I thought you folks might be interested in reading An Atheist's Creed, by physicist Mano Singham. It's an exceptional piece.
Good post and good link.
Physfan
Physfan
That was so good and with such a thorough preface, I'd like to post it in its entirety.
Another excellent source for atheists and agnostics, and to bring the arguments favoring them to the public is at: Http://www.edge.org
An Atheist's Creed. By Mano Singham
In the course of writing many posts on science and religion and atheism, it struck me that I was tangentially making many statements about what I, as an atheist, believe. I decided to summarize those scattered thoughts into one coherent statement. Of course, I am not presuming to claim that all atheists subscribe to this statement. The creed is purely a personal one.
An important point of clarification is necessary. When the word 'believe' is used in the creed, it is in the scientific sense of the word. Scientists realize that almost all knowledge is tentative and that one knows very few things for certain. But based on credible evidence and logical reasoning, one can arrive at firm conclusions about, and hence 'believe', some things such as that the universe is billions of years old or that the force of gravity exists. It is in this sense that the word 'believe' is used in the creed below, as an implicit acknowledgment of our lack of absolute certainty.
This use is in stark contrast to the way that the word is used by religious people. They not only believe things for which there is little or no evidence or reason, but even in spite of evidence to the contrary, and defying reason.
Some religious apologists try to exploit the fact that the same word belief is used in both situations to suggest that atheism is as much an irrational act of faith as belief in god. This is sophistry and is simply false.
An Atheist's Creed
I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.
I believe that the life we have is the only one we will have, that the mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain, that we cease to exist in any conscious form when we die, and that it is therefore incumbent on us to enable each person to live their one life to the fullest.
I believe in the power of science and reason and rationality to further deepen our understanding of everything around us and to eventually overcome superstition and erase the petty divisions sown by religion, race, ethnicity, and nationality.
I am in awe of the beauty, vastness, and complexity of nature and the universe, and the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws.
I believe in the power of ideals such as peace and justice and shared humanity to inspire us to create a free and just world.
I believe in kindness, love, and the human spirit and their ability to overcome challenges and adversity and to create a better world.
I believe in the necessity for credible and objective evidence to sustain any belief and thus deny, because of the absence of such evidence, the existence of each and every aspect of the supernatural.
I refuse to bow, prostrate myself, or otherwise cower before the deities of any religion.
I am neither tempted by the fiction of heaven or any other form of eternal life nor fearful of the fiction of hell.
I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma.
Another excellent source for atheists and agnostics, and to bring the arguments favoring them to the public is at: Http://www.edge.org
An Atheist's Creed. By Mano Singham
In the course of writing many posts on science and religion and atheism, it struck me that I was tangentially making many statements about what I, as an atheist, believe. I decided to summarize those scattered thoughts into one coherent statement. Of course, I am not presuming to claim that all atheists subscribe to this statement. The creed is purely a personal one.
An important point of clarification is necessary. When the word 'believe' is used in the creed, it is in the scientific sense of the word. Scientists realize that almost all knowledge is tentative and that one knows very few things for certain. But based on credible evidence and logical reasoning, one can arrive at firm conclusions about, and hence 'believe', some things such as that the universe is billions of years old or that the force of gravity exists. It is in this sense that the word 'believe' is used in the creed below, as an implicit acknowledgment of our lack of absolute certainty.
This use is in stark contrast to the way that the word is used by religious people. They not only believe things for which there is little or no evidence or reason, but even in spite of evidence to the contrary, and defying reason.
Some religious apologists try to exploit the fact that the same word belief is used in both situations to suggest that atheism is as much an irrational act of faith as belief in god. This is sophistry and is simply false.
An Atheist's Creed
I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.
I believe that the life we have is the only one we will have, that the mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain, that we cease to exist in any conscious form when we die, and that it is therefore incumbent on us to enable each person to live their one life to the fullest.
I believe in the power of science and reason and rationality to further deepen our understanding of everything around us and to eventually overcome superstition and erase the petty divisions sown by religion, race, ethnicity, and nationality.
I am in awe of the beauty, vastness, and complexity of nature and the universe, and the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws.
I believe in the power of ideals such as peace and justice and shared humanity to inspire us to create a free and just world.
I believe in kindness, love, and the human spirit and their ability to overcome challenges and adversity and to create a better world.
I believe in the necessity for credible and objective evidence to sustain any belief and thus deny, because of the absence of such evidence, the existence of each and every aspect of the supernatural.
I refuse to bow, prostrate myself, or otherwise cower before the deities of any religion.
I am neither tempted by the fiction of heaven or any other form of eternal life nor fearful of the fiction of hell.
I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma.
photojack,
I welcome and admire your statement - among other things, it demonstrates that religious belief is not a pre-requisite for morality, basic human decency and goodness. It is also a statement of joy and hope where many would find only hopelessness.
Thank you
edward
I welcome and admire your statement - among other things, it demonstrates that religious belief is not a pre-requisite for morality, basic human decency and goodness. It is also a statement of joy and hope where many would find only hopelessness.
Thank you
edward
With Notre Dame acting so oddly I have found Buddhism is close to Atheism though not so much the Theism part. Just a suggestion about thought. Time spent taking care to be careful. Oh yeah and always plan ahead.
YES !
some of IT is there
As a scientist, as is the author
THIS is the creed.
And all the knockers can go to HELL
some of IT is there
QUOTE
I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma.
As a scientist, as is the author
THIS is the creed.
And all the knockers can go to HELL
QUOTE
Buddhism is close to Atheism
Isn't the central tenet of Buddhism that everyone is re-incarnated? If that is supernatural, what is?
Physfan
Amrit
Congratulations on a well thought out site and conclusion of the concept of ATEMPORAL UNIVERSE.
Do you think Einstein based his theories on the non existence of time? I had a thought that this may of been his beginnings for his theories.
Also you wrote:
>When there is no measurement, space-time exists only as a mathematical model and do not exist as a structural quality of gravitational field. Einstein and Gödel were right saying that there is no time in the universe, that universe is a timeless (atemporal) phenomenon<
Is this your opinion, or is this a known fact?
I also wonder, if a typo may be present in this sentence.
>ynamic Equilibrium of the Atemporal Universe
Astronomical observations show that Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) of our galaxy “eats” near stars and galaxies and time by time throws out huge amount of fresh gas (7). AGN transforms matter it into quanta of space.<
I did enjoy the subject matter, and it helps give a clear look at some of misunderstanding around space time for me.
Evans Why a neg as soon as I post?
I would hope you would post your ideas! or theory, not just try to sneak up behind and hit someone with a neg when they click off line.
Congratulations on a well thought out site and conclusion of the concept of ATEMPORAL UNIVERSE.
Do you think Einstein based his theories on the non existence of time? I had a thought that this may of been his beginnings for his theories.
Also you wrote:
>When there is no measurement, space-time exists only as a mathematical model and do not exist as a structural quality of gravitational field. Einstein and Gödel were right saying that there is no time in the universe, that universe is a timeless (atemporal) phenomenon<
Is this your opinion, or is this a known fact?
I also wonder, if a typo may be present in this sentence.
>ynamic Equilibrium of the Atemporal Universe
Astronomical observations show that Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) of our galaxy “eats” near stars and galaxies and time by time throws out huge amount of fresh gas (7). AGN transforms matter it into quanta of space.<
I did enjoy the subject matter, and it helps give a clear look at some of misunderstanding around space time for me.
Evans Why a neg as soon as I post?
I would hope you would post your ideas! or theory, not just try to sneak up behind and hit someone with a neg when they click off line.
Atheists with a creed? Isn't that contradictory?
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 27 2008, 07:44 AM)
Atheists with a creed? Isn't that contradictory?
It's An Atheists Creed.
It's An Atheists Creed.
QUOTE
Atheists with a creed? Isn't that contradictory?
I was going to post a more intellectual response but quickly realised that it would be wasted so my more considered answer is; IDIOT!
Physfan
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 27 2008, 02:44 AM)
Atheists with a creed? Isn't that contradictory?
Creeds don't have to be religious, nitwit. Generally they are, but it is not a necessity.
Creeds don't have to be religious, nitwit. Generally they are, but it is not a necessity.
So its like an anarchist government in theory?
QUOTE
So its like an anarchist government in theory?
Errhh, no actually! Idiot.
Physfan
Hi All,
Let me make a point here... I am an agnostic and agnostics are not atheists. I also "claim" to be a scientist. It would seem (according to that "Atheist's Manifesto" photojack posted) that Atheist's "believe" just as much in their "atheism" as religious people believe in their "creeds"... A litany of one belief statement after another. I will assume that this "atheist" speaks for all atheists ... this allows me to make a point that there is only one kind of "truth" to these professing individuals (and of course those who have expressed their agreement with these professed "ideals"). They also believe strongly that this "creed" enables them to "lead" and determine what is correct for others by "a right of passage" through authodox Science. Quite frankly this "atheism" has a lot more "basic conditions" and "embellishments" than for most existing religious creeds in the world today. From the various points placed it is very possible to be a "rabid atheist" as easily as others are "rabid religious fanatics". The same cries of "purity" and "exclusion of banned ideas" is echoed there as would have been in the Third Reich, Communist States, Islamic Fundamentalist Theocracies as well as in the materialist and self centered American "Deep South" today. It would seem the "hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"... even now with these "atheists".
All the statements made are made unconditionally and without true qualification and well open to a very personal interpretation that is arguably certainly not "scientific". Appeals to basic emotion and "freedoms" abound while simultaneously sanctioning the actions and ideas of others!! For me a scientist is a servant of the society who determines through mutually supporting experiment and theory, an ever improving set of universal principles which are used for the sole purpose of "human improvement". Not everything people who call themselves "scientists" do are necessarily for "human improvement" but it is logical that what they do should be restricted to the sole pursuit of these things and not to the use of this knowledge to pursue a personal goal regardless of the rest of society and it's aspirations. They have no "god given right" to rule or to lead (except in the comic books where the mad scientists "rule"...OK?) It should be accepted that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems actually apply to them as it does to others in society and also to extraterrestrials, time travelers from the future and higher dimensional beings (all of which might exist... and the existence of which atheists have no specific knowledge or fundamental capacity to discover... by this definition of "acceptable knowledge"). This is because Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and our current knowledge and future knowledge will never have the "completeness" these "atheists" thinks exist as "givens". It is pretty clear that ignoring "bits" of fact and theory as well as uncomfortable experiments that undermine the basic "atheistic" belief system is by definition "not scientific"....
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
While our ability to expand the boundaries of knowledge about our Universe is "possible" to an open mind it is, by far, not guaranteed. And whatever we do discover is not the last word in any concept, even those that atheists think they have a monopoly on to interpret... just because they are "avowed atheists".
Lets look at these "high ideals" one at a time...
"I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.".... So do I but it is "Science" that judges what is "material" and deemed "pure", not the scientists, most scientist have strong opinions that cloud their minds to the opinion of others and often want "peer acceptance" more than almost any other group in society. Their use of the "scientific press" to enforce their views and ideas on the rest of their community is well established. Science should not be about a high priesthood of Scientists, it should be about the natural Universe having unknown laws which we partially understand and grow to understand more an more as our partial understanding "permits", without ever coming to an end or hiatus beyond which "there be dragons".
"I believe that the life we have is the only one we will have, that the mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain, that we cease to exist in any conscious form when we die, and that it is therefore incumbent on us to enable each person to live their one life to the fullest." ... this is an unsupported assertion and denies the possible "entanglement" with other phenomena places and things in the Universe... a deconstructionist that finds that a "spirit" does not exist in single atomic particles then ergo the sum of particles cannot have a "spirit" either ... whatever that spirit means.
"I believe in the power of science and reason and rationality to further deepen our understanding of everything around us and to eventually overcome superstition and erase the petty divisions sown by religion, race, ethnicity, and nationality." ... So Science, as a belief, leads relentlessly to "better people" through removal of "superstition", as this individual defines it, remove divisions created by race, ethnicity and even nationality... I would like to see that (... other than than through the wholesale use of genetic engineering). But I am wishing for a truckload of "money" and I am "hoping" suckers out there will give it to me..... I don't think so!!! He he he
I think that statement qualifies as a "Church" in many countries for taxation purposes.
"I am in awe of the beauty, vastness, and complexity of nature and the universe, and the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws." .... Scientists appear to be the only ones capable of knowing "beauty", "vastness" and "complexity"... and these statements "mean" only that they arose from "natural law".... as defined by a particular "card carrying" atheistic scientist (obviously).
"I believe in the power of ideals such as peace and justice and shared humanity to inspire us to create a free and just world.".... Gee... I have never heard anyone say these things before...
... this guy is a real charismatic person... a real Triumph of the Will he he he. Strangely enough I believe in atomic weapons created by people who thought that they were working to free the world from dictators. They have all confessed that they have "known sin" through their pride and arrogance. Why not think about this a little. Man alone is not able to solve the problems of the lack of general freedom and justice and scientists have not automatically led to that better world. Since when are "peace", "justice" and "shared humanity" been the sole prerogative of scientists to define? When you give that away you give everything away.
"I believe in kindness, love, and the human spirit and their ability to overcome challenges and adversity and to create a better world."... This is the beatitudes folks... you know ... blessed are the meek for they will inherit the Earth. What I really actually see is the exercise of naked aggression created through science and those who believe strongly in it do not inspire my confidence that everything will "automatically work out for the best for everyone"... just another unsupported statement affirming their "correctness" and "fitness" to lead and conquer in order to "create a better world". A kind of "trickle down economics" that is so prevalent in a greedy world ... let the poor and the helpless dig their own way out of the mess they are in. The philosophy that the various churches (and atheists) espouse that they have a "manifest destiny". Evolutionary "fitness" is survival of the fittest... this "better world" is best served by the meek leaving it ... forthwith!!
"I believe in the necessity for credible and objective evidence to sustain any belief and thus deny, because of the absence of such evidence, the existence of each and every aspect of the supernatural.".... Once again affirming their superiority in judgment above all others and assuming that a judgment has been passed by a "ruling quorum of scientists" all "scientific beliefs" are only "objective" if they deny the "supernatural" which is not part of their subset of their deconstructionist universe. Remember folks... Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
"I refuse to bow, prostrate myself, or otherwise cower before the deities of any religion.".... Except to the "authorities and principalities" they create in their own "pure" image are "the righteous and anointed of the hierarchy". What else do self appointed "g*ds" do?... Thou shalt have no "strange gods" before me.
"I am neither tempted by the fiction of heaven or any other form of eternal life nor fearful of the fiction of hell." .... I "know" Hell... It is here on Earth and it is found wherever people are oppressed by any of the "isms" including this newly found "Scientism".
"I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma.".... Contrary to the aforementioned "pledges" a "right of access" to do as he/she pleases. If this does not contradict any and all dogma then I would be very interested in seeing this individual "deal" with the "rights of others" to do the same.
A true scientist must maintain an open mind and this is in direct opposition to the "ideals" of this atheist. An atheist already has a closed mind about his or her version of atheism being the true and proper way to view the Universe.
On the other hand... The scientist is a servant of the society, not a master of it. All non-scientists would agree this is a more balanced view as opposed to this totalitarian view because society will never be composed of just all scientists. Scientists should not seek "power" or "privilege" as this atheist is "quietly" trying to gain by "stroking" your "good graces" and "sense of aesthetics" to surrender to him. He/she should be "allowed" to hold beliefs that are not "atheistic" provided that there is an honesty in his or her affairs that does not blinker the vision to the application of the Scientific method. A belief in religion is neither essential nor banned by science. Science knows nothing about a god and cannot say if one exists or not. It is not an important question for a scientist... or should not be. This Scientific Method is a logical process that self professing scientists willingly subject themselves to and it is not a theology or any other form of "ism" including "atheism". The scientist is a servant and should remain one. If you do not like that you are a force for evil in our world. If science has anything to contribute to the world it is not to be mediated by "scientists" or "atheists". That does not mean that we are not members of society and we should hold personal view but we cannot maintain that our views are "superior" to the views of others, just a "small voice" of reason in a world wrecked by emotion and violence. Let science "happen" and do not attempt to force it to conform to individual political goals but try to "do good" and not simply "do well". Mankind and scientists must exercise more than simply a meaningful degree of "good will" in order that the "genie in the bottle" does not escape and be used by evil people.... Goodness knows there are enough of those already. There must not be a "manifest destiny" for a single nation, ethnic grouping or political grouping that predestines them to rule over others or to simply use scientific knowledge for raw domination or the exercise of "terror". I am not afraid of "terror" but I do not "War against Terror"... that is totally illogical and manipulative. Human values must be tempered by more than mere "good will", lip service and platitudes but through a love and appreciation of the values of all.
