Not much more to be gained from this, I fear. When a person's belief system is perceived as being attacked, rational thought isn't the first response. That can only come later and only to those who seek it.
I've always liked the term "militant agnostic," as someone mentioned above. "I don't know and neither do you" are good words to live by, especially if you apply them to believers and non-believers alike.
Ivor, why can't you grasp the difference between "I know there is no God" and "I don't believe in God"?
I'm unsure how much difference there truly is. Doesn't "belief" mean an acceptance of some truth? If you say you don't believe in the existence of a god, aren't you saying that the truth of the matter is that there is no god?
However, this statement is logical: "Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe."
There are several models of the universe in existence. You are asserting that none of them are correct.
No, I am not. I am asserting that we don't know if any of them are correct, including any that include the existence or non-existence of god.
I don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
It isn't a matter of proving a negative. It is a matter of having enough evidence to support your theory to the point that it is accepted as the most rational answer. My point is that we cannot compile enough evidence because at the moment we cannot know that lifeforms other than what we sense around us do or do not exist.
Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant, and will remain too ignorant, to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe?
Your above statement is illogical. And you misrepresent what I say. I do not maintain that we will forever remain unable to be logical atheists. I can't say that because I had to pawn my crystal ball to buy Who tickets in 1975. However, this statement is logical: "Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe."
I maintain that we are too ignorant now to know if there is a god or if there isn't. Because of that ignorance, we can't logically call ourselves atheists. This simply isn't a difficult or controversial point and I don't understand the intensity of the reaction to my position, unless my actions are interpreted as attacking a belief system.
Ivor, you seem to have a problem with believing that your own usages are laws of the universe, which is pretty strange, really, since language
Incorrect. I have said that I am using the most common defintion, the most common usage, of the terms atheist and agnostic.
To Scott: I know it hurts when your ox has been gored. I've suffered the same fate many a time. Perhaps you will someday be able to learn from the experience without spasmodic ad homenem attacks.
To assert there is no god, we need no evidence whatsoever. It's an opinion. I had that opinion and called myself an atheist for decades. I looked out into the unfathomable complexity of the universe, saw the cold realities of existence, compared that to the behavior of modern day humans, and didn't see anything I could attribute to a god. It occurred to me one day, however, that to logically assert there is no god required me to base the assertion on enough evidence to provide an overwhelming case so that I can know I am right. I couldn't come up with said evidence because to me the universe was unfathomably complex. That forced me to conclude that I was in reality agnostic and not an atheist. It wasn't a BFD to me then then and it isn't a BFD to me now, although to read some of the sputtering inanity that is passing for debate here it is -- ready for this, Scott? -- logical to assume that is is most certainly a BFD to others.
Life of Brian is good, but I wonder if the better antidote to The Passion might not be Hellboy, instead.
I nominate Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers
This conversation is valuable, if for no other reason than it demonstrates that emotional responses to external doubts about one's belief system aren't limited to rightwing Old Testament thumpers. A simple statement, that it is impossible to build a rational, logical basis for atheism because we as a race are too ignorant of the facts about our existence to make such a construct, elicits from some a lucid and measured response, but from others insults and off point arguments.
Crap, nonsense, and posthumously-written L. Ron Hubbard novels.
This isn't really that difficult to comprehend, Scott. If someone states that he/she is an atheist because he/she does not believe in the existence of god, yet he/she can provide no evidence to substantiate the belief, then the belief is emotional and illogical.
My position is that it is possible for an agnostic belief to be logical, but that it is impossible for atheistic belief to be logical.
Atheists do not need to prove there is no God anymore than theists do.
My last post, too.
Your above post supports my contention that atheists are illogical. If you "know" something but have no proof, your belief is illogical.
Okay, all done. Let's return to the world, already in progress.
Come on, people, get it straight. Most people who call themselves atheists are not saying "I know everything about the universe and therefore I am confident there's no divine force."
But is that individual truly an atheist in the mainstream definition of the term? I say "no." You are blurring the lines between agnosticism and atheism.
Patrick, in your post I see some of the same arrogance that prompted this conversation in the first place, that of non-believers smirking at the believers. You somehow "know" that you have the straight dope, and you ridicule those who aren't on the same path. I think you should take a step back and analyze your thoughts, yes, more logically.
Ivor's characterization of atheists is simply bogus, rather like accusing all agnostics of being gutless, indecisive wimps, or all Christians of being witless sheep...all false.
An illogical reading of my post, I believe. Agnosticism, at least as practiced by yours truly, is the acceptance and an unknown quantity in life when it comes to god. Agnosticism = Damned if I know. Atheism is an aboslute. Atheism = I know.
I just don't understand how anyone can truly know.
There is a very large difference between proving and believing.
Yes, I agree and that is my point. Proving -- and, therefore, knowing -- requires logic. Believing -- having faith -- does not.
If atheists are not illogical in their belief that there is no god, then how do we understand how they came to that belief? Logic is a discipline we use to seek conclusions. I am simply unaware of any logical thought contruction that can get us there from here. I argue that we do not yet possess sufficient understanding of the universe to reach the conclusion that a god/supremebeing/.400 hitter doesn't exist, any more than we can conclude that a god does exist.
Logic isn't the be all and end all of human life. If it were, then I wouldn't own a Ducati motorcycle. And three Triumphs.
But Patrick, how do you know what's out there? I mean, we can figure Ezekial was stoned out of his gourd when he saw the flying wheels, but that doesn't help us understand at all how the universe is structured. If you can refute the "atheism as faith" argument -- which I've never seen done -- then your sources are better than my sources. I maintain that it is the height of human arrogance to claim to know that we are the highest form of life in the universe, and that such a claim is merely evidence of our ignorance.
From a confirmed agnostic, a note about atheism: it's illogical and therefore should not be embraced by anyone serious about the study of religion. To be an atheist you must know that no form of supreme/superior/all-knowing/knows-a-bunch/flawed-but-kind-angry/etc. being exists in the universe. You cannot suspect this and still be an atheist. Nope, you gotta know it down to your bones.
But that's impossible because we are simply not evolved enough, not intelligent and/or knowledgable to know that about the universe. We are not even evolved enough to know what dark matter is or to dissect the fabric of the cosmos. . . hell, it's been only a blink of the evolutionary eye since we figured out the internal combustion engine. And yet, there are those who have grasped an understanding of the universe so thoroughly that they know there is no god.
But they don't know it because humans have not developed the logical thought path that proves it. They might believe it, but that's different than knowing it. What they have isn't knowledge, but faith in their supposition.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 13 |
Total: 13 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Ivor the Engine Driver:
Show all comments by Ivor the Engine Driver.