Religion - The Bible. Real Or Not Real?

[Albert Tatlock]

In the same way as I would respond to tales of fairies, monsters, and other supernatural beings. If anything, however, I have far stronger ground to claim to know that God does not exist when it comes to religious beliefs as opposed to simply whether some non-descript God exists.

Prove you have stronger ground.

 

You will find that you are simply arguing about degrees of uncertainty, all down to your perception. This still firmly places you as an agnostic - whichever word you might choose to prefix it.

 

If people want to spend their lives arguing about degrees of uncertainty, it is a complete waste of time. You can read as many bibles and other religious works as you wish, and as many physics books as you wish - but you'll always be chasing your tail about degrees of uncertainty, and only years later finally realise that the human mind has very fundamental limits to perceiving existance, whether you be a mathematician, quantum physicist, or a vicar.

 

The real problem for us agnostics is persuading people of that, and the control of society sought by religious fanatics forcibly placing those views within society, and the blind 'there is no god' from some atheists. In that sense agnosticism fits perfectly the definition of secular.

[Chinahand]

I think LDV has put things very well. I'd probably express it differently but the basic point that I am as a-theistic as I am a-toothfairy-istic as I am a-zeus-istic is well made.

 

It is equally impossible to prove that the toothfairy, or zeus doesn't exist, but I see no reason to spend my life worrying about either the tooth fairy or any particular diety.

 

The standard phrase is that I'm a de-facto atheist, I see no evidence that the various claims religions make are true and so do not live my life based on believing them. I am ultimately agnostic to exactly how the universe came into existence, with no evidence you are left with speculation, with most theology demanding this speculation bare much more weight than it can take.

 

When religions start being able to give you the names of archangels and discussing the lifestyle habits of djinns I do not think it is unreasonable to say they are making things up - just like our stories about the toothfairy.

[Albert Tatlock]

I think LDV has put things very well. I'd probably express it differently but the basic point that I am as a-theistic as I am a-toothfairy-istic as I am a-zeus-istic is well made.

 

It is equally impossible to prove that the toothfairy, or zeus doesn't exist, but I see no reason to spend my life worrying about either the tooth fairy or any diety.

 

The standard phrase is that I'm a de-facto atheist, I see no evidence that the various claims religions make are true and so do not live my life based on believing them. I am ultimately agnostic to exactly how the universe came into existence, with no evidence you are left with speculation, with most theology demanding this speculation bare much more weight than it can take.

 

When religions start being able to give you the names of archangels and discussing the lifestyle habits of djinns I do not think it is unreasonable to say they are making things up - just like our stories about the toothfairy.

Atheistic means you don't believe, when you yourself are saying you cannot prove they don't exist but are happy not to spend your life worrying about the tooth fairy or any diety. So surely you really mean you are as agnostic.

[Vulgarian]

That's right. Just the same as we do not know for CERTAIN if we are all actually part of a computer game controlled by a supernatural caterpillar. Or that fairies and leprecahauns are real.

 

The problem with your idea is that is assumes that human knowledge is omniscient, that we know enough about the universe to rule out the involvement of an intelligent creator. We think we're quite clever, having split open atoms and found the particles that they're made from, and them split them up aswell, we might think we've got almost to the bottom if it all. Maybe we have. But then maybe not. Maybe we have just broken the surface of an abyss which we might never be able to fathom.

 

Your position is of the same arrogant belief that our knowledge of the universe is infallible and approaching absoluteness that has been around for millenia. People used to look to the horizon and think that if they went beyond it they would fall off the edge of the world because that was the accepted theory at the time. Now we are looking to the edge of the universe, and to the particles that make it up, and saying there is nothing beyond it. It is a common human arrogance in epistomology to think we know everything.

 

My claims to knowing are simply a response to the beliefs of others in something SPECIFIC. In the same way as someone trying to tell me their cat has magical powers. The burden of proof is on them and I come to my conclusions based on why they believe such things and from looking at the evidence. But I can never know for certain.