Cheers
Let me make a point here... I am an agnostic and agnostics are not atheists. I also "claim" to be a scientist. It would seem (according to that "Atheist's Manifesto" photojack posted) that Atheist's "believe" just as much in their "atheism" as religious people believe in their "creeds"... A litany of one belief statement after another. I will assume that this "atheist" speaks for all atheists ... this allows me to make a point that there is only one kind of "truth" to these professing individuals (and of course those who have expressed their agreement with these professed "ideals"). They also believe strongly that this "creed" enables them to "lead" and determine what is correct for others by "a right of passage" through authodox Science. Quite frankly this "atheism" has a lot more "basic conditions" and "embellishments" than for most existing religious creeds in the world today. From the various points placed it is very possible to be a "rabid atheist" as easily as others are "rabid religious fanatics". The same cries of "purity" and "exclusion of banned ideas" is echoed there as would have been in the Third Reich, Communist States, Islamic Fundamentalist Theocracies as well as in the materialist and self centered American "Deep South" today. It would seem the "hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"... even now with these "atheists".
All the statements made are made unconditionally and without true qualification and well open to a very personal interpretation that is arguably certainly not "scientific". Appeals to basic emotion and "freedoms" abound while simultaneously sanctioning the actions and ideas of others!! For me a scientist is a servant of the society who determines through mutually supporting experiment and theory, an ever improving set of universal principles which are used for the sole purpose of "human improvement". Not everything people who call themselves "scientists" do are necessarily for "human improvement" but it is logical that what they do should be restricted to the sole pursuit of these things and not to the use of this knowledge to pursue a personal goal regardless of the rest of society and it's aspirations. They have no "god given right" to rule or to lead (except in the comic books where the mad scientists "rule"...OK?) It should be accepted that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems actually apply to them as it does to others in society and also to extraterrestrials, time travelers from the future and higher dimensional beings (all of which might exist... and the existence of which atheists have no specific knowledge or fundamental capacity to discover... by this definition of "acceptable knowledge"). This is because Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and our current knowledge and future knowledge will never have the "completeness" these "atheists" thinks exist as "givens". It is pretty clear that ignoring "bits" of fact and theory as well as uncomfortable experiments that undermine the basic "atheistic" belief system is by definition "not scientific"....
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
While our ability to expand the boundaries of knowledge about our Universe is "possible" to an open mind it is, by far, not guaranteed. And whatever we do discover is not the last word in any concept, even those that atheists think they have a monopoly on to interpret... just because they are "avowed atheists".
Lets look at these "high ideals" one at a time...
"I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.".... So do I but it is "Science" that judges what is "material" and deemed "pure", not the scientists, most scientist have strong opinions that cloud their minds to the opinion of others and often want "peer acceptance" more than almost any other group in society. Their use of the "scientific press" to enforce their views and ideas on the rest of their community is well established. Science should not be about a high priesthood of Scientists, it should be about the natural Universe having unknown laws which we partially understand and grow to understand more an more as our partial understanding "permits", without ever coming to an end or hiatus beyond which "there be dragons".
"I believe that the life we have is the only one we will have, that the mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain, that we cease to exist in any conscious form when we die, and that it is therefore incumbent on us to enable each person to live their one life to the fullest." ... this is an unsupported assertion and denies the possible "entanglement" with other phenomena places and things in the Universe... a deconstructionist that finds that a "spirit" does not exist in single atomic particles then ergo the sum of particles cannot have a "spirit" either ... whatever that spirit means.
"I believe in the power of science and reason and rationality to further deepen our understanding of everything around us and to eventually overcome superstition and erase the petty divisions sown by religion, race, ethnicity, and nationality." ... So Science, as a belief, leads relentlessly to "better people" through removal of "superstition", as this individual defines it, remove divisions created by race, ethnicity and even nationality... I would like to see that (... other than than through the wholesale use of genetic engineering). But I am wishing for a truckload of "money" and I am "hoping" suckers out there will give it to me..... I don't think so!!! He he he
I think that statement qualifies as a "Church" in many countries for taxation purposes."I am in awe of the beauty, vastness, and complexity of nature and the universe, and the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws." .... Scientists appear to be the only ones capable of knowing "beauty", "vastness" and "complexity"... and these statements "mean" only that they arose from "natural law".... as defined by a particular "card carrying" atheistic scientist (obviously).
"I believe in the power of ideals such as peace and justice and shared humanity to inspire us to create a free and just world.".... Gee... I have never heard anyone say these things before...
... this guy is a real charismatic person... a real Triumph of the Will he he he. Strangely enough I believe in atomic weapons created by people who thought that they were working to free the world from dictators. They have all confessed that they have "known sin" through their pride and arrogance. Why not think about this a little. Man alone is not able to solve the problems of the lack of general freedom and justice and scientists have not automatically led to that better world. Since when are "peace", "justice" and "shared humanity" been the sole prerogative of scientists to define? When you give that away you give everything away."I believe in kindness, love, and the human spirit and their ability to overcome challenges and adversity and to create a better world."... This is the beatitudes folks... you know ... blessed are the meek for they will inherit the Earth. What I really actually see is the exercise of naked aggression created through science and those who believe strongly in it do not inspire my confidence that everything will "automatically work out for the best for everyone"... just another unsupported statement affirming their "correctness" and "fitness" to lead and conquer in order to "create a better world". A kind of "trickle down economics" that is so prevalent in a greedy world ... let the poor and the helpless dig their own way out of the mess they are in. The philosophy that the various churches (and atheists) espouse that they have a "manifest destiny". Evolutionary "fitness" is survival of the fittest... this "better world" is best served by the meek leaving it ... forthwith!!
"I believe in the necessity for credible and objective evidence to sustain any belief and thus deny, because of the absence of such evidence, the existence of each and every aspect of the supernatural.".... Once again affirming their superiority in judgment above all others and assuming that a judgment has been passed by a "ruling quorum of scientists" all "scientific beliefs" are only "objective" if they deny the "supernatural" which is not part of their subset of their deconstructionist universe. Remember folks... Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
"I refuse to bow, prostrate myself, or otherwise cower before the deities of any religion.".... Except to the "authorities and principalities" they create in their own "pure" image are "the righteous and anointed of the hierarchy". What else do self appointed "g*ds" do?... Thou shalt have no "strange gods" before me.
"I am neither tempted by the fiction of heaven or any other form of eternal life nor fearful of the fiction of hell." .... I "know" Hell... It is here on Earth and it is found wherever people are oppressed by any of the "isms" including this newly found "Scientism".
"I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma.".... Contrary to the aforementioned "pledges" a "right of access" to do as he/she pleases. If this does not contradict any and all dogma then I would be very interested in seeing this individual "deal" with the "rights of others" to do the same.
A true scientist must maintain an open mind and this is in direct opposition to the "ideals" of this atheist. An atheist already has a closed mind about his or her version of atheism being the true and proper way to view the Universe.
