Atheism and free though
Posted on: July 19, 2007 - 5:17am
Offline
Atheism and free though
Atheism is just as much faith based as some theism.
I am pissed that RRS labeled me as a theist and excluded me from free thought.
I am a deist-agnostic and can subscribe to a "transcedental entity". I love how you can excommunicate me from free thought as long as you label me as a theist.
I have little disturbance against "weak" atheism.
"Strong" atheism requires just as much faith as theism.
By the way, who labeled me as a theist? At most I am a deist. What gives you the right to label me and restrict me from free thought?
Simply stated: you are an as s h ole
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
That's debatable. However, you will find that most of the people here are not strong atheists.
Who are you talking to?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I am a stong atheist, i can tell you no faith here, only evidence, reasoning and logic here, As for idea a god, it's a hypothesis at best and so far it has never been proven true. As such, the line of reasoning and logic for me, shows no god, see no faith required so far.
As for his asshole comment, i believe it is directed to who ever labeled him/her a theist. That's what i get from his comment.
I originally posted a more thoughtful post in "free thinkers" and was declined.
Who labeled me? Under what conditions was I labeled? Why do I have to "sit on back of the bus" when it comes to free thought?
Some as shol e atheist labeled my a theist.
That is not called 'godly', but arrogant. As 'god' would say, "Who passed judgement on me?"
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
"Strong" Atheism requires faith.
Give me a proof otherwise. Prove that 'god' does not exist....faith based.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Meh. I personally do not like the FA rules, in fact, I plan to present a case to the mod team that the restrictions should be enacted. However, I am aware that we have a significant amount of fundy idiots crawling this board like parasites, and I imagine the restrictions are mainly to stop them spamming. Anyway, this does not concern you anymore being that, you may have noticed, I have removed your label.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Very interesting how my "theist" badge was removed.
I still sway towards deism.
I never replied with spam, but intelligence...and perhaps ignorance.
Why? You asked for it to be removed? Would you like it back?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I do still believe in a "transcendental entity/force" that I subscribe to 'god'.
I arrive at my conclusion through rational belief and not blind faith.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
That doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I am not a materialist. As a human I am secular, but I am deist. My conclusion of 'god' is rational
Do you want to give me a badge? Judge me.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
then I do not know what we are talking about.
Your posts are bordering on incoherent topic-jumping.
1. You asked for the badge to be removed, very rudely.
2. I removed it.
3. Now it appears you are asking for it back.
Could you make up your mind please?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Whoever labeled me is an ass-hole and gave this site a bad name.
I label myself as an agnostic-deist.
Any " strong" atheism is faith based like theism
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
I apologize for being rude.
I never ask to be labeled and was pissed that I was not allowed "free thought" in this site.
I asked who labeled me?
Thank you for taking away my label, but why do you have that power?
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
I value free thought over dieties and labels. I get upset when people label me and then I have to ask for the label to be removed.
In some sick way it parrellels 'god'. Who are 'you' to label me. I am an agnostic-deist.
Our founding fathers were deist, and constructed the Bill of Rights.
I appreciate the RRS crusade against organized/religion, but not 'god'.
By labeling me and asserting the power to take away or replace the lable on me is against "my deistic bill of rights".
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
No idea. It could have been any of the moderators.
Because, as you will note from my label, I am a high level mod
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
It's getting disheartening to see such a rising trend in the slaughtering of the English language.
Faith, simply put, is a belief that is not backed up by any proof and is a senseless, pointless belief. The difference between faith and belief is that you have faith in God, you have belief that there isn't.
You don't put your faith into something that isn't there.
Here is a simple test:
Do you believe there is a god (even a deistic god counts)?
If you answer 'yes', you are in fact a theist.
If you answer 'no', you are in fact an atheist.
Personally I disagree that deism counts as theism, because theists argue that their god affects the universe. Arguments that work against theism do not usually work against deism, which in my mind makes it a different class of god-concept. I would say that the theism label should be kept to believers in theistic gods, ones that are believed against evidence, not just without evidence. So, I would say deists are atheists in the strict sense that they are not theists. I would also say the same of pantheists, since their position might as well be the same as a materialist/physicalist's. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
If you believe in a God, you're a theist.
It seems like you are having more of an issue finding out WHO tagged you versus WHY you were tagged. I did not tag your account, but it really does not matter. On issues such as this the rules are observed and the moderators are interchangable.
This has come up before with theists such as yourself (and like it or not that is what you are). As a theist on this site you are prevented from posting in ONE forum. Visit some theist websites sometime and see just how many forums are "Theist Only". No one is putting you at the "back of the bus". These are your beliefs and you are entitled to them and should hold them proudly. If you do not, then you should carefully reconsider them.
As an atheist, if I were to visit a theist site I would wear my "atheist" badge proudly because that is what I am. I would not complain about being shut out of forums because all groups are entitled to a place where they are not put in a position to continually defend their thoughts and beliefs. They have theirs, I have mine and on occasion we can all meet in other forums to discuss issues in a civil manner.
