patrick.net

How about Thomas Jefferson? Didn't he edit the bible to remove supernatural elements? Here's a quote of his: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" Letter to von Humboldt, 1813

Or how about this one: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

I believe you guys are so fond of saying how great the American Experiment is...

I don't think Carl Sagan was an atheist either.

""An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - A quote by Carl Sagan.

Einstein was more of an agnostic too, believed in Spinoza's philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

Atheism purports to be the opposite of modern religion, but a very arrogant one at that. It is almost like a religion of "no religions", LOL.

Agnosticism is atheism for pussies. Agnostics and monotheists disbelieve in thousands of gods including Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Cipactli, Pinga, Tepeyollotl, to just name a few.

If you can say that none of these gods exist, why not also include Yahweh, Alla, and "god the father", who are all basically the same deity anyway? The only reason is social pressure. Because some people believe in this deity, you have to pretend there's a possibility that it exists. The only reason you don't have to pretend that Pinga might exist is that the ancestors of Christians massacred all the Native Americans and killed their religion.

As such, I find agnosticism to be disingenuous. Agnostics are only "uncertain" about currently popular gods. And if you discount those gods, like you do all others, then you can honestly say that no god in human history is feasible. And if you make that conclusion, then why would you think that there could be some god that "we just haven't discovered yet"?

Everyone is an atheist to almost every god ever prayed to. Those who call themselves atheists just take it one god further. When you understand why you reject all gods but yours, you'll understand why I reject your god.

Dan8267 says

Agnosticism is atheism for pussies.

This is the arrogance I'm talking about :)

Dan8267 says

gnostics and monotheists disbelieve in thousands of gods including Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Cipactli, Pinga, Tepeyollotl, to just name a few.

That's right. What is your definition of God? If God is some kind of a personal God, agnostics don't believe in that. If God is the matter and energy that pervades all the universe, then yeah I'm an agnostic -- because I believe that is all there is.

Dan8267 says

The only reason is social pressure. Because some people believe in this deity, you have to pretend there's a possibility that it exists.

Nope, I don't pretend any deity exists. There is no proof.

Dan8267 says

As such, I find agnosticism to be disingenuous.

No, it is actually a careful, well-thought out reasoning of the definition of God. Since God is an often abused word, we really would have to agree on the definition of God before we venture to claim there is no God.

Dan8267 says

Those who call themselves atheists just take it one god further.

No. Atheists ferociously defend there is no God to the point of making themselves look like an arrogant a**.

Dan8267 says

Agnosticism is atheism for pussies.

Yep. It's a polite way of avoiding having to take an unpopular stand.

If you were to ask the same Agnostics if there were Ghosts or Bigfoot, they'd say "No" regardless of how many grainy 8mm tapes or funny plaster cast footprints you showed them. At least the bigfoot people and ghosts have pictures, there isn't one piece of physical evidence for the existence of any deity, including ones popular in the West that they so carefully "Don't know" about the existence of.

Nobody says "Oh, Al, how do you know bigfoot doesn't exist. The Northwest is very large and we don't have cameras covering every part of it. Bigfoot *could* exist. And it's an extreme position, to believe that bigfoot doesn't exist too strongly. It comes off as snooty."

If religious people can be strong in their false superstitions, there is nothing wrong with being strong in countering falsehood.

uomo_senza_nome says

If God is the matter and energy that pervades all the universe, then yeah I'm an agnostic -- because I believe that is all there is.

With respect, Uomo, matter and energy are physical substances and are the only things the universe is composed of, that makes you an atheist and a materialist.

Respecting and standing in awe of it all without belief in mystical underpinnings is perfectly compatible with atheism.

uomo_senza_nome says

No. Atheists ferociously defend there is no God to the point of making themselves look like an arrogant a**.

Disagree. We're just being good Jewish mothers and calling Garbage Garbage, without worrying about sparing somebody's feelings.

The difference between atheism and skepticism in bigfoot is that the latter is socially acceptable, but the former isn't. In many parts of the world, say Russia or Japan or Germany or Sweden, it's perfectly fine to say you're an atheist and give reasons why in most situations where religion is being discussed. Only in the Anglo-Saxon world does society get all upset over it.

thunderlips11 says

We're just being good Jewish mothers and calling Garbage Garbage, without worrying about sparing somebody's feelings.

thunderlips11 says

matter and energy are physical substances and are the only things the universe is composed of, that makes you an atheist and a materialist.

Respecting and standing in awe of it all without belief in mystical underpinnings is perfectly compatible with atheism.

I agree with most of what you say above, but to understand my position more clearly without attaching any labels, see this:

http://greatbong.net/2011/07/24/the-question-of-suffering/

I am an agnostic. That is I do not deny God’s existence nor do I doubt it. I simply believe it to be an unknowable question. As an aside, I am not an atheist because I find atheism to be dogmatic in its anti-dogmatism, because I have yet to encounter conclusive proof that God does not exist (I believe that a proof or a counter-argument can never be found).

Notice the difference? I hope you do.

In either case, as the Genius puts it:

"I don't get all choked up by yellow ribbons or flags; I consider them symbols and I leave symbols for the symbol-minded".

I do find atheism to be dogmatic. Look at Dan's videos; there's a lot of symbolism around atheists as well, as if they have proved that God doesn't exist.