On the other hand... The scientist is a servant of the society, not a master of it. All non-scientists would agree this is a more balanced view as opposed to this totalitarian view because society will never be composed of just all scientists. Scientists should not seek "power" or "privilege" as this atheist is "quietly" trying to gain by "stroking" your "good graces" and "sense of aesthetics" to surrender to him. He/she should be "allowed" to hold beliefs that are not "atheistic" provided that there is an honesty in his or her affairs that does not blinker the vision to the application of the Scientific method. A belief in religion is neither essential nor banned by science. Science knows nothing about a god and cannot say if one exists or not. It is not an important question for a scientist... or should not be. This Scientific Method is a logical process that self professing scientists willingly subject themselves to and it is not a theology or any other form of "ism" including "atheism". The scientist is a servant and should remain one. If you do not like that you are a force for evil in our world. If science has anything to contribute to the world it is not to be mediated by "scientists" or "atheists". That does not mean that we are not members of society and we should hold personal view but we cannot maintain that our views are "superior" to the views of others, just a "small voice" of reason in a world wrecked by emotion and violence. Let science "happen" and do not attempt to force it to conform to individual political goals but try to "do good" and not simply "do well". Mankind and scientists must exercise more than simply a meaningful degree of "good will" in order that the "genie in the bottle" does not escape and be used by evil people.... Goodness knows there are enough of those already. There must not be a "manifest destiny" for a single nation, ethnic grouping or political grouping that predestines them to rule over others or to simply use scientific knowledge for raw domination or the exercise of "terror". I am not afraid of "terror" but I do not "War against Terror"... that is totally illogical and manipulative. Human values must be tempered by more than mere "good will", lip service and platitudes but through a love and appreciation of the values of all.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
If I constructed 'An agnostics creed' from my personal opinion but there were things in there that you as an agnostic disagreed with, wouldn't it be somewhat callous to assume it spoke for all agnostics?
Equally though if you as an individual found no issue with the creed, that does not mean it is a concrete definition that sums up the beliefs of all agnostics.
Kind regards
QUOTE
I will assume that this "atheist" speaks for all atheists
If I constructed 'An agnostics creed' from my personal opinion but there were things in there that you as an agnostic disagreed with, wouldn't it be somewhat callous to assume it spoke for all agnostics?
Equally though if you as an individual found no issue with the creed, that does not mean it is a concrete definition that sums up the beliefs of all agnostics.
Kind regards
Hi Sinister Utopia et al,
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
If I constructed 'An agnostics creed' from my personal opinion but there were things in there that you as an agnostic disagreed with, wouldn't it be somewhat callous to assume it spoke for all agnostics?
Equally though if you as an individual found no issue with the creed, that does not mean it is a concrete definition that sums up the beliefs of all agnostics.
Equally though if you as an individual found no issue with the creed, that does not mean it is a concrete definition that sums up the beliefs of all agnostics.
If that were true then why not a number of "atheistic naysayers"? I saw little "contradiction" there... just a lot of "noddys". This can only be the result of a lack of a personal opinion, agreement or worse... a fear of holding or expressing publicity a personal opinion. This last one is what I fear the most as well. "When there is no vision the people perish".
I hate the idea that these crazy statements go unchallenged. It shows no critical analysis and in a situation where there is no analysis "something always fills that vacuum". I can certainly think of what filled these vacuum's in the past and it is that which "frightens me". I can only assume from the silence of atheists that they are all agreeing with this one atheist. Anyway... it is for atheists to define the atheist's creed and agnostics to define the agnostic's creed. Where do you fit into this "spectrum"?
Are you an agnostic, an atheist or a true believer in religion?? You may supply your own personal "creed" to clarify your own personal position. What you may not do and what I may not do is try to "think outside of the box" for people we cannot represent.
Interesting point though... at least you have said something. I think that is 'good". Nothing more "deafening" than a silent majority.
Cheers
I hate the idea that these crazy statements go unchallenged. It shows no critical analysis and in a situation where there is no analysis "something always fills that vacuum". I can certainly think of what filled these vacuum's in the past and it is that which "frightens me". I can only assume from the silence of atheists that they are all agreeing with this one atheist. Anyway... it is for atheists to define the atheist's creed and agnostics to define the agnostic's creed. Where do you fit into this "spectrum"?
Are you an agnostic, an atheist or a true believer in religion?? You may supply your own personal "creed" to clarify your own personal position. What you may not do and what I may not do is try to "think outside of the box" for people we cannot represent. Interesting point though... at least you have said something. I think that is 'good". Nothing more "deafening" than a silent majority.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
If that were true then why not a number of "atheistic naysayers"?
It's AN Atheists creed.
No problem with that but again it's one Atheist's opinion, even if others agree.
I personally saw nothing particularly crazy.
No problem with that but again it's one Atheist's opinion, even if others agree.
I personally saw nothing particularly crazy.
It shows no critical analysis and in a situation where there is no analysis "something always fills that vacuum".
Perhaps, again a matter of opinion.
You may consider my post as evidence that your assumption is wildly flawed.
You may consider my post as evidence that your assumption is wildly flawed.
Anyway... it is for atheists to define the atheist's creed and agnostics to define the agnostic's creed
I guess I see as thus, Atheism is a term created by Theists and is comparable to Infidel, Godlessness, Gentile etc. It does not really describe what a person is like other than their non-belief in God or Supernature etc.
Just as a Theist believes in God with no proof or evidence of existence, an Atheist dis-believes in this God due to all evidence contrary but mainly the lack of supporting evidence which in science is very important. Remember we are talking about the proposed creator of the material Universe that loves us and answers prayers etc.
The fact that the term Atheist exists I find somewhat humorous, as why don't we have a word like 'Afictionist'
Someone who tries to separate fact from fiction? Or a 'Jack and the Beanstalk'ist'.. But due to the pre-occupation with Religion the term Atheist is most familiar and is accepted by some that share similar views.
Where do you fit into this "spectrum"? Are you an agnostic, an atheist or a true believer in religion?? You may supply your own personal "creed" to clarify your own personal position.
Well I certainly am not about to write a creed but Atheism in it's self is more of a non creed. There is a somewhat biased presumption made by some that Religion is somehow so important that to have no belief in it is some kind of radical move.
Again I personally am agnostic in regards to the possibility that one of these faiths is the truth, but the more I learn about nature the more impressed I become due to the lack of need for a creative intelligence pulling all the strings, however if what some consider to be God is the natural order then consider me a Theist.
On the spectrum I guess I am 98% Atheist agnostic and 1% Theist.
This would change dramatically if new evidence came to light as it would for any hypothesis.
Well I certainly am not about to write a creed but Atheism in it's self is more of a non creed. There is a somewhat biased presumption made by some that Religion is somehow so important that to have no belief in it is some kind of radical move.
Again I personally am agnostic in regards to the possibility that one of these faiths is the truth, but the more I learn about nature the more impressed I become due to the lack of need for a creative intelligence pulling all the strings, however if what some consider to be God is the natural order then consider me a Theist.
On the spectrum I guess I am 98% Atheist agnostic and 1% Theist.
This would change dramatically if new evidence came to light as it would for any hypothesis.
What you may not do and what I may not do is try to "think outside of the box" for people we cannot represent.
Well perhaps this sentiment should apply more vigorously to those who have absolute Faith and proclaim that everyone else is going to Hell or some other BS like ID/Creationism as valid Science etc. I'm not sure why you are so firm in what others may or may not do as it doesn't strike me as being very agnostic.
Also remember that some arrive at Atheism via Theism and visa versa.
Kind regards
It's AN Atheists creed.
QUOTE
saw little "contradiction" there just a lot of "noddys". I hate the idea that these crazy statements go unchallenged.
No problem with that but again it's one Atheist's opinion, even if others agree.
I personally saw nothing particularly crazy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| saw little "contradiction" there just a lot of "noddys". I hate the idea that these crazy statements go unchallenged. |
No problem with that but again it's one Atheist's opinion, even if others agree.
I personally saw nothing particularly crazy.
It shows no critical analysis and in a situation where there is no analysis "something always fills that vacuum".
Perhaps, again a matter of opinion.
QUOTE
I can only assume from the silence of atheists that they are all agreeing with this one atheist.
You may consider my post as evidence that your assumption is wildly flawed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I can only assume from the silence of atheists that they are all agreeing with this one atheist. |
You may consider my post as evidence that your assumption is wildly flawed.
Anyway... it is for atheists to define the atheist's creed and agnostics to define the agnostic's creed
I guess I see as thus, Atheism is a term created by Theists and is comparable to Infidel, Godlessness, Gentile etc. It does not really describe what a person is like other than their non-belief in God or Supernature etc.
