"There's Probably No God..."
demibee
<http://www.canada.com/Life/story.html?id=1369668>
'Atheist ads will start running today on Calgary buses-- only the second
Canadian city after Toronto to accept the controversial messages.
'Signs bearing the message, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying
and enjoy your life," will appear for four weeks. "It's time that we
show our point of view," said Cliff Erasmus, executive director of the
Calgary Centre for Inquiry.
'The campaign started in European and American cities in recent months,
and made its way to this country when the Freethought Association of
Canada, a national atheist organization, raised $43,000 in donations
across Canada to buy similar ads.'
Halifax won't be running the ads on our buses. And I have to say... If,
say, the Catholic church or the Pentecostals had a religious message on
the local buses, I think I'd find it offensive.
db
a
But it's not a religious message... it's the exact opposite of a religious
message - one based on fact, evidence, truth, history, science, and above
all, logic.
a
Rick Walker
"a" wrote:
> But it's not a religious message... it's the exact opposite of a
> religious
> message - one based on fact, evidence, truth, history, science, and above
> all, logic.
But it's... "controversial".
- Rick
a
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:14:05 GMT, a <a...@thisisnotmyrealemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> demibee wrote:
>>> 'Calgary joins Toronto in running atheist bus ads'
>>> <http://www.canada.com/Life/story.html?id=1369668>
>>>
>>> say, the Catholic church or the Pentecostals had a religious message on
>>> the local buses, I think I'd find it offensive.
>>>
>>>
>>> db
>> But it's not a religious message... it's the exact opposite of a religious
>> message - one based on fact, evidence, truth, history, science, and above
>> all, logic.
>>
>> a
>
>
> it's for the purpose of denying the existence of such a being.
>
I hold your post to be untrue. Sue me.
a
Al Smith
>
>> >'Calgary joins Toronto in running atheist bus ads'
>> ><http://www.canada.com/Life/story.html?id=1369668>
>> >
>> >
>> >say, the Catholic church or the Pentecostals had a religious message on
>> >the local buses, I think I'd find it offensive.
>> >
>> >
>> >db
>
>
> controversy altogether. Wouldn't be fair if they turned down the
> Atheists and displayed an RC message. That would be offensive to me
> too.
>
I find all ads offensive.
-Al-
demibee
> But it's not a religious message... it's the exact opposite of a
> religious message - one based on fact, evidence, truth, history,
> science, and above all, logic.
"There is no god" is a statement of belief... *religious* belief. As Bill
Maher put it during an interview about Religulous, "Atheism mirrors the
certainty that fundamentalism expresses."
One of these is true...
1. There is a god, and he/she/it created the universe;
2. There is an "Ultimate Being/Reality," and it *is* this universe (and
possibly more);
3. There is no ultimate being; this universe is completely
self-organizing; the energy that provided for its coming into being
is also self-sufficient (requires no creator, no "other").
Any one of those three would require *some* proof in order to be
considered scientific fact. It seems to me that agnosticism ("I don't
know") is the most reasonable (and honest) belief... After all, 8000
years of civilization -- tribal beliefs (ancestor worship, animism, belief
in "living archetypes"), religion, philosophy, and science -- hasn't
revealed the ultimate answers to the "big questions." We're still
guessing, based on the evidence (or lack thereof).
db
a
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:14:05 +0000, a wrote:
>
>> But it's not a religious message... it's the exact opposite of a
>> religious message - one based on fact, evidence, truth, history,
>> science, and above all, logic.
>
> "There is no god" is a statement of belief... *religious* belief.
No, it isn't.
a
kozmo
i'd prefer to see "there is no god so stop being stupid and get on
with your lives" on buses. lol
kozmo
how about:
4) shit happens
John
I consider #3 to be the natural state or the 'resting state'. Numbers
1 and 2 require someone to make stuff up. In other words #3 isn't a
belief, it's a lack of belief.
Daniel MacKay
Pascal's Wager, is evidence enough that you shoud be religious.
If you can find a flaw with Pascal's Wager, then you should write about
that.
For those too lazy to google, here's the link to Pascal's Wager:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
-dan
schooner
"lucretia borgia" <lucreti...@florence.it> wrote in message
news:qsbgr4pip5imt52ah...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:22:28 -0700 (PDT), kozmo
> <novasc...@gmail.com> opined:
> knotted about it - well if there is one, give me the proof.
And I'm sure the peanut gallery of this little newsgroup is where the final
existence of a god or not will be decided once and for all, after thousands
of years of it being debated by all cultures of the world, the same people
that can't even decide what a fuckin ad is.
Why discussions like this even exist is beyond me, with one side saying
point blank there is or isn't a god like they hold the final word on it all.
JD
"a" <a...@thisisnotmyrealemail.com> wrote in message
news:hrRtl.17465$PH1.4560@edtnps82...
It is a religious message; an atheist has as much faith that there is no
diety as a religion person has faith that there is. I think it is the right
decision; they should stay away from advertising religion of any kind. You
will always offend someone with religious ads.
JD
And you are speaking from faith that her post is untrue; just like any other
religion.
JD
"demibee" <dem...@post.com> wrote in message
news:v9el86-...@news.dal.ca...
I agree. And even science has not yet provided an answer.
JD
Yes it is. It is still based on faith.
JD
"lucretia borgia" <lucreti...@florence.it> wrote in message
news:qsbgr4pip5imt52ah...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:22:28 -0700 (PDT), kozmo
> <novasc...@gmail.com> opined:
>
> knotted about it - well if there is one, give me the proof.
Because... if there is no deity, give me the proof.
schooner
"JD" <m...@home.ca> wrote in message news:FrWtl.17519$PH1.11381@edtnps82...
Well said. And an ad on a fuckin bus isn't going to convert a person's
beliefs one way or another, all these ads do is piss off one portion of the
population, no matter what view you take. They are meant to stir up debate
to drive an underlying agenda, nothing more.
