A case for strong atheism

[Guest Godless]

I think the point is that your god does not have to be an intelligent being. Whatever you give your full devotion to is your god, and the system associated with that devotion is your religion. Are you not fully devoted to science, reason, and logic?

I am not devoted to science, reason, and logic in the same way that you are devoted to your God. I'm a cook and a beer enthusiast, not a scientist. Scientific pursuits take a backseat to my culinary studies and beer advocacy. Science intrigues me and I like to study it in my spare time, but it's ultimately an insignificant part of my intellectual spectrum.

The same can be said of scientifically-inclined theists (Traveler in particular comes to mind). Their primary focus is presumably religion, with science and secular logic playing second fiddle even though these things very important to them.

The pursuit of knowledge and your devotion to the cause of atheism is your god, and the method your religion. Like Finrock pointed out, the existence of dogma within strong atheism is evidence that it is a religion.

What do you mean when you refer to "the cause of atheism"? I think you're confusing strong atheism with militant atheism (Dawkins and his ilk). I lack belief in a deity. I have no cause or agenda behind this non-belief. I enjoy sharing my views with others when the opportunity presents itself, but I'm not out to deconvert anyone. The same is true of many non-militant strong atheists.

Strong atheism appears to reject completely the possibility that any deity exists, and apparently is concerned enough for mankind to actively proselytize the disbelief in deity, perhaps so that mankind can be freed from falsehoods and embrace "reality" instead. Perhaps atheist feel that such a liberation will promote a healthier progression of humanity.

Again, I think you're thinking of militant atheists. To be fair, I think a decent argument can be made for militant atheism being a religion. Personally, I don't buy into it.

Instead of faith and personal revelation as their guide, strong atheist rely on the scientific method and logic to answer the hard questions of life; and instead of scripture they have their peer reviewed journals and their continually evolving theories and findings as their canon. It sounds like religion to me.

Again, logic and the scientific method are universal tools for understanding the world we live in. These methods are used by theists and atheists alike because they've been proven to work. Theists supplement these tools with religious faith. Atheists don't. That's the only real difference that I see between us.

[Finrock]

Godless, thanks for taking the time to respond. :)

The field of memetics studies this very question. It applies the theory of evolution to cultural norms and social tendencies. The basic theory behind it is that morality and attitudes evolve as a result of environmental and social influences.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion. The fact that memetics exist doesn't say one way or another about the innate human capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.

It could be argued that altruism and some level of compassion are among these traits. Without them, humanity would plunge into chaos and we would go extinct.

This innate basic capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, or our conscience, is a subset of the mind-body dilemma. Not only could it be argued that altruism and compassion are a result of evolution, etc., but the argument has been made and the mind-body dilemma has yet to be resolved via a naturalistic explanation.

I define worship as adoration without question. I respect Richard Dawkins, but I don't agree with everything he says, especially in the areas of religious apologetics and anthropology. I accept the theory of evolution, but I acknowledge that it is incomplete and has some minor flaws. There are aspects of the theory that are under debate within the scientific community. There is no such thing as a perfect theory, and evolutionary theory is no exception. Objective criticism is an essential part of advancing and developing the theory.

On the flipside, you have deities. They are worshipped without question or criticism because they are believed to be infallible. This is what separates adoration and respect from worship. There is nothing about science and reason that is completely infallible, thus they are not worshiped in the same sense that you worship God.

As I've already said, worship, by my definition, implies infallibility. We respect and admire the great minds of science, but we rarely agree with everything that they have to say.

See above.

How you personally define worship isn't exactly relevant. Worship, by definition, does not necessitate adoration without question. In fact, my worship has not been without question and critical thinking. However, the important point I want to make is that I disagree with your personal definition of worship. If you look at dictionary definitions for worship none of them include anything to the effect of adoration without question.

Also, I disagree that worship, by definition, implies infallibility. The Greeks worshipped infallible gods. Worship does not, by necessity, include infallibity. I agree that our way of worship is different, but it is clear that strong atheist participate in a form of worshipping.

A god, by necessity, does not need to be infallible in order for it to be worshipped. A god need not be a personal god. A god can be an object, a set of beliefs, a philosophy, etc.

The OP made statements of fact based on the definition of atheism. Looking back on those statements, I don't see a single one that I would consider a statement of belief.

This objection is only a play on words and semantics.

For instance, the LDS have what are called the Articles of Faith. They are statements of fact about our religion. They describe principles that we believe to be true. I would be completely correct in calling them statements of belief even though they are statements of fact. In fact, if they weren't statements of fact then they couldn't be statements of belief.

Are you claiming then that you do not believe those statements of fact that the OP made? If you believe them, why are they not statements of belief for you?

Science, reason, and logic are embraced by many people of different faiths. There are plenty of theists who embrace these things the same way that atheists do because they are considered to be reliable sources of truth about the world we live in. The only difference between us and theists is that theists add God into the equation. So would you say that science, reason, and logic are part of the religion of such a theist?

It could be. But, this objection is besides the point. Although some theist (myself being one of them) include science, reason, and logic as a part of their religious practice, it isn't the object of their adoration. On the other had, a strong atheist venerates science, reason, and logic above all else. They entail the guiding principles by which a strong atheist lives and makes sense of existence and being. As I've already illustrated, by definition, science, reason, and logic is the strong atheist's god, they provide the principles of the strong atheist's belief system, and they are the object of a strong atheist's worship.

Atheist even have their saints and religious leaders. I don't agree with everthing that has ever been said by every prophet or religious leader in the LDS faith and one would not use this as a means to deny them as being my religious leaders or examplars. In the same sense an atheist doesn't have to believe or agree with everything that Richard Dawkin or Carl Sagan says or postulates in order for them to be treated by atheist with the same type of awe and respect that a theist would treat their saints or religious leaders. Also, at least based on my interactions with atheist, I could probably argue that the works of Carl Sagan are pretty much scripture to atheist. In my experience, Sagan's secular humanist views have been frequently used by atheist to counter theists' foundation of morality.

In any case, that the god is different and that the form of worship is not the same as with a theist does not negate the fact that based on the definition of god and worship, a strong atheist believes and worships a type of god. Given all of these facts, how is atheism not a religion? The truth is that atheism is a religion and therefore my original objections to some of the OPs descriptions of what an atheist is, stand.

Regards,

Finrock

[Roundearth]

I just wonder if knowing a little bit about our beliefs would change your approach a little, at least as far as your hypethetical examples go.

In a nutshell, latter-day saints believe that a human, born into this world, consists of a spirit clothed in a body of flesh. Our spirit, is the literal offspring of God, and it existed before we entered mortality. In our pre-mortal existence, we progressed and learned as much as possible in that environment.

There are two major differences between us and God. First, he has progressed further than us, and second, he has an immortal body of flesh and bone. he is in a state of complete happiness and joy, and is perfect.

God designed a plan that would allow us to enter mortality to obtain bodies of flesh, and to progress further by learning through our own experiences things we could not otherwise learn. A very important, if not most important part of our existence is our ability to know right from wrong, and our freedom to choose for ourselves. In fact, we progress whenever we are faced with choices and we choose correctly. This earth life, represents an environment where we are able to exercise our agency in practical ways beyond the theories of our pre-mortal curriculum.

