Posted on 03/30/2007 6:20:58 PM PDT by buccaneer81
Now that's a very intelligent question! It goes to the heart of epistemology.
Briefly, information can be transmitted either as symbols or as tokens. A symbol is any piece of transmitted information that is part of a statement that might be false. A token is any piece of information that must be true, but which might be misinterpreted. So all symbols are also tokens, but not all tokens are also symbols.
Examples: The word 'sentence' in the statment "This statement is false" is both a symbol and a token. The photons of light travelling from the computer screen you are reading onto the retinas of your eyes are tokens, but are not symbols.
Statements that are true by definition can only be made using symbols. Tokenized, non-symbolic information is always true, but never occurs in the form of a statement. Evidence is always transmitted using non-symbolic tokens, although it can be referenced using symbols.
The issue with statements that transmit information using symbols is whether or not the sender is lying--either intentionally or otherwise. The issue with empirical evidence transmitted as non-symbolic tokens is whether it is being interpreted correctly. Science is a methodolgy for making correct interpretations of tokenized information, and for improving its interpretive frameworks over time.
Finally, the interpretion of evidence transmitted as (non-symbolic) tokens requires the operation of an intelligent agent, who will necessarily use symbolic reasoning in order to intepret the evidence (which is why the intepretation can be wrong; were the interpretive process based solely on (non-symbolic) tokens, it could never be wrong.)
Bringing this back to the topic at hand, I consider all of reality to be the evidence that is relevant to the question of whether or not there is a deity.
The fundamental atom of reality is the distinction. In order for Nothing to exist, there must be a distinction between Something and Nothing. Once there is any distinction, then there is Something (the distinction.)
It sure is... we are born, we reproduce, we die...
The map is not the territory. The model is not that which it models. Axiom-based systems of formal logic are models, they are not that which they model.
And there you go, you prove my point perfectly. Many atheists are angry with God for some reason, maybe He didn't do what they wanted and they throw the "I hate you mommy" fit, just like toddlers do.
As far as those verses, you must think God is some type of Genie where you rub on some type of magic lamp you whatever you wish for it appears. That's not the way it works and thats not what those verses mean.
placemark
I apologize for that negative characterization of all atheists. I went back and read it after your response and wondered how I could have said such a thing. Sorry.
What set me off I guess were the public statements of Fortney `Pete' Stark, that Hawkins character, and other atheists who are truly at war with those who acknowledge the existence of God.
Finally: you are not going to end up as wormfood because your selfhood will survive after bodily death. I seldom visit the cemetery because nobody I know and love is buried there; they are elsewhere.
An Atheist Split? Does that come with nuts, and a cherry on top?
It's mainly nuts...
What do they yell out during sex? "Oh.....nothing!"?
No, they are reality...
Definitions can be deceiving. Atheists that I grew up with were a variety of "not believing" or "unsure" of the existence of God, the latter of which you and I may identify as "agnostics". They were sincere and genuine.
When I say that they were "unsure" I mean that they were for the most part untroubled by their uncertainty, or at least as troubled as the person of faith is by their own path.
I think I understand these "atheists".
What we have today - parading as atheists and agnostics - are in reality "secular humanists". It's good to see that they are at least using the name "humanist, as they are in this article. Usually, they deliberately enjoy muddying up the waters by claiming to be atheists. I separate atheists from secular humanists based on their opposition to the concept of a deity. By the way, there are also secular humanists who put themselves forth as being Christians and Jews, as well. I have known a couple of these types - they use the pre-tense of being a person of faith to more strongly refute the position of a spiritual person.
I once got into it with a secular humanist pretending to be an agnostic when I referred to Buddhism as a world view or philosophy. She had a fit and told me that I could not classify a religion to suit my own purpose. She went on and on about it, while I pointed out that a true Buddhist would not be the least bit annoyed by how I referred to their philosophy,...or religion, nor would they expend an iota of energy refuting my position.
I get along fine with old school atheists. They challenge my faith and encourage me to look deeper. They make me slightly more conscious of the fact that I need to "walk the walk" as a reflection of my faith in Christ. Many of my Christian friends already know that I can not do this. We usually chuckle about this and urge and encourage each other on anyway.
Secular humanist, are easily identifiable by a profound bitterness. I have not met a single one that doesn't have a mean or spiteful streak in them. They are marked by their opposition to the concept of a God. I think this disposition stems from the fact that someone else has either laid claim or gotten credit for a position which they have chosen for themselves - "master of the Universe."
You're apparently missing the point. There is most certainly a subset of atheism where the believers define quite strictly what God is and then, because they don't see reality reflected in that definition, they become satisfied that God does not exist. You, for example, believe that because prayers of certain people are "not answered" that God does not exist.
History has shown about a billion and one times that bad things do in fact happen to seemingly good people. It is clear that if one accepts God then they must accept that bad things happen to good people. Take the case of Jessica Lunsford. If you believe the world consists solely of Jessica Lunsford and her barbaric killer, then it might be reasonable to believe that God does not exist. However, we should all be quite aware that the world is well beyond simply two people. God cannot answer every prayer. If God does indeed have a hand in human affairs, bad things may ultimately lead to great things.
Your naive and fatalistic view on the world is troubling. We do not have anarchy and chaos. Clearly, you again define God as a celestial puppetmaster, since "free will" to you only means that we are alone. I suspect that in a truly chaotic and random world, nothing we do or say means anything. Our thoughts and words are merely the result of millions of years of improbable evolution. Of course, in such a world, I find it hard to believe that kindness, mercy, and compassion have any place, yet they do exist in our world.
