Be a good little atheist...

[Malerin]

I'm not at all sure what Gayak's sentences 2-4 mean (since they seem to contradict his earlier definition and probably even themselves), but his first sentence clearly states that a supernatural being would not be a part of the universe and could not interact with it. With that definition, any insistence on a supernatural being that does interact with the universe directly contradicts that definition of supernatural being. So, a supernatural being interacting with the universe is a logical contradiction.

That's a reverse ontological argument: Supernatural beings are defined as beings which cannot interact with the physical universe? Of course the question arises, why would you define supernatural beings that way? Where does that limitation come from? I could just as easily define supernatural beings as beings which exist in all possible worlds. I'm sure no one would let that slide.

If that's what qayak has in mind, it still doesn't help him. I'll simply assert the possible existence of otherwordly beings, which exist outside of time and space, yet CAN interact with a physical universe and not be detected. We would then have a set of possible worlds where qayak's non-interfering supernatural beings exist and another set where interfering otherwordly beings exist. Since we don't know what set we belong to, qayak hasn't moved any closer to establishing the logical impossibility of a being existing outside the universe yet also interacts with it.

If that's what qayak had in mind, he would not have added the "easily detectable" part either.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I kinda figured that. I'm continually amused by the idea that the presence of a sceptic can prevent something with the supposed power of an omnipotent being behind it from occuring.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I kinda figured that. I'm continually amused by the idea that the presence of a sceptic can prevent something with the supposed power of an omnipotent being behind it from occuring.

It's the excuse they'll use when their nonsense fails. A Chi Master failed the sheet test and glibly explained that Chi can be resisted successfully if you have your toes crossed. Anybody tried to cross your toes lately? And did the subject "just happen" to have theirs crossed during the test? In street shoes?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Proud and content back of the bus resident myself. As long as it's not a Fort Worth "T" bus.

hardly, the religious stereotype others all the time....its part of it......

Has SE Cupp ever even articulated her beliefs? I have heard her say she is an atheist, but literally, that is it.

Isn't that all she literally has to say?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's a reverse ontological argument: Supernatural beings are defined as beings which cannot interact with the physical universe? Of course the question arises, why would you define supernatural beings that way? Where does that limitation come from? I could just as easily define supernatural beings as beings which exist in all possible worlds. I'm sure no one would let that slide.

If that's what qayak has in mind, it still doesn't help him. I'll simply assert the possible existence of otherwordly beings, which exist outside of time and space, yet CAN interact with a physical universe and not be detected. We would then have a set of possible worlds where qayak's non-interfering supernatural beings exist and another set where interfering otherwordly beings exist. Since we don't know what set we belong to, qayak hasn't moved any closer to establishing the logical impossibility of a being existing outside the universe yet also interacts with it.

If that's what qayak had in mind, he would not have added the "easily detectable" part either.

Like I said, I have no idea what he meant by sentences 2-4.

As to the possible existence of beings that exist outside of time and space and yet interact with the universe, I think that is a very interesting issue. I do not know, but wonder, if there might be hidden issues, when the words are well-defined, that show contradictions.

Paul A introduced this issue with Interesting Ian in the past. I think it might make a terrific topic for some PhD philosophy candidate to explore.

 

[catsmate]

Why does a non-faith require a symbol to be displayed?

??? It's not a requirement, but people often like to express opinions through such media.

And, yes, having a symbol which symbolises "evolution is real" seems to me to be a direct and deliberate equivalent of having one which symbolises "Jesus is real". If it's not an article of faith, then I don't understand the point in having it.

Really??? A scientific theory with decades of testing and scrutiny behind it is equivalent to some dubious stories about a zombie messiah?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Basic concept background information: THE MEDIA BUSINESS: ADVERTISING; Symbols That Win, or Lose, Consumers' Seal of Approval

Of 24 logos tested in the July survey -- ranging from those of Apple Computer to Mastercard to Wendy's International -- in 17 cases the full logos elicited more positive responses than the names alone. These included Quaker State motor oil, Cadillac, General Mills and Buick.

In six cases, the logos scored less than the names by themselves. Those cases included Mastercard, Burger King, Wendy's and Texas Instruments.

And in one case, Apple Computer, there was no difference between the name-only image and the full-logo image, maybe because, after all, an apple is just an Apple

 

[Mister Agenda]

That's a reverse ontological argument: Supernatural beings are defined as beings which cannot interact with the physical universe? Of course the question arises, why would you define supernatural beings that way? Where does that limitation come from? I could just as easily define supernatural beings as beings which exist in all possible worlds. I'm sure no one would let that slide.

If that's what qayak has in mind, it still doesn't help him. I'll simply assert the possible existence of otherwordly beings, which exist outside of time and space, yet CAN interact with a physical universe and not be detected. We would then have a set of possible worlds where qayak's non-interfering supernatural beings exist and another set where interfering otherwordly beings exist. Since we don't know what set we belong to, qayak hasn't moved any closer to establishing the logical impossibility of a being existing outside the universe yet also interacts with it.

If that's what qayak had in mind, he would not have added the "easily detectable" part either.