JD
"John" <jvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc6a34e1-2f88-44cc...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
No. Its still a believe; as you stated above. You 'consider'... ie. you
don't know. You believe.
schooner
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:49:46 GMT, "schooner" <scho...@accesswave.ca>
> opined:
>>>
>>> There isn't a god so I'm not sure why anyone is getting their knickers
>>> knotted about it - well if there is one, give me the proof.
>>
>>And I'm sure the peanut gallery of this little newsgroup is where the
>>final
>>existence of a god or not will be decided once and for all, after
>>thousands
>>of years of it being debated by all cultures of the world, the same people
>>that can't even decide what a fuckin ad is.
>>
>>Why discussions like this even exist is beyond me, with one side saying
>>point blank there is or isn't a god like they hold the final word on it
>>all.
>>
>
> change either.
>
> I am not saying that my opinion is final, you show me there is a god
> and if the proof is good, then I will believe what you say :)
>
> I lived too long in poverty stricken countries where children starved
> to believe there is some benevolent being who is god. The old saw
> that man makes that evil, not god, doesn't wash with me either. If
> he/she were there and all powerful, enough he/she could make the
> heavens and earth, then they could see every child had a reasonably
> full belly at days end.
>
> I feel I only have to gaze at the sky, as I did last night at that
> wonderful moon, for it to be apparent to me that some foolish vanity
> must exist to even think there is anything more for us mere fleas in
> the system.
And that is your opinion and you are free to have it, and in the sands of
time it means fuck all, as do those of me or others.
People have believed and disbelieved in a god since the dawn of time. An ad
on a bus isn't going to change it. This is nothing more than a waste of
time and resources during a period in our histrory when it could be better
spent elsewhere. In this case I blame those pushing to place the ads, they
are wasting time on something that serves no real purposes beyond their own
self promotion and political agenda, having councils debate this and spend
money on this all for what? They are no better than the organized religions
they oppose. How about they spend the money to help food banks or homeless
kids? Because they get more press trying to push against the system for no
good.
schooner
"Punk" <pu...@spamme.ca> wrote in message
news:49b93476...@news.eastlink.ca...
> sensibilities Metro Transit made the right call. They shouldn't be in
> the business of providing a forum to shit disturbers.
>
> Punk
>
>
>
>
Exactly. Shit disturbers looking for attention, fighting for a cause that
does no one any good at the end of the day but themselves.
JD
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:49:46 GMT, "schooner" <scho...@accesswave.ca>
> opined:
>>>
>>> knotted about it - well if there is one, give me the proof.
>>
>>And I'm sure the peanut gallery of this little newsgroup is where the
>>final
>>existence of a god or not will be decided once and for all, after
>>thousands
>>of years of it being debated by all cultures of the world, the same people
>>that can't even decide what a fuckin ad is.
>>
>>Why discussions like this even exist is beyond me, with one side saying
>>point blank there is or isn't a god like they hold the final word on it
>>all.
>>
>
> change either.
>
> I am not saying that my opinion is final, you show me there is a god
> and if the proof is good, then I will believe what you say :)
>
> I lived too long in poverty stricken countries where children starved
> to believe there is some benevolent being who is god. The old saw
> that man makes that evil, not god, doesn't wash with me either. If
> he/she were there and all powerful, enough he/she could make the
> heavens and earth, then they could see every child had a reasonably
> full belly at days end.
>
You should read George Berkeley. It will not prove or disprove the
existence of any diety, but his premise is that the characteristics of said
diety are a creation of humans; if any such diety exists, its
characteristics would be unknowable by us. The premise is kind of the same
as the cells in our bodies; they come into being, live, die and are recycled
every day of our lives and we are completely unaware of their lives or
deaths. Making the assumption that the diety should be benevolent to
individual human beings or any oter creature is probably wrong, but it still
does not prove or disprove the existence of a creator.
> I feel I only have to gaze at the sky, as I did last night at that
> wonderful moon, for it to be apparent to me that some foolish vanity
> must exist to even think there is anything more for us mere fleas in
> the system.
And the wonderful order that the universe is tends to make it quite
understandable why people would believe that it has to be controlled by a
higher power.
a
It is *NOT* a religious message. You think "atheist" is a religion? It's
not. An atheist does not "have faith" that there is no God, an atheist
does not even entertain the existence of a "God", real or not. There is no
"faith" involved whatsoever.
That's hilarious! You equate faith with religion, and say that because an
atheist has faith that there is no God, that it's equivalent to a religious
person's faith that there is. Even if I were to concede that an atheist
has "faith" that there is no God, (and I do not, faith does not mean
"religious"! I have faith that I will receive the correct change from the
teller so I don't check it - religious? No. I have faith that the bus
will be at the stop in the morning at the scheduled time to pick me up for
work - Religious? No.
Even *if* atheists have "faith" that there is no God (they don't), it is
not religious. Religious is of or pertaining to a religion - "atheism" is
not a religion.
Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. A disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is
not a philosophy of life. Further, a philosophy of life is not necessarily
a religion and it doesn't necessitate that a religious belief exists in the
person with the philosophy.
a
a
Dan, that's easy. You think an omniscient, omnipotent "God" won't see
through that namsy pamsy fence-sitting? Do you think it's possible for a
non-believer to "convince" themselves enough to fool their "God" into
thinking they are really religious?
Plus - a cute little play on words is nothing to base one's religion on.
It is unlikely that one would consider conversion solely on Pascal's Wager,
but, rather, Pascal's Wager is just something existing religious people use
to rationalize their beliefs.
Pascal's wager seems like a no-brainer (these seem to be popular among the
"religious"). One should believe in God because in believing, you either
lose nothing, or gain everything. The underlying assumption in the wager is
that belief in God guarantees one a place in heaven. With regard to
Christianity, at the least, the assumption is false. Belief in God, in and
of itself, is not sufficient to ensure entry into heaven.
