religious beliefs and hard science.
As already mentioned, we do NOT know that it was created, though. It was NOT created as far as we can tell. The universe was densely packed and super hot... that is the extent of the knowledge we have on the matter. Claiming everything was created at this point is YOUR belief that your are interjecting without valid evidence. It is NOT a claim of the Big Bang theory. Science is still unable to comment meaningfully about what existed prior to the "primeval atom" state of the universe. As I wrote, God banging all into existence is but one of SEVERAL imaginable scenarios (and asserting the existence of God, in general, has its own problems as explained previously).
You keep stating that "atheist" scientists are uncomfortable about the supposed Creationist implications for the Big Bang theory, when in reality the Big Bang theory has NO Creationist claims inherent to it. As another religious example, Hindus can just as plausibly claim that the Big Bang theory is proof for the cyclical nature of the universe (i.e. that it perpetually is destroyed and recreated in cycles). I think the Central American indigenous peoples also had similar concepts that they could imagine the Big Bang theory "proves," of several Ages of existence delineated by the destruction and recreation of existence. None would be correct, however, including Christian notions of Creationism.
Are you willing to embrace ALL religious connotations that can be imagined to be connected with the Big Bang? Are you willing to acknowledge that such connotations, including Christian ideas of Creationism, have no support from the facts or the evidence?
Again, there is no evidence for the supernatural. You have failed to demonstrate any such thing in this thread.
Atheism is nothing more than the disbelief in gods. Are you another one of these people who thinks all atheists are secretly theists? Lol. That's what you seem to be implying in this above quote, at least.
...
In summary, I think this debate cannot continue until you honestly gain more understanding of biology. I do not have the time to teach you, and quite frankly, in gaining this understanding, you will undoubtedly change your mind about evolution.
Please understand that this is not intended at all as a put down. MANY people are in the same boat as you in failing to understand biology and evolution. There is a real problem in the United States (if you are American?) concerning our educational system more generally. I was greatly disheartened recently to find that most of the people I know, as well as many on Facebook where I first saw this posed, could not correctly answer a 9th grade-level math problem, an algebra question. A lot of people continued to argue that their wrong answer was correct, even after being taught how to use the correct order of operations (i.e. PEMDAS in the US, I think it's called BEDMAS in the UK). A few thought that math was a subjective discipline, that you could do whichever order of operations one felt like doing and still arrive at a "right" conclusion... tell that to the aerospace engineers, that they can make up the rules of math when they design planes. I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry...
Anyway, until you gain more understanding of biology, your arguments for Creationism are as simple to me as those of someone claiming that the Sun must revolve around the Earth because it appears to do so in the sky from our vantage point. To such a person, I would suggest they read up on basic astronomy and that, once understood, the debate is over... because the facts become more apparent once a person correctly understands the parameters of the problem.
Here is Part 2...
Bad logic here. Just because human beings and whales are both natural creatures does not mean that humans and whales are the same being. So why would the naturalness of natural laws imply an incapacity for natural laws to govern both universal expansion and the universal state prior to the Big Bang?
Also illogical is the false dichotomy you present (yet again). The options are not limited to "universe was created supernaturally" and "universe always existed." The unvierse could have been created naturally, such as by extradimensional proccesses, such as those described as being involved in the formation of branes in M-theory. Ignoring these plausible possibilities does not lend credibility to your arguments. Yet acknowledging them does indeed impede your ability to point to Creationism as the most plausible explanation for existence. So your standing is not very solid, it seems.
We do NOT know that the Big Bang was the creation point of the universe, as previously explained in my previous post. We only know that the known universe was in an extremely super hot and dense state 13.8 billion years ago. Making up information to fluff it up and call it a creation event only detracts from the accuracy of our knowledge.
As I explained, there are no theistic implications to complain about other than the imagined notions of less educated religious people who like to make stuff up that feels good to them. Lemaitre gets lots of points for understanding the difference between religious beliefs and hard science.
As already mentioned, we do NOT know that it was created, though. It was NOT created as far as we can tell. The universe was densely packed and super hot... that is the extent of the knowledge we have on the matter. Claiming everything was created at this point is YOUR belief that your are interjecting without valid evidence. It is NOT a claim of the Big Bang theory. Science is still unable to comment meaningfully about what existed prior to the "primeval atom" state of the universe. As I wrote, God banging all into existence is but one of SEVERAL imaginable scenarios (and asserting the existence of God, in general, has its own problems as explained previously).
You keep stating that "atheist" scientists are uncomfortable about the supposed Creationist implications for the Big Bang theory, when in reality the Big Bang theory has NO Creationist claims inherent to it. As another religious example, Hindus can just as plausibly claim that the Big Bang theory is proof for the cyclical nature of the universe (i.e. that it perpetually is destroyed and recreated in cycles). I think the Central American indigenous peoples also had similar concepts that they could imagine the Big Bang theory "proves," of several Ages of existence delineated by the destruction and recreation of existence. None would be correct, however, including Christian notions of Creationism.
Are you willing to embrace ALL religious connotations that can be imagined to be connected with the Big Bang? Are you willing to acknowledge that such connotations, including Christian ideas of Creationism, have no support from the facts or the evidence?
Again, there is no evidence for the supernatural. You have failed to demonstrate any such thing in this thread.
