This just strikes me as sorting your imagination. Either way, it isn't meaningful in a practical sense. The only real compromise I could imagine, among common people, would be: "Live as though you are on your own, be sharply mindful of the limitations you live in right now and structure your behavior as if you could regulate the unbound possibilities of the future..."
Or, as Aerosmith put it:
Every time I look in the mirror
All these lines on my face getting clearer
The past is gone
It goes by, like dusk to dawn
Isn't that the way
Everybody's got their dues in life to pay
Yeah, I know nobody knows
where it comes and where it goes
I know it's everybody's sin
You got to lose to know how to win
Half my life
is in books' written pages
Lived and learned from fools and
from sages
You know it's true
All the things come back to you
Sing with me, sing for the year
Sing for the laughter, sing for the tears
Sing with me, if it's just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good lord will take you away
Yeah, sing with me, sing for the year
sing for the laughter, sing for the tear
sing with me, if it's just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream until your dreams come true
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream until your dream comes through
Dream On Dream On Dream On
Dream On Dream On
Dream On Dream On
Sing with me, sing for the year
sing for the laughter, sing for the tear
sing with me, if it's just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away
Sing with me, sing for the year
sing for the laughter, sing for the tear
Sing with me, if it's just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take you away......
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,535
You, yourself are one, by your own admission.
The walls are closing in Ken, there's nowhere to go but everywhere. The dog mechanic and I will light the way...
Dogdoctor
Canis Doctorius
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 14,786
No I am two, you are one
Yeah I am an atheist by your definition. I never said I wasn't.Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
I thought the uncertain position was agnostic.
I am certain gods are all figments of human imaginations. A strict firmly believing atheist.
I am certain gods are all figments of human imaginations. A strict firmly believing atheist.
Uncertainty is more of a state of mind, a persistant sense of unsatisfaction with the limitations of human existance, that encompasses everything in life. Even if the gods or godlike people did reveal themselves to you, it would be irrelevant. You'd just run into a second astoundingly improbable event since you were born.
You may have overwhelming grounds to be certain of that, but that statement can never be intrinsically true. Though I can't imagine feeling the vast majority of humans exist in a pervasive form of collective insanity is something I'd want to wake up to every morning, unless I liked the idea of superiority.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
I'm familiar with the "everything is so amazing" a god might be responsible perspective. But I don't buy it. Why believe in something with no evidence just because it might be possible? That's different than believing in the possibilities that might explain evidence you do find.
But I have drawn my beliefs from a different perspective than all the possible explanations for the workings of the Universe. Rather it is more mundane. If you look at the history of gods and religion you find sociological and cultural explanations for why people developed beliefs systems of gods and religion. Why should we dismiss Zeus as the generator of lightning bolts but still think some god was the initiator of god beliefs in some other setting?
Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation for beliefs in gods and religion is as a man made construct. There is no reason to look further.
Besides, what's the point of having a god make your universe if you can't explain how that god came into being?
'Insanity' is a bit strong. It's more a desire not to be alone, a need for comfort and that pesky tendency to see purpose and pattern where none exist.
But my actual point in posting is to remind that what we want has absolutely no effect on the truth or on what we should necessarily believe. I've only recently become an atheist. I would really like there to be a benevolent God, an afterlife and heck, a Loch Ness Monster and telepathy and the ability to converse with the dead. But I don't believe in any of those things. I'm sure that some atheists find the belief of the majority of humanity to be disturbing. Does that mean they should start believing in God themselves just to fit in?
Consider us having this conversation in an identical universe, except God has made it very clear that people have to discover life's purpose through their own efforts, but he intervenes when things like the holocaust, nuclear war, or Ashlee Simpson's music career occur, asking people to get along / get some [beeeep] taste in music. However the holocaust and the Cold War still occur and the antichrist comes into the world and starts torturing innocent men, women, and children at the Orange Bowl. What would be resolved?
I was the same way for most of my life, the more I'd read into it, the more I could identify silly natural events and things they based their ideas on. Eventually I understood that everything was mutually contradictory. The idea of Zeus, for example, like all human mythology, is intended as art and metaphor. Zeus signifies a human form joining both matter and space into a thunderbolt, and utilizing it for work. Zeus represents the fallout between nature and human nature, and the point at which a human being would finally unite the two again - and was glorified as such because such a thing is an exceptionally rare and wonderous event. You could also shrug and say "Nah, they just invented him because thunderstorms were ominous", and it might seem quite sensible also, except it lacks content and meaning.