Just as a Theist believes in God with no proof or evidence of existence, an Atheist dis-believes in this God due to all evidence contrary but mainly the lack of supporting evidence which in science is very important. Remember we are talking about the proposed creator of the material Universe that loves us and answers prayers etc.
The fact that the term Atheist exists I find somewhat humorous, as why don't we have a word like 'Afictionist'
Someone who tries to separate fact from fiction? Or a 'Jack and the Beanstalk'ist'.. But due to the pre-occupation with Religion the term Atheist is most familiar and is accepted by some that share similar views.
QUOTE
Where do you fit into this "spectrum"?
Are you an agnostic, an atheist or a true believer in religion?? You may supply your own personal "creed" to clarify your own personal position. Well I certainly am not about to write a creed but Atheism in it's self is more of a non creed. There is a somewhat biased presumption made by some that Religion is somehow so important that to have no belief in it is some kind of radical move.
Again I personally am agnostic in regards to the possibility that one of these faiths is the truth, but the more I learn about nature the more impressed I become due to the lack of need for a creative intelligence pulling all the strings, however if what some consider to be God is the natural order then consider me a Theist.
On the spectrum I guess I am 98% Atheist agnostic and 1% Theist.
This would change dramatically if new evidence came to light as it would for any hypothesis.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Where do you fit into this "spectrum"? Are you an agnostic, an atheist or a true believer in religion?? You may supply your own personal "creed" to clarify your own personal position. |
Well I certainly am not about to write a creed but Atheism in it's self is more of a non creed. There is a somewhat biased presumption made by some that Religion is somehow so important that to have no belief in it is some kind of radical move.
Again I personally am agnostic in regards to the possibility that one of these faiths is the truth, but the more I learn about nature the more impressed I become due to the lack of need for a creative intelligence pulling all the strings, however if what some consider to be God is the natural order then consider me a Theist.
On the spectrum I guess I am 98% Atheist agnostic and 1% Theist.
This would change dramatically if new evidence came to light as it would for any hypothesis.
What you may not do and what I may not do is try to "think outside of the box" for people we cannot represent.
Well perhaps this sentiment should apply more vigorously to those who have absolute Faith and proclaim that everyone else is going to Hell or some other BS like ID/Creationism as valid Science etc. I'm not sure why you are so firm in what others may or may not do as it doesn't strike me as being very agnostic.
Also remember that some arrive at Atheism via Theism and visa versa.
Kind regards
You are truly amazing in your ability to read the novels of information between the lines of the manifesto!
You have imposed your own (mis)understandings on what the creed is trying to do...
You have also committed the major sin or grouping all people who call themselves atheists into one persons definition of an atheist! I for one agree with most of the creed, but not with most of your "blanket" statements attempting to apply your narrow interpretation of it.
You have imposed your own (mis)understandings on what the creed is trying to do...
You have also committed the major sin or grouping all people who call themselves atheists into one persons definition of an atheist! I for one agree with most of the creed, but not with most of your "blanket" statements attempting to apply your narrow interpretation of it.
QUOTE
"I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.".... So do I but it is "Science" that judges what is "material" and deemed "pure", not the scientists,
That is what the statement says! You seem to think it was saying something else?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.".... So do I but it is "Science" that judges what is "material" and deemed "pure", not the scientists, |
That is what the statement says! You seem to think it was saying something else?
"I believe that the life we have is the only one we will have, that the mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain, that we cease to exist in any conscious form when we die, and that it is therefore incumbent on us to enable each person to live their one life to the fullest." ... this is an unsupported assertion and denies the possible "entanglement" with other phenomena places and things in the Universe... a deconstructionist that finds that a "spirit" does not exist in single atomic particles then ergo the sum of particles cannot have a "spirit" either ... whatever that spirit means.
"I believe that the life we have is the only one we will have, that the mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain, that we cease to exist in any conscious form when we die, and that it is therefore incumbent on us to enable each person to live their one life to the fullest." ... this is an unsupported assertion and denies the possible "entanglement" with other phenomena places and things in the Universe... a deconstructionist that finds that a "spirit" does not exist in single atomic particles then ergo the sum of particles cannot have a "spirit" either ... whatever that spirit means.
What a load of gibberish!
QUOTE
"I believe in the power of science and reason and rationality to further deepen our understanding of everything around us and to eventually overcome superstition and erase the petty divisions sown by religion, race, ethnicity, and nationality." ... So Science, as a belief, leads relentlessly to "better people" through removal of "superstition", as this individual defines it, remove divisions created by race, ethnicity and even nationality... I would like to see that (... other than than through the wholesale use of genetic engineering). But I am wishing for a truckload of "money" and I am "hoping" suckers out there will give it to me..... I don't think so!!! He he he I think that statement qualifies as a "Church" in many countries for taxation purposes.
Basically ignorance breeds fear and hatred! You don't agree?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I believe in the power of science and reason and rationality to further deepen our understanding of everything around us and to eventually overcome superstition and erase the petty divisions sown by religion, race, ethnicity, and nationality." ... So Science, as a belief, leads relentlessly to "better people" through removal of "superstition", as this individual defines it, remove divisions created by race, ethnicity and even nationality... I would like to see that (... other than than through the wholesale use of genetic engineering). But I am wishing for a truckload of "money" and I am "hoping" suckers out there will give it to me..... I don't think so!!! He he he I think that statement qualifies as a "Church" in many countries for taxation purposes. |
Basically ignorance breeds fear and hatred! You don't agree?
"I am in awe of the beauty, vastness, and complexity of nature and the universe, and the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws." .... Scientists appear to be the only ones capable of knowing "beauty", "vastness" and "complexity"... and these statements "mean" only that they arose from "natural law".... as defined by a particular "card carrying" atheistic scientist (obviously).
"I am in awe of the beauty, vastness, and complexity of nature and the universe, and the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws." .... Scientists appear to be the only ones capable of knowing "beauty", "vastness" and "complexity"... and these statements "mean" only that they arose from "natural law".... as defined by a particular "card carrying" atheistic scientist (obviously).
Atheists see the universe in a different light (not better or worse) then agnostics/theists. Beauty in in the eye of the beholder!
QUOTE
"I believe in the power of ideals such as peace and justice and shared humanity to inspire us to create a free and just world.".... Gee... I have never heard anyone say these things before... ... this guy is a real charismatic person... a real Triumph of the Will he he he. Strangely enough I believe in atomic weapons created by people who thought that they were working to free the world from dictators. They have all confessed that they have "known sin" through their pride and arrogance. Why not think about this a little. Man alone is not able to solve the problems of the lack of general freedom and justice and scientists have not automatically led to that better world. Since when are "peace", "justice" and "shared humanity" been the sole prerogative of scientists to define? When you give that away you give everything away.
Since when is atheist = scientist? You seem to think that all atheists are scientists (I know many that are not) and that atheists and scientists are not human?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I believe in the power of ideals such as peace and justice and shared humanity to inspire us to create a free and just world.".... Gee... I have never heard anyone say these things before... ... this guy is a real charismatic person... a real Triumph of the Will he he he. Strangely enough I believe in atomic weapons created by people who thought that they were working to free the world from dictators. They have all confessed that they have "known sin" through their pride and arrogance. Why not think about this a little. Man alone is not able to solve the problems of the lack of general freedom and justice and scientists have not automatically led to that better world. Since when are "peace", "justice" and "shared humanity" been the sole prerogative of scientists to define? When you give that away you give everything away. |
Since when is atheist = scientist? You seem to think that all atheists are scientists (I know many that are not) and that atheists and scientists are not human?
"I believe in kindness, love, and the human spirit and their ability to overcome challenges and adversity and to create a better world."... This is the beatitudes folks... you know ... blessed are the meek for they will inherit the Earth. What I really actually see is the exercise of naked aggression created through science and those who believe strongly in it do not inspire my confidence that everything will "automatically work out for the best for everyone"... just another unsupported statement affirming their "correctness" and "fitness" to lead and conquer in order to "create a better world". A kind of "trickle down economics" that is so prevalent in a greedy world ... let the poor and the helpless dig their own way out of the mess they are in. The philosophy that the various churches (and atheists) espouse that they have a "manifest destiny". Evolutionary "fitness" is survival of the fittest... this "better world" is best served by the meek leaving it ... forthwith!!
