ViennaSausage: You can believe whatever you want or not. I personally have no beliefs whatsoever. Here appears a link to the concept of "no beliefs" http://nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm. However, a belief is based on faith not on reason. The original poster suggested that atheism is not rational and that by default, belief in a higher power is the rational conclusion. However, beliefs in general are not rational.
You can believe whatever you want or not. I personally have no beliefs whatsoever. Here appears a link to the concept of "no beliefs" http://nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm. However, a belief is based on faith not on reason. The original poster suggested that atheism is not rational and that by default, belief in a higher power is the rational conclusion. However, beliefs in general are not rational.
Hah! Stuff and nonsense! Do you believe that other humans are actually conscious? What proof do you have?
You act on beliefs all the time. You write on this forum as if what you say can be experienced and understood by your readers. We all act on beliefs. All the time. We all operate on a massive set of assumptions without which all action would be pointless. We cannot even establish that we will exist a millisecond from now, yet we act with intent for the future. No beliefs? What pretentious nonsense!
maxpot46: Why should he, when society is comprised of teleological humans and the universe is comprised of deterministic atoms?
Why should he, when society is comprised of teleological humans and the universe is comprised of deterministic atoms?
Thank GOD! Geez, finally someone who sees the difference. Maybe we really should all be meatarians.
maxpot46: Ego:he's not applying the same standard to "society" that he does to "the universe" Why should he, when society is comprised of teleological humans and the universe is comprised of deterministic atoms?
Ego:he's not applying the same standard to "society" that he does to "the universe"
Humans are likewise composed of deterministic atoms and exist within the universe. We can't help that fact, since we're composed of matter just like everything else. It would follow that any theory about the physical or metaphysical nature of the universe would have some implications about humans as well, since humans cannot help but be affected by it and they are a product of it. In some ways they can't be separated and the common separation between the human and the natural is fallacious since everything is natural in a certain sense.
JCFolsom:You act on beliefs all the time.
I do not act on beliefs, I act on thinking.
JCFolsom:We all act on beliefs...
Generalization fallacy.
JCFolsom:No beliefs? What pretentious nonsense!
Ad hominem fallacy. Although tone appears challenging to transmit via the text on the internet, I meant no arrogant or pretentiousness in my words.
Brainpolice: Humans are likewise composed of deterministic atoms and exist within the universe. We can't help that fact, since we're composed of matter just like everything else. It would follow that any theory about the physical or metaphysical nature of the universe would have some implications about humans as well, since humans cannot help but be affected by it and they are a product of it. In some ways they can't be separated.
Humans are likewise composed of deterministic atoms and exist within the universe. We can't help that fact, since we're composed of matter just like everything else. It would follow that any theory about the physical or metaphysical nature of the universe would have some implications about humans as well, since humans cannot help but be affected by it and they are a product of it. In some ways they can't be separated.
Human bodies are composed of deterministic atoms. Human minds are not, and it is our minds, dareIsay our souls, which make us human, not these masses of mud. As Yoda said, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." Humans act, unconscious beings only react.
If you truly believe that there is nothing more to us than deterministic atoms, there is no point in your desire to preserve liberty or even life itself. Life literally has no more significance than any other process, the burning of grass, the growth of a crystal, under such a conception. Your values become arbitrary and relative, with no basis to prefer them over any other. Determinism means that we cannot take away choice, because there was no choice to begin with.
ViennaSausage: JCFolsom:You act on beliefs all the time. I do not act on beliefs, I act on thinking. JCFolsom:We all act on beliefs... Generalization fallacy. JCFolsom:No beliefs? What pretentious nonsense! Ad hominem fallacy. Although tone appears challenging to transmit via the text on the internet, I meant no arrogant or pretentiousness in my words.
Naming fallacies fallacy. Not actually addressing any of my points fallacy.
The universe as a whole is not a collection of conscious beings but a series of interconnected mechanisms. It is essentially a giant clockwork. Unlike human beings, the paths of planets and stars, the properties of chemicals, and all the other non-living components, so far as we know the vast majority, are deterministic. Spontaneous order does not apply to the universe as it does to societies for the same reason it does not apply to a watch as it does to societies. They are fundamentally different things, and their order made up of fundamentally different units.