Occam's Razor in this case is psychology. Today, gods are interchangable with powerful and influential people, celebrities, rock stars, industrial pioneers and lucky people born into privledge. Each one of these can leverage this for selling the silliest ideas and countless dumb animals will think there is something meaningful there. The formula, 80% hubris, 10% substance, remains rather consistent though, even with what rational self-interest qualifies as a god.
What real human dignity represented was understood by certain cultures though. It just was considered sacred, unchanging, and natural - something not open for debate or public consumption. If you think I've gone off on a tangent here, western culture is the the complete opposite side of a spectrum that glorifies human potential. When western civilization becomes representative of a 300lb consumer on anti-depressants, with an electro-stimulation belt, a Kaballah string and a Nickelback song playing in their iPod, and a Jesus ("I'm not responsible for anything I do, he is..") sticker or the equally unsettling Darwin one ("Science will provide endless forms of crap to consume and use.."), society will be at a loss to resolve it, because it reflects a lack of any valid principle towards responsibility on an individual level except as defined by laws.
Give me a statue of Zeus any day.
No argument, there. Personally, I believe the universe is self-regulating. I disagree that rationality is a refuge, mainly because human intelligence had to co-evolve with objective morality - lacking this intelligent life would just evolve to a point and then self-destruct.
Last edited:
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
I would say that an "unknowing" position is agnostic (to not have knowledge of whether or not there is a god). Unbelieving is atheist.
I usually say, make a list of all the gods that you believe exist. If that list is empty, then you are atheist.
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
That's the part of atheism that always bothered me. To say there is definitely no god does come down to a belief, but in the end, most everything does.
I believe this desk I'm sitting at exists, but it could just be a virtual reality construct thought up by whoever's running the happiness box that I don't realize I'm in.
I also believe there is no Santa Claus (by the usual flying-reindeer, around-the-world-in-one-night definition), though I'd be willing to change my mind if enough evidence was presented for him. I sure don't expect that kind of evidence to come forth anytime soon, and after a few experiments staying awake on Christmas eve in childhood, I figure life is too short to waste anymore time looking for that evidence.
That's pretty much what I think about god, and I'd consider myself an atheist, though I suppose the definition of agnostic is still an option.
To keep one's mind open to the possibility of an actual Santa Claus (and actual unicorns, fairies, Martians, and monsters under the bed as well, because they're all equally probable) would seem silly, yet still, in the end, it's only a personal belief that none of those things exist.
But that's how most people operate in the world, believing in things they have evidence for, disbelieving in things they don't, and holding open varying degrees of possibility for things they think are possible or probable, from "I'll believe it when I see it, but don't hold your breath," to "I'm almost 100% sure, but I can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt."
This reminds me of the orange/purple/green skepticism thread.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Do you believe there is life on a planet that orbits the north star? If so, you are being foolish. For starters, there is no evidence that there even is a planet orbiting the north star, to hold a belief that there is one AND that there is life on it is completely unreasonable. [disclaimer: there could be an argument that the star is a poor candidate for life sustaining planets; in that case, switch to some sun-like star]
OTOH, do you believe there is no planet with life that orbits the north star (or some particular sun-like star, if you prefer)? If so, you are also foolish, because you don't have near enough information to make that conclusion.
Thus, if the question is "Do you believe there is a planet with life orbiting the north star," the appropriate answer is no.
Similarly, if the question is "Do you believe there is not a planet with life orbiting the north star," the appropriate answer is no.
IOW, it is possible to not believe in the existence of something while not believe that the somethig does not exist.
I less than three logic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,463
Let’s say an expedition just returned from the said solar system with conclusive proof (assume that any evidence you would require they have) of whether or not a planet with life existed there. No one, besides those from the expedition, has any more information on what exists in that solar system than we do right now.
Vegas, looking to cash in on this extraordinary event, is taking bets on whether or not a plant with life was found. What kind of odds do you think it would get? If you were to place you life savings on the line, how would you bet?
Now, apply this analogy to the existence of God(s). Hypothetically, since by definition we can’t do this, conclusive proof of whether or not God(s) exists is available. However, no one has any more information on it than we do right now when placing their bet.
As an atheist, I’d bet on no. I think a theist would bet yes, and an agnostic view would refuse to place a bet. Could I be wrong? Sure, but I’d certainly consider that probability is my favor.
Does thinking God(s) probably does not exist make my view a religion? Well, if thinking Odin, Zeus, Ra, or any other of the multitude of different gods throughout history do not exist is a religion, then sure. Then just about everyone would be a member of that ridiculous religion don’t you think? However, I don’t buy that not believing in your God makes my position a religion.