Atheism is nothing more than the disbelief in gods. Are you another one of these people who thinks all atheists are secretly theists? Lol. That's what you seem to be implying in this above quote, at least.
...
In summary, I think this debate cannot continue until you honestly gain more understanding of biology. I do not have the time to teach you, and quite frankly, in gaining this understanding, you will undoubtedly change your mind about evolution.
Please understand that this is not intended at all as a put down. MANY people are in the same boat as you in failing to understand biology and evolution. There is a real problem in the United States (if you are American?) concerning our educational system more generally. I was greatly disheartened recently to find that most of the people I know, as well as many on Facebook where I first saw this posed, could not correctly answer a 9th grade-level math problem, an algebra question. A lot of people continued to argue that their wrong answer was correct, even after being taught how to use the correct order of operations (i.e. PEMDAS in the US, I think it's called BEDMAS in the UK). A few thought that math was a subjective discipline, that you could do whichever order of operations one felt like doing and still arrive at a "right" conclusion... tell that to the aerospace engineers, that they can make up the rules of math when they design planes. I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry...
Anyway, until you gain more understanding of biology, your arguments for Creationism are as simple to me as those of someone claiming that the Sun must revolve around the Earth because it appears to do so in the sky from our vantage point. To such a person, I would suggest they read up on basic astronomy and that, once understood, the debate is over... because the facts become more apparent once a person correctly understands the parameters of the problem.
Last edited:
The argument that Augustus has been laying out is that "lack of belief" is an impossible position to have if you understand the concept being discussed.
Thus, if you understand the concept "gods exist" you CANNOT merely "lack a belief" in regards to the concept.
You must have formed some sort of belief in relation to this concept.
Such a belief could be:
God(s) exist
God(s) don't exist
I don't know whether gods exist or not.
Etc.
The point is that any of these possible responses are BELIEFS. They are not, and cannot be, merely lack of belief.
I think you are overestimating the power of abstract ideas.
Despite a tendency to lend them substance in a rote way, actual belief in them takes considerable effort. Quite a few ideas are indeed "not believed in" just because, so to speak. Having a good grasp of what is being proposed is neither frequent nor a requisite.
Using the word "creation" when we have no evidence that anything was "created" the neutral "came into existence" is better.
It wasn't a "creation" event. It's an event that caused the existence of the universe.
Just because we don't know the cause yet it's hardly a slam dunk for theism is it?
LOL there's nothing in the big bang theory that says it must have been created by a god.
Father George Lemaître said:
"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.23"
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847
When the father of the Big Bang theory doesn't call it a creation but a beginning I'll go with that no matter your opinion.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
Or perhaps it is effortless and not believing in them is what takes the effort.
You can't not believe everything you read - D. Gilbert
It seems like you're arguing against a point that nobody is making.
Defining atheism in term of lack of belief doesn't mean that atheists lack belief; it just means that rejection of belief isn't a necessary part of atheism.
"You don't need to reject any gods to be an atheist" does NOT mean "an atheist is someone who doesn't reject any gods."
Until you recognize the distinction, you'll just be talking past everyone.
Augustus
…
Even using your definition, all atheists who have heard of god(s) have rejected belief in god(s) [reject = to not believe or accept as true].
This doesn't necessarily mean that they believe gods don't exist though.
[Also plenty of atheist arguments made by posters here do rely on an actual lack/absence - a non-position, not a belief, 'it's like not collecting stamps', it cannot have any potential consequences as it is literally nothing, etc.]
Instead of trying to score points, please just go back and read my post again until you understand it.
Helpful hint: your post suggests that you don't understand it.
"Atheism is a non-position" does not mean "atheists do not hold any positions."
Come on. Just remind yourself what is claimed of, say, Abraham's God. No way it is natural to believe in a God that ask for child sacrifice, even as a prank.
Augustus
…
This post really suggests you missed the point.
Let's just agree to believe that the other person has completely missed the point then
That is a little odd from a Vedantist. I know my religion teaches the way out of misery of bondage of mind. Moksha is the dummy but the road is peaceful too. Very opposite of the effect of opium.
Maybe it would help if you explained what you mean by "consequence".This post really suggests you missed the point.
Let's just agree to believe that the other person has completely missed the point then
As an atheist, I'm not a Sikh, and my hair is shorter than it would be if I was a Sikh. I'm also not a Christian, and I tend to sleep in later on Sunday mornings than I would if I had to go to church. Are these the sort of things you mean when you talk about consequences of atheism?
The point of this particular argument is that "lack of belief" isn't a possible option. You cannot apply this setting to yourself anymore-- it is closed to you because you understand the concept and you've made a conscious decision about it. "Lack of belief" is an erroneous description of your position.
Your labels up there drive home a problem with your categorization system, which I think is, at root, a widespread misunderstanding of beliefs.
Belief is not (always) the same thing as knowledge.
I can (and do) believe that gods do not exist without also claiming to know that gods do not exist.
What label covers this option?
Strong atheism is reserved for those who claim (to know) that gods don't exist. So it is not strong atheism.
It used to be weak (agnostic) atheism. But you have defined weak atheism as having neither the belief that gods exist nor the belief that gods do not exist. So it cannot be weak atheism either.
So what would you (or any others who might be reading this) label someone who believes that gods do not exist?