[Use Of Weapons]

Exactly. The best trick the original formulators of any cult have is the 'happy are those who have not seen, and yet believe' trick.

[Morgoth]

cauthon, on Apr 20 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

Haha @ the slogan. "Probably." Meaning he does not know for sure, in spite of all he claims. Seems like he just believes as much as I do, only the opposite.

I would say it's the opposite. You can't prove or disprove the existance of god. So, the only accurate thing to write is "probably". If he'd written "There is no god" then that would've been more proof of "belief" than the wording he chose.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Morgoth, on 24 August 2009 - 12:01 PM, said:

I would say it's the opposite. You can't prove or disprove the existance of god. So, the only accurate thing to write is "probably". If he'd written "There is no god" then that would've been more proof of "belief" than the wording he chose.

No, "there is no god" being written would imply that we KNOW there's no god, not that we BELIEVE there's no god. I, as an atheist, don't "know" there's no god, I just don't believe there is one. I can't rule it completely out though, because I'm so far from knowing everything, which is where I'd have to be to "know". Most if not all christians however, don't just claim to believe, they claim to "know". A rather arrogant view IMHO. None of us "knows" either way, we all have our own beliefs though, and all beliefs should be respected, but not shoved down each other's throats.

[AlanH]

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 09 October 2009 - 09:06 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 24 August 2009 - 12:01 PM, said:

I would say it's the opposite. You can't prove or disprove the existance of god. So, the only accurate thing to write is "probably". If he'd written "There is no god" then that would've been more proof of "belief" than the wording he chose.

No, "there is no god" being written would imply that we KNOW there's no god, not that we BELIEVE there's no god. I, as an atheist, don't "know" there's no god, I just don't believe there is one. I can't rule it completely out though, because I'm so far from knowing everything, which is where I'd have to be to "know". Most if not all christians however, don't just claim to believe, they claim to "know". A rather arrogant view IMHO. None of us "knows" either way, we all have our own beliefs though, and all beliefs should be respected, but not shoved down each other's throats.

Hm. I don't really like how you've worded that. I am an atheist and I would never use the phrase: "I just don't believe there is one." That I don't think there is a God is not a belief - it is the result of logical reasoning, through the process of observation.

[Cold Iron]

I know theists that would say the same is true for their belief in god.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

My whole thing is I don't have enough information to make an absolute decision. All the science does indicate our beliefs to be correct, but it's incomplete and likely to remain so in our lifetimes. There is more information and evidence to be had - there always is. We don't have it all yet, ergo my statement that it's a belief, not factual knowledge. That's what kills me about religious people. They're absolutists, insisting that what they believe is fact, when it's quite obviously based more in hope, feeling and environment.

CI- That's exactly what I'm talking about. Good job.

This post has been edited by Grand Goombah Graeld: 12 October 2009 - 05:00 AM

[Sixty]

AlanH, on 12 October 2009 - 04:31 AM, said:

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 09 October 2009 - 09:06 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 24 August 2009 - 12:01 PM, said:

I would say it's the opposite. You can't prove or disprove the existance of god. So, the only accurate thing to write is "probably". If he'd written "There is no god" then that would've been more proof of "belief" than the wording he chose.

No, "there is no god" being written would imply that we KNOW there's no god, not that we BELIEVE there's no god. I, as an atheist, don't "know" there's no god, I just don't believe there is one. I can't rule it completely out though, because I'm so far from knowing everything, which is where I'd have to be to "know". Most if not all christians however, don't just claim to believe, they claim to "know". A rather arrogant view IMHO. None of us "knows" either way, we all have our own beliefs though, and all beliefs should be respected, but not shoved down each other's throats.

Hm. I don't really like how you've worded that. I am an atheist and I would never use the phrase: "I just don't believe there is one." That I don't think there is a God is not a belief - it is the result of logical reasoning, through the process of observation.

You can say:

"There is insufficient evidence to prove a god exists."

And you would be correct, because there is no factual evidence that a god exists.

Saying, however, that:

"A god does not exist."

Implies that you have factual proof that a god does not exist, which, given your limited scope of awareness, you are incapable of proving.

Of course, as far as you and I are concerned, whether a god does or does not exist is irrelevant because it does not have any evident influence on our lives (which would, by the way, prove some particular entity's existence), so any argument in this respect is purely pedantic.

@Goombah: I think the stance you're demonstrating is more akin to agnosticism than straight atheism.

This post has been edited by Sixty: 12 October 2009 - 05:12 AM

[AlanH]

Sixty, on 12 October 2009 - 05:09 AM, said:

Saying, however, that:

"A god does not exist."

Implies that you have factual proof that a god does not exist, which, given your limited scope of awareness, you are incapable of proving.

I don't have factual proof that any of the Malazan characters do not exist. However I can say with certainty that they do not exist. Your whole point there seems slightly ludicrous to me - it surely makes more sense to assume that something doesn't exist unless there is evidence of its existence, rather than to assume it does exist and that we don't have evidence it doesn't.

Sixty, on 12 October 2009 - 05:09 AM, said:

Of course, as far as you and I are concerned, whether a god does or does not exist is irrelevant because it does not have any evident influence on our lives (which would, by the way, prove some particular entity's existence), so any argument in this respect is purely pedantic.

Well because we live in relatively free societies it has no influence. However, you try telling people in somewhere like Iran that God has no influence on their lives - it's a theocracy for crying out loud. The idea that the concept of a God is harmless is naive to such a point that it is dangerous.

[Cold Iron]

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 12 October 2009 - 04:57 AM, said:

CI- That's exactly what I'm talking about. Good job.

Thanks boss!

Sixty, on 12 October 2009 - 05:09 AM, said:

@Goombah: I think the stance you're demonstrating is more akin to agnosticism than straight atheism.

No, goombah is saying he believes god does not exist, an agnostic has no conviction one way or the other. See the evolution thread for interesting conversation on the nature of belief in science.

[AlanH]

Sixty, on 12 October 2009 - 05:09 AM, said:

@Goombah: I think the stance you're demonstrating is more akin to agnosticism than straight atheism.

Cold Iron, on 12 October 2009 - 05:31 AM, said:

No, goombah is saying he believes god does not exist, an agnostic has no conviction one way or the other. See the evolution thread for interesting conversation on the nature of belief in science.

Quick point: agnosticism isn't actually a religious declaration.

This post has been edited by AlanH: 12 October 2009 - 05:37 AM

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Cold Iron, on 12 October 2009 - 05:31 AM, said:

Thanks boss!

Here for you, bro. What's that, like the first time we've agreed?

[Cold Iron]

Can I get a pay rise?

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Sure Nothing + noting gets you....



















Nothing. Sorry, bud. We broke...

[Sixty]

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 12 October 2009 - 04:57 AM, said:

My whole thing is I don't have enough information to make an absolute decision.

And since I love wikipedia, the definition of agnostic atheism (which, in hindsight, I probably should've specified) is as follows:

Quote

An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist.

Sounds about the same to me.

This post has been edited by Sixty: 12 October 2009 - 07:00 AM

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Sounds fine to me. I just happen to be unconcerned enough not to really care what I'm called. Just don't forget to call my fat ass to dinner.

[Shinrei]

AlanH, on 12 October 2009 - 05:29 AM, said:

I don't have factual proof that any of the Malazan characters do not exist. However I can say with certainty that they do not exist. Your whole point there seems slightly ludicrous to me - it surely makes more sense to assume that something doesn't exist unless there is evidence of its existence, rather than to assume it does exist and that we don't have evidence it doesn't.

This is an awfully simplistic way to view life though. Just because it doesn't make sense based on your current knowledge to believe that something does not exist, or that something cannot happen, doesn't mean it does not or cannot. Did you believe before it happened that terrorists would fly planes into and destroy the world trade center towers? Humans like to break things down to try to simplify a universe that is far more random and scary than what we wish to perceive. Occam's Razor IMO is for those who want to bury their heads in the sand and say the world is flat until shown otherwise. As humans, we must constantly shift our understanding of what exists and does not exists, about what is possible, and about what is not possible. If science has to a great degree ruled something out, then sure, we can probably rule it out. But, remember, until the first Europeans set foot in the land downunder, OF COURSE, swans could only be white because there was no reason to believe that a black swan could exist! (and yes, Shin has been reading about Black Swans, good book - I recommend )

Besides, comparing God to Malazan characters is not a very good analogy anyways, since you can actually PROVE that those characters came from the mind of Steven Erikson. Disproving God is a little more difficult.

[Cold Iron]

Even if you have him on record saying "I made it all up", you can't rule out the subconscious transferral of knowledge of Fiddler and Quick Ben down through the Erikson (extra lols there) family for generations, dating back to a rich oral culture.

[Terez]

I apologize for not having followed this thread thoroughly lately...I do agree that saying "There is no God" can't be considered to be a factual statement, even though the evidence certainly doesn't point to god's existence. But what is the difference between having an advert saying "There is no God" and having one saying "Jesus loves you"?

[Cold Iron]

Jesus loves you is a conceptual metaphor that makes people feel calm and happy. There is no god is a sensationalist scare campaign with debatable political consequences.

[HoosierDaddy]

Cold Iron, on 13 October 2009 - 08:50 PM, said:

Jesus loves you is a conceptual metaphor that makes people feel calm and happy. There is no god is a sensationalist scare campaign with debatable political consequences.

The interpretation that "There is no God" is either sensationalist or a scare tactic is but one interpretation, and "Jesus loves you" could be scary to people who live in Latin America in areas full of stalkers.