Why are you an atheist?

[Kinetic IV]

It's not too obvious where I struggled in some of my coursework, is it? Thanks for that post Rob and highlighting where my thoughts went off track. That sort of stuff helps me out.

[the fire elf]

There are three types of death spoken of in the Yamāntaka Tantra : Outer death is the regular end of life, which is embodied by Yama, Lord of Death, who resides in the east, seven stories under the earth. The inner death is misknowledge of reality, which is instinctive clinging to objectively real objects and subjects. The secret death is dualistic appearance on the subtelest level of clear light mind and illusory body.

i like...

[the fire elf]

i like...

though i don't like being as boxed in as they ascribe:

I have received highest yoga tantra initiation with entry into a mandala from a qualified teacher with an unbroken lineage. I engage daily in maintaining my vows and the wishes of my initiating Guru. I believe that this path is a valid path to Buddhahood, and I take pleasure in treading that path.
I understand that this community is governed by ideals of non-sectarianism and tolerance towards differing views and traditions, and as a member of the community I will respect these ideals, and my activities here will be concerned with the study and practise of the yidam, Yamantaka.

cool wheels, though:
http://www.yamantaka.org/en/1/manipage.html

[dr.placebo]

Not that it proves a damn thing, but...

Mon Jun 5, 8:31 AM ET

KIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

----

Lions: 100, Christians: 0

[the fire elf]

i'm sure the god of lions got a kick out of that one...

[Rob the Wop]

Not that it proves a damn thing, but...

Mon Jun 5, 8:31 AM ET

KIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

----

Lions: 100, Christians: 0

Evolution 1
Intelligent Design 0

[dana]

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.

Almost exactly the point I was trying to make..... except that it doesn't follow that God (dess) should be the first discarded. And the bit about "all powerful intruments" is an assumption. Perhaps the "instrument" is no more than our very fallible, subjective consciousness, belief and willingness. It depends on what the question is don't you think?

[dana]

[quote="dr.placebo"]Not that it proves a damn thing, but...

Mon Jun 5, 8:31 AM ET

KIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

----

Then again, maybe that was the most "elegant" way God came up with to save him??

[Rob the Wop]

Almost exactly the point I was trying to make..... except that it doesn't follow that God (dess) should be the first discarded. And the bit about "all powerful intruments" is an assumption. Perhaps the "instrument" is no more than our very fallible, subjective consciousness, belief and willingness. It depends on what the question is don't you think?

Uhm, no. Proof, if required, means an observation of 'godliness'. If you want to bend the rules and define godliness as say, being orange in color- you could provide proof of god. Otherwise, in order to observe an all powerful being, you would need to verify that it IS all powerful. If I traveled to an area where primitive tribesman had never seen modern devices, and proceeded to show them 'miracles'- I could be defined as god. The only way to 'prove' anything is to hold that thing against a background where it can be measured. You need a frame of reference.

Belief and subjective consciousness cannot provide scientific proof. If I hypnotized or brainwashed you into believing oranges ate insects, you could not then call it proof on the basis of your individual illusions. But if you managed to record proof of insect eating oranges in the congo, through multiple means, occasions, and people- and it was repeatable- you could make a strong 'proof' of it.

And if there is no question, then there is no reason to put forth a theory of god, correct? But the question is generally- why are we here, or what created the universe, or some other such ilk. At which point god is introduced, and then god becomes the source of far more questions than the original one.

[dana]

....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.
Ron

Actually the translation I quoted is directly from Wikipedia. (Don't you love google!) As I understood it the initial question was: God - a laughable mythology for weak minded fools, or God - a viable player. The "necessity" is determined by the question and Occam's proposes to apply a kind of balancing test of different theories, with the "balance" being determined by a theory's complexity and possibility for error. Occams says to first seek to answer the question, not start by throwing out a seemingly too complex theory and then find a question to match what's left.
"All things being equal" is from that movie, and is their simple way of describing that balancing test. Sorry for adding unnecessary comlexity!!

[dana]

Almost exactly the point I was trying to make..... except that it doesn't follow that God (dess) should be the first discarded. And the bit about "all powerful intruments" is an assumption. Perhaps the "instrument" is no more than our very fallible, subjective consciousness, belief and willingness. It depends on what the question is don't you think?

Uhm, no. Proof, if required, means an observation of 'godliness'. If you want to bend the rules and define godliness as say, being orange in color- you could provide proof of god. Otherwise, in order to observe an all powerful being, you would need to verify that it IS all powerful. If I traveled to an area where primitive tribesman had never seen modern devices, and proceeded to show them 'miracles'- I could be defined as god. The only way to 'prove' anything is to hold that thing against a background where it can be measured. You need a frame of reference.