The problem with Pascal's wager is that the assumption that belief in God
is sufficient to get one into heaven is false. An intellectual belief
simply in God's existence is not sufficient for entry into heaven.
a
Rick Walker
"a" wrote:
> It is *NOT* a religious message. You think "atheist" is a religion? It's
> not. An atheist does not "have faith" that there is no God, an atheist
> does not even entertain the existence of a "God", real or not. There is
> no
> "faith" involved whatsoever.
Agnosticism... I'm an agnostic, so the subject line to me is nothing but
a way to spark controversy between believers and non-believers. Of which
I'm neither. Oh, and I'm glad Metro Transit had the balls to stand up
against these "banners."
- Rick
jd2579
>>> 'Calgary joins Toronto in running atheist bus ads'
>>> <http://www.canada.com/Life/story.html?id=1369668>
>>>
>>> say, the Catholic church or the Pentecostals had a religious message on
>>> the local buses, I think I'd find it offensive.
>>>
>>>
>>> db
>> But it's not a religious message... it's the exact opposite of a religious
>> message - one based on fact, evidence, truth, history, science, and above
>> all, logic.
>>
>> a
>
>
> it's for the purpose of denying the existence of such a being.
>
to a higher being. The add is neither, it is an opinion.
jd2579
JD
"jd2579" <jd.chi...@AMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gp9j8a$vl6$2...@news.motzarella.org...
No its not. An atheist has as much faith that there is no deity as any
religious person has faith that there is. Neither can be proven so both
positions are faith. They aren't even opinion since opinion is usually
based on something beside a belief alone.
demibee
> No it's an opinion.
An opinion *is* a belief. True knowledge of a thing is different from both
of these.
db
demibee
> No, it isn't.
Uh, yes it is. Unless you have knowledge the rest of the world lacks --
i.e., unless you can say, "I *KNOW* there's no higher being; I *KNOW* that
anyone who believes in one is wrong" -- then you are stating a *belief*.
It may be a very logical one, but it's still a *belief*.
db
JD
"Donna Whitman" <NSBoo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:07jgr49a1tleecn81...@4ax.com...
> deity, regardless of gender or name or any other aspect, is what
> religion is all about. If two people debate the existence of a higher
> power, that's a religious debate. If someone want to place a bus ad
> saying Jesus saves, that's a religious ad. If someone wants to place
> ad ad saying his dad doesn't exist, why, all of a sudden, is that NOT
> religious?
Because his dad is a person. His existence or non-existence is proveable.
Any discussion about a higher power, existing or not, is inevitably
religious because both positions are based on faith. Any faith is religion
of some sort.
JD
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:12:18 GMT, "JD" <m...@home.ca> opined:
>
>>
>>And the wonderful order that the universe is tends to make it quite
>>understandable why people would believe that it has to be controlled by a
>>higher power.
>
> don't suppose there is anything more.
I didn't say that every one does. However, looking into the sky at more
stars than one could count in a lifetime makes it quite understandable why
some would come to the conclusion that there is a higher power.
demibee
> All the books say he/she is a lovely, giving person. Tell me why
> children are born with disabilities, children starve, children are
> abused, just for starters. That doesn't say loving god to me!
That's a Western god -- the Abrahamic creator god. Religions like
Hinduism and Taoism maintain a belief in a higher natural power. Their
belief isn't in the Santa-like god of the West -- the all-knowing,
all-powerful, all-caring "interferer god." It's more like an all-pervading
life-force.
Then there are the deists -- the Founding Fathers of the U.S. among them.
They believed in a god, but they believed his power was limited to getting
things rolling; he didn't/couldn't interfere in human affairs. Like a
bowler, once the ball is let go of, what happens to it, happens to it.
db
JD
All athiests say that. Its interesting. Faith is, by definition, the
holding of a belief in the absence of proof. No one can prove or disprove
the existence of a diety. Only agnostics, who basically say that they have
no idea, came claim no religion.
> That's hilarious! You equate faith with religion, and say that because an
> atheist has faith that there is no God, that it's equivalent to a
> religious
> person's faith that there is. Even if I were to concede that an atheist
> has "faith" that there is no God, (and I do not, faith does not mean
> "religious"! I have faith that I will receive the correct change from the
> teller so I don't check it - religious? No. I have faith that the bus
> will be at the stop in the morning at the scheduled time to pick me up for
> work - Religious? No.
>
You don't have faith at all that you will recieve the correct change from
the teller or a bus will stop at the correct time for you. You always have
received the correct change in the past, and the bus generally arrives when
it is supposed to in the past, so you have proof it will be the same in the
future. Faith is not the same thing. Faith requires an absence of proof by
definition.
> Even *if* atheists have "faith" that there is no God (they don't), it is
> not religious. Religious is of or pertaining to a religion - "atheism" is
> not a religion.
>
lol. Yup. Sure. Religion is faith about a diety. It is a belief about a
diety or higher power in the absence of proof. Atheism is a faith about a
deity; a religion.
> Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. A disbelief in the Tooth Fairy
> is
> not a philosophy of life. Further, a philosophy of life is not
> necessarily
> a religion and it doesn't necessitate that a religious belief exists in
> the
> person with the philosophy.
>
> a
Your argument is circular. Religion is faith about a diety or higher power.
Because it is faith, it most definitely influences ones philosophy of life.
One may or may not behave differently because of their faith, but their
reaction to it will most definitely be coloured by their faith.
Disbelief is a belief, and a belief in the absence of proof is a faith. A
faith wrt to a diety or higher power is a religion. An atheist believes, in
the absence of proof, that there is no diety. Therefore, they have faith
that there is no diety, and faith wrt a diety is a religion. Therefore, an
atheist is religious.