"I believe in kindness, love, and the human spirit and their ability to overcome challenges and adversity and to create a better world."... This is the beatitudes folks... you know ... blessed are the meek for they will inherit the Earth. What I really actually see is the exercise of naked aggression created through science and those who believe strongly in it do not inspire my confidence that everything will "automatically work out for the best for everyone"... just another unsupported statement affirming their "correctness" and "fitness" to lead and conquer in order to "create a better world". A kind of "trickle down economics" that is so prevalent in a greedy world ... let the poor and the helpless dig their own way out of the mess they are in. The philosophy that the various churches (and atheists) espouse that they have a "manifest destiny". Evolutionary "fitness" is survival of the fittest... this "better world" is best served by the meek leaving it ... forthwith!!
Boy, what a load of gibberish. It's about "kindness and love" and you turn it into aggression, destiny...
No more time... off to see Wall-E with the kids
FGG
No more time... off to see Wall-E with the kids
FGG
The words, "Divine intervention and design intelligence" don't make it with an atheist. Comment.
QUOTE
"I believe in the necessity for credible and objective evidence to sustain any belief and thus deny, because of the absence of such evidence, the existence of each and every aspect of the supernatural.".... Once again affirming their superiority in judgment above all others and assuming that a judgment has been passed by a "ruling quorum of scientists" all "scientific beliefs" are only "objective" if they deny the "supernatural" which is not part of their subset of their deconstructionist universe. Remember folks... Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
...but the absolute belief in something with the "absence of proof" (or evidence) is irrational!QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I believe in the necessity for credible and objective evidence to sustain any belief and thus deny, because of the absence of such evidence, the existence of each and every aspect of the supernatural.".... Once again affirming their superiority in judgment above all others and assuming that a judgment has been passed by a "ruling quorum of scientists" all "scientific beliefs" are only "objective" if they deny the "supernatural" which is not part of their subset of their deconstructionist universe. Remember folks... Absence of proof is not proof of absence. |
...but the absolute belief in something with the "absence of proof" (or evidence) is irrational!
"I refuse to bow, prostrate myself, or otherwise cower before the deities of any religion.".... Except to the "authorities and principalities" they create in their own "pure" image are "the righteous and anointed of the hierarchy". What else do self appointed "g*ds" do?... Thou shalt have no "strange gods" before me.
"I refuse to bow, prostrate myself, or otherwise cower before the deities of any religion.".... Except to the "authorities and principalities" they create in their own "pure" image are "the righteous and anointed of the hierarchy". What else do self appointed "g*ds" do?... Thou shalt have no "strange gods" before me.
Again a load of nonsensical gibberish!
Physfan
QUOTE
"I am neither tempted by the fiction of heaven or any other form of eternal life nor fearful of the fiction of hell." .... I "know" Hell... It is here on Earth and it is found wherever people are oppressed by any of the "isms" including this newly found "Scientism".
This is a typical resort of the theists, to attempt to portray those who appose religion or gods as having their own "religion". Except the shoe does not fit! No supernatural, no requirement in absolute faith! In fact science thrives in this state! That's the essence of science and when it's at its best. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I am neither tempted by the fiction of heaven or any other form of eternal life nor fearful of the fiction of hell." .... I "know" Hell... It is here on Earth and it is found wherever people are oppressed by any of the "isms" including this newly found "Scientism". |
This is a typical resort of the theists, to attempt to portray those who appose religion or gods as having their own "religion". Except the shoe does not fit! No supernatural, no requirement in absolute faith! In fact science thrives in this state! That's the essence of science and when it's at its best.
"I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma.".... Contrary to the aforementioned "pledges" a "right of access" to do as he/she pleases. If this does not contradict any and all dogma then I would be very interested in seeing this individual "deal" with the "rights of others" to do the same.
"I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma.".... Contrary to the aforementioned "pledges" a "right of access" to do as he/she pleases. If this does not contradict any and all dogma then I would be very interested in seeing this individual "deal" with the "rights of others" to do the same.
Don't forget that morals are always in play! Atheists are (IMHO) no worse for morals then the high and mighty religious!
Boy, for an agnostic you sure take a lot of theist view points! As I have always said "An agnostic is some one that has seen the irrationality and illogic of religion and god, yet not free enough to accept that we are nothing more then pimples on this insignificant planet in this backwater galaxy. We simply don't matter beyond what we ourselves conceive!
Your attempts to equate all atheists are scientists and all scientists are atheists is disingenuous at best. Same as your attempts to portray atheism as a religion. When someone tries to portray atheism as a religion, I point out that it's usually their attempt to discredit atheism by calling it a religion, which in turn shows that the person already believes that religion is the lessor of the two positions as they are trying to bring atheism "down to" the level of a religion.
FGG
QUOTE
A true scientist must maintain an open mind and this is in direct opposition to the "ideals" of this atheist. An atheist already has a closed mind about his or her version of atheism being the true and proper way to view the Universe.
... in general an atheist has an open mind! Remember that an atheism is not a belief! but a disbelief in something that has no evidence to support it! It is after all the only conclusion that can be scientific!Boy, for an agnostic you sure take a lot of theist view points! As I have always said "An agnostic is some one that has seen the irrationality and illogic of religion and god, yet not free enough to accept that we are nothing more then pimples on this insignificant planet in this backwater galaxy. We simply don't matter beyond what we ourselves conceive!
Your attempts to equate all atheists are scientists and all scientists are atheists is disingenuous at best. Same as your attempts to portray atheism as a religion. When someone tries to portray atheism as a religion, I point out that it's usually their attempt to discredit atheism by calling it a religion, which in turn shows that the person already believes that religion is the lessor of the two positions as they are trying to bring atheism "down to" the level of a religion.
FGG
QUOTE
Your attempts to equate all atheists are scientists and all scientists are atheists is disingenuous at best. Same as your attempts to portray atheism as a religion. When someone tries to portray atheism as a religion, I point out that it's usually their attempt to discredit atheism by calling it a religion, which in turn shows that the person already believes that religion is the lessor of the two positions as they are trying to bring atheism "down to" the level of a religion.
A strawman is usually constructed by the religious because, like most of their arguments, the position is absurd and vacuous. You'll see a lot of that around this form.Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+)
A strawman is usually constructed by the religious because, like most of their arguments, the position is absurd and vacuous. You'll see a lot of that around this form.
How can you say that, Physfan? I don't think I've ever seen a religious person on this forum deadbeat who dad1 has Messenger ever SoLoved used IMCREATEDa Bringer-of-Light strawman newguy argument.
How can you say that, Physfan? I don't think I've ever seen a religious person on this forum deadbeat who dad1 has Messenger ever SoLoved used IMCREATEDa Bringer-of-Light strawman newguy argument.
Hi midwestern, FGG, Sinister Utopia et al,
QUOTE (midwestern+)
The words, "Divine intervention and design intelligence" don't make it with an atheist. Comment.
I am not an atheist so I would not know except if you associate these "strawman" concepts with a strictly religious viewpoint then I guess the atheist is opposed to a religious interpretation. Of course there is a spectrum of atheism (apparently) so 100% self avowed atheist will have a different opinion to a 50% atheist and 50% theist. So I will reply on my own behalf as an agnostic.
Truthfully neither group can possibly convince me that there is or is not a g*d.... where is the definitive experiment? For that matter what the heck is it we are supposed to be experimenting on anyway? What are the alleged "properties" of g*d and as to any "self willed individual" is not compelled to participate in any scientific test for existence. It is "obvious" that this "g*d" that is alleged to exist is not making it obvious that it does exists. I have heard all the weird ideas about having "faith", I can "know" something about the Universe and I know it's Laws "exist" because it allows us to perform reproducible experiments on "her".. I rule out unequivocally that g*d can be defined in those natural terms since the natural order of things had a beginning... even our Universe. The primary property of an eternal g*d "claims to be" eternal existence.