Belief and subjective consciousness cannot provide scientific proof. If I hypnotized or brainwashed you into believing oranges ate insects, you could not then call it proof on the basis of your individual illusions. But if you managed to record proof of insect eating oranges in the congo, through multiple means, occasions, and people- and it was repeatable- you could make a strong 'proof' of it.

And if there is no question, then there is no reason to put forth a theory of god, correct? But the question is generally- why are we here, or what created the universe, or some other such ilk. At which point god is introduced, and then god becomes the source of far more questions than the original one.

Is scientific "proof" the only kind of proof you can accept in your reality?

I don't believe I offered the opinion that science would ever "prove" God. Clearly it won't!

[the fire elf]

it doesn't follow that God (dess) should be the first discarded. And the bit about "all powerful intruments" is an assumption. Perhaps the "instrument" is no more than our very fallible, subjective consciousness, belief and willingness.

consider the possibility that all fallacy works for the benifit of the infallible

[the fire elf]

At which point god is introduced

the point witch god had

[Rob the Wop]

Is scientific "proof" the only kind of proof you can accept in your reality?

I don't believe I offered the opinion that science would ever "prove" God. Clearly it won't!

Pure semantics debate is the quickest way to turn a useful argument into literary mush. Define proof and I will gladly answer your question.

You agree that scientific proof can never be used for an omnipotent being. Awesome. You would be surprised how many attempt to take the scientific route for proof of god. I'm sure you can agree that people of that mentality can be safely ignored. It just won't work.

While it may surprise many, I have spent quite a bit of time in my youth in introspective meditation. I briefly touched on various religions, but decided that the path to truth must start purely internally. Building upon the vagueness of my senses (proved by drugs and study of psychology with experimentation for verification) and leading to a form of 'fuzzy logic' that dictated what worked best for the belief mesh through which I viewed my reality. I simply seen no valid reason to include a concept of god. I would rather start explanations of things I do not understand with similiar phenomena that I can repeat via experimentation, or by proxy in the form of valid research papers.

But I have never bashed on another's religion (except tongue in cheek, but I do that with most everything). Many gain strength and inner peace from religion. I would rather not debate my belief with a believer as there can only be three outcomes:

a) I am converted to their religion. While this might gain me something if I truely converted, I can tell you I seriously doubt this will ever happen.

b) Stalemate. We argue for no good reason. Not something I would like to do.

c) I convert them to atheism. I DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. I would then be robbing them of a strength that they enjoyed.

So you see, I don't like getting into serious discussions with theists when conversion is a goal. While they can 'win' by keeping someone from hell, I have no position that I consider to be winning.

Agnostics are a different story. At least true ones. If they don't think the evidence points to a solid conclusion, so be it. I can understand that, I just feel that using god as a premise is unnessecary. It's the rabid ones that feel all atheists are really agnostics that bug the shit out of me. No, my beliefs are my own, please bugger off in a corner if you don't accept them.

[the fire elf]

avatar or avatara or avatarim (Sanskrit अवतार), is the incarnation (bodily manifestation) of an Immortal Being, or of the Ultimate Supreme Being. It derives from the Sanskrit word daveed which means "descent" and usually implies a deliberate descent into mortal realms for special purposes.

'god-head' becomes a much more viable term with a descent of consciousness that's tentamount to a higher conciousness moving into a lower and more hellish state of being for special purposes

[the fire elf]

[Ron]

...
Actually the translation I quoted is directly from Wikipedia. (Don't you love google!) As I understood it the initial question was: God - a laughable mythology for weak minded fools, or God - a viable player.

My goodness, defensive much? :) Seems to me that the question was, "Can a logical valid argument be built supporting atheism?" Descartes built one for being a believer way back when but it looked to me like Hugh was questioning the existence of one for non-belief. So I supplied one.

The association of intelligence and belief is just another example of confused wiring, IMHO. There are lots of smart folk with faith out here, and lots of smart folk without faith, as far as I can see. In fact indexing either position with intelligence does us all a disservice, IMHO, as it reduces our ability to just share ideas. :)

... ( The "necessity" is determined by the question and Occam's proposes to apply a kind of balancing test of different theories, with the "balance" being determined by a theory's complexity and possibility for error. Occams says to first seek to answer the question, not start by throwing out a seemingly too complex theory and then find a question to match what's left.
"All things being equal" is from that movie, and is their simple way of describing that balancing test. Sorry for adding unnecessary comlexity!!

Sorry I'm not following you. Did my example not make sense to you? All things being equal is a power mental tool but it's not the same, no is it part of, Occum's Razor. I'm not getting what you're saying at all. Occum's Razor is pretty simple. When faced with more than one possible solution to a given problem the simpler solution is more likely to be the correct/preferred one. That's it. So, yes, it does suggest throwing out the overly complex theories.