JD
And, as an atheist, you know that how? Most major religions do basically
require only a belief in God because a benevolent God forgives all sins if
the person repents. That's how they can keep bad people going to church.
demibee
> I consider #3 to be the natural state or the 'resting state'. Numbers
> 1 and 2 require someone to make stuff up. In other words #3 isn't a
> belief, it's a lack of belief.
I think most of us would consider #3 to be the situation that requires the
least proof. But still, so many questions... Where does the energy that
created the universe come from? What was the condition that caused that
bunch of energy to do "this"?
Either way one looks at it, it's a bit of a mind-f***... Once upon a time
there was a huge void -- 75% hydrogen, 25% helium. Then some stuff
happened. Now some of it is conscious, concerned about its own existence
after death, and making up religions to explain it :)
db
JD
"jd2579" <jd.chi...@AMgmail.com> wrote in message
No its not. Religion is faith with respect to a diety; nothing more or
less. Being religious is about holding a belief with respect to a diety in
the absence of proof.
JD
"demibee" <dem...@post.com> wrote in message
news:q50m86-...@news.dal.ca...
There is no such thing as a 'logical belief'. One belief, in the absence of
proof, is no better or worse than any other belief. They are all just
beliefs.
JD
Makes you think, doesn't it?
demibee
> That's hilarious! You equate faith with religion, and say that because an
> atheist has faith that there is no God, that it's equivalent to a religious
> person's faith that there is. Even if I were to concede that an atheist
> has "faith" that there is no God, (and I do not, faith does not mean
> "religious"! I have faith that I will receive the correct change from the
> teller so I don't check it - religious? No. I have faith that the bus
> will be at the stop in the morning at the scheduled time to pick me up for
> work - Religious? No.
There are two definitions of atheism that I'm aware of...
1. Not interested in gods; May believe of disbelieve in them, but
considers them of no concern; E.g., Buddhism is a largely atheistic
religion, meaning that while its members may believe anything about
them that they wish, gods have no place in their "salvation."
2. Certain (or all but certain) that there are no gods of any kind.
If you don't believe in a god, you may be an agnostic or an atheist. If
you actively believe that there is no such thing as a god, *that is faith*!
You have no more proof in the non-existence of gods than anyone else has
in the existence of gods. If, in the *absence* of that proof you maintain
a position that there is no such thing as a god, then you are operating on
your *beliefs*, as you have no proof either way, and you are taking a
position despite it.
As I stated in a previous post, it may be a logical belief, but it's still
a belief.
Take another example... Do you believe that life on other planets is a
possibility? We have zero evidence for the existence of such life. We
also have zero evidence that it can't happen. Either position amounts to
a belief -- a guess, a supposition -- as no evidence points overwhelmingly
to one possibility or the other. To say "I don't know" is the most honest
and logical response. To say anything else -- "There is" or "There isn't"
-- is to state a *belief*... in this case, not a religious one, but a
belief nonetheless.
db
Rob
> 'Calgary joins Toronto in running atheist bus ads'
> <http://www.canada.com/Life/story.html?id=1369668>
>
> Canadian city after Toronto to accept the controversial messages.
>
> 'Signs bearing the message, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying
> and enjoy your life," will appear for four weeks. "It's time that we
> show our point of view," said Cliff Erasmus, executive director of the
> Calgary Centre for Inquiry.
>
> 'The campaign started in European and American cities in recent months,
> and made its way to this country when the Freethought Association of
> Canada, a national atheist organization, raised $43,000 in donations
> across Canada to buy similar ads.'
>
>
> say, the Catholic church or the Pentecostals had a religious message on
> the local buses, I think I'd find it offensive.
>
>
> db
Ads are as annoying as those bible thumpers, I don't pay attention to
either.
demibee
> If you can find a flaw with Pascal's Wager, then you should write about
> that.
Okay... Modern Christians say that if one doesn't believe in the divinity
of Jesus (the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc.), then he'll end up
in Hell for all eternity.
Muslims say the opposite: if one *does* believe in the divinity of Jesus,
he's blaspheming God and will, therefore, be punished in Hell after
death.
Now... Which one does a person bet on? :)
Going further, Mormons say that Jesus visited North America after the
Resurrection, and he had more teachings. Without that understanding, you
won't make it into the third and highest heaven...
Rastafaris believe the former emperor of Ethiopia (Tafari Makonnen aka
Haile Selassie I) is the Second Coming of Christ. Ahmadiyya Muslims
believe that a different person (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) is the Second Coming
of Christ...
The more religions you add to the mix, the more beliefs you have to
balance until it becomes impossible. In the end, you have to believe one
thing or another... or just not care! :)
db
JD
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:31:31 +0000, a wrote:
>
>> That's hilarious! You equate faith with religion, and say that because
>> an
>> atheist has faith that there is no God, that it's equivalent to a
>> religious
>> person's faith that there is. Even if I were to concede that an atheist
>> has "faith" that there is no God, (and I do not, faith does not mean
>> "religious"! I have faith that I will receive the correct change from
>> the
>> teller so I don't check it - religious? No. I have faith that the bus
>> will be at the stop in the morning at the scheduled time to pick me up
>> for
>> work - Religious? No.
>
> There are two definitions of atheism that I'm aware of...
>
> 1. Not interested in gods; May believe of disbelieve in them, but
> considers them of no concern; E.g., Buddhism is a largely atheistic
> religion, meaning that while its members may believe anything about
> them that they wish, gods have no place in their "salvation."
>
That's not really true atheism. Atheism is the belief that there is no
deity while theism is the affirmation of a deity. In the case of Buddism,
the religion is atheist because a deity plays no role in it, but the
individuals could be atheist, theist or agnostic.
> 2. Certain (or all but certain) that there are no gods of any kind.