So, a very basic claim of latter-day saints, is that mankind is the same species as God, and that mortality is a part of God's plan to help us reach our greatest potential, which He himself epitomizes. We claim that God is an exalted Man. In fact, one of the names for God, in our theology, is Man of Holiness.

There is of course more to the story, but I wanted to point out that according to us, God is not "supernatural" in the sense that you described, outside of the laws that govern the Universe. Infact, complete mastery and comprehension of all knowledge is part of our quest to become like Him. Also, though our scriptures describe God as eternal and infinite, we don't think of infinity in exactly the same terms that you have described. We ascribe that to His capacity to comprehend things, for example, and to exalt his children, if they choose it. God, according to us, can only be in one place at one time; but his influence can be felt universally.

We do not have all knowledge yet of all things. So, even among latter-day saints, there is much debate and speculation about some of these things, but each one of us will readily admit that when all things have been revealed to us, that none of it is magic and beyond explanation, and that science and our faith is in complete harmony. Many things that appear as miracles to us now, will be revealed to be based on eternal truth and law.

God, to latter-day saints, is an actual tangible, glorified and exalted Man, and we are his children.

Regards,

Vanhin

Thanks for summarizing your religion for me.

That was a long post. I will start a new thread if I decide to address it in detail. For now, I will concentrate on the part that is relevant to this thread:

according to us, God is not "supernatural" in the sense that you described, outside of the laws that govern the Universe.

That seems more reasonable. Of course, you then have to posit a lot of new laws to account for your god's abilities. That makes your religion less plausible.

we don't think of infinity in exactly the same terms that you have described. We ascribe that to His capacity to comprehend things, for example, and to exalt his children, if they choose it. God, according to us, can only be in one place at one time; but his influence can be felt universally.

What is infinite is undefined. It doesn't matter what part of him is infinite.

[Roundearth]

Hi prisonchaplain,

I only stretch the term faith to say it does not require an allegiance to an organization, or formal system of worship. Faith need not be blind to be deemed religious. Surely you do have some evidence that drives you to your belief that God does not exist. Likewise for monotheists and Christians. Even those Christians who respond to a Billy Graham-like invitation to "accept Jesus," generally are doing so because they've been thinking about faith, however informally, for quite some time. None of these conclusions happens in a vacuum.

I realize that this is a point of some controversy. Even if I could find some dictionary to support my claim, there's no doubt that atheism is only religious in the broadest sense. My point is that both atheism and theism ultimately require a certain amount of faith, combined with evidences. In any kinda of debate one side or other would "win" by preponderance of the evidence, not by a conclusive amount.

You seem to think of faith as this procedure: believing something provisionally when we have incomplete evidence for it. I don't see anything in that procedure that looks like faith. That procedure is exactly what reason requires of us. Faith is contrasted with reason, as believing beyond or in spite of what the evidence justifies.

You might prove that one or the other is "odds-on" accurate, but never "beyond the shadow of doubt."

I contest this on the grounds that the arguments in my OP succeed.

A question, if I may: Did you "convert" to atheism? That is, were you once an adherent of some religion, and finally you concluded there is no God? I am aware that the president of the Freedom from Religion organization used to be a Christian minister. Likewise, Bishop Pearson was a former Oral Roberts University graduate, and a pentecostal minister of reknown, before he converted to the vaguest of theism/soft atheism. I just find it interesting that this purported non-religion is adhered to mostly by converts.

I converted from fundamentalist Christianity to liberal Christianity to atheism.

Think about this. Many of the posters here have had personal, emotional, and dramatic experiences that we believe are God-authored. In my case, I've spoken in tongues, and had many experiences sensing God's presence. I've even spoken out in public meetings as I believed God directed, concluding with, "Thus saieth the Lord." LDS here have often had similar powerful experiences in their Temples, and in their searching for truth.

Someone comes along and says, "None of that can be true, because, by definition, an infinite God would defy the very definition of existence." I believe most, like me, would be non-plussed. I hope you understand, I'm attempting to help you understand my thoughts, not to simply debate you formally on this matter. I don't mind engaging your thoughts, but I'd much rather converse than play an adverserial game of debate.

I understand that your experiences are very powerful to you. My arguments are very powerful to me. The purpose of dialectic is to resolve our disagreement by moving from claims we agree on to resolve the claim in dispute.

What I said was that I do not find arguments based purely on definition to be compelling. I'm all for logic, though, remembering the Intro. to Logic class I took, I found the informal kind much more practical.

Ah, but the formal kind just is the informal kind examined closely. Informal logic is useful for everyday life, but when we get to really abstract issues like the existence of God only formal logic can help us.

Reason and logic are powerful primarily when the resonate with experience and subjective perception. You'll find above my example--posters here have generally had powerful subjective experiences with what we believe to be God. No amount of formal logical disputation will, by itself, convince anyone towards atheism. Likewise, many former theists who convert do so because of some personal disappointments with religion. Such folk then here some of the logic behind atheism, and believe themselves to have been freed to think reasonably.

Logic was the sole reason for my deconversion.

[Vanhin]

Thanks for summarizing your religion for me.

That was a long post. I will start a new thread if I decide to address it in detail. For now, I will concentrate on the part that is relevant to this thread:

You are welcome. I just wanted to give you a few tidbits so that you know where we are coming from.

That seems more reasonable. Of course, you then have to posit a lot of new laws to account for your god's abilities. That makes your religion less plausible.

Lay down some specifics, and I am sure the discussion will be all but boring.

However, I will admit, that even Mormons don't claim to know everything. We do claim to know many things, and that eventually we can know all things, and we seek after truth as a principle of our religion. We claim that once we do know all things, things that seem miraculous to us now, will certainly not be supernatural.

I'm sure you can agree that mankind here on this earth does not know everything there is to know about the laws of the Universe. Surely you can accept that phenomenons can and do occur that we have no current explanation for.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Roundearth]

I'm going to paraphrase here, but Roundearth contended in his OP that humans are born without any innate sense of right or wrong. Vanhin challenged him on this point and he conceded that indeed there are some moral questions that seem to be innate universally (i.e., knowing that murdering someone is wrong).

This paraphrase is incorrect. I claim that no answer to any moral question is known innately.

Evolution cannot explain it and innate by definition precludes any environmental influence. The source of this innate distinction of right and wrong can not be found on earth and neither is it even possible for science to explain it.

Innate does preclude environmental influences by definition, but that does not tell us whether any particular tendency is innate.

I contend that the source of this innate capacity is a higher being, aka God. Of course, it could be some aliens with super technology and they are providing this apparently innate capacity. But, now it's simply semantics. Any alien capable of such feats are certainly higher beings, relatively speaking, and we end up just replacing the term "God" with the term "alien". In this hypothetical situations, both the aliens or God would seem to be influencing us with supernatural abilities.

You may contend that. If you want an atheist to believe you, you should provide evidence.