 

Yeah, i was really referring to a very general idea of god, not necessarily even of a creator, but of some sort of intelligence that has, or had, influence over the universe, and not to the god of any particular belief system. What are your ideas on that?

 

Edit. About the person with their magic cat. That's a rubbish analogy. We know the cat exists (presumably this person actually owns one) and we can make certain observations about it. From what we know about cats we can say that it is unlikely to be magical, but in any case we can study it to see if exhibits any magical propensities.

 

With the cat, the burden of proof is on the owner who claims it has magic powers because that claim goes against what we know from observation about cats. To prove or disprove the existence of god, you need some sort of observable evidence, of which there is none, so the onus is no more on one party than another to prove their theory.

 

What both parties are trying to do is argue from ignorance in their total lack of evidence - a logical fallacy. One is arguing from personal conviction while the other is arguing from personal incredulity. They both consider that the lack of evidence to prove the other's theory is proof of their own, which it is not. Agnostics recognise this logical fallacy of attempting to argue from ignorance, so their is the logical position not the atheists'.

[Chinahand]

Atheistic means you don't believe, when you yourself are saying you cannot prove they don't exist but are happy not to spend your life worrying about the tooth fairy or any diety. So surely you really mean you are as agnostic.

This has been done to death multiple times before - Dawkin's 7 level scale sums it up pretty well. You are basically saying anyone between 2 and 5 are technically agnostic and 1 are theists and 7 are atheists. I agree with Dawkins that this is over strict and prefer his interpretation being 1 is a pure theist, 2 a defacto theist, 3 an theist leaning agnostic, 4 a pure agnostic, 5 a atheist leaning agnostic, 6 a defacto atheist and 7 a pure athiest. Dawkins describes himself as 6.5 - not far away from where I'd put myself, though 6 is fine by me!

 

An important point to note that this scale is for theism - an intervening God with a capital letter. Dawkins spends quite a lot of time making this clear - he is talking about a God with attributes (the omni's or whatever) which nudges along creation - ie a God most people would recognise as a God. He says a lot less about deism or a daoist potentiality or whatever.

 

A lot of theologians criticize him for this - and some Bishops too - Dawkins, I believe, doesn't care too much about the theologians, but correctly makes the point that if that is what the Bishops believe in, then they are being disengenuous, as it isn't the God they preach about to their congregations.

[Albert Tatlock]

Atheistic means you don't believe, when you yourself are saying you cannot prove they don't exist but are happy not to spend your life worrying about the tooth fairy or any diety. So surely you really mean you are as agnostic.

This has been done to death multiple times before - Dawkin's 7 level scale sums it up pretty well. You are basically saying anyone between 2 and 5 are technically agnostic and 1 are theists and 7 are atheists. I agree with Dawkins that this is over strict and prefer his interpretation being 1 is a pure theist, 2 a defacto theist, 3 an theist leaning agnostic, 4 a pure agnostic, 5 a atheist leaning agnostic, 6 a defacto atheist and 7 a pure athiest. Dawkins describes himself as 6.5 - not far away from where I'd put myself, though 6 is fine by me!

 

An important point to note that this scale is for theism - an intervening God with a capital letter. Dawkins spends quite a lot of time making this clear - he is talking about a God with attributes (the omni's or whatever) which nudges along creation - ie a God most people would recognise as a God. He says a lot less about deism or a daoist potentiality or whatever.

 

A lot of theologians criticize him for this - and some Bishops too - Dawkins, I believe, doesn't care too much about the theologians, but correctly makes the point that if that is what the Bishops believe in, then they are being disengenuous, as it isn't the God they preach about to their congregations.

Cobblers. I go by the dictionary, because the dictionary defines the words, not Dawkins. Whoever heard of a '6.5 Settee' or a '4.3 Mountain'? It's settee or mountain - end of.

 

.

