I have.
I was raised a Catholic...but went to public rather than parochial schools.
I've had periods of my early life where I was what most consider "a religious" inclination. As an adult, while in military service, I learned to serve Mass...learned the Latin and the rites. I was fortunate enough to once serve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican...and to serve the Catholic Primate of England as an acolyte in High Mass.
I gave serious considerations to becoming a priest...but those considerations led to my adopting an agnostic position...which I have posted in this thread a few times. I have many religious and atheistic friends...and we have lots of interesting discussions in which I espouse the position I've indicated...a position I consider more logical than all other positions on the issue.
ON HIS WORST DAY, JOE BIDEN IS A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN TRUMP WAS ON HIS BEST DAY!
It doesn't. but your question isn't the only question. Because if 'God' created the sub atomic particles, then who created God. This is why the God argument fails the science test and the logic test. Because eventually you reach an unknowable question. And God adds nothing to our ability to answer that question. Whatever answer you give for where God came from, I can use the same answer for the sub-atomic particle. God is redundant.
Jack (04-22-2021)
I suspect we are, for the most part, on the same page, Concart...more in agreement than in significant disagreement. The subtle differences are not worth much time and effort...but that kind of time and effort are what these discussion boards are all about, so I discuss them.
For the record, in your comments above, you wrote, "Where you lose me is in your claim that someone cannot passively lack belief and call themselves an atheist."
Of course a person CAN "lack belief" and call themselves an atheist. MANY people do...so it would be absurd for me to suggest that it cannot be done. I am merely suggesting it seems a bit inappropriate to me that it IS done...and I cannot help but wonder if it is done because the "passive lack of belief" is not actual. I suspect (only suspect...I may be wrong) that anyone who uses the descriptor "atheist" is not doing so because of a passive lack of belief...but rather because of the influence of belief that is on a less conscious level. I suspect everyone who claims to be an atheist because of "passive lack of belief" actually BELIEVES that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
As I said, I may be wrong. You apparently think it is at least as likely that at least one god exists...as that there are none...correct?
ON HIS WORST DAY, JOE BIDEN IS A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN TRUMP WAS ON HIS BEST DAY!
Concart (04-22-2021)
On the last point, I don't believe that. For me, this is a logic test, and the existence of God fails that test. So, lacking scientific evidence that God exists, and no logical need for God to exist, I think it is far more likely that God doesn't exist. God being defined as a supernatural entity not subject to natural laws and not existing in the natural world. That's the test I'd apply to any other question about the existence of something in the natural world. Bottom line, my question is 'why do we need God' and the answer is that objectively we don't'. My belief is that God is a man made idea in order to explain the things we don't understand.
But I agree we are for the most part on the same page, and this IS an interesting discussion, so good on you.
Jack (04-22-2021)
He doesn't label himself as an atheist; he just IS. He has zero interest in religion, spirituality, and other such musings. As to your question, he would say "There is no evidence that gods or a human soul exist." IOW he only accepts as reality that which can be observed or measured or quantified or otherwise is verifiable.
"Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain
The 'Freedom From Religion Foundation' has an ex religious Preacher as a leader and spokesperson. His past religious credentials give him a little more credibility when he makes his case. I feel the same applies to you. Most of the rest of us know little about the Bible or Scripture and are at a loss when confronted with 'Biblical Argument'. So you, like this guy Dan Barker, are in a more powerful position to offer Reason and Logic against the 'Religious'.
Frank Apisa (04-22-2021)
Last part first. Thanks for that, Concart. Good discussion among several people in this thread. Good on all of us.
That last sentence says it all for me. That is your "belief"...and I suspect the reason you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor...rather than any notion that you passively lack belief.On the last point, I don't believe that. For me, this is a logic test, and the existence of God fails that test. So, lacking scientific evidence that God exists, and no logical need for God to exist, I think it is far more likely that God doesn't exist. God being defined as a supernatural entity not subject to natural laws and not existing in the natural world. That's the test I'd apply to any other question about the existence of something in the natural world. Bottom line, my question is 'why do we need God' and the answer is that objectively we don't'. My belief is that God is a man made idea in order to explain the things we don't understand.
As an aside, I have written several times that IF a GOD exists...it would not be a supernatural being. Whatever EXISTS...is a part of nature...whether we humans can detect it or even imagine it. We humans are not the end-all of knowledge...probably not even remotely close. I suspect there is a GREAT DEAL more that we do not know about existence...than we know.