Quite frankly there really is no "divine intervention"... all "intervention" is at a natural level of activity (even the emotional effects of "spiritual energy"). "Mysterious benefactors" and lucky accidents do not convince me of the existence of g*d. Any act that occurs through the action of a human agency is not a "miracle" no matter how impressive this apparently is. As to "intelligent design", humans are always involved in intelligent design, I think the Universe is quite cleaver in the way processes self replicate and self improve on occasion, this ongoing process exhibits a self assembling intelligence and as an example of that we are here and we "appear" to be intelligent... so there we have it... the Universe is capable of intelligent design without the need of a g*d.... Once again there is really no observable process that has the hand of a deity behind it. If there is one please tell me about it and I will investigate it.
None of this implies that there is no "g*d" but there is no good reason to suppose there is one. In primitive cultures every strange phenomenon is attributed to a g*d or a devil, even plainly natural ones. This list of "miraculous deeds" is becoming thinned out as we become wiser to the goings on of natural processes and to the various misinterpreted and "cunning" acts of our fellow humans.
Truthfully neither group can possibly convince me that there is or is not a g*d.... where is the definitive experiment? For that matter what the heck is it we are supposed to be experimenting on anyway? What are the alleged "properties" of g*d and as to any "self willed individual" is not compelled to participate in any scientific test for existence. It is "obvious" that this "g*d" that is alleged to exist is not making it obvious that it does exists. I have heard all the weird ideas about having "faith", I can "know" something about the Universe and I know it's Laws "exist" because it allows us to perform reproducible experiments on "her".. I rule out unequivocally that g*d can be defined in those natural terms since the natural order of things had a beginning... even our Universe. The primary property of an eternal g*d "claims to be" eternal existence.
Quite frankly there really is no "divine intervention"... all "intervention" is at a natural level of activity (even the emotional effects of "spiritual energy"). "Mysterious benefactors" and lucky accidents do not convince me of the existence of g*d. Any act that occurs through the action of a human agency is not a "miracle" no matter how impressive this apparently is. As to "intelligent design", humans are always involved in intelligent design, I think the Universe is quite cleaver in the way processes self replicate and self improve on occasion, this ongoing process exhibits a self assembling intelligence and as an example of that we are here and we "appear" to be intelligent... so there we have it... the Universe is capable of intelligent design without the need of a g*d.... Once again there is really no observable process that has the hand of a deity behind it. If there is one please tell me about it and I will investigate it.
None of this implies that there is no "g*d" but there is no good reason to suppose there is one. In primitive cultures every strange phenomenon is attributed to a g*d or a devil, even plainly natural ones. This list of "miraculous deeds" is becoming thinned out as we become wiser to the goings on of natural processes and to the various misinterpreted and "cunning" acts of our fellow humans.
QUOTE (FGG+)
You are truly amazing in your ability to read the novels of information between the lines of the manifesto!
You have imposed your own (mis)understandings on what the creed is trying to do...
You have imposed your own (mis)understandings on what the creed is trying to do...
Thank you.... but if a atheist requires so many beliefs to be considered a card carrying atheist then it requires "careful reading" as if from a legalistic point of view. I would also point out that the commentary on the 10 Commandments became an entire book in the Bible of Deuteronomy... he he he! You may notice that there are 10 in this "manifesto" as well... Some kind of coincidence I guess? I am entitled to have a few misunderstandings ... there have been a few in recent history that have led to wars... I hope this doesn't happen here? 
Your commentary is coming from a position of non-disclosure of intent. At least you understand what I am and where I am coming from but I have no idea why you are defending this pretty proscriptive litany of requirements for disbelief! Supposing you are right what does this mean... do you support all those requirements or not?
As far as I am concerned the only requirement to being an agnostic is to be uncertain about the existence of a g*d and absolutely unqualified to speak on behalf of one.... Though I think of several reasons why there probably isn't one on balance of known facts. If I believe in any kind of g*d it is a "g*d of the gaps" in which those gaps are getting narrower as time goes on but they never quite disappear. One never knows when I might "need" one as a matter of 'convenience". This may sound a little "off" but remember I am an agnostic.... I can play either tune if the wind blows the right way. 
An agnostic can "experience" a conversion experience if only for a "healing" while a atheist can never avail themselves of a placebo "cure" because they can never believe it.
You may notice that there are 10 in this "manifesto" as well... Some kind of coincidence I guess? I am entitled to have a few misunderstandings ... there have been a few in recent history that have led to wars... I hope this doesn't happen here? Your commentary is coming from a position of non-disclosure of intent. At least you understand what I am and where I am coming from but I have no idea why you are defending this pretty proscriptive litany of requirements for disbelief! Supposing you are right what does this mean... do you support all those requirements or not?As far as I am concerned the only requirement to being an agnostic is to be uncertain about the existence of a g*d and absolutely unqualified to speak on behalf of one.... Though I think of several reasons why there probably isn't one on balance of known facts. If I believe in any kind of g*d it is a "g*d of the gaps" in which those gaps are getting narrower as time goes on but they never quite disappear.
One never knows when I might "need" one as a matter of 'convenience". This may sound a little "off" but remember I am an agnostic.... I can play either tune if the wind blows the right way. An agnostic can "experience" a conversion experience if only for a "healing" while a atheist can never avail themselves of a placebo "cure" because they can never believe it.QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
What you may not do and what I may not do is try to "think outside of the box" for people we cannot represent. rolleyes.gif
SU is a musician. He can play all tunes, regardless of anyone else's 'wind'
g.
Oh dear, you still haven't got it, have you. A statement of the obvious is exactly that.
Fugly, you as reactive as ever. Obviously, either did not read or comprehend my last sentence.
Physfan
Well perhaps this sentiment should apply more vigorously to those who have absolute Faith and proclaim that everyone else is going to Hell or some other BS like ID/Creationism as valid Science etc. I'm not sure why you are so firm in what others may or may not do as it doesn't strike me as being very agnostic.
Also remember that some arrive at Atheism via Theism and visa versa.
Also remember that some arrive at Atheism via Theism and visa versa.
Sure... I arrived at agnosticism from simplistic theism. 
Agnostics fortunately are not compelled to believe anything of a "faith only" concept. But even when an agnostic believes something about a "faith"... he is still able to call himself an agnostic as long as he has not fully made up his mind. I suppose I could be called a pantheist now and I "worship" nature not as a "g*d" but as an expression of "Natural Law"... My "ritual" is the Scientific Method (... or I like to think so). People with beliefs alone... have little more than the dogma to latch on to... but when they do they will do it very vigorously. Of course there are some very negative experiences to be had along the way. Faiths cannot be "negotiated" unless they are highly personal.... meaning you are all alone with your beliefs and you may be surrounded by a bunch of "crazies" who are unanimously united in seeking out "unbelievers"... like on this forum. Been there done that and I bought the T-Shirts. Best to have no "faiths" or "dogmas"... Science is not a faith and it is based on questions that are posed to the Universe at large as experiments... "She" answers them all and we then try and formulate the "Laws". We may not always get it all right but there are plenty of technological gifts that we can bestow on ourselves along the way.
I know that all theists are without any grounds for any "non-negotiable" beliefs and they are the basis of much strife in the world. On the other hand the position of an atheist bestows no benefits over the agnostic and exhibit a total lack of flexibility in viewing the phenomena of the Universe... I choose agnosticism.... or perhaps not... I have not made up my mind. That is the strong point of the agnostic... a very agile and dynamic point of view not based on any strong religious belief one way or another.
A fun discussion...
Cheers
Agnostics fortunately are not compelled to believe anything of a "faith only" concept. But even when an agnostic believes something about a "faith"... he is still able to call himself an agnostic as long as he has not fully made up his mind. I suppose I could be called a pantheist now and I "worship" nature not as a "g*d" but as an expression of "Natural Law"... My "ritual" is the Scientific Method (... or I like to think so). People with beliefs alone... have little more than the dogma to latch on to... but when they do they will do it very vigorously. Of course there are some very negative experiences to be had along the way. Faiths cannot be "negotiated" unless they are highly personal.... meaning you are all alone with your beliefs and you may be surrounded by a bunch of "crazies" who are unanimously united in seeking out "unbelievers"... like on this forum. Been there done that and I bought the T-Shirts. Best to have no "faiths" or "dogmas"... Science is not a faith and it is based on questions that are posed to the Universe at large as experiments... "She" answers them all and we then try and formulate the "Laws". We may not always get it all right but there are plenty of technological gifts that we can bestow on ourselves along the way.I know that all theists are without any grounds for any "non-negotiable" beliefs and they are the basis of much strife in the world. On the other hand the position of an atheist bestows no benefits over the agnostic and exhibit a total lack of flexibility in viewing the phenomena of the Universe... I choose agnosticism.... or perhaps not... I have not made up my mind. That is the strong point of the agnostic... a very agile and dynamic point of view not based on any strong religious belief one way or another.