>
> If you don't believe in a god, you may be an agnostic or an atheist. If
> you actively believe that there is no such thing as a god, *that is
> faith*!
> You have no more proof in the non-existence of gods than anyone else has
> in the existence of gods. If, in the *absence* of that proof you maintain
> a position that there is no such thing as a god, then you are operating on
> your *beliefs*, as you have no proof either way, and you are taking a
> position despite it.
>
> As I stated in a previous post, it may be a logical belief, but it's still
> a belief.
>
There is no such thing as a logical belief. No belief is better or worse
than any other unless there is evidence to support it; at which time it is
no longer a belief.
> Take another example... Do you believe that life on other planets is a
> possibility? We have zero evidence for the existence of such life. We
> also have zero evidence that it can't happen. Either position amounts to
> a belief -- a guess, a supposition -- as no evidence points overwhelmingly
> to one possibility or the other. To say "I don't know" is the most honest
> and logical response. To say anything else -- "There is" or "There isn't"
> -- is to state a *belief*... in this case, not a religious one, but a
> belief nonetheless.
>
>
> db
Actually, it is not a belief. It is not to the level of even a hypothesis,
but the argument for life has a basis in statistics and is also based on
earth's past; while there have been periods in earth's past of mass
extinctions, the recovery of life indicates that its development is probably
in any place where the conditions are right. Statistically, without ever
finding a planet that has those conditions, there are millions of planets
that could support life. Consequently, the likelihood of life existing on
at least one other planet is high based on statistics. Because probability
is accepted as a mathematical principle, it provides an argument for life
elsewhere. While there is no hard proof that would raise it to the level of
a theory or possibly even a hypothesis, it is more than a belief.
JD
Pascal's Wager is a short form of a whole thesis he did on the subject. But
the 'out' is that Judeochristian religions (of which Islam is one) all have
a benevolent God. This God will forgive any sin when you repent; especially
if the sin is one commited by the lack of knowledge or enlightenment. It
will still work for eastern religions as well, since many are also based on
a search for enlightenment.
John
> Actually the statement, "There's *probably* no God," if you believe
> Pascal's Wager, is evidence enough that you shoud be religious.
>
> that.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
>
> -dan
Now if I can just remember that for use in a future conversation!
Pascal's Wager... Pascal's Wager...Pascal's Wager... Pascal's
Wager...Pascal's Wager... Pascal's Wager...Pascal's Wager... Pascal's
Wager...Pascal's Wager... Pascal's Wager...Pascal's Wager... Pascal's
Wager...
demibee
> I thought that last was existentialism ?
Nope, deism... as opposed to theism. Theists believe, as most Christians
do, that God interferes in human affairs. Deists believe that He can't.
In the latter case, the universe is like a tree: God plants it and waits
to see the result.
db
John
> "John" <jvang...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bc6a34e1-2f88-44cc...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 2:59 pm, demibee <demi...@post.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:14:05 +0000, a wrote:
> > > religious message - one based on fact, evidence, truth, history,
> > > science, and above all, logic.
>
> > Maher put it during an interview about Religulous, "Atheism mirrors the
> > certainty that fundamentalism expresses."
>
> > One of these is true...
>
> > 1. There is a god, and he/she/it created the universe;
>
> > 2. There is an "Ultimate Being/Reality," and it *is* this universe (and
> > possibly more);
>
> > 3. There is no ultimate being; this universe is completely
> > self-organizing; the energy that provided for its coming into being
> > is also self-sufficient (requires no creator, no "other").
>
> > Any one of those three would require *some* proof in order to be
> > considered scientific fact. It seems to me that agnosticism ("I don't
> > know") is the most reasonable (and honest) belief... After all, 8000
> > years of civilization -- tribal beliefs (ancestor worship, animism, belief
> > in "living archetypes"), religion, philosophy, and science -- hasn't
> > revealed the ultimate answers to the "big questions." We're still
> > guessing, based on the evidence (or lack thereof).
>
> > db
>
> 1 and 2 require someone to make stuff up. In other words #3 isn't a
> belief, it's a lack of belief.
>
> don't know. You believe.
I don't believe the existence of a something like you suggest.
John
> "jd2579" <jd.chiasso...@AMgmail.com> wrote in message
The athiest has nothing to prove. The athiest isn't making a case for
the existence of a deity. There's no "faith" involved in atheism.
Faith is the belief in something. Atheists have no belief in the thing
that all religious people believe in. It's the absence of a faith. Got
it?
demibee
> Makes you think, doesn't it?
Too much! ;)
db
demibee
> There is no such thing as a 'logical belief'. One belief, in the absence of
> proof, is no better or worse than any other belief. They are all just
> beliefs.
I think a belief can be arrived at logically. E.g., when a person says
they don't believe in God because they've been presented no irrefutable
proof, I can see the logic in their deciding there *probably* isn't one.
There's a leap of faith in there, of course, but I understand the train of
thought.
db
Caper
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:08:12 GMT, "schooner" <scho...@accesswave.ca>
> opined:
>
>>>
>>And that is your opinion and you are free to have it, and in the sands of
>>time it means fuck all, as do those of me or others.
>>
>>People have believed and disbelieved in a god since the dawn of time. An
>>ad
>>on a bus isn't going to change it. This is nothing more than a waste of
>>time and resources during a period in our histrory when it could be better
>>spent elsewhere. In this case I blame those pushing to place the ads, they
>>are wasting time on something that serves no real purposes beyond their
>>own
>>self promotion and political agenda, having councils debate this and spend
>>money on this all for what? They are no better than the organized
>>religions
>>they oppose. How about they spend the money to help food banks or
>>homeless
>>kids? Because they get more press trying to push against the system for
>>no
>>good.
>
> And I can agree with you on that. If it is atheists who want to pay
> for the ads, I think they are mad. I just go about thinking what I
> think and generally only get pissed off if someone tries converting me
> to thinking their way.