Religion - "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Atheists have no COMMON cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheists can be religious by this definition. Atheism, however, is not a religion.

This point and my previous point are closely tide together and the ideas overlap to a large extent. However, to elaborate I will say that just as worship isn't limited to the worship of some personal divine being, neither is a god limited to a personal divine being. A god can be anything or anyone that is of the greatest value to an individual. So, money can be a god. A car can be a god. Atheist deny a personal god, but they've only replaced a personal god with a god of science and reason or something else. So, this is what I mean.

This is obviously equivocal.

[Roundearth]

I must admit to being impressed by the strength of your convictions that Physics don't exist.

What is singularity and why do all laws of physics break down at singularity?

The position that there are no singularities is not incompatible with physics:

Some theories, such as the theory of Loop quantum gravity suggest that singularities may not exist. The idea is that due to quantum gravity effects, there is a minimum distance beyond which the force of gravity no longer continue to increase as the distance between the masses become shorter.

Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's unfair. You may simply be saying that Black Holes don't exist, or that we don't have a proper frame of reference for defining objects that approach an infinite scope and that you're sure we will at some point.

Of course, if you're saying that we don't have a proper frame of reference for defining objects that approach an infinite scope on any level then you've basically stated that this thread is an exercise in futility.

All I'm committed to is that there aren't singularities with infinite density. That could be the case in a number of ways.

Why don't you tell us: What proof would you accept that God exists? Mathematical proof?

Of course.

Deductive proof?

Sure.

Historical, first hand accounts?

Depending on how credible they were.

Morgan Freeman showing up on your front doorstep?

No.

[Guest Godless]

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion. The fact that memetics exist doesn't say one way or another about the innate human capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.

I was simply offering it as an additional possibility. This is a very theoretical field, but it seems to me that memetics and natural selection can explain human nature just as easily as religion can.

How you personally define worship isn't exactly relevant. Worship, by definition, does not necessitate adoration without question. In fact, my worship has not been without question and critical thinking. However, the important point I want to make is that I disagree with your personal definition of worship. If you look at dictionary definitions for worship none of them include anything to the effect of adoration without question.

Also, I disagree that worship, by definition, implies infallibility. The Greeks worshipped infallible gods. Worship does not, by necessity, include infallibity. I agree that our way of worship is different, but it is clear that strong atheist participate in a form of worshipping.

A god, by necessity, does not need to be infallible in order for it to be worshipped. A god need not be a personal god. A god can be an object, a set of beliefs, a philosophy, etc.

Here is one of the definitions I found for worship. "to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing)." By this definition, yes, atheists can be said to worship science and reason because we hold it in high regard. However, we're dealing with a field that operates through theories and evidence, not dogmatic beliefs. This is why I don't view it as a religion.

This objection is only a play on words and semantics.

For instance, the LDS have what are called the Articles of Faith. They are statements of fact about our religion. They describe principles that we believe to be true. I would be completely correct in calling them statements of belief even though they are statements of fact. In fact, if they weren't statements of fact then they couldn't be statements of belief.

Are you claiming then that you do not believe those statements of fact that the OP made? If you believe them, why are they not statements of belief for you?

The statements that were made were based entirely on the definition of atheism, which is the lack of belief in a deity. That definition draws several logical conclusions, as outlined in the OP. I believe that they are true in the same sense that I believe that I will burn myself if I touch a hot stove. It's a fact that's drawn from a set definition through logical means.

The Articles of Faith are statements of belief that help to define Mormonism. Mormonism in and of itself does not lend itself to the logical development of the AoF. Do you see the difference? The OP's conclusions were drawn from a definition following a logical sequence. The AoF are part of a definition.

It could be. But, this objection is besides the point. Although some theist (myself being one of them) include science, reason, and logic as a part of their religious practice, it isn't the object of their adoration. On the other had, a strong atheist venerates science, reason, and logic above all else. They entail the guiding principles by which a strong atheist lives and makes sense of existence and being. As I've already illustrated, by definition, science, reason, and logic is the strong atheist's god, they provide the principles of the strong atheist's belief system, and they are the object of a strong atheist's worship.

It's the same for atheists as it is for theists. As I mentioned, there are plenty of pursuits in my personal life that outweigh the intellectual pursuit of science and reason. Speaking only for myself, you would be more accurate if you were to say that my religion is craft beer than to say that it is science, because that's where most of my passion and interest is directed. Every atheist has his/her individual passions and interests as well, and in many cases they supersede the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

This brings me to an interesting point. What about the atheists who DO value science above all else? The biologists, anthropologists, physicists, and so forth? In their case, you would probably be correct in saying that their religion is science. However, there are many atheists like myself who do not put these pursuits front-and-center in our lives. And so it's unreasonable to suggest that all atheists worship science and logic to the point of religiosity.

I'd like to pose a scenario to you and ask for your thoughts. My best friend is an atheist and a biologist. She works as a lab tech at a Christian university (Trinity). Presumably, some if not many of her colleagues are Christians who share her enthusiasm for biology, and it would probably be unreasonable to suggest that her passion for science exceeds theirs. So aside from her lack of faith in God, what separates her from them?

Edited February 24, 2010 by Godless

[Finrock]

This paraphrase is incorrect. I claim that no answer to any moral question is known innately.

You're right. My paraphrase was incomplete. I'll address this point in another post because I want to quote your from page one.

Innate does preclude environmental influences by definition, but that does not tell us whether any particular tendency is innate.

That wasn't the intent of my statements that you quoted. I was working on the premise that a innate basic capacity to distinguish between right and wrong exist as evidence by universally recognized moral positions. For example, it seems universally true that people recognize murdering another person to be wrong. That there exist some universally recognized moral values is indicative of an innate capacity.

You may contend that. If you want an atheist to believe you, you should provide evidence.

Again, you are contending this point out of context. The premise is that universally recognized moral values are indicative of at least a basic innate capacity to recognize right from wrong. If this is true then it begs the question, where did this innate capacity originate from. Given that no naturalistic viewpoint has been able to successfully answer this, then it seems the source of this capacity is "supernatural" (I'm using this term loosely).

Atheists have no COMMON cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheists can be religious by this definition. Atheism, however, is not a religion.

Well, the OP made distinctions between atheist. We are addressing strong atheism. Are you contending that not all strong atheist share the belief that there is no God?

This is obviously equivocal.

No it isn't. Your argument artificially limits what a god is or can be because it is easier for you to argue against an amorphous supernatural god. Christianity recognizes that there are gods many and lords many. The Israelites at one point worshipped a golden cow as their god. So, I'm not equivocating, I'm making the point that although atheist deny a personal god, they nonetheless have made something else their god. Hence, there are no true atheist. There are only those who deny a personal deity.

As a side note, it may be a good idea, since you are addressing a primarily a Mormon audience, for you to account for the Mormon understanding of deity in your argument and change it accordingly. As it is, your two major points in the OP are largely irrelevant within the Mormon frame of reference.

Regards,

Finrock

[Roundearth]

Question: what's the diference between an agnostic and a weak athiest?