[Vulgarian]

An important point to note that this scale is for theism - an intervening God with a capital letter. Dawkins spends quite a lot of time making this clear - he is talking about a God with attributes (the omni's or whatever) which nudges along creation - ie a God most people would recognise as a God. He says a lot less about deism or a daoist potentiality or whatever.

 

Yeah, i wanted to mention that it is important that we all know what we are arguing about when we talk about 'god' because there are obviously lots of different views on what its nature might be. I am really talking about god in a very vague sense, as a concept of a supernatural entity of some sort, without relying on any definition or characteristics of any particlar conception. Given the multitude of different conceptions of what god is, i think this very basic definition (really lacking in any definition) is the best for general discussion on existence.

 

I think LDV want to draw the various less credible theistic definitions into the argument to support his idea that god does not exist in any form.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In the same way as I would respond to tales of fairies, monsters, and other supernatural beings. If anything, however, I have far stronger ground to claim to know that God does not exist when it comes to religious beliefs as opposed to simply whether some non-descript God exists.

 

Prove you have stronger ground.

Again, I am not referring to absolute knowledge (which may be an impossibility anyway). A non-descript God who simply exists and one we have not assigned any attributes for could be anything.

 

I am just saying that I know such beliefs are made-up of bullshit, just as I would say I know that the Royal Family aren't actually a bunch a aliens from the planet Mercury.

 

But in terms of the Christian or Muslim God, I can look at where the belief originates, how the belief has spread, what the characteristics are of this God, and the fact that nobody can claim it exists, I can say I know it to be rubbish.

 

You will find that you are simply arguing about degrees of uncertainty, all down to your perception. This still firmly places you as an agnostic - whichever word you might choose to prefix it.

 

If people want to spend their lives arguing about degrees of uncertainty, it is a complete waste of time. You can read as many bibles and other religious works as you wish, and as many physics books as you wish - but you'll always be chasing your tail about degrees of uncertainty, and only years later finally realise that the human mind has very fundamental limits to perceiving existance, whether you be a mathematician, quantum physicist, or a vicar.

Oh, but I am an agnostic. But I don't refer to myself as one in debates such as this as it doesn't say much. I don't know, but going around in this debate saying "I don't know" or "You can't know" isn't going to be of use in this debate.

 

The real problem for us agnostics is persuading people of that, and the control of society sought by religious fanatics forcibly placing those views within society, and the blind 'there is no god' from some atheists. In that sense agnosticism fits perfectly the definition of secular.

Maybe there are some atheists who actually believe there can be absolutely no chance that a God exists. I am ALMOST certain that one doesn't exist. In the same way I am ALMOST certain that my family are not aliens, for example.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Atheistic means you don't believe, when you yourself are saying you cannot prove they don't exist but are happy not to spend your life worrying about the tooth fairy or any diety. So surely you really mean you are as agnostic.

No, if Chinahand was just agnosticism he'd shrug his shoulders if asked about the tooth-fairy and say "I don't know" and "We can never really know". But given the lack of evidence and recognition of the origins of the story and that they don't make any sense he can say as an a-toothfairyist- "I don't believe and cannot come to believe it because of...".

 

But as with God, the issue of existence is crucial. Does the tooth-fairy or God manifest in reality. Well given explanations outside of the Bible and feedback from children over the years the answer would be 'no'. We can't prove without a doubt that the tooth fairy exists because they might only appear when we are not looking or someone might argue that they are invisible. The agnostic would say "I don't know" and "We can't KNOW for certain if they exist in our world". But I haven't seen one, nobody I know has, and I don't think anyone through history has judging from any historical claims - so I feel rather certain that I know they don't exist. I cannot absolutely know for ABSOLUTE certain.

[Albert Tatlock]

Maybe there are some atheists who actually believe there can be absolutely no chance that a God exists.

That's my point, ALL Atheists believe that, because by dictionary definition, they can't be atheists otherwise - if they have any doubts they are simply agnostic.

 

Atheist \A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god:

cf. F. ath['e]iste.]

1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or

supreme intelligent Being.