A fun discussion...
Cheers
QUOTE
This may sound a little "off" but remember I am an agnostic.... I can play either tune if the wind blows the right way.
SU is a musician. He can play all tunes, regardless of anyone else's 'wind'
g.
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 28 2008, 06:06 AM)
So its like an anarchist government in theory?
We already have 'anarchist' government. It is just very well disguised by men in suits, who pretend 'others' are the problem!
g.
We already have 'anarchist' government. It is just very well disguised by men in suits, who pretend 'others' are the problem!
g.
Thank you Good Elf for the interpretation. Anybody else?
Good Elf,
There is proof; the Omnipotence Paradox. This proves that omnipotence cannot exist therefore a god cannot exist since gods are omnipotent.
Bang, there's your proof. Unfortuantely, the understanding of such an argument requires more intelligence, insight and logic than most people are capable of.
Physfan
QUOTE
Truthfully neither group can possibly convince me that there is or is not a g*d.... where is the definitive experiment?
There is proof; the Omnipotence Paradox. This proves that omnipotence cannot exist therefore a god cannot exist since gods are omnipotent.
Bang, there's your proof. Unfortuantely, the understanding of such an argument requires more intelligence, insight and logic than most people are capable of.
Physfan
It is only a 'paradox' as long as such a thing as 'omnipotence' actually exists, and I agree with you that it doesn't.
http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/article...ipyparadox.html
g.
http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/article...ipyparadox.html
g.
QUOTE
It is only a 'paradox' as long as such a thing as 'omnipotence' actually exists, and I agree with you that it doesn't.
Oh dear, you still haven't got it, have you. A statement of the obvious is exactly that.
Fugly, you as reactive as ever. Obviously, either did not read or comprehend my last sentence.
Physfan
Hi Physfan, midwestern, Gorgeous et al,
QUOTE (Physfan+)
There is proof; the Omnipotence Paradox. This proves that omnipotence cannot exist therefore a god cannot exist since gods are omnipotent.
Bang, there's your proof. Unfortuantely, the understanding of such an argument requires more intelligence, insight and logic than most people are capable of.
Bang, there's your proof. Unfortuantely, the understanding of such an argument requires more intelligence, insight and logic than most people are capable of.
The "Omnipotence Paradox" is simply a philosophical argument not an experimentally derived fact (as "obvious" as it may seem to some).... People go to war over philosophies but I am disinclined to accept any of the conclusions on "hearsay" and "authority". Proof is derived only partially through experiment and may be updated with more information or better experiments. It all must fit within Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. A certain humility must be shown on behalf of Science, we do not know enough to say this argument is true or false based on underlying human values and suppositions as Godel would say. They may not apply in this case (... I think that is "obvious" too).
Scientific "Theories" can only be verified through an experiment. I doubt that "g*d" is going to present himself for "examination". Nothing is "obvious" in our Universe that is beyond testing.... No test ... No proof. Maybe what you are asking has no place in our phenomenological Universe but it needs proof. Mind you as an agnostic I would suggest that the existence of a real omnipotent g*d is highly unlikely given his extremely "low profile" in the affairs of man and the Universe. "Operationally" the existence of a g*d should not affect anyone's behavior and you are either good people or bad people. I would rather the bad people be "outed" so we "good guys" can see what is what. If you need a g*d to tell you what is "good" and what is "bad" then you are being held back from your megalomaniac ambitions by civic laws... I happen to like that too.
Now all the rest of you can have a turn... he he he!
Cheers
Scientific "Theories" can only be verified through an experiment. I doubt that "g*d" is going to present himself for "examination".
Nothing is "obvious" in our Universe that is beyond testing.... No test ... No proof. Maybe what you are asking has no place in our phenomenological Universe but it needs proof. Mind you as an agnostic I would suggest that the existence of a real omnipotent g*d is highly unlikely given his extremely "low profile" in the affairs of man and the Universe. "Operationally" the existence of a g*d should not affect anyone's behavior and you are either good people or bad people. I would rather the bad people be "outed" so we "good guys" can see what is what. If you need a g*d to tell you what is "good" and what is "bad" then you are being held back from your megalomaniac ambitions by civic laws... I happen to like that too.Now all the rest of you can have a turn... he he he!
Cheers
QUOTE (Physfan+Jun 30 2008, 03:31 PM)
Oh dear, you still haven't got it, have you. A statement of the obvious is exactly that.
Fugly, you as reactive as ever. Obviously, either did not read or comprehend my last sentence.
Physfan
Is it because I agree with you that I 'still haven't got it'?
You and george bush, eh?
g.
Fugly, you as reactive as ever. Obviously, either did not read or comprehend my last sentence.
Physfan
Is it because I agree with you that I 'still haven't got it'?
QUOTE
I would rather the bad people be "outed" so we "good guys" can see what is what.
You and george bush, eh?
g.
Excellent Good Elf. I need no further commentary.
Hi Good Elf,
What is g*d?
What is g*d?
Can't we all just get along?
I didn't think so, boys, where's my Uzi? Time to clear the air!
MM
I didn't think so, boys, where's my Uzi? Time to clear the air!
MM
Please stand aside and read the posts without judgment calls in this thread. 
This will make for the educated read we seek. 
This will make for the educated read we seek.
Good Elf,
Equally axiomatically, no "god".
fugly,
I can't what?
I agree that 'evidence is accumulating' - Fishfan!
g.
QUOTE
The "Omnipotence Paradox" is simply a philosophical argument not an experimentally derived fact
Many theorems exist as axiomatic proofs, ie, self evident, in the same way as the Omnipotence Paradox. Axiomatically omnipotence, which we have defined as a fundamental characteristic of a deity, cannot exist.Equally axiomatically, no "god".
fugly,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The "Omnipotence Paradox" is simply a philosophical argument not an experimentally derived fact |
Many theorems exist as axiomatic proofs, ie, self evident, in the same way as the Omnipotence Paradox. Axiomatically omnipotence, which we have defined as a fundamental characteristic of a deity, cannot exist.
Equally axiomatically, no "god".
fugly,
Is it because I agree with you that I 'still haven't got it'?
No, it is my mistake; you haven't got because evidence is accumulating that you can't. May be, your weird belief structure (psychoanalysis and what ever other "touchy feely" notions) presents some difficulty in finding or defining reality.
I dunno but, then again, I'm not sure I want to know.
Physfan
Equally axiomatically, no "god".
fugly,
Is it because I agree with you that I 'still haven't got it'?
No, it is my mistake; you haven't got because evidence is accumulating that you can't. May be, your weird belief structure (psychoanalysis and what ever other "touchy feely" notions) presents some difficulty in finding or defining reality.
I dunno but, then again, I'm not sure I want to know.
Physfan
QUOTE
No, it is my mistake; you haven't got because evidence is accumulating that you can't.
I can't what?
I agree that 'evidence is accumulating' - Fishfan!
g.
fugly,
A clue for you; context!
A clue for you; context!
QUOTE (Physfan+Jul 3 2008, 01:40 PM)
fugly,
A clue for you; context!
Ah, would that be the clue you claim I haven't got?
g.
A clue for you; context!
Ah, would that be the clue you claim I haven't got?
g.
fugly,
I give up. You and reality parted ways a long time ago.
Physfan
I give up. You and reality parted ways a long time ago.
Physfan
QUOTE (Physfan+Jul 3 2008, 03:21 PM)
fugly,
I give up. You and reality parted ways a long time ago.
Physfan
You wish, fishfan!
g.
I give up. You and reality parted ways a long time ago.
Physfan
You wish, fishfan!
g.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.