Atheism: a label that is too small for me

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

This confirms what I wrote earlier. Only, I have reasoned through logic that I know God is real through His enigma. I am completely agnostic in that it is impossible for me to show or prove God's truth to you. I can provide my logic, but a nonbeliever will throw it away and try to pick it apart no matter how much proof I provide in my logic.

Close, but not quite what I was trying to say. An agnostic believes that it is impossible for anyone, including themselves to know. But you say that by reasoning through logic, you in fact do know. Agnosticism has nothing to do with showing or proving God's existence or non-existence to someone else. Agnosticism is the statement that it is impossible to know. It's saying that no amount of logic, reasoning or proof has convinced you that you can know about whether or not God exists, and that, really, it's impossible for any one to know because of the limitations of the human mind. By definition, that is an agnostic. It has nothing to do with being able to convince others.

[Joshiepoo3000]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

An agnostic believes that it is impossible for anyone, including themselves to know.

Then how can an agnostic have an opinion about things he doesn't know about? It sounds like they contradict themselves that way. A man sticks with what he believes and provides his proof to why he believes what he believes. If an agnostic person has no knowledge of something, then they can't formulate a belief about it. If they formulate a belief without knowledge and balance it all on the idea that no one has the knowledge of something, then they are like someone new to physics trying to teach a physicist physics. It is total nonsense.

[Michael Chui]

What does the world look like if you could see into the ultraviolet range? It is impossible to know. We can hint at it and guess at it by mapping things to the visible spectrum, but it's something we flat-out can't see.

Agnosticism is similar. It's saying that knowledge of the existence of God is like seeing the world in ultraviolet. It's impossible for us. Any of us.

[Joshiepoo3000]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

What does the world look like if you could see into the ultraviolet range? It is impossible to know. We can hint at it and guess at it by mapping things to the visible spectrum, but it's something we flat-out can't see.

Agnosticism is similar. It's saying that knowledge of the existence of God is like seeing the world in ultraviolet. It's impossible for us. Any of us.

I hold firmly that God is real, but does not exist. So you are correct, Michael Chui, that we cannot at present time and space either touch, smell, taste, hear, or see God. The thing is that we cannot prove God to one another. God can only prove Himself to us. In order for this to happen, we must ask Him to prove Himself to us without testing Him. That is the whole concept of Christianity. I can prove God is real through logic, but an atheist will not accept my logic for the sake of not admitting God is real. The agnostic is close minded, because he simply replies, "There is no God." This fits my definition of stupidity which is "to deny ones own ability to learn." No man is stupid. Every man is intelligent. My definition for intelligence is "the ability to learn." It is only ones actions and thoughts that can be stupid. A man is not his action or thought, because they can always be corrected. A man is stupid when he denys his own ability to be corrected.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

The agnostic is close minded, because he simply replies, "There is no God."

If someone says that, they are not agnostic. They are an atheist. An agnostic would never say that there is no God! They would more likely reply "We can't know if there is a God or not." They would say "you make a very convincing argument that there is a God, and I can see your logic. I respect it. But I've also heard very logical arguments which show the evidence to the contrary, which I also respect. And my little ol' human mind just can't know which argument is right. It's beyond our capabilities as humans to know for certain."

Michael, love the ultraviolet example. I might have to borrow it for my own use!

[Edited to add] Sorry, didn't realize that Joshiepoo3000 had been banned. I usually don't respond to people who won't have the opportunity to respond, but I'll leave this post here since I think it's important to clear up this misconception.

[Michael Chui]

*blink* That ban came out of left field. Maybe I missed some vitriol dripping somewhere, but I haven't noticed anything untowards from Joshiepoo.

And Breanne, you are welcome to use the analogy however you like. I think that s/he simply didn't realize that you were defining terms, rather than taking a stance. I probably didn't make that clear myself.

[Angela]

I was also wondering why Joshiepoo was banned. Was there something we didn't see?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Angela

I was also wondering why Joshiepoo was banned. Was there something we didn't see?

Never mind. A quick search revealed some mudslinging I hadn't caught.

[Megan]

I am sad that Joshiepoo got banned. All good things to you, Josh.

