catbarf on 20/12/2007 at 20:23
Quote Posted by Stitch
SD: my basic beef with the new breed of hard atheists is their inability to recognize the difference between "there is no concrete evidence of god" and "there is no god."
If you dare to insinuate that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real simply because there is no evidence for Him existing, then you're not being tolerant/you're being a 'hard theist'/etc.
Evidence is how we determine whether something is possible or logical. You would laugh at me if I insisted there's a five hundred foot long sandwich orbiting the Moon simply because there is no evidence against it.
SD on 20/12/2007 at 22:37
Quote Posted by Thirith
SD, do you make a distinction between religion and organised religion in this?
Pretty much the same distinction I make between benign tumours and malignant tumours.
Stitch on 20/12/2007 at 22:54
Quote Posted by catbarf
Evidence is how we determine whether something is possible or logical. You would laugh at me if I insisted there's a five hundred foot long sandwich orbiting the Moon simply because there is no evidence against it.
But a five hundred foot long sandwich orbiting the moon is something that can be tangibly investigated. The existence of god is not.
catbarf on 20/12/2007 at 23:00
Quote Posted by Stitch
But a five hundred foot long sandwich orbiting the moon is something that can be tangibly investigated. The existence of god is not.
My bad. If you're too thick to understand the point, please replace the following:
Quote:
five hundred foot long sandwich orbiting the Moon
with:
Quote:
five foot long sandwich orbiting Alpha Centauri
It cannot be tested, proven, or disproven.
Scots Taffer on 20/12/2007 at 23:14
Gents, the real issue here is that Dawkins and all other emperically-evidencing disbelievers of God are suffering from an assumption which I think is massively flawed: science can explain everything known
and unknown.
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Atheists are fragmenting into denominations. This is why I have decided to describe my own position as
apatheist.
Sometimes, Alex, I think I love you... so what am I so afraid of?
Stitch on 20/12/2007 at 23:14
Quote Posted by catbarf
It cannot be tested, proven, or disproven.
Of course it can. It is out there somewhere, floating through space, and it can be investigated and tested even if it is outside our abilities to currently do so.
The fact that you are incapable of grasping the concept of a god that isn't empirically observable doesn't mean that such a god is impossible.
Edit: beaten to the punch
catbarf on 20/12/2007 at 23:26
Quote Posted by Stitch
Of course it can. It is out there somewhere, floating through space, and it can be investigated and tested even if it is outside our abilities to currently do so.
The only difference between the sandwich and God is that theists claim that God cannot be investigated and tested. Since faster-than-light travel is impossible and the technology to get to Alpha Centauri is extremely far beyond our current level, it's just as untestable as the theory that God exists.
What's the difference between two fantasies? Perhaps I should say that said sandwich can never be detected (but it's still there, believe me!)? Now what is the difference between that and God?
Scots Taffer on 20/12/2007 at 23:31
Can Science explain why I like coffee but not tomatoes? Why I sometimes feel sleepy even when I've had a long rest? Or why I could ever feel depressed if everything in life is great?
Empirical evidence does not answer all the questions.
Shug on 21/12/2007 at 00:05
Quote Posted by catbarf
What's the difference between two fantasies? Perhaps I should say that said sandwich can never be detected (but it's still there, believe me!)? Now what is the difference between that and God?
Quick background: raised/baptised/confirmed Catholic, currently atheist and against organized religion in a gentle shaking-my-head kind of way rather than a kill-them-all type deal with a special 'well there could be possibly some kind of creationist force' clause.
Having said that, the whole "HAHA, if God exists so could the Spaghetti Monster!" argument with a smug little smirk written across your face can get pretty fucking annoying. It's such an oversimplified piece of shit that if you brought it out in a religion discussion over a couple of drinks I would be tempted to punch you in the face. Unfortunately it appears Dawkins must do this for some of the rabble to know what he's on about.
What makes Christianity/Catholicism a step beyond that "Well, I made a fictional construct in my mind so now we're EVEN" is the outrageous amount of history and culture associated with it. If you dug up a series of writings from a couple of thousand years ago with references to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or saw some cave scrawlings of the Ju-Ju under the sea then maybe we'd give pause to that, too.
What's fascinating about the whole thing is - the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, whatever else - the origin of all this material about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit - was it a hoax from the beginning, or were they fooled? Could anything resembling Biblical miracles or revelations really have happened, or what really occurred to lead to the embellishment of these tales, and so on. Obviously this isn't the most fruitful of pursuits, but who knows what might be dug up or if they'll find more information.
Of course, the fact remains that organized religion has been a vessel for power and corruption for a long, long time. It seems highly unlikely that a God-type presence would be arsed speaking through the pope and the million other nutcases that have existed over the years from prophets to born-again Christians. That, and I vaguely recall an investigation citing that certain types of personalities were more prone to religious belief/fervour. Personally, I don't need to feel I was put here for a SPECIAL PURPOSE - but lots of people do. The institution of religion is probably more of an argument against the existence of God, really.
What that doesn't change is that I'd love to get drunk with fett and ask him all the crazy shit he knows about the Bible until he spews, passes out and I apologize profusely to his wife
Chimpy Chompy on 21/12/2007 at 00:18
I guess my own take on it is, there's logical room for "greater transcendant truths" beyond science, or "prime mover" responsible for the universe. But since such things are beyond our means to test or probe, they're pretty much unknowable and can only really hold the status of philosophical curiosities. So I don't feel anything about them provides reason to alter the way I live my life. Dunno if that makes me atheist or agnostic, the lines seem blurry sometimes.
On another note I hope Epos Nix responds to RBJ's question cos it kind of touches on some of the vague problems I have with Buddhism. Is its logical conclusion everyone rejecting science, art, music and love? They're all desires, right, and the idea is to abandon desire? and sitting there meditating and trying to "destroy the sense of self" and pass off this physical life as an inconvenience or obstacle or something? Cos on some level that seems like rather a waste to me.