Let's say you're a kid trying to figure out where your prezzies come from on X-mas. Could be Santa, could be the parents. If it's Santa you've got to figure out how the fat old man gets that booty to all the good kids around the Western world. How he does his spying, and so on. Very complicated answer. If it's the parents, things get simpler. Occum's Razor would suggest the kid assume it's the parents doing the gifting, and then look of evidence to support that belief. No need for an "all things being equal," analysis at all, eh?

Ron

[Ron]

....
Is scientific "proof" the only kind of proof you can accept in your reality?

Only when the question is what's True. But as I've been saying from the beginning, I don't believe spirituality or personal belief is about Truth and attempting to make is so can be a rough path for everyone.

...I don't believe I offered the opinion that science would ever "prove" God. Clearly it won't!

Yep, that's part of the point. And because the scientific method can't prove the existence of a supernatural god, in fact using the scientific method a supernatural deity isn't even observable, let alone able to be proven through repeated experimentation, scientific philosophy would conclude there isn't a supernatural god. Leading another leg to the valid logical frame work holding up atheism, if you wanna play the logic game with faith. I don't generally, but I can for shits and grins.

Ron

[Lorgasm]

"God is an imaginary friend for adults."

I heard that somewhere. Thought it was funny at the time.

[Kinetic IV]

Again Occam's Razor is great for sorting out multiple answers to a potential problem. But the simplest answer is not always the correct one so relying on one tool, one rule to filter information is not always adviseable.

I'm trying to say something like think outside the box, and don't use one rule to screen everything.

[the fire elf]

dissolve self and see what's left

[Rob the Wop]

Again Occam's Razor is great for sorting out multiple answers to a potential problem. But the simplest answer is not always the correct one so relying on one tool, one rule to filter information is not always adviseable.

I'm trying to say something like think outside the box, and don't use one rule to screen everything.

Absolutely. Occam's Razor is simply a tool. A complex answer can always be the correct one. The tool simply helps in where to start when determining the answer to a question.

Very similiar to the universal engineering maxim of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). The more complex you make a solution, the more likely it is to fail. Occam's Razor simple comes at it from a different direction. You have a question that needs answering. You should first try the simplest answer. Since god is always the most complex answer (ie. you would then need to define god, god's works, and god's powers) and the one you cannot prove by definition, I choose not to include it in my range of answers. It is solely a choice, but one better backed by scientific methodology.

[EvilDustBooger]

I am that I am

You are that you are

It is that it is

There isn`t a box for everything

A lot floating around out there

Just let it happen

I`m all about the journey

Nothing matters when you reach your destination

[Ron]

Again Occam's Razor is great for sorting out multiple answers to a potential problem. But the simplest answer is not always the correct one so relying on one tool, one rule to filter information is not always adviseable.

I'm trying to say something like think outside the box, and don't use one rule to screen everything.

In the same spirit as Rob's earlier post, that's called building a straw man. I haven't suggested that I'm relying on one tool, in fact there's a few legs to the argument that have infected my posts. Furthermore just because this one "rule," applies here doesn't mean that I'm trying to use it to "screen everything." Both of those points rely in extending the original argument into a position beyond that which it originally took, i.e. building a straw man. :)

Ron

[Kinetic IV]

Ron, thanks for the comment and most importantly of all the explanation. There are a couple of areas where I struggle and these kinds of discussions / arguments are one of them.

[dana]

Is scientific "proof" the only kind of proof you can accept in your reality?

I don't believe I offered the opinion that science would ever "prove" God. Clearly it won't!

Pure semantics debate is the quickest way to turn a useful argument into literary mush. Define proof and I will gladly answer your question.

You agree that scientific proof can never be used for an omnipotent being. Awesome. You would be surprised how many attempt to take the scientific route for proof of god. I'm sure you can agree that people of that mentality can be safely ignored. It just won't work.

While it may surprise many, I have spent quite a bit of time in my youth in introspective meditation. I briefly touched on various religions, but decided that the path to truth must start purely internally. Building upon the vagueness of my senses (proved by drugs and study of psychology with experimentation for verification) and leading to a form of 'fuzzy logic' that dictated what worked best for the belief mesh through which I viewed my reality. I simply seen no valid reason to include a concept of god. I would rather start explanations of things I do not understand with similiar phenomena that I can repeat via experimentation, or by proxy in the form of valid research papers.

But I have never bashed on another's religion (except tongue in cheek, but I do that with most everything). Many gain strength and inner peace from religion. I would rather not debate my belief with a believer as there can only be three outcomes:

a) I am converted to their religion. While this might gain me something if I truely converted, I can tell you I seriously doubt this will ever happen.

b) Stalemate. We argue for no good reason. Not something I would like to do.

c) I convert them to atheism. I DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. I would then be robbing them of a strength that they enjoyed.

So you see, I don't like getting into serious discussions with theists when conversion is a goal. While they can 'win' by keeping someone from hell, I have no position that I consider to be winning.

Agnostics are a different story. At least true ones. If they don't think the evidence points to a solid conclusion, so be it. I can understand that, I just feel that using god as a premise is unnessecary. It's the rabid ones that feel all atheists are really agnostics that bug the shit out of me. No, my beliefs are my own, please bugger off in a corner if you don't accept them.

Ah!!.... a nice week off kayaking and now wondering where the thread went.
Rob, thanks for laying all of that out. I don't think I would trust your take on all of this if it turned out you had never even bothered to look in the first place.
Regarding "proof": I'm sure we both love scientific proof and actually it has provided some intriguing pieces to the puzzle. (Nothing conclusive, but merely suggestive) However the problem with scientific proof is that no matter how compelling it is intellectually, it is still something that lacks the personal impact. It's like hearsay evidence, something you only get secondhand. (That said, I think the atheist critics claiming a lack of logical thinking, etc. are somewhat silenced by the fact that some of our best scientific minds had a firm belief in God - Einstein among them. Who am I to quibble? Perhaps the same visionary intuitive mind that allowed him to push the frontiers of physics also allowed Einstein a useful grasp of what God might be? )
Rob, I think you pretty much already alluded to how I would define meaningful proof in terms of whether someone would (or not) believe in God, as well as filling in how that proof panned out for you. I would define that kind of proof as the amalgam of any relevant personal experiences you had (in relation to God or even your spirtuality) and most signigantly in relation to those experiences: the value you assign them, the meaning you give them, and what understanding you find there. [Obviously most would agree that you also apply your useful sense of skepticism and understanding of your own psychology - tendency towards delusion, ability to percieve clearly, etc.. All of that pretty much taking the place of Occam's shiv.]
I think part of the problem is that people seem to often think that the only proof that is valid is one that they can use to convince someone else. In terms of God, the only person worth convincing is yourself, one way or the other.
Another problem that seems to crop up in this question is a confusion between Faith and Belief. The difference being that with faith, you accept a whole series of ideas and possibilities that you somehow hope will be proven true sometime in the future (at the time of your own death, the "second coming", when the man finally burns, etc.) But belief correlates with direct experience.
I do believe in God, but I would have to say that this particular belief is quite different than my other beliefs. Whereas most of my beliefs feel a bit like ownership or containment, it almost feels like this belief "owns" me and compells me forward. I think this is one of the many faults of religion in that they try to own and contain God.
If asked why I believe I would have to abbreviate my answer by saying that it has been a multitude of steps, that have carried me forward throughout my life. During that time I have not encountered anything that made me want to disbelieve.
But in the final analysis, (as Hugh pointed out in the beginning), what difference does it make to anyone (including yourself) whether you do or don't beleve. That's like saying that I think I'm extra special because I'm a Democrat (or Republican). Who cares? It's how you vote that counts. The real pertinent question is: Can you actually find God?

[dana]

... ( The "necessity" is determined by the question and Occam's proposes to apply a kind of balancing test of different theories, with the "balance" being determined by a theory's complexity and possibility for error. Occams says to first seek to answer the question, not start by throwing out a seemingly too complex theory and then find a question to match what's left.
"All things being equal" is from that movie, and is their simple way of describing that balancing test. Sorry for adding unnecessary comlexity!!

...
Sorry I'm not following you. Did my example not make sense to you? All things being equal is a power mental tool but it's not the same, no is it part of, Occum's Razor. I'm not getting what you're saying at all.


Ron

I can see where your confusion lies, and I can certainly give you a more pointed and lengthy clarification if you like. But it's becoming a little redundant.

[lowlandr]

This thread is an insomniacs dream.

I wrote a big long thing but spared you all, you can thank me later...

Maybe if my foot aches tomorrow before the phone rings I'll post it anyway :)

How can you go to BM and NOT think that something "more" is going on?
We don't know fuck, but maybe some of us are paying attention...

[lowlandr]

Errr I mean...

You can believe in Aunt Jamima and I can believe in Aqua Man.

But at BM you respect my fin(s) and I respect your pancakes.

If 10% of the world could pull that off it would cause a landslide.
I'll be there pushing dirt this year.

You'll be able to spot me, I sound like barney fife on acid gettin paid by the syllable...

[AntiM]

This thread is an insomniacs dream.

That's the start of an entir thread itself ....