This is what I think about God's existence:

It is “Observation is by definition impossible because quantity is undefined.” Like division by zero. Experiments to disprove God have yet to be conducted because such experiments cannot be devised.

uomo_senza_nome says

If God is the matter and energy that pervades all the universe

Throughout history, people have built temples and prayed to the matter and energy that pervades all the universe. They have recited creeds such as

I believe in matter and energy, pervasive throughout the universe:
And in anti-matter, born of energy like matter, but with opposite electric polarity.
Which was conceived by the big bang and supernova eruptions
Combined into molecules under the electromagnetic force; was cooled, condensed, and transformed into solid; it self-descended into spheres of lowest gravitational potential.
The third millionth year, it began performing nucleosynthesis again
Forming the second generation of stars in heaven, and sits in an elliptical orbit around the central galactic supermassive black hole
From thence a planetary disc emerge and formed satellites around the suns.
I believe in evolution
I believe in the tree of life, the self-organizing assembly of molecules into life
The extinction of 99% of all species that ever existed
The synthesis of ecosystems
And that life cannot be everlasting. Amen.

I thought I put the nail in the coffin of this argument back in this posting when I said

That ain't the god people pray to. That ain't the singular god of monotheism. That ain't the god politicians talk about. That ain't the god preachers pontificate about. That ain't the god that "hates fags". That ain't the god that imposes some arbitrary moral code on humanity. That's the god people resort to when backed into a corner.

So, when backed into a corner, people will try to vague up the concept of god so much that it becomes entirely meaningless and therefore unverifiable and undeniable. Yes, god is something that has some properties that are open to discussion. Can't argue against that. Of course, dog shit meets the that criteria of god, so why not worship that?

Of course, once that person is no longer in the corner, he then goes back to a very specific idea of god, and that god wants you to do very specific things and not do other specific things. That god wants x, y, and z, and if you don't do them, you're bad. What's really fucked up is that many times x is go kill the infidels or invade Iraq.

Any definition of god that is so vague as to be untouchable by discussion is not the god that any religious person worships, prays to, or thinks wants us humans to behave a certain way.

Later in the thread I quoted above, I gave the standard monotheist definition, which covers all the monotheistic religions that ever existed, and then I proved that such a god cannot exist. You can prove some negatives, as I showed in this posting.

uomo_senza_nome says

No. Atheists ferociously defend there is no God to the point of making themselves look like an arrogant a**.

I believe this perception of atheists by the religious has to do with the utter misunderstanding of the intent of atheists by those religious persons.

You see, when someone starts a religion, whether it's L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, or Constantine in the case of Christianity (yeah, he's the asshole most responsible for Christianity's success), it's pretty much always motivated by personal gain in terms of wealth, power, or prestige. However, atheists are not motivated by that. Nor are atheists motivated by some sick desire to piss all over something that makes other people happy. And atheists certainly don't take the very unpopular stance of denying religion and faith because they want to look smarter or be accepted by the crowd. Atheists have to accept a lot of shit for coming out of the closet.

So what does motivate atheists to speak out today? First, a bloody history of death and destruction that permeates every single religion that has ever existed including the ones holding power today. Second, the use of religion by the state to promote agendas of evil including, but not limited to, war and genocide. Third, the use of religion by preachers to justify evils including, but not limited to, slavery, oppression, theft, and beheadings.

Fourth, the threat of faith in causing irrational behavior in people with power. For example, Bush saying "god told me to invade Iraq". That scares the shit out of me because he had his finger on the button and I think he would want to hasten the rapture. Fifth, the ability of this nonsense to get people to vote for someone who has no business having the power of life and death over others. I.e., voting for Bush or Rick Perry.

Sixth, the fact that mysticism has held back science and engineering in western civilization for a thousand years. We'd have a cure for AIDS and every cancer by now if it wasn't for religion. Seventh, the fact that theology has prevented mankind from establishing a better system of morality and social justice than can be extracted from Bronze Age fairytales written by pro-slavery, wife-beating, sheep-shagging illiterates.

Finally, as a rationalist, I want to change our culture from "magic" and "dogma" to rational thought. Questioning things is good. It leads to a better understanding of reality, which in turn, increases our ability to make wise decisions and avoid all the mistakes of the past, mistakes that have far greater consequences due to the larger world population and more advance technology of today.

So, you see, we atheists aren't just being dicks. We have concrete, practical reasons for promoting rationality over mysticism. And if we fail, the chances of our species going extinct through nuclear war or ecological collapse or some other travesty increases dramatically. It is in the best interests of the entire world for the human race to abandon all forms of religion, spirituality/mysticism, and faith and to replace it with rational though and an acceptance of truth regardless of what it is.

Dan,

I like reading your long a** posts :)

You see - I don't dispute most of what you say. I think a strong dose of skepticism and questioning things is very important in today's culture for the betterment of humanity. But I do question the way some atheists approach towards presenting their view - which is not that different from the dogmatism that you see from religion.

What I'm saying is 'God' as a word has been abused way too much. We can't even define God. So how can we really prove something doesn't exist, if we can't even define it?

You can make attempts to prove some negatives, but you cannot make an attempt to disprove God, because we have to answer the first question - what is God?

If God is defined as modern/western religious texts describe it (which is basically God is just this particular human being or some crap like that), no there is no God.

uomo_senza_nome says

It is “Observation is by definition impossible because quantity is undefined.”