>
> How much does an ad like that cost, anyone know ?
God knows..... :))
Caper
"schooner" <scho...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:yvWtl.17524$PH1.13295@edtnps82...
>
> "JD" <m...@home.ca> wrote in message news:FrWtl.17519$PH1.11381@edtnps82...>> news:hrRtl.17465$PH1.4560@edtnps82...
>>> religious
>>> message - one based on fact, evidence, truth, history, science, and
>>> above
>>> all, logic.
>>>
>>
>> It is a religious message; an atheist has as much faith that there is no
>> right decision; they should stay away from advertising religion of any
>> kind. You will always offend someone with religious ads.
>
> beliefs one way or another, all these ads do is piss off one portion of
> the population, no matter what view you take. They are meant to stir up
> debate to drive an underlying agenda, nothing more.
There shoud be an ad saying " There probably isn't a God.....On this side of
the bus" and on the other side of the bus: "The people on the other side of
the bus are going to Hell......From whatever higher power you believe in"
demibee
> I don't believe the existence of a something like you suggest.
Then you believe otherwise.
db
demibee
> The athiest has nothing to prove. The athiest isn't making a case for
> the existence of a deity. There's no "faith" involved in atheism.
> Faith is the belief in something. Atheists have no belief in the thing
> that all religious people believe in. It's the absence of a faith. Got
> it?
You maintain there is no god of any kind, correct? You accept this even
though you have no way to back it up. That's a *belief*. It may well be
true, but at this stage, it's a belief.
If I told you I'm psychic, and I *know* that Cleopatra had a penis, you'd
have to have faith in my abilities to accept such a claim without proof.
But if another psychic said, "No, that's ridiculous! Cleopatra didn't
have a penis!" wouldn't you also have to have faith to accept that
position? I mean, the truth of it is, you don't know. I think we'd all be
quite surprised if it were true, but none of us is in a position to make a
concrete statement either way. Because we don't know.
(The traditional version of this argument is that Napoleon had/didn't have
a birthmark on his butt... but that's boring ;)
db
a
>
> "demibee" <dem...@post.com> wrote in message
> news:371m86-...@news.dal.ca...
>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:38:58 -0700, John wrote:
>>
>>> I consider #3 to be the natural state or the 'resting state'. Numbers
>>> 1 and 2 require someone to make stuff up. In other words #3 isn't a
>>> belief, it's a lack of belief.
>>
>> I think most of us would consider #3 to be the situation that requires
>> the
>> least proof. But still, so many questions... Where does the energy that
>> created the universe come from? What was the condition that caused that
>> bunch of energy to do "this"?
>>
>> Either way one looks at it, it's a bit of a mind-f***... Once upon a
>> time
>> there was a huge void -- 75% hydrogen, 25% helium. Then some stuff
>> happened.
>>
Yeah - it *must* have been a magical being. Apparently it also makes a
great many people *not* think.
Listen, if that's what floats your boat - fine. You can believe anything
you like - just don't lecture me or others on what atheism is. If you're
like most people I've met, you probably know very little of the tenants of
whatever "religion" you pretend to practise.
You should go and sign up for a Philosophy class at a local uni. May I
suggest:
2205 - Philosophy of Religion
*3051 - Theory of Knowledge*
2720 - Ethics and the Good Life
3530 - Freedom, Action, and Responsibility
All available at the Dalhousie Philosophy Department.
a
a
Where did I say i was an atheist? Anyway - you must not be referring to
Christianity... because for sure I *know* you would be able to give me
examples of where belief in God is not *the* requirement - of course not.
I know you would bring up such examples as: "You believe that God is one.
You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." (James 2:19)
So there are these "demons" who believe in God, but won't be forgiven and
cleansed of their sins and allowed into heaven... Hmmm... Apparently, if
you have "seen God" (ie: have direct evidence of his existence) you are
banished to Hell with Satan and 1/3 of the angels(now demons) for only one
act of disobedience and there is no forgiveness.
So - there is no guarantee of everlasting rapture for all. Kinda makes me
hope I never get any evidence of God's existence!
I can quote more, but I trust you already know the passages in the Old and
New Testament where it is explained that the "Lord weighs the motives", and
"the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the
darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts"... and such.
a
jd2579
opinion.
John
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:11:00 -0700, John wrote:
> > The athiest has nothing to prove. The athiest isn't making a case for
> > the existence of a deity. There's no "faith" involved in atheism.
> > Faith is the belief in something. Atheists have no belief in the thing
> > that all religious people believe in. It's the absence of a faith. Got
> > it?
>
> You maintain there is no god of any kind, correct? You accept this even
> though you have no way to back it up. That's a *belief*. It may well be
> true, but at this stage, it's a belief.
What is there to 'back up'? I have never accepted the set of ideas
that form religion. I'm in a natural state without the application of
religious ideas and the belief in a supernatural being. What could I
possibly back up? I'm not arguing for the existence of something that
has no proof of existence, as those with religious beliefs do.
It's religion that bears the burden of proof to support the
proposition that there is a deity. So far there's none at all so I
take the position there is no logical reason to believe in a deity,
and I don't.
John
John
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:40:28 -0300, lucretia borgia
> <lucretiabor...@florence.it> postulated:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:22:28 -0700 (PDT), kozmo
> ><novascrol...@gmail.com> opined:
>
> >>On Mar 11, 3:59 pm, demibee <demi...@post.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:14:05 +0000, a wrote:
> >>> > religious message - one based on fact, evidence, truth, history,
> >>> > science, and above all, logic.
>
> >>> Maher put it during an interview about Religulous, "Atheism mirrors the
> >>> certainty that fundamentalism expresses."
>
> >>> One of these is true...