My first comment on this thread was how atheism was perfect for those with a God complex. You seem to be defining God left and right in a neverending attempt to disprove him - or, at the very least, comfort yourself that His existence is meaningless to you. This speaks to the self-refuting nature of atheism - to disprove God, one must in fact be God himself. This is why you so desperately search for contradictions in the Bible and ultimately end up creating for yourself a patchwork God that you can comfortably "disprove." The fact that there are things in this world that you don't know or understand is apparently terrifying. What it all comes down to is a fear that there is something beyond ourselves.
To me, the extremes of both sides are equally obnoxious.
I'm curious how science and reason can make the value judgement that religion is harmful. so much for cultural diversity.
Timely posting of this article, since this Sunday is the day we honor atheists.
Atheists have been around as long as man.
There was a reason why David said this 3,000 years ago.
There was a reason Bacon (founder of science) wrote this 400 years ago.
So what do you think the point of living is?
"One can believe in life without believing in God."
It must be very hard for you to accept the Declaration of Independence.
Atheism is a single-minded devotion to or zealous conviction that there is no God.
Therefore, 'atheism' is a religion, too.
I believe that because no prayer to God has ever accomplished the impossible and because prayers are not answered in a systematic, predictable way even though the Bible says they are, and because there is no more evidence to prove God's existence than proof of Zeus or the Tooth Fairy, that believing in God's existence doesn't make the least bit of sense-- as most every adult acknowledges is the case for Zeus and the Tooth Fairy. And I don't know what purpose is served by using quotes between not answered. It's a fact that they weren't answered. No amputee, even the most saintly, has never been healed with a new limb even though healing of ailments is considered an established reward, in at least some cases, of prayer to God. There is not a single reasonable explanation that concerns "God's will" that would necessitate Jessica dying in the fashion she did-- it's just gratuitous. Can any believer provide any explanation for how it could possibly be part of God's will for a believer like Jessica to have her last days unfold the way that they did. God didn't even see fit for Jesus to have his last days spent as horribly as Jessica's were.
History has shown about a billion and one times that bad things do in fact happen to seemingly good people. It is clear that if one accepts God then they must accept that bad things happen to good people. Take the case of Jessica Lunsford. If you believe the world consists solely of Jessica Lunsford and her barbaric killer, then it might be reasonable to believe that God does not exist. However, we should all be quite aware that the world is well beyond simply two people. God cannot answer every prayer. If God does indeed have a hand in human affairs, bad things may ultimately lead to great things.
If one accepts God, then they must accept that there is no rhyme or reason to how frequently bad or good things happen and to whom they happen to. In some places in this world, throughout history and today, a state of barbarism is the world that many people find themselves in. We in the 21st century US are basically shielded from it. And, I am very glad to read that you acknowledge that if there is a God, he is not omnipotent and he may not even have any hand in human affairs either because of his own limitation or his inclination. Frankly, there's not a lot of difference between a God who creates people and leaves them totally alone and a parent who abandons their children at home for a week while they go on vacation. We don't tolerate the latter, justifiably. I don't see why some tolerate the former in God.
Your naive and fatalistic view on the world is troubling. We do not have anarchy and chaos. Clearly, you again define God as a celestial puppetmaster, since "free will" to you only means that we are alone. I suspect that in a truly chaotic and random world, nothing we do or say means anything. Our thoughts and words are merely the result of millions of years of improbable evolution. Of course, in such a world, I find it hard to believe that kindness, mercy, and compassion have any place, yet they do exist in our world.
I don't know how free will is even defined by you because it varies. Some say it's the ability to freely choose to accept the divinity of God and all that's related to that. Some say it's the ability to freely choose what you do. We don't have free will to accept God's divinity because the consequence is an eternity of torture. It's coercion. No different than saying that Jessica had the free will to obey or not obey the orders given to her by John Couey.
And it doesn't make sense to say that as a part of a social contract, that people wouldn't encourage kindness, mercy, and compassion or discover what that means. Empathy isn't that hard of a concept to understand. We can all imagine ourselves in someone else's shoes and be lead to treat others in a kind and merciful and compassionate way-- because we may need the same consideration at some time. It's very beneficial for both parties. Symbiotic relationships are found all throughout nature-- not in just groups that adopt a belief in religion.
My first comment on this thread was how atheism was perfect for those with a God complex. You seem to be defining God left and right in a neverending attempt to disprove him - or, at the very least, comfort yourself that His existence is meaningless to you. This speaks to the self-refuting nature of atheism - to disprove God, one must in fact be God himself. This is why you so desperately search for contradictions in the Bible and ultimately end up creating for yourself a patchwork God that you can comfortably "disprove." The fact that there are things in this world that you don't know or understand is apparently terrifying. What it all comes down to is a fear that there is something beyond ourselves.
The only information I have about the nature of God is from believers and from what is considered an infallible record of his word, the Bible. I'm not defining him at all. He defined himself. I don't have a God complex. That's silly. It makes as much sense to say I have a Tooth Fairy complex. God has a God complex. He thinks he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and omniscient, despite the evidence to the contrary. I don't seek to disprove God like I don't seek to disprove Santa Claus. Neither have any relevance to me one way or the other.
I'm not terrified by the unknowable or things I don't understand. Not at all. The only people who are terrified are those who cling to ideas that aren't supported at all by logic or reason because those ideas are comforting. I am not worried that there are ghosts or fairies or gods or whatever in some other plane of existence. It's a waste of my time.
Why?
I merely stated that belief that life exists is not logically dependent on a belief that God exists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.