To suggest that "the existence of a GOD...or the suggestion that a GOD MAY exist" fails logic in any way...is itself illogical.
If we continue the discussion, I hope you are able to detach yourself from using "God" (you used it 7 times in this latest comment) and use "a god" or "a God" or "a GOD" or "gods." Using "God" suggests you are referencing a specific God...and I suspect you do not mean Loki or Vulcan or Poseidon.
And the fact that we do not need any gods is not truly an argument that no gods exist. There is no reason to suppose we need lots of stars and planets...but they exist. There is no reason we need space so large it takes light billions of years to traverse it...but it exists. Just as we have no need for a god to explain existence...there is no need for there not to be a god to explain it.
Lastly, it is no more logical to suppose, "It is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist"...and by the same token, it is no more logical to suppose, "It is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."
One cannot arrive at any of the following four things using logic, science, reason, or math:
1) At least one god exists.
2) No gods exist.
3) It is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist.
4) It is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists.
ON HIS WORST DAY, JOE BIDEN IS A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN TRUMP WAS ON HIS BEST DAY!
PostmodernProphet (04-22-2021)
Thanks.
My comments here are specific to people who use "atheist" as an identifier.
I am not comfortable supposing all of "REALITY" is stuff humans can detect in any way. My guess is that much of REALITY is not detectable at all by humans. We are merely the dominant life form on a nondescript pebble circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy in a universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies.
ON HIS WORST DAY, JOE BIDEN IS A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN TRUMP WAS ON HIS BEST DAY!
Jack (04-22-2021)
So, if we define God as natural rather than supernatural, that changes the entire discussion. We would appear to be Gods to most ancient civilizations. I think by definition, God HAS to be supernatural, otherwise we are just talking about a naturally occurring phenomenon that we don't yet understand so we label it as 'God'. I can't even begin to imagine how many of those phenomenon exists, but it's more than one.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Kris Kristofferson, 1969
That is pretty much my own take on things too. Fifty years ago we didn't know that exoplanets existed, although they were hypothesized, because we didn't have instruments capable of detecting them. Four hundred years ago, we didn't know about the existence of disease-causing microorganisms. A thousand years ago, it was accepted as truth that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
There is so much that we don't know about the universe still to be discovered. Maybe a soul might be detected one day, or evidence for a god. Or maybe not.
"Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain
Cypress (04-22-2021)
I posted the following commentary by an agnostic physicist on a thread several months ago...to howls of protest, curiously.
The point is that reason, inductive logic, and scientific experimentation have limitations - and we might consider being humble about what we can and cannot know about the deepest fundamental nature of reality.
Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says
In conversation, the 2019 Templeton Prize winner does not pull punches on the limits of science, the value of humility and the irrationality of nonbelief
Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer, has won this year’s Templeton Prize. Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundation annually recognizes an individual “who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” Its past recipients include scientific luminaries such as Sir Martin Rees and Freeman Dyson, as well as religious or political leaders such as Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama.
Across his 35-year scientific career, Gleiser’s research has covered a wide breadth of topics, ranging from the properties of the early universe to the behavior of fundamental particles and the origins of life. But in awarding him its most prestigious honor, the Templeton Foundation chiefly cited his status as a leading public intellectual revealing “the historical, philosophical and cultural links between science, the humanities and spirituality.” He is also the first Latin American to receive the prize.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...hysicist-says/
Last edited by Cypress; 04-22-2021 at 08:50 AM.
Frank Apisa (04-22-2021)
Rand drew heavily from the philosophy of Kant although she would never admit it. I love my right to individual expression but I also know that humans are social animals who need other humans for survival. Only large clans or tribes could afford to lose a member while the smaller clans needed every member. Anyone exiled from the tribe would most likely be a death sentence for that individual.
Did I mention that I like trivia?
evince (04-22-2021)
passively lacking belief is not atheism......it is apathy......
and yet, several people have done that in this thread.....were you one of them?.....i cannot say with absolutely certainty that God does not exist, because I can't say with certainty that ANYTHING doesn't exist
by the way, this is hardly a passive unbelief.....
What I am even MORE certain of is that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. That petty, small anthropomorphized schmuck isn't a 'Supreme Being'.
Last edited by PostmodernProphet; 04-22-2021 at 10:27 AM.
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
Bookmarks