>
> >>> 1. There is a god, and he/she/it created the universe;
>
> >>> 2. There is an "Ultimate Being/Reality," and it *is* this universe (and
> >>> possibly more);
>
> >>> 3. There is no ultimate being; this universe is completely
> >>> self-organizing; the energy that provided for its coming into being
> >>> is also self-sufficient (requires no creator, no "other").
>
> >>> Any one of those three would require *some* proof in order to be
> >>> considered scientific fact. It seems to me that agnosticism ("I don't
> >>> know") is the most reasonable (and honest) belief... After all, 8000
> >>> years of civilization -- tribal beliefs (ancestor worship, animism, belief
> >>> in "living archetypes"), religion, philosophy, and science -- hasn't
> >>> revealed the ultimate answers to the "big questions." We're still
> >>> guessing, based on the evidence (or lack thereof).
>
> >>> db
>
>
> >>4) shit happens
>
> >There isn't a god so I'm not sure why anyone is getting their knickers
> >knotted about it - well if there is one, give me the proof.
>
> Well if there isn't one,,, give your proof! :-)
Of what?
Rick Walker
"John" wrote:
What is there to 'back up'? I have never accepted the set of ideas
that form religion. I'm in a natural state without the application of
religious ideas and the belief in a supernatural being. What could I
possibly back up? I'm not arguing for the existence of something that
has no proof of existence, as those with religious beliefs do.
It's religion that bears the burden of proof to support the
proposition that there is a deity. So far there's none at all so I
take the position there is no logical reason to believe in a deity,
and I don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
One comedian said, "If you're flying at 25,000 feet and an engine burns
out, *everybody* has religion." :-)
- Rick
James Warren
Pascal's wager can be applied to any god or belief system (and there are many)
which promises a reward after death. So, how do we choose which one to place
our bets on?
jw
demibee
> What is there to 'back up'? I have never accepted the set of ideas
> that form religion. I'm in a natural state without the application of
> religious ideas and the belief in a supernatural being. What could I
> possibly back up? I'm not arguing for the existence of something that
> has no proof of existence, as those with religious beliefs do.
You're arguing for a universe that's capable of organizing itself without
the assistance of anything intelligent. Can the universe really do
that?... i.e., create conscious, living things from basic elements like
hydrogen and helium? I'd say such a contention requires some backup.
db
demibee
> Yeah - it *must* have been a magical being.
Huh?... We didn't come to any conclusion.
> Apparently it also makes a great many people *not* think.
Yes, that's a danger. Some will grab hold of their Bibles, say "This is
the truth," and never think another thought about it. Likewise, some will
grab their Physics 101 texts, say "This is all I need to know," and never
give another thought to the possibility that physics may not be able to
describe everything. Religious or secular, a person can close his mind
to "metaphysical surprises"... to alternative ways of thinking about how
"all this" works.
I declared myself an atheist a few years into putting up with a fundy
friend. His constant preaching and witnessing, during our jr high and
high school years, was enough to make me finally blurt out, "That's it!
It's all bullshit!" And I told him I didn't want to hear another bloody
thing about it...
It was science that finally made me realize that the universe is just too
odd for any possibility to be dismissed like that. The cultural baggage,
I had no problems dismissing (virgin births, resurrections, divine
incarnations, 613 mitzvot [laws/duties]). But that there might be some
valid underlying philosophy that inspired it all, I felt I had to
consider. Divorced of cultural baggage, a lot of metaphysical
philosophies say similar things... and to some degree, they jibe with
quantum reality.
> You should go and sign up for a Philosophy class at a local uni. May I
> suggest:
> 2205 - Philosophy of Religion
> *3051 - Theory of Knowledge*
> 2720 - Ethics and the Good Life
> 3530 - Freedom, Action, and Responsibility
I took 2205... good course. I would seriously have considered minoring in
religion and religious philosophy, but the department is no longer issuing
degrees... electives only! Too bad.
db
demibee
> It is just the same as those we do follow a religion, proof cannot be
> provided so they must take that leap in faith and say 'I believe it is
> true'
Yep, I'd say it takes a leap of faith either way. It even takes some faith
to believe in nothing.
db
Caper
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:13:48 -0300, "Caper" <dr...@noon.com> opined:
>
>>>
>>> And I can agree with you on that. If it is atheists who want to pay
>>> for the ads, I think they are mad. I just go about thinking what I
>>> think and generally only get pissed off if someone tries converting me
>>> to thinking their way.
>>>
>>> How much does an ad like that cost, anyone know ?
>>
>>God knows..... :))
>>
But he also very well could!
JD
"John" <jvan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eacd0a1b-61dc-4fbf...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
No its not. Faith is a belief in the absence of proof. The existence of a
deity can neither be proven or disproven. Given that, a belief held either
way is faith. Got it?
JD
On Mar 11, 10:26 pm, demibee <demi...@post.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:11:00 -0700, John wrote:
> > The athiest has nothing to prove. The athiest isn't making a case for
> > the existence of a deity. There's no "faith" involved in atheism.
> > Faith is the belief in something. Atheists have no belief in the thing
> > that all religious people believe in. It's the absence of a faith. Got
> > it?
>
> You maintain there is no god of any kind, correct? You accept this even
> though you have no way to back it up. That's a *belief*. It may well be
> true, but at this stage, it's a belief.
What is there to 'back up'? I have never accepted the set of ideas
that form religion. I'm in a natural state without the application of
religious ideas and the belief in a supernatural being. What could I
possibly back up? I'm not arguing for the existence of something that
has no proof of existence, as those with religious beliefs do.
It's religion that bears the burden of proof to support the
proposition that there is a deity. So far there's none at all so I
take the position there is no logical reason to believe in a deity,
and I don't.
John
Not so. It is not a natural state for a human; belief in a deity, deities,
is as old as human civilization itself. Correct or not, neither is a
'natural state'. Only an agnostic, who claims not to know either way, could
claim a 'natural state' and no faith.