[cgs]

Cylon/dor/Angela:

Check out this book. It's a counterargument to Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life, but it really got me thinking about religion and the search for an answer. The author is an ex pastor turned athiest, but he still goes to church because he enjoys the pagentry and community. Really interesting stuff. You owe it to yourself to read this, because it really makes you think.

Amazon.com: The Reason Driven Life: What Am I Here on Earth For?: Books: Robert M. Price,Julia Sweeney

Angela: the whole "accept Jesus as your personal savior" thing is explained really well in that book. It's actually the evangelical Christians that use that all the time, not all Christians. There's also a fascinating history of how the modern concept of the devil came about.

[shanlstrick]

Hi all,
Not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, I was initially hesitant to post here because I know how these conversations can quickly degrade into arguments, mainly because of how deeply one side or the other believes in what they are saying.

I can see where both Angela and Dor are coming from and I admittedly am a bit confused as to why Angela considers herself an atheist, and that could be because I do not fully understand what an atheist is. My understanding was that an atheist didn't believe in any forces beyond what could be proven, which to me seems strange - if that's the case. But that's only my opinion which is one admittedly based on incomplete understanding on my part. I fully respect Angela and her position.

I no longer consider myself in any one camp or the other. I don't think there is a personal God, I do believe in a creative force, which could be called God, spirit or whatever you like. Fact is may physicists believe in a creative force that defies explanation, and many call it God.

In quantum physics we learn that there really is no separation between objects in the universe, all are part of a unified whole. On earth all organic life share DNA - plant and animal - the code or program of life, is that a coincidence?

What about consciousness? Science may speculate, but science has absolutely no idea where it comes from. It cannot be defined as an emergent property of millions of synapses firing in a neural net. Some may speculate it is quantum in nature, yet it is only speculation. At the quantum level you find that a particle (photon, electron, etc.) is not a particle that exists independent of observation. It takes an observer to manifest as a particle. Before the observation it is only a wave-function and does not exist except as a probability. To me that is a key - we create the very things we seek. A new hypotheses comes along and science finds it cannot work unless a certain as of yet undiscovered particle exists - a few years later they find the particle they needed for the formula to work - interesting huh?

Here is a thought - what are you without your thoughts? If you could empty your mind completely, get rid of all the chatter and memory - what are you then? If everyone could do that, you would find that everyone is exactly the same, the only difference would be your location - you would only be a point of perception - perceiving the universe.

I get a sneaky feeling that at the must fundamental level we are one and the same - the universe trying to figure itself out. What a remarkable gift. Facets of God? Parts of a whole? You may never die, you may cease to exist as the person you are now, but I feel you will always be a perceiver, but the ego-self, the identity you are now, is a collection of memories, which may be the only part that changes or is transitory.
There is a fascinating book by David Bohm (a forefather of quantum physics) called 'Wholeness and the Implicate order" - it's a great read.

Sorry to ramble so much, just my 2 cents, ultimately we should all just live and let live and enjoy this wonderful universe we are all a part of.

Like the fish said "What is all this water they are talking about?"
Shannon

[Michael Chui]

Definitionally, an atheist is someone who believes that there is no God.

Originally Posted by shanlstrick

Science may speculate, but science has absolutely no idea where it comes from.

You're missing a word: "yet". The problem with the search for consciousness has been one of definition: we have yet to give consciousness an operational definition, so science can hardly test it, when the word is meaningless to it.

Thus, consciousness remains a topic of philosophy, not of science.

[shanlstrick]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You're missing a word: "yet". The problem with the search for consciousness has been one of definition: we have yet to give consciousness an operational definition, so science can hardly test it, when the word is meaningless to it.

Thus, consciousness remains a topic of philosophy, not of science.

You are right, but I suspect it will be quite a while before science can get a grip on what consciousness is - if ever. I often find that science - especially quantum physics tends to overlap with metaphysics and philosophy from time to time. Some physicists completely shy away from talk of God or consciousness, while others are attempting to grasp it. I tend to try to unify them, kinda like physicists are seeking the Holy grail of science - GUT or Grand Unification - merging quantum physics with classical physics.