An agnostic is a species of weak atheist on my definition. An agnostic holds that the existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable.

which is one of the main reasons it's listed under religious categories - 1) it is a specifc belief dealing with deity. 2) it entails a specific belief in regards to the creation of life/universe etc.. (mainly in reference to #1), 3) there are more than one persons that have embraced this particular belief.

What authoritative definition of "religion" did you get those criteria from?

It is not a moral position- rather it eliminates any need for any specific morality and allows the individual to set up their own morality however they choose.

Atheism does not allow an individual to set up his morality however he chooses. He is still bound by logic to provide a reasonable answer to moral questions. For example, he cannot hold that some act both is and is not good, and he cannot hold ridiculous moral positions.

Nor does atheism eliminate the need for any specific morality. The reason is that an atheist is a living being with the capacity to choose his actions, and as such requires a code of values that will keep him alive. He needs such a code, or he'll die.

I agree, however it is one that is much harder to defend it's interaction with other individuals.

I don't understand. Could you elaborate on this and give examples?

What is a correct belief? without some superforce (whether its God, the Force, the flying spaghetti monster, homer simpson, fate, zeus or what not) to enforce it in some fashion or another there is no correct or incorrect process.

Why not?

until an individual has all knowledge, logic is going to be hampered and cannot fully be known to be correct or not.

I'm not sure what you mean. If you meant that logic might not work... well, logic clearly does work.

second you need more than evidence, as evidence can be intrepreted a myriad of ways... but this is a good place to start.

"More than evidence"? What did you have in mind?

There seems to be a contradiction here. You're using nothing but evidence to establish the belief, "evidence is not enough to establish a belief."

this could be one definition of infinity... but certainly not the only way to approach it. Infinity is really rather vague and certainly more than one way to approach it.

I can demonstrate something similar in math: take a (nonlimited) line, a plane and a volume, all 3 are infinite but also have definite attributes and limitations, and are different.

Infinity can't be too vague a concept, since mathematicians use it.

[Moksha]

Again, logic and the scientific method are universal tools for understanding the world we live in. These methods are used by theists and atheists alike because they've been proven to work. Theists supplement these tools with religious faith. Atheists don't. That's the only real difference that I see between us.

Some the George Forman grill for cooking burgers and the grill can be used by theists and non-theists alike. There is joy in commonality.

[Roundearth]

Let's keep this simple.

You don't believe there is a God. Okay.

I believe there is a God. That's okay too.

Who is wrong? Neither.

Who is right? Both.

Why do I say that? Because, as long as you are constantly and sincerely searching for the truth of all things, you are going to be on the right side every single time.

You can't convince me God does not exist just like I cannot convince you God does exist. No one can. So, it's really not a debatable subject. Critical thinking skills not applicable. I mean - gosh, you can try as much as you can and I will guarantee you it's nothing but an exercise in futility - with my head hurting at the end. Why should we go through that? I can practice critical thinking by going to alice.com and learning how to apply logic to make a digital skater twirl and it will not be an exercise in futility.

Now, if we are searching for truth, then this wouldn't be a debate. This will be a - "Hey, Anatess, what do you think about God? Maybe there are some things I can learn from you." and vice versa.

Let me know when this stops being a debate and starts becoming a discussion. Or, if you want to keep it a debate, I suggest we move it to something worth debating - like should we keep God in the pledge of allegiance or something...

Simple is good.

Theism has either met the burden of proof, or it has not. Either there are good arguments for God, or there are not. There is a vast body of literature arguing for the existence of God - Aquinas, Anselm, Plantinga - and the sum of that body of literature either is or is not good reason to believe in God.

That's what I want to know. Maybe God does exist, and we can't prove it, or are too dumb to see through certain arguments against his existence. But what I want to know is, is belief in God reasonable? Have we got enough ammunition? Did this centuries-long labor of geniuses turn up something I can believe?

Because I'm a limited being. I can't know if there's a ravenous tiger around the next corner, I can only stake my life on my most reasonable guess. The same applies to God. I can't know if there's a God, I can only make the most reasonable guess, and stake my eternity on it. My survival requires me to treat the arbitrary like the false. So the question is, is the claim that God exists arbitrary?

You say that neither of us will convince the other. That's fine. I'm not interested in convincing you. Years of arguing with theists have convinced me that conversions are very rare, and happen mostly among the young. While it is clear that some members of this forum are not familiar with atheism, I am not naive enough to think that I can sweep you guys away with my arguments for atheism. I do think I can come closer to knowing what is reasonable, improve my critical thinking skills, and learn.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Roundearth

[FunkyTown]

Because I'm a limited being. I can't know if there's a ravenous tiger around the next corner, I can only stake my life on my most reasonable guess. The same applies to God. I can't know if there's a God, I can only make the most reasonable guess, and stake my eternity on it. My survival requires me to treat the arbitrary like the false. So the question is, is the claim that God exists arbitrary?

"Is the claim that God exists arbitrary?"

That is a question worth delving in to. The question, however, must come with a certain base. One doesn't leap in to particle physics without a basic understanding of math.

We'll start with something very simple: "What can we have knowledge of?"

The only thing we can have knowledge of is that which we have experienced before. Would you say that this is a safe argument?

We know that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has risen before throughout existence. If tomorrow, it popped like a baloon and was replaced by a bowl of spagetti, that would be beyond our current knowledge. To avoid an arbitrary belief, we walk around with the knowledge that it will behave as it always has.

Similarly, would you agree that we have knowledge that an object in motion tends to stay in motion, unless acted upon by other objects? That the past necessarily defines the future and that patterns that are followed in the past tend to define the patterns that will follow in the future?

[Roundearth]

You're right. My paraphrase was incomplete. I'll address this point in another post because I want to quote your from page one.

I'm impressed by your honesty.

That wasn't the intent of my statements that you quoted. I was working on the premise that a innate basic capacity to distinguish between right and wrong exist as evidence by universally recognized moral positions. For example, it seems universally true that people recognize murdering another person to be wrong. That there exist some universally recognized moral values is indicative of an innate capacity.

Again, you are contending this point out of context. The premise is that universally recognized moral values are indicative of at least a basic innate capacity to recognize right from wrong. If this is true then it begs the question, where did this innate capacity originate from. Given that no naturalistic viewpoint has been able to successfully answer this, then it seems the source of this capacity is "supernatural" (I'm using this term loosely).

I made objections to this argument in a previous post.

This ability is not possessed by everyone. The standard example here is serial murderers, but you could rightly say that they are an exception that your theory does not have to deal with. The eskimos, in the early 1800s, lived in a pretty extreme environment with minimal food, and so they had to push the oldest members of their clan out onto the ice to die. What shocked European explorers about this practice was that the eskimos did not seem upset about this. They were completely callous regarding their elders. They did not cry, or mourn the fact that their elders were starving out on the ice, even though the elders would often try to come back to the village. So it seems like these eskimos did not possess what you and I call conscience. Other instances in history seem to point to a similar conclusion. Aztec child sacrifice, Chinese foot binding, African genital mutilation and slavery throughout the world all seem to indicate a lack of conscience on the part of those who perpetrate them. If we have an innate ability to discern right and wrong, we would not expect these practices to occur.