JD
On Mar 11, 6:00 pm, "JD" <m...@home.ca> wrote:
> "John" <jvang...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bc6a34e1-2f88-44cc...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 2:59 pm, demibee <demi...@post.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:14:05 +0000, a wrote:
> > > But it's not a religious message... it's the exact opposite of a
> > > religious message - one based on fact, evidence, truth, history,
> > > science, and above all, logic.
>
> > Bill
> > Maher put it during an interview about Religulous, "Atheism mirrors the
> > certainty that fundamentalism expresses."
>
> > One of these is true...
>
> > 1. There is a god, and he/she/it created the universe;
>
> > 2. There is an "Ultimate Being/Reality," and it *is* this universe (and
> > possibly more);
>
> > 3. There is no ultimate being; this universe is completely
> > self-organizing; the energy that provided for its coming into being
> > is also self-sufficient (requires no creator, no "other").
>
> > Any one of those three would require *some* proof in order to be
> > considered scientific fact. It seems to me that agnosticism ("I don't
> > know") is the most reasonable (and honest) belief... After all, 8000
> > years of civilization -- tribal beliefs (ancestor worship, animism,
> > belief
> > in "living archetypes"), religion, philosophy, and science -- hasn't
> > revealed the ultimate answers to the "big questions." We're still
> > guessing, based on the evidence (or lack thereof).
>
> > db
>
> 1 and 2 require someone to make stuff up. In other words #3 isn't a
> belief, it's a lack of belief.
>
> don't know. You believe.
I don't believe the existence of a something like you suggest.
Yes you do. Disbelief is still a belief; ie. you belief that no higher
power exists, while some who believes the higher power exists has faith,
just as you do; neither case can be proven.
JD
I actually do know many of them. Most monotheistic, Christianity included,
have only a small number of sins for which someone cannot be forgiven. In
other words, a belief in the deity will not guarantee a person admission
into heaven, but but simply because one commits sins, according to the given
religion, does not mean you won't get there either. Christianity, in
particular, permits the concept of a 'born-again' Christian and once
baptised, begin life anew; most of their past sins are forgiven. If that
wasn't the case, why would anyone convert?
JD
"jd2579" <jd.chi...@AMgmail.com> wrote in message
So? It is still a religious 'opinion' if that is what you want to call it.
JD
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:29:33 +0000, JD wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as a 'logical belief'. One belief, in the absence
>> of
>> proof, is no better or worse than any other belief. They are all just
>> beliefs.
>
> I think a belief can be arrived at logically. E.g., when a person says
> they don't believe in God because they've been presented no irrefutable
> proof, I can see the logic in their deciding there *probably* isn't one.
> There's a leap of faith in there, of course, but I understand the train of
> thought.
>
>
> db
That argument is no more valid than a belief in God, also arrived at
logically, because there is no irrefutable proof that God does not exist,
and a common understanding of the world around us that would suggest there
is one, anyone can see the logic of concluding there *probably* is one. I
can understand both trains of thought which is why I say that there is no
such thing as a logical belief, and no one belief is any more valuable than
another except to the holder.
JD
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:30:51 +0000, JD wrote:
>
>> Makes you think, doesn't it?
>
>
>
> db
It's good exercise for the old brainbox ;)
JD
I have a minor in philosophy.
I don't need to lecture anyone on anything. I didn't say I practice any
religion at all. But when someone comes up with a crappy argument that is
nonsense, like atheism is not a faith, I will call them on it; my interest
in philosophy which is really the study of arguments. Becaue, if it walks
like a duck... since faith is, by definition, a belief held to be true in
the absence of proof, and the existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be
proven, any belief held to be true with respect to a deity is faith; full
stop. Go look it up.
JD
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:42:27 +0000, a wrote:
>
>> Yeah - it *must* have been a magical being.
>
> Huh?... We didn't come to any conclusion.
>
>
>> Apparently it also makes a great many people *not* think.
>
> Yes, that's a danger. Some will grab hold of their Bibles, say "This is
> the truth," and never think another thought about it. Likewise, some will
> grab their Physics 101 texts, say "This is all I need to know," and never
> give another thought to the possibility that physics may not be able to
> describe everything. Religious or secular, a person can close his mind
> to "metaphysical surprises"... to alternative ways of thinking about how
> "all this" works.
>
Physics already has that problem; since nothing survived the Big Bang,
physics views what came before as being of no consequence. Theists and
Deists believe that what came before is definitely of consequence.
> I declared myself an atheist a few years into putting up with a fundy
> friend. His constant preaching and witnessing, during our jr high and
> high school years, was enough to make me finally blurt out, "That's it!
> It's all bullshit!" And I told him I didn't want to hear another bloody
> thing about it...
>
> It was science that finally made me realize that the universe is just too
> odd for any possibility to be dismissed like that. The cultural baggage,
> I had no problems dismissing (virgin births, resurrections, divine
> incarnations, 613 mitzvot [laws/duties]). But that there might be some
> valid underlying philosophy that inspired it all, I felt I had to
> consider. Divorced of cultural baggage, a lot of metaphysical
> philosophies say similar things... and to some degree, they jibe with
> quantum reality.
>
Most definitely; which is why it makes you think.
>
>> You should go and sign up for a Philosophy class at a local uni. May I
>> suggest:
>> 2205 - Philosophy of Religion
>> *3051 - Theory of Knowledge*
>> 2720 - Ethics and the Good Life
>> 3530 - Freedom, Action, and Responsibility
>
> I took 2205... good course. I would seriously have considered minoring in
> religion and religious philosophy, but the department is no longer issuing
> degrees... electives only! Too bad.
>
>
> db
I took Philosophy of Natural Religion as part of my degree. Very good
course.
JD
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:35:06 -0300, "Caper" <dr...@noon.com> opined:
He might be, but you just aren't hearing it.