Yet human beings and societies exist within the universe and are made up of the exact same deterministic stuff as everything else. Our conciousness does not change the fact that we are bound by the constraints of the laws of the universe. A theory of spontaneous order with respect to human interaction nonetheless is within a broader framework - that is, spontaneous order occurs within the contraints of the natural laws of the universe. It would follow that the very nature of the universe allows for spontaneous order, and hence since we are a part of nature ourselves, nature involves spontaneous order and at least partially is a spontaneous order. Humans are not separate from nature.
Who said anything about fatalism? My personal belief is God put us here to get as individual and in many ways different from God as possible. Not all religion need be fatalistic.
The notion that god "planned" the universe has fatalistic implications. While not all religion need be fatalistic, creationism and intellignt design seems fatalistic to me and I think it reduces us to sock-puppets no less than secular hard determinism does.
JCFolsom:Neither do electrons submit themselves to direct observation.
Yes, I know. Just like DNA cannot be witnessed by the naked eye, but it still exists. The electron has a long history dating back to Michael Faraday in 1838 and credited with discover in 1898 by J.J. Thompson repeatable experiments. Read about it the discover of the electron here: http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/particles/electron/electron.html
We can observe these things only by their effects. Again, if you believe in only the things you can see directly, you ought to be at best agnostic that anyone else has a consciousness.
I am agnostic. Agnosticism is not a belief, but a method. "In matters of the intellect follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration... and do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."-Huxley
I lack knowledge of a god, so I lack a belief. Therefore, I am an atheist.
Your argument only holds if we define God as having some reason to make the world free of suffering or defect.
I thought one attribute of god was that he was omniscience and omnipotent and omnibenelovent. Obviously, there is pain and suffering in the world, so god is not omnibenelevont or perhaps not omnipotent. Which is it?
It may be that God's purpose is better served by a world that appears flawed to us.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
JCFolsom: Brainpolice: Humans are likewise composed of deterministic atoms and exist within the universe. We can't help that fact, since we're composed of matter just like everything else. It would follow that any theory about the physical or metaphysical nature of the universe would have some implications about humans as well, since humans cannot help but be affected by it and they are a product of it. In some ways they can't be separated. Human bodies are composed of deterministic atoms. Human minds are not, and it is our minds, dareIsay our souls, which make us human, not these masses of mud. As Yoda said, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." Humans act, unconscious beings only react. If you truly believe that there is nothing more to us than deterministic atoms, there is no point in your desire to preserve liberty or even life itself. Life literally has no more significance than any other process, the burning of grass, the growth of a crystal, under such a conception. Your values become arbitrary and relative, with no basis to prefer them over any other. Determinism means that we cannot take away choice, because there was no choice to begin with.
I'm not much of a stickler for determinism actually. I've spent a lot of time argueing against hard determinists. But that's because many determinists make the mistake of assuming that causality eliminates willpower altogether and hence their determinism becomes fatalism in practise. Yet at the same time I think that most religious people hold fatalistic views themselves, only for them "god" is the ultimate causal agent. So I'm actually objecting to what I consider to be the hard determinism of the theists. And I'm also rejecting the notion that the universe requires a singular causal agent - a premise which is in fact accepted by most atheists. I don't accept the false dichotomy that says religion = free will and secular = determinist.
Juan: "The tragedy of 9/11 occurred purely out of religious belief
Interesting. It looks as though the site has changed since I have intially read it (1999). With an understanding of libertarianism and Austrian Economics, I can see the point you are trying to make.
JCFolsom:Naming fallacies fallacy. Not actually addressing any of my points fallacy.
That is the point, your arguements in this regard are not backed by logic. To make an analogy, your arguements in this regard are like the fiat USD, backed by nothing.
I thought about that as soon as I hit "Post", but then I realized that difference doesn't really matter.
Deterministic molecules/atoms just follow their own set of rules. Together, they can form patterns and geometric shapes without "knowing" or acting upon anything aside from their own limited deterministic constraints.
For another example, read about flocking. I could write a computer program where individual deterministic "actors" act in seemingly complex ways without any master plan.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
IDigSluts_ky:I lack knowledge of a god, so I lack a belief. Therefore, I am atheist.
Do you also lack a belief in the consciousness of others? If not, what proof do you cite for your belief that they do?