So I think we need a better explanation. Here's mine. In my philosophy, we develop the distinction between good and evil by watching living things struggle to survive. X is good for a living thing if X promotes that living thing's life. So in my philosophy, the distinction between good and evil is originally based on an entirely factual, intellectual, cognitive integration that we performed in infancy, not on emotion or conscience. What you call conscience, our ability to discern good and evil in the world by means of our emotions, is just the result of our recognition that some things are good for certain beings' lives, and others are not. This ability is limited to non-abstract cases because our emotions cannot generally keep up with our minds on the very abstract level. The ability is unreliable because it is just another emotion, fallible and untrustworthy. People feel badly about different things because A. they live in wildly different environments, where the requirements of life differ, and B. they may evade or not recognize the necessity of thinking about the practical consequences of the practices they endorse. So I think my account of good and evil is more plausible, and better explains 1-3 than the Mormon account.

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/30582-case-strong-atheism-post480730.html#post480730

There are basically two points to take home from this:

1. The abolition against murder did not exist in eskimo society in the 1800s, or in Aztec society. In general, what you might consider conscience is less universal than you seem to believe.

2. While I agree that most people have the ability to discern good and evil, it is more plausible to me that we get that ability by observing things struggle to survive.

Well, the OP made distinctions between atheist. We are addressing strong atheism. Are you contending that not all strong atheist share the belief that there is no God?

Atheists definitely share one belief. They do not share a "belief system held to with ardor."

No it isn't. Your argument artificially limits what a god is or can be because it is easier for you to argue against an amorphous supernatural god. Christianity recognizes that there are gods many and lords many. The Israelites at one point worshipped a golden cow as their god. So, I'm not equivocating, I'm making the point that although atheist deny a personal god, they nonetheless have made something else their god. Hence, there are no true atheist. There are only those who deny a personal deity.

I cannot accept any definition of "god" that permits a car and money to be gods.

As a side note, it may be a good idea, since you are addressing a primarily a Mormon audience, for you to account for the Mormon understanding of deity in your argument and change it accordingly. As it is, your two major points in the OP are largely irrelevant within the Mormon frame of reference.

Noted. Thank you.

Could you tell me exactly how my arguments miss the Mormon position and give evidence?

Edited February 25, 2010 by Roundearth

[Roundearth]

"Is the claim that God exists arbitrary?"

That is a question worth delving in to. The question, however, must come with a certain base. One doesn't leap in to particle physics without a basic understanding of math.

We'll start with something very simple: "What can we have knowledge of?"

That sounds reasonable.

The only thing we can have knowledge of is that which we have experienced before. Would you say that this is a safe argument?

I'm not sure what it means. I'll agree to it with a few caveats.

First, we need not directly experience something to know it. I haven't directly experienced electrons or very distant celestial bodies, but I know that electrons and stars exist.

Second, we can know things based on someone else's experience, if we have reliable testimony. I know that the battle of waterloo occurred, but I wasn't alive when it happened. I know about it because I've read about it in reliable books.

Third, we can know abstract truths that are based on experience, even though we can't experience abstract truths in any sense of the word. I think it would actually be a category error to talk about experiencing an abstract truth.

Fourth, by experience I mean experience of an existing thing. You cannot experience a unicorn, you can only hallucinate or imagine it.

I should point out that on my conception of knowledge, we can know x even if x could turn out to be wrong. I think that's the only way to construct the concept of truth inside reality.

We know that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has risen before throughout existence. If tomorrow, it popped like a baloon and was replaced by a bowl of spagetti, that would be beyond our current knowledge. To avoid an arbitrary belief, we walk around with the knowledge that it will behave as it always has.

Similarly, would you agree that we have knowledge that an object in motion tends to stay in motion, unless acted upon by other objects?

Yep.

That the past necessarily defines the future and that patterns that are followed in the past tend to define the patterns that will follow in the future?

If you're talking about strict determinism, then no, because I'm a libertarian about free will. I agree that the actions of inanimate things are always determined, but I think that the actions of humans are not. (To avoid getting off on a tangent, it might be better to focus on a less controversial instance of regularity.) Edited February 25, 2010 by Roundearth

[FunkyTown]

That sounds reasonable.

I'm not sure what it means. I'll agree to it with a few caveats.

First, we need not directly experience something to know it. I haven't directly experienced electrons or very distant celestial bodies, but I know that electrons and stars exist.

I hope you don't assume that I'm trying to trick you. Basically, we need to have some commonality in order to discuss anything intelligently. In this case, the idea that the knowledge that God is not arbitrary. You have experienced suns and you have seen pictures of an electron microscope. Fair enough.

Second, we can know things based on someone else's experience, if we have reliable testimony. I know that the battle of waterloo occurred, but I wasn't alive when it happened. I know about it because I've read about it in reliable books.

Were I a tricking man, I would argue that 'reliable' would be simple. We could look at people seen as stalwart members of their community who argued they'd seen the divine: Mohammed, Jesus, Joseph Smith, Siddharta Buddha while under the tree. However, I recognize that you aren't arguing that Jesus didn't exist, nor that he didn't teach the things he taught. You're arguing a very specific: How can we know God exists. Because of that, I won't go in to historicity as it wouldn't satisfy your ultimate question. You could simply argue that all those men were passionate madmen. Fair enough.

Third, we can know abstract truths that are based on experience, even though we can't experience abstract truths in any sense of the word. I think it would actually be a category error to talk about experiencing an abstract truth.

Perfect! This is going to be what I will begin with. We can abstract truths based on experience, even though we can't experience abstract truths in any sense of the word.

Fourth, by experience I mean experience of an existing thing. You cannot experience a unicorn, you can only hallucinate or imagine it.

I should point out that on my conception of knowledge, we can know x even if x could turn out to be wrong. I think that's the only way to construct the concept of truth inside reality.

An abstract truth: All things continue to exist, though they may change form. Would you say that's correct? A star explodes somewhere, sending out carbon and other organic materials all over space. This lands on a world somewhere. Something happens(I won't argue what, because it's not necessary as of yet) and life begins on that world. Billions of years later, those same materials are gathered in to the porous material of a growing seed of corn. It gathers carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and other materials in various quantities until somebody eats it. Those various quantities are then broken apart - Not destroyed, but merely altered. It nourishes some creature on that planet. In that case, all that has happened is that its form has been altered.

Would you agree that this is true?

[Roundearth]

An abstract truth: All things continue to exist, though they may change form. Would you say that's correct? A star explodes somewhere, sending out carbon and other organic materials all over space. This lands on a world somewhere. Something happens(I won't argue what, because it's not necessary as of yet) and life begins on that world. Billions of years later, those same materials are gathered in to the porous material of a growing seed of corn. It gathers carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and other materials in various quantities until somebody eats it. Those various quantities are then broken apart - Not destroyed, but merely altered. It nourishes some creature on that planet. In that case, all that has happened is that its form has been altered.

Would you agree that this is true?

Sounds right.

[FunkyTown]

Sounds right.