 

2. A godless person. [Obs.]

 

Agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, n.

One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any

knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism,

neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal

Deity, a future life, etc.

 

People like the words 'atheist' and 'partial atheist' IMO because it seems to be some anti-religious badge they can wear. This is Dawkins crusade. Whilst I support Dawkins in his quest to educate people and get them to think more, especially about religious memes and the stupidity of religion on their lives etc. the word atheist is being abused here. Degrees of uncertainty lay only in agnosticism - and not atheism which is clearly defined in the English language.

[Chinahand]

Cobblers. I go by the dictionary, because the dictionary defines the words, not Dawkins. Whoever heard of a '6.5 Settee' or a '4.3 Mountain'? It's settee or mountain - end of.

 

.

If you think the learned output of an evolved neural network can be squeezed into a dictionary definition you must have a very strange conception of complexity.

 

Spot the Settees (click the picture to follow the link):

 

 

 

 

Try and find a single definition to encompass all these uses of the word - it is basically impossible.

 

Albert, I don't know why you are insisting that atheist means someone who is certain there is no God - the definition you quote says disbelieves or denies - you are also playing word games just as you accuse Dawkins of doing. I simply feel that what Dawkins has done is perfectly reasonable - people do have shades of belief and forcing them into a single restrictive definition is pointless.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

That's right. Just the same as we do not know for CERTAIN if we are all actually part of a computer game controlled by a supernatural caterpillar. Or that fairies and leprecahauns are real.

 

The problem with your idea is that is assumes that human knowledge is omniscient, that we know enough about the universe to rule out the involvement of an intelligent creator. We think we're quite clever, having split open atoms and found the particles that they're made from, and them split them up aswell, we might think we've got almost to the bottom if it all. Maybe we have. But then maybe not. Maybe we have just broken the surface of an abyss which we might never be able to fathom.

 

Your position is of the same arrogant belief that our knowledge of the universe is infallible and approaching absoluteness that has been around for millenia. People used to look to the horizon and think that if they went beyond it they would fall off the edge of the world because that was the accepted theory at the time. Now we are looking to the edge of the universe, and to the particles that make it up, and saying there is nothing beyond it. It is a common human arrogance in epistomology to think we know everything.

Erm no...I haven't made any claims that humans can absolutely know anything. There are different uses and meanings of the word 'know'. And I don't think that human knowledge is omniscient either.

 

I am not ruling out the idea of creator being in the sense of saying that he cannot exist or have existed, without a doubt. I have to ask why he is even considered in the first place. What makes us even consider that there is this supernatural creator being? It is a possibililty.

 

Though it has be stated, that though this is possibility, it is arguably one that is only broached because we already have a long history 'making up' the idea of a supreme being and saying "We don't know why that happened, maybe (or surely) something powerful and clever did it". When there is actually nothing to really make indicate that this is possibility worthy of dwelling on. Why would I have the view that because we do not have scientifically proof of matters relating to creation that a God becomes such a distinct possibility? Why not a lowly immortal sheep who is actually quite stupid and came into existence the same time as you, Vulgarian, but has inadvertently create an illusion of reality and that you are really from another planet?

 

Yeah, i was really referring to a very general idea of god, not necessarily even of a creator, but of some sort of intelligence that has, or had, influence over the universe, and not to the god of any particular belief system. What are your ideas on that?

It might have existed or exists. Nothing to indicate that this is possibility. But it could be.

 

Edit. About the person with their magic cat. That's a rubbish analogy. We know the cat exists (presumably this person actually owns one) and we can make certain observations about it. From what we know about cats we can say that it is unlikely to be magical, but in any case we can study it to see if exhibits any magical propensities.

It might not be a brilliant analogy. But how do you know that the cat is unwilling to display its magical properties when it is studied? How do know that it doesn't replicate a copy of itself and turn itself invisible? We just don't know for certain. And we haven't come across other magical cats before. But I don't believe it and claim to know that it is rubbish for the reasons that you state.

 

With the cat, the burden of proof is on the owner who claims it has magic powers because that claim goes against what we know from observation about cats. To prove or disprove the existence of god, you need some sort of observable evidence, of which there is none, so the onus is no more on one party than another to prove their theory.

Wait a sec, are we talking about JUST the existence of some intelligent supernatural being or are we talking about Gods in religion? The burden of proof is certainly on the latter because they attribute qualities to that God. The claim to absolutely know. Yes, people can believe in just some intelligent being (without reference to it even being a creator being). But that would be rather bizarre - what indicates that this a likelihood or something worthy of considered and then belief in?

 

What both parties are trying to do is argue from ignorance in their total lack of evidence - a logical fallacy. One is arguing from personal conviction while the other is arguing from personal incredulity. They both consider that the lack of evidence to prove the other's theory is proof of their own, which it is not. Agnostics recognise this logical fallacy of attempting to argue from ignorance, so their is the logical position not the atheists'.

I think you a mixing up belief in God in religions such as Islam and the possbility of the existence of some intelligent supernatural being. It would make it far simpler to just define what we are talking about.

 

The agnostic position is logical. But the claim to be 'without belief' in respect of Christianity, Islam, or an intelligent being is entirely logical as well.

 

An important point to note that this scale is for theism - an intervening God with a capital letter. Dawkins spends quite a lot of time making this clear - he is talking about a God with attributes (the omni's or whatever) which nudges along creation - ie a God most people would recognise as a God. He says a lot less about deism or a daoist potentiality or whatever.

What do you mean by deism? Deism is belief in a creator God that has no input into the workings of the universe anymore. That is what I understand of it.

 

I think it is wise to keep to attacking theism given that it is so obviously a pile of rubbish - Adam and Eve, Allah, stories of Jesus, etc.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Maybe there are some atheists who actually believe there can be absolutely no chance that a God exists.

That's my point, ALL Atheists believe that, because by dictionary definition, they can't be atheists otherwise - if they have any doubts they are simply agnostic.

 

People like the words 'atheist' and 'partial atheist' IMO because it seems to be some anti-religious badge they can wear. This is Dawkins crusade. Whilst I support Dawkins in his quest to educate people and get them to think more, especially about religious memes and the stupidity of religion on their lives etc. the word atheist is being abused here. Degrees of uncertainty lay only in agnosticism - and not atheism which is clearly defined in the English language.

I think you ought to look into the terms more closely and the context in which they are used.

 

I am atheist because I do not believe. But I am also an agnostic because I don't know for certain. That's all there is to it. You can be an agnostic atheist. Or an agnostic theist (even if that isn't that logical). And you can be gnostic theist (as almost all religious believers are).

 

But if we are talking about whether religion is bullshit (i.e. the scriptures, the stories in Christianity, the truth of what happened all those years ago) then I say I am an atheist. I don't believe it...and then I explain why. The agnostic just seems to be cluelessly shrugging his shoulders and muttering "I don't know, who can know for certain?" My atheism is more pertinent to the matter of debate than my agnosticism. But in criticising religious belief I do have unpick the religious gnosticism that religious person have. They claim to KNOW for certain. However, where things are so unlikely and so clearly the product of human design, where people have made-up such beliefs - then we can use the term 'know' in the same manner as we use it in everyday language. The absolute Knowing is a different matter.

 

I wonder whether you are getting confused with the word 'know' and how it is used. The way Dawkins would say he knows or claims that something doesn't exist, is not the same as the absolute knowledge that agnosticism rests on.

 

Did you make 'partial atheist' up? It might be the case that you have spoken to people who really don't know much about what these terms mean. But partial atheist just sounds so wishy-washy and probably an attempt by a stupid person to sound cleverl.

[Lao]

i cant believe that you waited until i had gone away for the weekend to resurrect this thread.

 

*walks off in a huff*

[Chinahand]

When people complain about Richard Dawkins' attitude being too pugnacious they clearly haven't read enough PZ Myers.