IDigSluts_ky:I thought one attribute of god was that he was omniscience and omnipotent and omnibenelovent. Obviously, there is pain and suffering in the world, so god is not omnibenelevont or perhaps not omnipotent. Which is it?
Again, atheists seem to be obsessed with the Judeo-Christian conception of God. Was your Sunday School teacher a jerk or something? What is good is not always the same as what is pleasant. I personally believe God wanted beings to come about that were interesting, not coddled little puppets.
IDigSluts_ky:How do you know the purpose of god? How do you even know if god exists? Could you not draw the conclusion that god used himslef up or his power when he created the universe? God may not even exist anymore and only existed before the universe. Where is your proof of his existence?
I have given my reasons for believing God exists previously. Based on my reasoning and what scientists believe about the previous world (based on the assumption of uniformitarianism), major changes, particularly in life forms, have occured billions of years after the creation of the universe. These changes, according to my reasoning, would, too, have required a designer.
JCFolsom: ViennaSausage: You can believe whatever you want or not. I personally have no beliefs whatsoever. Here appears a link to the concept of "no beliefs" http://nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm. However, a belief is based on faith not on reason. The original poster suggested that atheism is not rational and that by default, belief in a higher power is the rational conclusion. However, beliefs in general are not rational. Hah! Stuff and nonsense! Do you believe that other humans are actually conscious? What proof do you have? You act on beliefs all the time. You write on this forum as if what you say can be experienced and understood by your readers. We all act on beliefs. All the time. We all operate on a massive set of assumptions without which all action would be pointless. We cannot even establish that we will exist a millisecond from now, yet we act with intent for the future. No beliefs? What pretentious nonsense!
It should be noted that there is a distinction between belief, which is an assumption based on empirical fact, and faith, which assumes extra-natural factors.
/sorry, i have a love-hate relationship with semantics
Ego: For another example, read about flocking. I could write a computer program where individual deterministic "actors" act in seemingly complex ways without any master plan.
This statement refutes itself. You, using a platform designed by humans, with a language designed by humans, could design a program with the intent of having deterministic actors whose behavior you set the rules for act in seemingly complex ways WITHOUT A MASTER PLAN???
This of course happens in a computer environment without all of the complications actual birds have to deal with.
JCFolsom: Again, atheists seem to be obsessed with the Judeo-Christian conception of God. Was your Sunday School teacher a jerk or something? What is good is not always the same as what is pleasant. I personally believe God wanted beings to come about that were interesting, not coddled little puppets.
I'm an athiest, but I agree that the Judeo-Christian-Islamo definition of a god or individuals that are theistic of any kind are usually the obvious and unnecessary target of certain spiteful, possibly previously injured individuals. To reiterate what has been said on this board already, I revel in the reason why most of us are here (as in Mises.org); we thirst for liberty for each to use their own mind to live their own lives in entirety. I'm not sure of the author of this:
" God can lose existence in one swoop of logic. Bertrand Russell used the example of teapot agnosticism to demonstrate that atheism, whilst logically invalid as certain belief, is in fact rationally valid. He used the example of a china teapot orbiting the sun. Even today our technology would not allow us to disprove the existence of the teapot, so technically we must be teapot agnostics. However, in practice we would all be teapot atheists. This seems pretty reasonable, but I’d like to go one step further and demonstrate that a belief against a theory with absolutely no suggestive evidence whatsoever is not equivalent to any other type of belief. In effect, I want to demonstrate why teapot atheism is actually logically valid, more valid in fact that teapot agnosticism and infinitely more valid than teapot theism. There are an infinite number of entirely baseless theories which can be put forth. I can put forth the teapot theory. I can put forward the theory that kangaroos created the universe. I can put forward the theory that something more complex than the universe designed and built the universe or I can put forward the theory that a hare god created everything. There is quite literally no limit to the number of theories that can be proposed that are based on absolutely no suggestive evidence at all and I can’t disprove any of them individually.
According to Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy I should technically be agnostic with regards to them all. That would be true if it were not for one little inconvenience of logic that actually requires me to be an atheist to all. With an infinite number of baseless theories the probability of any specific one of them being true becomes zero when we are discussing the creation of the universe. This is because, and the teapot does not fit here, they are mutually exclusive. Winabozho cannot have created the universe if the kangaroos created it. Any of the gods cannot have created the universe if any of the others did. In fact for this universe the maximum number of creation theories that can be correct is one. And the probability of any specific one being the correct one is 1/infinity and any number divided by infinity is zero. So for any single creation theory the logic clearly demonstrates that there is effectively a one in infinity probability of it being true and that is the same as no possibility at all. But this only holds for baseless theories.