Perfect. So, in that regard, everything in the universe seems to exist eternally. They can change form and shape, but everything that is or was continues to exist eternally in one form or another. Even the stars are forged anew again and again in the heart of the galaxy.

Now, let's take a few truths we've established: That which has happened in the past tends to continue to happen in the future and that things tend to stick around, even if they change form.

Let's continue to the next argument - Still not at God, but getting closer.

When a sperm meets and fertilizes an egg, a new life is conceived in destruction. It had no capability to comprehend what it would be when it changed, but it did so. A fetus was conceived. It grew and changed, altered and began a life in the womb. However, it had no idea what would be in its future and no way of comprehending it. When it's born, it's born in blood and destruction. There's a ripping of the birth caul and its previous life ends.

Then, a baby is born. It ages, lives its life. Ends its life.

Now, based upon what we have previously established: That patterns tend to be followed, that states are altered but nothing is destroyed and that which is established previously as true tends to be true later, which makes more sense:

A) The idea that there is an afterlife - In this case, following a pattern: All life tends to follow stages that result in the destruction of the previous stage which had no knowledge of what was coming. I would also humbly submit there is more lore on an afterlife that agrees with one another than any other thing in history. I would point you to the Tibetan and Egyptian book of the dead. I would point you to the description of a long tunnel and light at the end. I would direct you to the Biblical description of 'Walking through the valley of the shadow of death'.

or;

B) There is no afterlife. In this case, life is an absurdity. It is the only thing, with the exception of a single thought(And its cousin, language) that exists singly and ends. It does not follow previous patterns. It does not follow established lore that has agreed on surprisingly many points across multiple continents and multiple groups of peoples.

We aren't at God quite yet. Instead, we're simply at the point:

If we are to be intellectually honest, we must accept that an afterlife seems to follow patterns and has far more evidence than the idea of a lack of afterlife.

Would you agree, or would you disagree on any of my points?

Edited February 25, 2010 by FunkyTown
Not solar system. Galaxy. ;)

[Guest]

I'm in love with Funky's brain and ability to explain. Hey, it rhymes!

[Roundearth]

Let's continue to the next argument - Still not at God, but getting closer.

When a sperm meets and fertilizes an egg, a new life is conceived in destruction. It had no capability to comprehend what it would be when it changed, but it did so. A fetus was conceived. It grew and changed, altered and began a life in the womb. However, it had no idea what would be in its future and no way of comprehending it. When it's born, it's born in blood and destruction. There's a ripping of the birth caul and its previous life ends.

Then, a baby is born. It ages, lives its life. Ends its life.

Now, based upon what we have previously established: That patterns tend to be followed, that states are altered but nothing is destroyed and that which is established previously as true tends to be true later, which makes more sense:

A) The idea that there is an afterlife - In this case, following a pattern: All life tends to follow stages that result in the destruction of the previous stage which had no knowledge of what was coming. I would also humbly submit there is more lore on an afterlife that agrees with one another than any other thing in history. I would point you to the Tibetan and Egyptian book of the dead. I would point you to the description of a long tunnel and light at the end. I would direct you to the Biblical description of 'Walking through the valley of the shadow of death'.

or;

There is no afterlife. In this case, life is an absurdity. It is the only thing, with the exception of a single thought(And its cousin, language) that exists singly and ends. It does not follow previous patterns. It does not follow established lore that has agreed on surprisingly many points across multiple continents and multiple groups of peoples.

That's an interesting argument.

In my philosophy, your life is an end in itself. People should be rational to do well at their work, they should work to do well in life, and they should do well in life to become happy. The rational man spends his life more or less singlemindedly on his work. As a result, he moves from achievement to achievement, and his joy builds as he creates and is admired by everyone. His effort is not dimmed by the belief that if he does not do well in this life, he has another life to make up for it. At the end of his life, he is not afraid, because he knows that he will simply pass out of existence - and he has no regret, because he has lived well. This sort of existence is not meaningless.

Now, the premise of your argument, as I interpreted it, was that matter does not come into existence pass out of existence. That is reasonable, since it is testified to by science. However, your conclusion was that nothing comes into or passes out of existence, including the soul. But the soul seems to be a pattern that manifests itself in matter, and that pattern could presumably pass out of existence. We see patterns pass out of existence all the time: waves break on the shore, birds flying in formation land, and ice cubes melt. We don't think that there is a wave heaven, bird formation heaven, or ice cube heaven.

You argue that the lore of many previous societies agrees that there is an afterlife. That's true, but unconvincing, for three reasons. First, lore is frequently wrong. Science tells us that the world is around 14 billion years old, and lore tells us that it is much younger. Lore tells us that there used to be absurd monsters that fought with humans, that there were witches, and that women are inferior to men. I don't think lore is a good basis for arriving at a belief. Second, the afterlife may appear in lore the world over for several reasons: A. There is a strong desire not to die. B. The legend of an afterlife may have originated with the original group of humans, and stayed with man as he spread through the world. Third and finally, there's the fact that we are much more advanced than early man and have not found convincing scientific evidence of an afterlife. If we can't find it, how could they have? We have much more technology than they did, so I am inclined to believe that their belief in an afterlife was unjustified. So that argument is not convincing to me.

Now, I have a few questions for you. I'm not sure what your beliefs are about the afterlife, so please answer the questions relevant to what you believe.

If there is an immaterial soul...

* What is an immaterial soul composed of?

* How does the immaterial soul interact with the material body?

* Why hasn't science found any convincing evidence that there is an immaterial soul?

* Memory has a physical base. In what sense are our souls "us" if they go on to the afterlife without any of our memories?

If our bodies are resurrected...

* How does God deal with the problem that our bodies decay?

* How does God deal with the problem that sometimes, parts of person A's body become parts of person B's body?

* If parts of our bodies are regenerated by God with new matter, in what sense are those bodies "us" - i.e., "our" bodies?

Edited February 25, 2010 by Roundearth

[Guest]

Simple is good.

Theism has either met the burden of proof, or it has not. Either there are good arguments for God, or there are not. There is a vast body of literature arguing for the existence of God - Aquinas, Anselm, Plantinga - and the sum of that body of literature either is or is not good reason to believe in God.

That's what I want to know. Maybe God does exist, and we can't prove it, or are too dumb to see through certain arguments against his existence. But what I want to know is, is belief in God reasonable? Have we got enough ammunition? Did this centuries-long labor of geniuses turn up something I can believe?

Because I'm a limited being. I can't know if there's a ravenous tiger around the next corner, I can only stake my life on my most reasonable guess. The same applies to God. I can't know if there's a God, I can only make the most reasonable guess, and stake my eternity on it. My survival requires me to treat the arbitrary like the false. So the question is, is the claim that God exists arbitrary?

You say that neither of us will convince the other. That's fine. I'm not interested in convincing you. Years of arguing with theists have convinced me that conversions are very rare, and happen mostly among the young. While it is clear that some members of this forum are not familiar with atheism, I am not naive enough to think that I can sweep you guys away with my arguments for atheism. I do think I can come closer to knowing what is reasonable, improve my critical thinking skills, and learn.