Anything that is not provable or disprovable even in principle, does not exist. For anything that exists has an effect and that effect can be observed. Even black holes, the most mysterious, logic defying things in the universe, have a verifiable effect: their gravity. Something, that by it's very physical and mathematical properties cannot be seen, heard, tasted, or touched still has an observable effect. To deny this is to deny the most fundamental law of physics: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And if you deny that, we cannot even meaningfully discuss the universe.

Dan8267 says

Anything that is not provable or disprovable even in principle, does not exist.

Provable / disprovable is a concept limited to the human mind about something we think we know. For example, The physicists at the time of Newton never knew about the concept of space-time. Space-time relativity did not come about until Einstein. The correct thing to say for the physicists back then would be, "we don't know anything about space-time", it is not "space-time as a concept itself doesn't exist". See the difference?

uomo_senza_nome says

which is not that different from the dogmatism that you see from religion.

The difference, of course, is that atheism is based on reasoning and evidence. I can disprove every single god ever proposed by man. I can show how the myths of Egypt and other cultures were plagiarized to write the myths of Christianity.

I could disprove the Egyptian gods, but no theist or agnostic ever cares about that because they already assume that the Egyptian gods are bullshit, although they never say why. I can only conclude that the criteria for whether or not some god might plausibly exist is whether or not that god has a significant number of believers in the present. Of course, the present is rather arbitrary. For 99% of mankind's existence, people didn't believe in the Christian god or monotheism. Just as the monotheistic religion Astrozorian died, eventually Christianity, Judaism, and Islam will also die. Does that mean they are worshiping a false god, too? Or does the god only become false once the last believer dies?

Not only do I disprove every specific god, but when provided with a concrete monotheistic definition of god, I always either disprove any possible god by that definition or show that the definition given is not anything like what people pray to, ask for favors from, and demand other people conform to laws given by.

What else could I possibly do other than to become god myself and decry "There are no gods and being the one and only god, infallible in all ways, you know I'm right when I say there are no gods even me."? Don't tempt me. I'll fucking do this. I'll become god just to disprove my own existence beyond any doubt.

By the way, it's not like I don't want there to be a just god to make everything right. Hell, I want unicorns, too. Unicorns are cool, and I want to pet one and ride him on a rainbow. But just because I want it, doesn't mean it's real. And why should I or you be agnostic about gods while not also being agnostic about unicorns, which are way cooler than gods. It's not like you can ride a god. No, that's always sacrilegious.

Dan8267 says

The difference, of course, is that atheism is based on reasoning and evidence

To a great degree yes. God as defined by the Western Civilization can be thrown out of the park by Atheists. I have no disagreements here. The concept where I disagree is that atheists think that they know the definition of God. They don't, nobody does. I cannot define God. I admit it freely. I don't know is different from 'I know it doesn't exist'.

uomo_senza_nome says

See the difference?

No. Netwon's laws are not only provable/disprovable in principle, but they are also verifiable/contradictable in practice. In fact, it turns out that Newton's laws are a correct limiting case of a more general theory. Einstein's laws did not contradict Newtons, but rather subsumed them.

We can calculate exactly how close Newton's laws approximate Einstien's using a simple equation, and we can precisely observe and measure this difference and compare it to the results predicted by this equation. And we have done just that, and the results matched perfectly. Ever try to fake something on a math exam? You can't.

Most importantly, no one ever said that classical physics or modern physics is unprovable by its very nature. That is what agnostics argue about god. Agnostics don't say, we just haven't made enough observations yet to determine the existence of god. Agnostics say we can't know if there is a god or not. Week agnosticism says we can't know if there is a god until we die, and then only if there is one. Strong agnostics argue that even then we can't know, but how could you determine if the god is real or not even if you're dead. Eternal life, by definition, can never be completely observed.

There's a huge difference between learning new things in science that we never imagined before and arguing that you should be open to a hypothesis because you'll never be able to confirm or contradict the hypothesis.

uomo_senza_nome says

The concept where I disagree is that atheists think that they know the definition of God. They don't, nobody does. I cannot define God. I admit it freely.

The word god is just a word. It ain't special. You can most certainly know the definition of god. It's in the dictionary. When I disproved the monotheist gods, I used the definition that the three major religions use.

Can anyone redefine the word at will. Sure, but that doesn't change any arguments. You can define the word god all you want. As soon as you define it, we can have a meaningful discussion about whether or not that entity exist.

What I can say honestly and meaningfully, is that by every definition for god ever proposed, I can show either that the entity can't exist or that the entity isn't what people mean when they tell you to believe in god.

The fact is, what human beings want in a god, cannot exist. And those artsy fatsy definitions of god used to avoid being cornered, aren't what people base their religious, moral, and political beliefs around.

Now, if you want to define god as anything that has mass. I believe in god. In fact, you and I are gods. But I don't see anyone worshiping us, and I certainly didn't tell Bush to invade Iraq.

Dan8267 says

No. Netwon's laws are not only provable/disprovable in principle, but they are also verifiable/contradictable in practice. In fact, it turns out that Newton's laws are a correct limiting case of a more general theory. Einstein's laws did not contradict Newtons, but rather subsumed them.

Dan - I don't think you got my point. The physicists at the time of Newton, simply did not know about space-time concept. At very high speeds, Newton's laws don't hold true. They hold true for everyday life speeds, but not at very high speeds. What I'm trying to say is we are limited by what we know. There are lots of things humans don't know.