Any suggestive evidence that results in a theory changes the odds because the evidence offers constraints to the possible theories that fit the evidence and thus the number of possible theories may become finite and at some point in our developing understanding it possibly will. God is a baseless theory. In fact, the predominant version of god on this planet (that of the Old Testament) is self disproving due to contradictions within its definition, but all proposed gods are entirely baseless – there is no suggestive evidence at all for their existence. The probability of them actually existing is therefore zero. The probability of god is zero. It’s just another baseless theory amongst an infinite number of them. Agnosticism is not as reasonable as it might at first seem. Atheism is not a belief on par with theism. It is not a faith. Atheism is simple mathematics and the only position in the god/no-god argument that logic supports unless anyone can offer any suggestive evidence that the god theory may be correct which would result in changed probabilities through changed constaints. Nobody has done this, nobody can do this, and nobody will do this."
Brainpolice:many determinists make the mistake of assuming that causality eliminates willpower altogether and hence their determinism becomes fatalism in practise.
How can it not? You don't choose the initial state of your brain. You don't choose the inputs of your senses. This input results in these neurons firing, which then results in these other neurons firing; all utterly causal and deterministic. Where does anything but determinism creep in. This is actually an honest question, not just an argument. Where do non-deterministic elements fit within your conception. What are they?
Brainpolice:Yet at the same time I think that most religious people hold fatalistic views themselves, only for them "god" is the ultimate causal agent.
That's fine, there is that "God is in control" vibe among some, but I'm arguing for general theism, not their particular conception of a micromanaging God.
JCFolsom:Do you also lack a belief in the consciousness of others? If not, what proof do you cite for your belief that they do?
I am conscious. I am aware of myself and other people are aware of themselves. People make conscious actions all the time. I do not see how this question is relevant.
IDigSluts_ky:Again, atheists seem to be obsessed with the Judeo-Christian conception of God.
Why did your designer possibly create a universe that may experience heat death and devoid all forms of life?
I personally believe God wanted beings to come about that were interesting, not coddled little puppets.
Key words are "personally believe". Personal belief, does equal proof.
IDigSluts_ky: Based on my reasoning and what scientists believe about the previous world
Can you please site scientific paper that prove your god or talk about the proof of a supernatural creator?
(based on the assumption of uniformitarianism), major changes, particularly in life forms, have occured billions of years after the creation of the universe.
This is called evolution. Where did you god evolve from?
These changes, according to my reasoning, would, too, have required a designer.
Does you designer still exist and how does he interact with the universe?
BSBD: " God can lose existence in one swoop of logic. Bertrand Russell used the example of teapot agnosticism to demonstrate that atheism, whilst logically invalid as certain belief, is in fact rationally valid. He used the example of a china teapot orbiting the sun. Even today our technology would not allow us to disprove the existence of the teapot, so technically we must be teapot agnostics. However, in practice we would all be teapot atheists. This seems pretty reasonable, but I’d like to go one step further and demonstrate that a belief against a theory with absolutely no suggestive evidence whatsoever is not equivalent to any other type of belief. In effect, I want to demonstrate why teapot atheism is actually logically valid, more valid in fact that teapot agnosticism and infinitely more valid than teapot theism. There are an infinite number of entirely baseless theories which can be put forth. I can put forth the teapot theory. I can put forward the theory that kangaroos created the universe. I can put forward the theory that something more complex than the universe designed and built the universe or I can put forward the theory that a hare god created everything. There is quite literally no limit to the number of theories that can be proposed that are based on absolutely no suggestive evidence at all and I can’t disprove any of them individually.
Interesting idea. You see the flying spaghetti monster anywhere?
In any case, you are wrong about atheism requiring nothing more than a disbelief in God. It necessarily implies a belief that the universe, which clearly exists, came into being without God. That is a positive belief. I believe there must have been some kind of God precisely because I disbelieve that the observable universe could come about without a conscious designer. Thus, you present as an unbalanced opposition is rebalanced. You in fact make an assertion with your atheism, and I can state my assertion as a mere denial.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap