(July 18, 2012 at 10:59 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac

---

Interesting debate. 37:00 is of interest to me.

So about at that point in the tape, the archbishop explains the question as having to do with the ability of a material based theory of brains and consciousness to accurately and adequately represent the universe as a whole.

Seems to me that that begs the question of whether we in fact have an accurate or adequate representation of the universe at all. If we think we do have such a representation and one questioned the ability of a purely material accounting of consciousness to deliver such a thing, then the door would be opened to seeking a divine or at least non-material account of how we came into possession of such a representation. But I have to admit to not knowing how perfect our account of the universe happens to be and I don't see how anyone could claim such knowledge.

So why is this of interest to you? If your point is that so long as we admit our representation of the universe is incomplete, we must admit we can't rule out gods .. fine. Most of us here are agnostic. Not a problem.

(July 20, 2012 at 7:14 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(July 20, 2012 at 6:23 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I still have no idea why someone would an active atheist unless they felt aggrieved by religion in some way.

I am aggrieved by this sort of shit....

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...sS5fJ9z3RQ

Frankly, I don't care what sort of fairytale you want to believe in, but when arseholes like Ham and Hovind etc try to offer up this crap as a viable alternative to fucking reality, that's when I get upset.

Oh, and the fact that religion enjoys a privileged tax free position in society even though it does fuck all pisses me off too.

Unless it harms someone I don't see the reason why you're so anti-religion. Hell I don't get why there is no capital gains tax in my country, i guess it's so the rich can get richer, but I'm not an anti-rich person.

My point is there is are plenty of things in the world that piss people off.

---

(July 20, 2012 at 8:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: If an "active atheist" is one who takes an active role on the front lines and, say, participates in demonstrations and meetings etc, then I am not an active atheist. If on the other hand an "active atheist" is one who posts on a forum such as this, sharing thoughts and opinions on whatever topics come up, then I am an active atheist. We mustn't fall into the trap of equating "activism" with "interest", however. The same sort of pigeonholing could be made of someone who participates in a forum of any kind. I used to post on a sci-fi forum, but I only wear my Tom Baker scarf when the weather calls for it.

As to the allegation that I identify as atheist because I am aggrieved by religion in some way, if the 'damaged goods' stereotype is the only way to make it work for you then by all means go for it. Just be aware that the assertion is in your head, not mine.

For the record, I hold no personal grievance against religion; I have no axe to grind. I have never been hurt, slighted, or even mildly put out by religion or its adherents. I may find the actions outlined by Zen and others anything from reprehensible to repulsive, the rest of the subject I just find ridiculous.

I like football, playing bass, computer games. I wouldn't describe my interests as agnosticism.

---

(July 20, 2012 at 11:50 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 20, 2012 at 3:39 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I'm disgusted at those things as well, as are the religious people I know. So why focus on what a very small minority think and believe it absolves the condemnation of religion?

I forgot to include the condemnation of skepticism and science, as well as church dogma's infestation of political affairs.
I post because I don't see the religious taking care of the problems caused by their camp.
Also, it's fun. I don't really need much reason other than that.

Unless you're surrounded by fundamentalists, most theists do accept science. Condemnation of the 'other' is common amongst any belief.

---

(July 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(July 18, 2012 at 10:59 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac

---

Interesting debate. 37:00 is of interest to me.

So about at that point in the tape, the archbishop explains the question as having to do with the ability of a material based theory of brains and consciousness to accurately and adequately represent the universe as a whole.

Seems to me that that begs the question of whether we in fact have an accurate or adequate representation of the universe at all. If we think we do have such a representation and one questioned the ability of a purely material accounting of consciousness to deliver such a thing, then the door would be opened to seeking a divine or at least non-material account of how we came into possession of such a representation. But I have to admit to not knowing how perfect our account of the universe happens to be and I don't see how anyone could claim such knowledge.

So why is this of interest to you? If your point is that so long as we admit our representation of the universe is incomplete, we must admit we can't rule out gods .. fine. Most of us here are agnostic. Not a problem.

More so, of Richard Dawkins initial response of "I don't understand the question". It's almost as if everyone assumes we are, and so the question is redundant. He does go on to admit "Yes" but this does illustrate his fundamental basis

I see a large difference between an atheist's agnosticism and mine. I personally don't see any similarity at all. I have no idea what Dawkins is although he proclaims he does not possess absolute certainty of whether a god does not exist. I am a strong agnostic, hence my opposition to materialists.

(July 21, 2012 at 4:42 am)Selliedjoup Wrote:

(July 20, 2012 at 7:14 am)Zen Badger Wrote: I am aggrieved by this sort of shit....

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...sS5fJ9z3RQ

Frankly, I don't care what sort of fairytale you want to believe in, but when arseholes like Ham and Hovind etc try to offer up this crap as a viable alternative to fucking reality, that's when I get upset.

Oh, and the fact that religion enjoys a privileged tax free position in society even though it does fuck all pisses me off too.

Unless it harms someone I don't see the reason why you're so anti-religion.

Doesn't harm people? Are you fucking joking????

It gets people to believe in fairytales instead of science, it gets them to think prayer has power, it tells them that homosexuality is a sin, it causes people to be burned as witches and murdered for apostasy.
It makes people feel guilty just for being born.
So think carefully before you speak.

Quote: Hell I don't get why there is no capital gains tax in my country, i guess it's so the rich can get richer, but I'm not an anti-rich person.