Dan8267 says

There's a huge difference between learning new things in science that we never imagined before and arguing that you should be open to a hypothesis because you'll never be able to confirm or contradict the hypothesis.

Actually my point is -- what is the hypothesis? :)

Atheists assume there is a hyopthesis to disprove and that they have done it. What I'm saying is atheists can easily disprove modern religion's definition of God (let's just say it is unicorns, not really God), but atheists absolutely know for a fact that something that cannot even be defined does not exist .

I think of God as an Undecidable problem. Similar to the Halting problem.

uomo_senza_nome says

What I'm trying to say is we are limited by what we know. There are lots of things humans don't know.

And I would agree with that. However, I do not see any reason why having limited knowledge means we should be open to the bullshit idea of god any more than the bullshit idea of bigfoot. What is so special about god that you have to be omnipotent in order to tell whether or not it's bullshit?

Dan8267 says

What is so special about god that you have to be omnipotent in order to tell whether or not it's bullshit?

I can't even define God. You are assuming God is omnipotent. I think it is an unknowable problem, that's all.

We can easily falsify modern religion, because for the most part - as you argue - it is crap. We cannot falsify something we don't even know.

Dan8267 says

However, I do not see any reason why having limited knowledge means we should be open to the bullshit idea of god any more than the bullshit idea of bigfoot.

I am not saying you should be open to the bullshit idea of God. I am open to the fact that I don't even know what God is. It is an undecidable problem (I cannot tell for sure if the answer is yes or no, because it is impossible).

uomo_senza_nome says

absolutely know for a fact that something that cannot even be defined does not exist

Something that cannot be defined is not some thing at all. Just replace the word god with umghawa. Umghawa is something I can't define, but it might exist. And if it does, you should contribute 10 percent of your earnings to the Church of Umghawa and follow all the laws I write on behalf of umghawa who inspires me. And even if you don't think that it's likely to believe in umghawa, you should do this just to be safe.

I have a strong feeling that umghawa exists and is the way, the truth, and the light. Of course, I can't define what umghawa is or what kinds of properties it has, but that doesn't make it less real. By the way, umghawa doesn't have anything to do with god. It's actually even more important. Umghawa explains why everything even god exists, but you have to take it on faith.

Umghawa likes it when people believe in it. I know that even though I don't know how I know that or even anything about umghawa. I do know that it is a violation of my rights that any property used in service of umghawa is taxed by the state. After all, umghawa is very important to me and I must live a life that umghawa would approve of. Somehow I know exactly what umghawa approves of even though you cannot know anything about umghawa. Evidently, some tribal people 10,000 years ago spoke with umghawa at great length, but for some reason umghawa doesn't do that anymore.

Geeze, I guess speaking with people would offer evidence about umghawa existence. And umghawa seemed ok with that in the Bronze Age, but now he wants everyone to be agnostic about his existence. So evidently umghawa has a mind and can reason, but wait, that implies a certain adherence to the laws of logic and obviously umghawa isn't bound by those. He's outside of logic.

Again, I emphasize that umghawa isn't god. He's a totally different entity. In fact, he's a Buddhist. We know that from some oral history passed down from those Bronze Age people who spoke with him. Of course, Buddhism didn't exist 10,000 years ago, but umghawa is outside of time as well.

Now I'm not asking you to believe in umghawa, but you have to admit that I've made a pretty good case that umghawa might exist. All I ask is that you accept the possibility of umghawa and cover your immortal soul's ass by giving 10% of your income to the Church of Umghawa.

Dan8267 says

Something that cannot be defined is not some thing at all. Just replace the word god with umghawa.

See, here's the problem. You don't see the distinction between something that's unknowable vs. something that is known not to exist. Atheists have this constant urge to keep proving that God doesn't exist. Atheists accept whatever humans have defined as God over the course of history as the right definition and then, they go ahead and disprove it.

I'm saying God is unknowable. It does not mean that I know God doesn't exist .

Dan8267 says

Something that cannot be defined is not some thing at all.

No, not really. From a worm's perspective, the world may as well just be 2-D. That does not mean that the world is always 2-D, it can have more than 3 dimensions also. Just because we don't perceive it (therefore we can't define it), does not mean that shouldn't exist.

It is a logical fallacy to disprove that something doesn't exist, when we don't even know what that thing is.

I don't expect you to fully understand me, which is fine -- because you're staunchly dogmatic about your anti-dogmatism.

Here's the other thing: Dawkins has this spectrum of theistic probability right? He places himself at the probability of 1.00 that God doesn't exist.

It’s a question I do not concern myself with because I believe that the pursuit of it is irrelevant for my life since God, should He exist, will by definition not be in our observational or even our sensory world.

uomo_senza_nome says

we don't perceive it (therefore we can't define it),

Sounds like we're arguing about semantics, but in case that's not so...

We can certainly define some that we cannot perceive. It is believed that our universe has 10 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. But we certainly don't perceive more than three dimensions of space.

Nevertheless, we can and have mathematically defined what those other seven dimensions of space are and how different strings like photons and gravitons behave materially differently along those other dimensions. Furthermore, we've used this understanding to explain why gravity is far weaker than the electromagnetic force.

Perception and definition are not the same thing. Definitions are completely a matter of fiat. So, no, I don't get how you can talk about something that is undefinable even in principle. Undefinable is synonymous with nonsensical.

Now a given person might have a hard time defining an abstract idea, but that does not mean the idea itself is undefinable. That is why I used the phrase "undefinable even in principle".