A little after thought: What do you think Vegas would set as the odds for whether or not God(s) exist?
ETA - These questions and comments are not specifically directed at anyone. As I read this again, I felt the impression I was directing them at pgwenthold, but that was not my intention.
Last edited:
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Actually, I'd ask a different question: does thinking God(s) probably do(es) not exist constitute "believing God does not exist"?
I less than three logic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,463
That seems like a question of semantics to me. If you’d please illustrate the difference you see between the two words, think and believe, I’ll happily answer your question. The words seem like synonyms to me.
I think arguing over semantics is senseless.
I believe arguing over semantics is senseless.
I don't think that this is a very good argument. One of the key considerations for a "rational" person to make a bet is not just the odds of winning, but the payoff if the bet is won. If you give me good enough odds, I'll bet in favor of the most wildly implausible things -- I'll bet a Canadian quarter against your life savings plus 70% of all your future earning that Paris Hilton is in fact a space alien from the planet Vulcan and the illegitmate daughter of a Satanist archbishop.
And that's not because I believe such things about Ms. Hilton, but simply because the only other thing the quarter is doing right now is taking up space on my dresser.
That's why people buy lottery tickets, too.
I think you're trying to force a false di- or tri-chotomy on the issue.
There are a lot of reasons that I might accept a bet, and some of them don't necessarily involve believing that I am likely to win. There are also a lot of reasons I might agree or disagree with the statement "God exists" or "some gods exist" -- and not all of them involve religious belief.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Bad bet, DrK. Betting the odds like that is only a winning proposition if such bets are going to be repeated enough times to ensure a payoff. For one-offs, they're losers.
(In any case, from my admittedly unpopular POV, the chances of that scenario are not just small, but nil. But I don't want to get that discussion started here.)
No, because the "value" of the stake isn't a simple linear function of the monetary denomination. That's where the followers of Von Neumann and Morgenstern got it wrong for many many years. The actual "opportunity cost" of losing a Canadian quarter is literallyzero; it will make no difference in my life whatsoever. The actual value of winning would be enough to make a substantial postive impact in my lifestyle.
That's the reason that people are often willing to bet a fiver, when they'd not bet five thousand. Winning or losing a fiver will both have some minor impact on my life, but nothing significant. The risk/reward ratio is about even. Winning five grand would allow me to pay off some long-term debt, but other than that, there's nothing I need it for. Losing five thousand, on the other hand, would seriously screw up my finances both in the short and middle term; I might even end up losing my car, my house, my phone service, etc. So the practical damage from losing greatly exceeds the benefit from winning, even if the odds were somewhat in my favor.
I less than three logic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,463
I believe you’ve misread my analogy; notice there was no pay out, nor money involved with the gods bet, although I did include it as an after thought. It was only looking for an “I think yes”, “I think no”, or “I can’t or won’t take a position”.
Now, the false di- or tri-chotomy part I think may be valid.
The way I see it, God or Gods, in any form, either exist or they do not. If I’m missing something else, I’m not sure what it is. Consequently, I only see three possible positions on believing whether or not something exist if it only has a does or does not possibility. They are, “I think yes”, “I think no”, and “I can’t or won’t take a position”. Again, I may be entirely wrong, and am willing to be shown so.
To illustrate my idea of how I observe the probability of God(s) existing:
When I leave the house in the morning, I don’t believe I’ll get shot that day; I don’t believe I’ll get struck with lightning; I don’t believe I’ll win a large sum of money; I don’t believe the power at work will go out so I can go home early; and I don’t believe God or Gods exist. I am aware that any one of these could be wrong, but I don’t hold the possibility high enough to warrant it any consideration.
Now, the false di- or tri-chotomy part I think may be valid.
The way I see it, God or Gods, in any form, either exist or they do not. If I’m missing something else, I’m not sure what it is. Consequently, I only see three possible positions on believing whether or not something exist if it only has a does or does not possibility. They are, “I think yes”, “I think no”, and “I can’t or won’t take a position”. Again, I may be entirely wrong, and am willing to be shown so.
To illustrate my idea of how I observe the probability of God(s) existing:
When I leave the house in the morning, I don’t believe I’ll get shot that day; I don’t believe I’ll get struck with lightning; I don’t believe I’ll win a large sum of money; I don’t believe the power at work will go out so I can go home early; and I don’t believe God or Gods exist. I am aware that any one of these could be wrong, but I don’t hold the possibility high enough to warrant it any consideration.
Last edited: