Atheists and Atheism (Little Upsilon)

Parsifal: I do not like either of the definitions (senses) of faith you offer. In the former, faith is a trait. In the latter, faith is simply a synonym of tennants or beliefs or dogma. The quote then goes on to characterise faith as the confidence or trust, which I would largely agree with. Imo, faith is confidence without reason or trust without evidence. I would argue that not all beliefs *necessarily* require faith and would especially argue that faith does not have to come from any outside source. I think that in this last context the word dogma is more appropriate.

Regarding the contradiction, by 'lean' i presume you derive comfort from this logical impossiblity (paradox). How is a logical contradiction comforting?

I do not place my faith anywhere, I do not really understand the concept (to 'place' faith). I have no reason to think that nihilism isnt entirely appropriate. I just simply choose not to be nihilistic.

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (93%)
3. Theravada Buddhism (91%)
4. Secular Humanism (87%)
5. Neo-Pagan (86%)
6. Mahayana Buddhism (76%)
7. New Age (75%)
8. Jainism (70%)
9. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (68%)
10. Orthodox Quaker (65%)
11. Baha'i Faith (63%)
12. Nontheist (61%)
13. Taoism (59%)
14. Reform Judaism (57%)
15. Hinduism (52%)
16. Scientology (46%)
17. Islam (43%)
18. Orthodox Judaism (43%)
19. New Thought (42%)
20. Seventh Day Adventist (42%)
21. Sikhism (35%)
22. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (35%)
23. Jehovah's Witness (32%)
24. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (27%)
25. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (24%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (20%)
27. Roman Catholic (20%)

I'm more Jahova's Witness than Zdenek. I had no idea. I hope homeland security doesn't find out I am 43% muslim. :/

Danger,
as i said, i don't make much of a distinction between the concept of faith and belief. the definitions i gave are not mine but for the sake of the discussion i presented them.

yes, i do get comfort from paradox. it's just another paradigm. there appears to be universal laws that are unchanging, while at the same time there is constant change taking place. so, i can take comfort that there is something that is unchanging while at the same time creation continues and i'm a part of that.

as far as your statement "For myself, I invoke faith to dismiss nihilism. I have no evidence or reason to dismiss nihilism, but I do so anyway." i guess i don't have your experience to understand what you mean.

so, have we beat this one up enough. lol. what next?

1. Hinduism (100%)
2. New Thought (89%)
3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (84%)
4. Scientology (82%)
5. Orthodox Judaism (78%)
6. Neo-Pagan (77%)
7. Unitarian Universalism (77%)
8. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (73%)
9. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (70%)
10. Jehovah's Witness (70%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (67%)
12. Reform Judaism (66%)
13. New Age (65%)
14. Liberal Quakers (62%)
15. Sikhism (60%)
16. Islam (58%)
17. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (53%)
18. Eastern Orthodox (51%)
19. Orthodox Quaker (51%)
20. Roman Catholic (51%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (51%)
22. Jainism (50%)
23. Baha'i Faith (49%)
24. Theravada Buddhism (46%)
25. Taoism (32%)
26. Secular Humanism (22%)
27. Nontheist (11%)

Wow I am a Hindu.

I took that quiz a few years ago, and came up with some crazy combination of religions, none of which I was comfortable with (including my own, the way it is described.) I find it impossible to take the quiz now. The choices are not mutually exclusive, there is not nearly enough room for "I don't know," or "I'm not sure," and even picking the closest to what I believe still pigeonholes me in a way that just is contrary to what I believe, on any given issue.

I hope others took the Joziite thing as not just a joke. I've had this idea for a while...even assuming for the sake of argument there really is a Jozi, who created and maintains the whole simcountry system, I don't think it can be proven from evidence within simcountry that Jozi exists. You can't see outside the simworlds, from within them. The simcountry system has its own programmed rules and laws. Even though the rules change, they do so in somewhat predictable ways--one could fashion a meta-law to describe how they change, and the meta-law is still a description of simcountry itself. Making payments to W3c...that's outside simcountry and cannot be used as evidence. Communications are more problematic...but anyone claiming to have communicated with Jozi can be called a liar, or deluded, or just confused. Even if I send an email and receive a personal reply, I could explain that as a programmed, albeit high-level, response from the game itself. Where did the whole simcountry system come from, and why is it here? These are questions either that simscience has no right to ask...or else we do come up with naturalistic explanations. And of course the whole point is that it's an illustration that those who ask for proof of God's existence are perhaps asking for something that just cannot adequately be provided from within our universe.

I'll pursue the analogy a little further, wrt the issue of omnipotence. Is Jozi (er, "Jozi") omnipotent within simcountry? Yes...no...it's not really a good question, it's much too crude. Sure Jozi could come in and punish some players, reward others...it would destroy the game though. He can and has made rules to keep us from making errors...and what do we do? We rebel, we say let us run our countries in our own way, even if we might fail. What's the point of playing the game if you're forced to succeed? So Jozi allows countries to fail, God allows bad things to happen--it doesn't mean Jozi is bad, or God is bad; these things are just part of the game.

Anyway, thanks for letting me use your name so freely, Jozi--no offense intended, if you really are out there.

At Samicus,
I didn't know hindus, neo pagans, orthodox jews, and Mormons had anything in common.


At JoJo,
Have you ever contemplated the question "where is Simcountry". Some Heretics have claimed there is a place called the Netherlands and Simcountry is contained within a Server. That can't be correct because it has been revealed that most presidents are not in the Netherlands and yet they are presidents in Simcountry.

At The Faithful,
The doctrine of omniscience and the doctrine of omnipotence are philosophical ideas that did not originate from Jozi or Tom Willard. One can ask a question like "can Jozi create a mountain that Jozi cannot lift". Although it may be thought provoking this is not a challenge to Joziism.

1. Jehovah's Witness (100%)
2. Sikhism (96%)
3. Baha'i Faith (93%)
4. Islam (89%)
5. Jainism (83%)
6. Reform Judaism (82%)
7. Orthodox Quaker (78%)
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (76%)
9. Orthodox Judaism (76%)
10. Hinduism (75%)
11. Seventh Day Adventist (71%)
12. Eastern Orthodox (67%)
13. Roman Catholic (67%)
14. Liberal Quakers (66%)
15. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (62%)
16. Neo-Pagan (57%)
17. Mahayana Buddhism (55%)
18. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (55%)
19. Unitarian Universalism (53%)
20. Theravada Buddhism (44%)
21. New Age (42%)
22. Secular Humanism (35%)
23. Scientology (35%)
24. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (29%)
25. Taoism (29%)
26. New Thought (28%)
27. Nontheist (23%)


Hmmm Intresting

LOL I guess I believe a lil bit of all of them. I do not see any 0%'s

PS, I had a philosophy professor who once asked me "where is a memory?" At the time I thought it was the most profound question. I had another philosophy professor who used to say the proper response for all sorts of questions like that is "What do you mean when you say 'such and such'?" In this case, what is meant by "where"? It implies we're talking about a physical object located someplace in space. Clearly a memory, or simcountry, is not a physical object. So the question "Where is simcountry?" makes no more sense than "where is blue" or "where is random?," i.e. none.

"Can Jozi create a mountain that Jozi cannot lift?" What does "create" mean, and what does "lift" mean. Get to the details. If you were to ask the question about me, I'd say, well, Jojo is a master of dirt and can put together a small hill of dirt that he can't pick up with his hands, though he could lift it with a Bobcat. He could then use the Bobcat to pile up a larger hill that he couldn't lift with the Bobcat, though he could lift it with some larger piece of equipment...and what the hell is the point of this fairly stupid question. I don't see one defining "create" and "lift" so that the question will have any practical point regarding God. As you said, I think, such questions are interesting but they don't really lead anywhere useful.

Jojo,

The question is relevant to the word Omnipotent. Omnipotence means able to do anything.

I recently read an article in science that presented evidence that memory are stored in glial cells. The authors were open to the possibility that the glial cells were just stimulating recollection. The prior accepted notion was that memories are exclusively stored in neurons. Glial cells, Neurons, or a coordinated effort are the available options.

I guess I believe a lil bit of all of them. - Serpent

In a way that is the point I think. We all believe in "something", despite there were no answers for the nihilists for example. Even nihilist is no "robot".


The proclamation of the Lord's Resurrection lightens up the dark regions of the world in which we live. I am referring particularly to materialism and nihilism, to a vision of the world that is unable to move beyond what is scientifically verifiable, and retreats cheerlessly into a sense of emptiness which is thought to be the definitive destiny of human life. - Urbi at Orbi 2009

The older I get the more atheist I feel.

I always thought people got more religious with age...

Maybe it depends on where you're starting from.

PS, what do you mean when you say "anything"? Does that include logical contradictions such as 'both lift any mountain that can be created, and create a mountain that cannot be lifted?' Applying those sorts of definitions of omnipotence to God tells us much about our understanding of words, but very little about God. Though I don't know for sure, of course, I tend to think that God is not omnipotent according to such definitions...and so what?

What if it were the case that there were more realistic, practical limits, even very severe limits, to what God can do in this world? Finding those limits out, defining those limits, would tell us a lot about God, and a lot about the nature of things. The whole scientific eneterprise can be seen in that light.

Not you necessarily, but people who try to poke holes in God's supposed omnipotence are simply setting up a straw man argument. There is a world of room, the real world we live in, between "God is perfect and omniscient and omnipotent" and "God does not exist."

Do any of you Atheists believe in Jesus?

Maybe most people do but it seems to have worked the opposite for me. Just seems I have fewer and fewer reasons to even question anything. I seem to know what I know and believe what I believe.

And nix: I wouldn't say I am certain but it seems implausible.

Jesus... Wasn't he the #1 American of the 20th century?

That aside, I don't believe in a specific deity. But then that is not the nature of my religion.

Jesus? to me he was just jewish carpenter who had a big mouth, pissed off the wrong peeps, and got killed for it. everything in between is utter nonsense. padding if you will to make his story that much more interesting.

If Jesus was just a man, do you respect what he did and why he did it?

If Jesus was a man it makes his "message" much more powerful in my eyes than if he had .. powers.

Jojo,
Today I was thinking about your post from april 15, 5:57. I stopped paying attention to what I was doing and managed to fry my arm with a 130 amp electric ark and some steel splatter. The weld looked like crap too.

It occurred to me that you were not really denying the existence of Jozi. The doctrine of the Trinity states that Jozi is not just the administrator. The trinity is "the server", "the administrator" and "the software". You suggest that witnessed miracles could be created by an administer that is like the software. This is not a challenge to the existence of Jozi.

Jozi may or may not have an organic neural network. It is also difficult to prove that so many of Simcountries presidents actually have organic neural networks. Perhaps you can ask Jozi about his network when your account goes to backup.

@Nix001 - Nope. I wasn't there to witness the events and I don't believe a word of any of the writings that have come about from any of the religions based upon Abraham. Quite frankly, IMHO, the world would be a better place it none of those religions came about. Given what we know was handed down from generation to generation and transcribed by hand for centuries, it's my belief that the various writings from all of those religions are examples of early fiction at it's best.

If those writings are all actually fiction, why are they still around? There are not many writings that are as old as those? There are a few, but even then, those writings do not have the impact on humanity that the bible does.

What I find interesting abut those ancient writings like the bible for ie... is that they are remarkably accurate on things that are historical and scientific. Now I'm not gonna say that every single syllable is exactly as it was penned several thousand years ago, but there is obviously something to that book!

I think the reason that many people do not believe in the bible, God, or a higher power is because of three reasons.

1) Most people are by nature lazy, and if you claim to believe in the bible, then you must do something. Obviously it isn't just a book for leisure reading.

2) Some people do not want to be accountable to anybody. Because again, if you believe the bible, then you are accountable to a higher power and most people do not like that idea. In fact people in general has become a 'you do as you please' and 'there is no right and wrong' society.

3) This IMO is prolly the most important reason. When you look at those that 'claim' to be christians, for the most part it is disgusting! Many a terrible and horrible act has been committed in the name of God. Because by their actions they prove themselves to be some of the most horrible individuals on the planet.

Of course there are those that belong to other faiths that can be included in this example, but I used Christians, because that is no doubt what many on this forum claim to be. But I would also argue that before a individual writes off any particular faith, find out what it REALLY believes, then make your judgement.

Ten Commandments according to the Selfish Gene

#1
I am your God
You shall have no other gods before Me
You shall not make for yourself an idol

Love, trust and defend your believes/opinions/feelings, be an individual not a part of the collective. Do not fall to others who impose (their believes/Gods) on you. Do not let yourself to be deceived and driven by society trends, fashion and role models. Your selfish gene, your belief, your God, yourself, knows whats best for you, not others.


#2
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

Do not be hypocritical. Talk is cheap and if you fail to act as you talk, others will judge you, despise you and spit on you.

#3
Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.

This is a tough one. Working on Sunday is a sin! Its not healthy for you. If you wanna perform well and live long and happy life, you need to take a day off.

#4
Honor your parents

Naturally.. the way you treat your parents, your kids will treat you. Anyone wanna die alone?

#5
You shall not murder

This is simple self-protection rule. Do I need to say more?

#6
You shall not commit adultery

I will assume this applies to monogamous marriage, which is an institution enforced by men to secure themselves at least one mating opportunity - at least according to Robert Wright -, and in such marriage there are pragmatic reasons why to stay faithful. Wasted parental investments, offspring raised by a 'stranger' or raising offspring of a 'stranger' at the expense of own offspring as in Robert Trivers for example. Beyond monogamy we could argue in similar fashion.

#7
You shall not steal

As with murder, its for self-protection.

#8
You shall not bear false witness

Be fair and true, coz you can never know when you will be judged, and false witness is the last thing you want to have as your foe at your own trial. Jury duty anyone?

#9
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

More specific #6 with a twist. We have a proverb: "whats in the house, is not for me." getting involved with someone you come to contact with often, like at work or next house, is just asking for troubles.

#10
You shall not covet your neighbor's house...

Again more refined #7. Maybe the God is into decimal system I dunno.
---

Now this is the word of God, which we are to keep. Are these rules of imaginary moral nature or common sense nature? From the point of view of the selfish gene, how could these interfere? Do not these rules actually serve to preserve the selfish gene?

And finally: The Golden Rule

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you / Treat others as you would like to be treated.

or its 21 reincarnations present in religions around the world.

This is from game theory textbook. This is the tit for tat principle, the highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma, the equivalent to the concept of reciprocal altruism in the context of biology as wiki says.

1. Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate
2. If provoked, the agent will retaliate
3. The agent is quick to forgive
4. The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.
---

In the beginning was the DNA, and the DNA was with God, and the DNA was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. - (John 1:1)

"...is that they are remarkably accurate on things that are historical and scientific."

By whose account? Very little of the stories from the bible have ever been proved as historical and there is NOTHING scientific about that book. Alchemical maybe with the water to wine and if they had managed to turn lead into gold in there somewhere, but scientific accuracy? No way.