Dan8267 says

I don't get how you can talk about something that is undefinable even in principle. Undefinable is synonymous with nonsensical.

Not really.

The questions we are both arguing on: What is God? Does God exist?

The questions are the problem.

Your answer to the first question: nonsense
Your answer to the second question: No (without any negation proof, because you don't need any -- as your answer to the first question is nonsense).

You pose the same question to me.

My answer is "undecidable" for both.

I don't consider the problem to be nonsensical, because the problem of the nature of God has existed since humans had the ability to self-reflect. Sure modern religions have really screwed up on this and caused a lot of havoc. But humans have existed much longer than the existence of modern religions and they have wondered about the nature of God, way back then as well.

It's not just me, there are lot of eminent scientists that couldn't positively conclude that God as a concept is nonsense - Einstein for one.

I can't decide whether God exists or not, because it is impossible.

There are lots of problems in computing and mathematical logic, where the solution is undecidable.

Here's a list of undecidable problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems

Halting problem is quite famous. Turing proved that no algorithm can ever exist that can solve the halting problem. So the problem is undecidable, not that the problem doesn't exist .

I don't think we're arguing on semantics. My issue is that I haven't concluded the concept of God to be totally nonsense :).

uomo_senza_nome says

Here's a list of undecidable problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems

Have I not made it clear in all my postings that Wikipedia carries no weight with me? It's like poison, best to avoid all together.

uomo_senza_nome says

Turing proved that no algorithm can ever exist that can solve the halting problem. So the problem is undecidable, not that the problem doesn't exist .

Remember, you're talking to someone who studied Turing and Gödel in detailed in graduate school. I assure you that the Halting problem and the God problem have nothing to do with each other and the concept of computability and def inability are not the same thing by a long shot. And you don't have to distinguish between first and second order infinities to understand that.

That said, if you want to know what Turing's thoughts about god, it's this. A person is his mind, not his body. The mind reduces to the brain. The brain is a physical structure that ceases to function after death. Therefore, there is no god or afterlife, and when you die you simply cease to exist. That's Turing's spiritual philosophy in a nutshell.

Alan Turing, although raised religious, was a hardcore gay atheist. By the way, I'm a huge Turing fan. He's the number one guy I'd like to meet if I could travel through time. The number two guy would be Democritus and then Carl Sagan, and then Nikola Tesla. And my philosophies are pretty much the same as these guys.

Dan8267 says

Have I not made it clear in all my postings that Wikipedia carries no weight with me? It's like poison, best to avoid all together.

Nope. Are we arguing over an academic paper where I need to give citations or what? :)
This is just a forum, and Wikipedia is good enough to convey the point. You still seem dogmatic to even see my point.

Dan8267 says

A person is his mind, not his body. The mind reduces to the brain. The brain is a physical structure that ceases to function after death. Therefore, there is no god or afterlife, and when you die you simply cease to exist. That's Turing's spiritual philosophy in a nutshell.

What is mind? some abstract concept that gives life to the brain or what? That does not make sense. I would say the person is his connectome. Without the complex neural network, there is no person. The neural network is very much physical, not some abstract concept.

Dan8267 says

Remember, you're talking to someone who studied Turing and Gödel in detailed in graduate school. I assure you that the Halting problem and the God problem have nothing to do with each other and the concept of computability and def inability are not the same thing by a long shot. And you don't have to distinguish between first and second order infinities to understand that.

What I was trying to suggest was: I don't think the concept of God is nonsense, whereas you do. There are many eminent scientists (Carl Sagan, Einstein) who thought it was not a nonsense concept. My inclination is more towards them as opposed to Richard Dawkins.

I view atheism as advocated by Dawkins as dogmatic anti-dogmatism, which is what you portray as well.

uomo_senza_nome says

This is just a forum, and Wikipedia is good enough to convey the point.

I know I'm fighting against accepted culture, but given what I know about Wikipedia, I consider it evil, revisionist history. And since I consider misinformation to be far worse than the lack of information, I will never accept a Wikipedia quote as "good enough to convey a point".

But that's a whole other issue. I've blogged extensively about why Wikipedia is bad, so there's no point in reiterating that. If you're interested in my justification just click here and then use Repaginator, a Firefox plugin, to see all the pages of my comments. From that you can do a text search for Wikipedia.

uomo_senza_nome says

What is mind? some abstract concept that gives life to the brain or what? That does not make sense. I would say the person is his connectome. Without the complex neural network, there is no person. The neural network is very much physical, not some abstract concept.

Mind is software. Brain is hardware. The two are the same in a neural network. A neural network is the industry standard term. "Connectome" is something that guy made up to rhyme with genome, but it means the exact same thing as neural network. So essentially what you just said above is exactly the same as what I said about Turing's philosophy of the mind and soul just using different words.

uomo_senza_nome says

There are many eminent scientists (Carl Sagan, Einstein) who thought it was not a nonsense concept. My inclination is more towards them as opposed to Richard Dawkins.

Carl Sagan was an atheist. At the most liberal interpretation of his quotes, he went through an agnostic phase, but then solidify as an atheist. More likely however, he simply was being as cordial as possible to theists during a time when atheism was taboo like homosexuality and interracial marriages were at the time.

Richard Dawkins isn't more atheistic than Carl Sagan. Dawkins is just more outspoken. Atheists have finally become as outspoken about religion as the religious and that is what causes the backlash in our society. The theists preferred it when the atheists were on in the closet because it turns out that atheists are much better at reasoning and not contradicting themselves. It makes the theists look bad.

But as I stated previously in this thread, we atheists have 8 damn good reasons why we need to stop being silent. But perhaps, Martin Luther King, Jr. said it better when discussing the same issue during the civil rights movement. A time comes when silence is betrayal.

And no, the irony of an atheist quoting a reverend to explain why atheists need to speak up is not lost on me. Nevertheless, the parallels among the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and the atheist rights movement are astonishing.

Dan,

your point on Wikipedia is noted.

Dan8267 says

Mind is software. Brain is hardware

That is too simplistic. Brain is a highly adaptive, complex, extremely fast parallel processing entity. To reduce it to just "hardware" is ridiculous. Brain research is quite nascent, if it was "just hardware", why haven't humans figured out all the mysteries?

Dan8267 says

Carl Sagan was an atheist. At the most liberal interpretation of his quotes, he went through an agnostic phase, but then solidify as an atheist. More likely however, he simply was being as cordial as possible to theists during a time when atheism was taboo like homosexuality and interracial marriages were at the time.

Carl Sagan recognized the dogmatism of atheism very well and he never announced himself to be an atheist. I won't accept your statement purely because Sagan never stated it. Whether your possibility that Sagan was just being cordial has no proof whatsoever, you simply presume it to be so.

Sagan recognizes the danger of "believing" that God doesn't exist as well. He recognized the difficulty of science in proving or disproving God as he stated the only scientific discovery that can positively disprove God is an infinitely old universe. (See his book, the Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark p.278 for proof).

Dan8267 says

The theists preferred it when the atheists were on in the closet because it turns out that atheists are much better at reasoning and not contradicting themselves. It makes the theists look bad.

LOL, I don't have any problem with the outspoken nature of atheists, that is basic freedom of speech. What I do recognize is that atheists take their "no God" theory too far to the point where it is truth. It is not well-established truth by science yet, so I refuse to accept the dogmatic position of atheism. In fact, atheists are as outspoken about their belief in 'no God' as the religious are about their own version of God.

I finally registered so that I could chime in about this topic.

What about people like me that just don't give a shit about religion and/or god at all??? I'll try to give an example of what I mean:

When I fart it smells like roses, and when I crap- out comes 100 dollar bills! A(non)believer will say that I can't, or that those things can't and/or won't happen. But, I've already set the tone and parameters of the topic and now you are in an either/or position in regards to that.
That's why I (don't....or do I)believe in don't-give-a-fuck-ism. I don't have to prove or diprove anything and the big kicker is that I live my life by MY terms and rules, not some that are determined or even predetermined by somebody(a church or religion?)else.
Christopher Hitchens said that ALL theists are also atheists, because there's more than just ONE god. So, for anybody to accept that their god is THE only and true one, they therefore have to deny the existence of all the others. Muslims probably think that catholics or baptists are wrong or just plain full of crap as much as christians think that muslims are full of crap. So which group is right? Both base their assumptions that the others are wrong, but that same criteria must also then apply to their own religion then.

uomo_senza_nome says

Brain is a highly adaptive, complex, extremely fast parallel processing entity. To reduce it to just "hardware" is ridiculous.

You have too low an opinion of hardware. The brain perfectly meets the definition of hardware, mussy hardware, but hardware nonetheless. Instead of thinking that the statement "brain is hardware" somehow diminishes the beauty of the brain, you should recognize that some hardware is truly spectacular. By hardware, I didn't mean it was an Apple product.

There's no reason why hardware can't be "a highly adaptive, complex, extremely fast parallel processing entity".

uomo_senza_nome says

Carl Sagan recognized the dogmatism of atheism very well and he never announced himself to be an atheist.

You know what? It doesn't matter. Why is it that we humans keep trying to say "this guy is on my team and that guy is on yours"? And I'm guilty of doing that as much as everyone else. But it's stupid to try to justify or denounce an idea simply by counting out the well-respected and well-hated historical figures associated with the idea. Let's not play that game.

Whether or not Carl Sagan or any other particular person was a polytheist, monotheist, agnostic, or atheist is irrelevant to the merits of those position, as I'm sure we both agree. So let's withdraw this issue as it's just a distraction anyway.

uomo_senza_nome says

What I do recognize is that atheists take their "no God" theory too far to the point where it is truth.

Yeah, because we believe it's the cold, hard truth. We don't consider it to be an opinion, like the Patriots are better than the Mets or some crap like that. We consider it to be the inescapable logical conclusion from all the facts and analysis. And it's a truth whose acceptance has pragmatic and important consequences.

To us atheists, the question of whether any gods exist is as settled as the question of whether the Lock Ness Monster or Bigfoot or unicorns exist. However, not too many wars are started because of the Lock Ness Monster, and the bills passed by the House and Senate aren't influence by the unicorn lobby. If they were, I'd totally would be popping a cap in any pro-unicorn argument, despite the fact that I really like unicorns.

Mythology is fine as long as it's acknowledged as fiction. But when laws are passed based on it, things start going real bad.

uomo_senza_nome says

What I do recognize is that atheists take their "no God" theory too far to the point where it is truth. It is not well-established truth by science yet

As the "God Hypothesis" does not make any testable predictions by design, it is, by definition, not a scientific issue. Science only addresses testable ideas. Science would no more address the question of god's existence than it would in settle the debate: Kirk vs. Picard, Better Captain? And you'd get about as rational a discussion on theology as you would in the StarTrek debate.

upisdown says

What about people like me that just don't give a shit about religion and/or god at all???