And what exactly does does this have to do with the conversation at hand?

(July 21, 2012 at 4:42 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I see a large difference between an atheist's agnosticism and mine. I personally don't see any similarity at all. I have no idea what Dawkins is although he proclaims he does not possess absolute certainty of whether a god does not exist. I am a strong agnostic, hence my opposition to materialists.

Strong agnostic. So you know we are not now and never will be in a position to know if gods exist? For someone who sets the bar for knowing high, you don't seem to have any trouble ruling out the possibility of knowing.

I am a weak agnostic as I lack your knowledge as to the possibility of knowledge. Okay, that's out of the way. On to the question of theism.

Do you practice theism or are you without such practices? By saying I am without, I concede that I am without theism and therefore an atheist. Frankly I don't really care what you think you know when asking what you believe. Neither do I care exclusively about your consciously held opinions. When I ask about your beliefs I want also to know whether there is any sign of a belief in gods implicit in your actions, so far as you can tell.

Finding no indication of any belief in gods in my actions and having no consciously held beliefs, I am ready to come out as atheist. How about you?

(July 19, 2012 at 3:35 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I can see no reason to be an active atheist(e.g. posting here) if religion has had no impact in your life.

Atheists, even those who aren't directly affected by the nonsense that is religion, probably feel the need to speak out and make a stand because of all the places religion likes to keep sticking it's bloody nose into. Like schools, government, sometimes hospitals, our own homes when they come knocking, marriage and even come to tell us how to live our lives ect ect.

My early schools tried to push me into religion, I got told off for not singing religious songs, told I was going to hell a couple of times.

If religion never interfered with anything, ANYTHING! or Anyone then I guess there would be nothing to complain about, nothing to speak out against and such.
I only have a problem with religions that interfear. Those that don't, I have nothing against and have never spoken out against them.

(July 20, 2012 at 6:23 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I still have no idea why someone would an active atheist unless they felt aggrieved by religion in some way.

So, you don't think that even someone that is brought up in the most secular culture, without even the least religious influence on their upbringing, has a reason to debate theists?

Theism effects the entire planet, and for the most part, not for the better. Or haven't you noticed...

(July 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(July 21, 2012 at 4:42 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I see a large difference between an atheist's agnosticism and mine. I personally don't see any similarity at all. I have no idea what Dawkins is although he proclaims he does not possess absolute certainty of whether a god does not exist. I am a strong agnostic, hence my opposition to materialists.

Strong agnostic. So you know we are not now and never will be in a position to know if gods exist? For someone who sets the bar for knowing high, you don't seem to have any trouble ruling out the possibility of knowing.

No it's something I believe. Based on existing evidence it's the most logical assumption, as opposed to believing science will disprove a god, or that god is proven.

Quote:I am a weak agnostic as I lack your knowledge as to the possibility of knowledge. Okay, that's out of the way. On to the question of theism.

Do you practice theism or are you without such practices? By saying I am without, I concede that I am without theism and therefore an atheist. Frankly I don't really care what you think you know when asking what you believe. Neither do I care exclusively about your consciously held opinions. When I ask about your beliefs I want also to know whether there is any sign of a belief in gods implicit in your actions, so far as you can tell.

I would assume weak atheism is due to the dependence on science, rather than the belief that a god will be proved. I believe a god is a possibility and not an unlikely one as I have no means to determine this probability.

Quote:Finding no indication of any belief in gods in my actions and having no consciously held beliefs, I am ready to come out as atheist. How about you?

It depends, I don't use the term as a response to theists. Theists would probably view me as an atheist, although I view myself as an agnostic. Based on saying "I don't know" but the philosophy I apply is very different to those who view themselves as atheists.

---

(July 21, 2012 at 1:39 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(July 20, 2012 at 6:23 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I still have no idea why someone would an active atheist unless they felt aggrieved by religion in some way.

So, you don't think that even someone that is brought up in the most secular culture, without even the least religious influence on their upbringing, has a reason to debate theists?

Theism effects the entire planet, and for the most part, not for the better. Or haven't you noticed...

I think religion has shaped all cultures, to deny this would be stupid. But I don't think I must debate theists as I don't believe religion has been a solely negative influence. To focus on this only shows bias. For example, science began so man could assess their role in god's creation. This may be a belief, but ironic many atheists now depend on science as a proxy religion.

(July 22, 2012 at 3:35 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: science began so man could assess their role in god's creation.

Science is a tried and tested method that works. Based on principles that have also been tried and tested. It is a method to understand the reality we're in. You use science every day.
Think science began with the interest in understanding the world around us to be honest.

(July 22, 2012 at 4:49 am)Ace Otana Wrote:

(July 22, 2012 at 3:35 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: science began so man could assess their role in god's creation.

Science is a tried and tested method that works. Based on principles that have also been tried and tested. It is a method to understand the reality we're in. You use science every day.

Yes I know, I don't know what your point is here. All I said was it's ironic that the origin of science lies in man believing they could identify patterns/knowledge through observations of what they then believed to be, god's creation.

(July 22, 2012 at 5:05 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Yes I know, I don't know what your point is here. All I said was it's ironic that the origin of science lies in man believing they could identify patterns/knowledge through observations of what they then believed to be, god's creation.

What's funny is that everything we've discovered has not in anyway pointed to a 'god'. If anything, it has pointed to the natural.