I am like many, seeking understanding, just trying to figure it all out. I see the universe as continually unfolding, dynamic, so I am not so concerned with the ultimate destination, but the journey is absolutely worth the trip.
Great discussion,
Shannon

[Angela]

I'll be even more specific about my labeling myself an atheist:
I believe there is no supernatural, personal, interventionist god. Let's call it "GIPS".
There is no entity that listens to and answers prayers, judges us when we die, cares whether we follow his rules, or wipes out towns because their school board votes down the teaching of Intelligent Design. I believe GIPS in all its forms is a man-made invention, and it's amazing to me that so many people buy into it.

I don't begrude people their GIPS's, though, unless they use GIPS to further their personal aims to the detriment of others.

shanlstrick, maybe you don't understand why I consider myself an atheist because I've talked about Imaging/Ordaining? or because I'm not positive that I just cease to exist when I die? Well, I don't believe there's a supernatural entity; the natural world is plenty for me. However, I do have evidence enough that there are mysterious, awesome, beautiful and creative natural forces at work that may never be explained by science. Some people might call those natural forces "god". I think Einstein did. My mind is open to natural possibilities that appear magical; I don't necessarily have to have things "proven" to me if they work positively in my life or in the minds of others and cause no harm.

One day I invented the possibility for my life of being "On Fire!" and that afternoon my car's engine caught fire. Sometimes the universe just makes me laugh.

Do you see what I mean, shanlstrick? I love your description of us as points of perception, that we're all parts of a whole. If you want to call that whole "god", I'm good with that!

Love,
Angela

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by shanlstrick

I often find that science - especially quantum physics tends to overlap with metaphysics and philosophy from time to time.

That's because science is naturally dependent upon both. The scientific method depends, for instance, on a belief in causality: if event 1 is the cause of event 2, then repeating event 1 will naturally repeat event 2. If one presumes that causality is invalid, then the scientific method is pointless. Causality is a philosophical belief.

I once saw a fun chart, which stacked geological strata upon one another. Philosophy was the bedrock, and layered on top in order was Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Psychology. It's too general and sweeping for me today, but the gist is still valid.

[shanlstrick]

Hi Angela,
Yup, the universe does have a wonderful sense of humor – often at our expense. And I see exactly where you are coming from.

Okay, this is out of left field, but maybe fun. A friend and I had a thought experiment a few years ago (when I started questioning my own beliefs), regarding the first cause of the universe. It’s very simplistic and personifies God, but was interesting none the less.

I don’t assume for one minute there was a personal God in the beginning but there obviously was a force at work or we wouldn’t be here to discuss it now. So it goes like this:

There is nothing, no time, no space, and no universe – suddenly a self-aware consciousness springs into being from this nothingness. It’s you. Now you find yourself alone in a vast nothingness, eternally – What would you want? Maybe to be surprised? Maybe to have some company?

So you split your consciousness into many, thus creating space, after all you can’t have separate conscious entities without space to separate them. This process continues and continues till we get to the physical manifestation of matter – which in reality is dense localized energy – and all the physical structures of the universe start to form. From this thought it looks like God is simply dreaming the universe and we are that dream. It doesn’t address what caused the “first cause”, just can’t get there from here.

Like I said, I don’t see it as personified like above, but I think a similar process must have occurred and is on going today. A branching and splitting of a singular unified whole – which ironically is still contained in the whole (universe).

For me it’s quite fascinating that a person can operate as a singular being, when the being is made of millions of separate cells that die all of the time and are continually replaced. Look at your hand. The skin is not the same skin as last year, the cells from last year are long dead. Yet you retain your individual identity. Think about this. Say you visited an old friend last year and shook his hand. The hand you have now actually never touched that person.

The minerals in your body that make up your bones are about the only part of you that is unchanged. The calcium in your bones was formed in the stars that preceded the formation of this solar system. The parent star or stars that exploded to form a nebulous cloud from which our sun and planets came from - and is millions, perhaps billions of years old. To me that is simply amazing. Part of you is older than this solar system. All the heavy elements came from the demise of the first stars.

Okay, I have rambled some more, my bad. My mind works like this all of the time.
Take care,
Shannon

[Angela]

Shannon, your "splitting" concept is similar to what Richard Dawkins explains as a possibility in The Selfish Gene. You are thinking like an elite scientist!