You and I are still affected by the laws passed by various religious lobbyists as well as the brain-dead politicians like Bush who are elected, at least in part, due to religion. That's a very material effect on your day to day life. It affects the economy, financial reform, whether or not you have a job, whether or not we go to war, whether or not the draft is reinstituted, what civil rights you have, what protection against criminal cops you have, environmental protection, and whether or not some idiot hastens Armageddon by launching the nukes. Whether you like it or not, your safety and the quality of your life is greatly affected by the dumbing down of America by religion.

How very true, unfortunately. But, I firmly beleive that politicians use religion and their supposed participation of any, mainly for electabiltity reasons. It enhances the size of their audience or voters. They pander to the weak-minded and overall meek people that need and use religion as a crutch, either just to exist or to explain things that they can't/don't understand.

Someday, hopefully in my and your lifetimes, we'll be rid of religion and it's use/justification for various peoples' actions. You make a very good argument but it's also because you have facts and reality behind you too. I usually refrain from the tail-chasing of whether or not god exists or doesn't exist because once you get on that merry-go-round you're stuck there dealing with and trying to make the irrational people on it suddenly become rational, which if they really were to begin with, you wouldn't have to try and convince them.
Ever heard.......he works in mysterious ways? If and when we no longer hear that phrase in explanation of some horrific event not only will our lives be a better, but the world as a whole will be too.

upisdown says

Ever heard.......he works in mysterious ways? If and when we no longer hear that phrase in explanation of some horrific event not only will our lives be a better, but the world as a whole will be too.

+1.

Tsunamis are caused by geological activity, not some Canaanite sky god.

Cloud says

Who is this prancing Oxford don again and what has he done other than demonstrate he can verbally assault a curious female college student?

He provides society the same type of service Aristotle did. A brief moment of independent thought meant to break up the monotony of of the herd following their religious leaders blindly to their slaughter.

Something tells me that girl doesn't need you as her knight in shining armor. If you're going to go to the big game, you have to be prepared to play, and if you leave with your tail between your legs, you can't hope that our tendency toward chivalry will be a weapon you can now wield against your opponent, having already been failed by wit and reason. Women are equal now, remember? They don't need you to rescue them if they happen to be on the losing end of an intellectual discussion. Their breasts don't give them permission to be stupid or ignorant anymore, so instead of flying to her defense because she's a woman, why don't you defend her arguments, or at least oppose his, and forget the gender war bullshit.

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't think Carl Sagan was an atheist either.

""An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - A quote by Carl Sagan.

As an atheist, I totally disagree with Sagan on that point. I don't think it's stupid to suggest something doesn't exist, when it obviously exists only in the unproven claims of the zealots making the claims.

uomo_senza_nome says

What I'm saying is 'God' as a word has been abused way too much. We can't even define God. So how can we really prove something doesn't exist, if we can't even define it?

you're arguing semantics. You know when Dan uses the term God, he'stalking about a the islamic-judeo-christian god. You cant redefine the term he's using to base his arguments on, and then try to persuade him his arguments are wrong. What you're talking about is simply a different discussion than the one Dan is having at the moment.

uomo_senza_nome says

The questions are the problem.

no, dear uomo, the problem is semantics. You're using the term god in such an abstract way it could include aliens from other planets that at one time, interacted with us (which inspired the bible) but have decided we're so dangerous they shouldn't meddle in what happens here, choosing to observe us instead.

Dan's comments are in direct response to the islamic-judeo-christian god of the bible, torah, and koran, which is not an abstract concept of what god potentially might be if it existed somewhere. It's a very specific claim as to what god is, what it is in relation to us, and exactly how we're supposed to respond to that information.

Love your neighbor, unless he is a fag, in which case, murder him, is a pretty specific claim of dogma.

If you suggested Santa Clause was about to pay us all a visit, you would have the burden to prove that claim. I don't have the burden to disprove and unproven claim. if only their superstitious claims were as harmless as santa claus.

uomo_senza_nome says

Brain research is quite nascent, if it was "just hardware", why haven't humans figured out all the mysteries?

We will, we've just spent too much of our history distracted by religion, and have only recently gotten back on track to learning to understand it.

ReasonNotFaith says

You cant redefine the term he's using to base his arguments on, and then try to persuade him his arguments are wrong.

Actually you're spot on. I agree.

ReasonNotFaith says

You're using the term god in such an abstract way

Yes I am using it in an abstract way. If Dan was purely talking just about islamic-judeo-christian (some kind of personal) God, then I am as atheistic as he is.

Dan8267 says

And it's a truth whose acceptance has pragmatic and important consequences.

You're right. In this day and age, religion is frightening and dangerous. Acceptance that there is no heavenly Father has pragmatic consequences which is important.

The Christian/Jewish/Islamic god is what I call the standard monotheist god (SMG). It incorporates three properties: it is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Now, the SMG occurs in other religions besides Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but it is essentially the same in all monotheistic religions. So yes, that is the god I've disproved.