The reason supernatural beings are defined as not being detectable is because we would have convincing evidence of detectable beings. Defining them as undetectable takes them completely out of the realm of evidence, and makes the notion useless in the process. Why believe in undetectable beings? How can you reliably know anything about them? Especially in a world where we know people hallucinate and plain make stuff up?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Wait. That needs to be tested on someone elses property first


to see how it goes . . .

I wonder what would have happened if the sign had said "certainly" instead of "probably."

Let's better not provoke them theists. After all, not all religions require martyrdom as a sign of unshakable faith, so why should atheism?

I feel a little bad for that making me laugh.

 

[dlorde]

If everything seems to behave as we'd expect if there was no god, and there's no good reason to suppose there might be a god, then why suppose there might be one at all?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If everything seems to behave as we'd expect if there was no god, and there's no good reason to suppose there might be a god, then why suppose there might be one at all?

Well, if we didn't have a God there would be no reason to support the parasitic priesthood, now would there?

 

[Malerin]

The reason supernatural beings are defined as not being detectable is because we would have convincing evidence of detectable beings. Defining them as undetectable takes them completely out of the realm of evidence, and makes the notion useless in the process. Why believe in undetectable beings? How can you reliably know anything about them? Especially in a world where we know people hallucinate and plain make stuff up?

I'm claiming they could be undectable, not that they are. I gave a scenario to support my claim (a supernatural being moving something a small amount). I don't see any contradiction in this.

 

[Mister Agenda]

No contradiction. Just no reason to take the notion as a serious possibility.

 

[Malerin]

No contradiction. Just no reason to take the notion as a serious possibility.

And you didn't even wait for qayak's argument! How rude.

 

[amb]

Well, if we didn't have a God there would be no reason to support the parasitic priesthood, now would there?

There is no good reason for religion to exist, especially the xtian ones. Not that any others are worth keeping either. Take away christ, and there goes christianity, down the gurgler of history to never re-surface again.
The church has to be brought before a high court and prove why it should not be dismantled and the priesthood made to answer for all the pedophilic actions of some of their members.

 

[Weak Kitten]

There is no good reason for religion to exist, especially the xtian ones. Not that any others are worth keeping either. Take away christ, and there goes christianity, down the gurgler of history to never re-surface again.
The church has to be brought before a high court and prove why it should not be dismantled and the priesthood made to answer for all the pedophilic actions of some of their members.

Don't take this the wrong way but there is a reason for religion to exist. To many people living miserable, small lives with no opportunity to better their position religion gives them a hope that they will get to experience something better, someday. To some it even gives them a reason to plan for the future because they will be able to "look down" on their grandchildren and see that their sacrifices made a difference.

Facing the idea that there is no divine retribution, that some crimes will never be punished and some kindnesses will never be re-payed, is a hard thing. Not everyone has the education, time or mental ability to work through that realization and create personal meaning in their life. It's no necessarily that they are lazy or bad, they just can't do it. And as long as their safety blanket doesn't hurt anyone else there is no reason to yank it away from them.

By the way, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't feel that being nice and understanding of theists makes me a lesser person.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Weak Kitten, that argument has been destroyed repeatedly. People commit crimes and do good things all the time now, with that threat system in place. But there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same without the Great Sky Fairy hovering over them. Systems of religion that don't have salvation or damnation aren't plagued with high crimes and/or utter despair.

 

[amb]

Perhaps people would make more of their lives if they were assured this life is all there is.
They may spend that extra dollar on themselves knowing that at any moment they could cease to exist. They may even give that extra cuddle to a loved one and tell them how much they love and appreciate them.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Perhaps people would make more of their lives if they were assured this life is all there is.
They may spend that extra dollar on themselves knowing that at any moment they could cease to exist. They may even give that extra cuddle to a loved one and tell them how much they love and appreciate them.

No, no, no. Sigh. How many times do we have to be told that if there's no reward in the next life we can completely screw this one up without remorse? The silly "this is all we get" folks are trembling on the verge of utter chaos anyway, just waiting for the excuse to go killing, raping, stealing and raping. ("You said 'rape' twice." "I like rape.")

Or so I've been told, anyway.

 

[bokonon]

Don't take this the wrong way but there is a reason for religion to exist. To many people living miserable, small lives with no opportunity to better their position religion gives them a hope that they will get to experience something better, someday. To some it even gives them a reason to plan for the future because they will be able to "look down" on their grandchildren and see that their sacrifices made a difference.

Facing the idea that there is no divine retribution, that some crimes will never be punished and some kindnesses will never be re-payed, is a hard thing. Not everyone has the education, time or mental ability to work through that realization and create personal meaning in their life. It's no necessarily that they are lazy or bad, they just can't do it. And as long as their safety blanket doesn't hurt anyone else there is no reason to yank it away from them.

By the way, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't feel that being nice and understanding of theists makes me a lesser person.

Weak Kitten, that argument has been destroyed repeatedly. People commit crimes and do good things all the time now, with that threat system in place. But there's no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same without the Great Sky Fairy hovering over them. Systems of religion that don't have salvation or damnation aren't plagued with high crimes and/or utter despair.

Your response doesn't address Weak Kitten's post at all. The point being made was that it provides hope and comfort, not that it creates "good behavior."