Round, I like it very simple. Funky is doing a really good job of expressing what is going on in my head as well, so I'll leave him to follow through with that discussion.

Here's the simple answer to why I believe there is a God. From this, you can accept it as logical, or you can reject it as absurd. Either way, it's okay with me.

- The design of nature is fairly complex. Everything goes through a cycle with a purpose. It's like a ballet. I look at my body and I marvel at how every single part of it works together with other parts to make me move. I have a heart, I have a liver, I have a brain. Everything makes sense - well, okay, so I still haven't figured out what an appendix is for. The crazy thing though is - I have consciousness. As I'm writing this post right now I still think - hey, this is me - and I'm looking through my eyes, and making my fingers move. I can't be You, I can't be my brother, I am me. And I stop to think, why is that? So, I can provide 2 theories:

1.) I came into the world as an accident of nature. I just am. And that's really it.

2.) I came into the world as part of a plan. I have a reason for being.

Now, if I go with 1, it's such a waste of this magnificent body because it is here without purpose. So, why do I have to be moral? Why do I have to follow certain rules? I live then I die - it doesn't have any meaning. So, all I should be concerned about is to have as much fun as I can, do whatever feels good, without a care for anything else. Make the most of life before The End.

But, if I go with 2, then the magnificence of the human body makes more sense. There is a WHY to it. And if I go and study history, I realize my actions affect a society and that the betterment of society improves the human condition. Every single thing in nature starts to reveal a purpose. Why is there water, why is there sun, why are there termites, why are there bacteria... So then, I have to ask more Why's. Now this is journey unique to me. My why journey is mine alone. I cannot tell anybody else to take that same journey. The why of that I had to figure out as well.

Eventually, I come to the conclusion that there has to be a master plan. Once I accepted that, then it is easier to look for what the plan is. I bounce everything I know against someone's idea of the plan or my own made up maybe-this-is-the plan. I bounce every single piece of known history and science with that plan. Until I find the plan that makes the most sense.

For there to be a plan, there has got to be somebody who devised the plan. And that's why I believe in God. By this logic, it doesn't matter to me if the earth was created by some Big Bang or if the earth was created in 7 literal days. Because, my understanding of the Master is that, if we ever prove that the Big Bang truly happened, then that is just one step closer to my understanding of how the Master made everything the way it is.

From that search of the plan - I finally ended up in the LDS church. Not because I'm a lemming and just follow blindly, but because after bouncing all my logical abilities at a plan, the Plan of Salvation as taught by the LDS church is the one that makes the most sense.

But, that's just me. You got your own journey. Peace, brother.

Edited February 25, 2010 by anatess

[FunkyTown]

Your questions are very good, but I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. We haven't established the idea of a soul - Merely that previously established patterns tend to repeat themselves.

To establish the answers to your questions in order to proceed would require we establish the nature of the afterlife. If there is reincarnation, then 'the soul' only maintains the barest of memories of its past and it becomes another person on this earth. If Christianity is correct, there is no reincarnation and the soul simply grows and 'evolves' if you will.

Instead, I will address the very important question: The idea of patterns being destroyed.

First, I will address it with an analogy: The analogy of the wave, we'll call it, since you said that there is no 'Wave heaven'. We haven't established the idea of heaven or hell - Merely the continuation of a pattern.

In the beginning, there was a giant explosion. A star shot out in all directions, sending gas over the known universe. This explosion set in to motion the first pattern. This pattern was an impossibly hot gas that shot out in the middle of space. Oceans of time have passed and the gases have coalesced in to stars, black holes, quasars and galaxies. This particular piece of gas has coalesced in to a single pattern: a rock in the middle of space, continuing along its merry way as sent by the first pattern.

This rock would have gone on forever, if it didn't interact with other patterns. In time, it found another piece of superheated gas that had coalesced in to a world - A world with oceans and land. The rock, caught in the grip of this new patterns gravity, descended. Most of it burnt up, sending bits of it along the atmosphere of this world, until the force of this rock smashed in to an ocean and sent a ripple along it.

This ripple is not just a wave. It is a manifestation of a pattern of force sent out from the very beginning of time. First was gas shot out, this gas became rock going in the same general direction the force had sent it. It interacted with another force - Gravity - And it altered its course. The pattern of force was not destroyed by intraction with another pattern. Instead, it was altered - Like a song that had notes. This then was added to by gravity, the force and matter combining to equal a sploosh in an ocean. This force then went out until the 'wave'(Which was really just a physical manifestation of a pattern that had existed since time immemorial) smashed in to a beach.

I ask you: Did the pattern end there?

No. The wave hit rock. The rock translated the vibration, which echoed quietly through the planet. In a beautiful, simplistic version of Chaos Theory, an eternal pattern continues along its way. Just because the perceivable pattern seemed to have a beginning and an ending doesn't mean the pattern didn't exist from the beginning, or that the pattern won't continue to the end as it interacts with other patterns. It exists. It merely alters state.

I apologize. I jumped ahead of myself.

Would you like me to go back and establish that thought and consciousness is not an absurdity?

That's an interesting argument.

In my philosophy, your life is an end in itself. People should be rational to do well at their work, they should work to do well in life, and they should do well in life to become happy. The rational man spends his life more or less singlemindedly on his work. As a result, he moves from achievement to achievement, and his joy builds as he creates and is admired by everyone. His effort is not dimmed by the belief that if he does not do well in this life, he has another life to make up for it. At the end of his life, he is not afraid, because he knows that he will simply pass out of existence - and he has no regret, because he has lived well. This sort of existence is not meaningless.

Now, the premise of your argument, as I interpreted it, was that matter does not come into existence pass out of existence. That is reasonable, since it is testified to by science. However, your conclusion was that nothing comes into or passes out of existence, including the soul. But the soul seems to be a pattern that manifests itself in matter, and that pattern could presumably pass out of existence. We see patterns pass out of existence all the time: waves break on the shore, birds flying in formation land, and ice cubes melt. We don't think that there is a wave heaven, bird formation heaven, or ice cube heaven.

[FunkyTown]

Anatess is super-smart.

Round, I like it very simple. Funky is doing a really good job of expressing what is going on in my head as well, so I'll leave him to follow through with that discussion.

Here's the simple answer to why I believe there is a God. From this, you can accept it as logical, or you can reject it as absurd. Either way, it's okay with me.

- The design of nature is fairly complex. Everything goes through a cycle with a purpose. It's like a ballet. I look at my body and I marvel at how every single part of it works together with other parts to make me move. I have a heart, I have a liver, I have a brain. Everything makes sense - well, okay, so I still haven't figured out what an appendix is for. The crazy thing though is - I have consciousness. As I'm writing this post right now I still think - hey, this is me - and I'm looking through my eyes, and making my fingers move. I can't be You, I can't be my brother, I am me. And I stop to think, why is that? So, I can provide 2 theories:

1.) I came into the world as an accident of nature. I just am. And that's really it.

2.) I came into the world as part of a plan. I have a reason for being.

Now, if I go with 1, it's such a waste of this magnificent body because it is here without purpose. So, why do I have to be moral? Why do I have to follow certain rules? I live then I die - it doesn't have any meaning. So, all I should be concerned about is to have as much fun as I can, do whatever feels good, without a care for anything else. Make the most of life before The End.

But, if I go with 2, then the magnificence of the human body makes more sense. There is a WHY to it. And if I go and study history, I realize my actions affect a society and that the betterment of society improves the human condition. Every single thing in nature starts to reveal a purpose. Why is there water, why is there sun, why are there termites, why are there bacteria... So then, I have to ask more Why's. Now this is journey unique to me. My why journey is mine alone. I cannot tell anybody else to take that same journey. The why of that I had to figure out as well.

Eventually, I come to the conclusion that there has to be a master plan. Once I accepted that, then it is easier to look for what the plan is. I bounce everything I know against someone's idea of the plan or my own made up maybe-this-is-the plan. I bounce every single piece of known history and science with that plan. Until I find the plan that makes the most sense.

For there to be a plan, there has got to be somebody who devised the plan. And that's why I believe in God. By this logic, it doesn't matter to me if the earth was created by some Big Bang or if the earth was created in 7 literal days. Because, my understanding of the Master is that, if we ever prove that the Big Bang truly happened, then that is just one step closer to my understanding of how the Master made everything the way it is.

From that search of the plan - I finally ended up in the LDS church. Not because I'm a lemming and just follow blindly, but because after bouncing all my logical abilities at a plan, the Plan of Salvation as taught by the LDS church is the one that makes the most sense.

But, that's just me. You got your own journey. Peace, brother.

[Guest]

Now, I have a few questions for you. I'm not sure what your beliefs are about the afterlife, so please answer the questions relevant to what you believe.

If there is an immaterial soul...

* What is an immaterial soul composed of?

* How does the immaterial soul interact with the material body?

* Why hasn't science found any convincing evidence that there is an immaterial soul?

* Memory has a physical base. In what sense are our souls "us" if they go on to the afterlife without any of our memories?

If our bodies are resurrected...

* How does God deal with the problem that our bodies decay?

* How does God deal with the problem that sometimes, parts of person A's body become parts of person B's body?

* If parts of our bodies are regenerated by God with new matter, in what sense are those bodies "us" - i.e., "our" bodies?

Round, these are very excellent questions and I'm sure Funky will address them competently.

I'm still the simple girl, so I want to put forth my theory. Okay, this theory is not LDS doctrine. This is my "I just made it up with help from some articles I read somewhere" theory that answers those questions generally for me.

I don't know if I can explain this in words sufficiently, but bear with me...

I have a theory that we advance to the next stage in our lives just like adding a dimension. Okay, what I mean by this...

At my stage right now - I'm in 3D. I am conscious of my horizontal plane, my vertical plane, and the advancement of time. If I elevate myself vertically, I can see the entire horizontal and vertical dimensions as far as my eyes can see in one shot. I can't elevate myself out of the time NOW and what has passed. So, I can only see what is happening today and what has happened before. I can't see the future.

It is easier to explain this if I go backwards to 2D rather than go forward to 4D...

So, let's say there's a 2D plane - no vertical dimension. Just horizontal and time advancement. A person is walking on 2D through time towards a wall. There is no way that person can see what's on the other side of the wall because he can't elevate himself vertically. But this "more advanced" person is in 3D, so he elevates himself vertically and sees that on the other side of the wall is a cliff. So, the 3D person tells the 2D person - do not try to go through that wall because you are surely going to fall and die. The 2D person can only go by faith that the 3D person is giving him good advice because there is no way he can tell if there's a cliff or not besides actually going through that wall. A 2D person doesn't have to believe there's a 3D plane. He sure can't see it. He would be the 3D atheist. But there's also the 2D person who believe that there is a 3D plane for whatever reason he chose to believe. He would be the theist. Either way, the 2D people will never be able to resolve what is correct until they eventually get to the cliff and prove that the 3D person must have existed because how else could we have prophesied the existence of such a cliff... or they eventually receive 3D abilities.

That's how I understand the progression through life. When we get to the next stage, we don't "end" we get "enhanced". So that, people who has gone to the next stage has added dimensions. God would be one who has these added dimensions. God can move himself forward and backward in time so that he can see what we 3D people are going to become in the future. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY we, the 3D people, can know what that is until we get there. Just like there is no possible way a 2D person can see the cliff until he gets there. We can only go by faith.

It answers the TIME element for me - how God sees time differently than we do. God can see time as far as he can see so that time is not as "long" as how we see it - it is instantaneous for him. Just like I can see what is on the other side of the wall at any point of my horizontal plane as far as I can see instantaneously while the 2D person has to travel so long in horizontal time to be get to that point where he can see the cliff.

That's how I think of these things.

Edited February 25, 2010 by anatess

[Blackmarch]

An agnostic is a species of weak atheist on my definition. An agnostic holds that the existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable.

fair enough

What authoritative definition of "religion" did you get those criteria from?

a dictionary. I could throw in all the other applicable sub definitions if you'd like.

Atheism does not allow an individual to set up his morality however he chooses. He is still bound by logic to provide a reasonable answer to moral questions. For example, he cannot hold that some act both is and is not good, and he cannot hold ridiculous moral positions.

ok then set up any non self-contradictory morality works for me here. However I would note that "athiest" merely inolves the lack of belief or the denial of the existance of God. Generally it has no bearing on being logical, illogical, rational or irrationaal.

Nor does atheism eliminate the need for any specific morality. The reason is that an atheist is a living being with the capacity to choose his actions, and as such requires a code of values that will keep him alive. He needs such a code, or he'll die.

not necessarily, although i imagine that is part of the route such an individual would take as that does seem reasonable (self preservation tends to be high on any species list). He might through reason might come to the conclusion that for his goals purposes and intents would better be served by the removal of his existance, and would so go about achieving that. Simply put morality is a set of values that a person uses to judge something as bad or good or proper or improper.

When you remove a force that at some point ultimately determines something right or wrong for everything, then there is nothing that is inherently right or wrong. only right and wrong according to an individual- and when that happens justice does not exist.

I don't understand. Could you elaborate on this and give examples?

What ultimately gives the right or makes it ok to do something to another individual?

(Or makes something ultimately wrong?)

Why not?

Because then correctness/incorreectness is up to the individual.

what makes something correct? or right?

I'm not sure what you mean. If you meant that logic might not work... well, logic clearly does work.

Logic is like a calculator- if you input all the right data, in the right way, you get a right answer. Otherwise you get a wrong answer.

"More than evidence"? What did you have in mind?

you have to disprove every possible other intrepretation of the evidence as well.

There seems to be a contradiction here. You're using nothing but evidence to establish the belief, "evidence is not enough to establish a belief."

no to reach an absolute proof or a perfect correctness.

you don't need any evidence to establish a belief, altho having evidence to support is better.

Infinity can't be too vague a concept, since mathematicians use it.

it generalises something incomprehensible. and when it is used it's used in a way that defines it.

I didn't say it was vague to the point of uselessness.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Blackmarch