I happen to support the tagging rules on this site because this is one of the few areas in which there is no gray area. You believe in a god (creator, Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, Jehovah, Mistress Witch...the list is pretty vast) and that makes you a theist. It really is that simple.
Meh.
I guess I understand the need. Some of the stuff that gets posted bugs even me. A nice little quiet zone for the battle scarred atheists seems fair. Besides if I really wanted to post to the FA forum, I would created a sock puppet and spoof my IP or something. I don't even read FA. I suppose the name could be changed because I think for free. How about
Theist Repellent?
Thiests Need Not Apply?
Theists fuck off?
Pwnage Training Ground?
Zone of the Ungod?
Realm of Coherent Reality?
My Artwork
I have yet to see how going with the evidence, rational logical and reasoning equals to faith is i am a strong atheist. I have yet to see any evidence for any god presented, as such, I never agreed with weak or strong atheism label (an atheists is an atheists, you believe or don't believe, otherwise your agnotistic or theist). However if someone ask me my level of atheism, then i am strong atheist. Why it doesn't require faith, because with all the evidence of a natural world, with no supernatural, transdesending, or one time set up deity evidence at all presented or shown, i have no need of faith, the reasoning, the logic and the evidence as well as the rational conclusion requires no faith in my declaration that there is no god. Until otherwise proven, and so far, over the entire length of religious belief (some what say 10,000 years) no evidence or proof has ever lasted to show a deity of sorts.
I have the feeling this thread is going to wind up in trollville.
Although I heartily agree about the blue-blooded-murder of the English tongue, intit huh
I have reservations about the theist/deism thing
Theist his belief in a God, with religious ideology ( mad )
deism is belief in a God without religious ideology (eccentric)
Atheism is non-believe, yet atheists are not closed minded to the possibility of a God (certifiable, considering the basis for sanity is held by the conforming majority)
I do not have hard evidence to support my deism. The Big Bang model deserves our provisional acceptance. Perhaps, I am limiting myself to “my” current understanding of the beginning of the universe and am making faulty assumptions based on my current understanding of the creation of the universe. Or perhaps, my knowledge of the creation of the universe is limited and/or I am subscribing to the ‘god of the gaps argument’. The creation of the uiverse does merit a few simple questions.
Where did the matter come from? Where did the energy come from to initiate the “bang”? Something created this matter and initiated the bang.
Physical, natural, and thermodynamic laws were violated during the creation and spark of the Big Bang. Whatever “force/entity” that violated these laws is the ‘god’ I subscribe to based on ‘preponderance of the evidence'. Another issue I have that supports my ‘preponderance of the evidence’ is “why is there something rather than nothing”?
I am agonistic because I have doubt and skepticism and every deistic conclusion I arriveat I can substitute the 'god of the gaps' agrument into my analysis. You are right, I do border or cross into deism. I sway from "weak"atheist-agnostic-deist-panendeist and am still cultivating my belief/philosophical structure.
Based on my assumption stated above, I use deduction to arrive at my conclions. Based on my assumptions on the creation of the universe, it seems more logical to deduce that a transcendental entity/force exist. Perhaps, it is just a scientific law that has not yet been discovered.
Again, why is there something rather than nothing? Where did matter come from? What initiated the spark of the Big Bang? I am deducing and that is not faith. I am skeptical of my assumptions and deductions. I could be wrong. I admit I can be wrong. It lacks hard empirical evidence. It is NOT a leap of faith, but a rational belief based on reasonable assumptions, science, nature, and deduction.
I DO not give anthropomorphic qualities to this 'transcendental entity". That WOULD require a leap of faith.
An agnostic reaches conclusions on 'god' by not using synthetic a priori arguments. Deists rely on a synthetic a priori knowledge to reach conclusions about 'god'. I have my own issues with a priori knowledge.
For both deism and agnosticism, man is unable to know ‘god’. In deism ‘god’ will not be known, while in agnosticism ‘god’ cannot be known.
The agnostic will claim there is not enough evidence to prove/disprove god. While the deist will strengthen their presupposition that god exists by use of reason and deduction and the fact that the creation of the universe transcends (or violates) natural laws.
I do not think that my deism can be classified as theism.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Actually, if you took the time to study cosmology, you would realize that apart from a permissible quantum effect called Casimir, there was no violation of thermodynamics during the Big Bang.
Please read this short piece I wrote on cosmological models.
Please read this piece I wrote on the misuses and abuses of the laws of thermodynamics.
There is no reason to supose, given what we know about inflation and thermodynamics and big bang cosmology, that the creation of the universe violated natural laws.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Basically his arguement comes down to is "I do not comprehend how it all came to be, therefore there is a deity of sorts".
Okay, two points for the OP:
1) Strong Atheism isn't based on faith. Whether you agree with the arguments or not, they're still not faith. (See Deluded God's links)
2) Our forum doesn't have a swear filter so feel free to spell asshole the correct way. Breaking it up like that is most aesthetically displeasing!
