Why are you an atheist?

[HughMungus]

a bunch of kids fighting on the playground instead of a rational discussion

i never claimed to be rational

Who are you to characterize me?

you set precedence when you characterized yourself as agnostic:

I've been referring to myself as agnostic for a long time.

I said, "Prove it." I'm saying, "If you believe that 'no intelligent being is driving creation or remotely involved', prove it. If you can't prove it, why not be agnostic, instead?" It's the same argument I had with Rob. It points back to the original question: Why be an atheist if you can't prove there is no god; it seems the only position supported by evidence is agnosticism.

your attacking someone's paradigms...and not in a very nice way...

let them be different...

different is beautiful

But you can't let me be me.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm asking them that if they believe something to be true, to prove how they came to that belief.

Not nice? Please.

[the fire elf]

But you can't let me be me.

as you wish

[Rockdad]

Excuse me temporary Public Service announcement


-Call for artist's-

THIS THREAD NEEDS SOME ART-http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=13003

Promised RobbiDobbs I would get her some help with the "No Baby Wipes in the Jots" campaign

There is a good possibility your art may be printed and displayed in/on/ or at the JOTS think of the possibilities!






Besides this thread really is on a related track

[Ron]

....
I'm not attacking anyone. I'm asking them that if they believe something to be true, to prove how they came to that belief.
.

Which is kind of like asking the writer to "prove," where their ideas came form. Proof isn't really relevant to most folk's beliefs, IMHO. Instead you need to look at individual values and personality to see where individual beliefs come from and attempting to "prove," their validity is often an exercise in frustration for all involved, IME.

Now having said that I believe ( ;) ) that the application of Occam's Razor, in combination with using the scientific method to the question, logically supports the supposition that there is no supernational functioning to the universe at all, thus no supernational god. But that is just the belief that helps to make my life better, I don't confuse it with being Truth for all it's logical support. Make sense?

Ron

[the fire elf]

O Mother, how can the ignorant, whose minds are restless with doubt and dispute,
Know Thy form ravishing with its vermilion,
Stooping with the weight of Thy breasts,
Accessible only by merit,
Acquired in previous birth?

among my friends i count shamans, witches, warlock, monk, mystic, sadhu, ascetics

gee...are all the holy persons of the planet discounted in their efforts and attainments with merely the mention of a book and scientific methodologies?

ignorance would surely take such a philosophical position...

left to itself, such conciousness would become embedded in a quagmire most easily percieved after death, either of ego or body

if all the earth were to pass away as such, perhaps mankind would be free to evolve as before

[dana]

[
Now having said that I believe ( ;) ) that the application of Occam's Razor, in combination with using the scientific method to the question, logically supports the supposition that there is no supernational functioning to the universe at all, thus no supernational god. But that is just the belief that helps to make my life better, I don't confuse it with being Truth for all it's logical support. Make sense?

Ron

Its always interesting to me how much people like Occam's Razor. Despite it's immediate appeal, I don't think most people ever really considered it's limitations. Anyone see the movie 'Contact' - in the little investigative scene where Occams razor comes up? "All things being equal, the simplist explanation is probably correct." I believe it is supposed to have that precedent - "all things being equal". Unfortunately in real life, all things are never equal. When your observations of your world tend toward simplicity, it is because you have chosen to ignore other possibilities, or your perceptual ability is limited, etc. I think we prefer simplicity because it seems like it will be easier, yet our world tends to show us that the rule is complexity. In the movie 'Contact', they were faced with an enigma that showed an obvious need for more complex solutions, yet their demand for simplicity made the only acceptable explanation one in which Jodie Foster had hallucinated her entire experience.

One solves paradox by holding both seemingly exclusive possibilities up, simultaneously making a case for both and then letting them dissolve into each other until a new possibility emerges which contains (and explains) both.

or maybe I'm just plain confused here - you did say "supernational god"? Are you talking about George Bush's god?

[Ron]

Actually, movies aside, the whole, "all things being equal," is the economist's stock in trade. Occam's Razor doesn't actually say that. It says, when face with two or more possible solutions, the simplest one is the most likely to be true. Quite a bit of difference there, eh?

Note again that I'm not claiming to represent Truth, here. Check out my post again and you might see a bit of distrust of Truth/proof when it comes to beliefs. But I can build mental models with the best of them.

And yes, I both saw Contact and read the book, although not in that order. The movie lost all the bravery of the book, IMHO, but both whimped out in the end, as far as I was concerned. :)

As for what I mean when I say "supernatural functioning," or "supernatural god," I'm referring to anything beyond understanding via the principles of observation, empiricism, and experimentation, all repeated across time and witnesses using the same methodology. But Truth is beyond me. Make sense?

Ron

[mdmf007]

I used to be a believer, then I go to a jobsite some in Iraq, some in places like Indonesia, Norlens, Darfur, and i find it hard to believe. Ive takled to religous peoples throughout the world, and they dont know any better than I.

I guess I am more of a spiritual person now, and have gone back and forth thousands of times. I mean if we are the only ones in the universe (and crunching the Drake Equation - makes that an almost impossibility) it is one damn huge coincidence for all of the variables to come together for C.H.O.N to come together and create life in the ooze. or maybe it was divine intervention. Its all in belief.

The great mystery will be answered to all of us soon enough. i try to live like I want to be treated.

later all - be safe

[the fire elf]

anything beyond understanding via the principles of observation, empiricism, and experimentation, all repeated across time and witnesses using the same methodology.

an island of scientific method in an ocean of supernaturality?

[the fire elf]

myth lies beyond that island

[the fire elf]

if we play for just a second with the word "God", as a word used to identify the highest form of pure, absolute conscious unconditional love made manifest in all of creation....aka the Highest form of manifest being and "God" was to manifest here, fully on earth now, what form would that be?

If "God" was to manifest the most intimate form of relating to a human being.. what would that be?

If "God" was to manifest the most intellegent form of relating to a human being,what would that be?

If "God" was to manifest the most challenging form of relating to a human being what would that be?

If "God" was to manifest the most unlikely form of relating to the human being, what would that be?

If "God" was to manifest the most unexpected form of relating to the human being, what would that be?

If "God" was to manifest the most highly unlikely form of relating to the human being, what would that be?


And last but not least.. if "God" was to manifest the most destructive form of relating to the human being's image of "God" what would that be?

[the fire elf]

Some Theosophists and New Age speculators have declared the Kalki prophecies and those of the Maitreya Buddha of Buddhism, might actually refer to one and the same individual, and they and others have noted similarities of the Kalki prophecy to the Rider on the White Horse in the Christian book of Revelation who has been interpreted as a herald of the Second Coming of Christ, or by some (who seem to take the passage out of its larger context), to be Jesus himself. In such interpretations the sword of Kalki is equated to the two-edged sword that proceeds from the mouth of this apocalyptic figure, and is often symbolically interpreted to be the swordlike effectiveness of words of truth against all manner of lies and deceptions. Kalki is also said to war with Koka and Vikoka, similar to Gog and Magog.

[the fire elf]

Kali (Demon) (Devnāgari: काली) is the reigning lord of Kali Yuga and nemesis of Sri Kalki, the 10th and final avatar of Lord Vishnu. He is not to be confused with the Hindu Goddess Kali.

Kali is the great-great grandson of Lord Brahma. Kali was the son of Krodha (Anger) and his sister-turned-wife Himsa (Violence). Kali was the grandson of Dambha (Vanity) and his sister-turned-wife, Maya (Illusion). Kali is the great-grandson of Adharma (Impropriety) and his wife, Mithya (Falsehood). Adharma formed from Lord Brahma's back as a dark cloud.

He is a huge being, the color of “soot,” with a large tongue, and a terrible stench. He carries a bone as a weapon (much like Samson fought with an ass’s Jaw-Bone).

Kali’s sister-turned-wife (unnamed) gave him two offspring: a son named Bhayanak (Fear) and a daughter named Mrityu (Death). His son and daughter gave him two grandchildren: a boy named Niraya (Hell) and a girl named Yatana (Torture).

[the fire elf]

yeah, yeah...thread-jacking in progress

According to the Kalki Purana, Kali and his family were created by Lord Brahma to hurry the dissolution of the cosmos. They are the source of all negative emotions in the world.

At the end of the Kalki Purana, Kali dies in battle from wounds inflicted by Satya Yuga and Dharma personified. Kalki’s generals kill all of his children and grandchildren and Kalki himself kills Kali’s most powerful generals, Koka and Vikoka

[Ron]

LOL! Overcompensating, much?

Ron

[Kinetic IV]

The only "Kali" that truly matters is the Goddess Kali.

[the fire elf]

LOL! Overcompensating, much?

Ron

collecting data

[the fire elf]

The only "Kali" that truly matters is the Goddess Kali.

shakti is wielded by shiva

[Isotopia]

Certainly Yamantaka deserves a place at the table. Back in the 90's there was a major show of Tibetan art at the Asian Museum in Golden Gate park.

Among the many gods and deities interpreted in ancient art, Yamantaka ended up having a room of his own.

With the face of a bull (usually black) and six arms (sometimes) like Shiva, Yamantaka weilds the sword which supposedly slices through the veil of illusion.

[Kinetic IV]

Well it's good to see Joseph Dunphy again using material thats not his to attack others and spread more lies around. Of course it's to be expected.

By the way unless you want a process server knocking at your door, you know what to do. Get your ass moving, my patience is about gone.

Edit: By the way has the Photobucket admin contacted you yet?

Edit 2: Your compliance is appreciated. And I'm smiling which is the opposite of what you were trying to accomplish. Oh and did you see that other post? You didn't expect that!

[dana]

Actually, movies aside, the whole, "all things being equal," is the economist's stock in trade. Occam's Razor doesn't actually say that. It says, when face with two or more possible solutions, the simplest one is the most likely to be true. Quite a bit of difference there, eh?

Note again that I'm not claiming to represent Truth, here. Check out my post again and you might see a bit of distrust of Truth/proof when it comes to beliefs. But I can build mental models with the best of them.

And yes, I both saw Contact and read the book, although not in that order. The movie lost all the bravery of the book, IMHO, but both whimped out in the end, as far as I was concerned. :)

As for what I mean when I say "supernatural functioning," or "supernatural god," I'm referring to anything beyond understanding via the principles of observation, empiricism, and experimentation, all repeated across time and witnesses using the same methodology. But Truth is beyond me. Make sense?

Ron

OK, its been so long since school days (of that sort) that I had to actually look it up and the actual translation of Occam's knifie is : "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. I think the necessity bit implies the "all things being equal" part. I mean Occam's is all about reductionism, and you're trying to rule out the biggest possible "what if" that I can think of. If you really wanted to include the possibility of God's existence, do you really believe scientific method and Occam's shaft is going to really apply? Looking for the infinite through scientific method, I think the most that you would ever be able to observe is anomalies like they always go on about in quantum physics, or macro phenomena that are written off as pure coincidence. Maybe God (Goddess) can only be found in chaos and subjective reality.

cue Kathyryn Cullman - " I bee-lieeve in....."

[EvilDustBooger]

"Miracles" Baby! I can`t believe someone else remembers her...

[dana]

"Miracles" Baby! I can`t believe someone else remembers her... :D

Yeah, we're probably both dating ourselves. Although I never got into the JudeoChristian thang, that show had an odd fascination for me when I was a kid. Having experienced a few miracles, impossibilities, incredible synchronicities and coincidences myself has certainly made me believe that there is a bigger reality out there. Defining it and calling it all "the workings of God" seems like a kind of hubris though.

[Rob the Wop]

OK, its been so long since school days (of that sort) that I had to actually look it up and the actual translation of Occam's knifie is : "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. I think the necessity bit implies the "all things being equal" part. I mean Occam's is all about reductionism, and you're trying to rule out the biggest possible "what if" that I can think of. If you really wanted to include the possibility of God's existence, do you really believe scientific method and Occam's shaft is going to really apply? Looking for the infinite through scientific method, I think the most that you would ever be able to observe is anomalies like they always go on about in quantum physics, or macro phenomena that are written off as pure coincidence. Maybe God (Goddess) can only be found in chaos and subjective reality.

cue Kathyryn Cullman - " I bee-lieeve in....."

Here's my entry re: Occam's razor.

The problem is that once you include God in any answer, you automattically introduce an infinite array of questions based upon definitions of God. Since an omnipotent being cannot be defined by its very nature (an all powerful being requires all powerful instruments to detect it), it becomes the most complex and vague theory to any question posed. Ergo, it should be the first discarded. Attempts can be made to define quantum physics, experiments tried, etc. This cannot happen with God.

[Ron]

....OK, its been so long since school days (of that sort) that I had to actually look it up and the actual translation of Occam's knifie is : "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. I think the necessity bit implies the "all things being equal" part.

You might think so, but it doesn't. :) See if we want to get into the details, Occam's razor is all about simplicity and elegance. The wikipedia has got a pretty good discussion about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor. In short, a universe with supernatural happenings would be much more complex than one without. If there is a god you've got to ask all those age old questions like, why is there suffering, how many angles can dance on a head of a pin, could god make a boulder that he couldn't lift, and so on? That's complicated. A universe without the supernatural is less so and thus Occam's Razor would suggest choosing that option.

"All things being equal," comes into play when one is trying to choose one given strategy/option and wants to decide which one. So, for example, let's say we're trying to figure out how to build the best swimsuit for competitive swimmers. We'd start by using the concept of "all things being equal," for our design of the material. We know that different swimmers will respond differently, that different pools will have different effects and so, but we're assuming all of those are equal so we can focus just on what material to use with what cut. Once we're done with that we've got to choose from the universe of manufacturing options available to us to actually make the darn swim wear. Occam's Razor comes into play when it tells us we should choose the process with the fewest steps and as simple as possible to achieve our desired ends. See the difference?

.... If you really wanted to include the possibility of God's existence, do you really believe scientific method and Occam's shaft is going to really apply?

Well now, as I've said a number of times, I don't think this type of thinking is very useful when examining religious beliefs, for most folk. For myself, I find life is better when I hold an atheistic position, for the above and many other "reasons," but don't confuse my thinking with the Truth or a belief set that would work for anyone else, let alone everyone else.

.... Maybe God (Goddess) can only be found in chaos and subjective reality. ...."

And maybe that truth means there isn't either. ;)

Ron

[Ron]

....
The problem is that once you include God in any answer, you automattically introduce an infinite array of questions .... it becomes the most complex and vague theory to any question posed. Ergo, it should be the first discarded. Attempts can be made to define quantum physics, experiments tried, etc. This cannot happen with God.

Very well said. Better than me by far, thanks for the put!

Ron

[dr.placebo]

My starting point is that I exist as a small conscious entity in a vast universe. My knowledge is quite limited, and is prone to errors. People who believe in absolute knowledge and a small universe can stop reading now.

The use of Occam's Razor in this debate has some problems. The notion that "god did it" is simple yet not very predictive. But the notion that "there is no god" is also not very predictive. Unless one has a more specific definition of god neither statement has much predictive power. Agreement about the nature of god is no more likely than agreement about the existence of god, especially in this thread.

[Kinetic IV]

While Occam's Razor is a powerful tool it should not be used as the only lens for looking at philosophical problems. There are other perspectives that should be considered.

And while using Occam's Razor makes the philosophical questions look a lot easier to answer, if it was that easy to clean up those possible answers we wouldn't have 73,000+ organized / recognized religions and so many dang questions still hanging around. Someone would have already used it long before now (it's been traced back in various forms to the 1300's), cleaned things up and solved the mysteries of the universe.

[Kinetic IV]

While Occam's Razor is a powerful tool it should not be used as the only lens for looking at philosophical problems. There are other perspectives that should be considered.

And while using Occam's Razor makes the philosophical questions look a lot easier to answer, if it was that easy to clean up those possible answers we wouldn't have 73,000+ organized / recognized religions and so many dang questions still hanging around. Someone would have already used it long before now (it's been traced back in various forms to the 1300's), cleaned things up and solved the mysteries of the universe.

[Rob the Wop]

And while using Occam's Razor makes the philosophical questions look a lot easier to answer, if it was that easy to clean up those possible answers we wouldn't have 73,000+ organized / recognized religions and so many dang questions still hanging around.

This is an example of argumentum ad populum. Simply because there are many religions and many people believing in them- does not hold something to be true. A prime example would be the popularity of slavery in the southern states prior to the events leading up to the civil war. The majority is not always correct. In fact, recent elections may have pointed to a gross error of one type in the least.