However, as a generalization of SMG, we can disprove any god that contradicts the known laws of physics or contradicts itself. Naturally, we can admit that there are physics which makes things possible that we don't yet understand, so we don't know everything that is possible. But we do understand enough about physics and the other sciences to know that reindeer can't fly. So we can disprove any god that does something ridiculous like eluding all attempts to detect him because he leaves no effect. Furthermore, his miracles should be repeatable.

In fact any god that has no effect on the universe is hardly worthy of the title god. I am willing to entertain ideas for gods that don't strictly meet the SMG definition as long as those gods are actually believed in by the masses.

But the masses pretty much just believe in some powerful sky daddy god that thinks like a human and grants us eternal life. Those kinds of gods are disprovable. The best the sky daddy can do is make a backup copy of you at the moment of death and give that copy eternal life. But then again, he could also then make 1 million copies of you, none of them would be you though.

I haven't disproven all possible polytheistic gods. But no one is ever interested in disproving them anyway. Besides, a polytheistic god is just some powerful being. By most criteria, Joe the Plumber meets the criteria for godhood in those religions. If immortality is a requirement for godhood, I believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics pretty much takes care of those gods as well since eventually the universe itself dies.

The only thing I cannot disprove is such a vague notion of god that it is not definable. But in sincerity, no one worships or prays to such an entity. And such entities are not used as justifications for strict and specific moral codes. So why call such ambiguous entities gods when they are not treated as such by anyone?

I've observed that when believers find themselves backed into a corner by contradictions, they revert to their "emergency definition" of god that is too vague to make any statements about. Of course, once released back into the wild, the believers will go right back to their fire-and-brimstone, white guy with a beard on a cloud god who has a very specific set of do's and don'ts. As such, I cannot find such momentary vagueness to be sincere. Your definition of god should not change when you get cornered by a contradiction.

Taaa-daaaaaaa! Enter the default position and it's obligatory and intentionally vague non-answer, answer:

He works in mysterious ways

Cloud says

in this day and age religion is frightening and dangerous?

I think this should be obvious, given we wage wars in the name of religion.

Do you know how many innocent iraqi/afghan civiilans, children are dead because of wars fought under ideological pretext but the actual intent being confiscation of natural resources?

Cloud says

Shall we start with AIDS or starvation?

What does this have anything to do with religion? AIDS is a disease and starvation is a human condition. I don't know how religion helps in either case. Faith in the invisible man is not going to solve any problem.

Dan8267 says

I believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics pretty much takes care of those gods as well since eventually the universe itself dies.

Why does the universe die Dan? I thought law of conservation of energy meant that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. Entropy increase only makes the energy more diffuse, as opposed to concentrated. It does not in anyway destroy energy.

uomo_senza_nome says

Faith is not going to solve any problem.

I humbly disagree. Unless you can prove that mental conditioning does not solve problems.

Cloud says

Danny, let's ask Dawkin's big player if love is a sexual chemical human response why is it that a human being, like a firefigher or a police office will give their live for another.

Right, Russian or Chinese or French or Norwegian firefighters and cops never put their lives on the line.

And it doesn't make sense that social animals like humans have wiring for empathy for others. I mean, what kind of advantage to the survival of the species would Altruism bring?

Cloud says

Danny you gonna deny love exists? Where is love? Show me love? Oh yeah, the big player will help you call it chemicals as if this is an answer. Like putting leaches on people back in the day.

"Not a religion, just a Personal Relationship With Jesus" types/Evangelicals and Baptists have the highest divorce rates in the USA.

Or, if you prefer, NJ and NY are the top two "least divorce" states in the Union. Highest in the South and Alaska, where one also finds the largest rates of church attendance, religious belief, and skepticism of evolution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/new-jersey-has-the-lowest-divorce-rate-in-america_n_985583.html

Bap33 says

Unless you can prove that mental conditioning does not solve problems.

I meant faith in the invisible man.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ClV7B2xofVk

I believe in the vastness of the universe, I believe in family, friends, I believe we are all made of the same stuff ~ Genius.

uomo_senza_nome says

I thought law of conservation of energy meant that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. Entropy increase only makes the energy more diffuse, as opposed to concentrated.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics means that the amount of "usable" energy, i.e, energy that can be used to perform work including the functions of life, decreases even though the total amount of energy in the closed system is a constant. That is why it is impossible to create a perpetual motion machine.

Eventually, since the universe will not be able to support life. Star formation will stop. Black holes will evaporate. And there will be no usable energy left to support life. All particles will eventually decay to their most stable parts, even protons. And all that will be left is a ever thinning soup of low-frequency electromagnetic waves. This will take trillions upon trillions of years though.

well, you have now taken it upon yourself to qualify and quantify "faith". It seems odd that faith in science bothers you not, while faith in God bothers you much. Why is the two faiths not the same to you?

It has been my personal life experience that those who most dislike God are those who feel they are not living the life God has told mankind to live. Their next position is to point out how those who do beleive in God are not perfect and commit all crimes known to mankind. I submit that God made it very clear - all mankind falls short of God's metering stick - so stop looking for an "AHHH HA!!". We all have an ahh-ha. No need to look.

I know there is God. Not a doubt in my mind. And, with enough time and guidence, science might prove God enough for analytical minds to embrace God too. Right? Isn't that a possible outcome?

God made you who you are .... he just gave you free choice ... so he understands that you want to see the chicken or the egg before you take a stand on which came first. By the way, it was the chicken that came first.

We all exersize faith when we ponder anything beyond the present, beyond the horizon, beyond the next breath.