Although I should say that he has a point.
On the one hand, deism is a form of theism.
On the other hand, our freethinking forum is closed to all of those with the theist label, even freethinking theists. Some people on here use the word 'theist' interchangably with Christian. (and when you combine their notion of a 'true' Christian it turns out that their use of 'theist' is synonymous with fundamentalist Christian!!)
I know that the labels are here for a reason by they seem to be causing all sorts of equivocation problems.
Thanks for you response. Your piece on "Lies, Damn Lies, and False Beliefs about Ex Nihilo aka How to pretend you know cosmology without really trying was interesting and I may have to read Victor J Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis. I find this quote fascinating and have a question for you.
"If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time then where did that empty space-time come from? why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of god from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguments fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "Philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (But book length) answer: "There has to be something" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
Why does there have to be something? Does Stenger give a scientific explanation? Or do you know of any other sources that give scientific explanations to 'why there is something rather than nothing'
Your piece on thermodynamics is a bit dense and requires more effort on my part before I respond.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
We non-cognitivists don't merely disagree that there has to be something, we disagree that there can be something. We find the idea of 'space-time' coming from somewhere incoherent.
A simplified explanation of this is as follows:
When we say 'x comes from y', we're saying that x came after y, so there's a relation in time between them. So x and y must be events/objects within time. To say that time came from somewhere is to say that something came before time...
Can you see the contradiction in saying something came before time?
'before' is a relation between two objects/events within time.
So to talk about something 'outside' or 'before' spacetime doesn't make sense.
You might disagree, but you get the idea where we're coming from.
Well, that was what his book was trying to show. The philosophy answer is that "nothing" is simply an invalid concept. I tend to agree, as a scientist. I do not think that "nothing" is a viable concept. The physics answer is simply that the existence of something is more natural than nothingness due to free energy expenditure and the disorder progression of the whole system according to the laws of thermodynamics.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
btw Strafio did you get my PM
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I agree with you and do see the contradiction. I have to learn more about the creation of the cosmos before I strengthen my deistic beliefs.
I know I dabble in deism, but now I am beginning to question my deist beliefs. I can admit the possibility of a transcendental entity/force responsible for the creation of the universe, but I don't think I can believe that such a 'force/god' exists. I have no evidence, but realizing that I admit the possibility of this transcendental enitity/force/being out of ignorance on how the universe was created. Perhaps, I am confused about deism.
Admitting the possibility of a transcendental entity does not make me a diest. I must believe in a transcendental entity....and I am questioning my belief. I need a better understanding of the creation of the cosmos to strengthen my deistic stance.
I need some time to mull things over, but I think I am "arriving at the fence" and abandoning my deism.
I am just feeling a little confused right now.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Yeah. I'm getting onto it.
Lol! It's a complicated issue.
Anyway, I'll briefly line out an argument against the universe being created:
Either the time had a beginning or it didn't.
If time had no beginning then there's no creation.
If time does have a beginning then it's the beginning.
If something came 'before' to create time then it would no longer be the beginning.
This argument should hold regardless of what cosmology tells you. Cosmology will tell you whether the universe had a beginning or not, but this metaphysical argument holds either way.
No rush.
The question of deism vs atheism is one of those nice philosophical questions where it doesn't really matter whether you get it right or wrong. What's more important is that you get your answer your way in your own time. The main thing we were trying to do was change your opinion about strong atheism requiring faith!
I am not sure if I agree with you concerning that 'if time did not have a beginning, then there is no creation'. Our perception of time is anthropocentric, so time at the beginning could behave very differently then as time does on Earth.
Even if we eliminate 'time' and 'causality', what about an impetus/spark/force that created the universe?
deism vs. atheism is a nice philosophical question that can be debated with intelligence. Just as some atheist don't like to be distinguished between "weak" and "strong", I get annoyed when deism is confused with theism.
Isn't "weak" atheism very similar to agnosticism. What is the difference.
I think that we are entering a wonderful age of discovering what 'god' is and what 'god' is not. Unfortunatley, this age requires new words/definitions to help clear matters. A new conception of what 'god' is or is not requires new definitions. Does this make sense or am I just confused on the current usage of theism, deism, agnosticism, and atheism?
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
You're using different words to say that same thing.
A creation is something that happens in time.
You start off with no-creation, and then through a chain of events governed by the will of the creator, you wind up with the creation. If you can give me a definition of creation that doesn't involve time then I would have to rethink my position. So I put that as a challenge to you: give me a definition of 'creating' that is free from 'time'. That won't entirely refute me but it will definately break new ground and shake up my position considerably!
An agnostic might still be a theist.
They don't 'know' that God exists so they believe on faith.
So agnostic atheism is more or less synonymous with weak atheism.
I makes sense to me.
I personally think that the re-definition of God will be more radical than you realise, and that it will be compatible with atheism. (i.e. 'God' will no longer be classified as an 'existing thing', but has a different use in our language.)
You might find this topic to be of interest.